Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

The incentives the government gives in marriage as it has done in the past, is only dealing with the benefit side of marriage in which it offers only as an incentive package for a man and a woman who want to join together in holy matrimony, and to pro-create in order to form a family unit under the long held traditional tenets that are found under the religious ceremony called marriage, and that was to the only extent that government wanted to be involved in it.

Holy matrimony I leave to you. If you want a religious ceremony, have one. If you want to exclude gays from your religious ceremony, enjoy. No one cares.

Marriage equality is about equal protection under the law.

So no farther did it go as is being requested of them today, because the breech between Church and State could apply very easily here if doing so.

Its utterly non-denominational and doesn't necessarily involve any religious observance. Nixing the 'church and state' argument. Invalidating every marriage certificate in the country seems a little......extreme....just to keep gays out.

Yes the state gives perks in order to support the pro-creation and stability of the family unit that is defined under the religious ceremonial definition of marriage, but it enters not into the re-defining of the word nor does it enter into the changing of the definition of marriage itself,, and why is this ? It is because that would be a violation of Church and State to do so (IMHO).

Having children isn't a requirement of marriage. Nor is the ability to have them. Not in any of the 50 states. Ending the 'family unit' argument. As if children were a requirement for a valid marriage, then infertile couples and childless married couples would have long since been excluded.

They aren't. Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist, exempt all straights, and then apply it exclusively to gays? There is no reason.

 

[idb]

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?

No.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nope. First, because children aren't required for a valid marriage. Making children irrelevant to the legality of the union.

Second because you've established nothing inherent to gay marriage that is harmful to children. You simply say it does. And you citing yourself is meaningless.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

No, it anti-gay. Whom you call a 'cult', 'despised' and have strongly insinuated are child abusers and child molesters.

Which is odd, as you could give a fiddler's fuck about children. The moment they don't let you bash gays, they're immediately ignored. Even when they suffer by the millions by your own standards.

Homosexuals are sexual deviants... sexual deviancy is indicative of intellectual deviancy... intellectual deviancy provides that the individual's reasoning is subject to perversion, wherein such individuals show a disdain for cultural mores and standards and a disdain for soundly reasoned boundaries... such as those which otherwise preclude the pursuit of children for sexual gratification. The simple truth is that the North American Man/Boy Love Association, a group dedicated to no other purpose than the pursuit of children for sexual gratification is comprised ENTIRELY of HOMOSEXUALS.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Nope. First, because children aren't required for a valid marriage. Making children irrelevant to the legality of the union.

Second because you've established nothing inherent to gay marriage that is harmful to children. You simply say it does. And you citing yourself is meaningless.

That children are not required for Marriage, in no ways alters the minimal marriage standard which provides that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Skylar]

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

No, it anti-gay. Whom you call a 'cult', 'despised' and have strongly insinuated are child abusers and child molesters.

Which is odd, as you could give a fiddler's fuck about children. The moment they don't let you bash gays, they're immediately ignored. Even when they suffer by the millions by your own standards.

Homosexuals are sexual deviants... sexual deviancy is indicative of intellectual deviancy... intellectual deviancy provides that the individual's reasoning is subject to perversion, wherein such individuals show a disdain for cultural mores and standards and a disdain for soundly reasoned boundaries... such as those which otherwise preclude the pursuit of children for sexual gratification. The simple truth is that the North American Man/Boy Love Association, a group dedicated to no other purpose than the pursuit of children for sexual gratification is comprised ENTIRELY of HOMOSEXUALS.

And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with gay marriage?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Marriage equality is about equal protection under the law. ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nope. First, because children aren't required for a valid marriage. Making children irrelevant to the legality of the union.

Second because you've established nothing inherent to gay marriage that is harmful to children. You simply say it does. And you citing yourself is meaningless.

That children are not required for Marriage, in no ways alters the minimal marriage standard which provides that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you, citing you. And yet in 32 of 50 States, gay marriage is legal and recognized as being as valid as straight marriage. Ignoring reality doesn't change reality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?

That would be: The Homosexuals...

 

[Skylar]

... Marriage equality is about equal protection under the law. ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And one woman and one woman or one man and one man...in 32 of 50 States.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?

That would be: The Homosexuals...

So the legal institution of gay marriage is.... homosexuals? I don't follow that reasoning linguistically or logically.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That children are not required for Marriage, in no ways alters the minimal marriage standard which provides that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Says you, citing you. [/QUOTE]

Says Nature...

And yet in 32 of 50 States, gay marriage is legal and recognized as being as valid as straight marriage. Ignoring reality doesn't change reality

False... The VAST MAJORITY of the PEOPLE, ELECTED the VAST MAJORITY OF THE REPRESENTATIVES, in the VAST MAJORITY of the STATES, ESTABLISHED LAWS RECOGNIZING THE IMMUTABLE NATURAL PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE MARRIAGE AS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?

That would be: The Homosexuals...

So the legal institution of gay marriage is....

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!

 

[Skylar]

Marriage [in 32 States includes] the joining of One Man [and one man] or [One Woman] and One Woman!

That is correct.

 

[mdk]

And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?

That would be: The Homosexuals...

So the legal institution of gay marriage is....

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!

Maybe of you say it a dozen more times it will become reality.

 

[Skylar]

Says Nature...

Nature doesn't say anything. That would be you pretending to be nature. And yet another empty Appeal to Authority.

You, pretending to be 'nature' claimed that procreation is the only valid basis of marriage. Yet as the valid marriages of infertile and childless couples demonstrates, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation or the ability to procreate. Debunking your claim.

Your logic and reason don't hold up. Try again.

False... The VAST MAJORITY of the PEOPLE, ELECTED the VAST MAJORITY OF THE REPRESENTATIVES, in the VAST MAJORITY of the STATES, ESTABLISHED LAWS RECOGNIZING THE IMMUTABLE NATURAL PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE MARRIAGE AS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman!

Oh, its quite true that in 32 of 50 States gay marriage is thoroughly legal. You close your eyes and deny this is the case. And yet gays are married every day in all 32 states. Demonstrating exactly how little relevance your willful ignorance has with reality.

 

[Skylar]

And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?

That would be: The Homosexuals...

So the legal institution of gay marriage is....

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!

Maybe of you say it a dozen more times it will become reality.

Laughing...if he wants to close his eyes, plug up his ears and rock back and forth muttering the same debunked mantra over and over......who are we to interfere?

 

[mdk]

And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?

That would be: The Homosexuals...

So the legal institution of gay marriage is....

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!

Maybe of you say it a dozen more times it will become reality.

Laughing...if he wants to close his eyes, plug up his ears and rock back and forth muttering the same debunked mantra over and over......who are we to interfere?

At least it provides some well needed comic relief. Soon he'll come clomping back in here claiming our concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted. Bet the farm on it.

 

[idb]

And what possible relevance does NAMBLA have with [homosexuals] ... ?

That would be: The Homosexuals...

So the legal institution of gay marriage is....

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman!

But what is marriage?
Is it a legal construct or is it a natural one...like birth or death?

 

[Jarlaxle]

No matter how many times you say that, it's still wrong!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

No matter how many times you say that, it's still wrong!