Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[dblack]

No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.

LOL!

And this folks is why most people should never vote. They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.

And that evil thought is why you and your ilk are kept under observation, just as all are who would pervert American democracy.

In your pathetic fantasies.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.

LOL!

And this folks is why most people should never vote. They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.

LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.

Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.

Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point. I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.

Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who graduated from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as fallacious. Because in no universe is it fallacious. YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and what it is not. So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.

Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position. West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.

Knights Out


moron

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I can't actually figure out what his posts have to do with anything.....he does mention EVIL a lot.....

Perhaps because this is a topic about homosexuals forcing their lifestyles onto religious people; and those religious people knowing that to acquiesce to that force means an eternity in the pit of fire?

That might be the reason he keeps bringing up "evil". Because that scenario fits perfectly with the passage in Jude 1 that talks about the "smooth speeches" of the offenders trying to force their lifestyles onto christian ones.

Well said... there is that, but at the end of the day, I use the term evil... because 'evil': profoundly immoral and malevolent, is what 'it' is.

Such is what MUST be produced, thus such is the natural product of relativism... and relativism is what collectivism, in all of its innumerable facets, rests upon.

Relativism is the the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical or personal context, and as such can never be subject to, or otherwise the result of, soundly reasoned absolutes. Relativism is, therefore, purely subjective; axiomatically rejecting objectivity, which is of course, the essential element of truth.

Objective truth is the essential element of trust... and objective truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality.

And truth, trust and a soundly reasoned morality are the foundation upon which JUSTICE rests.

Now... those who've followed this thread have witnessed that each of the Advocates of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality rest their ENTIRE advocacy upon what? Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL. What's that based upon? 'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!' Their "truth" is Subjective... .

They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!", that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.

Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, at least where all participants are HUMAN. And they could not care less, proving finally that in FACT: they do not trust science... because their trust of science is Subjective and relative only to their needs... .

Do we need to discuss their rejection of any sense of a soundly reasoned morality? They demand that we accept their subjective reasoning, because: "We're consenting adults and NO ONE has a right to tell us who we can love!"... which seems so reasonable, right up until ya ask them about their feelings for the rest of the culture; particularly the kids... and what they're going to do to defend the children from the sexually abnormal who 'feel' that the only way that they can sooth their obsession for sexual gratification is through sex with a CHILD!

They WANT you to believe that they're flat out against it... and they've told us that "UPON CONVICTION" that such people should be executed or tossed into prison for the rest of their lives. But they can't say what they're basing that seemingly reasonable conclusion upon; they can't say WHY they say it and, that is because the basis has NO MORAL COMPONENT... their reasoning rests purely in LEGALITIES... which, minus the moral component, have absolutely NO CONNECTION with the service of JUSTICE. Meaning their reasoning is fraudulent.

Think about it... they claim that their rejection of adult/child sex rests in THE LAW! The law says NO, therefore the answer is NO!

But is that true?

Were they against Homosexuality when such was ILLEGAL? Did they spend any time here, or anywhere else, condemning homosexuality back when the behavior that defines such was against the law?

Nope... of course not.

And they don't give a tinker's dam' that the laws against such were lifted upon specious grounds of false science.

Not a bit.

They rests their unwavering demand that 'EVERYONE MUST ACCEPT US', upon "IT'S LEGAL!"

They're "Justice" is subjective.

All of which does not bode well as the culture continues to spiral into decay... when "SCIENCE!" concludes that children ARE perfectly prepared to consent to 'loving' sexual relationships with 'caring' adults... and some Harvey Milk pens up a bill to lift the Age of Consent... or some Harvey Milk, jurist... hears the evidence that is the "SCIENCE!" and DECIDES that the laws regarding "AGE OF CONSENT" undermine the rights of CONSENTING PERSONS to engage in private behavior.

What then of those of this cult who stepped forward to state that they REJECT ADULT/CHILD SEX... but could not, or would, not tell us why? Will that matter to anyone, not the least of which are THEM? Not a bit... 'Because it's Legal.'

It's all a long but juicy rationalization set toward a destructive end... it's all a lie.

Evil... .

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.

LOL!

And this folks is why most people should never vote. They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.

LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.

Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.

Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point. I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.

Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who graduated from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as fallacious. Because in no universe is it fallacious. YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and what it is not. So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.

Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position. West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.

Knights Out


moron

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a fucking beer, let alone for fucking.

LOL!

And this folks is why most people should never vote. They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.

LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.

Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.

Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point. I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.

Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who graduated from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as fallacious. Because in no universe is it fallacious. YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and what it is not. So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.

Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position. West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.

Knights Out


moron

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Yes, I believe that is YOUR version "I admit I've been defeated"

Have a good night junior. I suggest that the next time you "debate" you choose someone you may have a shot at winning against. Maybe a Pokemon message board?

 

[Syriusly]

[
Evil... .

See how that works?

Pure Bat guano crazy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

And this folks is why most people should never vote. They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.

LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.

Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.

Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point. I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.

Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who graduated from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as fallacious. Because in no universe is it fallacious. YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and what it is not. So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.

Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position. West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.

Knights Out


moron

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Yes, I believe that is YOUR version "I admit I've been defeated"

Have a good night junior. I suggest that the next time you "debate" you choose someone you may have a shot at winning against. Maybe a Pokemon message board?

LOL! Adorable.

Now IF you WERE a USMA grad, you'd know that a concession is born when the opposition deflects from the point, thus conceding that point. You're acknowledgment is not only not required, your feelings are wholly irrelevant. But only because your ACTIONS demonstrated the FACTS, relevant to your concession.

See how that works scamp? Sound reasoning wins every single time it's applied.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.

Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.

Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point. I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.

Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who graduated from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as fallacious. Because in no universe is it fallacious. YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and what it is not. So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.

Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position. West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.

Knights Out


moron

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Yes, I believe that is YOUR version "I admit I've been defeated"

Have a good night junior. I suggest that the next time you "debate" you choose someone you may have a shot at winning against. Maybe a Pokemon message board?

LOL! Adorable.

Now IF you WERE a USMA grad, you'd know that a concession is born when the opposition deflects from the point, thus conceding that point. You're acknowledgment is not only not required, your feelings are wholly irrelevant. But only because your ACTIONS demonstrated the FACTS, relevant to your concession.

See how that works scamp? Sound reasoning wins every single time it's applied.

I haven't' seen you use sound reasoning yet junior.

In fact you claimed that a west point graduate wouldn't support a homosexuals right to be a homosexual, and I proved to you that isn't true and your response was to pretend you had defeated me in debate.

Go to bed sonny.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I haven't' seen you use sound reasoning yet junior.

Your inability to recognize sound reasoning has no bearing on the presence of such.

Now see, a graduate of the USMA, would have known that.

Your concession is again, duly noted and summarily accepted.

LOL! Just to rub it in... you're invited to define sound reasoning, as you understand it, and set that understanding against examples of my statements, which you feel represents those exhibiting the most fatal flaws.

Now, this is me telling you that you will not do that, because you're incapable of doing that.

Which... LOL! When ya fail to do so, which as noted above is an axiomatic certainty, you will concede to me, that you're full of crap... through your failure to do so.

ROFL! Now how cool is THAT?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In fact you claimed that a west point graduate wouldn't support a homosexuals right to be a homosexual

"In fact", that is not a fact, as there is nothing in the record of this board wherein I made any statement which would provide for any reasonable person to draw such an absurd inference. (That means that I never claimed that a West Point Grad would never support a homosexual... . ) Didn't happen.

and I proved to you that isn't true and your response was to pretend you had defeated me in debate.

You defeated yourself Scamp. All I did was to note and accept it.

I hate that for ya, but ya did to yourself and by all outward appearances, such seems to be your singular gift.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.

Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.

Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point. I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.

Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who graduated from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as fallacious. Because in no universe is it fallacious. YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and what it is not. So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.

Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position. West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.

Knights Out


moron

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Yes, I believe that is YOUR version "I admit I've been defeated"

Have a good night junior. I suggest that the next time you "debate" you choose someone you may have a shot at winning against. Maybe a Pokemon message board?

LOL! Adorable.

Now IF you WERE a USMA grad, you'd know that a concession is born when the opposition deflects from the point, thus conceding that point. You're acknowledgment is not only not required, your feelings are wholly irrelevant. But only because your ACTIONS demonstrated the FACTS, relevant to your concession.

See how that works scamp? Sound reasoning wins every single time it's applied.

Then keys should practice sound reasoning, give up fallacies, and admit that his perversion that ignores 99% of the attacks against children is immoral.

 

[JakeStarkey]

keys is running in circles.

 

[Warner Athey]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Churches? No.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Churches? No.

Meaning what? Churches No, but individuals who comprise 'the church', YES?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Why should any reasonable human being be forced to accept something that they recognize as wrong?

 

[Silhouette]

Churches? No.

Religions? No.
Religious people? No.

One religion [LGBT] can't force followers of another to abdicate their principles in favor of behaviors/dogma forbidden to their religious values.

This is especially true of individual chrisitans who are under a mandate to not promote the homosexual culture (while reserving compassion to make a difference with individual homosexuals). If they do enable, promote or passively allow (they are ordered to "earnestly contend" against the homosexual cultural spread) that spread or promotion, they are facing eterneity in the pit of fire.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Churches? No.

Religions? No.
Religious people? No.

One religion [LGBT] can't force followers of another to abdicate their principles in favor of behaviors/dogma forbidden to their religious values.

This is especially true of individual chrisitans who are under a mandate to not promote the homosexual culture (while reserving compassion to make a difference with individual homosexuals). If they do enable, promote or passively allow (they are ordered to "earnestly contend" against the homosexual cultural spread) that spread or promotion, they are facing eterneity in the pit of fire.

While the pit of fire is a real problem, its something that has an intrinsic "Future' component to it. But what about the a very real and present problem, wherein such behavior causes chaos, calamity and catastrophe right here, right now. SO... it's worth the effort to DISCOURAGE IT: HERE and NOW!

Now some will argue: "What chaos, calamity and catastrophe has homosexuality caused?" I would submit the experiences which led to the title of this very discussion... .

 

[RKMBrown]

The personification of Obscurantism and False Logic: Where_r_my_Keys.

This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"

To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?

Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, using your own reasoning, is the changing of the law which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity. Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth, you're not.

And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE. Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.

Now before the question comes: "What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?" I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!

The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!

Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and don't think we don't appreciate it. Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.

And how COOL is THAT?LOL! Pretty dam' cool!

so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood? Dodge, pure and simple.

keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2) ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.

This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.

I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.

Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.

Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.

Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL. Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... . See the problem?

I see the problem. Pretty much it's you, and people like you.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This is why I say you would be far better off saying "hey Keys, being gay is immoral, but its being immoral with a consenting adult you fucking half whit, there is NO logical comparison between that and child rape"

To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?

Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, using your own reasoning, is the changing of the law which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity. Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth, you're not.

And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE. Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.

Now before the question comes: "What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?" I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!

The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!

Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and don't think we don't appreciate it. Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.

And how COOL is THAT?LOL! Pretty dam' cool!

so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood? Dodge, pure and simple.

keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2) ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.

This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.

I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.

Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.

Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.

Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL. Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... . See the problem?

I see the problem. Pretty much it's you, and people like you.

hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well

 

[RKMBrown]

To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?

Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, using your own reasoning, is the changing of the law which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity. Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth, you're not.

And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE. Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.

Now before the question comes: "What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?" I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!

The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!

Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and don't think we don't appreciate it. Because in trying to fuck us... ya fucked yourselves.

And how COOL is THAT?LOL! Pretty dam' cool!

so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood? Dodge, pure and simple.

keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2) ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.

This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.

I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.

Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.

Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.

Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL. Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... . See the problem?

I see the problem. Pretty much it's you, and people like you.

hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well

Isn't that what I said

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood? Dodge, pure and simple.

keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2) ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.

This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.

I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.

Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.

Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.

Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL. Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... . See the problem?

I see the problem. Pretty much it's you, and people like you.

hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well

Isn't that what I said

To be honest, I don't know, so many people saying so many things that I'm sorta skim reading except for obvious idiots like Keys and SeaWytch