On 03-12-14, EARL CROASMUN said to TIM RICHARDSON:


>> Your objection to same-sex marriage is based on your objection to certain
>> sexual practices. You even refer to those who are emotionally attracted to
>> people of the same sex as "sodomites" even though a given person may have
>> 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.


EC>You insist on using your objections to a sex act as an objection to
EC>marriage. THAT is a classic example of a "strawman" argument.


You are trying to make *ME* the subject of this discussion, in order to cover
your objection to the baker having his right to refuse to participate in a
same-sex sodomite `marriage' because `sodomy' violates the baker's strongly-
held religious principles.


It has nothing whatever to do with *what* I do or do not object to.


EC>I pointed out that the two were very different things, which is not even
EC>close to being a "strawman" argument.


This is a same-sex sodomite `marriage'.  The "strawman" argument you recently
presented was all over the board.

> 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.


EC>It has nothing to do with sodomy, and it has nothing to do with
EC>"participating."


And a male and female couple getting `married' has nothing to do with sex
relations, and the preacher `marrying' them is not a participant in that
union, either.


The preacher, the reception caterer, the flower shop, the tuxedo and wedding
dress renters, the baker who bakes the wedding cake....


ALL are participants in what is KNOWN to be occuring: a formal cerimony to
celibrate a joining of two people who the whole world KNOWS are in all
likelyhood going to engage in sexual relations!


Its even sometimes refered to as a sort of `industry'!

> 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.


EC>I made no claims as to why they got married.


Nor did I. It is implicit in the very act of `marriage'. Its older than the
modern age we live in.


EC>I pointed out
EC>that you WERE making assumptions, and that your assumptions are only
EC>assumptions that have no basis in fact.  I was not tossing up strawmen, I
EC>was knocking them down.  The term has an actual meaning.



> 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).


EC>Historically incorrect.  The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Lawrence
EC>v Texas goes into the history of sodomy laws.


EC>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas/Opinion_of_the_Court


Historically correct. To a devout, practicing Christian, the Bible supercedes
any court of the United States.


EC>The term covers different-sex as well as same-sex, as well as a wide
EC>variety of specific sex acts.  The application you are making has only
EC>been common in the last few decades.  More generally, through history, the
EC>term has been used for ANY sex act that is not for the purpose of
EC>procreation.  If you really want to use the term "sodomite" to apply to
EC>anyone who has given or received oral sex with anyone of either sex,
EC>anyone who has engaged in sex where either participant had a vasectomy or
EC>tubal ligation, or where a condom or any other contraceptive was involved,
EC>well, that would be more historically accurate, but it would not support
EC>your argument very well.


You are all over the board, here. We both know perfectly well what we are
discussing, without all that stuff you've thrown in to cover your weak
argument.


The bottom line is, was, and will remain:


Two same-sex sodomites went to a Christian baker to order a cake to celibrate
a same-sex sodomite `marriage'.


Such a `marriage' is strictly against the deeply-held religious principles of
the baker, and they refused, on religious grounds, to be a participant in any
way to sodomy.


There is either the right to practice one's religion in this nation, or their
isn't.


If these two same-sex sodomites succeed in prevailing over this Christian
baker, then the First Amendment of the Constitution is no longer valid.


Incidently, if this part of the First Amendment gets shredded, the entire
Amendment becomes meaningless, and `Freedom of the Press' is no longer valid,
either. Very scary.


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