[Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage: Reply to D. Wilson 2
Douglas Stambler
ccm_moscow@yahoo.com
Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
--0-1357551713-1060097978=:1534
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I don't know about anyone else, but reading Doug Wilson's thoughts on sex sort of gives me the creeps, sort of like your uncle who molested all your cousins coming UNINVITED to Thanksgiving Dinner.
Yuck, Doug Wilson, yuk...
SEX OFFENDER ON LINE HERE AT THE FORUM - DOUG WILSON
I mean, honestly, look at the way he writes about this issue: "On what basis do you intervene in the PRIVATE SEXUAL LIVES of this cute little seventeen-some?"
THOSE ARE DOUG WILSON'S WORDS! Is that the way for a pastor to talk about sex, or seventeen year olds? NO. UNSAVORY, to say the least. Something's wrong here...Doug Wilson is a SEXUAL PREDATOR. And this whole community just might be in denial about it, not just his own family.
In Christ,
Douglas Stambler
*********************************************************************************
Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com> wrote:
Visionaries,
Donovan asks, "how can one person swear to be monogamist to more than one
person? Is this not an important part of marriage?" This is the point. We
*used* to think so. But then, we *used* to think that marriage involved a
man and a woman. Why do we retain what we retain and why do we jettison
what we jettison? By what standard?
And multiple partners is not necessarily the same thing as polygamy. You
could also have polyandry, or multiple homosexual partners. And if the
whole business is consensual, on what basis do you deny them a licence down
at the county courthouse? On what basis do you intervene in the PRIVATE
SEXUAL LIVES of this cute little seventeen-some?
Donovan raises a host of practical questions, which obviously need to be
anticipated in those handy-dandy-all-purpose private secular contracts
we've been talking about so much lately. That's all marriage is, right? A
matter of practical law? Such conundra would provide a good deal of work
for attorneys and so on, but I am sure we can get the bugs worked out.
After all, our primary concern should be to get the government OUT OF THE
BEDROOM. I am astonished that Ralph and Donovan are still interested, after
all these years of enlightenment, in trying to impose their own arbitrary
code of ethics on the private sexual practices of consenting adults who
don't agree with them. This is astonishing. I am, as they say, boggled. But
I will try hard to compose myself.
Cordially,
Douglas Wilson
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
--0-1357551713-1060097978=:1534
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>I don't know about anyone else, but reading Doug Wilson's thoughts on sex sort of gives me the creeps, sort of like your uncle who molested all your cousins coming UNINVITED to Thanksgiving Dinner.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yuck, Doug Wilson, yuk...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>SEX OFFENDER ON LINE HERE AT THE FORUM - DOUG WILSON</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I mean, honestly, look at the way he writes about this issue: "On what basis do you intervene in the PRIVATE SEXUAL LIVES of this cute little seventeen-some?"</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>THOSE ARE DOUG WILSON'S WORDS! Is that the way for a pastor to talk about sex, or seventeen year olds? NO. UNSAVORY, to say the least. Something's wrong here...Doug Wilson is a SEXUAL PREDATOR. And this whole community just might be in denial about it, not just his own family.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In Christ,</DIV>
<DIV>Douglas Stambler<BR>*********************************************************************************<BR><BR><B><I>Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; WIDTH: 100%">Visionaries,<BR><BR>Donovan asks, "how can one person swear to be monogamist to more than one <BR>person? Is this not an important part of marriage?" This is the point. We <BR>*used* to think so. But then, we *used* to think that marriage involved a <BR>man and a woman. Why do we retain what we retain and why do we jettison <BR>what we jettison? By what standard?<BR><BR>And multiple partners is not necessarily the same thing as polygamy. You <BR>could also have polyandry, or multiple homosexual partners. And if the <BR>whole business is consensual, on what basis do you deny them a licence down <BR>at the county courthouse? On what basis do you intervene in the PRIVATE <BR>SEXUAL LIVES of this cute little seventeen-some?<BR><BR>Donovan raises a host of practical questions, which obviously need to be <BR>anticipated in those handy-dandy-all-purpose private secular contracts <BR!
>we've
been talking about so much lately. That's all marriage is, right? A <BR>matter of practical law? Such conundra would provide a good deal of work <BR>for attorneys and so on, but I am sure we can get the bugs worked out. <BR>After all, our primary concern should be to get the government OUT OF THE <BR>BEDROOM. I am astonished that Ralph and Donovan are still interested, after <BR>all these years of enlightenment, in trying to impose their own arbitrary <BR>code of ethics on the private sexual practices of consenting adults who <BR>don't agree with them. This is astonishing. I am, as they say, boggled. But <BR>I will try hard to compose myself.<BR><BR>Cordially,<BR><BR>Douglas Wilson<BR><BR>_____________________________________________________<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ</BLOCKQUOTE>!
<p><hr
SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/">SBC Yahoo! DSL</a> - Now only $29.95 per month!
--0-1357551713-1060097978=:1534--