Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.

Leviticus=Old Testament + shellfish = Venial Sin and doing penance

Jude 1 = New Testament + promoting a homosexual cultural spread = Mortal Sin and eternity in the pit of fire.

And thank you for affirming for us what we all already knew: that your opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with the law. ...

True, as the law is only valid where such serves justice. So we can readily see that the opposition to gay-marriage rests upon the natural standards of marriage, wherein marriage is defined by human physiology, thus marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. IF you NEED the issue to be about 'The Law', then it would be reasonable to recognize that marriage is defined by the natural law, wherein the statutes are expressed in the design of the respective genders, and the adjudication of such is expressed in their complimenting nature.

 

[Skylar]

True, as the law is only valid where such serves justice. So we can readily see that the opposition to gay-marriage rests upon the natural standards of marriage, wherein marriage is defined by human physiology, thus marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And what relevance does 'human physiology' have with your 'natural standards of marriage' or 'justice'. Tell us what requirement of marriage they satisfy that a gay couple could not.

Remembering of course that procreation is off the table. As infertile couples are allowed to marry. And the marriages of childless couples are perfectly valid. Nor is any couple required to have kids or be able to have them in order to be married. Demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them.

IF you NEED the issue to be about 'The Law', then it would be reasonable to recognize that marriage is defined by the natural law, wherein the statutes are expressed in the design of the respective genders, and the adjudication of such is expressed in their complimenting nature.

Equal protection under the law is all I'm concerned with. Your subjective imagination about the 'justice' of 'human physiology' and random appeals to authority are meaningless. As you neither speak for 'nature', nor objectively define any relevant conception of justice. Its just you.....offering us yet another obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need them.

So what else have you got?

 

[Steinlight]

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

True, as the law is only valid where such serves justice. So we can readily see that the opposition to gay-marriage rests upon the natural standards of marriage, wherein marriage is defined by human physiology, thus marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And what relevance does 'human physiology' have with your 'natural standards of marriage' or 'justice'.

Good question. Human physiology establishes the standard of Marriage, by defining marriage through the physiological standard; wherein the male gender intrinsically compliments the female gender.

Tell us what requirement of marriage they satisfy that a gay couple could not.

A sexually abnormal couple is two people of the same, non-complimenting gender.

IF you NEED the issue to be about 'The Law', then it would be reasonable to recognize that marriage is defined by the natural law, wherein the statutes are expressed in the design of the respective genders, and the adjudication of such is expressed in their complimenting nature.

Equal protection under the law is all I'm concerned with.

Great! Then we're good to go. Given that the law does not exclude the sexually abnormal from marriage. It merely requires the sexually abnormal to meet the same standards are everyone else, which... if youre keeping score, is the sexually abnormal being treated EQUALLY... before THE LAW.

 

[Skylar]

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

By that standard, neither do blow jobs, infertile couples or those on birth control. Does that mean that Nana and PopPop's marriage certificate became invalid after Nana has a hysterectomy?

Of course not.

As the infertile and childless demonstrate, there are clearly valid foundations of marriage that have nothing to do children or the ability to have them. Rendering the 'your intercourse must serve a societal purpose!' standard meaningless nonsense. As no one is held to that standard. No straight couple is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.

Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist and then apply it exclusively to gays? It makes no sense.

 

[Skylar]

Good question. Human physiology establishes the standard of Marriage, by defining marriage through the physiological standard; wherein the male gender intrinsically compliments the female gender.

Why does gender establish the 'standards of marriage'? And says who? Again, nature doesn't have anything to say on marriage. So you're citing yourself AS nature. Which is just a generic appeal to authority. A classic fallacy of logic.

When I ask you to back the claims with sound logic and reason......you simply state your conclusion again. That's not a reason. That's not logic. That's merely a personal opinion. You can't even explain what requirement of marriage that gay couple can't satisfy that straight couples can.

As there is none. Its just you....saying it must be so. And your personal opinion is woefully inadequate in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Great! Then we're good to go. Given that the law does not exclude the sexually abnormal from marriage. It merely requires the sexually abnormal to meet the same standards are everyone else, which... if youre keeping score, is the sexually abnormal being treated EQUALLY... before THE LAW.

So same sex marriage is legal and recognized already? Oh, then the issue appears to have resolved itself.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

By that standard, neither do blow jobs, infertile couples or those on birth control.

And none of those are licensed by the government or sanctioned by the Church.

But there's a great reason for that. As THOSE THINGS are PRIVATE BEHAVIOR!

Now let's review:

Marriage: Public Sanction.

Blow Jobs: Private Behavior.

See the difference?

Public Policy...

Private Behavior...

P U B L I C . . .

.
.
.

P R I V A T E . . .

Anything gettin' through here?

 

[Skylar]

And none of those are licensed by the government or sanctioned by the Church.

Yet all of them render their intercourse of no value to society. Which is the standard homosexuals are being held to. If the reasoning was valid, it would be valid in every instance of 'no value' intercourse. It isn't. It doesn't work in any instance. As no one is required to have 'societally beneficial intercourse' in order to get married.

The standard doesn't exist. Why then would we make it up from nothing, bizarrely exempt every straight couple who fails it, and apply it exclusively to gays?

Obviously, we wouldn't. And in 36 of 50 States, we don't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Good question. Human physiology establishes the standard of Marriage, by defining marriage through the physiological standard; wherein the male gender intrinsically compliments the female gender.

Why does gender establish the 'standards of marriage'?

Because they're the standard of the beings being joined. Now if you've got something other than Human beings that you'd like to discuss and how those things might be joined with regard to public policy, then I suppose we can discuss it, but you should probably open another thread.

And says who?

Nature says... the force that created the beings central to the issue.

When I ask you to back the claims with sound logic and reason......you simply state your conclusion again.

Yeah, that's because the points intrinsic to the conclusion remain standing... wholly unaffected by your rationalizations. Ya see, you claiming that human physiology is irrelevant to human behavior, is ludicrous; which is to say so foolish, unreasonable, and/or out of place, as to be amusing; ridiculous.

That's not a reason. That's not logic.

Well, here's the thing... 'that' is reason and it is perfectly in alignment with the principles of logic. And that is was expressed by me, does not render it less so, or in any way relieve it of the authority which the aforementioned elements otherwise provide.

Great! Then we're good to go. Given that the law does not exclude the sexually abnormal from marriage. It merely requires the sexually abnormal to meet the same standards are everyone else, which... if youre keeping score, is the sexually abnormal being treated EQUALLY... before THE LAW.

So same sex marriage is legal and recognized already?

ROFLMNAO! So Equality is not the issue, as ya claimed 10 minutes ago.

But let's set that aside and work on your newest twist. First, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Therefore, there is no such thing as same-sex marriage. Beyond the extent that sex in marriage is always the same sex.

 

[Steinlight]

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

By that standard, neither do blow jobs, infertile couples or those on birth control. Does that mean that Nana and PopPop's marriage certificate became invalid after Nana has a hysterectomy?

Of course not.

As the infertile and childless demonstrate, there are clearly valid foundations of marriage that have nothing to do children or the ability to have them. Rendering the 'your intercourse must serve a societal purpose!' standard meaningless nonsense. As no one is held to that standard. No straight couple is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.

Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist and then apply it exclusively to gays? It makes no sense.

I don't think you should be given a government license or subsidy for blow jobs or birth control either.

Exceptions to the rule don't change the rule. Fundamentally, the purpose of marriage is for men and women to join in a union to build a family through procreation. Yes, there are some infertile couples, but this doesn't negate marriage's primary role. Infertile couples getting married certainly doesn't justify homosexual getting married. Infertile couples can adopt and provide the nuclear family structure homosexual couples can't by providing the foundation of a mother and father.

The role of the the state should be to promote procreation and a stable family environment for the children of these unions. Legalizing gay marriage serves no purpose towards this end and incentivizes a degenerate and destructive lifestyle.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And none of those are licensed by the government or sanctioned by the Church.

Yet all of them render their intercourse of no value to society.

ROFLMNAO! Good lord... that is somewhere between insane and ludicrous. But it is NO WHERE NEAR within the standards required for one's speech to be worthy of consideration by reasonable people.

You are one twisted female.

And such is the case with a majority of your would-be 'contributions', so I am afraid that I am going to have to sentence you to life in Ignore...

Say hello to the other idiots for me, will ya?

TTFE

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?

There is no freedom from criticism.

Any of the left's victims du jour. Every frigging cause on the left has its untouchable martyrs and human shields that no one's supposed to say anything about, and it's just beyond all bounds of human decency to criticize them, and suddenly you find that any criticism of the cause they're the face for automatically becomes criticism of them, and the debate goes straight to name-calling against the heartless bastard who violated the left's doctrine of infallibility.

Want to have a rational, adult American-citizen debate about government policies and the current political administration? Well, you can't, because the President is black, and the only reason you don't like his governance is because you're a racist.

Want to have a reasonable, thorough investigation of the attacks of 9/11? Well, you can't, because the screeching harpies flacking for the 9/11 Commission whitewash are widows, and you're a heartless chauvinist pig.

Want to have a logical discussion about gun rights and sensible ways to curb gun violence? Well, you can't, because this or that or some other person whose child was in a school shooting is demanding that gun ownership be outlawed, and you're a cretin who wants children to die.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It was never about "equality". It's about submission.

We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.

It's not about me. It's about queers hate for Christians. Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you.

Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers. Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you.

Christians are trying to force people to act contrary to their beliefs? When? These people strongly believe that their wedding cake MUST come from this bakery, and shopping somewhere else is a sin in their eyes? Is that really the position you want to try to argue?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.

Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.

Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.

Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.

Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.

Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.

And by the way once again- since it is so timely

Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....

All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.

Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true. It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?

 

[Syriusly]

Who do you think you are not allowed to criticize Neal?

There is no freedom from criticism.

Any of the left's victims du jour. Every frigging cause on the left has its untouchable martyrs and human shields that no one's supposed to say anything about, and it's just beyond all bounds of human decency to criticize them, and suddenly you find that any criticism of the cause they're the face for automatically becomes criticism of them, and the debate goes straight to name-calling against the heartless bastard who violated the left's doctrine of infallibility.

Want to have a rational, adult American-citizen debate about government policies and the current political administration? Well, you can't, because the President is black, and the only reason you don't like his governance is because you're a racist.

Want to have a reasonable, thorough investigation of the attacks of 9/11? Well, you can't, because the screeching harpies flacking for the 9/11 Commission whitewash are widows, and you're a heartless chauvinist pig.

Want to have a logical discussion about gun rights and sensible ways to curb gun violence? Well, you can't, because this or that or some other person whose child was in a school shooting is demanding that gun ownership be outlawed, and you're a cretin who wants children to die.

LOL.....sorry....your partisan blindness is amusing to me.

Every frigging cause on the right has its untouchable martyrs and issues that no ones supposed to say anything about.

Want a rational adult American debate on gun control? The NRA will gladly fund the campaign to defeat you from office.

Want a rational discussion about immigration? Well it is hard because your suddenly a cretin who wants America invaded by Mexican Muslim terrorists carrying Ebola.


Freedom to criticize does not mean freedom from criticism.

Just because others yell at your for your ideas mean your ideas are being stifled- they have as much right to yell as you do.

This is the market of ideas- and you are free to express yours, and I am free to criticize your ideas.

If that intimidates you, well that is your issue- not mine. You have the same freedom to criticize my ideas- and I am not threatened by that.

 

[Syriusly]

It was never about "equality". It's about submission.

We aren't interested in whether you are a submissive or not.

It's not about me. It's about queers hate for Christians. Queers want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you.

Its not about me. It's about Christians hate for queers. Christians want to force people to act contrary to their beliefs. Fuck you.

Christians are trying to force people to act contrary to their beliefs? When? These people strongly believe that their wedding cake MUST come from this bakery, and shopping somewhere else is a sin in their eyes? Is that really the position you want to try to argue?

Christians- meaning those homophobes who claim to be Christians- want to force gay couples to act contrary to their beliefs and not get married.

Christians have been trying to force their beliefs on homosexuals for centuries- and in far more dangerous ways than trying to order a cake.

 

[Syriusly]

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.

Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.

Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.

Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.

Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.

Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.

And by the way once again- since it is so timely

Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....

All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.

Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true. It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?

LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's about submission. The queers want Christians to shut up.

Seems Christians can't handle criticism much then.

Christians of course want homosexuals to shut up.

And by 'Christians' I mean only 'homophobes who claim to be Christians and just use that as an excuse to complain about homosexuals'.

Actually, we don't give a tin shit if they want to talk or not. We'd just appreciate it if they'd be gracious enough to acknowledge our right to avoid and ignore them while they do it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.

Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.

Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.

Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.

Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.

Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.

And by the way once again- since it is so timely

Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....

All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.

Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true. It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?

LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.

Indeed, it's the refuge of those who have no 'argument' at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.

Black Panthers, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are all private organizations- not public accomodations- and not subject to public accomodation laws.
Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples are all 'churches'- and not subject to public accomadation laws.

Business's however are subject to the laws of their jurisidiction- local, state, federal.

Don't like the public accomadation laws- go ahead and change them.

Correct, and yet a faggot sued them to be readmitted as a leader anyway. Proving that faggots will sue organizations which are legally able to discriminate against them. Making it a tiny step to faggots suing churches to "marry" them, rather than the giant leap some of you pretend it is.

Yep- its the old 'slipper slope' argument- last refuge of those who can't come up with anything else.

And by the way once again- since it is so timely

Faggot....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt....sp*c....

All the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people for the same reason.

Yup, it's the old "slippery slope, so it must not be true" argument - last refuge of those who desperately wish slippery slopes weren't true. It must suck to know you have no argument and have to deflect virtually every time you open your cakehole, huh?

LOL....well I do appreciate your attempt to use my own words back at me, the reality is that the slippery slope argument is not legally persuasive and is the usual refuge of those who have no moral argument.

No, the reality is that slippery slopes are real. Reality isn't determined by "legally persuasive", and certainly not by YOUR perception of it. Likewise, the only person who has no argument is the one whose entire response is "slippery slope argument = invalid". Tell us WHY it's invalid; otherwise, all you've done is scream, "You're right, and I can't debate it!"

The truth is that you know very well that it's completely plausible, logical, and likely that the fact that homosexuals already sue people for "discrimination" who are exempt from public accommodation laws means they intend to do the same to churches as soon as they've nibbled away at the First Amendment sufficiently. You're just too disingenuous and cowardly to admit it.