On 03-10-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:

>> So leave the `celibacy' stuff out of it.

>> You introduced the idea when you turned your objection to how they may or
>> may not have sex into an objection to their marriage.


> You are wrong (again).


EC>Your objection to same-sex marriage is based on your objection to certain
EC>sexual practices. You even refer to those who are emotionally attracted to
EC>people of the same sex as "sodomites" even though a given person may have
EC>NEVER had sex of ANY kind. I am sorry you cannot see this.


You brought this up as a (very poor) strawman to cover your confusion over
what's actually going on in this case.


This is a case of two same-sex sodomites getting `married' in Massechusetts
(where sodomite marriage is legal), wanting to `celebrate' that in Colorado,
and wanting to make a Christian baker participate by baking them a cake that
does so.


Thereby, making the Christian baker a participant-after-the-fact (which
alREADY took place in Massechusetts) of a celebration of a same-sex sodomite
`civil union' in Colorado.


So far in this case, I don't see anyone claiming this whole thing is `for
immigration purposes' or any claim that they (either one or both) were merely
`emotionally attracted to each other only and no sex was involved', or merely
so `one could take care of the other', or `spousal benefits'...or any of the
other strawmen you've tossed up to try to win your case.


The bottom line is:


Two same-sex sodomites want to force a Christian baker to help them celebrate
their sodomite relationship.


The Christian baker refused on religious grounds. The sodomites, with the aid
of the *ACLU*, drag this baker into court, and the case is hanging there right
now.


By the way...sex between two people of the same sex is `sodomy'. It has been
defined as such since the days of Abraham and Lot, when the two cities Sodom
and Gommorah were destroyed over the practice of homosexuality (among other
things).


Neither you, nor homosexuals privy to this conversation between the two of us,
may like that designation, but thats what it is. Sodomy. It ain't a pretty
title, it doesn't express any `gaity' or `love' of any kind. Thats just what
it is. *I* didn't invent the title, nor did *I* invent the practice of sodomy.
It was way...way before my time. You cannot call homosexuals the four-letter
*H* word, or the *F* word which also means a part of a bundle of sticks; they
are considered `hate speech'.


But what they are hasn't changed in many thousands of years (about three, I
think); sodomites. And what they do is still called `sodomy'. And that is what
*I* will call it.


Oh and another thing; As far as I know, no claims by these two sodomites has
come out in this case about any of the following:


They got `married' but aren't having sex.

They got married for `immigration' purposes.

They got married for `spousal benefits'.

They got married so `one could take care of the other'.


All strawmen, until one, or both of them, comes out and publically declares
any one or more of those side issues.


>> Two people can get married for immigration purposes, or for spousal
>> benefits, or for emotional but nonsexual reasons.


> None of which applies in THIS case.


EC>You have no way of knowing that.


>> I know two people (a widow and a widower who had been lifelong friends
>> of each other) who got married in their 70s, because he was terminally
>> ill and she wanted to move in and care for him. I have no idea whether
>> they had sex or not, and I have no interest in knowing.


Another strawman. Neither of these two are in their `70s', nor is either of
them `terminally ill'.


EC>Again, you know nothing of their personal lives. There are also rare
EC>instances where couples may get married (same-sex or not) and yet abstain
EC>because one spouse is HIV positive.


To date, neither one has made any such claim.


So, so far all you have is a whole bunch of strawmen, which you've punched the
crap out of for several message packets, and are no closer to the facts than
you were when this conversation started.


The facts are simple:


Two same-sex sodomites want a cake to celebrate what, to a devout Christian,
is sodomy. `Sodomy' is a grave evil to a practicing, devout Christian, and
they would, on religious grounds, refuse to participate in any way.


Where a devout, practicing Christian might look the other way in a case of
`immigration purposes', or `spousal benefits' (both of which, by the way,
constitute fraud), it would be impossible for a devout, practicing Christian
to ignore the evil of sodomy on ANY level.


And, again, the question is simple:


Either Freedom of Religion is real, or it isn't.


How would a *Hindu* prison inmate doing 25 years for attempting to murder a
former girl friend, have THEIR religious freedom protected, but a *Christian*
businessman be denied theirs?






---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)