Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[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.

No it doesn't.

True. "It" does not.

Learn English. There are eight different definitions of normal. They do not all apply in every context. You are conflating definitions 2 and 3 in the below dictionary.
Normal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

2a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle

b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

3 : occurring naturally

Conflate: to combine.

Yes... I am combining the various perspectives of the singular meaning of normal, wherein that which occurs naturally... as in the physiological design of the human being, establishes the norm, the rules regarding sexuality and the principles regarding the viable purpose of human sexuality; OKA: The Human Physiological Standard.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Feel free to prove that- since your claim is definitive.

Otherwise- once again- you will be shown to be lying.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

No I haven't. Again, read a dictionary. You are conflating two definitions of the word normal. And apparently you don't even realize it, which just shows the failure of the United States education system.

Read it... and no where in the definition of the normal, does it equate abnormality with normality. And this without regard to your desperate rationalization which needs it to do so.

The great part about this whole thing is that even IF every dictionary on earth defined normal as abnormal, that in no way would render the traits otherwise associated with normal to have any kinship with abnormality.

But that is because nature doesn't give a rip about the subjective needs of the abnormal to BE normal, except of course where they put in the work to comport themselves within the defining traits which truly, in reality... define the natural standards that demonstrate that which is normal.

I realize that you disagree. And that's fine. But the basis of that disagreement is irrational. So, well... you know.

 

[Ravi]

Homosexuality occurs naturally. Therefore it is normal, according to the dictionary.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

So you've chosen DELUSION!

Good for you! (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your opinion is not supported by a majority of Americans.

In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK

LOL!

So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?

No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.

LOL! You say that... but despite that giving you a PERFECT opportunity to explain what 'he' DID mean... ya CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.

Now... I wonder why you passed on such a great opportunity?

Some would argue that ya passed on it, because ya had needed to deny the position, due to your subjective need for such to not be true, without any understanding of what IS TRUE, where 'truth' equals something akin to your subjective needs.

Pretty cool, huh... how those folks see right through the irrational house of cards you, the intellectually abnormal seem so intent upon building.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

There Are 6 Scriptures About Homosexuality In The Bible. Here's What They Really Say.
Curated by Erica Williams Simon
I'm the daughter of two ministers and still spend every Sunday in church, so I grew up studying the Bible pretty closely. But in all my years, I've never heard the scriptures about homosexuality explained this way. I've had the pleasure of meeting this guy, and I can tell you that, like me, he loves his faith very much. So who better to explain and challenge it? What he found just might be a game-changer.

• First one is free... so are the rest. Daily.
  By submitting above you agree to the Upworthy privacy policy.
  

Transcript:
Hide Transcript
[Music]

Matthew Vines: Marriage equality is on the rise, but despite this trend, religious beliefs remain a major obstacle to acceptance. Many conservative Christians believe that the Bible condemns all same-sex relationships. That question drove my own intensive study of this issue when I came to terms with being gay, as with my parents and my church in Kansas believed that gay marriage was wrong. But what I learned whenever I studied the relevant scripture passages changed my parent's minds along with the views of many other Christians in my life.

They are six passages in the bible that refer to same sex behavior, three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. The most famous passage is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. God sends two angels disguised as men into the City of Sodom where the men of Sodom threatened to rape them. The angels blind the men, and God destroys the city. For centuries, this story was interpreted as God's judgment on same-sex relations, but the only form of same-sex behavior described is a threatened gang rape. Ezekiel 16:49 sums up the stories focused on violence and hostility towards strangers. "Now, this was the sin of your sister, Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy."

In Leviticus 18:22, male same-sex intercourse is prohibited, and violators are to receive the death penalty. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Other things called abominations in the Old Testament include having sex during a woman's menstrual period, eating pork, rabbit, or shell fish, and charging interest on loans, but they're part of the Old Testament law code, which was fulfilled by Jesus.

Hebrews 8:13 says that the old law is obsolete and aging. Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the law, so the Old Testament doesn't settle the issue for Christians, but lets look to the New Testament which contains the longest reference to same-sex behavior in the bible.

In Romans 1:26-27, people who turn away from God to worship idols are then turned over to their own lusts and vices. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, in the same way, men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Paul's words here are clearly negative, but the behavior he condemns is lustful. He makes no mention of love, commitment, or faithfulness.

His description of same-sex behavior is based solely on a burst of excess and lust. In the ancient world, same-sex behavior mainly occurred between adult men and adolescent boys, between masters and their slaves, or in prostitution. Most of the men engaged in those practices were married to women, so same-sex behavior was widely seen as stemming from out of control lust and vice of excess, like gluttony and drunkenness. And while Paul labeled same sex behavior unnatural, he says in 1 Corinthians 11:14 that for men to wear their hair long also goes against nature, and most Christians interpret that as a reference to cultural conventions.

In the last two likely references to same-sex behavior in the Bible, two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, are included in lists of people who will not inherit God's kingdom. Many modern translators have rendered these terms as sweeping statements about gay people, but the concept of sexual orientation didn't even exist in the ancient world. Yes, Paul did not take a positive view of same-sex relations, but the context he was writing in is worlds apart from gay people in committed, monogamous relationships. The Bible never addresses the issues of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage, so there's no reason why faithful Christians can't support their gay brothers and sisters. It's time.

If you'd like to learn more, check out my new book, "God and the Gay Christian," then, sign with the Reformation Project to make a difference in your church.
There Are 6 Scriptures About Homosexuality In The Bible. Here s What They Really Say.

 

[JakeStarkey]

keys is on his knees.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

keys is on his knees.

You can thank me for that post if you want, the premise that those 6 scriptures are anti gay is what I was driving for ....................

Just like StMichaels, you and this woman would have us accept the more sensitive and softer gay without an axe to grind, those who are portrayed as loving, caring, decent human beings simply seeking acceptance in this cold cruel world .........................

You folks are an abomination in Societies eyes and in Gods eyes, no matter how you sugar coat it or try to make it palatable, it ain't ...........................

 

[JakeStarkey]

We simply have no use for the Christian fascistic tactics of old.

Go conquer South Carolina if you want your own Christian state.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

We simply have no use for the Christian fascistic tactics of old.

Go conquer South Carolina if you want your own Christian state.

We simply have no use for faggots ......................

Want to be a cocksucker go to ISIS ......................

 

[JakeStarkey]

We simply have no use for the Christian fascistic tactics of old.

Go conquer South Carolina if you want your own Christian state.

We simply have no use for faggots ......................

Want to be a cocksucker go to ISIS ......................

Who is "we", tonto? Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.

 

[ShackledNation]

Yes... I am combining the various perspectives of the singular meaning of normal, wherein that which occurs naturally... as in the physiological design of the human being, establishes the norm, the rules regarding sexuality and the principles regarding the viable purpose of human sexuality; OKA: The Human Physiological Standard.

That's called an equivocation. It would be like saying a "red" rose is therefore communist, or a "high" building is under the influence of marijuana.

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

No I haven't. Again, read a dictionary. You are conflating two definitions of the word normal. And apparently you don't even realize it, which just shows the failure of the United States education system.

Read it... and no where in the definition of the normal, does it equate abnormality with normality. And this without regard to your desperate rationalization which needs it to do so.

The great part about this whole thing is that even IF every dictionary on earth defined normal as abnormal, that in no way would render the traits otherwise associated with normal to have any kinship with abnormality.

But that is because nature doesn't give a rip about the subjective needs of the abnormal to BE normal, except of course where they put in the work to comport themselves within the defining traits which truly, in reality... define the natural standards that demonstrate that which is normal.

I realize that you disagree. And that's fine. But the basis of that disagreement is irrational. So, well... you know.

The fact remains you are conflating two definitions of normal. Something can be statistically abnormal but remain normal in the moral or socially acceptable sense (such as red hair). You seem to have a real difficultly in comprehending the reality that in the English language the same word can reference more than one thing.

 

[ShackledNation]

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?

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

So you've chosen DELUSION!

Good for you! (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)

Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Who is "we", tonto? Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.

Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............

 

[Syriusly]

keys is on his knees.

.................

You folks are an abomination in Societies eyes and in Gods eyes, no matter how you sugar coat it or try to make it palatable, it ain't ...........................

Faux Christians are the real abomination to God.

 

[Syriusly]

Who is "we", tonto? Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.

Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............

LOL....how funny coming from Mr. Little Dick himself.....guess he has some admirers......

 

[ShackledNation]

Your opinion is not supported by a majority of Americans.

In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK

LOL!

So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?

No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.

LOL! You say that... but despite that giving you a PERFECT opportunity to explain what 'he' DID mean... ya CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.

Now... I wonder why you passed on such a great opportunity?

Some would argue that ya passed on it, because ya had needed to deny the position, due to your subjective need for such to not be true, without any understanding of what IS TRUE, where 'truth' equals something akin to your subjective needs.

Pretty cool, huh... how those folks see right through the irrational house of cards you, the intellectually abnormal seem so intent upon building.

His words speak for themselves. But since you need someone to hold your hand in order to understand basic English, let me help you. You have the attitude that your opinion is a fact. You state that by disagreeing with your opinion people are showing a lack of integrity, as if disagreeing with you makes them dishonest. He was pointing out that actually your opinion is an just an opinion, and an opinion most people don't even agree with at that. In other words, your appeals to "integrity" are fallacious and pathetic attempts to pass your baseless opinion off as fact.

 

[Syriusly]

We simply have no use for the Christian fascistic tactics of old.

Go conquer South Carolina if you want your own Christian state.

We simply have no use for faggots ......................
..

Well we don't really care what you and your dick deprived wife have a use for.....though I suspect it is zucchini......