| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2004 09:37:36 PM |
| Object: |
What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
I just wanted to throw this question out there to think about. I
seem to remember from comparative religion classes that certain folks,
like the Canaanites for example, sometimes practiced homosexual and
bisexual fertility rights. Various other religions, like Hinduism, have
codified all kinds of sex rights, including bizarre kama sutra rituals,
into their religion. So here is what I was thinking. Religious
rightards love to hide behind the "free exercise" of religion clause in
the first amendment. What if homosexuals claimed that their sexual
practices were part of their religion? Wouldn't this be a way to let
homosexuality in, if you'll pardon the pun, through the back door?
It would seem like, at least in theory, that it would make it
harder for Congress to make laws discriminating against them. After
all, it's the religious right that is always going on about how congress
has no power to abridge religious freedoms. Also, there are already
specific laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.
These are, again, thanks in part to the tireless theocratic efforts of
fundamentalists. It would seem such poetic justice to hoist them on
their own petard here.
Now I know that, in reality, fundies will probably just try to
appoint lots of judges who would refuse to hear cases on their merits.
I also know that the courts have historically not cared much about
defending the rights of small religious groups. Mormon polygamists, for
example, didn't have much luck in persuading Congress or the courts that
their religion gave them the right to multiple wives. But maybe it
would still be worth a shot. There are probably about as many
homosexuals in the US as there are Mormons, so, in pretty short order
they could claim to be part of a pretty big religious movement. At the
very least, it could illustrate to people that there are some real
dangers to just allowing any religion to pop up and start declaring
everything under the sun to be sacred to them. But it would probably
still be hilarious to watch from the sidelines.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
06 Nov 2004 10:07:02 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <MPG.1bf7466a99e61558989a89@news.individual.net>,
quibbler lept out of the bushes shouting:
It would seem like, at least in theory, that it would make it
harder for Congress to make laws discriminating against them. After all,
it's the religious right that is always going on about how congress has no
power to abridge religious freedoms.
Nah, when fundies say "religion" they mean *their religion. Remember,
there are *no other religions. Only error and sin.
It's not "abridging" religious freedoms to crush other beliefs. They
aren't real religion anyway...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
07 Nov 2004 07:24:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:37:36 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
I just wanted to throw this question out there to think about. I
seem to remember from comparative religion classes that certain folks,
like the Canaanites for example, sometimes practiced homosexual and
bisexual fertility rights. Various other religions, like Hinduism, have
codified all kinds of sex rights, including bizarre kama sutra rituals,
into their religion. So here is what I was thinking. Religious
rightards love to hide behind the "free exercise" of religion clause in
the first amendment. What if homosexuals claimed that their sexual
practices were part of their religion? Wouldn't this be a way to let
homosexuality in, if you'll pardon the pun, through the back door?
Then they would be worshiping a god of their choice, like a piece of concrete. For
homosexuality is clearly described as a depravity in the bible
It would seem like, at least in theory, that it would make it
harder for Congress to make laws discriminating against them. After
all, it's the religious right that is always going on about how congress
has no power to abridge religious freedoms. Also, there are already
specific laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.
These are, again, thanks in part to the tireless theocratic efforts of
fundamentalists. It would seem such poetic justice to hoist them on
their own petard here.
No body is making laws against them. The United States is opposed to giving them special
rights, like marriage.
Now I know that, in reality, fundies will probably just try to
appoint lots of judges who would refuse to hear cases on their merits.
Why would a religious person refuse to hear a case of un-American activates against a gay?
I also know that the courts have historically not cared much about
defending the rights of small religious groups. Mormon polygamists, for
example, didn't have much luck in persuading Congress or the courts that
their religion gave them the right to multiple wives.
A new right just like gay marriage.
But maybe it
would still be worth a shot. There are probably about as many
homosexuals in the US as there are Mormons, so, in pretty short order
they could claim to be part of a pretty big religious movement. At the
very least, it could illustrate to people that there are some real
dangers to just allowing any religion to pop up and start declaring
everything under the sun to be sacred to them. But it would probably
still be hilarious to watch from the sidelines.
We are already aware of such attempts. Most of us were not born yesterday.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
07 Nov 2004 09:30:01 AM |
|
|
In article <j38so0dng97e7pqcadn5faa9c123tmpr2s@4ax.com>,
duckgumbo32@cox.net says...
No body
Your stupidity really is amusing sometimes.
is making laws against them.
INCORRECT. There definitely still are sodomy laws on the books in many
states and people have been prosecuted.
The United States is opposed to giving them special
rights, like marriage.
Then why to heterosexuals have "special rights, like marriage"? Why do
they have special financial benefits and tax exemptions. I suppose that
during segregation you would tell me that negros wanted the "special
right" of being able to sit at the front of the bus with the white
people. BTW, are you opposed to all "special rights" all of a sudden or
only "special rights" that allow minorities to achieve parity with
majoritarian society?
Now I know that, in reality, fundies will probably just try to
appoint lots of judges who would refuse to hear cases on their merits.
Why would a religious person refuse to hear a case of
un-American activates against a gay?
You're the religious bigot, you tell me. You've already said that your
racist and sexist bible describes homosexuality as a "depravity" though
you clearly don't know what it means in the context of torah.
I also know that the courts have historically not cared much about
defending the rights of small religious groups. Mormon polygamists, for
example, didn't have much luck in persuading Congress or the courts that
their religion gave them the right to multiple wives.
A new right just like gay marriage.
How about a new right like the right of a black person to not be a
slave. That was a new right that wasn't specifically written into the
constitution. It's also the case that the fourteenth amendment defines
citizenship to begin at birth. But many anti-abortion idiots want
zygotes to be given the new right of full citizenship at conception.
You guys can never keep your lies straight.
But maybe it
would still be worth a shot. There are probably about as many
homosexuals in the US as there are Mormons, so, in pretty short order
they could claim to be part of a pretty big religious movement. At the
very least, it could illustrate to people that there are some real
dangers to just allowing any religion to pop up and start declaring
everything under the sun to be sacred to them. But it would probably
still be hilarious to watch from the sidelines.
We are already aware of such attempts.
Sure you are.
Most of us were not born yesterday.
Then you need to stop acting like it, particularly with respect to your
infantile god belief.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
07 Nov 2004 11:58:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 08:30:01 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
No body
Your stupidity really is amusing sometimes.
is making laws against them.
INCORRECT. There definitely still are sodomy laws on the books in many
states and people have been prosecuted.
Then go get these laws that hurt you corrected.
The United States is opposed to giving them special
rights, like marriage.
Then why to heterosexuals have "special rights, like marriage"?
It's not a special right. It is a right given to us by the constitution. And it is in
accordance with the word of God - that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Queers need not apply.
Why do
they have special financial benefits and tax exemptions.
Marriage, and that is not something queer oriented.
I suppose that
during segregation you would tell me that negros wanted the "special
right" of being able to sit at the front of the bus with the white
people.
They had it already. They just had to have it supported in practice.
BTW, are you opposed to all "special rights" all of a sudden or
only "special rights" that allow minorities to achieve parity with
majoritarian society?
If it's a special right, yes I'm opposed to it. For then the constitution would not read
that all men are created equal.
Now I know that, in reality, fundies will probably just try to
appoint lots of judges who would refuse to hear cases on their merits.
Why would a religious person refuse to hear a case of
un-American activates against a gay?
You're the religious bigot, you tell me.
No, I'm not.
You've already said that your racist and sexist bible describes homosexuality as a "depravity" though
you clearly don't know what it means in the context of torah.
??? Say what?
I also know that the courts have historically not cared much about
defending the rights of small religious groups. Mormon polygamists, for
example, didn't have much luck in persuading Congress or the courts that
their religion gave them the right to multiple wives.
A new right just like gay marriage.
How about a new right like the right of a black person to not be a
slave.
The constitution already says that we are created equal. We need to follow the current
laws, not write new ones.
That was a new right that wasn't specifically written into the
constitution. It's also the case that the fourteenth amendment defines
citizenship to begin at birth. But many anti-abortion idiots want
zygotes to be given the new right of full citizenship at conception.
You guys can never keep your lies straight.
Civil citizenship does start at birth. Moral citizenship starts at conception.
Most of us were not born yesterday.
Then you need to stop acting like it, particularly with respect to your
infantile god belief.
Get used to it, bubba - it's not going away.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
07 Nov 2004 01:48:03 PM |
|
|
In article <a0oso090oi4i5or8q28hic6s0r2ka4iuh6@4ax.com>,
duckgumbo32@cox.net says...
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 08:30:01 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
No body
Your stupidity really is amusing sometimes.
is making laws against them.
INCORRECT. There definitely still are sodomy laws on the books in many
states and people have been prosecuted.
Then go get these laws that hurt you corrected.
First off, ***** face, I'm not claiming that I've been hurt by such laws,
but merely that they exist. Secondly, people have long been trying to
get these miscarriages of justice corrected, but it's easier said than
done. Certainly repug morons have fought every step of to the way to
preserve injustice, just as they fought tooth and nail to preserve
segregation.
The United States is opposed to giving them special
rights, like marriage.
Then why to heterosexuals have "special rights, like marriage"?
It's not a special right. It is a right given to us by the constitution.
Actually the federal government does not deal with marriage, nor did it
define it to be only of the heterosexual variety.
And it is in
accordance with the word of God
Too bad Jesus and King David and Jonathan were such a bunch of flaming
queers then.
- that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Queers need not apply.
Civil union status is still available in a number of states.
Why do
they have special financial benefits and tax exemptions.
Marriage, and that is not something queer oriented.
Yes and civil rights weren't something "black oriented" until we made
you bigots stop oppressing your fellow Americans. But you assholes are
forever in search of new groups to hate and now queers are the folks you
love to hate.
I suppose that
during segregation you would tell me that negros wanted the "special
right" of being able to sit at the front of the bus with the white
people.
They had it already.
*****. Jim Crow took it from them.
They just had to have it supported in practice.
Having rights systematically taken away from them by force of state law
and the institutions of the government is not equivalent to having those
rights.
BTW, are you opposed to all "special rights" all of a sudden or
only "special rights" that allow minorities to achieve parity with
majoritarian society?
If it's a special right, yes I'm opposed to it. For then the constitution would not read
that all men are created equal.
Good, then you better not support the placement of the ten commandments
in any public places, because that is asking for a special right. You
better not support paying chaplains to say prayers before congress,
because that is a special right. You better not support the placement
of "under god" in the pledge, because that confers special rights upon
believers.
Now I know that, in reality, fundies will probably just try to
appoint lots of judges who would refuse to hear cases on their merits.
Why would a religious person refuse to hear a case of
un-American activates against a gay?
You're the religious bigot, you tell me.
No, I'm not.
Your long history of intolerance and bigotry contradicts your
transparent and laughably false denials.
You've already said that your racist and sexist bible describes homosexuality as a "depravity" though
you clearly don't know what it means in the context of torah.
??? Say what?
You need to pay attention. You claimed that homosexuality was a
"depravity", but actually torah describes it in the same context that it
forbids the eating of shellfish or various other trivia. Furthermore,
many scholars believe that "toevah" is completely mistranslated when it
is read as "depravity" or "abomination".
I also know that the courts have historically not cared much about
defending the rights of small religious groups. Mormon polygamists, for
example, didn't have much luck in persuading Congress or the courts that
their religion gave them the right to multiple wives.
A new right just like gay marriage.
How about a new right like the right of a black person to not be a
slave.
The constitution already says that we are created equal.
That's the declaration of independence, you stupid *****. Take an
American civics class for crying out loud.
We need to follow the current
laws, not write new ones.
No, you need to stop gibbering like a moron.
That was a new right that wasn't specifically written into the
constitution. It's also the case that the fourteenth amendment defines
citizenship to begin at birth. But many anti-abortion idiots want
zygotes to be given the new right of full citizenship at conception.
You guys can never keep your lies straight.
Civil citizenship does start at birth. Moral citizenship starts at conception.
Yawn. You apparently pulled that one right out of your *****.
Most of us were not born yesterday.
Then you need to stop acting like it, particularly with respect to your
infantile god belief.
Get used to it, bubba - it's not going away.
Actually, it's quite likely that the present christ-insanity will be the
catalyst that will cause many people to reject religion altogether.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
07 Nov 2004 06:19:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:48:03 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then go get these laws that hurt you corrected.
First off, ***** face, I'm not claiming that I've been hurt by such laws,
but merely that they exist.
Then why are you bellyaching?
Secondly, people have long been trying to
get these miscarriages of justice corrected, but it's easier said than
done. Certainly repug morons have fought every step of to the way to
preserve injustice, just as they fought tooth and nail to preserve
segregation.
No we haven't.
The United States is opposed to giving them special
rights, like marriage.
Then why to heterosexuals have "special rights, like marriage"?
It's not a special right. It is a right given to us by the constitution.
Actually the federal government does not deal with marriage, nor did it
define it to be only of the heterosexual variety.
But civil law does.
And it is in
accordance with the word of God
Too bad Jesus and King David and Jonathan were such a bunch of flaming
queers then.
Now that's one we've come to expect of a bubba like you.
- that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Queers need not apply.
Civil union status is still available in a number of states.
Massachusetts only.
It's not legal any other place.
That's where you're from, right?
Yes and civil rights weren't something "black oriented" until we made
you bigots stop oppressing your fellow Americans. But you assholes are
forever in search of new groups to hate and now queers are the folks you
love to hate.
Yet it was a matter of following the law, not changing the law like you want to.
I suppose that
during segregation you would tell me that negros wanted the "special
right" of being able to sit at the front of the bus with the white
people.
They had it already.
*****. Jim Crow took it from them.
Couldn't take it away, and didn't.
They just had to have it supported in practice.
Having rights systematically taken away from them by force of state law
and the institutions of the government is not equivalent to having those
rights.
They were wronged, and now they have been corrected.
BTW, are you opposed to all "special rights" all of a sudden or
only "special rights" that allow minorities to achieve parity with
majoritarian society?
If it's a special right, yes I'm opposed to it. For then the constitution would not read
that all men are created equal.
Good, then you better not support the placement of the ten commandments
in any public places, because that is asking for a special right.
No, it's not. Your right are not being violated by having the Ten Commandments posted in
a public place. They're there in support of you as much as anybody else. You just want
special rights.
You
better not support paying chaplains to say prayers before congress,
because that is a special right.
Apparently not.
You better not support the placement
of "under god" in the pledge, because that confers special rights upon
believers.
Apparently not.
You've already said that your racist and sexist bible describes homosexuality as a "depravity" though
you clearly don't know what it means in the context of torah.
??? Say what?
You need to pay attention. You claimed that homosexuality was a
"depravity", but actually torah describes it in the same context that it
forbids the eating of shellfish or various other trivia.
No, S&G well learned it was a depravity. God said eat anything in the market.
Furthermore,
many scholars believe that "toevah" is completely mistranslated when it
is read as "depravity" or "abomination".
Biblical scholars disagree with you.
I also know that the courts have historically not cared much about
defending the rights of small religious groups. Mormon polygamists, for
example, didn't have much luck in persuading Congress or the courts that
their religion gave them the right to multiple wives.
A new right just like gay marriage.
How about a new right like the right of a black person to not be a
slave.
The constitution already says that we are created equal.
That's the declaration of independence, you stupid *****. Take an
American civics class for crying out loud.
It doesn't matter which document says it, kid. It's said, and it's legal.
Good grief, now you're acting like a child.
We need to follow the current
laws, not write new ones.
No, you need to stop gibbering like a moron.
Yet I know what I'm talking about, and you're playing word games re the Constitution v the
BofR's
Civil citizenship does start at birth. Moral citizenship starts at conception.
Yawn. You apparently pulled that one right out of your *****.
Not a chance, quib. Just shows you what you DON'T know.
Most of us were not born yesterday.
Then you need to stop acting like it, particularly with respect to your
infantile god belief.
Get used to it, bubba - it's not going away.
Actually, it's quite likely that the present christ-insanity will be the
catalyst that will cause many people to reject religion altogether.
It's their funeral.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
07 Nov 2004 09:32:34 PM |
|
|
In article <36eto09djp4tq1s58kfgnsn6amr6jv3a2d@4ax.com>,
duckgumbo32@cox.net says...
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:48:03 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then go get these laws that hurt you corrected.
First off, ***** face, I'm not claiming that I've been hurt by such laws,
but merely that they exist.
Then why are you bellyaching?
You presumably weren't aborted either, yet you're always bellyaching
about abortion. You're not even a woman and you're obsessed about it.
Secondly, people have long been trying to
get these miscarriages of justice corrected, but it's easier said than
done. Certainly repug morons have fought every step of to the way to
preserve injustice, just as they fought tooth and nail to preserve
segregation.
No we haven't.
History says otherwise. I suppose your witty repartee to that will be
"No it doesn't".
The United States is opposed to giving them special
rights, like marriage.
Then why to heterosexuals have "special rights, like marriage"?
It's not a special right. It is a right given to us by the constitution.
Actually the federal government does not deal with marriage, nor did it
define it to be only of the heterosexual variety.
But civil law does.
Oh please don't try to pretend that you know anything at all about the
law. Your comment is inane. Federal law obviously includes civil and
criminal varieties. Neither form prohibits it on the federal level, nor
would it be clear that they would have any such authority to do so.
Certain states have tried to regulate it, but the legal status of these
regulations is dubious at best.
And it is in
accordance with the word of God
Too bad Jesus and King David and Jonathan were such a bunch of flaming
queers then.
Now that's one we've come to expect of a bubba like you.
Try to be original. In any event, I notice that you don't try to deny
these. As usual, you don't know the details, so there's not really much
else that you can say.
- that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Queers need not apply.
Civil union status is still available in a number of states.
Massachusetts only.
You're wrong, as usual. Vermont allows them too.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html
It's not legal any other place.
Nope, try again.
That's where you're from, right?
Nope, I have no need or desire for a civil union. That doesn't mean
that I would discriminate against those who do. I know that you're too
selfish and intolerant to understand that though.
Yes and civil rights weren't something "black oriented" until we made
you bigots stop oppressing your fellow Americans. But you assholes are
forever in search of new groups to hate and now queers are the folks you
love to hate.
Yet it was a matter of following the law, not changing the law like you want to.
No, laws had to be changed. Jim Crow laws had to be repealed.
Discriminatory voting laws had to be changed. Try reading a history
book some day.
I suppose that
during segregation you would tell me that negros wanted the "special
right" of being able to sit at the front of the bus with the white
people.
They had it already.
*****. Jim Crow took it from them.
Couldn't take it away, and didn't.
It definitely could and did deprive them of their rights.
They just had to have it supported in practice.
Having rights systematically taken away from them by force of state law
and the institutions of the government is not equivalent to having those
rights.
They were wronged, and now they have been corrected.
Yes, people like me corrected it, while people like you fought to
preserve segregation every step of the way.
BTW, are you opposed to all "special rights" all of a sudden or
only "special rights" that allow minorities to achieve parity with
majoritarian society?
If it's a special right, yes I'm opposed to it. For then the constitution would not read
that all men are created equal.
Good, then you better not support the placement of the ten commandments
in any public places, because that is asking for a special right.
No, it's not. Your right are not being violated
Yes, my rights under the establishment clause are being violated. The
people who put these things where they do not have the exclusive right
to use public property in such a manner. By expropriating public
property for a religious purpose they are stealing resources that they
are not entitled to and specifically violating constitutional
prohibitions against establishment.
by having the Ten Commandments posted in
a public place. They're there in support of you
Their monopolized display of public property and with public resources
via the authority of government is expressly forbidden and a grave
trespass upon my property rights, and a de facto abridgment of my free
speech rights as well.
as much as anybody else. You just want
special rights.
No, the special rights are the ones being given to people who confiscate
public property with the power of government and use it to advance and
establish their religious agendas. Religionists are always demanding
special rights and shortcuts around the rules that everyone else must
follow.
You
better not support paying chaplains to say prayers before congress,
because that is a special right.
Apparently not.
James Madison, who you probably think made hostess cup cakes, definitely
disagreed with you.
You better not support the placement
of "under god" in the pledge, because that confers special rights upon
believers.
Apparently not.
Apparently so, since even the supreme court merely attempted to duck the
issue.
You've already said that your racist and sexist bible describes homosexuality as a "depravity" though
you clearly don't know what it means in the context of torah.
??? Say what?
You need to pay attention. You claimed that homosexuality was a
"depravity", but actually torah describes it in the same context that it
forbids the eating of shellfish or various other trivia.
No, S&G well learned it was a depravity.
Again, your ignorance is palpable. The mythical S&G cities are
described in Genesis far before Torah has spelled out such prohibitions.
God said eat anything in the market.
You apparently frequent a market called a church that sells *****, in
that case.
Furthermore,
many scholars believe that "toevah" is completely mistranslated when it
is read as "depravity" or "abomination".
Biblical scholars disagree with you.
Not like you would know, but in fact large numbers of biblical scholars
agree on this point. The way in which Moses uses the term, say in the
presence of "Pharaoh", or with respect to the shepherds of Goshen, make
it very unlikely that the term can be reliably translated as
abomination. "Depravity", a translation which you appear to have
largely made up yourself, is even less likely.
I also know that the courts have historically not cared much about
defending the rights of small religious groups. Mormon polygamists, for
example, didn't have much luck in persuading Congress or the courts that
their religion gave them the right to multiple wives.
A new right just like gay marriage.
How about a new right like the right of a black person to not be a
slave.
The constitution already says that we are created equal.
That's the declaration of independence, you stupid *****. Take an
American civics class for crying out loud.
It doesn't matter which document says it, kid.
Really, then why did you try to claim it was the constitution. Just to
show people what a retard you are?
It's said, and it's legal.
WTF?
Good grief, now you're acting like a child.
Whereas you're a mental child who occasionally tries rather poorly to
pretend to be an adult.
We need to follow the current
laws, not write new ones.
No, you need to stop gibbering like a moron.
Yet I know what I'm talking about
Now that's a lie so severe that even Jesus can't forgive it. You're
going to hell for that one, dookie.
, and you're playing word games re the Constitution v the
BofR's
Civil citizenship does start at birth. Moral citizenship starts at conception.
Yawn. You apparently pulled that one right out of your *****.
Not a chance, quib. Just shows you what you DON'T know.
Hoo boy, so now zygotes are intentional moral agents in your ignorant
view? What moral activities do you imagine that zygotes engage in?
Granted, they could be good xians, because they don't have brains.
Most of us were not born yesterday.
Then you need to stop acting like it, particularly with respect to your
infantile god belief.
Get used to it, bubba - it's not going away.
Actually, it's quite likely that the present christ-insanity will be the
catalyst that will cause many people to reject religion altogether.
It's their funeral.
Your irrational fear of death fetish is *so* played out.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
08 Nov 2004 06:00:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 20:32:34 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
First off, ***** face, I'm not claiming that I've been hurt by such laws,
but merely that they exist.
Then why are you bellyaching?
You presumably weren't aborted either, yet you're always bellyaching
about abortion.
Of course not. My parents were good Christian Roman Catholics.
History says otherwise. I suppose your witty repartee to that will be
"No it doesn't".
You're just bleating about nothing.
Actually the federal government does not deal with marriage, nor did it
define it to be only of the heterosexual variety.
But civil law does.
Oh please don't try to pretend that you know anything at all about the
law. Your comment is inane.
Civil law deals with a civil license.
Federal law obviously includes civil and
criminal varieties. Neither form prohibits it on the federal level, nor
would it be clear that they would have any such authority to do so.
Certain states have tried to regulate it, but the legal status of these
regulations is dubious at best.
The law says that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
- that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Queers need not apply.
Civil union status is still available in a number of states.
Massachusetts only.
You're wrong, as usual. Vermont allows them too.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html
* Only Massachusetts issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples (since 2004).
* Only Vermont offers civil unions (since 2000). A civil union confers state-level spousal
rights to same-sex couples while they reside in the state.
One marriage, one civil union. Don't leave either state.
It's not legal any other place.
Nope, try again.
There it is right there in the site you referenced.
That's where you're from, right?
Nope, I have no need or desire for a civil union. That doesn't mean
that I would discriminate against those who do. I know that you're too
selfish and intolerant to understand that though.
I don't discriminate. No marriage between queers.
No, laws had to be changed. Jim Crow laws had to be repealed.
Discriminatory voting laws had to be changed. Try reading a history
book some day.
And they have been. but no special rights for queers.
Oh, well, enough of your silliness.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
08 Nov 2004 06:58:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 18:00:36 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 20:32:34 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
Nope, I have no need or desire for a civil union. That doesn't mean
that I would discriminate against those who do. I know that you're too
selfish and intolerant to understand that though.
/Nominated portion from Duke
I don't discriminate. No marriage between queers.
/end
duke
Methinks he knows not the definitions of the words he attempts to use.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
08 Nov 2004 07:50:53 PM |
|
|
AngryJohn <AngryJohnBelief@AngryJohn.net> wrote in
news:pd50p0ll74imh7gd4ngqv3a434u6h01mej@4ax.com:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 18:00:36 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 20:32:34 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Nope, I have no need or desire for a civil union. That doesn't mean
that I would discriminate against those who do. I know that you're
too selfish and intolerant to understand that though.
/Nominated portion from Duke
I don't discriminate. No marriage between queers.
/end
duke
That's as bad as pastor frank:
"It's either that or some disembodied electroplasm. I don't believe in the
supernatural."--Pastor Frank, 8/31/2001
Still, I second.
--
Dr. Smartass -- BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
*sig broken; watch for finger*
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
12 Nov 2004 05:34:10 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns959BCA17A2E5askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>,
Doc Smartass <gekiskivviesdo@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
AngryJohn <AngryJohnBelief@AngryJohn.net> wrote in
news:pd50p0ll74imh7gd4ngqv3a434u6h01mej@4ax.com:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 18:00:36 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 20:32:34 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Nope, I have no need or desire for a civil union. That doesn't mean
that I would discriminate against those who do. I know that you're
too selfish and intolerant to understand that though.
/Nominated portion from Duke
I don't discriminate. No marriage between queers.
/end
duke
That's as bad as pastor frank:
"It's either that or some disembodied electroplasm. I don't believe in the
supernatural."--Pastor Frank, 8/31/2001
Still, I second.
Recorded.
--
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: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
10 Nov 2004 05:28:36 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 01:50:53 GMT, Doc Smartass <gekiskivviesdo@astroboyskivviesmail.com>
wrote:
AngryJohn <AngryJohnBelief@AngryJohn.net> wrote in
news:pd50p0ll74imh7gd4ngqv3a434u6h01mej@4ax.com:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 18:00:36 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 20:32:34 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Nope, I have no need or desire for a civil union. That doesn't mean
that I would discriminate against those who do. I know that you're
too selfish and intolerant to understand that though.
/Nominated portion from Duke
I don't discriminate. No marriage between queers.
/end
duke
That's as bad as pastor frank:
"It's either that or some disembodied electroplasm. I don't believe in the
supernatural."--Pastor Frank, 8/31/2001
Still, I second.
You must be in bed with jez.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
10 Nov 2004 05:27:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:58:25 -0500, AngryJohn <AngryJohnBelief@AngryJohn.net> wrote:
Nope, I have no need or desire for a civil union. That doesn't mean
that I would discriminate against those who do. I know that you're too
selfish and intolerant to understand that though.
/Nominated portion from Duke
I don't discriminate. No marriage between queers.
/end
duke
Methinks he knows not the definitions of the words he attempts to use.
I don't thinkyou're capable of thought, jez.
To discriminate is to deny one equal rights. The queer already has equal rights.
Nomination denied.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donalbain" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
10 Nov 2004 10:00:47 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<sku3p0phgb35du0sh8eb80mq8cnut8s259@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:58:25 -0500, AngryJohn <AngryJohnBelief@AngryJohn.net> wrote:
Nope, I have no need or desire for a civil union. That doesn't mean
that I would discriminate against those who do. I know that you're too
selfish and intolerant to understand that though.
/Nominated portion from Duke
I don't discriminate. No marriage between queers.
/end
duke
Methinks he knows not the definitions of the words he attempts to use.
I don't thinkyou're capable of thought, jez.
To discriminate is to deny one equal rights. The queer already has equal rights.
Nomination denied.
Oi, numbnuts. You dont get to make that decision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
10 Nov 2004 02:44:59 PM |
|
|
On 10 Nov 2004 08:00:47 -0800, (Donalbain) wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<sku3p0phgb35du0sh8eb80mq8cnut8s259@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:58:25 -0500, AngryJohn <AngryJohnBelief@AngryJohn.net> wrote:
Nope, I have no need or desire for a civil union. That doesn't mean
that I would discriminate against those who do. I know that you're too
selfish and intolerant to understand that though.
/Nominated portion from Duke
I don't discriminate. No marriage between queers.
/end
duke
Methinks he knows not the definitions of the words he attempts to use.
I don't thinkyou're capable of thought, jez.
To discriminate is to deny one equal rights. The queer already has equal rights.
Nomination denied.
Oi, numbnuts. You dont get to make that decision.
Besides he is so reading incapacitated that he cannot even figure out
who wrote what.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
10 Nov 2004 05:55:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:44:59 -0500, AngryJohn <AngryJohnBelief@AngryJohn.net> wrote:
Besides he is so reading incapacitated that he cannot even figure out
who wrote what.
Look, you and jez are both the same. The two of you together can't make up a 3 word
sentence without using a dictionary.
Don't blame me if I can't keep track.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
10 Nov 2004 06:11:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:55:11 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:44:59 -0500, AngryJohn <AngryJohnBelief@AngryJohn.net> wrote:
Besides he is so reading incapacitated that he cannot even figure out
who wrote what.
Look, you and jez are both the same. The two of you together can't make up a 3 word
sentence without using a dictionary.
Don't blame me if I can't keep track.
duke
*****
Don't blame you? Why not fuckwit? You aren't even capable of reading
who the message is from that you are replying to. That is YOUR fault.
If you had half of a half brain you would actually read what is
written, pay attention to the person that wrote it, and even read what
you write before you hit send. Noooooo, duke is a moron of such
magnitude that he just assembles strings of letters, sometimes even
forming words, yet hardly ever complete sentences and never a full
thought. Then, like any little child, he blames the people that point
out his moronatude. Ohhh dukie, need a kleenex? Does your *****
hurt? Learn to communicate in the medium you are writing within.
This is usenet not your kindergarten catholic school god/jesus *****
kissing class.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
11 Nov 2004 05:28:33 PM |
|
|
Does your *****
hurt?
I don't have one. Does yours?
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
11 Nov 2004 06:46:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:28:33 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Does your *****
hurt?
I don't have one. Does yours?
duke
*****
You are the most intellectually restricted fuckwit I have ever come
across. It is so easy to tell how much I got to you by how much you
snipped. BTW dukie, I know you have never had a *****, never been
close to one, never experienced one.
Also, keep your fucking nitwit comments out of atheist only threads!
Show at least a modicum of respect. Unless, of course, you really do
not believe what you write about keeping unto Caesar what is Cellars.
You do know that I mean? Thought not.
Go away you little *****. No atheist here is capable of the
logarithmic intellectual regression required to enable them
communications on your level.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
12 Nov 2004 05:35:44 AM |
|
|
In article <tn18p0he0pdkanbo3tujc1j4omj1d4df6t@4ax.com>,
AngryJohn <AngryJohnBelief@AngryJohn.net> wrote:
Show at least a modicum of respect.
Here's the height of optimism... urging duke to show even an atom of
respect. My hat is off to you, sir!
--
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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
08 Nov 2004 12:24:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:19:11 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:48:03 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then go get these laws that hurt you corrected.
First off, ***** face, I'm not claiming that I've been hurt by such laws,
but merely that they exist.
Then why are you bellyaching?
Same reason some whites "bellyached" about slavery - bigotry is
immoral, which you'd know if you had a shred of it yourself.
Secondly, people have long been trying to
get these miscarriages of justice corrected, but it's easier said than
done. Certainly repug morons have fought every step of to the way to
preserve injustice, just as they fought tooth and nail to preserve
segregation.
No we haven't.
You've never heard of the US Civil War?
The United States is opposed to giving them special
rights, like marriage.
Then why to heterosexuals have "special rights, like marriage"?
It's not a special right. It is a right given to us by the constitution.
Actually the federal government does not deal with marriage, nor did it
define it to be only of the heterosexual variety.
But civil law does.
But you said that the Constitution gives it to heterosexuals as a
special right.
Yes and civil rights weren't something "black oriented" until we made
you bigots stop oppressing your fellow Americans. But you assholes are
forever in search of new groups to hate and now queers are the folks you
love to hate.
Yet it was a matter of following the law, not changing the law like you want to.
Segregation WAS the law in MANY states.
Having rights systematically taken away from them by force of state law
and the institutions of the government is not equivalent to having those
rights.
They were wronged, and now they have been corrected.
Like homosexuals are being wronged, and THOSE wrongs will be
corrected, as soon as the current wave of religious bigotry is
cleansed.
If it's a special right, yes I'm opposed to it. For then the constitution would not read
that all men are created equal.
Good, then you better not support the placement of the ten commandments
in any public places, because that is asking for a special right.
No, it's not. Your right are not being violated by having the Ten Commandments posted in
a public place.
Your rights are not being violated by having gays marry. (Where is it
written that you have the right to not have gays marry?)
You
better not support paying chaplains to say prayers before congress,
because that is a special right.
Apparently not.
Not a convincing (or even competent) argument.
You need to pay attention. You claimed that homosexuality was a
"depravity", but actually torah describes it in the same context that it
forbids the eating of shellfish or various other trivia.
No, S&G well learned it was a depravity. God said eat anything in the market.
1) S & G was about not extending hospitality to visitors - MUCH more
important in the desert than with whom one has sex.
2) Your bible says that shellfish and pork are off the menu.
Furthermore,
many scholars believe that "toevah" is completely mistranslated when it
is read as "depravity" or "abomination".
Biblical scholars disagree with you.
Many of them don't.
The constitution already says that we are created equal.
That's the declaration of independence, you stupid *****. Take an
American civics class for crying out loud.
It doesn't matter which document says it
Sure it does. The Constitution is the law - the D of I is just a
declaration of war written by an illegal band of terrorists.
Yet I know what I'm talking about, and you're playing word games re the Constitution v the
BofR's
You don't seem to know the difference between the BoR and the DoI.
Actually, it's quite likely that the present christ-insanity will be the
catalyst that will cause many people to reject religion altogether.
It's their funeral.
No, yours for being Catholic. Said to you, "see you in Hell" isn't a
curse.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
09 Nov 2004 05:07:07 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:24:56 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:19:11 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:48:03 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then go get these laws that hurt you corrected.
First off, ***** face, I'm not claiming that I've been hurt by such laws,
but merely that they exist.
Then why are you bellyaching?
Same reason some whites "bellyached" about slavery - bigotry is
immoral, which you'd know if you had a shred of it yourself.
And now you know why I'm dead set against abortion.
Secondly, people have long been trying to
get these miscarriages of justice corrected, but it's easier said than
done. Certainly repug morons have fought every step of to the way to
preserve injustice, just as they fought tooth and nail to preserve
segregation.
No we haven't.
You've never heard of the US Civil War?
No more abortion.
Actually the federal government does not deal with marriage, nor did it
define it to be only of the heterosexual variety.
But civil law does.
But you said that the Constitution gives it to heterosexuals as a
special right.
No I didn't. Marriage between man and woman is natural. It's immoral amongst man and man
or woman and woman.
Segregation WAS the law in MANY states.
State law - no more. Queer marriage is immoral.
Having rights systematically taken away from them by force of state law
and the institutions of the government is not equivalent to having those
rights.
They were wronged, and now they have been corrected.
Like homosexuals are being wronged, and THOSE wrongs will be
corrected, as soon as the current wave of religious bigotry is
cleansed.
Queers are not being wronged. They are demanding special rights.
Your rights are not being violated by having gays marry. (Where is it
written that you have the right to not have gays marry?)
It's against he law, and immoral.
You
better not support paying chaplains to say prayers before congress,
because that is a special right.
Apparently not.
Not a convincing (or even competent) argument.
But true.
You need to pay attention. You claimed that homosexuality was a
"depravity", but actually torah describes it in the same context that it
forbids the eating of shellfish or various other trivia.
No, S&G well learned it was a depravity. God said eat anything in the market.
1) S & G was about not extending hospitality to visitors - MUCH more
important in the desert than with whom one has sex.
S&G was a queer issue.
2) Your bible says that shellfish and pork are off the menu.
My bible says we can eat anything in the meat market.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
09 Nov 2004 10:50:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 05:07:07 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:24:56 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:19:11 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:48:03 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then go get these laws that hurt you corrected.
First off, ***** face, I'm not claiming that I've been hurt by such laws,
but merely that they exist.
Then why are you bellyaching?
Same reason some whites "bellyached" about slavery - bigotry is
immoral, which you'd know if you had a shred of it yourself.
And now you know why I'm dead set against abortion.
Because you're a Christian loon. If you're not pregnant you have
nothing to say about abortion.
Actually the federal government does not deal with marriage, nor did it
define it to be only of the heterosexual variety.
But civil law does.
But you said that the Constitution gives it to heterosexuals as a
special right.
No I didn't.
You did - in those words.
Marriage between man and woman is natural.
You mean it feels like the norm to you. Who gives a damn?
It's immoral amongst man and man or woman and woman.
Not in a morality that accepts homosexual marriage.
Segregation WAS the law in MANY states.
State law - no more. Queer marriage is immoral.
Who gives a damn? Your morality isn't the law.
Queers are not being wronged. They are demanding special rights.
The right to marry the consenting competent human adult of your choice
is a normal right, not a special one.
Your rights are not being violated by having gays marry. (Where is it
written that you have the right to not have gays marry?)
It's against he law, and immoral.
As I said, and as you have yet to comprehend, who gives a damn what a
pinhead like you thinks?
You
better not support paying chaplains to say prayers before congress,
because that is a special right.
Apparently not.
Not a convincing (or even competent) argument.
But true.
Not EVEN false.
You need to pay attention. You claimed that homosexuality was a
"depravity", but actually torah describes it in the same context that it
forbids the eating of shellfish or various other trivia.
No, S&G well learned it was a depravity. God said eat anything in the market.
1) S & G was about not extending hospitality to visitors - MUCH more
important in the desert than with whom one has sex.
S&G was a queer issue.
Only if you can't read.
2) Your bible says that shellfish and pork are off the menu.
My bible says we can eat anything in the meat market.
Try actually reading your bible - Leviticus, for example.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
08 Nov 2004 12:16:00 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:58:19 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 08:30:01 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then why to heterosexuals have "special rights, like marriage"?
It's not a special right. It is a right given to us by the constitution.
Care to quote that part of the Constitution that gives heterosexuals
the right to marriage and denies it to homosexuals?
And it is in accordance with the word of God
The Constitution is specifically neutral wrt gods - yours or any
other. It doesn't care what your god says.
- that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Not in the Constitution. Marriage - the kind the government addresses
- is a civil contract between 2 competent natural persons. Period.
Why do
they have special financial benefits and tax exemptions.
Marriage, and that is not something queer oriented.
Try answering the question.
I suppose that
during segregation you would tell me that negros wanted the "special
right" of being able to sit at the front of the bus with the white
people.
They had it already. They just had to have it supported in practice.
And homosexuals already have the right to marry. They just need it
supported in practice. (I dare you to show where in the Constitution
it prohibits 2 men from marrying.)
BTW, are you opposed to all "special rights" all of a sudden or
only "special rights" that allow minorities to achieve parity with
majoritarian society?
If it's a special right, yes I'm opposed to it.
Then, since you said that marriage is a special right, you're opposed
to marriage.
For then the constitution would not read that all men are created equal.
Care to quote the part that does?
You've already said that your racist and sexist bible describes homosexuality as a "depravity" though
you clearly don't know what it means in the context of torah.
??? Say what?
Which part confuses you?
How about a new right like the right of a black person to not be a
slave.
The constitution already says that we are created equal.
Where? (And, if it did, that means that men and women were created
equal, so a man marrying a woman and a man marrying a man are the same
thing. Now carefully remove your foot from your own trap.)
We need to follow the current laws, not write new ones.
So which is the current law? That men and women were created equal,
or that blacks and whites weren't?
That was a new right that wasn't specifically written into the
constitution. It's also the case that the fourteenth amendment defines
citizenship to begin at birth. But many anti-abortion idiots want
zygotes to be given the new right of full citizenship at conception.
You guys can never keep your lies straight.
Civil citizenship does start at birth. Moral citizenship starts at conception.
The law is civil law - it's not concerned with the "morality" of this
religion or that.
Most of us were not born yesterday.
Then you need to stop acting like it, particularly with respect to your
infantile god belief.
Get used to it, bubba - it's not going away.
Oh, we know that you won't stop being infantile. But some of us are
optimists.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
09 Nov 2004 05:17:11 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:16:00 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
It's not a special right. It is a right given to us by the constitution.
Care to quote that part of the Constitution that gives heterosexuals
the right to marriage and denies it to homosexuals?
Figure it out for yourself.
And it is in accordance with the word of God
The Constitution is specifically neutral wrt gods - yours or any
other. It doesn't care what your god says.
The Constitution bans a state religion. It's doesn't ban God or his name.
- that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Not in the Constitution. Marriage - the kind the government addresses
- is a civil contract between 2 competent natural persons. Period.
Now this should be the interesting part. Let's see you show that. But first note that
there is nothing natural about queers or lesbians in the Constitution..
Why do
they have special financial benefits and tax exemptions.
Marriage, and that is not something queer oriented.
Try answering the question.
Not natural.
I suppose that
during segregation you would tell me that negros wanted the "special
right" of being able to sit at the front of the bus with the white
people.
They had it already. They just had to have it supported in practice.
And homosexuals already have the right to marry. They just need it
supported in practice. (I dare you to show where in the Constitution
it prohibits 2 men from marrying.)
You said it yourself - it's not natural, like a man and his goat.
If it's a special right, yes I'm opposed to it.
Then, since you said that marriage is a special right, you're opposed
to marriage.
No, marriage between man and woman is a right, but not special.
For then the constitution would not read that all men are created equal.
Care to quote the part that does?
You already know the part.
You've already said that your racist and sexist bible describes homosexuality as a "depravity" though
you clearly don't know what it means in the context of torah.
??? Say what?
Which part confuses you?
You.
How about a new right like the right of a black person to not be a
slave.
The constitution already says that we are created equal.
Where? (And, if it did, that means that men and women were created
equal, so a man marrying a woman and a man marrying a man are the same
thing. Now carefully remove your foot from your own trap.)
queers are not natural.
We need to follow the current laws, not write new ones.
So which is the current law? That men and women were created equal,
or that blacks and whites weren't?
We are all equal with no special rights.
Civil citizenship does start at birth. Moral citizenship starts at conception.
The law is civil law - it's not concerned with the "morality" of this
religion or that.
But the peoples are, and we say no to queer marriage.
Most of us were not born yesterday.
Then you need to stop acting like it, particularly with respect to your
infantile god belief.
Get used to it, bubba - it's not going away.
Oh, we know that you won't stop being infantile. But some of us are
optimists.
No, you are stupid.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
09 Nov 2004 10:58:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 05:17:11 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:16:00 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
It's not a special right. It is a right given to us by the constitution.
Care to quote that part of the Constitution that gives heterosexuals
the right to marriage and denies it to homosexuals?
Figure it out for yourself.
I have - it doesn't.
And it is in accordance with the word of God
The Constitution is specifically neutral wrt gods - yours or any
other. It doesn't care what your god says.
The Constitution bans a state religion. It's doesn't ban God or his name.
It bans ANY law about religion.
- that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Not in the Constitution. Marriage - the kind the government addresses
- is a civil contract between 2 competent natural persons. Period.
Now this should be the interesting part. Let's see you show that.
See the marriage law of any state for proof - it's under contract law.
But first note that there is nothing natural about queers or lesbians in the Constitution..
There's nothing natural about heterosexual marriage in the
Constitution either. Since the founding fathers never thought that
the government would ban marriage, they didn't address it. At all.
Why do
they have special financial benefits and tax exemptions.
Marriage, and that is not something queer oriented.
Try answering the question.
Not natural.
Why are heterosexual couples given special benefits and tax
exemptions?
I suppose that
during segregation you would tell me that negros wanted the "special
right" of being able to sit at the front of the bus with the white
people.
They had it already. They just had to have it supported in practice.
And homosexuals already have the right to marry. They just need it
supported in practice. (I dare you to show where in the Constitution
it prohibits 2 men from marrying.)
You said it yourself - it's not natural, like a man and his goat.
Where, in the Constitution, does it ban homosexual marriage? ("In
your mind" isn't "in the Constitution".)
If it's a special right, yes I'm opposed to it.
Then, since you said that marriage is a special right, you're opposed
to marriage.
No, marriage between man and woman is a right, but not special.
You said it was. In exactly those words.
For then the constitution would not read that all men are created equal.
Care to quote the part that does?
You already know the part.
I know that not a single part of it does.
You've already said that your racist and sexist bible describes homosexuality as a "depravity" though
you clearly don't know what it means in the context of torah.
??? Say what?
Which part confuses you?
You.
Too bad. You look so foolish exposing your total lack of intelligence
like that.
How about a new right like the right of a black person to not be a
slave.
The constitution already says that we are created equal.
Where? (And, if it did, that means that men and women were created
equal, so a man marrying a woman and a man marrying a man are the same
thing. Now carefully remove your foot from your own trap.)
queers are not natural.
So? Where in the Constitution does it say that we are created equal?
(Hint: nowhere.)
We need to follow the current laws, not write new ones.
So which is the current law? That men and women were created equal,
or that blacks and whites weren't?
We are all equal with no special rights.
Then, since men and women are equal (the same), men can marry men and
women can marry women, the same as men can marry women and women can
marry men. Things equal to themselves are equal to each other.
Civil citizenship does start at birth. Moral citizenship starts at conception.
The law is civil law - it's not concerned with the "morality" of this
religion or that.
But the peoples are, and we say no to queer marriage.
But, since this isn't a theocracy, no sane people care what you think.
Most of us were not born yesterday.
Then you need to stop acting like it, particularly with respect to your
infantile god belief.
Get used to it, bubba - it's not going away.
Oh, we know that you won't stop being infantile. But some of us are
optimists.
No, you are stupid.
To a moron everyone appears to be stupid, except for other morons.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: What if homosexuality was claimed as part of a religion |
09 Nov 2004 01:04:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 05:17:11 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:16:00 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
It's not a special right. It is a right given to us by the constitution.
Care to quote that part of the Constitution that gives heterosexuals
the right to marriage and denies it to homosexuals?
Figure it out for yourself.
And it is in accordance with the word of God
The Constitution is specifically neutral wrt gods - yours or any
other. It doesn't care what your god says.
The Constitution bans a state religion. It's doesn't ban God or his name.
Which one? From which religion?
- that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Not in the Constitution. Marriage - the kind the government addresses
- is a civil contract between 2 competent natural persons. Period.
Now this should be the interesting part. Let's see you show that. But first note that
there is nothing natural about queers or lesbians in the Constitution..
Why do
they have special financial benefits and tax exemptions.
Marriage, and that is not something queer oriented.
Try answering the question.
Not natural.
| | | | | | |
