Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: 12 Reasons Why Gay People Should Not Be Allowed To Marry
Date: 5 Mar 2004 13:58:48 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 432
Message-ID: <6e14bcdc.0403051358.13b89c81@posting.google.com>
References: <Gh_0c.10558$4o3.3698@twister.socal.rr.com> <c249om$ilr$0@pita.alt.net> <6e14bcdc.0403030821.188b54bb@posting.google.com> <c2705b$41a$0@pita.alt.net> <6e14bcdc.0403041245.29ae0ff5@posting.google.com> <c286mb$ssv$0@pita.alt.net> <6e14bcdc.0403042109.5c5460a5@posting.google.com> <c2a46v$og9$0@pita.alt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.35.111.117
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1078523929 18258 127.0.0.1 (5 Mar 2004 21:58:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:58:49 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2929
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<c2a46v$og9$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > 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.
>DAVEY
> I think you can't have read too much of it.
JERRY
I'd wager I've read much more of it than you. I would also wager I
know it much better than you. You can always ask your buddy Jason,
who I severely spanked on the issue of the prophecy of the destruction
of Tyre in alt.talk.creationism. The debate is in the Google
archives. You can watch him squirm, change his story again and again
and finally start sending URL's he hasn't read from apologist sites
that all say the same sad story that had already been refuted. He
even sent me two URL's that were identical, because he never even
bothered to read them before he sent them. In the end, he accused me
of lying because my research and posts didn't prove he was correct.
Then he ran away, crying for his momma.
My position is that the bible can't be a holy book because it fails
three critical tests that it needs to be considered inerrant. It
fails to be historically accurate. Two quick examples: archaeology
has shown that the biblical story of Joshua at Jericho could not have
happened. The walls weren't even up when Joshua and the Israelites
came through.
The bible cannot be considered inerrant and a holy book because it
fails miserably on Prophecy. This is where your buddy Jason got
spanked on the failed prophecy of Tyre as claimed in Ezekiel ch 26.
We could also discuss the failed prophecy in the NT where Jesus told
the disciples that he would return with the second coming during their
lifetimes.
Finally, the bible is contradictory. A good example of this would be
the different accounts of the Resurrection morning as claimed by the
four gospels or we could even talk about the discrepancies between the
synoptic gospels and the book of John.
Pick your poison. We can then find out how well I know the bible. ;-)
>
> >
> > 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." ;-)
>DAVEY
> We don't give empirical proofs.
JERRY
That's because you have nothing but opinion to offer. That's the
reason your particular cult has over 2000 separate sects all claiming
to be based only on the bible. It's all just opinion, Davey, nothing
that can be backed up, but there is plenty of evidence against your
book, if you would just read it with a critical eye. I don't expect
you to, though. And that makes things more amusing for me. ;-)
> > >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. ;-)
>DAVEY
> You obviously don't have an unbiassed opinion here, if you feel you are
> qualified to make me look stupid.
JERRY
it doesn't take much qualification. I've read your postings.
>
> > >
> > > > 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.
>DAVEY
> No wonder you think I need a reading comprehension course.
JERRY
Nope, I've demonstrated that already. What I need to do is proofread
my own work a bit more carefully.
> > >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?
JERRY
Straw man argument. I think a good college biology course is in order
for you, Davey. A good community college near you could help clear up
those misconceptions of evolution for you.
>
> > 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
>DAVEY
> You'd think he would have not bothered with it then.
JERRY
Who, God? You are assuming that the bible is true and that this deity
exists. Why not assume instead that all gods are constructs of man's
search for truths that he couldn't comprehend?
> DAVEY
> That's precisely why, by the way, I find it hard to understand people who
> say they are Christians believing in evolution.
JERRY
I'm sure. But they don't necessarily accept the bible to be literally
true. They accept the simple truths that are couched in the mythology
without having to believe in a literal interpretation.
>
> > Therefore, if evolution is true (and it is) then there is no reason to
> > believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, Davey.
>DAVEY
> Go on, show me a case where new information has observably entered a genome
> under observable conditions but without physically being put there.
JERRY
Sure. It's called polyploidy. (I'm not gonna get technical with you
here as I don't think you will be up on the jargon). What happens in
polyploidy is that the "child" cell gets a duplicate copy of the
mother's "information." If the mother's information could be
expressed for the sake of simplicity as ABCDE, then the child cell
gets ABCDEABCDE. The second duplicate set of information then begins
to change and mutate as all information mutates.
This is just one example of how additional information gets into the
cell. It's duplicate, but it's also ADDITIONAL.
Now, if you really, really want to talk science, we can talk about how
the travesty called "Intelligent Design" actually confuses it's
disciples by using the word "information" indiscriminately. There are
two kinds of information. One is called Shannon information and the
other is called complexity. They both have different rules. I see
creationists, though, attempting to use the phrase "complexity" with
the same rules that apply to Shannon information.
But in the end, all ID really is is just the same old tired argument
from incredulity that creationists all use. It's not proof for
intelligent design, it's an attack on evolution.
You see, according to the scientific method
People start by examining ALL of the information available.
They then try to come up with an hypothesis that matches the evidence
they have.
Once they have an hypothesis, they test the hypothesis against the
evidence. If the hypothesis fails, it goes back to be re-looked
again. This process goes on over and over. As new evidence is
discovered, the hypothesis is tested again against the new evidence.
Once an hypothesis survives all testing and can be used predictively
to help predict what will be found in the future, that hypothesis is
upgraded to a theory.
That is what evolution is. It's an hypothesis that has been tested
against all the evidence. A theory is as high as you can go in
science.
Now, here is how Creationism works:
It starts by accepting an ancient book of goatherder mythology as
being literally true.
Evidence it checked against the hypothesis that the book is true.
Evidence that is found to contradict the book is thrown out, since the
conclusion is already forgone.
Then adherents to this hypothesis throw rocks at the accepted theory,
since they believe if they can prove evolution wrong (which they
can't) then their hypothesis would be accepted as fact.
But science doesn't work that way, Davey. In order to prove
Creationism true, you have to do the following:
1. Produce the Creator. Not just any creator but the Creator
specified in the bible.
2. Produce evidence that the earth was created in just six days.
Of course, since Creationism is based upon a literal belief in the
bible, if you could prove the bible to be inerrant, you would have
more of a case. But since I can demonstrate those three areas of
fallibility in the bible above, I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to
do that.
>DAVEY
> 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.
JERRY
Not at all. The evidence for evolution is widespread and not doubted
by anyone except those whose science knowledge is very weak and who
choose to believe that it can't be true.
As for evidence for lack of god, you have that backward. It's the
theist who is making the supernatural claim when claiming the
existence of god. The skeptic doesn't have to prove that god doesn't
exist, since the burden of proof in claiming the supernatural is on
the theist.
In other words, I only have to support evolution. I don't have to
prove your god doesn't exist. You have to prove he does.
And, if your belief is based on a literal interpretation of the bible
and the belief that the bible is inerrant, all I have to do is show
ONE error to show that the bible is not inerrant and therefore
infallible. Then the entire thing is a house of cards. It all can
come tumbling down pretty easily.
>DAVEY
> 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.
JERRY
LOL. No, they are trying to teach you that there are certain rules to
debate and you can't just try to debate the way you want.
For example, I can go in and try to use my opinion in the bible as
evidence, but that starts from an assumption (that the bible is true)
that they aren't willing to grant me. I have to start back before
that and demonstrate the infallibility of the bible. If I can't
demonstrate the infallibility of the bible, then the bible cannot be
used as evidence for my claims.
It's simply, it works. Of course, since your belief system is based
entirely on faith and you can't prove what you believe, it works
against you.
> > 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.
> >
> DAVEY
> There are no such benefits in the UK.
JERRY
Aren't there? What about inheritance laws? Anything that specifies
that if someone dies, their spouse is the legal inheritor without
going to court to prove each object's ownership? I think you are
wrong. I suggest you check on that.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
>DAVEY
> 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?
JERRY
LOL. Not wedding celebration, the entire length of the marriage.
>
> > 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.
> >
> DAVEY
> Nonsense. Let them have the tax and inheritance bits, I don't care, only
> don't call it marriage.
JERRY
Why not? How does it hurt you if they are legally married?
> > 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.
>DAVEY
> 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?
JERRY
If they can't accept their kids for who they are, fuck 'em. The kid
is better off not having parents than to have someone who is so
bigoted as to deny them the ability to see the people they love.
> > > 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.
> DAVEY
> Well, in the Uk that's how it is.
JERRY
Ibid above.
> > > > > 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) ;-)
> >
> DAVEY
> You didn't say a family, you said 'two people'.
> Two people aren't a family.
JERRY
It was implied by the context of the subject matter. I think I see
your reading comprehension problem. You don't seem to be able to
handle abstract subject matter very well. Probably the reason you
accept the bible to be literally true, you can't read it any other
way. ;-)
So, you are saying that man and wife aren't a family without kids?
Kids are absolutely required for someone to be in 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?
>DAVEY
> 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.
JERRY
But if, say, the woman has had a hysterectomy and can't ever have
children, you don't believe she should be able to get married?
|
| 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 |
|