Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

Did you just cut and paste my comment?

I hate copy cats.

Only when you get off topic.

I'm not off topic.

You sound like fake. He always accuses other people of the things he's doing. It's boring. I might put you on ignore too...

How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding be relevance in a thread titled 'should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings'?

You've already admitted you're not a church. So......explain it to us. And make sure you don't stray from the thread title.

You really don't have any concept of religious freedom, do you?

Of course I do. But we're discussing churches. Not YOU. You are not a church. Churches are explicitly exempt from PA laws.

Making any reference about you or PA laws utterly irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

Get a grip.

 

[Skylar]

Click.

Done with the noise. Good grief.

And now I have a bully pulpit from which to shred your claims!

You rob me of nothing, and blind yourself. Thank you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding...

ANOTHER LIE!

No one here, in over 800 pages of discussion, has argued that the Left is demanding that Christians 'attend' celebrations of disordered cognition.

We're talking about people being FORCED TO SERVE THOSE CELEBRATIONS, AND IN THE PROCESS OF NORMALIZING MENTAL DISORDER, DEVIANCY and PERVERSION.

A far greater crime against humanity than the mere forcing of attendance, which she so desperately tried to reduce the discussion DOWN TO.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Click.

Done with the noise. Good grief.

And now I have a bully pulpit from which to shred your claims!

You rob me of nothing, and blind yourself. Thank you.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding...

ANOTHER LIE!

No one here, in over 800 pages of discussion, has argued that the Left is demanding that Christians 'attend' celebrations of disordered cognition.

Except when they did (bold added for emphasis):

....if you can force people to attend religious ceremonies that they do not wish to attend, they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.

Kosher Girl
Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 810 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

She actually used the word 'attend' twice in just one sentence. As usual Keyes.....you're simply not informed sufficiently to discuss the topic intelligently.

Go sit in the corner. The adults are talking.

 

[Skylar]

Click.

Done with the noise. Good grief.

And now I have a bully pulpit from which to shred your claims!

You rob me of nothing, and blind yourself. Thank you.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing.....and your tell. Where you can't shore up the holes in your claims, you can't refute my logic or evidence......so you bizarrely declare 'victory'.

And then run. When you muster the courage to come on back, I'll be here.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... we're discussing churches. Not YOU. You are not a church. Churches are explicitly exempt from PA laws.

A member of the church is a representative of the Church.

Just as a person is a representative of the people.

Where you infringe upon a member of the church to exercise their rights, you infringe upon the church.

Just as when you infringe upon the means of the person to exercise their right, you infringe upon the rights of the people.

 

[Skylar]

... we're discussing churches. Not YOU. You are not a church. Churches are explicitly exempt from PA laws.

A member of the church is a representative of the Church.

A member of a church is no more a church than a hubcap is a car.

If people were churches, they'd be tax exempt. They aren't. Sending another piece of classic Keyes batshit tail spinning into the rhetorical midden heap.

Next fallacy please.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant

You are a professed sexual deviant.

Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.

Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?

You are a professed sexual defiant.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.

Topic of this thread as you shrilly reminded all of us

"Should churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings"

No one is forcing you or anyone else to attend any wedding you don't want to.

The State does have the authority to tell business'- which would not be you- to follow the law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding...

ANOTHER LIE!

No one here, in over 800 pages of discussion, has argued that the Left is demanding that Christians 'attend' celebrations of disordered cognition.

Except when they did (bold added for emphasis):

....if you can force people to attend religious ceremonies that they do not wish to attend, they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.

Kosher Girl
Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 810 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

She actually used the word 'attend' twice in just one sentence. As usual Keyes.....you're simply not informed sufficiently to discuss the topic intelligently.

Go sit in the corner. The adults are talking.

OH! So you're incapable of deducing from her consistent argument, that she was referring to forced servitude?

(Reader, limited powers of deduction present mental disorder... Amazing how consistent the symptoms of perversion are demonstrated, isn't it? And with each demonstration, we see yet another means by which the mental disorder that causes sexual abnormality, is harmful to YOU!)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant

You are a professed sexual deviant.

Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.

Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?

You are a professed sexual defiant.

False.. I am a demonstrated defiant that abnormality is normality, sexual or otherwise. And a proponent of reality.

 

[Skylar]

How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding...

ANOTHER LIE!

No one here, in over 800 pages of discussion, has argued that the Left is demanding that Christians 'attend' celebrations of disordered cognition.

Except when they did (bold added for emphasis):

....if you can force people to attend religious ceremonies that they do not wish to attend, they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.

Kosher Girl
Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 810 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

She actually used the word 'attend' twice in just one sentence. As usual Keyes.....you're simply not informed sufficiently to discuss the topic intelligently.

Go sit in the corner. The adults are talking.

OH! So you're incapable of deducing from her consistent argument, that she was referring to forced servitude?

Laughing....so now you're claiming that when she said attend she *didn't* mean attend?

....if you can force people to attend religious ceremonies that they do not wish to attend, they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.

Kosher Girl
Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 810 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Run along, boy. You're out of your depth.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant

You are a professed sexual deviant.

Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.

Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?

You are a professed sexual defiant.

False.. I am a demonstrated defiant that abnormality is normality, sexual or otherwise. And a proponent of reality.

You're a proponent of hatred. You've called gays 'abhorred', 'despised', and 'loathed'. You've insisted that if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they will be subject to a war that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch.'

And that's all you. Don't try to blame your irrational hatred, your wild bigotry on anyone else.

 

[Syriusly]

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

Did you just cut and paste my comment?

I hate copy cats.

Only when you get off topic.

I'm not off topic.

You sound like fake. He always accuses other people of the things he's doing. It's boring. I might put you on ignore too...

How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding be relevance in a thread titled 'should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings'?

You've already admitted you're not a church. So......explain it to us. And make sure you don't stray from the thread title.

It's all about legislation of religion, and it's wrong.

A law which says a business cannot discriminate against among other things- race, religion, veteran status or homosexuality is not about legislation of religion.

Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... when she said attend she *didn't* mean attend?

She meant 'forced into servitude for celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality... as any reasonable person reading, clearly understood.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A law which says a business cannot discriminate against among other things- race, religion, veteran status or homosexuality is not about legislation of religion.

True, that is a law which is about delegitimizing the law.

You see, a law which promotes deviancy, is unjust, invalid law, to be ignored by all decent human beings.

 

[Syriusly]

A law which says a business cannot discriminate against among other things- race, religion, veteran status or homosexuality is not about legislation of religion.

True, that is a law which is about delegitimizing the law.

You grow more and more delusional with every post.

 

[Skylar]

... when she said attend she *didn't* mean attend?

She meant 'forced into servitude for celebrating the normalization of sexual abnormality... as any reasonable person reading, clearly understood.

Laughing.....so much for your claim that "No one here, in over 800 pages of discussion, has argued that the Left is demanding that Christians 'attend' celebrations of disordered cognition."

As usual, Keyes......you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant

You are a professed sexual deviant.

Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.

Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?

You are a professed sexual defiant.

False.. I am a demonstrated defiant that abnormality is normality, sexual or otherwise. And a proponent of reality.

You're a proponent of hatred. ...

(Reader, what you've just been 'advised', is that recognizing, respecting, defending and adhering TO the laws of nature, is to the disordered mind: Hatred.

Now, you can clearly see how THAT deviant point is harmful to you, but can you see how harmful it is the very viability of the species?)