Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

OK, so you say that the tyranny of the majority can't abuse the minority, but can't this work in the same way in reverse ?

How are gays 'abusing' the majority by being allowed to marry?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You've insisted that the only valid basis of marriage is procreation.

False... I've NEVER so much as made that claim, let alone insisted on it.

 

[beagle9]

Actually, I have lived through all this. Homosexuality is just a garden variety sexual perversion/dysfunction. The pity is, homosexuals have capital and this is a capitalist society, they are buying popular sentiment with Hollywood shows from Will and Grace to Philadelphia. I won't take this any were else, because just how jaded I will sound.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage ... .

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

LOL!

Let me ask you this... on what basis are you resting this absurdity, which apparently holds that for reasoning to be valid, it must be claimed by someone who is NOT HERE?

On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states. You insist this can't be. Reality demonstrates it most certainly can.

Again, your denial of reality doesn't change it. The world doesn't disappear if you close your eyes. And the overwhelming evidence that contradicts you doesn't cease to exist just because you pretend it never existed.

How did this get passed in these states ? Was it the majority of the people that did the passing and agreeing with in these states, and so next they let their reps know that this is what they wanted and it was echoed (or) was it a federal activist judge over turning the will of the people within the states that are in question ?

 

[Spare_change]

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?

Not in my church ... and not without a fight.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage ... .

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

LOL!

Let me ask you this... on what basis are you resting this absurdity, which apparently holds that for reasoning to be valid, it must be claimed by someone who is NOT HERE?

On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states. You insist this can't be. Reality demonstrates it most certainly can.

Again, your denial of reality doesn't change it. The world doesn't disappear if you close your eyes. And the overwhelming evidence that contradicts you doesn't cease to exist just because you pretend it never existed.

How did this get passed in these states ? Was it the majority of the people that did the passing and agreeing with in these states, and so next they let their reps know that this is what they wanted and it was echoed (or) was it a federal activist judge over turning the will of the people within the states that are in question ?

'Duh will of duh PEOPLES!'

 

[Skylar]

False... that is me observing nature and recognizing how nature designed the species, and the purposes intrinsic to such. It's not particularly complex, just apparently beyond the means of the deviant mind to comprehend.

A claim that breaks with the fact that 'the purposes intrinsic to such' isn't the sole basis of a valid marriage. As infertile couples demonstrate. They can no more have a child than a gay couple. But their marriages are still valid. Demonstrating, undeniably, that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Rendering your 'observations' moot. As the purpose you recognize isn't the only purpose that can form the valid basis of a marriage.

You can't factually establish that procreation is the EXCLUSIVE basis of a valid marriage. And I can factually establish that it isn't. Thus shattering your hapless claims yet again.

So much for your empty Appeal to Authority. If the logic and reason of your claims held up, you wouldn't need your fallacy.

 

[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?

Not in my church ... and not without a fight.

Well the premise is that "The Sexually Abnormal are people too!"... therefore we must accept their perverse reasoning and if we do not, then we're bigots.

Which means that the NFL is bigoted because it will not allow me to start as a linebacker for the Fins... and just because I'm a 54 year old guy with no speed, no hands, poor football skills, whose greatest potential on the gridiron is to be crushed like a bug in close proximity to the first play.

Short sighted ASSHOLES! Just tryin' to keep a brother down and out of the BIG CHIPS!

 

[Skylar]

OK, so you say that the tyranny of the majority can't abuse the minority, but can't this work in the same way in reverse ?

How are gays 'abusing' the majority by being allowed to marry?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. As the legality and recognition of same sex marriage in 32 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist this can't happen. Reality disabuses you of your misconception.

Just because you ignore reality doesn't mean we're similarly obligated to do so.

 

[Skylar]

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But the rights of gays and lesbians to same sex marriage ... .

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

LOL!

Let me ask you this... on what basis are you resting this absurdity, which apparently holds that for reasoning to be valid, it must be claimed by someone who is NOT HERE?

On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states. You insist this can't be. Reality demonstrates it most certainly can.

Again, your denial of reality doesn't change it. The world doesn't disappear if you close your eyes. And the overwhelming evidence that contradicts you doesn't cease to exist just because you pretend it never existed.

How did this get passed in these states ? Was it the majority of the people that did the passing and agreeing with in these states, and so next they let their reps know that this is what they wanted and it was echoed (or) was it a federal activist judge over turning the will of the people within the states that are in question ?

Same way interracial marriage bans were passed: through the power of the people. But the people don't have the power to strip minorities of fundamental rights. Not without a compelling state interest and a very rational reason. And gay marriage opponents have neither. They arbitrarily deny gays and lesbians the right to same sex marriage because they can.

Well, until the federal judiciary steps in and protects the rights of the Federal Citizens that the States are clearly abusing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

False... that is me observing nature and recognizing how nature designed the species, and the purposes intrinsic to such. It's not particularly complex, just apparently beyond the means of the deviant mind to comprehend.

A claim that breaks with the fact that 'the purposes intrinsic to such' isn't the sole basis of a valid marriage.

That marriage is multifaceted, in NO WAY provides that it is anything EXCEPT THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN! And that the woman can be an open homosexual and the man can be an open homosexual... PROVES that there is NO DISCRIMINATION against homosexuals, as a 'protected class'.

Your argument is as specious as your means to advance it is feckless.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

OK, so you say that the tyranny of the majority can't abuse the minority, but can't this work in the same way in reverse ?

How are gays 'abusing' the majority by being allowed to marry?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. As the legality and recognition of same sex marriage in 32 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist this can't happen. Reality disabuses you of your misconception.

Just because you ignore reality doesn't mean we're similarly obligated to do so.

Yet ... marriage remains the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Same way interracial marriage bans were passed... .

Inter-racial marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... because MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

 

[Skylar]

That marriage is multifaceted, in NO WAY provides that it is anything ACCEPT THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

Sure it does. For the very reasons you cited: ''the purposes intrinsic to such'...which you've told us repeatedly is procreation. But that isn't a requirement of a valid marriage. As infertile couples demonstrate, there is a valid basis to marriage that has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to have children. As childless couples demonstrate, there's a valid basis of to marriage that has absolutely nothing to do with having children.

Snuffing your 'the purpose intrinsic to such' standard as the sole basis of marriage. Thus, you need to have a valid reason for your definition of 'one man and one woman'. And there is none. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't meet. Procreation is off the table with the valid marriage of infertile couples. Making your denial of fundamental rights arbitrary, without a rational basis and without a compelling State interest.

Failing each of the 3 requirement set down by the Romer court for the denial of rights. A ruling that *explicitly* protected gays and lesbians from State law.

 

[Skylar]

OK, so you say that the tyranny of the majority can't abuse the minority, but can't this work in the same way in reverse ?

How are gays 'abusing' the majority by being allowed to marry?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. As the legality and recognition of same sex marriage in 32 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist this can't happen. Reality disabuses you of your misconception.

Just because you ignore reality doesn't mean we're similarly obligated to do so.

Yet ... marriage remains the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. As same sex marriage is both legal and recognized as valid in 32 of 50 States, your denial of reality doesn't amount to much.

 

[Political Junky]

Same way interracial marriage bans were passed... .

Inter-racial marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... because MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Yes, God changed his mind about interracial marriage some years ago.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Same way interracial marriage bans were passed... .

Inter-racial marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... because MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Yes, God changed his mind about interracial marriage some years ago.

God has never taken a position on inter-racial marriage... this in distinct contrast to God's position on only the distinct genders being relevant to such, which he demonstrated through his design of the species, providing for the aforementioned distinction.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sure it does. For the very reasons you cited: ''the purposes intrinsic to such'...which you've told us repeatedly is procreation.

The FUNDAMENTAL purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment to conceive, raise and train children through the complimenting traits of the distinct genders... .

That there exist those who marry with no intention of conceiving, raising and training children marry, in NO WAY provides that people of the same gender are qualified to participate in an institution which by its very NATURE PRECLUDES THEIR PARTICIPATION by virtue of its defined standard.

Ya see: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Skylar]

Same way interracial marriage bans were passed... .

Inter-racial marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... because MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Yes, God changed his mind about interracial marriage some years ago.

It was argued in the south by actual judges that God made the races separate and that the law reflected what God has created.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his [arrangement] there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Judge Leon Bazile In judgement against Mildred and Richard Loving
January 22, 1965

Bazile cited his observation of 'God's creations' just like Keys does. Bazile drew his lines at race, Keys at gender. But neither involve any requirement of marriage. They're both an arbitrary Appeal to Authority, and a classic fallacy of logic that don't involve any requirement of marriage.

But when you demand they justify their claims logically and rationally, rather than just appealing to authority....it all falls apart. As procreation isn't a requirement of ANY married couple. Why then would we make up a non-existent standard, inexplicably exempt all straights and then apply it exclusively to gays?

There is no reason.

 

[Skylar]

The FUNDAMENTAL purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment to conceive, raise and train children through the complimenting traits of the distinct genders... .

As the valid marriages of infertile couples demonstrates, there is clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with conceiving children. As the valid marriages of childless couples demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with 'raising and training children' to do anything.

Burying your argument under the weight of its own failures of logic and reason yet again.

 

[beagle9]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody.

LOL!

Let me ask you this... on what basis are you resting this absurdity, which apparently holds that for reasoning to be valid, it must be claimed by someone who is NOT HERE?

On the basis that same sex marriage exists in 31 of 50 states. You insist this can't be. Reality demonstrates it most certainly can.

Again, your denial of reality doesn't change it. The world doesn't disappear if you close your eyes. And the overwhelming evidence that contradicts you doesn't cease to exist just because you pretend it never existed.

How did this get passed in these states ? Was it the majority of the people that did the passing and agreeing with in these states, and so next they let their reps know that this is what they wanted and it was echoed (or) was it a federal activist judge over turning the will of the people within the states that are in question ?

Same way interracial marriage bans were passed: through the power of the people. But the people don't have the power to strip minorities of fundamental rights. Not without a compelling state interest and a very rational reason. And gay marriage opponents have neither. They arbitrarily deny gays and lesbians the right to same sex marriage because they can.

Well, until the federal judiciary steps in and protects the rights of the Federal Citizens that the States are clearly abusing.

What is a federal citizen anyway ? Is that the same as an American citizen or something different ? Are you creating this federal citizen who would then agree no matter what with the federal government, and therefore lives under the federal governments jurisdiction and guidelines no matter where he or she resides within the nation ? Are these watchdog's who are now placed as watchdogs over the states citizens and local governments ?
Is there a difference between your so called federal citizen and a state loving citizen who don't always agree with the federal government, and rightfully so ? How about a state citizen who lives within a desired state because of the state's people who think in the same ways that he or she does, and therefore holds the same values as he or she does, so could it be that he or she is living there because there may have been a ban in place, among other things in which such a citizen may have been looking for when moving to a state of his or her choice ? There are many reasons that people move around in the nation, and values and principles are just some of the strong reasons why people move to different areas and/or states when they do so.