Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.

For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...

No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.

Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.

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.

Allow me to demonstrate:

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

This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.

(LOL! Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)

The bat guano crazy is almost over?

Oh we know that is not true.

And just to clarify- no one but Conservatives is suggesting that Churches should- or will- be 'forced to accomodate' homosexual weddings.

Just as a Rabbi is not required to marry a Catholic in the Synogogue....not Priest will be forced to marry a gay couple in the Cathedral.

 

[Syriusly]

And THAT... is how THAT is done kids... . Anyone with a firm understanding of nature's laws can do the same.

There is truly nothing easier on this earth than shutting down the irrational drivel common to the unenviable ranks of the intellectually less fortunate.

Bat guano crazy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.

For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...

No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.

Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.

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.

Allow me to demonstrate:

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

This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.

(LOL! Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)

The bat guano crazy is almost over?

Oh we know that is not true.

And just to clarify- no one but Conservatives is suggesting that Churches should- or will- be 'forced to accomodate' homosexual weddings.

Just as a Rabbi is not required to marry a Catholic in the Synogogue....not Priest will be forced to marry a gay couple in the Cathedral.

True, reflecting their ignorance, likely willful.

And many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.

 

[RKMBrown]

The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.

For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...

No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.

Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.

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.

Allow me to demonstrate:

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

This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.

(LOL! Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)

The bat guano crazy is almost over?

Oh we know that is not true.

And just to clarify- no one but Conservatives is suggesting that Churches should- or will- be 'forced to accomodate' homosexual weddings.

Just as a Rabbi is not required to marry a Catholic in the Synogogue....not Priest will be forced to marry a gay couple in the Cathedral.

True, reflecting their ignorance, likely willful.

And many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.

Well to be fair the 14th explicitly states that your life, liberty, and property can be taken by the state with due process.

 

[dblack]

Is the real argument over the fact that we grant special privileges to married partners via government? And gays want in on the action?

 

[Silhouette]

...many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.

Do churches have a right to deny adoption to gay couples?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Is the real argument over the fact that we grant special privileges to married partners via government? And gays want in on the action?

Best I can tell, it has always been explained that they want the same TAX benefits as traditional married couples.
The right to visit a "partner" in the hospital when their condition dictates "family members only" ........................

They want to be accepted by society mostly,they just don't understand it's like being a person with leprosy and expecting the rest of us to accept them with open arms ..........................
They have never seen a mirror and have no idea how the rest of society perceives them, but the will get ACCEPTANCE no matter the cost to us ..................

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.

For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...

No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.

Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.

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.

Allow me to demonstrate:

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

This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.

(LOL! Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)

The bat guano crazy is almost over?

Oh we know that is not true.

And just to clarify- no one but Conservatives is suggesting that Churches should- or will- be 'forced to accomodate' homosexual weddings.

Just as a Rabbi is not required to marry a Catholic in the Synogogue....not Priest will be forced to marry a gay couple in the Cathedral.

True, reflecting their ignorance, likely willful.

And many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.

LOL! Look KIDS! It's the public pretense, wherein those with an established mental abnormality, feign innocence from their just as established intent to force others to accept and otherwise 'celebrate' their anti-theist perversion of human physiology!

LOL!

Be honest... who truly believed that we'd see a rising of 'Old Testament Evil' in our own times?

Of course, the bad news is that God will annihilate them and for those who read the book, you know what that means for the rest of us down here in the impact area! Suffice it to say... it ain't good.

But hey... that's EVIL for ya.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.

Do churches have a right to deny adoption to gay couples?

Yes... but that's only because of the responsibility they bear, as a function of their rights, to defend the innocent from those who threaten to infringe upon their means to exercise their rights. Rights which come as a result of God's endowment of their lives, thus the right to pursue the fulfillment of same... and the correlating responsibilities which sustain those rights.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

...many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.

Do churches have a right to deny adoption to gay couples?

Church's have nothing to do with adoptions, thus a strawman ............................

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.

Do churches have a right to deny adoption to gay couples?

Church's have nothing to do with adoptions, thus a strawman ............................

Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument. Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.

Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?

Now... let me ask ya. How many children is it that you've adopted?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument. Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.

Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?

Now... let me ask ya. How many children is it that you've adopted?

If you are trying to come off as intelligent, it ain't happening ........................
Issue are incapable of "recognizing anything" .......................................

You were so busy stringing together that bull shit you failed to show either comprehension of the subject matter or an understanding of the bases for my stance.
Church's are not consulted during an adoption and have no say, legally or morally in adoption process's, at best a priest / minister might be used as a character reference for an adopting party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

wherermykeys is merely a moral fascist, which means we should simply do as he tells us because he is talking to God. Privately. For the rest of us.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument. Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.

Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?

Now... let me ask ya. How many children is it that you've adopted?

If you are trying to come off as intelligent, it ain't happening ........................

LOL!

Oh NOooooo! Say it ain't so scamp!

Issue are incapable of "recognizing anything" .......................................

Oh! Now that's so true. Issues are only possible when conceived through sentient beings, who... sadly for your would-be reasoning ARE capable of such and who often conceive issues without recognizing elements which lend them cogency... . Thus FYI: such beings would be the axiomatic subjects of such references.

See how that works? And don't be afraid re-read it, if the good part got by ya again.

You were so busy stringing together that bull shit you failed to show either comprehension of the subject matter or an understanding of the bases for my stance.

So... even as you lament straw reasoning, you offer up straw reasoning as a response?

LOL! Oh that is BRILLIANT!

Church's are not consulted during an adoption and have no say, legally or morally in adoption process's, at best a priest / minister might be used as a character reference for an adopting party.

Hmm... Many "Churches" actually do run orphanages, but I feel ya here. And its true that as a general rule, the State is the predominate organism that deals with overseeing children whom the state is largely responsible for taking from their 'rents.

Now isn't that interesting, tho'?

Because historically, the church was the organization around which adoptions were centered. THEN... some decades back, that began to change. I wonder what function was served when those set upon bearing the responsibilities common to soundly reasoned morality were dealt out of the caring of and adopting out of children?

I mean, IF 'the state', were NOT largely responsible for adopting children, what do ya suppose would be the chances that those with established abnormalities in their means to reason; those who say define themselves by their own perverse 'interpretation' of human sexuality, would be considered qualified candidates to raise children?

Take a run at that one and let's see if I missed anything in my assessment. (You may be right, maybe I did... and if I did, I'll readily cop to it... lessee how ya does.)

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Hey dumb ass, condensed down, you admit it your self, beings are capable of recognizing, issues are not ............. point in my column.
No my point is crystal clear when the OP are read in context, there were / are no straw man arguments ..................point in my column.
Churches are now governed by the state, they are not consulted about potential adopters, there is a clear and distinct separation of church and power, the church having no power ..................point in my column.

Made you out to be a dumb ass again ..................point in my column.

But hey, who's keeping score??

 

[Silhouette]

Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument. Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.

Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?

Now... let me ask ya. How many children is it that you've adopted?

Very elegant and cuttingly astute rendering of the base issue. And yes in the back of my mind I was always thinking that if a bunch of perverts who worship the child-sodomizer Harvey Milk and who marched alongside Harry Hay, card carrying NAMBLA member for "their civil rights"...how PERFECT for their agenda it would be, especially the NAMBLA arm of LGBT to actually RUN AN ORPHANAGE....by forcing church-orphanages out of the business with lawsuits just like these that will come if LGBT marriage gets federal protection.

It may not have been part of their calculated plan...but they have some very smart and creative people in NAMBLA. And an addict will go to unbelievable machinations to access their drug of choice. Hence the phenomenon "grooming" that pedophiles will sometimes spend years getting at their target who by then is unguarded and open to their every exploitation.

One of the 1980s gay pride parades featuring Harry Hay. "Hey kids, meet your new orphanage master"...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hey dumb ass, condensed down, you admit it your self, beings are capable of recognizing, issues are not ............. point in my column.

No my point is crystal clear when the OP are read in context, there were / are no straw man arguments ..................point in my column.
Churches are now governed by the state, they are not consulted about potential adopters, there is a clear and distinct separation of church and power, the church having no power ..................point in my column.

Made you out to be a dumb ass again ..................point in my column.

But hey, who's keeping score??

Oh... I am BIG on the holding to account, thus of 'keeping score'. To wit:

What you're trying to avoid in 'the point of your position', is that 'the state' is then, in direct violation of the articles amending the powers of that state, which specifically preclude 'the state' from enjoying the power sufficient to preclude those who comprise 'the church' from freely exercising their most deeply held, principled convictions as they tend toward governing themselves... the fundamental basis resting as the cornerstone of this 'experiment in self government', OKA: The United States.

And that the Americans, whose consent to be governed BY that 'STATE', rests entirely upon 'the state' comporting itself within the enumerated restrictions inherent in those amendments, thus as the principles declaring the basis upon which the experiment was founded and through which the founders of the nation were empowered to declare them, STATE: 'it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.' ...?


LOL! Well, not to worry, THAT'S WHY I AM HERE: TO HELP YA BETTER UNDERSTAND!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


Is anyone else enjoying the little attacks that the Intellectually Less Fortunate are sending out, loading up the cache of your computers in an attempt to crash them?

For those who are unaware, they send 'data bombs' to drown your system, and inevitably crash it. Such is typical of the sociopathy intrinsic in the criminally insane... OKA: The Ideological Left. It should be further noted that this trait is common to ABNORMAL Reasoning... and stems from the same unenviable distinctions which present in the abnormal sexuality for which they so chronically advocate.

And in so doing, demonstrate the 'how' inextricably tethered to the query: "How does normalizing sexual abnormality harm the sexually normal?"

 

[Syriusly]

For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...

No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.

Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.

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.

Allow me to demonstrate:

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

This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.

(LOL! Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)

The bat guano crazy is almost over?

Oh we know that is not true.

And just to clarify- no one but Conservatives is suggesting that Churches should- or will- be 'forced to accomodate' homosexual weddings.

Just as a Rabbi is not required to marry a Catholic in the Synogogue....not Priest will be forced to marry a gay couple in the Cathedral.

True, reflecting their ignorance, likely willful.

And many on the right indeed know that 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or private organizations such as churches; but nonetheless seek to contrive and propagate the lie that churches will be 'forced' to accommodate same-sex couples for some perceived partisan gain.

LOL! Look KIDS! It's the public pretense, wherein those with an established mental abnormality, feign innocence from their just as established intent to force others to accept and otherwise 'celebrate' their anti-theist perversion of human physiology!

LOL!

Be honest... who truly believed that we'd see a rising of 'Old Testament Evil' in our own times?

Of course, the bad news is that God will annihilate them and for those who read the book, you know what that means for the rest of us down here in the impact area! Suffice it to say... it ain't good.

But hey... that's EVIL for ya.

And now we get "End of Times" bat guano crazy......

 

[Syriusly]

Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument. Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.

Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?

Now... let me ask ya. How many children is it that you've adopted?

Very elegant and cuttingly astute rendering of the base issue. And yes in the back of my mind I was always thinking that if a bunch of perverts who worship the child-sodomizer Harvey Milk and who marched alongside Harry Hay, card carrying NAMBLA member for "their civil rights"...how PERFECT for their agenda it would be, especially the NAMBLA arm of LGBT to actually RUN AN ORPHANAGE....by forcing church-orphanages out of the business with lawsuits just like these that will come if LGBT marriage gets federal protection.

Why do you hate orphans Silhouette?

Approximately 101,000(a correction) children a year in the United States who are adoptable, are not adopted.
32% of these children will spend 3 years or more waiting to be adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Your only answer is to tell these kids- "look you are better off living on the streets than being adopted by gay parents"

And that is twisted sick.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes.. "IT" is a straw argument. Where the issue fails to recognize the moral responsibilities intrinsic to adoption and the foolishness of setting responsibility for adoption within the scope of those whose relativist reasoning axiomatically rejects morality... such action demonstrates a lack of concern for the children, thus demonstrating the straw nature of the argument which feigns otherwise.

Pretty cool how that worked out, huh?

Now... let me ask ya. How many children is it that you've adopted?

Very elegant and cuttingly astute rendering of the base issue. And yes in the back of my mind I was always thinking that if a bunch of perverts who worship the child-sodomizer Harvey Milk and who marched alongside Harry Hay, card carrying NAMBLA member for "their civil rights"...how PERFECT for their agenda it would be, especially the NAMBLA arm of LGBT to actually RUN AN ORPHANAGE....by forcing church-orphanages out of the business with lawsuits just like these that will come if LGBT marriage gets federal protection.

Why do you hate orphans Silhouette?

Approximately 101,000(a correction) children a year in the United States who are adoptable, are not adopted.
32% of these children will spend 3 years or more waiting to be adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Your only answer is to tell these kids- "look you are better off living on the streets than being adopted by gay parents"

And that is twisted sick.

Why do you want children homeless?

Why do you want to reduce the pool of adults willing and able to be parents to children abandoned by their biological parents?