Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

Nature...

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.

 

[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.

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

That's how Nature defines it... and how 31 states define it. Without regard to the judicial fiat which hopes to over-rule the stark majorities in those 31 states.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And that's really all there is to this.

 

[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.

That's how Nature defines it... and how 31 states define it. Without regard to the judicial fiat which hopes to over-rule the stark majorities in those 31 states.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And that's really all there is to this.

Nature doesn't define marriage, it is a legal institution. Your religion is free to define it as they see fit.

Gays ARE legally married regardless of your opinion.

 

[Skylar]

That's how Nature defines it... and how 31 states define it. Without regard to the judicial fiat which hopes to over-rule the stark majorities in those 31 states.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And that's really all there is to this.

Its just plain old appeals to authority again. Where you claim to speak for some overarching leviathan....because you say you do. Not because your arguments work when reason is applied, not because you can demonstrate that marriage has only one purpose, not because you can explain how your 'single purpose' meshes with infertile couples whose marriages are still valid, but because you claim to be the infallible intepreter of your appeal to authority again.

And again. And again.

If your claims had merit, they would hold up when tested under the weight of reason and rational thinking. But they don't. Anymore than claiming that the only purpose in eating is fueling the body. And eating because you like the taste of something is 'fraud', 'deceptive' and 'evil'. Yet that's exactly what you're doing for both sex and marriage.....and you can't make the argument work rationally.

So you keep appealing to your authority. And seem dumbfounded why no gives cares about your fallacy of logic. And why your beliefs have no legal relevance nor impact on anyone else's rights.

Get used to it.

 

[Syriusly]

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...

But Nature spoke to me just a few minutes ago and said that marriage is about a life long commitment between two partners......

 

[Skylar]

Gays ARE legally married regardless of your opinion.

Exactly. We have a win-win scenario for everyone. WhereRmy doesn't believe there is such thing as gay marriage and has insisted there's no point in discussing it. Our goal is marriage equality under the law. Seems like we've got a perfect solution:

He can keep refusing to discuss gay marriage on the basis of his own belief that it doesn't exist.

And we can keep advocating it, persuading the public and the courts, and expanding the rights for gays and lesbians across the country.

Everyone wins! I can get behind that. Sea witch?

 

[Seawytch]

Gays ARE legally married regardless of your opinion.

Exactly. We have a win-win scenario for everyone. WhereRmy doesn't believe there is such thing as gay marriage and has insisted there's no point in discussing it. Our goal is marriage equality under the law. Seems like we've got a perfect solution:

He can keep refusing to discuss gay marriage on the basis of his own belief that it doesn't exist.

And we can keep advocating it, persuading the public and the courts, and expanding the rights for gays and lesbians across the country.

Everyone wins! I can get behind that. Sea witch?

Yes. My marriage license is real whether he believes it exists or not.

 

[Skylar]

Yes. My marriage license is real whether he believes it exists or not.

Then it sounds like an ideal solution. You get legal protection and legal recognition of your union as being as valid as that of any straight couple. And he can believe whatever he wants about the validity of your marriage.

You can't ask for much better terms than that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law. It was specifically designed without homosexuals in mind. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration, an abnormality in the human genetic code. The majority of the human race is attracted to the opposite sex, which is the dominant trait among the human species, and all other forms of mammalian species.

I do advocate their equal treatment under the law, but that doesn't stop me from having a negative opinion of their... lifestyle. They attempt to change a practice that has existed for eons, to suit their own ways of life, fine. But they mustn't force that way of life onto anyone else. It seems here, and in the case of that mayor in Houston, that such things are becoming a reality.

Do you really want equality? Or do you want submission?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature...

Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.

Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.

Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology. The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus. The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations. You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.

Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as. Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions. They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy. Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether. Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!

Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.

So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

 

[ShackledNation]

Nature...

Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.

Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.

Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology. The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus. The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations. You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.

Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as. Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions. They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy. Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether. Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!

Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.

So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.

 

[Skylar]

Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.

Says you, appealing to authority. And you're neither nature nor speak for it. Rendering your claim yet another awkward attempt at a fallacy of logic.

First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology. The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus. The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.

Uh-huh. And what of infertile couples? Or childless couples? Why are their marriages still valid if the purpose of marriage is to have kids? This is where your argument breaks over and over. If the marriages of infertile couples and childless couples are valid, then there is a demonstrable purpose other than children in marriage.

And their marriages are still valid.

So you've failed to logically establish that the purpose of marriage is singular and exclusive. Or that you define it. Or that your appeal to authority does. And I've demonstrably proven that the purpose of marriage is neither singular nor exclusive. And proven that there are pefectly valid purposes in marriage that neither involve children nor the ability to create them. Using reason and rational thinking.

Which trump your fallacy of appealing to authority every time.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations. You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.

That's not a feeling. That's the law. You know, the standard you keep failing and why your subjective opinions have no relevance to anyone else's rights? Yeah, that law.

As marriage equality is about equal protection under the law, the legal standards are the only relevant ones. Believe otherwise to your heart's content. I'll keep advocating marriage equality, persuading people and watching the legally protected rights of gays and lesbians spread across the nation.

Seems like a win-win to me!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law. It was specifically designed without homosexuals in mind. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration, an abnormality in the human genetic code. The majority of the human race is attracted to the opposite sex, which is the dominant trait among the human species, and all other forms of mammalian species.

I do advocate their equal treatment under the law, but that doesn't stop me from having a negative opinion of their... lifestyle. They attempt to change a practice that has existed for eons, to suit their own ways of life, fine. But they mustn't force that way of life onto anyone else. It seems here, and in the case of that mayor in Houston, that such things are becoming a reality.

Do you really want equality? Or do you want submission?

Agreed...

Contrary to popular whimsy, that homosexuality is perfectly normal... it is quite literally, the inverse of normal human sexuality. Meaning that ya can't get MORE SEXUALLY ABNORMAL than homosexuality.

It's a presentation of abnormal reasoning... which is demonstrated through the movement which advocates for homosexuals resting in abject deceit; declaring that which is thoroughly deviant behavior to be normal behavior. They further declare that anyone who disagrees is deceitful... hateful and a threat to their rights to deceive, through fraudulent means, so as to influence the ignorant.

But hey... such is the nature of evil.

 

[Skylar]

Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law.

Marriage recognized under our law is very much our creation. The legally recognized institution of marriage that is protected by our laws and constitution? That's all I'm concerned with.

The 'primal' and 'transcendent' marriage that has nothing to do with the law I leave to you. Spin it, paint it, hug it, bake it into a pie....I could care less. And neither does the law.

 

[Skylar]

Contrary to popular whimsy, that homosexuality is perfectly normal... it is quite literally, the inverse of normal human sexuality. Meaning that ya can't get MORE SEXUALLY ABNORMAL than homosexuality.

That assumes that human sexuality serves only one purpose: procreation. And it serves many. You keep making the same mistake over and over. Assuming that A purpose is the ONLY purpose. And that assumptoin of exclusivity is unproven and irrational. It would be as silly as insisting that since the only biological purpose of eating is fueling the body, that having a piece of birthday cake at your son's 4th birthday party is 'fraudulent' 'deceptive' and 'evil'.

Its obviously not. As there's more than one purpose in eating. Just as there is more than one purpose in sex. And as childless couples and the infertile being able to validly marry demonstrate, there's more than one purpose in marriage....which has nothing to do with children nor the ability to have them.

 

[ShackledNation]

Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law. It was specifically designed without homosexuals in mind. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration, an abnormality in the human genetic code. The majority of the human race is attracted to the opposite sex, which is the dominant trait among the human species, and all other forms of mammalian species.

I do advocate their equal treatment under the law, but that doesn't stop me from having a negative opinion of their... lifestyle. They attempt to change a practice that has existed for eons, to suit their own ways of life, fine. But they mustn't force that way of life onto anyone else. It seems here, and in the case of that mayor in Houston, that such things are becoming a reality.

Do you really want equality? Or do you want submission?

Agreed...

Contrary to popular whimsy, that homosexuality is perfectly normal... it is quite literally, the inverse of normal human sexuality. Meaning that ya can't get MORE SEXUALLY ABNORMAL than homosexuality.

It's a presentation of abnormal reasoning... which is demonstrated through the movement which advocates for homosexuals resting in abject deceit; declaring that which is thoroughly deviant behavior to be normal behavior. They further declare that anyone who disagrees is deceitful... hateful and a threat to their rights to deceive, through fraudulent means, so as to influence the ignorant.

But hey... such is the nature of evil.

That's the same flawed reasoning that made nuns believe that the abnormality of left-handedness meant left-handed people were evil.

Stop conflating normality with morality. Red hair is abnormal. Left-handedness is abnormal. A lot of things are abnormal or normal. That has nothing to do with right and wrong.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.

Says you, appealing to authority.

You're trying to imply that the appeal to authority is fallacious. Such is only the case where the appeal is toward a misleading authority, and where the authority is alone is said to stand over all else, in terms of reason and facts. Such is not the case in any argument that I've presented.

Nature is however that which designed human physiology, which irrefutably establishes the defining standards intrinsic to human physiology.

Such is an objective standard resting in unadulterated science which naturally draws the ire of the lowly relativists, who it also deals out in terms of legitimacy... but nature doesn't give a red rats ass, what a communist feels about anything.

Such is the nature of Americans.

 

[Skylar]

You're trying to imply that the appeal to authority is fallacious.

I'm not implying it. I'm straight up saying it. Appeals to authority are a classic fallacy of logic. And you taking the role of infallible arbiter of 'the laws of nature' are a classic appeal to authority. And thus a fallacy.

You told us that it was the reason and rational argument that validates a claim. And yet reason and rational argument don't work to support your claim. You can't factually establish that sex or marriage serve only one purpose. You simply say that is the case....appealing to authority. And then condemn anything that doesn't fall into that ONE purpose as 'fraudulent', 'deceptive' and 'evil'.

Its a silly argument. As silly as insisting that eating for pleasure is 'evil' because the only 'valid' purpose of eating is to fuel the body. Its just makes no sense. There are multiple purposes for eating. Just as there are multiple purposes for sex.

The valid marriages of childless couples and infertile couples demonstrate, incontrovertibly, that there are multiple purposes of marriage. Else any infertile couple couldn't get married, with the marriages of the childless being invalidated. Yet the infertile can marry.And the marriages of the childless are valid. And all without having a single child. Proving, through the use of reason and logic, that there is more than one purpose in marriage. And it has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Why then would we forbid gays and lesbians from being able to marry for failing to meet a standard that *no one* is held to? It makes no sense.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Contrary to popular whimsy, that homosexuality is perfectly normal... it is quite literally, the inverse of normal human sexuality. Meaning that ya can't get MORE SEXUALLY ABNORMAL than homosexuality.

That assumes that human sexuality serves only one purpose: procreation.

It doesn't assume that sexuality serves the singular purpose of procreation, it recognizes that fact that procreate is the singular PURPOSE of sexuality.

This without regard to the purveyors of perverse sexualities, who subjectively define such as their relative circumstances require. And whose sociopathy precludes them from any concern for any of the harm they're behavior projects upon anyone else.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes. My marriage license is real whether he believes it exists or not.

Then it sounds like an ideal solution. You get legal protection and legal recognition of your union as being as valid as that of any straight couple. And he can believe whatever he wants about the validity of your marriage.

You can't ask for much better terms than that.

Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law. It was specifically designed without homosexuals in mind. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration, an abnormality in the human genetic code. The majority of the human race is attracted to the opposite sex, which is the dominant trait among the human species, and all other forms of mammalian species.

I do advocate their equal treatment under the law, but that doesn't stop me from having a negative opinion of their... lifestyle. They attempt to change a practice that has existed for eons, to suit their own ways of life, fine. But they mustn't force that way of life onto anyone else. It seems here, and in the case of that mayor in Houston, that such things are becoming a reality.

Do you really want equality? Or do you want submission?

Yet mating occurred before there was marriage- and marriage occurs without mating. What marriage was originally intended for- well that we will never really know- what marriage was intended for has changed over time- for example women no longer become the property of men when they marry. Current marriage is very different from what was 'intended'.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion about the lifestyle of homosexuals, or Jews or blacks or hockey players.

But no one will ever force you to marry someone of the same gender. Or force you into a life of being attracted to the same gender.

Just not going to happen.