mlah The “culture” that has evolved here isn’t conducive to sissies

February 14, 2005


Filed under: Religion — mlah @ 5:58 pm

gus is a dumbass.

he continues to represent opinions as facts, and then try to authoritatively conclude his skewed logic is correct.

recently, i posted a little ditty about my stance on gay marriage. this post isn’t about gay marriage. gay marriage is simply the vehicle that i’m going to use to highlight the noviciate debating techniques used by (our still cowardly and anonymous) f-in cheney.

in a nutshell, i claimed that marriage is a religious institution best left to religion. civil unions could would observe separation of church and state, and potential marriages which might contravene religious law could still be observed by the state.

ie, gay unions should be addressed by the state outside of religious institutions. and potential religiously sanctified marriages might be outside of civil norms, and could be ignored by the state. like wife number 2,3, and 4. they could be disallowed.

gus said in his most recent quote, that all he had to do was provide one fact showing marriage did not originate in religion, and my whole theory fell to naught.

but he ‘disproved’ my theory by citing martin luther. i normally have no problems with martin luther. but gus, the self proclaimed aetheist seeks to discredit religion in general, by representing religion as fact.

you can’t have it both ways gus, either religion is wrong, or it is right. come on down off of the fence. let’s see which side you land on.

to quote bugs bunny, “what a maroon, what a nincompoop”

here ya go guess. check out this “proof” that religion did originate the institution of marriage.

and y’all, i know the site is a religious faith based site. not necesarily fact.

i just wanted to cite some ‘facts’ to gus, so that when he sees all the holes, hopefully he can realize the CONTINUOUS moronic trash he spews and tries to represent as fact.


oh, and the site ‘proves’ that marriage is hetero as well……..


  1. “the self proclaimed aetheist seeks to discredit religion in general, by representing religion as fact.”
    Excuse me? You’re not making any sense now. You’ve gone off the deep end.
    There are historical facts– that MLuther did write something, that the Catholic Church did something for some reason. Their inherent rightness or wrongness doesn’t come into play, just that they happened. Nor are they my opinions, they are historical facts, why is that so difficult to understand? They happened!
    I am not trying to discredit religion. And anyway, how would “representing religion as fact” work to discredit it? Are you trying to discredit it?
    “all he had to do was provide one fact showing marriage did not originate in religion”
    I could have said “originate”, but I didn’t. (Again, your grasp of the facts exceeds your reach.) I said that showing marriage hadn’t “always and only” been part of religion would suffice to blow away your claims.
    “to quote bugs bunny, what a maroon, what a nincompoop'”
    I’m so very glad to see you delving into the classics. Your primary sources are impeccble. And you’re a dildo.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — February 15, 2005 @ 2:11 am

  2. “Their inherent rightness or wrongness doesn’t come into play”

    yes, it does. you can’t claim religion is wrong, and cite religion as truth.

    martin luther writing something to kick off the reformation is not conclusive evidence on the origins of marriage.

    my bugs bunny allusion was an attempt to dumb down the debate so that you might actually begin to understand.

    Comment by mlah — February 15, 2005 @ 11:30 am

  3. This is boring all your other readers, I’m sure.

    “you can’t claim religion is wrong, and cite religion as truth.”
    I am doing neither of these things. I’m not claiming religion is wrong. I’m not citing religion as truth. Some 16th century religious figures who disagreed with each other at least agreed that there had been a lot of heathens hooking up– that much is historical fact. Maybe they were full of shit, but that they said these things is not in question. And whether or not I agree or disagree with their dogma, again, that they uttered what they did is not in question.

    “the origins of marriage.”
    I haven’t even touched the origins of marriage. None of us have any testimony about the origins of marriage. Neither you nor I were there at the first marriage, and I don’t know of any anthropological evidence that says it was necessarily religious in nature. If you do, then please produce it for our consideration. Would a caveman dragging some bitch into his cave by her hair be religious? Some animals including primates mate for life– is there then necessarily religion among monkeys? What we today call “rape” was probably the rule for most of our pre-history, if I had to guess.

    Comment by f-in_cheney — February 16, 2005 @ 2:52 am

  4. So any practices which originate in religion cannot become secular without invalidating their original religous counterpart?

    It’s interesting, but I never thought of religion as something so fragile in this manner, where the secular adoption of a ritual or belief was able to be so damaging.

    Comment by Sara — February 22, 2005 @ 11:02 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress