Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

“Homosexuality deviates from the normality established by no less an authority than Nature itself. This is not even a debatable point.”

It's an irrelevant point, subjective and unsubstantiated, having no bearing whatsoever on the merit of laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, laws which are in fact Constitutionally without merit.

Irrelevant? Hardly...

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality claims that Homosexuality is perfectly normal behavior, which it does based upon the wholly subjective 'edicts' of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

Not only does the behavior deviate from the human biological standard, it is impossible to deviate farther from the standard.

Therefore, the advocacy itself is FRAUDULENT, the individuals bringing the advocacy are either INTENTIONALLY ATTEMPTING the public, or they are suffering sociopathic DELUSION, which prevents them from recognizing the truth and in EITHER CASE, such represents a THREAT TO THE CULTURE ON THE WHOLE and needs to be shut down.

Subjective?

That is so profoundly absurd as to be recognized as HYSTERICAL! The conclusion that the innate design of human biology sets the standard for human sexuality, could not BE >MORE< Objective.

Are you sure that you understand the meaning of the term?

Allow me to help:

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions:his views are highly subjective |there is always the danger of making a subjective judgment.

This is contrasted with:

Objective: dependent upon reason, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Unsubstantiated?

It's about the most obvious set of facts possible... there is no potential issue which could BE MORE SUBSTANTIATED... The Human Biology is designed around complimenting genders is obvious to all but those who means to reason objectively is so absurdly limited as to render them unfit for freedom.

It's not even a debatable point.

BUT! This refusal to accept reason is in perfect keeping with everything else on the ideological left.

The demand that Men should marry Men and Women, women... is on the same level of psychosis as "We need to pass the bill to know what's in the bill' and "What DIFFERENCE DOES [THE TRUTH] MAKE?"

Irrational positions advanced by two prominent members of the same political apparatus that would have us believe, despite the otherwise irrefutable evidence available to EVERY HUMAN BEING ON EARTH, that such is not the case, that men are perfectly suited for sexual behavior with other men and women with other women... there surely MUST BE a common thread.

And what that thread IS, ... is nothing less than EVIL. A pall of deceit, fraud and ignorance which historically serves as a means to drive cultures toward a cleansing catastrophe.

You seem to enjoy the idea that you've some sense of scientific understandings. You should read: The Population Bomb. IT explains the process of societal regression, toward the natural realignment with viability. Once celebrated by the Left, it inexplicably became to be shunned. And it was shunned because it became obvious that prior to the consistently observed outcome, two things occurred: a spike in a collective sense of entitlement and in homosexuality. If Rats were capable of demanding a right to murder their pre-born offspring, they would be stunningly accurate examples of the triumvirate tenets of the Democat Party.

Now once again I plead to my opposition:

IF you people have any means to comprehend reason, if you've any potential sense for survival... you need to understand that you and your 'most special friends', have NEVER SURVIVED THESE things... and no society driven to this looming precipice has ever exited such 'accepting and tolerating' the sexually abnormal.

I tell you this because you're being manipulated... and at this point, only you have any control over if you continue down this irrational path or not. Continue and destroy yourselves... turn from it and find an alternative, sustainable path and survive, free to be who you will... .

 

[Silhouette]

...IF you people have any means to comprehend reason, if you've any potential sense for survival... you need to understand that you and your 'most special friends', have NEVER SURVIVED THESE things... and no society driven to this looming precipice has ever exited such 'accepting and tolerating' the sexually abnormal.

I tell you this because you're being manipulated... and at this point, only you have any control over if you continue down this irrational path or not. Continue and destroy yourselves... turn from it and find an alternative, sustainable path and survive, free to be who you will... .

Yes, they are being manipulated by a very cunning and dark master. He has a very smooth tongue and this time around the block [also agreed, there have been many performances by him through the ages], he is wearing a rainbow armband, performing lewd acts around the kiddies.."all in good fun!" His chants this time around are "don't be a hater"...and "you're a bigot"....and "be careful...if you don't give me free reign, I'll SUE you in COURT!"...

That old coot.... He's flexible, I'll give him that.. I am always amazed at one of his best tricks: incremental hog-tying then AMBUSH! He is quite the stealthy hunter. How else could you explain where we are today..what people have become blind to in order to placate the god of political-correctness. Truth be damned. What an accomplishment! On a certain level you have to admire that magnitude of achievement on such a wide scale, no? When you can trick not just some people, but an entire society into not seeing what is directly in front of their eyes, you are a MASTER hypnotist.

Like I said to Skylar [back to the concrete plain where the work gets done]

"Because marriage isn't a free for all. It's an establishment primarily for the benefit of children. As such, we can predict from the lesbians in California drugging their 11 year old son to become a girl, and just the general underlying message to children of the gender opposite their gay "parents" that "your gender/you/ are disposable", gay pride parades and the LGBT veneration of Harvey Milk's sexuality, that gay marriage will harm children.
So far 0% of LGBTs have spoken out publicly against any of those atrocities towards children.

Plus, "LGBT" doesnt' cover the gamut of all the others who may use the legal precedent that are also objectionable to the majority with respect to how those "arrangements" would harm kids in marriage.

Now we see already LGBTs trying to force their lifestyle [once their toe is in the door with "legal marriage"] onto pastors and other people of faith who are under a dire mandate [see Jude 1 in the New Testament] to not promote this lifestyle in any way shape or form. Christianity doesn't advocate harsh treatment towards individual gays doing their thing in privacy. But it is very clear that once that lifestyle spills out of the bedroom and into the streets...and most certainly marriage...christians are to "earnestly contend for the faith" ...else risk an eternity in the Pit of Fire.

Blind people cannot enjoy federal protection to drive, because that might harm people. Gay [and??????} people cannot enjoy federal protection for marriage because that might harm people [children/society after a few generations]."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I can't believe this thread has gotten to 184 pages. The obvious answer to this question is NO. I do support gay marriage though. I don't see how this debate has come to forcing any church to do anything however.

Only if you miss the obvious point of the question - which is to recognize the absurdity of PA laws. The point isn't to force churches to marry people against their will. It's to recognize why it would be wrong. And it's not because of the First Amendment.

You're correct, it is NOT wrong "BECAUSE" of the 1st Amendment, it is wrong because the principles on which the 1st amendment rest, determine it to be WRONG.

There is NO POTENTIAL for a right which through the exercise of such, usurps the means of another to exercise their own rights.

THIS circumstance demonstrates entirely, the importance of the individual to understand what rights are, from where they come and the means by which they are sustained. And why the notions of the Ideological Left on the issue are thoroughly irrational: Where it is felt that 'dah peoples determine what rights they have', they subject themselves to idiocy so dark, that even where the evidence is so profoundly obvious that EVERY HUMAN BEING SEES IT EVERYDAY, INSTINCTIVELY UNDERSTANDS THE FACTS THROUGH THEIR DAILY WITNESS OF THE FACTS WHICH OTHERWISE REFUTE THE CLAIM, that even then... simply profession of a false right must be accepted as true.


That's called EVIL and that is a road from which there is no return, as it leads to abject darkness... and DEATH!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let me be clear: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to use the power of government to FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR: I demand that government stop and I demand that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, keep that to which they claim IS THEIR RIGHT, BASED UPON THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY: PRIVATE.

That's simply not the debate. Gay marriage can be perfectly legal in your state...

Again the issue boils down to legality... with the Advocates to Normalize Sexual Abnormality having NO DISCERNIBLE INTERESTS in the MORALITY...

Using the reasoning which has been offered, it should be noted that 'Pedophilia CAN BE perfectly LEGAL in your state... and you will still be free to hold animus against those who pursue children for 'caring, loving SEXUAL relationships and ... No one will care.....because your feelings aren't the basis of our laws.'

Of course, I am one and I care, so immediately 'no one cares' is readily exposed as being demonstrably FALSE. As is the case in the notion founded upon 'your feelings aren't the basis of our laws.'. We know this because we elect representatives so that they may carry our feelings to government and MAKE LAW WHICH REFLECTS THOSE FEELINGS. Further we know that the VAST MAJORITY of 'ones' in the VAST MAJORITY OF STATES expressed their feelings which adhered to the natural standards intrinsic to marriage which provide that MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

"Feelings" which were turned asunder by the SUBJECTIVE EDICT of an Advocate of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality who found their way onto the Federal Judiciary. Over-ruling the will or the 'feelings' of the vast majority of the people, living in the vast majority of the respective states.

What's more, our 'feelings' are based in the scientific certainty that no less an authority than nature itself provided for the design of the human being and it did so on the basis that the designed traits serve to promote nothing LESS THAN: THE VIABILITY OF THE SPECIES. In this, we can know that it is the will of nature, thus the will of God himself that human beings comport ourselves within the scope of the design set upon the vessel which carries our BEING. Thus our 'feelings' represent our reasoning, which rests within a sound logical construct, which recognizes the objective facts from science, in medical and philosophical terms and, which rejects the deceptive edicts of "SCIENCE!", which is to say the fraudulent politicization of science by the subjective whimsy of the would-be popular culture.

You can't have it both ways and that is precisely what they're asking for... .

There's no such dichotomy.

Yes, there is... allow me to demonstrate:

They can have the right to privacy AND the right to marry. Just like you do.

Really? Well, what I do is that where I claim a right to privacy, I sustain that right by keeping that which I rightfully claim as private: PRIVATE!

Because I recognize that where I claim something as private, but make such public, I forfeit my right to claim it as rightfully private.

Because my sexual behavior comports with the natural design of the human species, I've not had my sexual desires outlawed. BUT where such were to happen and where such laws prohibiting my sexual behavior were lifted on the basis that my sexual life is private, I would not go about defining myself BY MY DEVIANT SEXUALITY. Because, again... I understand that in so doing, I undermine the very legal basis for my means to LEGALLY achieve sexual gratification.

As I said, you want it both ways... you want to claim that your behavior is legal, then reject the basis by which the prohibitions against such were lifted.

The need not choose one or the other, as you need not do so.

Such has been proven to be demonstrably false.

They are Americans.

LOL! NO... "They" are US Citizens. Americans are those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define America... that we are all endowed with rights SO CERTAIN that they are inseparable from our beings. And that these rights are sustained through the correlation of those rights to specific responsibilities, by which we stake our rightful claim to exercise those rights... because in every right we claim for ourselves, we recognize such in EVERYONE ELSE... and we jealously guard our behavior to preclude such from a circumstance wherein the exercising of our rights do not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own rights.

See... we do not demand that others accept our behavior, because our behavior rests upon the recognition, respect, defense and adherence TO the laws of nature. Meaning that our behavior is just... if we screw it up, we do not demand that EVERYONE ELSE MUST SCREW IT UP TO, as a means to rationalize that our behavior is not wrong, because "Everyone DOES IT, or EVERYONE ACCEPTS IT".

They [Sexual Deviants] have the same rights, privileges, freedoms and immunities that you do.

You are absolutely correct. And just as I am required to comport myself within the standards of nature, they are required to do the same. Nature defines marriage by the standard of human biology, wherein one man and one woman join, analogous to sustainable coitus. As a means of procreation, wherein the union, which joins the respective and distinct beings join to form one sustainable body, before all... . As a means to sustain the female through gestation and to provide a stable environment to nurture and train their progeny, through the complimenting natures of the respective genders. This so as to produce viable productive individuals, who possess the blueprint, by which to repeat the process.

What the sexual deviant is NOT rightfully entitled to do is to claim that which deviates from the standard, thus sustainable norm, IS NORMAL... as a means to influence those who may be ignorant of such, to accept their perverse, ABNORMAL sexuality, as NORMAL, who will then use that fraudulence, to mislead others, all as a means to 'feel better' about themselves to BE LEGITIMATE, without having to bear the burden of BEHAVING LEGITIMATELY.

And if you're going to deny them those rights, you need a damn good reason. And you have none.

No rights are being denied to anyone.

You can't claim the right to MARRY and then demand that the standards that define marriage be altered to accommodate your personal, subjective needs. and one can't claim a right to be treated equally before the law: WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEMANDING SPECIAL PROTECTIONS BY THE LAW!

You've got it backwards. They don't need a justification to be married, as marriage is already a fundamental right for all Americans. [/quote]

Yep... but only where someone finds a person of distinct gender, who agrees to marry them. Because MARRIAGE IS DEFINED BY NO LESS AN AUTHORITY THAN NATURE: AS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

(This established through the demonstrated standard intrinsic to human biology. And the various inherent imperatives, thereof.)

You and your ilk need a valid justification to deny them their constitutional rights.

No one is denying anyone, any rights...

A compelling state interest that is served by denying them and can't be served in any other plausible way. A rational reason to treat gays and lesbians as less under the law.

The compelling interest for not accepting the lowering of the marriage standard to include that which nature excluded, rests in the viability of the culture, which is threatened by so doing, in that it accepts fraudulence as fact, which establishes the legal precedent that fraudulence must be accepted as fact. That is known as DELUSION and a culture cannot be sustained upon delusion.

And you don't have one.

Which is why you fail.

ROFLMNAO! Yes... Delusion... that's what I said. A marvelous demonstration of my point. For that, I thank you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

keys and Sil have trouble understand that nature does not rule US law, the Constitution does.

 

[Silhouette]

keys and Sil have trouble understand that nature does not rule US law, the Constitution does.

Where in the Constitution does it say "just some deviant sexual behaviors are equal to race" or "marriage is a loose arrangement granted to anyone and everyone who wishes to be married to anyone else?

BTW Jake, you haven't answered my question: What would be your reasoning for denying a polygamy group like the Browns from Utah/Nevada a marriage license today?

 

[Syriusly]

I think the State has the power to require that a business person treat their customers fairly and equally.

The whole 'we don't serve your kind at this lunch counter' schtick doesn't exactly have the best historical pedigree.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality does not seek EQUAL TREATMENT, they are seeking SPECIAL TREATMENT. !

Like being served at the same lunch counter as white people.....er I mean straight people......

That is some 'special treatment'.........to homophobes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil does not get what she thinks about SCOTUS does not mean a thing except to Sil.

SCOTUS has ruled, and Sil has drooled.

 

[Syriusly]

keys and Sil have trouble understand that nature does not rule US law, the Constitution does.

Where in the Constitution does it say "just some deviant sexual behaviors are equal to race" or "marriage is a loose arrangement granted to anyone and everyone who wishes to be married to anyone else?

BTW Jake, you haven't answered my question: What would be your reasoning for denying a polygamy group like the Browns from Utah/Nevada a marriage license today?

Because there is a Utah law that forbids polygamy- and that law is still in effect.

Not exactly rocket science.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me be clear: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to use the power of government to FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR: I demand that government stop and I demand that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, keep that to which they claim IS THEIR RIGHT, BASED UPON THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY: PRIVATE.

That's simply not the debate. Gay marriage can be perfectly legal in your state...

Again the issue boils down to legality... with the Advocates to Normalize Sexual Abnormality having NO DISCERNIBLE INTERESTS in the MORALITY...
u.

More bat guano crazy posting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

keys and Sil have trouble understand that nature does not rule US law, the Constitution does.

Where in the Constitution does it say "just some deviant sexual behaviors are equal to race" or "marriage is a loose arrangement granted to anyone and everyone who wishes to be married to anyone else?

BTW Jake, you haven't answered my question: What would be your reasoning for denying a polygamy group like the Browns from Utah/Nevada a marriage license today?

Because there is a Utah law that forbids polygamy- and that law is still in effect.

Not exactly rocket science.

The law can be challenged in court, has been, and polygamy has been basically decriminalized.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Where in the Constitution does it say "just some deviant sexual behaviors are equal to race" or "marriage is a loose arrangement granted to anyone and everyone who wishes to be married to anyone else?

The Constitution of the United States is not a list of 'things you can and can't'.

But I gotta say, I never tire of people who reject the very principles on which the Constitution rests, up to including the very IDEA of sanctity, never failing to run to the Constitution, so that they can wrap themselves in its sanctity.

LOL! Funny stuff.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, they are being manipulated by a very cunning and dark master. He has a very smooth tongue and this time around the block [also agreed, there have been many performances by him through the ages], he is wearing a rainbow armband, performing lewd acts around the kiddies.."all in good fun!" His chants this time around are "don't be a hater"...and "you're a bigot"....and "be careful...if you don't give me free reign, I'll SUE you in COURT!"...

What 'cunning, dark master' with a 'very smooth tongue' who has performed 'through the ages'.

C'mon, Silo....say it. You know you want to say it.

"Because marriage isn't a free for all. It's an establishment primarily for the benefit of children. As such, we can predict from the lesbians in California drugging their 11 year old son to become a girl, and just the general underlying message to children of the gender opposite their gay "parents" that "your gender/you/ are disposable", gay pride parades and the LGBT veneration of Harvey Milk's sexuality, that gay marriage will harm children.
So far 0% of LGBTs have spoken out publicly against any of those atrocities towards children.

And as I told you, there are clearly more routes to a valid marriage than children. As 1 in 4 marriages never produce them. Nor is any couple required to have children or be able to have them. Why then would gays be excluded from marriage for failing to meet a standard that no straight is ever held to?

As for your california couple who drugged their child, if a lone instance of child abuse invalidates the marriages of an entire sexual orientation, then straights are completely fucked.

Now we see already LGBTs trying to force their lifestyle [once their toe is in the door with "legal marriage"] onto pastors and other people of faith who are under a dire mandate [see Jude 1 in the New Testament] to not promote this lifestyle in any way shape or form.

Yeah, a problem with that narrative.

Less than two weeks after a federal appeals court struck down Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, two ministers in the northwestern Idaho city of Coeur d’Alene have filed a lawsuit claiming they could face up to 180 years in jail for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.

The lawsuit, filed Oct. 17 in federal trial court by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, stoked long-held fears among opponents of marriage equality.

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

But as Paul Harvey used to say, "Now....for the rest of the story".

However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.

The lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”

“We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.

Two Ministers Claim They Could Face 180 Years In Jail For Refusing To Do Gay Weddings

So who are you talking about Silo? Its clearly not these two ministers. There are no complaints filed, no warnings issued, no threats made. The religious corporation is explicitly exempt from the law.

Christianity doesn't advocate harsh treatment towards individual gays doing their thing in privacy. But it is very clear that once that lifestyle spills out of the bedroom and into the streets...and most certainly marriage...christians are to "earnestly contend for the faith" ...else risk an eternity in the Pit of Fire.

And after all the babble about the law, all the empty rhetoric regarding procreation.......we get down to what actually motivates you: religion.

Nothing wrong with that. But it has nothing to do with the law. And its one of the major reasons that your ilk have had such a hard time in court. As what ACTUALLY motivates you isn't admissible as evidence. So you're left with half assed second tier arguments that are easily refuted.

 

[dblack]

PA Laws are LAW. LAW is only legitimate, where it SERVES JUSTICE. There is no justification to refuse to serve another who is offering compensation as required by the service provider, except where the service or sale of one's product serves to undermine the means of another to exercise their own rights. You can't force someone to sell them something or provide them a service that they reasonably know you'll use to harm them... . This of course has no potential bearing on issues of race. And it is the application of laws designed to preclude racial discrimination which are foolishly being used to preclude people from discriminating against those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality. Such is an UNJUST application of the law.

Unjust application of the law harms EVERYONE.

This is an excellent point, and highlights a fundamental difference in what we want government to accomplish. And this is why I consider your point of view every bit as wrong as those you oppose. Both of you want to use government to force people to behave the way you want. You just have different idea of how people should behave.

I don't want a government that "creates" justice by dictating how people treat each other. This is why libertarians emphasize the notion that government should seek to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate to us what kind of society that should be.

Government does not 'create' justice, it SERVES to promote the establishment of the justice intrinsic in nature's chronic quest for balance. And the principles that define America declared that the individual is endowed by their creator with inseparable rights. With those rights being sustained through the bearing of correlating responsibilities. IT is THOSE RIGHT SUSTAINING RESPONSIBILITIES which serve to guide each of us in how we 'should' treat one another.

I am not asking the government to force anyone to do anything. I am here and have consistently advocated that government should stay out of the forcing of people TO DO THINGS business... but then I am an American and, that's how we roll.

Let me be clear: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to use the power of government to FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR: I demand that government stop and I demand that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, keep that to which they claim IS THEIR RIGHT, BASED UPON THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY: PRIVATE.

And where they FAIL to BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY SUSTAINING THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY... I DEMAND THEY CONCEDE THAT SUCH IS NOT THEIR RIGHT!

You can't have it both ways and that is precisely what they're asking for... .

The Sodomy Laws were lifted because their private sexual lives were deemed their business... as a culture we agreed. SINCE THEN: THEY'VE MADE MORE AND MORE OF THOSE THINGS TO WHICH THEY'RE ENTITLED, BECAUSE IT IS PRIVATE BEHAVIOR: PUBLIC...

You can't claim the right to MARRY and then demand that the standards that define marriage be altered to accommodate your personal, subjective needs. and one can't claim a right to be treated equally before the law: WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEMANDING SPECIAL PROTECTIONS BY THE LAW!

Understand?

No. I think you're loonie. Government shouldn't be in the business of writing marriage contracts, or setting "standards" for them.

 

[Skylar]

The demand that Men should marry Men and Women, women... is on the same level of psychosis as "We need to pass the bill to know what's in the bill' and "What DIFFERENCE DOES [THE TRUTH] MAKE?"

There's no such 'demand'. Its a choice made by the parties who are being married. A choice and a freedom you demand we strip from gay and lesbian couples because you insist that you define what the purpose of marriage is, what 'valid' sex is.

You don't and you don't. Once again you've presented a rambling, confused screed predicated on us accepting you as an infallible source on whatever topic you choose to comment on.

And once again, you aren't. You don't define anything you claim must be. You don't decide any purpose for any activity. And you certainly don't define any portion of the law. Rendering your argument predictably irrelevant to the validity of marriages of gays and lesbians under the law.

Irrational positions advanced by two prominent members of the same political apparatus that would have us believe, despite the otherwise irrefutable evidence available to EVERY HUMAN BEING ON EARTH, that such is not the case, that men are perfectly suited for sexual behavior with other men and women with other women... there surely MUST BE a common thread.

That assumes that the only possible reason that anyone would ever engage in sexual activity is procreation. As such lovely inventions as the handjob, the blow job, the condom and the belly method demonstrate.....there are many other reasons to have sex. Making your awkward claims that sex must meet your conception of 'human biological standards' or else be 'fraudulent' as bizarre as it is fallacious.

There's no such mandate. You've imagined it. People can have sex for whatever reason they chose, to serve whatever purpose they wish. And their sex isn't 'valid' or 'fraudulent'. It simply is. That value judgements that you've applied are merely your opinion. They have no relevance to the rights and freedoms of any other person.

 

[dblack]

Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.

Why?

Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.

Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity. Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross. The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals. Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.

I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.

So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation? Interesting. I disagree.

That's part of liberty, yeah.

What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.

 

[Skylar]

Again the issue boils down to legality... with the Advocates to Normalize Sexual Abnormality having NO DISCERNIBLE INTERESTS in the MORALITY...

Marriage equality is all about the law.

And you don't define morality. Leaving you with only personal opinions that have no relevance to the law.

Of course, I am one and I care, so immediately 'no one cares' is readily exposed as being demonstrably FALSE. As is the case in the notion founded upon 'your feelings aren't the basis of our laws.'. We know this because we elect representatives so that they may carry our feelings to government and MAKE LAW WHICH REFLECTS THOSE FEELINGS. Further we know that the VAST MAJORITY of 'ones' in the VAST MAJORITY OF STATES expressed their feelings which adhered to the natural standards intrinsic to marriage which provide that MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

And yet the rights of individuals can't be stripped away by the a majority vote. Our Constitution guarantees a variety of rights. For a State law to be valid it has to meet some very strict standards under the constitution: 1) It can't violate rights. 2) It can't target specific groups 3) It has to serve some compelling state interest.

Gay marriage bans fail on all three fronts. Which is why they have been overturned by ever circuit appellant court to adjudicate such bans.

You feel differently. So what? Your feelings aren't the basis of our laws. Your feelings don't define anyone else's rights. This concept seems to outrage you.

You're gonna have to learn to live with it. In terms of someone else's rights.....you're nobody. You define nothing, adjudicate nothing, set no requirements, establish no caveats. You're simply irrelevant.

"Feelings" which were turned asunder by the SUBJECTIVE EDICT of an Advocate of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality who found their way onto the Federal Judiciary. Over-ruling the will or the 'feelings' of the vast majority of the people, living in the vast majority of the respective states.

Nope. That would be an application of the law in a fair and equitable manner. There's simply no valid reason to deny gays. The standards you insist we MUST apply, we don't. The moral judgments you insist we MUST adhere to, we don't. The judges are bound to the rule of law. Not your personal opinion. Not your personal moral judgments. Not your insistence that you define the purpose of marriage.

You don't. We do....through our reprsentatives and through our constitution. And in 30 of 50 States, its been decided that gays and lesbians have the right to marry.

And gay marriage support currently outpaces opposition by a margin of 12 to 19 points in virtually every poll to measure the topic. So even on your standard of 'emotion as evidence', your argument fails again.

 

[Skylar]

Indeed. But this calls out the very real conflict between equal rights and public accommodations laws.

Please see my response from the last time you posted this exact phrase for a suitable reply.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why?

Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.

Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity. Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross. The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals. Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.

I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.

So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation? Interesting. I disagree.

That's part of liberty, yeah.

What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.

Wrong. Raping people is not liberty.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, they are being manipulated by a very cunning and dark master. He has a very smooth tongue and this time around the block [also agreed, there have been many performances by him through the ages], he is wearing a rainbow armband, performing lewd acts around the kiddies.."all in good fun!" His chants this time around are "don't be a hater"...and "you're a bigot"....and "be careful...if you don't give me free reign, I'll SUE you in COURT!"...

What 'cunning, dark master' with a 'very smooth tongue' who has performed 'through the ages'.

C'mon, Silo....say it. You know you want to say it.

I'll say it: EVIL... Which is manifested through the irrational species of reasoning known as relativism. Evil is the force in nature which repels good.

If ya want to see what evil looks like, find a mirror.

"Because marriage isn't a free for all. It's an establishment primarily for the benefit of children. As such, we can predict from the lesbians in California drugging their 11 year old son to become a girl, and just the general underlying message to children of the gender opposite their gay "parents" that "your gender/you/ are disposable", gay pride parades and the LGBT veneration of Harvey Milk's sexuality, that gay marriage will harm children.
So far 0% of LGBTs have spoken out publicly against any of those atrocities towards children.

And as I told you, there are clearly more routes to a valid marriage than children.

Sure are...

Step one: talk a person of the opposite gender into marrying you.

Step two: Marry them.

Step three: Don't have children

End of path to valid marriage, without having children.

Now we see already LGBTs trying to force their lifestyle [once their toe is in the door with "legal marriage"] onto pastors and other people of faith who are under a dire mandate [see Jude 1 in the New Testament] to not promote this lifestyle in any way shape or form.

Yeah, a problem with that narrative.

Color me shocked!

But hey... given the nature of evil, such would reasonably expect that such would 'have a problem' with truth. I mean, given that where truth exist, evil cannot.

Christianity doesn't advocate harsh treatment towards individual gays doing their thing in privacy. But it is very clear that once that lifestyle spills out of the bedroom and into the streets...and most certainly marriage...christians are to "earnestly contend for the faith" ...else risk an eternity in the Pit of Fire.

And after all the babble about the law, all the empty rhetoric regarding procreation.......we get down to what actually motivates you: religion.

Irony... and what motivates you is the rejection of religion, which rejects your chosen 'lifestyle'... because religion is merely the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to natural law.

You claim to respect science, but science is the study of nature... and the pursuit of a better understanding of the laws in nature which govern our lives.

One such law is represented by the standards which nature establishes through the creation of the viable environment that sustains our very lives.

One such standard is that which it designed into the physiological design of the human body. The design which establishes that two genders serve to sustain the species... through their respective complimenting natures.

Individuals who crave sexual gratification from those of their own gender, deviate from that standard; their sexuality being a perversion of the human sexual nature, deviant, abnormal and as such they exhibit tendencies wherein they will rationalize other natural standards, such as the standards intrinsic to reason, which speaks to the potential that they will suffer lapses in veracity... such people tend to disregard all manner of standards, such as that which governs the suitability and appropriateness of sexual expression. Which is why such people are prone toward succumbing to sexual desire for children... more than one partner, drug and alcohol abuse and why they're disproportionally likely to contract venereal diseases and other maladies common to people of low, to no, moral character.

The encouragement of such behavior is foolish... as cultures which encourage such behavior, get A LOT OF IT... and culture's which realize a lot of low behavior: FAIL!