Uzytkownik "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:6e14bcdc.0403042109.5c5460a5@posting.google.com...
> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:<c286mb$ssv$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > Uzytkownik "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> >
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > It all depends what you mean by 'choice'.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > Not at all. YOu said that heterosexual couples are "opting not to
> > > formalise (sic) their unions in the eyes of the state." That
> > > constitutes a choice, and it doesn't depend at all on what I mean as a
> > > choice. The phrase you used "opting" is a euphemism for "choice."
> > >
> > DAVEY
> > It is, but it is of course only a choice/option on one level. On another
> > level these people never chose to been born in the first place, and are
only
> > there by the will of God.
> >
> > Let's not forget that.
>
> JERRY
> I will be happy not to forget it when you can prove it. You see,
> Davey, my position is that the bible is nothing more than a 2000 year
> old book of goatherder mythology. It fails to be consistent,
> containing contradictions within the text that cannot be resolved
> within the text, but must be rationalized by the reader. It fails to
> be historically accurate and it fails miserably on prophecy. You
> would think that if this god you believe in really did inspire/write
> the bible, he would do a better job of articulating himself. From
> this book, he looks like a damned inarticulate dork.
I think you can't have read too much of it.
>
> So, when you can prove that your god exists and wrote the bible you
> use to justify your bigotry about gays, I will be happy to "not forget
> that." ;-)
We don't give empirical proofs.
>
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > So you're saying you have to be religious in order not to go along
with
> > > > homosexual attempts to influence society?
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > Not at all. Perhaps you need a reading comprehension course.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Yeah, don't patronise me, perhaps you need a writing one.
>
> JERRY
> I appear to be doing a better job expressing myself and making my
> points than you so far, Davey. You seem to be reading into my text to
> see there what you expect or want to see. I don't mind correcting
> you, mind you. Makes you look not quite so quick on the draw. ;-)
You obviously don't have an unbiassed opinion here, if you feel you are
qualified to make me look stupid.
> >
> > > I'm
> > > saying that YOU are making religious arguments by invoking "the eyes
> > > of god" as some sort of rational.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Some sort of rational what?
>
> JERRY
> Jeez, did I really type "rational" rather than rationale? My bad.
No wonder you think I need a reading comprehension course.
> You are using "eyes of god" as an explanation that really doesn't fit
> in this case, since the posting is about the ironies of the excuses
> used by theists to justify their opposition to same-sex marriage. In
> other words, it's about the legalities, not the moralities, but we can
> always argue that too. I just won't grant you the main assumption you
> start from: that the bible is anything more than a book of myths.
> >
> > > The issue is not whether or not
> > > they are married "in the eyes of god," as they may not hold the same
> > > religious beliefs you do and therefore your religious beliefs on the
> > > matter are totally irrelevent.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Hardly. Marriage is a Creation ordinance. It was started with Adam and
Eve.
>
> JERRY
> Hardly. There is no evidence to support the bible as being true about
> pretty much anything. There was no Adam and Eve. One of the reasons
> I keep pointing out in alt.talk.creationism why theists fight so hard
> against evolution in spite of the evidence against them is the
> following:
If there was no Adam and Eve, then was the first person to evolve from a
monkey male or female? And without a partner, how did he/she carry on the
line?
> If evolution is true, there was no Garden of Eden.
> If there was no Garden of Eden, there was no Adam and Eve.
> If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no Fall from Grace.
> If there was no Fall from Grace, there was no original sin.
> If there was no original sin, then Jesus' sacrifice, if it existed at
> all, is worthless
You'd think he would have not bothered with it then.
That's precisely why, by the way, I find it hard to understand people who
say they are Christians believing in evolution.
> Therefore, if evolution is true (and it is) then there is no reason to
> believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, Davey.
Go on, show me a case where new information has observably entered a genome
under observable conditions but without physically being put there.
Evolution only looks true when the people who believe it set the terms of
debate to suit themselves so that they cannot lose, expecting us to show
them evidence of God when they cannot show us evidence of the lack of God.
That's what talk.origins is all about. Most of what they do is jump on
people for debating in a way that does not suit them, and their view of what
science should be.
>
> And since I can prove the bible isn't true, I have no reason to put
> any stock in your "creation ordinance" claim. it's based upon your
> assumption that the bible is true, which it isn't
>
> > >JERRY
> > > The real issue is: is marriage a
> > > civil rite or a religious rite? If it's a civil rite, then it should
> > > be available to all under the constitution. IF it's a religious rite,
> > > then each religion can choose to marry or refuse to marry anyone in
> > > their church for their own religious reasons.
> >
> > Marriage is in the eyes of God whether it is what you call 'civil' or
> > 'religious'.
>
> JERRY
> nope. You see, Davey, here is the problem with your claim:
>
> You are attempting to use a religious argument in a legal situation.
> The US is not a christian nation, nor are all it's citizens
> christians. The separation of church and state gives non-christians
> the same legal standing in the eyes of the law as christians, or at
> least it's suppposed to. In the case of same sex marriage though, it
> doesn't. Here, the cultural prejudices, mostly justified by literal
> interpretation of your goatherder myth, causes those who are attracted
> to their own sex to be considered second class citizens under the law.
> That is why I brought up, civil and religous rites. If marriage is a
> civil rite in any manner; if it gives a tax benefit, inheritance
> benefits, etc, then by the constitution, it should be available to all
> citizens, not just those that the so-called christian right deems
> worthy of it.
>
There are no such benefits in the UK.
So, following on, homosexual marriage should in your view not be legal in
the UK.
Okay, it's a start.
>
> >
> > I'm as you can tell religious, but I did not have a wedding service in a
> > church for the simple reason that I don't see wedding services in
churches
> > mentioned in the Bible, but I do see that the civil magistrate is
ordained
> > of God.
>
> JERRY
> But your argument is irrelevent in the context of the discussion. You
> have the option of getting married. Britney Spears can get married
> for 55 hours, a new celebrity record. But she has more legal standing
> under the law to get married than someone who has been in a fifty year
> relationship because the relationship and attraction is to a person of
> the same sex.
>
I thought Polish wedding celebrations went on for a long time, but I think
55 hours is just excessive. People complain at evangelical christians for
having two or three hour services, but 55 hours is just gruelling. Surely
people went to sleep in between the hymns?
> That's not fair. It's not just. And it's unconstitutional if we
> agree that all are created equal and are entitled to the same life,
> liberty and pursuit of happiness. And gay marriage doesn't hurt
> anyone at all, Davey. It's simply tightass christians trying to be
> exclusionary as they can't stand that people they don't like have the
> same rights they have.
>
Nonsense. Let them have the tax and inheritance bits, I don't care, only
don't call it marriage.
> >> JERRY
> > > HOwever, if there are
> > > civil benefits to marriage (tax breaks, inheritance, etc) then
> > > marriage becomes a civil rite and withholding it from some citizens
> > > based upon religious or cultural prejudices is unconstitutional.
> > >
> > DAVEY
> > There are hardly any such in my country. They have thoroughly blasphemed
> > with regards to marriage.
>
> JERRY
> i'm not sure what country you are in (and I'm too busy to check your
> headers to track it down)
I didn't say in, I said MY country.
I'm in a different one. In Europe we are like that. We move from country to
country like you move from state to state in America. In fact, we even call
countries 'states'.
> but in the US, there are tax breaks to be
> had if you are married. There are shortcuts for inheritance purposes
> that married couples get that same sex couples can't have. If your
> partner is sick and in the hospital, since you can't get married to
> your same sex partner, that partner has no rights to sit with the
> patient and talk to the doctor if the blood relation family members
> don't want that partner there.
Good thing too.
The last thing parents need in such time is the fact that their kid turned
out queer rubbed under their noses. Have you no sympathy with them?
>Since there are civil benefits to
> marriage, those benefits should be available to all. if marriage is
> simply a religious rite, with no civil benefits, then anyone can get
> married or be refused marriage by their church but they can go find
> another church.
I am religious, but I didn't go to any church for it.
> > >
> > > > DAVEY
> > > > I think these days most people lobbying for homosexual influence
seen to
> > be
> > > > within one or another religious organisation, and the majority of
people
> > > > willing to say what they think about homosexuals and their so-called
> > marriag
> > > > es are the irreligious.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > And I'm saying you are wrong, in that religion really shouldn't be a
> > > part of it at all. Under the law, your religious beliefs are no
> > > better or worse than mine.
> >
> > Dura lex, sed lex.
> >
> > > You can have your own opinion, but in the
> > > court of law and in the eyes of the law, your superstitious belief is
> > > no better than my lack of one and shouldn't be a factor in the issue
> > > of whether or not marriage is a civil or religious rite.
> > >
> > DAVEY
> > If you have no 'superstitions' as you call them, then why get married at
> > all?
>
> JERRY
> for the tax break. So that my wife can have the same benefits that I
> described above. So she can have medical insurance coverage through
> my work. Otherwise, as you say, there is no reason to get married at
> all.
Well, in the Uk that's how it is.
>
> > DAVEY
> > Shouldn't you have the courage of your convictions and pursue some sort
of
> > godless concubinate?
>
> JERRY
> Ibid above. Actually, I wouldn't mind a harem but then people would
> accuse me of being Mormon and I have to have a sense of humor or they
> accuse me of being christian. ;-) Or Republican.
I may be a Christian, but sometimes I have to have a sense of humour, like
when the coffee runs out at the office, which is what's just happened
here....
>
> >
> > > > DAVEY
> > > > Take my relations, for example. They aren't religious, but they
don't
> > like
> > > > the downgrading of the family in society any more than any typical
> > person
> > > > does. They can't understand why more churches don't take a tough
line on
> > it.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > And how, pray tell, does homosexual marriage "downgrade" the
> > > relationship between two people who aren't the same sex?
>
> >DAVEY
> > When I didn't even say that.
> >
> > I said, oh thou that wouldst send Davey of all people on a reading
> > comprehension course, that they don't like the downgrading of _the
family_
> > in society.
>
> JERRY
> that's what I thought you said, and why I asked how same sex marriage
> downgrades a family that is not same sex? See, I didn't screw up, you
> did. Again. (that means Once more, Davey) ;-)
>
You didn't say a family, you said 'two people'.
Two people aren't a family.
> >DAVEY
> > Allowing marriages that do not result in families the same status as
those
> > who do seems to me to downgrade the family in society.
>
> JERRY
> So, you are in favor of not allowing matrimony for older couples who
> don't have children? How about couples that can't have children? If
> they are already married and then find out they will have to be
> childless, they should be split up and not allowed to be married?
>
> is that what you mean?
No, it means they have to keep trying. Abraham didn't get a child off of
sara until she was very old. She even laughed when God said she would have
one and got a mild rebuke for laughing, and she shoulda known better, having
been the wife of a patriarch, which is every girl's dream.
That or Oligarch.
>
>
> > DAVEY
> > I think that should be clear enough, even to someone devoid of
> > superstitions.
> >
> JERRY
> I caught it. Perhaps you will, the second time around.
I wonder how many times you will need.
Time after time.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 |
|