Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're just doubling down on your tell tonight, Keyes.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing.....and exactly on cue, you've abandoned all your arguments, refuse to discuss the evisceration of your argument....and flee.

Bizarrely 'declaring victory' over your shoulder as you run.

That was easy.

Oh my it's a river of concessions... how nice!

Your re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

The Reader should recognize the by definition, the use of the word "Bigot" is a demonstration of bigotry.

Its a description of someone who holds bigoted and irrational views. In your case, motivated by personal animus. You've called gays 'despised'. 'Abhorred'. 'Loathed'. You've speculated about how they may all have to be executed for the good of society. And told us how if gays and lesbians don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they're going to be subject to a war that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch'.

Um, no. We're not hurting gays, we're not waging war against them, we're not 'despising' them, we're not executing them, we're not stripping them of any right just because you have an irrational hatred of gays.

Your proposal is rejected.

 

[Skylar]

You're just doubling down on your tell tonight, Keyes.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing.....and exactly on cue, you've abandoned all your arguments, refuse to discuss the evisceration of your argument....and flee.

Bizarrely 'declaring victory' over your shoulder as you run.

That was easy.

Oh my it's a river of concessions... how nice!

Your re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Keep running.

 

[Skylar]

So with Keyes having predictably devolved into his typical abandonment of the debate and awkward 'declarations of victory', is there anyone who thinks churches should be forced to accommodate gays weddings?

So far, there are zero churches that have been forced to perform any gay wedding. And its unlikely there will be in the foreseeable future.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its a description of someone who holds bigoted and irrational views.

Yes it is. And such is never more certain than where one uses the word to describe another, as the use of such is BY DEFINITION: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

And that remains the case without regard to what you accept... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So with Keyes having predictably devolved into his typical abandonment of the debate and awkward 'declarations of victory', is there anyone who thinks churches should be forced to accommodate gays weddings?

So far, there are zero churches that have been forced to perform any gay wedding. And its unlikely there will be in the foreseeable future.

And ANOTHER RE-Re-concession!

Your RE-Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Does anyone need anything else to firm up their understanding that in fact, sexual abnormality is a consequence of mental disorder?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all...?

 

[Skylar]

Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

The Reader should recognize the by definition, the use of the word "Bigot" is a demonstration of bigotry.

Its a description of someone who holds bigoted and irrational views.

Yes it is.

And you hold those bigoted and irrational views. You despise gays, you abhor them, you loath them. By your own words. You speculate on how we may have to execute all gays for the benefit of society. You tell us how a war that will make 'hate crimes look like a Sunday Brunch' if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'

We're not doing any of that, Keyes. We're recognizing their rights. We're protecting their rights. Come June, we'll likely be reocgnizing the right to marry across the nation. And we're slowly purging our society of your kind of bigotry through the inevitable attrition of time.

In 20 years we'll look back with the same bewilderment and pity for you and your ilk as we do the opponents of interracial marriage of the past.

 

[Skylar]

Does anyone need anything else to firm up their understanding that in fact, sexual abnormality is a consequence of mental disorder?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all...?

Says you. And your personal opinion has no relevance to the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians anywhere in our country.

With gay marriage recognized in 37 of 50 states today. And 50 of 50 in a handful of weeks.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

So with Keyes having predictably devolved into his typical abandonment of the debate and awkward 'declarations of victory', is there anyone who thinks churches should be forced to accommodate gays weddings?

So far, there are zero churches that have been forced to perform any gay wedding. And its unlikely there will be in the foreseeable future.

And ANOTHER RE-Re-concession!

Your RE-Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing......you won't touch the topic of the thread with a 10 foot pole, will you?

Is there any topic I can't run you off of?

 

[Syriusly]

The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- ... Why is there a need for condoms now? ... To prevent catching among other things: HIV(AIDS) ... Syphilis... Gonoreah [sic]

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

Your ignorance of history is no surprise.

 

[Syriusly]

Does anyone need anything else to firm up their understanding that in fact, sexual abnormality is a consequence of mental disorder?

I understand from your posts that you have a mental disorder that causes your sexual abnormality.

 

[Syriusly]

Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

The Reader should recognize the by definition, the use of the word "Bigot" is a demonstration of bigotry.

In the United States we rely upon Webster- and they practically have you picture under the definition of Bigot:

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Full Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

 

[Syriusly]

Serious question: are you a remarkably sophisticated spambot, or just a remarkably stupid person?

Keyes is a remarkably stupid person is my observation

 

[Billy000]

It's interesting the large majority of the site voted one way yet for some bizarre reason this thread is 8000 posts in. What the fuck?

 

[beagle9]

Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

The Reader should recognize the by definition, the use of the word "Bigot" is a demonstration of bigotry.

Its a description of someone who holds bigoted and irrational views.

Yes it is.

And you hold those bigoted and irrational views. You despise gays, you abhor them, you loath them. By your own words. You speculate on how we may have to execute all gays for the benefit of society. You tell us how a war that will make 'hate crimes look like a Sunday Brunch' if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'

We're not doing any of that, Keyes. We're recognizing their rights. We're protecting their rights. Come June, we'll likely be reocgnizing the right to marry across the nation. And we're slowly purging our society of your kind of bigotry through the inevitable attrition of time.

In 20 years we'll look back with the same bewilderment and pity for you and your ilk as we do the opponents of interracial marriage of the past.

So you have to defeat him and his ilk you say, and do it in say a span of 20 years, but isn't this also a declaration of war on your part?

 

[beagle9]

Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...

Rational thought?

You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED AS "NORMAL".

Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:

There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is not 'rational'.

You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. But neither assumption is true. Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.

Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.

Next fallacy:

You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion "37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".

We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.

What else have you got?

Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing. 2. A normal thing. ? Otherwise when slipping on a condom or what ever else that is needed to keep from catching something, then how is that viewed by humans mostly ? Is it a normal thing or is it an abnormal thing that one is doing when about to have sex ? Why is there so much need now for condoms, and why is this safe sex campaign so emphasized and important these days if it is a normal thing that is found in the order of things ? Tell us your opinion on the now and why as opposed to the days of old maybe.

The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- and there was no reliable cure.

Syphillis and all STD's are natural- luckily scientists discovered anti-biotics which cured them, and largely eliminated STD's.....for a time.

Why is there a need for condoms now?

Besides preventing pregancy?

To prevent catching among other things:
HIV
Herpes
Syphilis
HPV
Gonoreah
Hep C(?)

Certainly abstinence eliminates the need for condoms, but humans aren't good at abstinence, barely better at monogamy.

Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?

 

[Syriusly]

Silhouette is delusional- and immune to rational thought- ...

Rational thought?

You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED AS "NORMAL".

Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:

There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is not 'rational'.

You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. But neither assumption is true. Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.

Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.

Next fallacy:

You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion "37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".

We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.

What else have you got?

Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing. 2. A normal thing. ? Otherwise when slipping on a condom or what ever else that is needed to keep from catching something, then how is that viewed by humans mostly ? Is it a normal thing or is it an abnormal thing that one is doing when about to have sex ? Why is there so much need now for condoms, and why is this safe sex campaign so emphasized and important these days if it is a normal thing that is found in the order of things ? Tell us your opinion on the now and why as opposed to the days of old maybe.

The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- and there was no reliable cure.

Syphillis and all STD's are natural- luckily scientists discovered anti-biotics which cured them, and largely eliminated STD's.....for a time.

Why is there a need for condoms now?

Besides preventing pregancy?

To prevent catching among other things:
HIV
Herpes
Syphilis
HPV
Gonoreah
Hep C(?)

Certainly abstinence eliminates the need for condoms, but humans aren't good at abstinence, barely better at monogamy.

Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?

What the hell are you talking about?

IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?

If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.

This is basic biology.

 

[Syriusly]

Ultimately Keyes is just another bigot.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

The Reader should recognize the by definition, the use of the word "Bigot" is a demonstration of bigotry.

Its a description of someone who holds bigoted and irrational views.

Yes it is.

And you hold those bigoted and irrational views. You despise gays, you abhor them, you loath them. By your own words. You speculate on how we may have to execute all gays for the benefit of society. You tell us how a war that will make 'hate crimes look like a Sunday Brunch' if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'

We're not doing any of that, Keyes. We're recognizing their rights. We're protecting their rights. Come June, we'll likely be reocgnizing the right to marry across the nation. And we're slowly purging our society of your kind of bigotry through the inevitable attrition of time.

In 20 years we'll look back with the same bewilderment and pity for you and your ilk as we do the opponents of interracial marriage of the past.

So you have to defeat him and his ilk you say, and do it in say a span of 20 years, but isn't this also a declaration of war on your part?

Reading Skylar's post that you are responding to- clearly not.

 

[beagle9]

Rational thought?

You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your conclusion, that behavior which not only deviates from the human physiological norm, IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT STANDARD NORMALITY AS FAR AS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHERE THE SUBJECTS AT ISSUE REMAIN HUMAN! AND WHICH FURTHER DEMANDS THAT THE PROFOUND DEVIANCY BE COUNTED AS "NORMAL".

Gays are lesbians are human. Ending your entire line of reasoning. Next fallacy:

There's nothing in that rationalization, which can be reasonably recognized as being based upon or in accordance with sound reason or valid logic, thus such is not 'rational'.

You simply assume that sex can only serve one purpose: procreation. Just like you assume that marriage can only serve one purpose: procreation. But neither assumption is true. Almost all sex is reproductively useless. And as all the infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.

Your assumption of exclusivity of purpose is thus a logical fallacy void of reason, clear thought or sensibility.

Next fallacy:

You're speaking of the 'thought', born from your assertion "37 of 50 states have now legalized Gay-Marriage".

We know this because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE STATES ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LONG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS, WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO SIGNED INTO LAW: THAT MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

And any law that violates constitutional guarantees is invalid. As rights trump powers.

What else have you got?

Sex that requires artificial means (i.e safe sex), in order to accommodate the act between two human beings is going to be called what ? 1. An abnormal thing. 2. A normal thing. ? Otherwise when slipping on a condom or what ever else that is needed to keep from catching something, then how is that viewed by humans mostly ? Is it a normal thing or is it an abnormal thing that one is doing when about to have sex ? Why is there so much need now for condoms, and why is this safe sex campaign so emphasized and important these days if it is a normal thing that is found in the order of things ? Tell us your opinion on the now and why as opposed to the days of old maybe.

The use of condoms goes back to the beginning of the 20th century- back when syphilis and gonorreah were the 'AIDS' of their day- and there was no reliable cure.

Syphillis and all STD's are natural- luckily scientists discovered anti-biotics which cured them, and largely eliminated STD's.....for a time.

Why is there a need for condoms now?

Besides preventing pregancy?

To prevent catching among other things:
HIV
Herpes
Syphilis
HPV
Gonoreah
Hep C(?)

Certainly abstinence eliminates the need for condoms, but humans aren't good at abstinence, barely better at monogamy.

Is having to protect yourself from your partner, a normal thing or an abnormal thing as found in the make up of things?

What the hell are you talking about?

IF you and your partner, if you ever have one are monogamous and STD's free, and not worried about getting pregnant, then what would you need to protect yourself from?

If either you or your partner has an STD that cannot be cured- such as HIV or Herpes- or you are not monogamous- then you should probably use condoms.

This is basic biology.

I'm asking if one has to use protection, is this figured as a normal thing or not?