Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[mdk]

I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not complicated: children cannot consent.

OH! So why can't children consent?

I ask because there is a segment of "SCIENCE!" which long ago came out and declared that "... some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult."

This being the same group within the Kinsey Institute who are responsible for their other conclusion: THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX (which literally is precisely as baseless as it appears to be... particularly given that such is patently absurd, given the standard established by human physiology and the 180 degrees of deviation that homosexuality takes FROM that standard).

And despite all that, you'll recall that it was that 'Professional Medical/Psychiatric Opinion', thus the "SCIENCE!" upon which was stood the basis for the lifting of Sodomy Laws. 'Homosexuality was normal, thus not indicative of deviant reasoning, therefore the individuals participating in or otherwise identified through such were not a threat to society.'

So, tell me, IF "SCIENCE!" came out and declared that 'Children CAN CONSENT TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULTS'... would that in any way alter your current position, which in effect rests on the Legality which rests DIRECTLY UPON the common sense recognition that children are no where NEAR capable of understanding the circumstances regarding sexual behavior?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.

What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nothin' comin' to mind?

 

[mdk]

I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.

What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)

This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Edited: to soothe the tender feelings of those advocating to abuse the public trust of government, through the illicit use of police power, to force others to do that to which they vehemently reject on soundly reasoned grounds, OKA: THE MILITANTLY UNREASONABLE: AKA: The Ideological Left; Advocating to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.

Which actually means:

Editing a quote and attributing something to a poster that they did not say is not allowed.

 

[mdk]

I am pretty sure altering the quotes of members in that fashion is prohibited.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am pretty sure altering the quotes of members in that fashion is prohibited.

Why would that be? I mean given that the quote was set as you erroneously framed, the notice that it was being 'translated', the brackets which clearly indicate the modification and the explanation which indicates that the quote was 'FIXED'.

But how cool is it that you can't engage THE TOPIC, that your advocacy has failed and you'd like to do anything ya can to either have the thread closed or otherwise discredit those who've discredited your 'feelings'?

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not old, you stupid cum-guzzler.

I]

All the old white guys who tell us how blacks are thinking, don't think that they are old.

Its very amusing.

 

[mdk]

I am pretty sure altering the quotes of members in that fashion is prohibited.

Why would that be? I mean given the brackets which clearly indicate the modification and the explanation which indicates that the quote was 'FIXED'.

But how cool is it that you can't engage THE TOPIC, that your advocacy has failed and you'd like to do anything ya can to either have the thread closed or otherwise discredit those who've discredited your 'feelings'?

What a crock. I've done nothing to get try and get this thread shut down. I've been positing in a civil and respectful fashion the entire time. Besides, I don't have to try very hard to discredit your posts and the posts of your anti-gay allies. You folks are doing a bang up job all on your own. I suggest you restore my post to its orginal content.

 

[Syriusly]

Not complicated: children cannot consent.

OH! So why can't children consent?

And that is an example of the mind-think of the far right.

They don't know why children cannot provide consent. They are not even sure children should have to provide consent.

They don't even understand the difference between consensual sex between adults, and a man raping a child.

These are the people who believe that consensual sex between adults should be just as illegal as the rape of a child- if the two adults happen to be men (women they include as an after thought because they don't really feel threatened by two women having sex).

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am pretty sure altering the quotes of members in that fashion is prohibited.

Why would that be? I mean given the brackets which clearly indicate the modification and the explanation which indicates that the quote was 'FIXED'.

But how cool is it that you can't engage THE TOPIC, that your advocacy has failed and you'd like to do anything ya can to either have the thread closed or otherwise discredit those who've discredited your 'feelings'?

What a crock. I've done nothing to get try and get this thread shut down. I've been positing in a civil and respectful fashion the entire time. Besides, I don't have to try very hard to discredit your posts and the posts of your anti-gay allies. You folks are doing a bang up job all on your own. I suggest you restore my post to its orginal content.

Yet you're posting off-topic comments, claiming that the discussion is off-topic, crying that your post was 'modified', despite the concerted effort which HIGHLIGHTED THE MODIFICATIONS, through a post which ya modified, foolishly projecting that your advocacy has carried the discussion, in a thread which has been all BUT ABANDONED BY THE ADVOCACY TO NORMALIZE SEXUAL ABNORMALITY!

Crazy ironic, huh?

 

[mdk]

I posted nothing of the sort. Please stop changing my quotes to fit your narrative. It's dishonest, cheap, and possibly aganist the rules. Again, I suggest you restore my quote to its orginal form.

 

[beagle9]

I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.

What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)

This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.

Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to. They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Not complicated: children cannot consent.

OH! So why can't children consent?

And that is an example of the mind-think of the far right.

They don't know why children cannot provide consent. They are not even sure children should have to provide consent.

They don't even understand the difference between consensual sex between adults, and a man raping a child.

These are the people who believe that consensual sex between adults should be just as illegal as the rape of a child- if the two adults happen to be men (women they include as an after thought because they don't really feel threatened by two women having sex).

Nobody feels threatened by two men having sex , stop lying.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.

It was never on topic, given the idiocy of its premise.

 

[mdk]

I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.

What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)

This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.

Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to. They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.

I agree. Churches should not be forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

Not complicated: children cannot consent.

OH! So why can't children consent?

And that is an example of the mind-think of the far right.

They don't know why children cannot provide consent. They are not even sure children should have to provide consent.

They don't even understand the difference between consensual sex between adults, and a man raping a child.

These are the people who believe that consensual sex between adults should be just as illegal as the rape of a child- if the two adults happen to be men (women they include as an after thought because they don't really feel threatened by two women having sex).

Nobody feels threatened by two men having sex , stop lying.

Prove it.

Otherwise you are lying.

 

[Syriusly]

I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.

What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)

This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.

Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to. They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.

I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.

Absolutely.

The only ones suggesting that churches should- or will be forced to marry anyone and everyone are the far right.

Churches will no more be forced to marry homosexuals than a Catholic Church would be forced to marry my wife and I.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am not sure this thread can get anymore off topic at this point.

What's off topic about it? (Other than your obscurant statement of course)

This thread is about should churches be forced to marry gay couples aganist their wishes. Not pedophiles. Want to start a thread about that topic then by all means do so.

Nope, churches shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples at all, and this especially so if they choose not to. They should not be forced to go against their long held charter, beliefs, denomination, religion, ideology or etc. Last I checked America is supposed to be free nation within reason, and not anything less or more unless the majority of the people agree. The problem today is many things are being done without the peoples consent or agreement upon, and so slowly we are all being hearded like cattle to the slaughter by the PC police and the word destroyers.

I agree. Churches should not forced to marry any couple aganist their wishes, gay or otherwise.

Good for you.

Now for the tough part:

WHY?