Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked. And he ran.

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

Now of the two conditions:

1- A Sound Mind

2- A Deviant Mind

Which do you suppose would confuse the effect of sex, with the purpose of sex?

Now, this principle is ubiquitous, just as is the conflation of it, where such is considered by the disordered mind.

To wit:
War kills people and breaks things..., yet killing people and breaking things is not the purpose of war. The purpose of war is to induce one's will upon another party... .

Now, what would happen to a culture which lost sight of that truth and succumbed to the falsity that war's purpose was to kill people and break things?

Such a culture may come to being incapable of winning a war... pursuing instead of victory, winning the hearts and minds of their adversary.

See how that works and how the perverse reasoning common to the disordered mind, is harmful to you and your children?

 

[koshergrl]

"...the prevailing view tells us, free exercise litigants since Smith have lost consistently on the First Amendment merits in the lower federal and state courts. Since Smith, that is, any free exercise litigants dedicated enough to continue pursuing First Amendment exemptions claims in the wake of lSmith have almost invariably come away disappointed in the lower courts."
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl

 

[Syriusly]

The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.

Public Accomodation laws existed before that Supreme Court ruling- and they exist after it.

Christians don't get ignore laws just because they claim to be Christians.

 

[koshergrl]

The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.

Says who?

There's you and....who?

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2215&context=facpubs

Is there a passage you'd like to share? Or are you just spamming links to arguments you've never read?

You again prove you don't understand what spam is.

Spam isn't a winning argument that you can't grasp. Spam is irrelevant, and what I'm posting is perfectly relevant to the topic, whether or not you are able to understand it.

 

[Syriusly]

"...the prevailing view tells us, free exercise litigants since Smith have lost consistently on the First Amendment merits in the lower federal and state courts. Since Smith, that is, any free exercise litigants dedicated enough to continue pursuing First Amendment exemptions claims in the wake of lSmith have almost invariably come away disappointed in the lower courts."
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl

Do you think laws against polygamy are invalid if you belief polygamy is sacred institution?

 

[Syriusly]

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked. And he ran.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation.

LOL.....maybe for you.

Not for most other humans.

 

[koshergrl]

"To be sure, a number of well-documented cases have established that Smith has been a catastrophe for religion freedom..."
"To be sure, Employment Division v. Smith represented a serious curtailment by the Supreme Court of First Amendment rights to exercise religious faith."
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl

 

[Skylar]

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked. And he ran.

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each of these purposes is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

 

[koshergrl]

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked. And he ran.

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

 

[Skylar]

"To be sure, a number of well-documented cases have established that Smith has been a catastrophe for religion freedom..."
"To be sure, Employment Division v. Smith represented a serious curtailment by the Supreme Court of First Amendment rights to exercise religious faith."
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl

And where is there any mention of PA laws?

 

[koshergrl]

"..almost no one in the field has accepted Justic Scalia's reinterpretation of history in this manner at face value; indeed even ardent supporters of the Smith rule have derided Scalia's reorganization of precedents as "border[ing] on fiction" and "particularly illustrative of poetic license."
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl

 

[Skylar]

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked. And he ran.

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?

Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not?

And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.

So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

I'll understand if you choose to run too.

 

[koshergrl]

"To be sure, a number of well-documented cases have established that Smith has been a catastrophe for religion freedom..."
"To be sure, Employment Division v. Smith represented a serious curtailment by the Supreme Court of First Amendment rights to exercise religious faith."
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl

And where is there any mention of PA laws?

I have posted multiple quotes that explain how the law affects rulings in the lower courts. Like I said, just because you don't understand doesn't mean you win. The opinion of lawmakers is that the Supreme Court ruling on Smith changed the nature of the application of the first amendment, and reduced our religious freedom, and made it almost impossible for people to obtain any exception to civil law in the lower courts.

The objective is of course to allow the state to exert greater influence over the bodies of our children...to force parents to participate in state-mandated exercises and practices, regardless of their religion..but the result is more far reaching than that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.

Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...

So using your reasoning, your own advocacy made on behalf of THE PEOPLE is also nullified.

Thus the purpose of debate of public policy is likewise 'made invalid'.

Now Reader, do you see how Deviancy has harmed the above cited deviant?

In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.

I ask you, do you see any harm in reasoning which holds that because you are a person, your input on matters of public policy are invalidated, unwelcome and otherwise irrelevant?

YET: THAT is the reasoning which has not been shown to be common to the same species of reasoning which demands that sexuality which PROFOUNDLY deviates from the human physiological norm, does NOT Deviate from that norm, thus such is perfectly normal.

And as such, I am sure that you, the Reader can readily see that such is a harmful 'way of thinking', OKA: A disordered way of thinking, AKA: A Mental Disorder.

 

[koshergrl]

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked. And he ran.

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?

Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not?

And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.

So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

I'll understand if you choose to run too.

I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.

 

[Skylar]

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked. And he ran.

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?

Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not?

And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.

So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

I'll understand if you choose to run too.

I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.

Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.

Nor could virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.

 

[mdk]

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked. And he ran.

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would be wise to remember that.

 

[koshergrl]

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?

Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not?

And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.

So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

I'll understand if you choose to run too.

I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.

Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.

Nor could virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.

My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.

And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.

 

[Skylar]

Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.

Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...

You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.

You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.

Get used to the idea.

In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.

In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it.

That would be the Strawman Fallacy. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.

 

[koshergrl]

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked. And he ran.

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.