Religions > Atheism > A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"L. Raymond" |
| Date: |
21 Feb 2004 11:53:25 PM |
| Object: |
A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
I was reading the Southern Baptist Convention's online newspaper,
the "Baptist Press", tonight. A quote from Charles Colson was
printed which is giving me a headache trying to figure out. It is
explaining why heterosexual marriage is good and homosexual marriage
is bad:
Charles Colson explains [Princeton legal philosopher Robert]
George's view that [a heterosexual] union is "consummated
by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they
result in children." It is the union of husbands and wives
into "a single procreative unit -- an organic unit achieved
even by infertile couples," Colson says. Homosexual acts do
not do that, so there is no way, according to George, that any
homosexual relationship could be called a "marriage."
http://www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=1306
Call me illogical, but I think a homosexual couple can be just as
infertile, and have just as many unions, as any heterosexual couple,
thereby becoming an organic married unit. I've seen some wierd
so-called logic from theists before, but this one really stands out.
.
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
22 Feb 2004 10:25:38 AM |
|
|
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:40384393.4619994@news.mylinuxisp.com...
I was reading the Southern Baptist Convention's online newspaper,
the "Baptist Press", tonight. A quote from Charles Colson was
printed which is giving me a headache trying to figure out. It is
explaining why heterosexual marriage is good and homosexual marriage
is bad:
Charles Colson explains [Princeton legal philosopher Robert]
George's view that [a heterosexual] union is "consummated
by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they
result in children." It is the union of husbands and wives
into "a single procreative unit -- an organic unit achieved
even by infertile couples," Colson says. Homosexual acts do
not do that, so there is no way, according to George, that any
homosexual relationship could be called a "marriage."
http://www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=1306
Call me illogical, but I think a homosexual couple can be just as
infertile, and have just as many unions, as any heterosexual couple,
thereby becoming an organic married unit. I've seen some wierd
so-called logic from theists before, but this one really stands out.
Gay couples can adopt children or have them through artificial insemination
(just like heterosexual couples); and heterosexual couples do not have to
declare either their ability or their intention to have children - or even
to have sex - in order to obtain a marriage license.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
22 Feb 2004 12:45:44 AM |
|
|
Call me illogical, but I think a homosexual couple can be just as
infertile, and have just as many unions, as any heterosexual couple,
thereby becoming an organic married unit. I've seen some wierd
so-called logic from theists before, but this one really stands out.
Well, remember that this is Colson we're talking about. He's not particularly
mentally stable. Remember that this was the man who said, "I'd walk over my
grandmother for Richard Nixon" as he was being hauled off to prison for his
role in the Watergate scandal.
The man has serious mental problems and probably shouldn't have been released
from prison. He is a danger to himself and others...as his column aptly proves.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
24 Feb 2004 07:15:43 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 06:45:44 +0000, Lord Calvert wrote:
Call me illogical, but I think a homosexual couple can be just as
infertile, and have just as many unions, as any heterosexual couple,
thereby becoming an organic married unit. I've seen some wierd
so-called logic from theists before, but this one really stands out.
Well, remember that this is Colson we're talking about. He's not particularly
mentally stable. Remember that this was the man who said, "I'd walk over my
grandmother for Richard Nixon" as he was being hauled off to prison for his
Actually, I'm pretty sure it was "_drive_ over my grandmother". Like all
bullies who bomb from 30,000 feet, he had to pick a phrase that didn't
evoke person-to-person violence.
Isn't there a single "spiritual" christian who finds it weird that the
religion's fixations concentrate upon the animal acts of birth, death,
puberty, and mating? That they apparently find homosexuals a lot more
fascinating than many of us who just aren't interested?
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
24 Feb 2004 11:00:24 AM |
|
|
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 06:45:44 +0000, Lord Calvert wrote:
Call me illogical, but I think a homosexual couple can be just as
infertile, and have just as many unions, as any heterosexual couple,
thereby becoming an organic married unit. I've seen some wierd
so-called logic from theists before, but this one really stands out.
Well, remember that this is Colson we're talking about. He's not particularly
mentally stable. Remember that this was the man who said, "I'd walk over my
grandmother for Richard Nixon" as he was being hauled off to prison for his
Actually, I'm pretty sure it was "_drive_ over my grandmother". Like all
bullies who bomb from 30,000 feet, he had to pick a phrase that didn't
evoke person-to-person violence.
Isn't there a single "spiritual" christian who finds it weird that the
religion's fixations concentrate upon the animal acts of birth, death,
puberty, and mating? That they apparently find homosexuals a lot more
fascinating than many of us who just aren't interested?
If only these guys directed 1/10th the outrage against government
policy that stomps on the poor that they do into their anti-homosexual
tirades.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
25 Feb 2004 06:09:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:00:24 +0000, L. Raymond wrote:
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 06:45:44 +0000, Lord Calvert wrote:
Call me illogical, but I think a homosexual couple can be just as
infertile, and have just as many unions, as any heterosexual couple,
thereby becoming an organic married unit. I've seen some wierd
so-called logic from theists before, but this one really stands out.
Well, remember that this is Colson we're talking about. He's not particularly
mentally stable. Remember that this was the man who said, "I'd walk over my
grandmother for Richard Nixon" as he was being hauled off to prison for his
Actually, I'm pretty sure it was "_drive_ over my grandmother". Like all
bullies who bomb from 30,000 feet, he had to pick a phrase that didn't
evoke person-to-person violence.
Isn't there a single "spiritual" christian who finds it weird that the
religion's fixations concentrate upon the animal acts of birth, death,
puberty, and mating? That they apparently find homosexuals a lot more
fascinating than many of us who just aren't interested?
If only these guys directed 1/10th the outrage against government
policy that stomps on the poor that they do into their anti-homosexual
tirades.
Naw. Jesus loves the poor. That's why he made so many of them and that's
why Dubya's doing Jesus' work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
27 Feb 2004 04:20:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 06:09:43 -0600, SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com>,
Message ID: <pan.2004.02.25.12.09.40.260633@visi.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:00:24 +0000, L. Raymond wrote:
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 06:45:44 +0000, Lord Calvert wrote:
Call me illogical, but I think a homosexual couple can be just as
infertile, and have just as many unions, as any heterosexual couple,
thereby becoming an organic married unit. I've seen some wierd
so-called logic from theists before, but this one really stands out.
Well, remember that this is Colson we're talking about. He's not particularly
mentally stable. Remember that this was the man who said, "I'd walk over my
grandmother for Richard Nixon" as he was being hauled off to prison for his
Actually, I'm pretty sure it was "_drive_ over my grandmother". Like all
bullies who bomb from 30,000 feet, he had to pick a phrase that didn't
evoke person-to-person violence.
Isn't there a single "spiritual" christian who finds it weird that the
religion's fixations concentrate upon the animal acts of birth, death,
puberty, and mating? That they apparently find homosexuals a lot more
fascinating than many of us who just aren't interested?
If only these guys directed 1/10th the outrage against government
policy that stomps on the poor that they do into their anti-homosexual
tirades.
Naw. Jesus loves the poor. That's why he made so many of them and that's
why Dubya's doing Jesus' work.
Increasing the number of poor as well as the misery index.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
22 Feb 2004 07:50:43 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:53:25 GMT,
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
I was reading the Southern Baptist Convention's online newspaper,
the "Baptist Press", tonight. A quote from Charles Colson was
printed which is giving me a headache trying to figure out. It is
explaining why heterosexual marriage is good and homosexual marriage
is bad:
<snip>
Forget that stuff, it's just a facade. The real reason can be summed
up thusly: "I'm too chickenshit to want to say 'No' if some 'Bruno'
or another pops the question to me some day, and too stuck on myself
to possibly believe that one never will."
--
L8r,
Bill
~*.**~.**.*~*.**.~**.*~.***.~*.**~.**.*~*.**~
The early bird gets the worm. The early worm,
on the other hand, just gets eaten.
~*.**~.**.*~*.**.~**.*~.***.~*.**~.**.*~*.**~
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
22 Feb 2004 11:44:59 PM |
|
|
(Bill, The Avender) wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:53:25 GMT,
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
I was reading the Southern Baptist Convention's online newspaper,
the "Baptist Press", tonight. A quote from Charles Colson was
printed which is giving me a headache trying to figure out. It is
explaining why heterosexual marriage is good and homosexual marriage
is bad:
<snip>
Forget that stuff, it's just a facade. The real reason can be summed
up thusly: "I'm too chickenshit to want to say 'No' if some 'Bruno'
or another pops the question to me some day, and too stuck on myself
to possibly believe that one never will."
I honestly beleive that is the big problem behind it all, too. I
read an article in th epaper about two weeks ago about some men who
were kicked out of the army for being gay. They had served in Iraq,
and some of their messmates said they were glad those guys were gone
because they felt uncomfortble around them, like they were always
being sized up for sex, or that the gay men were watching them during
the day and judging how desirable they looked. My only thought was
that these poor pathetic idiots will die never understanding that they
finally understand why women hate being ogled.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
23 Feb 2004 08:43:50 PM |
|
|
(L. Raymond) wrote:
=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=why women hate being ogled.
Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not
pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Mt.24:34
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
24 Feb 2004 10:51:23 AM |
|
|
In article <2iel30t972u78r1fqk4igu9dv7fu4p7u7g@4ax.com>, Mike Smith says...
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=why women hate being ogled.
Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
When I was in my 20s - Hell NO!
Now at 42............................. ;D
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
27 Feb 2004 04:25:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:51:23 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>,
Message ID: <fiL_b.4261$_4.93@www.newsranger.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
In article <2iel30t972u78r1fqk4igu9dv7fu4p7u7g@4ax.com>, Mike Smith says...
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=why women hate being ogled.
Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
When I was in my 20s - Hell NO!
Now at 42............................. ;D
Ogling will not be reported, but graded! :)))))))))))))))))))
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
24 Feb 2004 12:21:02 AM |
|
|
Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote in
news:2iel30t972u78r1fqk4igu9dv7fu4p7u7g@4ax.com:
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=why women hate being ogled.
Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
Even by... http://www.uglypeople.com/ugly_men.php ?
--
Dr. Smartass
BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
"You should realize Usenet is a strange reality where you see people
beating up a patch of grass where nine years ago there used to be a
horse. " 01 July 2003, talk.origins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's |
24 Feb 2004 10:22:24 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns949944D679CDaskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc Smartass says...
Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote in
news:2iel30t972u78r1fqk4igu9dv7fu4p7u7g@4ax.com:
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=why women hate being ogled.
Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
Even by... http://www.uglypeople.com/ugly_men.php ?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you seen the one when the guy had his finger up his nose and then coming out
of his eye?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Oy! No lunch for moi!
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's |
24 Feb 2004 11:18:16 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
news:4TK_b.4252$_4.280@www.newsranger.com:
In article <Xns949944D679CDaskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc Smartass
says...
Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote in
news:2iel30t972u78r1fqk4igu9dv7fu4p7u7g@4ax.com:
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=why women hate being ogled.
Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
Even by... http://www.uglypeople.com/ugly_men.php ?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you seen the one when the guy had his finger up his nose and then
coming out of his eye?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Oy! No lunch for moi!
Thank you, thank you--I'll be here all week, folks =)
So--you gonna eat that? *looks at Robyn's lunch*
--
Dr. Smartass
BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
"You should realize Usenet is a strange reality where you see people
beating up a patch of grass where nine years ago there used to be a
horse. " 01 July 2003, talk.origins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's |
25 Feb 2004 09:54:52 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns9499EDC6B7016askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc Smartass says...
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
news:4TK_b.4252$_4.280@www.newsranger.com:
In article <Xns949944D679CDaskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc Smartass
says...
Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote in
news:2iel30t972u78r1fqk4igu9dv7fu4p7u7g@4ax.com:
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=why women hate being ogled.
Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
Even by... http://www.uglypeople.com/ugly_men.php ?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you seen the one when the guy had his finger up his nose and then
coming out of his eye?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Oy! No lunch for moi!
Thank you, thank you--I'll be here all week, folks =)
Damn, dude - That was flat nasty ;)
So--you gonna eat that? *looks at Robyn's lunch*
You really want lo-cal Ceasar salad sans croutons?
Go for it, baby ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's |
25 Feb 2004 05:35:05 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
news:gz3%b.4375$_4.278@www.newsranger.com:
In article <Xns9499EDC6B7016askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc
Smartass says...
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
news:4TK_b.4252$_4.280@www.newsranger.com:
In article <Xns949944D679CDaskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc
Smartass says...
Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote in
news:2iel30t972u78r1fqk4igu9dv7fu4p7u7g@4ax.com:
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=why women hate being ogled.
Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
Even by... http://www.uglypeople.com/ugly_men.php ?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you seen the one when the guy had his finger up his nose and
then coming out of his eye?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Oy! No lunch for moi!
Thank you, thank you--I'll be here all week, folks =)
Damn, dude - That was flat nasty ;)
The Internet is a truly wonderful place!
So--you gonna eat that? *looks at Robyn's lunch*
You really want lo-cal Ceasar salad sans croutons?
Thanks! *adds proper Bleu Cheese dressing, some sunflower seeds, shredded
cheddar, bacon bits...and gets some cottage cheese on the side*
--
Dr. Smartass
BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
"You should realize Usenet is a strange reality where you see people
beating up a patch of grass where nine years ago there used to be a
horse. " 01 July 2003, talk.origins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's |
26 Feb 2004 11:11:43 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns949AB3590EB81askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc Smartass says...
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
news:gz3%b.4375$_4.278@www.newsranger.com:
In article <Xns9499EDC6B7016askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc
Smartass says...
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
news:4TK_b.4252$_4.280@www.newsranger.com:
In article <Xns949944D679CDaskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc
Smartass says...
Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote in
news:2iel30t972u78r1fqk4igu9dv7fu4p7u7g@4ax.com:
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=why women hate being ogled.
Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
Even by... http://www.uglypeople.com/ugly_men.php ?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you seen the one when the guy had his finger up his nose and
then coming out of his eye?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Oy! No lunch for moi!
Thank you, thank you--I'll be here all week, folks =)
Damn, dude - That was flat nasty ;)
The Internet is a truly wonderful place!
So--you gonna eat that? *looks at Robyn's lunch*
You really want lo-cal Ceasar salad sans croutons?
Thanks! *adds proper Bleu Cheese dressing, some sunflower seeds, shredded
cheddar, bacon bits...and gets some cottage cheese on the side*
Damnit! My cafeteria's salad bar sucks! ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's |
26 Feb 2004 01:27:37 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
news:jNp%b.4544$_4.266@www.newsranger.com:
In article <Xns949AB3590EB81askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc
Smartass says...
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
news:gz3%b.4375$_4.278@www.newsranger.com:
In article <Xns9499EDC6B7016askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc
Smartass says...
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
news:4TK_b.4252$_4.280@www.newsranger.com:
In article <Xns949944D679CDaskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>, Doc
Smartass says...
Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote in
news:2iel30t972u78r1fqk4igu9dv7fu4p7u7g@4ax.com:
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=why women hate being ogled.
Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
Even by... http://www.uglypeople.com/ugly_men.php ?
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you seen the one when the guy had his finger up his nose and
then coming out of his eye?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Oy! No lunch for moi!
Thank you, thank you--I'll be here all week, folks =)
Damn, dude - That was flat nasty ;)
The Internet is a truly wonderful place!
So--you gonna eat that? *looks at Robyn's lunch*
You really want lo-cal Ceasar salad sans croutons?
Thanks! *adds proper Bleu Cheese dressing, some sunflower seeds,
shredded cheddar, bacon bits...and gets some cottage cheese on the
side*
Damnit! My cafeteria's salad bar sucks! ;)
It's cyber-salad--I can make any fixin's I want on it ;)
--
Dr. Smartass
BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
"You should realize Usenet is a strange reality where you see people
beating up a patch of grass where nine years ago there used to be a
horse. " 01 July 2003, talk.origins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
23 Feb 2004 10:27:01 PM |
|
|
Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote:
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=why women hate being ogled.
Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
And the ones that don't are told to chill out, calm down, quit being
an uptight ***** etc. etc. These stupid boys are experiencing the
same sense of disgust many, if not most, women when strange men view
them as existing for no other reason than giving sex.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
23 Feb 2004 10:43:09 PM |
|
|
(L. Raymond) wrote:
=Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote:
=>=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=>=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=>=why women hate being ogled.
=>
=>Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
=
=And the ones that don't are told to chill out, calm down,
=quit being an uptight ***** etc. etc. These stupid boys
=are experiencing the same sense of disgust many, if not
=most, women when strange men view them as existing
=for no other reason than giving sex.
I know. I was just jerking your chain a little.
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not
pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Mt.24:34
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
23 Feb 2004 10:47:39 PM |
|
|
Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote:
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
=Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote:
=>=My only thought was that these poor pathetic idiots
=>=will die never understanding that they finally understand
=>=why women hate being ogled.
=>
=>Oh, come on... some women like being ogled :-)
=
=And the ones that don't are told to chill out, calm down,
=quit being an uptight ***** etc. etc. These stupid boys
=are experiencing the same sense of disgust many, if not
=most, women when strange men view them as existing
=for no other reason than giving sex.
I know. I was just jerking your chain a little.
Well, you did good. *ppppbbbbttttt*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
22 Feb 2004 12:52:31 AM |
|
|
In article <40384393.4619994@news.mylinuxisp.com>,
(L. Raymond) wrote:
I was reading the Southern Baptist Convention's online newspaper,
the "Baptist Press", tonight. A quote from Charles Colson was
printed which is giving me a headache trying to figure out. It is
explaining why heterosexual marriage is good and homosexual marriage
is bad:
Charles Colson explains [Princeton legal philosopher Robert]
George's view that [a heterosexual] union is "consummated
by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they
result in children." It is the union of husbands and wives
into "a single procreative unit -- an organic unit achieved
even by infertile couples," Colson says. Homosexual acts do
not do that, so there is no way, according to George, that any
homosexual relationship could be called a "marriage."
http://www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=1306
Call me illogical, but I think a homosexual couple can be just as
infertile, and have just as many unions, as any heterosexual couple,
thereby becoming an organic married unit. I've seen some wierd
so-called logic from theists before, but this one really stands out.
The believers always try to tie marriage with having children. I wonder
if they would consider a man and woman who get married in their 60's or
70's, beyond the childbearing years, as being 'married'?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
22 Feb 2004 04:36:42 AM |
|
|
In article <jhachm-BE3A33.22523121022004@news-60.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
In article <40384393.4619994@news.mylinuxisp.com>,
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
I was reading the Southern Baptist Convention's online newspaper,
the "Baptist Press", tonight. A quote from Charles Colson was
printed which is giving me a headache trying to figure out. It is
explaining why heterosexual marriage is good and homosexual marriage
is bad:
Charles Colson explains [Princeton legal philosopher Robert]
George's view that [a heterosexual] union is "consummated
by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they
result in children." It is the union of husbands and wives
into "a single procreative unit -- an organic unit achieved
even by infertile couples," Colson says. Homosexual acts do
not do that, so there is no way, according to George, that any
homosexual relationship could be called a "marriage."
http://www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=1306
Call me illogical, but I think a homosexual couple can be just as
infertile, and have just as many unions, as any heterosexual couple,
thereby becoming an organic married unit. I've seen some wierd
so-called logic from theists before, but this one really stands out.
The believers always try to tie marriage with having children. I wonder
if they would consider a man and woman who get married in their 60's or
70's, beyond the childbearing years, as being 'married'?
As long as they ***** the right way, yes. According to this rubbish from
Colson. So I guess that he would say that heterosexual couples who don't
perform the right "acts that are reproductive in type" in their bedroom
aren't really married, according to chucky boy.
Obviously, there wasn't a lot of real thought that went into this
statement from them. As usual.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
22 Feb 2004 11:32:10 PM |
|
|
In article <nemo0037-DCB79C.05364222022004@news01.east.earthlink.net>,
*nemo* <nemo0037@yahoo.dieSPAM.com> wrote:
In article <jhachm-BE3A33.22523121022004@news-60.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
In article <40384393.4619994@news.mylinuxisp.com>,
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
I was reading the Southern Baptist Convention's online newspaper,
the "Baptist Press", tonight. A quote from Charles Colson was
printed which is giving me a headache trying to figure out. It is
explaining why heterosexual marriage is good and homosexual marriage
is bad:
Charles Colson explains [Princeton legal philosopher Robert]
George's view that [a heterosexual] union is "consummated
by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they
result in children." It is the union of husbands and wives
into "a single procreative unit -- an organic unit achieved
even by infertile couples," Colson says. Homosexual acts do
not do that, so there is no way, according to George, that any
homosexual relationship could be called a "marriage."
http://www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=1306
Call me illogical, but I think a homosexual couple can be just as
infertile, and have just as many unions, as any heterosexual couple,
thereby becoming an organic married unit. I've seen some wierd
so-called logic from theists before, but this one really stands out.
The believers always try to tie marriage with having children. I wonder
if they would consider a man and woman who get married in their 60's or
70's, beyond the childbearing years, as being 'married'?
As long as they ***** the right way, yes. According to this rubbish from
Colson. So I guess that he would say that heterosexual couples who don't
perform the right "acts that are reproductive in type" in their bedroom
aren't really married, according to chucky boy.
Obviously, there wasn't a lot of real thought that went into this
statement from them. As usual.
I wonder who fucked Colson when he was in prison.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
23 Feb 2004 06:40:12 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:32:10 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
I wonder who fucked Colson when he was in prison.
About everybody and his dog.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
22 Feb 2004 11:55:05 PM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
I wonder who fucked Colson when he was in prison.
Say hallo to my leetle friend...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
27 Feb 2004 04:21:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:52:31 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-BE3A33.22523121022004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <40384393.4619994@news.mylinuxisp.com>,
badaddress@mylinuxisp.com (L. Raymond) wrote:
I was reading the Southern Baptist Convention's online newspaper,
the "Baptist Press", tonight. A quote from Charles Colson was
printed which is giving me a headache trying to figure out. It is
explaining why heterosexual marriage is good and homosexual marriage
is bad:
Charles Colson explains [Princeton legal philosopher Robert]
George's view that [a heterosexual] union is "consummated
by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they
result in children." It is the union of husbands and wives
into "a single procreative unit -- an organic unit achieved
even by infertile couples," Colson says. Homosexual acts do
not do that, so there is no way, according to George, that any
homosexual relationship could be called a "marriage."
http://www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=1306
Call me illogical, but I think a homosexual couple can be just as
infertile, and have just as many unions, as any heterosexual couple,
thereby becoming an organic married unit. I've seen some wierd
so-called logic from theists before, but this one really stands out.
The believers always try to tie marriage with having children. I wonder
if they would consider a man and woman who get married in their 60's or
70's, beyond the childbearing years, as being 'married'?
Yes, as was stated in the article.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
22 Feb 2004 10:39:40 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
The believers always try to tie marriage with having children. I wonder
if they would consider a man and woman who get married in their 60's or
70's, beyond the childbearing years, as being 'married'?
Exactly why this quote was worded so poorly ("procreative unit").
He's desperately trying to cover the bases by saying any man and any
woman can be married, even if they're unable to have children, because
they have the right sort of interchangeable parts.
I remember a few years back two women were able to marry in Texas
because one had undergone a sex-change operation. The law said that
only a biological man and biological woman could wed, and that status
was determined by the birth certificate, which of course said "male"
for one of them. I wish I could remember enough details to look it up
and see what changes to the law that prompted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
22 Feb 2004 11:30:03 PM |
|
|
In article <4038d991.2141804@news.mylinuxisp.com>,
(L. Raymond) wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
The believers always try to tie marriage with having children. I wonder
if they would consider a man and woman who get married in their 60's or
70's, beyond the childbearing years, as being 'married'?
Exactly why this quote was worded so poorly ("procreative unit").
He's desperately trying to cover the bases by saying any man and any
woman can be married, even if they're unable to have children, because
they have the right sort of interchangeable parts.
I remember a few years back two women were able to marry in Texas
because one had undergone a sex-change operation. The law said that
only a biological man and biological woman could wed, and that status
was determined by the birth certificate, which of course said "male"
for one of them. I wish I could remember enough details to look it up
and see what changes to the law that prompted.
I think that one could make the argument that lesbian women have the
right parts, since the could become pregnant by artificial insemination.
And some do. Gay men, of course, can be sperm donors and could father a
child via a surrogate mother. Of course the thought of these prospects
would horrify the fundies even more.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "W.Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: A Baptist's "logical" reason to oppose homosexual marriage |
22 Feb 2004 10:31:29 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:39:40 GMT, (L.
Raymond) wrote:
because they have the right sort of interchangeable parts.
dont't gay people have interchangeable parts as well?
--
==I am an atheist==
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
