Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: 12 Reasons Why Gay People Should Not Be Allowed To Marry
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 10:54:01 +0100
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 204
Message-ID: <c2c7hd$hmq$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <Gh_0c.10558$4o3.3698@twister.socal.rr.com> <c249om$ilr$0@pita.alt.net> <oWq1c.13357$4o3.7763@twister.socal.rr.com> <6e14bcdc.0403032044.6dbf7331@posting.google.com> <bmfd40pm3bnsrcbu6sa0vd7pl50kn2j9ck@4ax.com> <MPG.1ab06b7b5a8a8bbc9896f5@news.comcast.giganews.com> <c26vco$273$0@pita.alt.net> <6e14bcdc.0403041400.67b50b99@posting.google.com> <c2899q$23k$0@pita.alt.net> <6e14bcdc.0403042116.3d6b0b52@posting.google.com> <c29us0$9v5$0@pita.alt.net> <6e14bcdc.0403051144.7eda9635@posting.google.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2934
Uzytkownik "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:6e14bcdc.0403051144.7eda9635@posting.google.com...
> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:<c29us0$9v5$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > > > > > Please see article 16 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It talks of men and women of full age marrying:
> > > > > > http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It says nothing of homosexual unions and says that the family is
the
> > > > > > foundation of society.
> > > > >
> > > > > JERRY
> > > > > It's not talking about that either. Here is the clause itself
> > > > >
> > > > > Article 16
> > > > > Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race,
> > > > > nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a
> > > > > family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during
> > > > > marriage and at its dissolution.
> > > > > Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent
of
> > > > > the intending spouses.
> > > > > The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society
and is
> > > > > entitled to protection by society and the State.
> > > > >
> > > > > JERRY
> > > > > This does not mean that ONLY men and women may marry. The UN does
not
> > > > > presume to make such statements for the member countries. This is
a
> > > > > proclamation of what the UN considers basic rights. The
discussion
> > > > > point being placed is not about same sex marriage or defining
marriage
> > > > > as only between a man and a woman. The purpose of this statement
is
> > > > > to point out that both men and women (since in some countries,
women
> > > > > can't make a decision like this for themselves) have the right to
> > > > > marry if they are of age.
> >
> > > >DAVEY
> > > > You're twisting the text to suit yourself.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > No, actually that's the way I interpret it. After all, Denmark has
> > > gay marriage and not only has it not "downgraded" the state of the
> > > heterosexual family, but they didn't get drummed out of the UN either.
> > > This document is a UN statement of basic rights. It is not designed
> > > to be a legal document that says the UN won't recognize gay marriage.
> > > The purpose of the document is to state the basic rights of all
> > > people.
>
> JERRY
> I notice that you had no response to this point.
As far as I can see it's an argument against your viewpoint, not for it, so
why should I pick up on it.
If the Uni Dec is there to show the basic rights of people and homosexual
marriage isn't on it, then that shows the UN don't consider homomarriage a
human right.
> > >
> > > > DAVEY
> > > > It's ridiculous to assume that it meant that both men and women have
the
> > > > right to decide to marry or not marry.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > Why is it ridiculous? Because it doesn't agree with your
> > > interpretation? In some countries, women don't have the right legally
> > > to make decisions. Those patriarchal (you can insert Muslim here, if
> > > you wish) cultures don't want women to have any rights at all. You
> > > can use the Taliban for a valid example.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Do they accept homosexual marriages?
> > No?
> > Well, they're not all bad then.
>
> JERRY
> Changing the subject to avoid the point noted.
Getting back on the subject by me to avoid a detour onto the rights and
wrongs of Islam which is off-topic for this thread noted.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > DAVEY
> > > > It is obvious that single sexes cannot found a family, and that is
what
> > > > follows in the same breath.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > But Davey, we have thousands of single sex families here in the
> > > states. They just aren't codified as a legal marriage. It doesn't
> > > mean it's not a legal family.
>
> >DAVEY
> > How many men do you know that have given birth to a child?
>
> JERRY
> Irrelevent. They have children that they have adopted or which they
> have fathered with lesbian couples via artificial insemination.
> Heterosexual sex is not necessary to have children.
>
Firstly, it is a breach of basic human rights of a child to place them in a
homosexual so-called couple's so-called family.
Whichever agent of government does something like that should sit for it.
And not for a short time. I'd give five years minimum. That should be enough
to teach them the undesirability of being the helpless recipient of
homosexual rape, and stop them from consigning others to such a fate.
Secondly, if lesbians go out and get themselves laid by a pouffy man that
they can persuade themselves is a girl with a strap on, then I can't
legislate for that, but if the child is then given to a couple of homosexual
males, then it's time for the infrastructure to intervene.
> > DAVEY
> > How many women have gotten konocked up by a strap-on?
>
> JERRY
> Irrelevent. They have children that they have adopted or which they
> have fathered with lesbian couples via artificial insemination.
> Heterosexual sex is not necessary to have children.
It ought to be.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Of course gay households are not families, Jerry.
> > They are a mere travesty, if that.
>
> JERRY
> thank you for showing yourself to be the narrowminded homophobic ass
> that we have all come to know and disrespect, Davey. ;-)
Do I write like I care for the respect of queenies and their pouffophile
enablers?
> > >
> > > > DAVEY
> > > > The UN is not about pervert-enabling, sorry and all that.
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > Who's a pervert, Davey? The American Psychiatric Association has
> > > already stated that being gay is not a mental illness, or a mental
> > > disorder, and who is harmed by it? Your bigotry is showing. It's
> > > kind of ugly.
>
> >DAVEY
> > Gays are perverts.
>
> JERRY
> not at all. They just don't live their lives to your expectations.
> It's a big world and they aren't hurting anyone. The only thing being
> hurt here is your credibility every time you post.
Perversion does have to hurt anyone to be perversion, but it does help.
But what you say is a big trashy lie, actually. Look at the millions dying
from AIDs and tell me perversion doesn't hurt anyone.
Your attitude furthers that problem.
>
> >DAVEY
> > I'm just being honest about that. What's ugly about honesty?
>
> JERRY
> Honest bigotry is still ugly, don't you agree?
>
I find that to be, in itself, a bigoted, biassed, tendential and offensively
anti-fundamentalistist statement.
> >DAVEY
> > They still can be forgiven, and loved.
>
> JERRY
> But only if they change to meet your standards of moral behavior,
> correct? How very christian of you... ;-)
Actually forgiveness isn't conditional on their success in changing, only on
the earnest desire to be right with God through the sacrifice of Christ.
Receiving forgiveness, they will receive a new heart which will seek to mend
the ways of the flesh, but which may have many failures in the course of its
pilgrimage.
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 |
|