Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

It is precisely logical, therefore it is rational... You're deceitfully claiming that you're ignorant of the dozens of times prior to that post wherein I set forth the defining elements of marriage and the singular purpose for such.

Obviously it isn't. Which is why you spend all your time telling us how logical it is rather than demonstrating it with a logical, rational argument. Or through shoring up any of the holes in your claims. Like.....infertile couples. Or childless couples. Or grandparents. If the only purpose in sex is procreation then why would infertile couples ever have sex?

Clearly there is more than one purpose to sex.

If the only purpose in marriage is children, then why are the marriages of infertile couples, childless couples or your grandparents still valid?

Clearly there's more than one purpose in marriage.

Your argument can't take any of this into account and breaks the moment its mentioned.

You're further claiming that because individuals who otherwise meet the standards of marriage: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... have been accepted in marriage, that this precedent requires that those who do NOT meet the standards, should also be accepted.

If the 'joining of one man and one woman' aren't necessary to satisfy all purposes of marriage, then they're arbitrary standards. As infertile couples demonstrate, neither procreation nor the ability to procreate are a requirement for a valid marriage. There are clearly other purposes to the union that have nothing to do with children or the ability to have children.

There are simply no requirement of marriage that must be met that gays and lesbians in same sex unions can't meet. So on what basis would we exclude them?

No rational basis. No logical basis. But I'm sure you have quite a few emotional bases that you'd like to use. The problem is that your feelings don't define anyone else's rights.

Such is unreasonable, and it is unreasonable because your cult is founded upon a profound delusion... your advocacy is likewise set upon a profound deceit, which rests upon that delusion. Your demand that others accept your behavior and are perfectly happy to use the power of the state to render those who reject your behavior into servitude, PROVES the FOLLY OF TOLERATING YOU AND THE FRAUDULENCE YOU REPRESENT.

You're offering us nested assumptions, each resting on the last, none of them logically or rationally established. You're simply offering us your personal opinion....which you're welcome to. But your opinion and beliefs don't define or in any way effect someone else's rights. Which is why your argument remains pristinely irrelevant to same sex marriage in this country. And why the marriages of gays and lesbians are being recognized by State after State as just as valid and just as worthy of protection as any marriage of straight folks.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We learned that you made the accusation. You've never been able to factually establish it.

There is nothing in the record of this written discussion, wherein I have accused anyone of anything.

I stated that sexual abnormality was the first essential trait of those who pursue children for sexual gratification and that Homosexuality not only deviates from the standard of human sexuality, but that it is the very INVERSE of such... thus deviates as far from the human sexuality standard as is possible, at least where the participants are all human... and that in those terms that there is incontrovertibly, no discernible distinction in homosexuals and those who pursue children for sexual gratification. Clearly BOTH deviate from the standard intrinsic to human sexuality.

Toward fleshing that out, and helping you toward establishing that as a fact, on a scale wherein even the most deluded individuals could not ignore, I asked you the basis for your rejection of the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.

And how did you answer that? You asked for evidence where you had ever rejected the idea of adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.

I then provided you with 7 more opportunities over the last 5 hours to state in specific terms on the issue of adults pursuing children for sexual gratification... as well as the basis for either your approval or disapproval of such. You have consistently refused to clarify your position... .

This is you demonstrating that the reasoning which YOU use to justify your forcing of your deviancy onto others, provides that you can find no means to publicly condemn other forms of sexual abnormalities, which establishes YOU as being unable to demonstrate a distinction between your deviancy and that of those adults who pursue children for sexual gratification.

So where there is an 'accusation' on the table... responsibility for such is yours. Which is offset however, by your having provided the basis that established such in no uncertain terms, as fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where_r has always failed philosophically in making the link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

He yaps a lot, but game he's not.

 

[Skylar]

There is nothing in the record of his written discussion, wherein I have accused anyone of anything.

Nor has anyone said that you did. Your accusation was made against 'The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality'. Whatever that is. And you've never logically or rationally establish the veracity of your claims......or the traits of the strawman you've been pummeling. Your conversation has been exclusively with yourself.

And thus has no relevance to anyone but you.

 

[Skylar]

Where_r has always failed philosophically in making the link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

That's just the latest failure. He's desperate to abandon the gay marriage debate or discuss the topic of the thread. His claims regarding marriage failed utterly. He was never able to logically or factually establish his argument that sex has only one purpose and that marriage has only one purpose.

And it made no more sense than insisting that since the only 'biological purpose' of eating is to fuel the body, that having a piece of birthday cake to celebrate your son's 4th birthday was 'deviant','fraudulent', 'deceptive' and 'evil'.

Given that turd of a position, what could he do but try and change the topic? The gay marriage debate clearly wasn't working out for him.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is nothing in the record of his written discussion, wherein I have accused anyone of anything.

Nor has anyone said that you did. Your accusation was made against 'The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality'. Whatever that is. And you've never logically or rationally establish the veracity of your claims......or the traits of the strawman you've been pummeling. Your conversation has been exclusively with yourself.

And thus has no relevance to anyone but you.

Really?

So this isn't you?

We learned that you made the accusation. You've never been able to factually establish it.

FYI: THAT would be 'the relevance'.

You'll recall that you said that just before I said this:

We learned that you made the accusation. You've never been able to factually establish it.

There is nothing in the record of this written discussion, wherein I have accused anyone of anything.

I stated that sexual abnormality was the first essential trait of those who pursue children for sexual gratification and that Homosexuality not only deviates from the standard of human sexuality, but that it is the very INVERSE of such... thus deviates as far from the human sexuality standard as is possible, at least where the participants are all human... and that in those terms that there is incontrovertibly, no discernible distinction in homosexuals and those who pursue children for sexual gratification. Clearly BOTH deviate from the standard intrinsic to human sexuality.

Toward fleshing that out, and helping you toward establishing that as a fact, on a scale wherein even the most deluded individuals could not ignore, I asked you the basis for your rejection of the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.

And how did you answer that? You asked for evidence where you had ever rejected the idea of adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.

I then provided you with 7 more opportunities over the last 5 hours to state in specific terms on the issue of adults pursuing children for sexual gratification... as well as the basis for either your approval or disapproval of such. You have consistently refused to clarify your position... .

This is you demonstrating that the reasoning which YOU use to justify your forcing of your deviancy onto others, provides that you can find no means to publicly condemn other forms of sexual abnormalities, which establishes YOU as being unable to demonstrate a distinction between your deviancy and that of those adults who pursue children for sexual gratification.

So where there is an 'accusation' on the table... responsibility for such is yours. Which is offset however, by your having provided the basis that established such in no uncertain terms, as fact.

 

[Skylar]

You'll recall that you said that just before I said this:

I did. And to the best of my knowledge 'The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone. Making both your accusation and the strawman you've invented to pummel irrelevant to anyone but you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It is precisely logical, therefore it is rational... You're deceitfully claiming that you're ignorant of the dozens of times prior to that post wherein I set forth the defining elements of marriage and the singular purpose for such.

Obviously it isn't.

Based upon what?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is nothing in the record of his written discussion, wherein I have accused anyone of anything.

Nor has anyone said that you did.

Really?

So this isn't you?

We learned that you made the accusation. ... .

I did.

LOL! Anyone need anything else?

 

[Skylar]

It is precisely logical, therefore it is rational... You're deceitfully claiming that you're ignorant of the dozens of times prior to that post wherein I set forth the defining elements of marriage and the singular purpose for such.

Obviously it isn't.

Based upon what?

Based on all the portions of my reply that you carefully omitted:

Obviously it isn't. Which is why you spend all your time telling us how logical it is rather than demonstrating it with a logical, rational argument. Or through shoring up any of the holes in your claims. Like.....infertile couples. Or childless couples. Or grandparents. If the only purpose in sex is procreation then why would infertile couples ever have sex?

Clearly there is more than one purpose to sex.

If the only purpose in marriage is children, then why are the marriages of infertile couples, childless couples or your grandparents still valid?

Clearly there's more than one purpose in marriage.

Your argument can't take any of this into account and breaks the moment its mentioned.

Ignore as you will. Its not like the holes in your logic and your failure to rationally establish the veracity of your claims just vanishes because you ignore them.

We can all still see them.

 

[Skylar]

LOL! Anyone need anything else?

And here's my reply again, this time without your editing:

I did. And to the best of my knowledge 'The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone. Making both your accusation and the strawman you've invented to pummel irrelevant to anyone but you.

Again, you keep working under the assumption that if you omit any mention of the holes in your claims, that we can't see them. Alas, that's not how it works. Your ''The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' still isn't anyone. Your accusations remain pristinely unfounded logically or rationally. And your strawman remains yours to pummel as you will....with no relevance to anyone but you.

And its the failure of logic, reason and rational thinking that render your claims irrelevant, your conclusions invalid. Neither of which changes when you close your eyes and pretend that no such holes in your logic exist because you deleted any mention of them.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It is precisely logical, therefore it is rational... You're deceitfully claiming that you're ignorant of the dozens of times prior to that post wherein I set forth the defining elements of marriage and the singular purpose for such.

Obviously it isn't.

Based upon what?

Based on all the portions of my reply that you carefully omitted:

Obviously it isn't. Which is why you spend all your time telling us how logical it is rather than demonstrating it with a logical, rational argument. Or through shoring up any of the holes in your claims. Like.....infertile couples. Or childless couples. Or grandparents. If the only purpose in sex is procreation then why would infertile couples ever have sex?

Clearly there is more than one purpose to sex.

If the only purpose in marriage is children, then why are the marriages of infertile couples, childless couples or your grandparents still valid?

Clearly there's more than one purpose in marriage.

Your argument can't take any of this into account and breaks the moment its mentioned.

Ignore as you will. Its not like the holes in your logic and your failure to rationally establish the veracity of your claims just vanishes because you ignore them.

We can all still see them.

Young lady... you've lost this debate one point at a time and if I may say so you've done so SPECTACULARLY!

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.

 

[dblack]

Those sure are some big red letters.

 

[RKMBrown]

It is precisely logical, therefore it is rational... You're deceitfully claiming that you're ignorant of the dozens of times prior to that post wherein I set forth the defining elements of marriage and the singular purpose for such.

Obviously it isn't.

Based upon what?

Based on all the portions of my reply that you carefully omitted:

Obviously it isn't. Which is why you spend all your time telling us how logical it is rather than demonstrating it with a logical, rational argument. Or through shoring up any of the holes in your claims. Like.....infertile couples. Or childless couples. Or grandparents. If the only purpose in sex is procreation then why would infertile couples ever have sex?

Clearly there is more than one purpose to sex.

If the only purpose in marriage is children, then why are the marriages of infertile couples, childless couples or your grandparents still valid?

Clearly there's more than one purpose in marriage.

Your argument can't take any of this into account and breaks the moment its mentioned.

Ignore as you will. Its not like the holes in your logic and your failure to rationally establish the veracity of your claims just vanishes because you ignore them.

We can all still see them.

Young lady... you've lost this debate one point at a time and if I may say so you've done so SPECTACULARLY!

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS OF WHERE EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION OR THE BASIS FOR YOUR AGREEMENT OF SUCH.

Skylar is incapable of making explicit statements regarding her opinions. I think she's one of those answer bots.

 

[Skylar]

We learned that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to normalize not only homosexuality, but to clear the way for Adults to pursue children for sexual gratification, as well. And we learned FROM: The the very people on this forum, who Advocate to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and if we can't believe THEM regarding their intentions, then how can we believe them about ANYTHING?

We learned that you made that accusation. But you were never been able to back it up factually or logically. We learned your 'Advocacy to Noramlize Sexual Abnormality' isn't anyone....by your own admission. And we learned that the fact didn't stop you from beating the stuffing out of your strawman anyway.

Meanwhile, we learned that marriage equality has with equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians, with the law recognizing their same sex unions as valid and as protectable as those of straight couples. Which in 30 of 50 states, it does. And likely more in the very near future.

We learned that the reason for the triumphs of same sex marriage are simple: there's no compelling state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. There's no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. And the standards being use to exclude them: the requirement to procreate......isn't a requirement for anyone.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar is incapable of making explicit statements.

Sure I am. Watch: gays and lesbians should have their marriages recognized as being as legally valid as those of straights. And there's no compelling state interest in denying them.

There's an explicit statement for you. Feel free to quote me.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We learned that you made that accusation. But you were never been able to back it up factually or logically.

Your innumerable concessions have all been duly noted and all have been summarily accepted.

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.

 

[Skylar]

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.

The debate isn't about the adults and their sexual gratification for children. Its about gay marriage and whether or not churches shoudl be forced to perform weddings for them. Check the thread title.

You brought a knife to a gun fight.

And have abandoned your every claim regarding gay marriage. And well you should have.....they weren't very well thought out.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Skylar is incapable of making explicit statements.

Sure I am. Watch: gays and lesbians should have their marriages recognized as being as legally valid as those of straights.

The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and your need to find legitimacy while refusing to comport yourself within the confines of legitimate behavior, in no way alters that reality.

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.

The debate isn't about the adults and their sexual gratification for children. Its about gay marriage and whether or not churches shoudl be forced to perform weddings for them

[sic]

The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and your need to find legitimacy while refusing to comport yourself within the confines of legitimate behavior, in no way alters that reality.

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.