Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality. The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.

Says you, citing you. But you haven't factually established that ...

The Board should recognize that the above member concludes in her own mind, that there is no evidence that the pursuit of children for sexual gratification presents ANY deviation from human sexual normality...

This is the current state of the regression of this cult. They're now sufficiently comfortable to no longer even feign a contest against pedophilia.

Again... it should be noted that this began with my assertion that those determined to legalize pedophilia are central to the movement to legalize homosexuality.

What possible relevance does your obsession with pedophilia have with gay marriage, its legality, churches being forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies against their will?

You've completely abandoned your every argument regarding gay marriage, run from your every claim, and now refuse to address the topic.

So much for your 'logic' and 'reason'. If even you are going to treat your claims like the flotsam they are, why would we give a shit?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING 'CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN'.

And when did I do this?

You haven't... and I only asked to get you to admit that you have not and through your failure to do so here, YOU have established that YOU: DO NOT REJECT ADULTS PURSUING CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

You see... any 'normal' person: WOULD.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.

There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality", as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Then what possible purpose would be served in opposing gay marriage...

The purpose is noted below: Wherein it is established that YOU an unapologetic Advocate of Sexual Abnormality, find no abnormality in adults pursuing children for sexual gratification, and as a result, where the culture accepts the Normalization of the Sexual Abnormality: Homosexuality, it IN YOU MIND, accepts ALL FORMS OF SEXUAL ABNORMALITY, including that which requires the ADULT to pursue CHILDREN for sexual gratification.

Again, the reader should know that THIS was established by the Advocate seeking to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, in her own words:

Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING 'CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN'.

And when did I do this?

You haven't... and I only asked to get you to admit that you have not and through your failure to do so here, YOU have established that YOU: DO NOT REJECT ADULTS PURSUING CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

You see... any 'normal' person: WOULD.

The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality. The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.

Says you, citing you. But you haven't factually established that ...

The Board should recognize that the above member concludes in her own mind, that there is no evidence that the pursuit of children for sexual gratification presents ANY deviation from human sexual normality...

This is the current state of the regression of this cult. They're now sufficiently comfortable to no longer even feign a contest against pedophilia.

Again... it should be noted that this began with my assertion that those determined to legalize pedophilia are central to the movement to legalize homosexuality.

 

[Skylar]

You haven't...

Then your 'when did you stop beating your wife' fallacy fails again. If you're going to abandon the entire topic of the thread for your personal obsession with pedophilia, if you're going to toss your every silly claim on the midden heap, if you're going to leave the holes in your logic and reason open,bare, and bleeding.....

.....at least flee to something that isn't yet another fallacy of logic.

 

[Skylar]

he purpose is noted below: Wherein it is established that YOU an unapologetic Advocate of Sexual Abnormality, find no abnormality in adults pursuing children for sexual gratification, and as a result, where the culture accepts the Normalization of the Sexual Abnormality: Homosexuality, it IN YOU MIND, accepts ALL FORMS OF SEXUAL ABNORMALITY, including that which requires the ADULT to pursue CHILDREN for sexual gratification.

The purpose of marriage is noted in your obsession with pedophilia?

Um, I don't think marriage means what you think it means.

You've completely abandoned all of your arguments regarding gay marriage. If even you are going to treat your words as meaningless garbage to be tossed on the midden heap of rhetoric.....can you blame us if we treat your claims exactly the same?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You haven't...

Then your 'when did you stop beating your wife' fallacy fails again. If you're going to abandon the entire topic of the thread for your personal obsession with pedophilia, if you're going to toss your every silly claim on the midden heap, if you're going to leave the holes in your logic and reason open,bare, and bleeding.....

.....at least flee to something that isn't yet another fallacy of logic.

The "Loaded Question" is only fallacious where the LOAD sets the subject up to accept that for which and of which they are not guilty. Ya see: 'Stop beating your wife' is actually a perfectly valid position where one can reasonably show evidence that the individual is, in fact, beating their wife. If you possessed the slightest understanding of reason and, the natural laws that govern such, you'd have known that.

What I see in your latest 'irrationalization', is yet ANOTHER IMPLICATION: of the UNFOUNDED VARIETY, which seeks to establish that you DO reject the adult pursuit of children, without actually having stated that ya do and without having provided THE BASIS ON WHICH YOUR REJECTION RESTS!

You were asked 6 times to state the basis for your rejection of such, BECAUSE REASON REQUIRES THAT A REASONABLE PERSON VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Um, I don't think ...

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

You were asked 6 times to state the basis for your rejection of Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

 

[Skylar]

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

Says you, citing you. But there's nothing to say that marriage can't other purposes and other valid bases. As infertile couples with valid marriages demonstrate, its entirely possibly to have a valid basis of marriage that has NOTHING to do with children or the ability to have them.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage for failing to meet a requirement that applies to no one?

Logically or rationally, we wouldn't. And there's certainly no legal reason. Why is why gay marriage bans have failed over and over and over again. They have no compelling state interest. Nor do they have a rational basis.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Says you, citing you.

Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... . Homosexuals come in both flavors.

You were asked 6 times to state the basis for your rejection of Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Folks, the coolest part of this, is that she's blissfully ignorant that the answer is being established, with her every refusal to simply state her reasoning.

Reason provides that where someone refuses to state their reasoning, it is because they feel that stating such will not be favorable to the perception that they are desperately trying to establish, which demonstrates the fraudulent nature of that perception.

Again, what have they already established as the three fundamental tenets of their 'beliefs': Deceit, FRAUD and ignorance.

How cool is it when we can actually see those would-be pillars of irrationality being fully applied?

 

[dblack]

Folks, the coolest part of this, is that she's blissfully ignorant that the answer is being established, with her every refusal to simply state her reasoning.

Reason provides that where someone refuses to state their reasoning, it is because they feel that stating such will not be favorable to the perception that they are desperately trying to establish, which demonstrates the fraudulent nature of that perception.

Again, what have they already established as the three fundamental tenets of their 'beliefs': Deceit, FRAUD and ignorance.

How cool is it when we can actually see those pillars of their reasoning being fully applied?

Why don't you just come out of the closet and get it over with?

 

[Seawytch]

No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.

There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality", as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Your opinion does not alter my civil marriage in any way, shape or form. I still get a dependent ID card for my spouse and she still gets my SS benefits. [emoji13]

 

[Seawytch]

Folks, the coolest part of this, is that she's blissfully ignorant that the answer is being established, with her every refusal to simply state her reasoning.

Reason provides that where someone refuses to state their reasoning, it is because they feel that stating such will not be favorable to the perception that they are desperately trying to establish, which demonstrates the fraudulent nature of that perception.

Again, what have they already established as the three fundamental tenets of their 'beliefs': Deceit, FRAUD and ignorance.

How cool is it when we can actually see those pillars of their reasoning being fully applied?

Why don't you just come out of the closet and get it over with?

No thanks, ya'll can keep him.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Folks, the coolest part of this, is that she's blissfully ignorant that the answer is being established, with her every refusal to simply state her reasoning.

Reason provides that where someone refuses to state their reasoning, it is because they feel that stating such will not be favorable to the perception that they are desperately trying to establish, which demonstrates the fraudulent nature of that perception.

Again, what have they already established as the three fundamental tenets of their 'beliefs': Deceit, FRAUD and ignorance.

How cool is it when we can actually see those pillars of their reasoning being fully applied?

Why don't you just come out of the closet and get it over with?

Oh a deflective concession....

DULY NOTED AND SUMMARILY ACCEPTED!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.

There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality", as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Your opinion does not alter my civil marriage in any way, shape or form. I still get a dependent ID card for my spouse and she still gets my SS benefits. [emoji13]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. But I am thrilled to hear that you have setup a legally binding roommate agreement, that's probably a really good idea.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Says you, citing you.

Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... . Homosexuals come in both flavors.

You were asked 6 times to state the basis for your rejection of Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO STATE THE BASIS OF YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

 

[dblack]

Wow. Big. Red. Words. This guy must be serious.

Seriously in denial.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wow. Big. Red. Words. This guy must be serious.

Seriously in denial.

More deflection... Why its as if obscurant retorts were, on some level, valid reasoning.

LOL! You concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[dblack]

Wow. Big. Red. Words. This guy must be serious.

Seriously in denial.

More deflection... Why its as if obscurant retorts were, on some level, valid reasoning.

LOL! You concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.

Oh good.

You really don't need to feel guilty about that dick your ass. God loves you anyway.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wow. Big. Red. Words. This guy must be serious.

Seriously in denial.

More deflection... Why its as if obscurant retorts were, on some level, valid reasoning.

LOL! You concession is again duly noted and summarily accepted.

Oh good.

You really don't need to feel guilty about that dick your ass. God loves you anyway.

OH! A violent response to the rejection of your closely held feelings. COOL!

Sadly, your discourse fails to meet the minimal standards for qualification to participate in discussions with reasonable people.... so you're hereby sentenced to LIFE IN IGNORE! (Say hit to the other idiots for me... )

Buh Bye!