Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

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.

Um, what 'deceit'. I'm not sure that words means what you think it means.

And who is being placed into 'servitude'? You do realize that if a gay couple gets married....nothing actually happens to you, right? You don't lose any rights, your marriage doesn't become any more or less valid, there's no effect on you. You have every right the day before they got married that you do after.

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

What 'fraud'? "Ignorance' of what? For someone so adamant, you certainly seem eager to talk around your argument.

It is the duty of every American to reject ANY service to ANYONE celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality.

Odd, you don't define any duties for any American. So that goes right out the window. And gay marriage is an economic bonanza! Gays have a larger amount of disposable income on average and tend to spend at least as much on their weddings as straight couples. Businesses are competing for the chance to work for them.

And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

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.

Ah, more Sovereign Citizen nonsense. Where you pretend that only the laws you consent to apply to you. Yeah, that hasn't worked out so well for your ilk in the past, has it. Remember Ed and Elaine Brown? They said the same thing. Now how did that turn out again?

Think on it while you 'jealously defend your means of exercising your rights'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a bunch of tom foolery from the natural morality gang.

They can believe it, but the can't deceive with it.

 

[Silhouette]

What a bunch of tom foolery from the natural morality gang.

They can believe it, but the can't deceive with it.

The importance isn't your skewed and subjective thoughts on what is moral. The importance in a democracy is that over 80% of the voters in USMB's largest poll [most popular/most important] say they think gay marriage shouldn't be mainstreamed/forced upon churches.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your poll was not worth spit, dear.

Almost no one believes churches should perform gay marriages, which means nothing in itself about marriage equality, because the growing majority (and among Xers and Millennials huge majorities) oppose your anti marriage equality stance.

 

[Skylar]

What a bunch of tom foolery from the natural morality gang.

They can believe it, but the can't deceive with it.

Its not a very compelling argument. As it requires that we accept them as infallible arbiters of anything they choose to discuss. Including such grand topics as 'objective truth', 'natural law' and 'morality'.

And generally speaking, when your argument has collapsed so utterly that you're left with nothing but to try and desperately convince those around you that YOU define objective moral truth........you're rhetorically fucked. As your entire argument collapses if your audience refuses to accept your claims of infallibility. And barring a great big Pope hat or set of Golden Plates, they almost always do.

 

[Skylar]

he importance isn't your skewed and subjective thoughts on what is moral. The importance in a democracy is that over 80% of the voters in USMB's largest poll [most popular/most important] say they think gay marriage shouldn't be mainstreamed/forced upon churches.

And who here has said that gay marriage should be forced on churches? I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. I think Seawitch could see that argument from where she was standing in advocating fines for for-profit corporations that perform weddings professionally if they refuse to serve gays and lesbians. But those aren't churches. And there are no such fines.

You blunder is in projecting your informal straw poll as having any particular relevance to support for gay marriage. As you've done numerous times. Such projection fails utterly on multiple points.

First, the poll doesn't ask about the legality of gay marriage. Making any conclusions on the poll in relation to gay marriage support hopelessly speculative.

Second, its a straw poll. And straw polls are notoriously unreliable. Just ask Ron Paul supporters.....who pushed Paul to the top of virtually every straw poll. But couldn't carry a single state for their candidate. Straw polls draw only interested parties. And these parties can vote more than once. Neither of which results in reliable measurements of the populous at large.

Third, your polling sample is too small. There are 140 folks that voted. That's too small for any credible national poll. Worse, we don't know how many unique votes that was, as folks can vote multiple times. So your polling sample could be far, far smaller.

Fourth, your straw poll is singular. Meaning that even if it asked about gay marriage legality (which it doesn't), it would be an outlier. There are literally dozens of polls showing local and national support for gay marriage leading by double digits. Each of which actually asks about the support of gay marriage. Each with larger polling sizes. Each with random samples that can only vote once. And each supporting the other, with dozens of polls showing roughly the same result.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They will now come back with the natural morality and the consequences of the cosmos arguments. Again.

 

[Skylar]

They will now come back with the natural morality and the consequences of the cosmos arguments. Again.

Let them. Grand cosmos arguments have no relevance to legal outcomes.Marriage equality is about equality under the law. Which is why only the legal standards are relevant.

All the claims of 'objective moral natural law' and 'eternal fires of damnation' jiggery pokery I leave to them.

 

[Syriusly]

What a bunch of tom foolery from the natural morality gang.

They can believe it, but the can't deceive with it.

The importance isn't your skewed and subjective thoughts on what is moral. The importance in a democracy is that over 80% of the voters in USMB's largest poll [most popular/most important] say they think gay marriage shouldn't be mainstreamed/forced upon churches.

LOL...

Silhouette posts

Silhouettes lies.

Goal!

 

[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.

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

ROFLMNAO! THAT is a profound demonstration of clinical delusion you've got there.

Sadly, I have fairly high standards for those with whom I am willing to debate... and while it is true that this discussion had required me to curve qualifications for contributors who've come to oppose reason, you simply do not possess anywhere near the minimal cognitive acuity necessary to make the cut.

As a result, you are hereby sentenced to "Life in Ignore". Say hi to the idiots for me. Don't lead them astray, as I do not miss them, and I trust you understand that I hold you in no greater disdain... .

Buh Bye...

 

[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.

ROFLMNAO! THAT is a profound demonstration of clinical delusion you've got there.

Sadly, I have fairly high standards for those with whom I am willing to debate... and while it is true that this discussion had required me to curve qualifications for contributors who've come to oppose reason, you simply do not possess anywhere near the minimal cognitive acuity necessary to make the cut.

As a result, you are hereby sentenced to "Life in Ignore". Say hi to the idiots for me. Don't lead them astray, as I do not miss them, and I trust you understand that I hold you in no greater disdain... .

Buh Bye...

bye bye girlie boy don't let the door hit you on your way out ya bigoted POS..

 

[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.

Your conflating the purpose of marriage and the subsequent defining standards, with some precedent in exceptions which otherwise qualifies for infinite exceptions.

I've said for years that any reasonable compromise will be used by the Left as a justification to force unreasonable compromises; which is the first best reason to NEVER compromise with the UNREASONABLE and that LEFT-think axiomatically REJECTS REASON; thus are incapable of being "reasonable".

And while sound reasoning never requires outside validation, it is always nice when it happens.

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

By God THAT's BRILLIANT!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

ANOTHER BRILLIANT POINT!

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

Genius

There is no dichotomy.

That needs context... but it feels right.

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

That's true.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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 ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Actually: THE LAW in 31 of the 50 States defines Marriage as nature defines it.

You're deceitfully refer to the judicial insurgency which attempts to over-rule the stark Legislative, thus popular majorities which long debated and voted to preclude the lowering of marriage to the point which renders it meaningless.

But without regard to the pretense to the contrary: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Syriusly]

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 ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, or the joining of one man and one man, or the joining of one woman with one woman.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Actually: THE LAW in 31 of the 50 States defines Marriage as nature defines it.

You're deceitfully refer to the judicial insurgency which attempts to over-rule the stark Legislative, thus popular majorities which long debated and voted to preclude the lowering of marriage to the point which renders it meaningless.

But without regard to the pretense to the contrary: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Nature doesn't define marriage. Marriage does not exist in nature.

 

[Skylar]

Your conflating the purpose of marriage and the subsequent defining standards, with some precedent in exceptions which otherwise qualifies for infinite exceptions.

The purpose of marriage according to who? Again, you keep insisting that marriage can have only one purpose. And you've presented nothing to back that claim up. Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage. We did. Its our legal institution. And it can be whatever we want it to be. Nor did 'nature' limit marriage to only one purpose. That's you quoting yourself again. And you're nobody.

Worse, childless couples and those who can't have kids can still be married. Demonstrating undeniably that there are purposes other than children in marriage. Else infertile couples couldn't marry and the marriages of childless couples would be invalid. Yet the infertile can clearly marry, and the marriages of those who don't have kids is clearly valid. Demonstrating that your insistence that our legal institutions can have one and only one purpose is made up and demonstrably invalid.

It would be as absurd as insisting that since food's only 'physiological purpose' is to fuel the body, that anyone eating because they like the way a burger tastes or they want to celebrate their kids birthday party with a piece of cake is 'fraudulent', 'deceptive' 'abhorrent' and 'evil'.

Laughing....nope. There's more than one purpose to eating. Just like there's more than one purpose to sex. And as childless couples demonstrate, more than one purpose in marriage. And since 'biological human standards' are clearly not the only way to create a valid marriage, there's no logical reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. And certainly no legal reason. Which is why your ilk keep losing in court. And in public opinion.

Your claims make no sense. And of course have no legal relevance.

 

[Skylar]

Actually: THE LAW in 31 of the 50 States defines Marriage as nature defines it.

Again, for your claims to be valid, you have to prove that 1) The purpose of marriage is procreation 2) That it is the only possible purpose in marriage. And you can't do either. You keep quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage, we did. And as childless couples clearly demonstrate, children aren't necessary for a valid marriage. Neither having them nor being able to have them.

So your claims fail twice. Once in your definition. And again in your insistence that your definition is exclusive.

And of course your claims are utterly irrelevant legally. Since marriage equality is about equality under the law, legal standards are all that's relevant. Your feelings don't have any relevance to someone else's rights.

 

[Seawytch]

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 ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

While that may be how your religion defines it, 30 states and DC disagree.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your conflating the purpose of marriage and the subsequent defining standards, with some precedent in exceptions which otherwise qualifies for infinite exceptions.

The purpose of marriage according to who?

Nature...