"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<c57224$s3s$0@pita.alt.net>...
> Uzytkownik "Frank Pericope" <frank.pericope@oneimage.com> napisal w
> wiadomosci news:dc55e47f.0404090512.e0e5056@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> > > > Gee, Davey, tell me: how do you feel about gays and lesbians? Do you
> > > > think they should be allowed to marry? Do you think they are sinners
> > > > of a different nature than you or I?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think my sins are no better than theirs, but I do feel that marriage
> is
> > > ordained between men and women.
> >
> > Why? 1 Timothy 4:1-5 specifically admonishes us against forbidding
> > marriage or foods based on the laws of Moses. Or don't you like those
> > verses?
>
> I don't forbid marriage, I just don't redefine it to suit whatever people
> think they need either.
So you would or would not object to the legalization of homoxesual
marriage worldwide?
>
> >
> > I know Paul is said to have ranted about gays. But he also said single
> > Christians should not marry. Would you support laws that forbid them
> > from marrying, too? If not, why the inconsistency, other than your
> > personal preference?
>
> He said they shouldn't marry if they have the gift of celibacy.
He said the only reason to marry was if you couldn't control your
sexual urges. The *only* reason. Now, if you grant that the majority
of Christian heteros can't maintain celibacy, and should therefore
marry to avoid fornication, why not homosexuals?
>
> That doesn't apply in my case as you will appreciate from your copious
> research into my chequered past.
My copious research involved two searches of about five minutes each
using your handle and
'fuck' and your handle and 'sex'. That's it. All that crap of yours
just fell in my lap. If that's copious research to you, I can see why
you respect Jason's level of 'scholarship'.
>
> >
> > I have no objections to the same tax and
> > > inheritance law priviledges being applied to their partnerships as to
> ours
> > > in democratic society, but I feel that they should look for another word
> > > other than marriage to describe their civil unions.
> >
> > Ah, they should use the 'colored' restrooms, eh?
> >
> > I feel that they are
> > > stealing from us when they apply the term marriage to their unions.
> >
> > Are hetero folks outside of Christianity 'stealing' from us when they
> > call their unions marriage? Or by "us" do you mean all heteros? I feel
> > *no* loss at extending marriage to cover homosexuals. In fact, I will
> > feel a huge gain if our 'club' stops being so exclusive.
>
> God didn't limit marriage to Christians, it was a Creation ordinance.
So you mean they're stealing from *all* heterosexuals. Sorry, no, not
me and not my wife and that's just a start. A cartoon in a recent
issue of The New Yorker magazine has two women chatting; one is saying
something like: "It's not gay men who are threatening my marriage;
it's all the straight women who are sleeping with my husband that are
threatening my marriage." I'm sure Yelena would get that joke.
>
> Of course, for people who don't believe in Creation, then marriage is just
> something that can socially evolve as people see fit.
>
> But I don't see it that way.
>
>
>
> >
> > If we
> > > allow that, then why not three person marriages with bi-sexuals, or even
> > > group marriages? Where's the cut-off?
> >
> > The cut-off is consenting adults.
>
> Why should it be there? Why not include other species, if we're free to
> redefine marriage as we see fit?
When you find another consenting species, ask me again.
>
> >
> > As far as I am concerned civil society
> > > can even recognise some of these less orthodox three way unions as well
> and
> > > give them tax and inheritance breaks, but please don't use the Biblical
> term
> > > for them, use another term.
> >
> > If you permit non-Christians to call their hetero unions 'marriage',
> > why not homosexuals--unless it's just your personal predjudice?
> >
>
> All human beings that descend from Adam and Eve are able to join together as
> man and woman and become one flesh.
>
> There is no indication that same sex relationships have any such claim, in
> fact there are counterindications in scripture to sexual activity between
> people of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with people living together
> who are friends but don't have sex, but I don't see that they need marriage.
> If people have sex with people of the same gender, then want to live with
> them in the way they see heterosexual people do in a single relationship,
> then there is actually nothing to stop them doing it, but I take exception
> when something which God gave to be used between men and women is applied to
> them. Let them use their imaginations and come up with something else for
> themselves, instead of aping the hetero way of doing things.
>
> > How is your position different from allegedly 'Christian' positions
> > that were held in opposition to interracial marriage? Google "Loving
> > vs. Virginia" to see how a Virginia judge projected his personal
> > predjudice onto the will of God to support his decision to uphold the
> > law forbidding a white mand from marrying a black woman. It's
> > sickening, and only removed from your position by degrees.
> >
>
> There is no scriptural ban on interracial marriages so that man set up his
> own mind against scripture, and is on the same side of the divide as those
> who want to administer marriage to smae sex couples now. He is closer to
> your side than the fuindamentalist side. There is no room for racism in our
> theology. That doesn't mean people don't try to be, but it is not in fact
> supportable from a Christian perspective.
There are more scriptural laws about food and sacrifices than
homosexuality. If you don't follow them, why cling to your homophobia?
Again, other than your personal preferences?
>
> > > I also am not in favour of allowing adoption of kids by homosexual
> couples.
> > > If they can do deals amongst themselves with the lesbians and obtain
> > > children through these deals, then I would not reduce their freedom to
> keep
> > > those children, but I would not put them in the adoption system.
> >
> > Why not? On what basis do your presume a 'homosexual' home would be no
> > better than a foster home or orphanage? There are far more children
> > awaiting adoption than hetero couples willing to adopt. You would
> > condemn those children to further misery. Are you afraid homosexuality
> > is contagious?
> >
>
> I cannot debate the situation in the states but in Europe the reverse is
> true, and so we have to try to get babies for the people who want to adopt
> them from places like Romania and Belarus, and from Asia.
>
> If there is a problem with unwanted children in the US, then someone ought
> to make a common US/UK agency. Not long ago a UK woman was forced to give
> back the US child she adopted because she broke procedure and also social
> services considered her an unfit mother. This was in the UK press a few
> years ago.
>
Great. So, if it helps the situation world-wide, would you permit gays
and lesbians to adopt? If not, why not?
>
> > >
> > > That's probably not toleration enough for your liking, but it's all the
> > > compromise I am comfortable with, and already enough to make some
> believers
> > > wince at me for going too far.
> >
> > I have no doubt Jason Gastrich would disagree with even your smidgen
> > of "separate but equal" tolerance.
> >
>
> Jason is more tolerant than many fundamentalists anyway.
Which only highlights that rampant moral relativism exists among
fundamentalists, too, and that it is hyporcritical of all of them to
decry it elsewhere.
>
> > >
> > > > Do you think making a joke about a murder committed by folks using
> > > > your religions' morals as justification is funny?
> > >
> > > I think my reaction to Livid's post was justified. He says that a gay
> was
> > > killed, which was obviously not by evangelical christians as we are not
> > > called to go killing gays, but his mother blames another group, guess
> who,
> > > rather than the boys killers.
> >
> > You cleary do not have a clue.
> >
>
> When he finishes with the leading question "guess which section of society
> that would be?" whom do you suppose he had in mind? Especially after his
> remarks from the previous paragraph about cherry picking in the old
> testament.
>
> I think I picked up the intention of his post loud and clear.
But you responded to Mrs. Sheppards' remark, not Livids. Don't
obfuscate.
>
> > Matthew's mother blames all who foster or accept intolerance for gays.
> > It is not, despite your martyr complex, limited to ECs.
> >
> > >
> > > If the gay guys own mother wanted to use his death as propaganda against
> > > christians rather than blame the ones who actually did it, then I truly
> feel
> > > sorry for that dead guy, I really do.
> >
> > So a society which accepts predudice and bigotry and thereby
> > reinforces the repression of homosexuality plays no role? He wasn't
> > just a murder victim who happened to be gay. He was murdered *because*
> > he was gay, Davey.
>
> I know that. But Bible believers don't support murder of homosexuals.
Plenty of them do. Ask Fred Phelps.
>
> >
> > In a society where Christians are considered sub-human and are not
> > given equal treatment by the majority of citizens or the government of
> > that society, do only their killers deserve blame when one of those
> > Christians is martyred for his faith? Or might the killers expect that
> > they were doing society a favor?
> >
>
> The one and the other is true, but we are a force in society for justice and
> not mob rule.
The mob thinks it is a force for justice in society. Think much,
Davey?
>
> > > I find it insulting that we should be somehow smeared with a murder that
> is
> > > nothing to do with us. I thought it was a low tactic, and I felt free to
> > > ridicule it. I'm not ridiculing the dead man. If everyone were like me,
> he
> > > would not be dead.
> > >
> > > Uncle Davey
> >
> > "We" are not smeared. Not you and I, and not all Christians. On the
> > other hand, your unwillingness to accept homosexuals as fully human
> > and your desire to force them to drink from a different fountain, as
> > it were, does mean you share some of the blame, whether you like it or
> > not. It's just a matter of degree.
> >
>
> They are fully human, and as such ought to have marriage on the same basis
> as it is offered to all other human beings, namely, between people of the
> opposite sex.
It is offered to other human beings on the basis of who they are
attracted to. You would deny that to folks that God created hoosexual.
>
> > And God help us if everyone were like you, Davey.
>
> Don't forget to end on an ad hominem.
>
> Uncle Davey
If you don't end on a boast, "If everyone were like me...", I won't
turn it around on you. And you are the last person to while like a
baby about ad hominem, or need we direct everyone here to your recent
exchanges with Anastasia?
- F.
|
|