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: 6 Mar 2004 22:42:17 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <6e14bcdc.0403062242.773a16a6@posting.google.com>
References: <Gh_0c.10558$4o3.3698@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$0@pita.alt.net> <6e14bcdc.0403051144.7eda9635@posting.google.com> <c2c7hd$hmq$0@pita.alt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.70.99.224
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1078641737 12825 127.0.0.1 (7 Mar 2004 06:42:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 06:42:17 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2941
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<c2c7hd$hmq$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > > > > 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.
>DAVEY
> As far as I can see it's an argument against your viewpoint, not for it, so
> why should I pick up on it.
JERRY
Reading comprehension problem still, I see. ;-)
> DAVEY
> 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.
JERRY
No, what it means is that your point that this statement from the UN
means that the UN doesn't accept gay marriages is an invalid point.
The statement you used to support your case doesn't mean what you
claim it means. You stated that since the statement about marriage
only mentioned men and women and not gays, that the UN obviously was
saying that they were against gay marriage. The declaration is
nothing of the kind.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
>DAVEY
> 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.
JERRY
Hey, Davey, if you didn't take us on this detour because you have a
reading comprehension problem and have to have someone keep explaining
what you are reading to you, we wouldn't have to come back, would we?
> > > > > 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.
> >
> DAVEY
> 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.
JERRY
Got some sort of evidence to back that up or is it just more
narrowminded homophobic rantings based upon your belief in a literal
interpretation of a 2000 year old book of goatherder mythology?
>DAVEY
> 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.
JERRY
More narrowminded bigotry based upon homophobic stereotypes.
>DAVEY
> 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,
JERRY
Nope, the guy jerks off in a cup and the semen is artificially
inseminated. no sex act involved.
>DAVEY
>but if the child is then given to a couple of homosexual
> males, then it's time for the infrastructure to intervene.
JERRY
Based on what? Psychiatry agrees that homosexuality is not a mental
disease or disorder. Studies on children of gay parents show that
they are just as normal as kids from straight families. On what basis
should the infrastructure intervene? The narrowminded bigotry of
conservative christians who can't read the studies, don't understand
science and think that the whole world should be run by them based on
their prejudices?
> >
> > >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. ;-)
>DAVEY
> Do I write like I care for the respect of queenies and their pouffophile
> enablers?
JERRY
No, actually, Davey, you read and write like you were home schooled by
people who were just as narrowminded and ignorant as yourself. You
write like you have no respect for anyone except those quacks who bilk
little old ladies of their life's savings in the hope that Jesus will
let them into heaven. People like Jason Gastrich, who knows nothing
about the bible, who knows nothing about science and continually
embarrasses himself with his attempting to preach in the Usenet
forums.
>
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
>
>DAVEY
> Perversion does have to hurt anyone to be perversion, but it does help.
JERRY
I assume that is supposed to read "does NOT have to hurt anyone," and
what I'm assuming here is that we are right back to your religious
beliefs based on a literal interpretation of a book that has little or
no value. Jesus said in that book that he was coming back during the
lifetimes of the disciples, Davey. He didn't make it. He's not gonna
come back because the entire thing was one big fairy tale based on
stealing myths from other cultures that predated the Hebrews.
> DAVEY
> 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.
JERRY
You mean that viral disease that is spreading faster in the straight
population worldwide than in the gay population? That disease? Only
a moron would think that AIDS is some kind of punishment from god for
perversion, Davey. Anyone who is capable of doing a modicum of
reading on the subject would know that's a ridiculous belief.
> >
> > JERRY
> > Honest bigotry is still ugly, don't you agree?
> >
> DAVEY
> I find that to be, in itself, a bigoted, biassed, tendential and offensively
> anti-fundamentalistist statement.
JERRY
Of course you would. It's your bigotry that is called into question
here. It's a statement that even though there is much evidence to
show the bible is false, even though there is much evidence to show
that gays are not abnormal, even though there is much evidence that
children with two parents, whether straight or gay, do much better
than children with one parent and much evidence that children in gay
parenting homes do not become homosexuals, do not get raped by their
parents any more than children living in straight families (the law of
averages will always apply, sadly there are perverts out there, and it
has nothing to do with homosexuality), even though all of the evidence
supports them and none of it supports you, you would rather believe
untrue stereotypes than to believe the facts.
That is a special kind of ignorance, 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 |
|