Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

What hogwash! Children and pets cannot consent to a marriage contract. I do however support the rights of those that wish to marry several people, if all the parties willingly consent of course. Your fear mongering does not have the same impact it once did mate.

Agreed, the "pets" and "children" angle is often introduced by gays posing as straights in order to take the likely and guaranteed (polygamy, adult incest) into the absurd (pets, children) in order to kill the discussion-via-association of the possible with the impossible. It's one of thousands of tricks the LGBT PSYOPS group online has in their bag.

I suspect the state-incentivized environment where children would be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time (legitimized/forced gay marriage) is getting spammed off pretty much every discussion here on these boards..in very creative ways...using sock puppets..In other words, it's a winning angle. Attorneys for the opposition, get out your note pads..

Getting back to reality. Polygamy is a foregone conclusion. If gay marriage is forced upon any state as a civil rights "marriage equality" matter, polygamy automatically is too. If a state is forbidden from banning any consenting adult from marrying, it cannot pass judgment on polygamy or adult incest either. They are already legal folks, sorry to tell you. If a county clerk tried to deny these people also a marriage license, they could be sued. And Sotomayor would have to put out actual legal language on the table as her "rationale why we can still deny just these sexual deviant subgroups, but not others"...

They're already legal. This isn't a slippery slope argument anymore. It's a de facto argument. Anything less would be discrimination.

 

[mdk]

What hogwash! Children and pets cannot consent to a marriage contract. I do however support the rights of those that wish to marry several people, if all the parties willingly consent of course. Your fear mongering does not have the same impact it once did mate.

Agreed, the "pets" and "children" angle is often introduced by gays posing as straights in order to take the likely and guaranteed (polygamy, adult incest) into the absurd (pets, children) in order to kill the discussion-via-association of the possible with the impossible. It's one of thousands of tricks the LGBT PSYOPS group online has in their bag.

I suspect the state-incentivized environment where children would be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time (legitimized/forced gay marriage) is getting spammed off pretty much every discussion here on these boards..in very creative ways...using sock puppets..In other words, it's a winning angle. Attorneys for the opposition, get out your note pads..

Getting back to reality. Polygamy is a foregone conclusion. If gay marriage is forced upon any state as a civil rights "marriage equality" matter, polygamy automatically is too. If a state is forbidden from banning any consenting adult from marrying, it cannot pass judgment on polygamy or adult incest either. They are already legal folks, sorry to tell you. If a county clerk tried to deny these people also a marriage license, they could be sued. And Sotomayor would have to put out actual legal language on the table as her "rationale why we can still deny just these sexual deviant subgroups, but not others"...

They're already legal. This isn't a slippery slope argument anymore. It's a de facto argument. Anything less would be discrimination.

Of course you think gay people are posing as straights and bringing up animals and children into the debate. It fits your narrative. All roads of blame leads back to gays in your world. Sorry that your side has to employ such sad comparisons to support your discriminatory positions.


Let's get down to the brass tacks here. Children are nothing more then pawns in your anti-gay game of chess. If you truly cared about children not having at least one of their parents be blood related you would be calling for the adoptions to be outlawed entirely. Besides, gays have been raising children long before they had access to marriage.

Your inconsistency only lessens what little credibility you do have left concerning this issue.

 

[beagle9]

Isn't it that the state cannot intrude upon or redefine the church in any way, just as long as it (the church) goes in peace or goes about it's business in peace there of ? It must not be a threat to the state or vice-verse right, but what the state can do is it can make incentives for, and create some policy for the state that may be conducive or uplifting to the church if it so chooses am I correct ? The church can influence the state upon the states own findings of such when in review of the church, but the church cannot coerce control nor make policy for the state in which it would demand control over the state and that policy correct ? All actions must be voluntary, and not coerced or manipulated or controlled in anyway when the two interact. The way that these things can be worked out is through the will of the people in guidance there of, and then having the acknowledgement of that will by all parties involved expressed righteously and wisely, but at the same time keeping the intrusions out of the equation as set forth by the people and of the constitution that governs them/us. Keep the specific separations intact as so that the two can exist together without harm to each other is the best way (IMHO). We shouldn't allow anyone to come between the two as we have seen so much of today.. Right now the state is being coerced by certain groups or people to go against the church, and they are doing this to destroy a certain thing in which they don't like that another group has or does enjoy in America. The state shall not or should not be manipulated in this way, and the church should make a stand against this form of tyranny that is attacking it now.

 

[beagle9]

I think there is definitely a breach of church and state going on here, because most if not all in America viewed or have known marriage to be as a holy and religious ceremony that was recognized by the state as a good thing, and they have done this through out this nations founding. It has supported the church practice by joining in on the action with incentives to help it all along because it saw it as good. Now the gay's are wanting the state to change the definition of marriage, and that is an intrusion or breach of the Church and State clause in which we have lived by for so long, and has been a protection of our religious institutions from the state controlling them or destroying them, and this we have had in order to of course protect the freedom of religion in this nation for as long as it has been a part of this America. We now see the power of the state, and how it can destroy without this protection being used, so where are we going wrong here ?

 

[Silhouette]

Of course you think gay people are posing as straights and bringing up animals and children into the debate. It fits your narrative. All roads of blame leads back to gays in your world. Sorry that your side has to employ such sad comparisons to support your discriminatory positions.

I've actually seen them get caught at another political website doing that exact thing. The moderators can see IP addresses.

All roads of blame lead back to gay-denial. Insert "gay-denial" in your sentence and it will be more accurate. Then it becomes my issue with the gay-idiology instead of individual personal people who call themselves "gay". One is a legitimate concern. The other is "hate" or bigotry". This is another diversionary trick. Y'all have a thousand of them..

 

[Silhouette]

Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon. I hope you know that. If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular insitutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.

 

[beagle9]

Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon. I hope you know that. If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular institutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.

That too can be an issue as you have been battling over, and you are covering that side of the issue within your understanding of that side of it already. I am covering the breach issue, because that is also what is at stake here for many states trying to hold on to the traditional religious value definition of marriage, in which was honored and ackowledged by the states forever and a day until now. To change the definition as according to the state, is to breach the Church and State (IMHO) and this pertains to the states and the nation going forward.

 

[Silhouette]

Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon. I hope you know that. If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular institutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.

That too can be an issue as you have been battling over, and you are covering that side of the issue within your understanding of that side of it already. I am covering the breach issue, because that is also what is at stake here for many states trying to hold on to the traditional religious value definition of marriage, in which was honored and ackowledged by the states forever and a day until now. To change the definition as according to the state, is to breach the Church and State (IMHO) and this pertains to the states and the nation going forward.

Nope. Secular marriages have been performed for decades. That tradition has already been shattered. Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.

 

[mdk]

Of course you think gay people are posing as straights and bringing up animals and children into the debate. It fits your narrative. All roads of blame leads back to gays in your world. Sorry that your side has to employ such sad comparisons to support your discriminatory positions.

I've actually seen them get caught at another political website doing that exact thing. The moderators can see IP addresses.

All roads of blame lead back to gay-denial. Insert "gay-denial" in your sentence and it will be more accurate. Then it becomes my issue with the gay-idiology instead of individual personal people who call themselves "gay". One is a legitimate concern. The other is "hate" or bigotry". This is another diversionary trick. Y'all have a thousand of them..

So you think the folks that brought up such nonsense in this thread are actually gay? Priceless.

I don't need any tricks to make my point about the obvious axe you have to grind concerning gays. There is a reason why almost every argument your side has presented the to courts have failed so miserably. Folks just are not buying what your selling anymore. Maybe it's time you get a new shtick. This one doesn't seen to be working so well.

 

[mdk]

Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon. I hope you know that. If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular institutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.

That too can be an issue as you have been battling over, and you are covering that side of the issue within your understanding of that side of it already. I am covering the breach issue, because that is also what is at stake here for many states trying to hold on to the traditional religious value definition of marriage, in which was honored and ackowledged by the states forever and a day until now. To change the definition as according to the state, is to breach the Church and State (IMHO) and this pertains to the states and the nation going forward.

Nope. Secular marriages have been performed for decades. That tradition has already been shattered. Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.

It isn't a winning debate point. Your alleged concern for children is nothing more than a ruse so you continue your anti-gay crusade.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. Secular marriages have been performed for decades. That tradition has already been shattered. Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.

It isn't a winning debate point. Your alleged concern for children is nothing more than a ruse so you continue your anti-gay crusade.

Anti gay-marriage crusade. Please be accurate. I actually have friends who are gay or bi. And great grief for a gay friend years ago who died of AIDS from misunderstood etiology of homosexuality and its genesis as behavior.

Individual gays are flawed, but still human with many potentials. Gay marriage? Flawed institutionalization. There is a huge difference. It's like making OCD part of a school-learned curriculum. We have no business as a society normalizing anything we do not, or refuse to, fully understand. CQR ain't gonna cut it.. Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[mdk]

Nope. Secular marriages have been performed for decades. That tradition has already been shattered. Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.

It isn't a winning debate point. Your alleged concern for children is nothing more than a ruse so you continue your anti-gay crusade.

Anti gay-marriage crusade. Please be accurate. I actually have friends who are gay or bi. And great grief for a gay friend years ago who died of AIDS from misunderstood etiology of homosexuality and its genesis as behavior.

Individual gays are flawed, but still human with many potentials. Gay marriage? Flawed institutionalization. There is a huge difference. It's like making OCD part of a school-learned curriculum. We have no business as a society normalizing anything we do not, or refuse to, fully understand. CQR ain't gonna cut it.. Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I am sure your numerous gays friends really appreciate you calling them flawed, mentally ill, perverts, and child molesters. I bet you never speak in such a fashion when their in your presence.

And it isn't just an anti-gay marriage crusade. You don't even believe gays should raise children. At least be honest about discriminatory crusade.

Either way I enjoy the fact that your side is getting laughed out of almost every court. You are losing in the court of public and the courts of law. This is the part where you claim a USMB poll, lines at fast food joints, and Facebook "likes" are proof that a majority of people actually support your views. Hint: They don't.

 

[beagle9]

Beagle, you weaving the church into a legal argument like this one is a box canyon. I hope you know that. If you are concerned about the children of marriage and what faith they will grow up to be, attack the root at its base (secular institutionalizing of gay households at the mental/developmental expense of children caught up in them), instead of the tops.

That too can be an issue as you have been battling over, and you are covering that side of the issue within your understanding of that side of it already. I am covering the breach issue, because that is also what is at stake here for many states trying to hold on to the traditional religious value definition of marriage, in which was honored and ackowledged by the states forever and a day until now. To change the definition as according to the state, is to breach the Church and State (IMHO) and this pertains to the states and the nation going forward.

Nope. Secular marriages have been performed for decades. That tradition has already been shattered. Children's formative mileu is the winning debate point. Sorry.

Yes secular marriages have been performed of course, but isn't this the complete attack on the word marriage finally, otherwise dealing with what the OP is stating or asking us here ? I mean how about the issue with the Christian cake baker, and the attacks on his establishment or the set up of Phil on Duck dynasty who is also a Christian ? Trust me all Christians are under attack here, and it is so because the text speaks against being gay, and that being gay is pure sin just like any other sin that it speaks of. They have to take it all down, and they will try even if they have to use the idiot government who will breach the lines between Church and State in order to do so. Religious freedoms in this nation today (pffft), say good bye to it...

 

[RKMBrown]

Strong support? You're speaking of the 'strong support' which would be expected within The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... of course.

I'm speaking of exactly what I said: strong support for the legality of same sex marriage...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

No that's copulation.

 

[Silhouette]

I am sure your numerous gays friends really appreciate you calling them flawed, mentally ill, perverts, and child molesters. I bet you never speak in such a fashion when their in your presence.

And it isn't just an anti-gay marriage crusade. You don't even believe gays should raise children. At least be honest about discriminatory crusade.

Either way I enjoy the fact that your side is getting laughed out of almost every court. You are losing in the court of public and the courts of law. This is the part where you claim a USMB poll, lines at fast food joints, and Facebook "likes" are proof that a majority of people actually support your views. Hint: They don't.

I would never confront the mentally ill directly with such statements. I debate them anonymously here for a reason. Imagine confronting an obese friend daily with the fact that they have an eating disorder, "how did you get that way? What made you use food to medicate? Aren't you aware this is killing you?". Nope. The sane friends of the disturbed insert the needle gently in direct confrontation. I have obese friends too, would you that I advocate "on their behalf" that overeating is cool, OK and should be encouraged in schools?

No, you wouldn't.

I don't believe gays should raise children. It is precisely because they have GLARING and harmful unresolved childhood issues so intense that they cause them to utterly reject the opposite gender...even going so far as to have sex with the same gender who sports all the trappings of the opposite gender, but NEVER, EVER to take that final step towards actually realizing their closeted heterosexuality. Children don't belong in an environment where the opposite gender is rebuked or distanced at such a pathological degree. What happens if the child himself is that opposite gender? Well the boy "Tammy" in California can tell you all about that...

Sorry, but when discussing children, it's appropriate to get really real. Their formative environment is that vital to our survival as a civilized society that relies on mental stability of its membership in order to keep going forward in the right direction..

I have friends in the past who have stolen, have lied, cheated and had addictions of all varieties. I would rebuke those behaviors daily. Yet I don't rebuke the people affected with them. YOU are the one who seems riveted to the idea that a person's behaviors define them, not me... Y'all even call yourselves "gay", which is calling yourself a behavior. You are more than just behaviors. Stop limiting yourselves that way..

 

[mdk]

I am sure your numerous gays friends really appreciate you calling them flawed, mentally ill, perverts, and child molesters. I bet you never speak in such a fashion when their in your presence.

And it isn't just an anti-gay marriage crusade. You don't even believe gays should raise children. At least be honest about discriminatory crusade.

Either way I enjoy the fact that your side is getting laughed out of almost every court. You are losing in the court of public and the courts of law. This is the part where you claim a USMB poll, lines at fast food joints, and Facebook "likes" are proof that a majority of people actually support your views. Hint: They don't.

I would never confront the mentally ill directly with such statements. I debate them anonymously here for a reason. Imagine confronting an obese friend daily with the fact that they have an eating disorder, "how did you get that way? What made you use food to medicate? Aren't you aware this is killing you?". Nope. The sane friends of the disturbed insert the needle gently in direct confrontation. I have obese friends too, would you that I advocate "on thei behalf" that overeating is cool, OK and should be encouraged in schools?

No, you wouldn't.

I don't believe gays should raise children. It is precisely because they have GLARING and harmful unresolved childhood issues so intense that they cause them to utterly reject the opposite gender...even going so far as to have sex with the same gender who sports all the trappings of the opposite gender, but NEVER, EVER to take that final step towards actually realizing their closeted heterosexuality. Children don't belong in an environment where the opposite gender is rebuked or distanced at such a pathological degree.

Sorry, but when discussing children, it's appropriate to get really real. Their formative environment is that vital to our survival as a civilized society that relies on mental stability of its membership in order to keep going forward in the right direction..

That's what I thought. You come here to spew your bile against gays and then act cordial around your alleged gay friends. Cowardly and two-faced. If they knew half the jazz you spouted here they wouldn't be your friends for very long.

 

[Silhouette]

That's what I thought. You come here to spew your bile against gays and then act cordial around your alleged gay friends. Cowardly and two-faced. If they knew half the jazz you spouted here they wouldn't be your friends for very long.

You didn't do well in reading comprehension in school did you? If you accept as I do, the premise that gays are mentally dysfunctional, you don't confront anyone directly with their deeply repressed issues. You are a hypocrite unless you're going to tell me next that you go around telling all your fat friends that they need to lose weight every time you see them. You don't, do you? Uh huh....hypocrite

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am sure your numerous gays friends really appreciate you calling them flawed, mentally ill, perverts, and child molesters. I bet you never speak in such a fashion when their in your presence.

So you feel that because someone is defined by their perverse reasoning as perverse, that to spare their feelings of illegitimacy, the words which are used to describe their perversion should be changed ?

You DO understand that if we used the word "Refrigerator" to convey "Perversion", that in short order, the "Refrigerators" would then only demand that we use the word: Bicycle, which in short order, the bicycles would demand that we call them "Peach-tea", which in no time at all the Peach-Teas would demand we refer to them as "Candle-wax" ... .

Anything gettin' through here?

This is how we ended up with SO MANY words to describe "Leftists...": Communists, Socialists, Progressives, "No-Name" Liberals. You can change the word that describes them as many times as ya like. In NO WAY does it ever change the CONCEPT which such IDENTIFIES.

FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[mdk]

That's what I thought. You come here to spew your bile against gays and then act cordial around your alleged gay friends. Cowardly and two-faced. If they knew half the jazz you spouted here they wouldn't be your friends for very long.

You didn't do well in reading comprehension in school did you? If you accept as I do, the premise that gays are mentally dysfunctional, you don't confront anyone directly with their deeply repressed issues. You are a hypocrite unless you're going to tell me next that you go around telling all your fat friends that they need to lose weight every time you see them. You don't, do you? Uh huh....hypocrite

You can claim being gay is mental disorder until the cows come home, it doesn't make so. Every creditable medical organization disagrees with your absurd view. Then again you believe those organizations are apart this massive gay cabal. lol

Poor dear. Sorry if I exposed you as a two-faced coward.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You can claim being gay is mental disorder until the cows come home, it doesn't make so.

That's true... .

What MAKES IT SO... is the deviancy from the reasoning standard.

Deviant reasoning results in deviant behavior and THEREIN, is where the DISORDER rests.