Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now folks, inevtiably a newb comes along and asks "Does anyone ever win any of these arguments?"

Be sure to bookmark this argument so that you can lead that sprout to a classic example of someone doing JUST THAT!

And what did we learn?

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 and that they intend to use the intrinsic force of the government to force others to accept their 'beliefs', as well.

And we learned that FROM NO LESS AN AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT than the very people on this forum, who Advocate to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and if we can't believe THEM regarding their own intentions, then how can we believe them about ANYTHING?

 

[dblack]

Some [sic] shit, alright.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.

I don't think servitude means what you think it means.

 

[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,

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 Normalize 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.

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.

but to clear the way for Adults to pursue children for sexual gratification and that they intend to use the intrinsic force of the government to force others to accept their 'beliefs', as well.

You can believe whatever you want. No one cares.

Marriage equality is about equal protection under the law. And the standards of the law are all that are relevant.

 

[Skylar]

Well so far the list of forced servitude includes: bakers, photographers, event planners, event hosts, preachers... but how cool is it that 395 pages into the discussion you need to feign the pretense that such hasn't happened.

What preacher has been forced to perform a wedding he didn't want to?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A gay couple getting married ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As long as the sexually abnormal apply with someone of the distinct gender, no one is suggesting the they can't get married 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]

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.

And what servitude are you being forced into?

Well so far the list of forced servitude includes: bakers, photographers, event planners, event hosts, preachers... but how cool is it that 395 pages into the discussion you need to feign the pretense that such hasn't happened.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well so far the list of forced servitude includes: bakers, photographers, event planners, event hosts, preachers... but how cool is it that 395 pages into the discussion you need to feign the pretense that such hasn't happened.

What preacher has been forced to perform a wedding he didn't want to?

WAIT... YOU JUST EMPHATICALLY DENIED THAT ANYONE HAD BEEN FORCED INTO SERVITUDE... AND 3-1/2 MINUTES YOU'RE DOWN TO DENYING THAT PREACHERS HAVEN'T BEEN SO FORCED?

ROFLMNAO! HYSTERICAL... YOU CAN'T FIND YOUR INTELLECTUAL ASS WITH BOTH HANDS CAN YA TO SAVE YOUR LIFE?

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. As long as the sexually abnormal apply with someone of the distinct gender, no one is suggesting the they can't get married.

You're just making the same declarative statement over and over. You haven't logically established that definition as exclusive. Or given any reason it should be. Repeating a logically and rationally baseless argument is mere subjective opinion.

And I've already demonstrated that there is more than one purpose to marriage. And it has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Stripped of that basis, why would you even want to deny gays and lesbians the right to same sex marriage. Let alone think the law should enforce your beliefs?

\WAIT... YOU JUST EMPHATICALLY DENIED THAT ANYONE HAD BEEN FORCED INTO SERVITUDE... AND 3-1/2 MINUTES YOU'RE DOWN TO DENYING THAT PREACHERS HAVEN'T BEEN SO FORCED?

So no preachers are being forced to perform gay marriages?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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,

We learned that you made that accusation.

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]

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

So you've completely abandoned your every logical fallacy about gay marriage and are refusing to discuss the topic any longer?

I guess the gay marriage debate didn't work out so well for you.

Remember that.

 

[Skylar]

And....what preachers have been forced to perform gay marriages? I'm still waiting for a single example.

Did you abandon that claim too?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And....what preachers have been forced to perform gay marriages? I'm still waiting for a single example.

Did you abandon that claim too?

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.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

QFT

 

[dblack]

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.

And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.

I don't think servitude means what you think it means.

i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.

 

[Skylar]

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

So you've completely abandoned your every logical fallacy about gay marriage and are refusing to discuss the topic any longer?

I guess the gay marriage debate didn't work out so well for you.

Remember that.

 

[Skylar]

i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.

I think that the federal laws are an overreach. I think that the state laws are reasonable. As the regulation of intrastate commerce is utterly a power of the State. And requiring that all businesses treat their customers fairly and equally isn't unreasonable.

My exception would be religious corporations performing religious ceremonies. Like professional preachers.

 

[dblack]

i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.

I think that the federal laws are an overreach. I think that the state laws are reasonable. As the regulation of intrastate commerce is utterly a power of the State. And requiring that all businesses treat their customers fairly and equally isn't unreasonable.

My exception would be religious corporations performing religious ceremonies. Like professional preachers.

Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.

 

[Skylar]

Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.

The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit. Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce. Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.

If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.

Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.

I don't think servitude means what you think it means.

i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.

PA laws have nothing to do with marriage equality.