Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So all of the conflict in the Middle East is the result of Islam? No other religious influences have contributed to the problem?

Yes.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Homosexuality is a fact of life among the planet's species.

It has no moral context in and of itself.

Other species do a lot of things Jake, for instance dogs eat their own poop, are you suggesting that would be acceptable for humans to do and that we should call it normal behavior?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.

 

[ShackledNation]

So all of the conflict in the Middle East is the result of Islam? No other religious influences have contributed to the problem?

Yes.

Then your ignorance speaks for itself.

 

[Syriusly]

So all of the conflict in the Middle East is the result of Islam? No other religious influences have contributed to the problem?

Yes.

The entire Middle East was in perfect peace from the moment that Adam left paradise until Mohammed was born.

The Arabs/Turkamen/Kurds/Persians etc had never even heard of a scimitar until Mohammed revealed one, calling it "Allah's little helper".

At least that is history as some people think of it.

 

[ShackledNation]

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.

 

[Syriusly]

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

Actually you are creating a definition of normal based upon your religious convictions.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.

Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up

 

[Syriusly]

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.

And it could be applied in many contexts- consider- in 1900 most women didn't own property- which by his terms could mean men owning property was normal.....and women owning property not so much- or as he puts it- EVIL.

 

[Syriusly]

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.

Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up

Well I will admit that being a biggot is immoral, but hey guess what- you have a right to be a bigot if you want- if that is your choice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Homosexuality is a fact of life among the planet's species.

It has no moral context in and of itself.

Other species do a lot of things Jake, for instance dogs eat their own poop, are you suggesting that would be acceptable for humans to do and that we should call it normal behavior?

Fallacy of false comparison.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right's argument on the morality of homosexuality is an absurdity.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Homosexuality is a fact of life among the planet's species.

It has no moral context in and of itself.

Other species do a lot of things Jake, for instance dogs eat their own poop, are you suggesting that would be acceptable for humans to do and that we should call it normal behavior?

Fallacy of false comparison.

Oh, I see, it's a fallacy because Jake says so.....

Explain your thoughts here Jake.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.

Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up

Well I will admit that being a biggot is immoral, but hey guess what- you have a right to be a bigot if you want- if that is your choice.

I wouldn't disagree that being a bigot is amoral. See, I have the integrity to state such a thing, you have NO integrity, none, not even a portion of one.

Do they suck your integrity out of you when you declare yourself a liberal or what?

 

[Syriusly]

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.

Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up

Well I will admit that being a biggot is immoral, but hey guess what- you have a right to be a bigot if you want- if that is your choice.

I wouldn't disagree that being a bigot is amoral. See, I have the integrity to state such a thing, you have NO integrity, none, not even a portion of one.

Do they suck your integrity out of you when you declare yourself a liberal or what?

Well I am glad you recognize that your bigotry is immoral.

However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.

You of course display your lack of integrity, by proclaiming I have no integrity- because you disagree with me.

Which i find amusing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts.

No... no it doesn't. It means the same thing, in every context.

You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that.

It's pretty simple alright. But as simple as it is, you have 'created' a 'new' meaning of normal; the 'new-normal', which only renders the word MEANINGLESS.

You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference. Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.

Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.

Let's try it this way:

normal: conforming to a standard.

abnormal: deviating from what is normal

deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards

perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.

rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.

irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.

delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I wouldn't disagree that being a bigot is amoral. See, I have the integrity to state such a thing, you have NO integrity, none, not even a portion of one.

Do they suck your integrity out of you when you declare yourself a liberal or what?

The coolest thing about the word bigot, is that it almost always defines those who use it first. This because such people are almost always in ignore, because of they're cognitive deficients, demonstrated through their use of the word which indicates their own intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from their own; even as they project such upon another.

LOL! I suppose I will never tire of that.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.

Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a faggot is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the fuck up

Well I will admit that being a biggot is immoral, but hey guess what- you have a right to be a bigot if you want- if that is your choice.

I wouldn't disagree that being a bigot is amoral. See, I have the integrity to state such a thing, you have NO integrity, none, not even a portion of one.

Do they suck your integrity out of you when you declare yourself a liberal or what?

Well I am glad you recognize that your bigotry is immoral.

However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.

You of course display your lack of integrity, by proclaiming I have no integrity- because you disagree with me.

Which i find amusing.

Sir, you have no morality. I'm not judging you. I'm merely stating a fact. It actually makes no difference to me if you have any morality or not.

But you don't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The personification of Relativism:

However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.

This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.

See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

The personification of Relativism:

However, I don't think that being a heterosexual or being a homosexual is immoral- certainly not by my moral code.

This is also how they feel about adults pursuing children for sexual gratification.

See how that works and why they're "THE PROBLEM?"

The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.