[PLUG-TALK] The trouble with different browsers...

[Mark Turner]

<feeding the troll>

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Michael Robinson
<plug_1 at robinson-west.com> wrote:
>
>
> The Supreme Court doesn't interpret the constitution to mean that
> the state can disregard all religions when it comes to religious
> matters.  Marriage is a religious matter.
>
That's EXACTLY what the supreme court has done, the various cases
through the years have established a very visible wall between the
church and state, including requiring the state basically stay out of
anything religious.

In 1940 it was decided that juries are prevented from considering
whether a person's religious beliefs were true.

In 1952 it was decided that a state cannot make decisions affecting
the internal operations of a church within its territory.

In 1969 The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for courts to make
decisions regarding which beliefs were essential to a religious group.

In 1979 The Court asserted the interest in the state's settling of
disputes regarding religious property, it stated that one of its
criteria cannot be religious doctrine.

In 1982 The Courts decision prevents states from passing laws that
might favor certain types of religions (in this case, those who
receive a majority of their contributions from members). The state
would have to exempt all religions from registering with the
Department of Commerce in order to not violate the Lemon test.

In 1983 The supreme court basically said that the government's
interests can outweigh individual religious beliefs. Religious belief
can not be used as an excuse for engaging in behavior that violates
socially important beliefs.

In 1990 The Court upheld an Oregon ruling that stated that religious
practices are not above the law.

In 1994 The Court prevented governments from using the religious
affiliation of a group of people as a central consideration in
reaching decisions. Doing so violates the neutrality requirement to
which the government must abide.

I could go on and on for you, but it is clear that based on the
highest court in our country that was established by the constitution.
States (a.k.a. the government) cannot establish laws favoring one
religious belief/sect over another. They must treat EACH religion the
same, including those that do not share the same beliefs as you
Michael.

>
> And the two become one flesh.  Man and woman are two halves of the
> same creation.  Only 1 man and 1 woman constitute the halves of
> the human person.  Not a man and a man.  Not a woman and a woman.
> Sorry, you are just flat wrong and the people of Oregon have
> spoken on this point.
>
> As far as the same experience argument, you are wrong.  Homosexual
> couples have a higher incidence of break up than heterosexual ones.

Complete hearsay and conjecture, no fact to back this up. I also think
that teenagers have a higher incidence of breakups then the elderly,
clearly we need to stop teenagers from dating.

> Moreover, men and women are different.  A unisex couple is
> not representative of the full range of human emotion.  Sure there

Once again, this is your opinion and is not backed nor are you going
to be able to back it with any facts.

> are effeminate men and masculine women, but that isn't the same
> as a woman being a man or a man being a woman.  If God had intended
> for men to marry men and women to marry women, it would be possible
> for two people of the same sex to have a child together.  Homosexual
> unions are not fair to children.  Every child deserves to be the
> product of a loving union between 1 man and 1 woman.

Still just your opinion.

>
> If you love someone you want the best for them which involves
> paying attention to God's plan for you and that person.  God did
> not create homosexual marriage, Jesus would not have failed to
> recognize a same sex marriage if they were valid in his 33 year
> life on this Earth.  If you want to argue with me that Jesus
> stuck to the prevailing values of his time, need I remind you
> that he died for presenting something new?  Christ did not come
> to bring peace to the world, he came to set it on fire so that
> out of the ashes the human person will bring greater glory to
> God.
>
> Homosexual unions generally don't work.  The human person is not
> made to bond sexually for life to another human person of the
> same gender.  Consider what you are defending, a hypothetical
> that vary rarely materializes.  My homosexual neighbors just
> broke up, so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

Oh damn, I guess your neighbors are representative of the entire
world. If I use your same login when I look at my neighbors the world
must be 40% Jehovah Witnesses, 20% CPA's, 10% College Students and 30%
Skateboarders.  I'm not gay but I do have gay family members and they
are just as normal as anyone else. They have arguments, they have
different tastes in movies and music one loves astronomy and the other
likes Polaris ATV's, they've had breakups and intense long term
relationships. They pay taxes, they probably take care of you when
you're ill, the participate in local government and most of all they
take care of children just as well or if not better than most people I
know.

Please don't base your "beliefs" on your neighbors, who you probably
are very nice to in person but in your house/apartment you are
disgusted by them. Lucky for you they probably have no idea there is a
mailing list out in the tubes where you share your hateful thoughts.

>
> So if I don't believe a marriage exists between two or more particular
> individuals, I'm guilty of hating them?  Sorry, that doesn't hold water.
> My so called selfish thoughts and fears are rooted in deeply held
> beliefs that are solidly based.  I know what marriage is and yes it
> is a religious institution and all the equal rights yelling in the
> world isn't going to change it from being a union blessed by God
> between a single man and a single woman.
>

What you say causes me to accuse you of hate. Your beliefs are solidly
based? How solid can your beliefs be if you pick and choose what you
believe out of some version of a bible? I'll go out on a rope and
assume you use the king james version of the bible. Lets take a quick
peek at some of the "rules" that it has (I'll just stick to one book:
Leviticus):

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman
must die. (Leviticus 20:10)
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt
to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut
off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar
of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Do you believe these things? Do you choose not to follow them?

Please quit preaching from a soap box about marriage when I'm positive
you are not even remotely qualified to pass judgement on anyone for
any of their beliefs or lack of beliefs.

>
> How many major religions are there that recognize marriage as being
> between people other than a single man and a single woman?  Government

The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches,
Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, ALEPH: Alliance
for Jewish Renewal, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and
Unitarian Universalist Association bless same-gender relationships as
a matter of policy.

The United Church of Christ, and various Quaker groups leave the
decision to clergy, congregations or local governing bodies.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows the blessings of same-gender
unions with terminology restrictions.

> doesn't have to become a religion and define marriage.
> According to the Constitution, government isn't supposed to promote
> an establishment of religion.  Saying that marriage can be between
> any two people or more than two is a religious statement that goes
> against my faith, something government is not supposed to do.

The government has no right to pass judgement on what you believe, but
they do NOT have to make laws that follow your beliefs, let alone
protect your beliefs. For you to assume the governments job is to
protect and uphold your religious beliefs shows me you have a very
unclear idea of what the law of our land is. The only thing the
government does in regard to your religious beliefs is protect your
right to practice and believe in religion of your choice.

Their job is to establish rules and laws that are for the common good,
defining marriage base on a religious belief is against the law and
should be left to the people that believe that faith. The law does
recognize a union between two people as a partnership in property, and
that partnership should include any human couple regardless of sex,
race or religion... especially when there are benefits to being
married (taxes or otherwise).

> If all religions are equal and deserve equal respect from government,
> government cannot recognize same sex couples as being married.

This statement makes no sense.

I'm stepping out of this argument, it will just end up as a
reciprocating wheel with you arguing the same unsubstantiated points
based on someone's interpretation of the christian bible. Best of luck
in the future Michael your going to need it.

</feeding the troll>

-Mark