Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[guno]

 

[RKMBrown]

These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws. But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I got that part.

You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.

People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone. The bigotry is real. If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules. You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.

C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.

... aight I was using writer's license when I said they'd be run oft...

and yes, it is ironic that only in a country that has seen the "error" of it's bigoted ways will the bigots be punished. Yes we've come a long way. But no it's not over yet, whites are being discriminated against in government related jobs, black and women leaders in republican positions are constantly discriminated against by democrats and the media, gays are still being discriminated against, ... and what's the law that makes discrimination illegal? PA So you saying we don't need em any more... nah... we still need these laws, the battle against discrimination is not even close to being over.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What SPECIFIC 'excuses', do you 'feel' have been 'debunked'?

That marriage requires the ability to procreate.

No such claim has been made.

Or that children are in any way exclusively relevant to marriage.

No such claim has been made.

That Windsor ruled that gay marriage bans are constitutional.

There's no such thing as 'gay-marriage'. Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.

That the States have the authority to strip people of their individual rights with a simple majority vote.

No such claim has been made.

The false dichotomies that gays must either remain secret about their sexual orientation or that sodomy laws criminalizing their behavior come back into force.

There is no dichotomy. The laws forbidding sodomy were lifted SPECIFICALLY on the grounds that the sexual lives of individuals are private. That is a FACT.

Where homosexuals can not keep their perversion private and where homosexuals demand that their deviant sexuality is anywhere remotely akin to that common to normal human physiology, they most certainly can EXPECT that it is INEVITABLE that sodomy laws will return. Of course by that time, there will be no one who has any desire to define themselves as a homosexual, as the war which comes in the wake of the obama regime, due to the economic collapse of the United States will likely see most homosexuals in the United States falling victim to an angry culture who sees their illicit abuse of the judiciary in the attempt to force perversion upon their children.

So... don't sweat it, nature has always worked these things out.

The nonsense idea that gay marriage in anyway effects straight marriage, robs straights of right, or effects straights in any meaningful way.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Therefore, there is no such thing as 'gay-marriage' thus there is no potential threat to anyone, except the demented who pretend otherwise, and abuse the judiciary to force their perversion upon the children of the innocent. Sadly, most if not all of them will not recognize the threat until they are consumed by it. But hey.. that's evil for ya!

Thus, no such claim was made.

And the adorable but uselessly misinformed idea that you are immune to any law you disagree with.

No such claim was made.

All of these claims are debunked...

ROFL! So you make up claims so that you can claim that you 'debunked' them?

LOL! How positively sad?

 

[TemplarKormac]

a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on, hooold on. We are? And it is? Do you know what its like to be raped? Do you see any gays living in squalor on the streets? I'm afraid not.

None of them are being robbed of making money or buying food, water, or procuring shelter. They have every last one of basic human rights. I oppose homosexual marriage, but I would be the last person on earth to deny them such basic needs.

If that was a hypothetical statement, then by all means ignore my response; if not however, then it is the most patently outrageous statement I've seen in a while, and would be a surprise coming from someone such as yourself. You have no evidence to prove that the US is doing such things you described to gays.

 

[Skylar]

Yet, you asserted, as fact, that such was the case, a fraudulence, advanced in a deceitful attempt to influence the ignorant. My goodness... isn't it remarkable how consistently your behavior maps that precisely, with that which one would reasonably expect of evil.

I asserted that breaking into peoples homes to arrest them for consensual sex between adults isn't an example of 'good'.

Well I do, that's true, but I only say it because that is what nature demonstrates through the intrinsic design of human phsysiology.

And what exclusive relevance does nature or the 'intrisinc design of human physiology' have with marriage? As there's no product of either that are required for a marriage to be valid. This is where your argument keeps breaking. No one contends that gays and lesbians can have children within their union or that many straight couples can't.

The question is....so what? Having children or being able to have children isn't a requirement of any marriage. So why would we invent a standard that doesn't exist, and then apply it only to gay people for the purpose of keeping them out of marriage?

It makes no sense. Its pointlessly discriminatory, flagrantly violates rights, and serves no state interest. Strike 1, 2 and 3 for the validity of a law under Romer V. Evans.

Well one of the downsides to Relativism is that as a result if its axiomatic rejections of objectivity, where it finds power, it fails to service justice. And when justice is not served, the adjudicators responsible for such become quite irrelevant, as you're presently discovering.

Your argument isn't based on objectivity. It based on you pretending to be an infallible arbiter to whatever authority you claim to speak for. Nature, Morality, Objective Truth, whatever. And you're not. So every appeal to authority you offer breaks the moment you make it.....as you neither speak for any such authorities, nor authoritatively interpret them.

You're just a dude with a personal opinion. The epitome of subjectivity. Who insists that his subjective opinions are Objective Universal Natural Laws.

Smiling.....Um, nope. What else have you got?

Me? I've got legal relevance. Arguments that are more likely to result in legal rulings that I believe are just and right. I've got case law, I've got the results of one court case after another demonstrating the strength of my arguments which are being argued by proponents of gay marriage. I also have evidence that my arguments are persuasive and compelling, as gay marriage support leads by a margin of 12 to 19 points.

And I also have real world results: 30 of 50 states in which gay marriage is legal. These are demonstrable results that your conceptoin of 'natural law' doesn't define marriage. But we do. As your conception of marriage isn't the law. Mine is.

Do you have any argument that isn't based on us accepting you as an infallible arbiter?

Those are the soundly reasoned conclusions of men who observed those laws centuries before I came along. And there is nothing even potentially subjective about them. If you had the slightest understanding of the meaning of such, you'd know that.

Slavery was the law for centuries before you came along. So was bans on interracial sex. So was monarchy. So was racism. So was religious persecution. Your argument 'if it exists, its justified' reasoning breaks over and over and over in the annuals of history. You need a valid reason WHY your position is valid. And the fact that it has existed isn't one of them.

Take your claims of natural law regarding the purpose of sex. Procreation is definitely a purpose of sex. But your argument breaks when you assume its the ONLY purpose of sex. There are many, many others. Pleasure, to create intimacy, stress relief, traditions. Your argument would be like saying that the only purpose of eating is to fuel your body. But I can think of many more: I love the flavor of certain foods. I like to cook. I enjoy having meals with friends. I like to try new things. I find eating relaxing. I sometimes eat to help me sleep. And I'm hardly alone in any of these (and many more) additional purposes.

But your conception of 'natural law' can't incorporate any of this. You stop at your own singular purpose. And then insist that no one else can ever have a valid alternative. That they must adhere to why you do something. Or they are illegitimate, fraudulent, morally wrong, unnatural and evil.

Laughing.......you're not actually the objective arbiter of any of that. You're just offering us your opinions based on your conception and your belief of natural law. And no one cares. Every one has their own opinions. Everyone has their own conceptions. You've presented absolutely nothing that demonstrates that ONLY your purpose is valid and all others are fraudulent.

And that's just one of the ways your argument keeps breaking.

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure what your point is.

I got that part.

You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.

People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone. The bigotry is real. If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules. You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.

C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.

... aight I was using writer's license when I said they'd be run oft...

and yes, it is ironic that only in a country that has seen the "error" of it's bigoted ways will the bigots be punished. Yes we've come a long way. But no it's not over yet, whites are being discriminated against in government related jobs, black and women leaders in republican positions are constantly discriminated against by democrats and the media, gays are still being discriminated against, ... and what's the law that makes discrimination illegal? PA So you saying we don't need em any more... nah... we still need these laws, the battle against discrimination is not even close to being over.

Let's cut to the chase. What we're really debating is the question of whether discrimination is something government should be 'battling' in the first place. And by 'discrimination' we mean: bigotry we don't like. Because most bigotry we do like. People discriminate against others for irrational reasons all the time. But do we really want government in charge of second-guessing our personal preferences?

And how far do we want to extend this kind of oversight? Right now, it's limited to employment and "public accommodations", but what principle supports that limit? If government can mandate our hiring decisions, if they can prohibit public accommodations from discriminating, why not consumers? Should consumers be allowed to boycott businesses for "bigoted" reasons? Should government step in to override our other public associations? Should they tell us who to date? Who to hang out with? If it's wrong for a bigot to refuse to bake a cake for people he doesn't like, isn't it also wrong for him to refuse to befriend them for spurious reasons?

 

[Skylar]

No such claim has been made.

So then the issue is resolved. If you don't need kids or the ability to have kids, then your 'standard human biological' standard ceases to have any particular relevance to a valid marriage. As any marriage would be just as valid without it.

There's no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

The law says otherwise. And marriage equality is a legal question.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

....and same sex unions in 30 of 50 states. Not much you can do about that one. The actual law defines marriage. Not your conception of 'natural law'. And since marriage equality is all about recognition of gay and lesbians marriages under the law, its the only standard that's relevant.

As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.

Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage or gay marriage bans is irrelevant. And I'll continue to advocate gay marriage equality, with the courts continuing to side with my reasoning and logic. And the rights of gays to enter into same sex marriages continuing to spread across the nation!

Works for me. I don't need your agreement for marriage equality in the law. I just need the law's. The courts are more than willing to discuss the topic. And more than willing to recognize gay marriage exists.

There is no dichotomy.

Oh, obviously it is. As gays can have their privacy and get married. As they are in 30 of 50 states. You say they can't do it. They demonstrate the irrelevance of your claims by doing it anyway. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

The laws forbidding sodomy were lifted SPECIFICALLY on the grounds that the sexual lives of individuals are private. That is a FACT.

Nope. Not even close. The Lawerence case wasn't decided on one basis. It was decided on three. First, on the basis that the acts occurred in a private dwelling. Which, of course it still does. If a gay man wants to walk with a feather boa in the middle of a gay pride parade singing 'Its Raining Men' in his best Ru Paul impression, he's untouchable by sodomy laws for any sex he and his partner have in their own home.

Second, it was based on their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

Third, it was found that even the *existence* of such sodomy laws violated the rights of homosexuals as they were unequally applied, were discriminatory toward gays and lesbians and demeaned their dignity.

Getting married or announcing one's sexuality doesn't change the protection granted *anyone* from unwarranted government intrusion into their dwellings or other private places. Nor does it magically grant the government the the authority to intervene in conduct that gays and lesbians have a full right to engage in.

Rendering your false dichotomy just another piece of poorly thought through flotsam of no particular relevance to the law or the rights of anyone.

 

[RKMBrown]

I got that part.

You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.

People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone. The bigotry is real. If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules. You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.

C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.

... aight I was using writer's license when I said they'd be run oft...

and yes, it is ironic that only in a country that has seen the "error" of it's bigoted ways will the bigots be punished. Yes we've come a long way. But no it's not over yet, whites are being discriminated against in government related jobs, black and women leaders in republican positions are constantly discriminated against by democrats and the media, gays are still being discriminated against, ... and what's the law that makes discrimination illegal? PA So you saying we don't need em any more... nah... we still need these laws, the battle against discrimination is not even close to being over.

Let's cut to the chase. What we're really debating is the question of whether discrimination is something government should be 'battling' in the first place. And by 'discrimination' we mean: bigotry we don't like. Because most bigotry we do like. People discriminate against others for irrational reasons all the time. But do we really want government in charge of second-guessing our personal preferences?

And how far do we want to extend this kind of oversight? Right now, it's limited to employment and "public accommodations", but what principle supports that limit? If government can mandate our hiring decisions, if they can prohibit public accommodations from discriminating, why not consumers? Should consumers be allowed to boycott businesses for "bigoted" reasons? Should government step in to override our other public associations? Should they tell us who to date? Who to hang out with? If it's wrong for a bigot to refuse to bake a cake for people he doesn't like, isn't it also wrong for him to refuse to befriend them for spurious reasons?

Liberty is the principle. Liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace. Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy. Having the liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace has nothing to do with who you date. If you don't want to sell to the public at large.... don't sell to the public at large, it's not that hard a concept.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yet, you asserted, as fact, that such was the case, a fraudulence, advanced in a deceitful attempt to influence the ignorant. My goodness... isn't it remarkable how consistently your behavior maps that precisely, with that which one would reasonably expect of evil.

I asserted that breaking into peoples homes to arrest them for consensual sex between adults isn't an example of 'good'.

I know what ya did. I was there... and what you did was you asserted that such was happening. You're now claiming that you asserted that something that does not exist, is not good.

Which is about right for you, given that you claim that what does not exist IS good.

Well I do, that's true, but I only say it because that is what nature demonstrates through the intrinsic design of human phsysiology.

And what exclusive relevance does nature or the 'intrisinc design of human physiology' have with marriage?

You're asking me what the creation of nature has to do with nature? And what the joining of one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, wherein the sustained union, provides for the security of the female during gestation and a stable environment to nurture and train their progeny... has to do with human physiology, which is central to the foundation of the institution?

ROFL.... one of these days we truly have GOT to establish a standard intellectual minimums required to participate in this board. It would save SO MUCH TIME, not to mention space on the server.

As there's no product of either that are required for a marriage to be valid.

False... that people who do not desire children or who cannot bear children marry, does not change the fact that nature designed the institution for such and absent that standard, there is no point to marriage, thus such serves no legitimate purpose, therefore absent such, marriage is illegitimate, just like homosexuality.

Which is the purpose for the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality NEED FOR MARRIAGE... they hope that marriage will bring them that which they can never have, as long as they relent to their deviant cravings.

Sadly, the secret to the legitimacy of Marriage rests in the standards that precludes participation by the illegitimate.

This is where your argument keeps breaking. No one contends that gays and lesbians can have children within their union or that many straight couples can't.

I've never argued such... ever, anywhere.

The question is....so what?

The answer to which is that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...

It makes no sense. Its pointlessly discriminatory, flagrantly violates rights, and serves no state interest.

Standards serve one purpose and one purpose only: TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITIMACY OF THE INSTITUTION BY PRECLUDING THOSE WHO CANNOT MEET THE STANDARD FROM PARTICIPATING: OKA: THE POINT OF THE INTRINSIC DISCRIMINATION.

The purpose it serves to maintain decency, truth, justice and soundly reasoned morality. The interests it serves for the individuals who comprise the citizenry, is that it maintains the integrity of the citizenry, precluding the deceit, fraud and ignorance inherent in The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality; that which is otherwise false, from being accepted as truth.

Well one of the downsides to Relativism is that as a result if its axiomatic rejections of objectivity, where it finds power, it fails to service justice. And when justice is not served, the adjudicators responsible for such become quite irrelevant, as you're presently discovering.

Your argument isn't based on objectivity.

Nonsense...

So every appeal to authority you offer breaks the moment you make it.

Appeals to authority are only fallacious when the appeal is to a misleading authority... and where the argument depends wholly upon the appeal.

Such is not present in any position I've ever offered. My argument rests entirely upon demonstrable evidence. Human physiology is readily apparent, that such is the result of eons of trial and error... providing for the observable, inarguable purposes to which I refer and that such is the result of nature's design ... is SELF EVIDENT and otherwise incontestable.

Your desperate need to reject natural law and the authority on which human rights rest, undermines your entire position. Absent the inherent authority of nature, human rights are merely temporal privilege resting upon the whimsy of whatever power happens to be at any given moment. A circumstance in which there is no potential value.

...as you neither speak for any such authorities, nor authoritatively interpret them.

ROFLMNAO! Now THAT is a textbook demonstration of an argument from misleading authority! Congrats. While sound reasoning never requires outside validation, it is always nice.

You're just a dude with a personal opinion. The epitome of subjectivity. Who insists that his subjective opinions are Objective Universal Natural Laws.

LOL! T W O IN A R O W !

That is hysterical... (In every sense of the word).

I've got legal relevance.

Do ya now? Then why would you keep it such a tightly guarded secret? All you've spewed so far is irrational irrelevance.

Arguments that are more likely to result in legal rulings that I believe are just and right. I've got case law, I've got the results of one court case after another demonstrating the strength of my arguments which are being argued by proponents of gay marriage. I also have evidence that my arguments are persuasive and compelling, as gay marriage support leads by a margin of 12 to 19 points.

Really? Then I wonder why it is that you folks need socialist insurgents on the judiciary to overturn the actual legislative votes which consistently show that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality enjoys support from an insignificant minority. Of course, that's an objective poll... that counts.

And after you people screwed the pooch here of late... when such comes to vote again... and it most definitely will, I doubt you're going to enjoy those polls.

And I also have real world results: 30 of 50 states in which gay marriage is legal.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And you do not enjoy a legislative majority in any state except the handful of lost causes. The rest of the states have either set the natural definition of marriage in their constitutions or overtly banned civil unions between people of that same gender.

Your gloat implies a popular majority... which does not exist. The "legality" rest entirely upon Leftists in the judiciary which 'over-ruled' LAW which was long debated in public meetings and legislative sessions, the result of which is the REJECTION of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality and the deceit, fraud and ignorance which it represents.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No such claim has been made.

So then the issue is resolved. If you don't need kids or the ability to have kids, then your 'standard human biological' standard ceases to have any particular relevance to a valid marriage. As any marriage would be just as valid without it.

There's no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

The law says otherwise. And marriage equality is a legal question.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

....and same sex unions in 30 of 50 states. Not much you can do about that one. The actual law defines marriage. Not your conception of 'natural law'. And since marriage equality is all about recognition of gay and lesbians marriages under the law, its the only standard that's relevant.

As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.

Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage or gay marriage bans is irrelevant. And I'll continue to advocate gay marriage equality, with the courts continuing to side with my reasoning and logic. And the rights of gays to enter into same sex marriages continuing to spread across the nation!

Works for me. I don't need your agreement for marriage equality in the law. I just need the law's. The courts are more than willing to discuss the topic. And more than willing to recognize gay marriage exists.

There is no dichotomy.

Oh, obviously it is. As gays can have their privacy and get married. As they are in 30 of 50 states. You say they can't do it. They demonstrate the irrelevance of your claims by doing it anyway. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

The laws forbidding sodomy were lifted SPECIFICALLY on the grounds that the sexual lives of individuals are private. That is a FACT.

Nope. Not even close. The Lawerence case wasn't decided on one basis. It was decided on three. First, on the basis that the acts occurred in a private dwelling. Which, of course it still does. If a gay man wants to walk with a feather boa in the middle of a gay pride parade singing 'Its Raining Men' in his best Ru Paul impression, he's untouchable by sodomy laws for any sex he and his partner have in their own home.

Second, it was based on their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

Third, it was found that even the *existence* of such sodomy laws violated the rights of homosexuals as they were unequally applied, were discriminatory toward gays and lesbians and demeaned their dignity.

Getting married or announcing one's sexuality doesn't change the protection granted *anyone* from unwarranted government intrusion into their dwellings or other private places. Nor does it magically grant the government the the authority to intervene in conduct that gays and lesbians have a full right to engage in.

Rendering your false dichotomy just another piece of poorly thought through flotsam of no particular relevance to the law or the rights of anyone.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy.

Slippery slope arguments are ONLY fallacious where there is not a demonstrable slope in play...

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality rest entirely upon and is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.

The issue is perversion, sexual deviancy which has less to do with bedroom behavior and more to do with sound moral character.

Normalizing deceit is a fools errand and that such requires individuals who recognize such as abhorrent be placed into servitude is only the FIRST INCONTESTABLE SIGN THAT SUCH IS EVIL and as such: THOROUGHLY INTOLERABLE.

It is the duty of every American to reject ANY service to ANYONE celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality. To tell the government to shove their edict up their collective, to ignore all sanctions, refuse attendance to all mandated hearings and otherwise reject the authority of any enforcement agency, while jealously defending their means to exercise their rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy.

Slippery slope arguments are ONLY fallacious where there is not a demonstrable slope in play...

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality rest entirely upon and is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.

The issue is perversion, sexual deviancy which has less to do with bedroom behavior and more to do with sound moral character.

Normalizing deceit is a fools errand and that such requires individuals who recognize such as abhorrent be placed into servitude is only the FIRST INCONTESTABLE SIGN THAT SUCH IS EVIL and as such: THOROUGHLY INTOLERABLE.

It is the duty of every American to reject ANY service to ANYONE celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality. To tell the government to shove their edict up their collective, to ignore all sanctions, refuse attendance to all mandated hearings and otherwise reject the authority of any enforcement agency, while jealously defending their means to exercise their rights.

Yeah that's the same argument that was used to defend jim crow.

 

[dblack]

You don't want to clarify? My point is that the suggestion that without PA laws, minorities would be run out of the country is preposterous. If a minority was really that unpopular, they would never be extended protection via PA laws. That's the irony of using democratic legislation to protect minorities. The only minorities that get such protection won't need it. And the real persecuted minorities never will.

People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone. The bigotry is real. If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules. You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.

C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.

... aight I was using writer's license when I said they'd be run oft...

and yes, it is ironic that only in a country that has seen the "error" of it's bigoted ways will the bigots be punished. Yes we've come a long way. But no it's not over yet, whites are being discriminated against in government related jobs, black and women leaders in republican positions are constantly discriminated against by democrats and the media, gays are still being discriminated against, ... and what's the law that makes discrimination illegal? PA So you saying we don't need em any more... nah... we still need these laws, the battle against discrimination is not even close to being over.

Let's cut to the chase. What we're really debating is the question of whether discrimination is something government should be 'battling' in the first place. And by 'discrimination' we mean: bigotry we don't like. Because most bigotry we do like. People discriminate against others for irrational reasons all the time. But do we really want government in charge of second-guessing our personal preferences?

And how far do we want to extend this kind of oversight? Right now, it's limited to employment and "public accommodations", but what principle supports that limit? If government can mandate our hiring decisions, if they can prohibit public accommodations from discriminating, why not consumers? Should consumers be allowed to boycott businesses for "bigoted" reasons? Should government step in to override our other public associations? Should they tell us who to date? Who to hang out with? If it's wrong for a bigot to refuse to bake a cake for people he doesn't like, isn't it also wrong for him to refuse to befriend them for spurious reasons?

Liberty is the principle. Liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace. Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy. Having the liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace has nothing to do with who you date. If you don't want to sell to the public at large.... don't sell to the public at large, it's not that hard a concept.

It's not a fallacy if it's a proven progression. And it's proven every time "protected class" is added to the civil rights roster. This corporatism, not liberal democracy.

 

[RKMBrown]

People that deny bigotry really are not kidding anyone. The bigotry is real. If you want to live in a "civilized" society there have to be some rules. You can't run people over with your car, you can't run them off the road, you can't speed, and yes you can't discriminate regarding what races are allowed to drive on a public road or eat in a public dinner.

C'mon. Stow the strawmen and address my arguments. I'm not denying bigotry exists. Morons on this thread are proving its true. I'm disputing that fact as a justification for PA laws. In particular, I'm calling bullshit on the alarmist nonsense that protected minorities will be "run out of the country" if such laws are repealed. The only bigotry PA laws ever impact is bigotry that's on the way out anyway. All they've done is paved the way for corporatist government where our rights are no longer equal for all individuals, but instead assigned by class, based on how much political clout a given interest group wields. That's really bad government, and we'll regret it in the long run.

... aight I was using writer's license when I said they'd be run oft...

and yes, it is ironic that only in a country that has seen the "error" of it's bigoted ways will the bigots be punished. Yes we've come a long way. But no it's not over yet, whites are being discriminated against in government related jobs, black and women leaders in republican positions are constantly discriminated against by democrats and the media, gays are still being discriminated against, ... and what's the law that makes discrimination illegal? PA So you saying we don't need em any more... nah... we still need these laws, the battle against discrimination is not even close to being over.

Let's cut to the chase. What we're really debating is the question of whether discrimination is something government should be 'battling' in the first place. And by 'discrimination' we mean: bigotry we don't like. Because most bigotry we do like. People discriminate against others for irrational reasons all the time. But do we really want government in charge of second-guessing our personal preferences?

And how far do we want to extend this kind of oversight? Right now, it's limited to employment and "public accommodations", but what principle supports that limit? If government can mandate our hiring decisions, if they can prohibit public accommodations from discriminating, why not consumers? Should consumers be allowed to boycott businesses for "bigoted" reasons? Should government step in to override our other public associations? Should they tell us who to date? Who to hang out with? If it's wrong for a bigot to refuse to bake a cake for people he doesn't like, isn't it also wrong for him to refuse to befriend them for spurious reasons?

Liberty is the principle. Liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace. Your argument that restricting your right to RESTRICT THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS IN THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE is a slippery slope, is a slippery slope fallacy. Having the liberty to purchase products using public tender in the public marketplace has nothing to do with who you date. If you don't want to sell to the public at large.... don't sell to the public at large, it's not that hard a concept.

It's not a fallacy if it's a proven progression. And it's proven every time "protected class" is added to the civil rights roster. This corporatism, not liberal democracy.

progression of liberty? WTF are you talking about?

 

[Skylar]

I know what ya did. I was there... and what you did was you asserted that such was happening. You're now claiming that you asserted that something that does not exist, is not good.

I didn't give a time frame of occurrence. I said simply that police breaking into people's home and arresting them for consensual sex it wasn't an a good thing. The rest is your imagination.

You're asking me what the creation of nature has to do with nature?

More accurately, I asked you what exclusive relevance does nature or the 'intrinsic design of human physiology' have with marriage.

And what the joining of one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, wherein the sustained union, provides for the security of the female during gestation and a stable environment to nurture and train their progeny... has to do with human physiology, which is central to the foundation of the institution?

Given that no marriage requires progeny or the ability to have them, what exclusive relevance does your conception of 'intrinsic design of human physiology' have with the legal institution of marriage? So far you've described nothing that is required to have a valid marriage.

Children can the purpose of a marriage. But they don't have to be. Given that straight couples can get married and never have children....there are clearly other purposes that can be served in union and form the basis of a valid marriage. For your definitions to be 'universal', they have to be ONLY possible purpose that marriage can service, the only possible reason people would be married.

And as 1 in 4 marriages never produce children, that's clearly not the case. This is where your argument keeps breaking. You identify A purpose....and then insist that its the only possible one. And that assertion simply isn't so. There are many other purposes: companionship, adoption, legal and economic benefit, health insurance, property rights, and a myriad of other personal reasons.

Your 'sole purpose' isn't a requirement of any marriage. Why then would it be a factor to exclude gays and lesbians? How can they fail to meet a standard that applies to no one? Explain it to us.

False... that people who do not desire children or who cannot bear children marry, does not change the fact that nature designed the institution for such and absent that standard, there is no point to marriage, thus such serves no legitimate purpose, therefore absent such, marriage is illegitimate, just like homosexuality.

Married couples that have no children or can have no children establish, incontrovertibly, that there are other bases for a valid marraige than children. As their marriages are perfectly valid and children play no part in them. Given that children aren't necessary for any valid marriage, by what criteria would you exclude gays and lesbians?

There is no reason. Your have yet to establish that the validity of marriage is served ONLY by children or the ability to have them. And without that exclusivity, your argument lacks any compelling basis for exclusion of those who don't meet such a standard. As 1 in 4 marriages fail to do now.

The answer to which is that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...

So you fervently believe. But what relevance does your belief have with the law, or the right of gays and lesbians to be married under the law? Logically, you've established no exclusive purpose of marriage with your 'biology standard'. With childless couples demonstrating elegantly that no such exclusive purpose exists. So.....what else have you got?

Your belief that marriage is only a man and a woman.........and your belief. Which is exquisitely subjective. And has no relevance to anyone else's rights.

Standards serve one purpose and one purpose only: TO MAINTAIN THE LEGITIMACY OF THE INSTITUTION BY PRECLUDING THOSE WHO CANNOT MEET THE STANDARD FROM PARTICIPATING: OKA: THE POINT OF THE INTRINSIC DISCRIMINATION.

Its the same problem you have above: your assumption that the only legitimate marriages are those that produce children or can produce children. And no such exclusive purpose exists. Not logically, not rationally, and not legally. As no one is required to have children or be able to have the for their marriages to be legitimate.

For your claims to be valid, you need to establish 1) procreation is the purpose of marriage 2) procreation is the exclusive purpose of marraige. And you've been able to factually establish neither. Where the validity of marriages of childless couples and those who can have no children establish factually that there are other purposes that can establish a valid marriage. Else none of their marriages would be valid.

So coming or going, your argument fails. As the foundational assumptions its based upon are unproven. And the validity of marriages of childless couples disproves your assumptions.

And kicking a dead horse, marriage is a man-made institution, it can mean whatever we decide it means. We recognize marriage as a right. And we also recognize the rights of gays and lesbians as being protected under our constitution. Thus, if you're going to deny them a right, you need a very compelling state interest. And you don't have one. As none of you 'biological purpose' claims have any legal validity or are recognized as such by the federal courts.

So you fail your own standards.....and laughably fail the law's.

Nonsense...

Of course your argument lacks objectivity. 'Nature' doesn't say if anything is 'moral' or 'immoral'. You do. Nature doesn't 'despise' anything. You do. These are your value judgements, subjectively applied based on your personal moral codes. Which you're more than welcome to. They just have nothing to do with anyone else.

Your feelings are irrelevant to the application of anyone else's rights. Get used to the idea.

Appeals to authority are only fallacious when the appeal is to a misleading authority... and where the argument depends wholly upon the appeal.

Your entire argument is predicated on us accepting that you're the infallible arbiter of nature, the 'laws of nature', the purpose of marriage, morality and a variety of other topics. You're not an infallible arbiter of any of these things. And without that status, your arguments are mere opinion.

You've got nothing but appeals to authority. Authorities that you neither represent nor are an authortive interpreter of. Rendering your entire argument pristinely subjective. And your subjective beliefs have no relevance to someone else's rights.

Do ya now? Then why would you keep it such a tightly guarded secret? All you've spewed so far is irrational irrelevance.

Of course. The arguments I've made are the same made in court case after court case in defense of gay marriage. And in 50 of 52 instances, the federal courts have found those arguments relevant, persuasive, and compelling. My arguments have the advantage of legal relevance. As the same sentiments I've expressed here in terms of the value of rights, the lack of a state interest in denying marriage to gays and lesbians, the lack of any requirement for procreation or the ability to procreate......can be found in the authoritative federal court rulings that have over turned gay marriage bans in State after State.

Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 30 of 50 States. And why that record is likely to increase as time goes on. My arguments work in court. Yours don't.

And as marriage equality is all about equal recognition of marriage for gays and lesbians under the law, the legal standards are the only relevant ones.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Skylar]

Local leadership in Seattle put in place this year a theme based on Ezekiel 34:16, and set out to "seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and bind up that which was broken" within its boundaries. The outreach began with a direct mail letter, signed by the leadership of the Washington Park Ward, and mailed directly to over 900 inactive Mormons -- and included Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood, home to many of the city's LGBT locals. The letter's message: Please come back.

The letter itself and portions of it made the rounds in the press and on social media -- creating quite a buzz both in the Mormon and the LGBT communities.

Contrary to some reports, the initiative driven by Seattle leadership does not sidestep official Church doctrine, which has not changed. Local leaders are given a great deal of flexibility to decide how best to serve their members. Church discipline for anyone (gay, straight or anywhere in between) who does not align with the Church's Law of Chastity is a decision left to local authority. And in Seattle, the focus is not on discipline -- but Christlike love and inclusion, and emphasizes God's second greatest commandment: Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Seattle Mormon Leadership to LGBT Members You Are Welcome Here Mitch Mayne

With all the hateful babble on this board about 'despising' homosexuality and how they are 'repugnant' and 'abhorrent'.....its nice to see some Christians with a message of love, inclusion and welcome for the LGBT community.

Kudos to you Seattle Mormons. Your first approach to gay marriage was clearly a gutterball.... but you're doing a decent job of picking up the spare.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...

So you believe. Your beliefs are yours. They have no relevance to the rights and freedoms of anyone else.

The law in 30 of 50 states says otherwise. And since marriage equality is about recognition of the validity of gay and lesbian marriages under the law.....the legal standard is the only one that's relevant.

 

[Skylar]

As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.

Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage or gay marriage bans is irrelevant. And I'll continue to advocate gay marriage equality, with the courts continuing to side with my reasoning and logic. And the rights of gays to enter into same sex marriages continuing to spread across the nation!

Works for me. I don't need your agreement for marriage equality in the law. I just need the law's. The courts are more than willing to discuss the topic. And more than willing to recognize gay marriage exists.

 

[Syriusly]

No such claim has been made.

So then the issue is resolved. If you don't need kids or the ability to have kids, then your 'standard human biological' standard ceases to have any particular relevance to a valid marriage. As any marriage would be just as valid without it.

There's no such thing as 'gay-marriage'.

The law says otherwise. And marriage equality is a legal question.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

....and same sex unions in 30 of 50 states. Not much you can do about that one. The actual law defines marriage. Not your conception of 'natural law'. And since marriage equality is all about recognition of gay and lesbians marriages under the law, its the only standard that's relevant.

As a result, it is impossible for such a 'ban' to exist. Therefore, any discussions relevant to such, would be, quite axiomatically... irrelevant.

Then it looks like we have a win-win for everyone. You continue to insist that any discussion of gay marriage or gay marriage bans is irrelevant. And I'll continue to advocate gay marriage equality, with the courts continuing to side with my reasoning and logic. And the rights of gays to enter into same sex marriages continuing to spread across the nation!

Works for me. I don't need your agreement for marriage equality in the law. I just need the law's. The courts are more than willing to discuss the topic. And more than willing to recognize gay marriage exists.

There is no dichotomy.

Oh, obviously it is. As gays can have their privacy and get married. As they are in 30 of 50 states. You say they can't do it. They demonstrate the irrelevance of your claims by doing it anyway. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

The laws forbidding sodomy were lifted SPECIFICALLY on the grounds that the sexual lives of individuals are private. That is a FACT.

Nope. Not even close. The Lawerence case wasn't decided on one basis. It was decided on three. First, on the basis that the acts occurred in a private dwelling. Which, of course it still does. If a gay man wants to walk with a feather boa in the middle of a gay pride parade singing 'Its Raining Men' in his best Ru Paul impression, he's untouchable by sodomy laws for any sex he and his partner have in their own home.

Second, it was based on their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

Third, it was found that even the *existence* of such sodomy laws violated the rights of homosexuals as they were unequally applied, were discriminatory toward gays and lesbians and demeaned their dignity.

Getting married or announcing one's sexuality doesn't change the protection granted *anyone* from unwarranted government intrusion into their dwellings or other private places. Nor does it magically grant the government the the authority to intervene in conduct that gays and lesbians have a full right to engage in.

Rendering your false dichotomy just another piece of poorly thought through flotsam of no particular relevance to the law or the rights of anyone.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...

The law says that that definition is only partially correct, in 31 states and the District of Columbia.

 

[Syriusly]

Essentially no one 'publicizes' how they have sex.

The homophobic bigots like to say that 'homosexuals' somehow give up their rights because they tell the world that they are attracted to the same gender.

That is no the same thing as telling everyone how they have sex. When I go to a wedding of a man and woman, I do not spend my time thinking that they are announcing to the world that they are going to be putting a penis in a vagina that night- or wonder if the new husband will be getting a BJ.

Somehow though for homophobes- when it comes to gay relations and gay marriage- pretty much all they think about is a guy sticking his penis in some other guys anus....which is really odd since half of homosexuals are lesbians.......

We all have the right to private consensual sex between adults free from government interference. In my experience the ones who object most to homosexuals- really aren't very happy that heterosexuals are having sex either but they seem to be very upset that homosexuals seem to be having way too much fun.

It is a combination of Puritanism(its a sin to have fun) and fear of anal rape.

And really bizarre.