[PLUG-TALK] MRC - Re: (no subject)

Sat Feb 7 01:32:34 UTC 2009

On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 16:46 -0800, MJang wrote:
> Folks, 
> 
> I find it amazing how fixated Mr. Robinson is with pornography. A good
> part of his response to the previous message seems filled with elements
> which suggest to me that he has problems with self-control in this area.
> 
> More responses inline
> 
> On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 00:26 -0800, Michael Robinson wrote: 
> > Claiming to be a church offering a religious ceremony for homosexual
> > couples does not make them married.  
> 
> Only the laws of a nation or state make them so. And homosexual couples
> can legally marry in MA, CT, Canada, the Netherlands, etc.

In what sense?  What does a civil construct have to do with God?

> It is good that there are churches who do offer the service, to honor
> those members of the GLBT community who are religious. As I stated last
> month, the most common profession among the members of the Portland Gay
> Mens Chorus is 

No it is not good.  It creates the impression that God will recognize
same sex couples as married ones which he does not.

> Minister

I guess celibacy doesn't matter if you are gay.

> > Only a man and a woman can marry
> > each other.  
> 
> Wrong, per the jurisdictions listed.

Wrong since jurisdictions are irrelevant to God's reality.

> > As far as the good riddance to that gay couple comment, I
> > stand by my comment.  I don't appreciate it when same sex couples
> > claim that they are married because they by definition are not.
> 
> The laws of several states and nations show otherwise.

The laws of God and nature say that they aren't married.

> > It's been a long time since I've talked about porno.  
> 
> December of 2008, on this list. 
> 
> <Substantial numbers of Mr. Robinson's comments about pornography
> snipped. Suffice to say that to me, he seems obsessed. >

I could say that about you.  I suppose you think pornography is a
good thing for society.  A month back is a fairly long time in 
Internet time.

> > > Inconsistent position #5 -
> > > 
> > > Well, this one is now fully developed. He has stated that marriage between people
> > > who have no intent of having a child is not valid. 
> > 
> > That's right.
> 
> It is valid in every state in the USA.

It is invalid in every state in the USA and beyond because marriage
comes from God.

> However, it also suggests what Mr. Robinson and his ilk plan to go after
> next, if their attempts to ban gay marriage are upheld permanently.
> 
> Their next effort would be a constitutional amendment to annul marriages
> if the couple does not have children after a certain period of time. 

The presence or absence of children is not important, the attitude
toward children is.

> Yes, that sounds crazy, but as far as I can see, no crazier than Mr.
> Robinson's other schemes.

It sounds crazy the way you put it.  I have never stated that whether
or not people have children should be the test for whether or not they
are married.  I have stated that intent towards having children is
crucial in determining marital status.

> > > So Mr. Robinson hates couples in such relationships. Two others here
> > > have come out stating that they cannot or have no intent to have
> > > children. My marriage is such as well, as we never intend to have
> > > children. I suppose that he also believes that I am not widowed, as my
> > > previous 7-year relationship ended when my dearly departed Nancy died in
> > > '02. 
> > 
> > Intent to have children and capacity to have children are two entirely
> > different things.  Marriage is a vocation that involves being open to
> > when God wants to create a child. 
> 
> Wrong. It was not in my marriage vows, or in the legal marriage
> contract. If you choose to have that in your marriage vows, good for
> you.

Openness to children is part of marriage.  If you aren't open to having
as many children as you can support, you can't marry.  If you show up
at the pearly gates and can't go through because you selfishly did not
have all the children God wanted you to have, don't blame me.

> > For heterosexual couples that can't
> > produce children of their own, adoption is the only moral option for
> > them to have children.  
> 
> Perhaps in your view of morality. But as this is a diverse county, there
> are diverse views on what is moral, and what is not.

Which is irrelevant to what is moral and what is not.  True 
morality is not a democratic phenomenon set by how people feel.

> You do not seem to respect that.

You don't respect the truth about marriage or anything else it seems.

> > However, adoption is not required if a couple
> > truly cannot support a child.  Most couples who decide to not have
> > children could adopt at least one.
> 
> The cost of adaption can run into the 10s of thousands of dollars.
> http://costs.adoption.com/articles/the-costs-of-adopting-a-factsheet-for-families.html ,

Which many couples who have "chosen" to not have children could afford.

> But in any case, requiring married couples to procreate or adapt is
> contrary to a free society.

They chose to marry, society has a right to expect them to care for the
children.  This is especially true of the children they produce.
Radical individualism is not pretty.  Perhaps family should be abolished
because children take one's focus off of one's partner.

> > > Inconsistent position #6 -
> > > 
> > > Mr. Robinson has said that President-elect Obama has blood on his hands
> > > because he has declared that he wants Bin Laden killed. His declaration
> > > is at best premature (it's not possible to have blood on ones hands
> > > before applying a weapon to someone). 
> > 
> > I'm referring to Obama's pro abortion stance and promise to sign FOCA.
> 
> As declared by the Supreme Court of the United States, a fetus is not a
> person. 

A fetus is a person regardless of what you or the supreme court says.
This is a reality from God.

> > And no, I do not approve of Obama declaring that he will kill Bin Laden
> > adding political fuel to the political fire among Al Queada.
> 
> That is one place where we agree. 
> > 
> > > However, I sympathize with the sentiment behind it, and believe that a
> > > public trial would do more to expose and defeat terrorism. I therefore
> > > am also disappointed that Obama would take such a conservative political
> > > position.
> > 
> > Murdering Bin Laden is conservative?  Give me a break.
> 
> I believe capital punishment is a conservative doctrine. If you're
> saying otherwise, then perhaps you aren't even a conservative.

I don't believe in capital punishment because the wrong person can be
executed and people should have every chance in the world to atone for
their sins.  I still consider myself conservative.  I'm not asking the
government to write off on behaviors and activities that God will frown
upon.

> Thus, we have inconsistent position 6a.
> 
> > 
> > > If Mr. Robinson would equally castigate President Bush for also wanting
> > > to kill Bin Laden - and for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis,
> > > then I would be wrong in this particular case. Given his other political
> > > opinions, I doubt he will do so. 
> > 
> > The war in Iraq was justified
> 
> Even ex-President Bush has admitted that Iraq was not behind 9/11.
> Commission after commission has admitted that Iraq had no WMD at the
> time of the latest Iraqi war.
> 
> > and despite the average Iraqi's apparent
> > lack of gratitude, 
> 
> If hundreds of thousands of your countrymen were killed, would you feel
> gratitude?
> 
> > Iraq is a better place today than it was in 2003.
> 
> Based on what?

Based on the drop in violence.

> > There is no way to fight a war without causing civilian casualties.
> > None whatsoever.  In war there will always be civilian casualties.
> 
> Yes, but at least tell the truth about the numbers who have been killed.
> Honesty goes a long way. 
> > 
> > > OTOH, he has been inconsistent before, so who knows? Perhaps he will
> > > choose to be inconsistent in his politics to be consistent with his
> > > belief that Bin Laden should not be killed.
> > 
> > Bin Laden should receive life imprisonment without parole.  If that
> > isn't feasible, he should be executed after a public trial.
> 
> If he is found guilty, then I agree with you. 

Which is why he should be tried by a military tribunal.

> > > Mr. Robinson has stated per 
> > > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/2009-January/004931.html 
> > > 
> > > "It is important to point out that you are NOT Catholic if you
> > >         openly dissent with the Vatican, regardless of whether or not
> > >         you are religious.  You might be Christian, you are just 
> > >         Protestant.  Catholicism isn't something that it's believers
> > >         are open to define on their own."
> > > 
> > > Yet, he tries to celebrate dissension in the Catholic Church. Per Mr.
> > > Robinson's rationale, dissenters are not Catholic.
> > 
> > I never have celebrated dissension in the Catholic church.  There is no
> > inconsistency here.  The Catholic church is not a democracy.  That isn't
> > me making things up, it's the truth.
> 
> Ahhhh, so we have it. Mr. Robinson is against dissension (except when it
> suits him). Furthermore, he is castigating the rest of us because we are
> dissenting against his attempts to push his theocratic views down our
> throats.

First off, what are you even talking about?  Dissension in the Catholic church
is a very different issue from say political differences with Obama.
God does not rule any country in the world.  Repeat, God does not rule
any country in the world.  Furthermore, render to Caesar that which is
Caesar's and to God that which is God's.  Human life is God's.  Marriage
is God's domain.  And the two become one flesh is not naturally possible
for two men or two women.  The one who is getting crap shoved down his
throat is me.  I'm the one who is being attacked by distortions and
worse.

> In a different message, he's even shown support for those who would
> assassinate the President of the United States, ref 
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/2009-February/005157.html 

No I haven't.  Saying I wouldn't cry if Obama were to die is nowhere
near the same thing as saying I'll pay you to kill him or I encourage
you to kill him.

I hope Obama governs for no more than his 4 year term and I hope he
pursues something that I can actually agree with, but it doesn't look
good.  Thank God he can't be president for more than 8 years.