Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Penrod]

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Yes. Separation of church and state. Right?

I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.

If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.

So the catholic church should be forced to marry a Jewish couple? The very idea of people of the same sex getting married changes the very definition of marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

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?

It's only because of the claim of the LGBT cult that the results aren't compelling that the conversation continues...that and the fact that they continually sue Christians (you know, LGBTs are "weak" and "downtrodden") to try to force them to promote/enable a homoesexual cultural takeover of the hub of society/marriage. And because churches are nothing more or less than mere congregations of individual Christians.

 

[JFK_USA]

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Yes. Separation of church and state. Right?

I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.

If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.

So the catholic church should be forced to marry a Jewish couple? The very idea of people of the same sex getting married changes the very definition of marriage.

I doubt a Jewish couple is looking to get married in a church.

The point is that if you hold open your services to the general public, you can't discriminate certain groups in the general public.

 

[Penrod]

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Yes. Separation of church and state. Right?

I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.

If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.

So the catholic church should be forced to marry a Jewish couple? The very idea of people of the same sex getting married changes the very definition of marriage.

I doubt a Jewish couple is looking to get married in a church.

The point is that if you hold open your services to the general public, you can't discriminate certain groups in the general public.

Churches are not providing services to the general public. They provide services to their members. Even Catholics can be refused marriage in the Catholic church for a number of reasons. Its not like the church is the only option they can always go to the Justice of the peace.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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:

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?

And I answered that

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.

 

[Syriusly]

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Yes. Separation of church and state. Right?

I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.

If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.

So the catholic church should be forced to marry a Jewish couple? The very idea of people of the same sex getting married changes the very definition of marriage.

Once again a church is not a business, and a business is not a church.

Churches can and do discriminate at will about who can use their facilities, and what they can be used for.

 

[Syriusly]

So if churches should be allowed refuse to marry homosexuals couples, should they be allowed to refuse to marry mixed race couples if it goes against their doctrine?

Yes. Separation of church and state. Right?

I agree, then I also agree businesses should be able to refuse services for whatever reason as well. But I believe in something called freedom of association and private property, novel concepts in today's america.

If they provide services to the public, they can't deny services to a certain group of people just because they are that certain group of people. If you are open to anyone, then to serve anyone.

So the catholic church should be forced to marry a Jewish couple? The very idea of people of the same sex getting married changes the very definition of marriage.

I doubt a Jewish couple is looking to get married in a church.

The point is that if you hold open your services to the general public, you can't discriminate certain groups in the general public.

If by 'services' you mean 'church services'- sure churches can absolutely discriminate anyway they want to.

If by 'services' you mean businesses, business's are subject to public accommodation laws- and business's can discriminate against any 'group' not covered- say for instance they could discriminate against left handed people if they wanted to.

 

[beagle9]

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?

And I answered that

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.

No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by, then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready? Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?

 

[Skylar]

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?

And I answered that

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.

No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being?

Its considered normal.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

"The Fuck" is that the tiny minority representing the deviant perspective, has no means to control the perverse compulsion to demand a RIGHT to be promote deviancy.

Science is coming to understand that THAT is 'Why' homosexuals were locked in the closet, in the first place.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And you hold those bigoted and irrational views.

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

The best sign that you're talking to a bigot, is that whoever you're talking to, has called you a bigot.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its considered normal.

Let me help you through the code being used in the above rationalization spawned by the disordered mind.

"It" is the use of contraceptives when one engages in the behavior designed BY NATURE for procreation.

"Normal" means: "everyone does it".

The words are used inappropriately, and such is intentional, because the goal is to deceive you... thus the illicit use of words which promote the likelihood of your assent, through the allure of popularity, representing what is NOT a representation of human physiological normality: IS represented as such.

The Reader should recall that the above cited contributor, just a page or two back, demanded that pleasure is a 'purpose' of sex... .

Yet HERE, we find it advising you that 'the purpose of sex' requires that one use contraceptives as a means to avoid the consequence of sex.

So from THAT we can know the its would-be 'purpose' of sex, requires that it take measures to prevent sex from resulting in what it is DESIGNED TO DO!

See how that works?

 

[beagle9]

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?

And I answered that

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.

No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being?

Its considered normal.

It's considered normal you say, otherwise to have to ask your partner to place a condom on if you are a woman or for you to have to place a condom on if you are a man before sex ? There is nothing normal about that, but if there is something wrong or abnormal about the persons health in that area, then it only wise to use such protection, but it's not a normal thing that comes between two human beings at all. It's only a protection because something is abnormal in one of the human beings health. Now what is causing these abnormalities in humans, where as a human being has to place a condom on for protection or one has to take medicine in order to stay alive these days ?

 

[beagle9]

Its considered normal.

Let me help you through the code being used in the above rationalization spawned by the disordered mind.

"It" is the use of contraceptives when one engages in the behavior designed BY NATURE for procreation.

"Normal" means: "everyone does it".

The words are used inappropriately, and such is intentional, because the goal is to deceive you... thus the illicit use of words which promote the likelihood of your assent, through the allure of popularity, representing what is NOT a representation of human physiological normality: IS represented as such.

The Reader should recall that the above cited contributor, just a page or two back, demanded that pleasure is a 'purpose' of sex... .

Yet HERE, we find it advising you that 'the purpose of sex' requires that one use contraceptives as a means to avoid the consequence of sex.

So from THAT we can know the its would-be 'purpose' of sex, requires that it take measures to prevent sex from resulting in what it is DESIGNED TO DO!

See how that works?

Contraceptives and taking protective measures to prevent disease when having sex is two different things, and are really in two different categories wouldn't you agree ?

 

[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- 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?

And I answered that

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.

No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by, then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready? Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?

What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.

Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.

But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.

Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.

 

[Syriusly]

Its considered normal.

Let me help you through the code being used in the above rationalization spawned by the disordered mind.

"It" is the use of contraceptives when one engages in the behavior designed BY NATURE for procreation.

"Normal" means: "everyone does it".

The words are used inappropriately, and such is intentional, because the goal is to deceive you... thus the illicit use of words which promote the likelihood of your assent, through the allure of popularity, representing what is NOT a representation of human physiological normality: IS represented as such.

The Reader should recall that the above cited contributor, just a page or two back, demanded that pleasure is a 'purpose' of sex... .

Yet HERE, we find it advising you that 'the purpose of sex' requires that one use contraceptives as a means to avoid the consequence of sex.

So from THAT we can know the its would-be 'purpose' of sex, requires that it take measures to prevent sex from resulting in what it is DESIGNED TO DO!

See how that works?

Contraceptives and taking protective measures to prevent disease when having sex is two different things, and are really in two different categories wouldn't you agree ?

When referring to condoms- they are exactly the same thing.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

And I answered that

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.

No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being?

Its considered normal.

It's considered normal you say, otherwise to have to ask your partner to place a condom on if you are a woman or for you to have to place a condom on if you are a man before sex ? There is nothing normal about that, but if there is something wrong or abnormal about the persons health in that area, then it only wise to use such protection, but it's not a normal thing that comes between two human beings at all. It's only a protection because something is abnormal in one of the human beings health. Now what is causing these abnormalities in humans, where as a human being has to place a condom on for protection or one has to take medicine in order to stay alive these days ?

It has been the normal thing to do for most of the last 100 years.

Other than a very brief period when known STD's were treatable.

 

[beagle9]

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?

And I answered that

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.

No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by, then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready? Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?

What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.

Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.

But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.

Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.

But isn't there a code of (ethics and morals) that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.

Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code ? Who is breaking the code therefore reeking havoc among the flock these days ? How many have been infected due to being lured into a situation by influential worldly powers that are among us, where as afterwards they who fall then break the code and become infected themselves ? What is the platform in which the code breakers are riding on, and who is fueling the vehicle for which they ride upon (Hollywood is just one I can think of, but it's not all of Hollywood, yet who is winning the over all battle in that arena these days) ?

I acknowledge God as giving us the codes to live by, and I also acknowledge a more sinister being who wants every human being to fall somehow, and in someway. Who do you work for ?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

And I answered that

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.

No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by, then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready? Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?

What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.

Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.

But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.

Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.

But isn't there a code of (ethics and morals) that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.

Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code

IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.

I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?

 

[beagle9]

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

And I answered that

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.

No you didn't.... Is it considered normal or abnormal to have to use any type of protection when having sex with another human being? If you meet the love of your life, and you and her begin to date, and the both of you decide to have sex after say a year goes by, then would you find it strange to reach for a condom when you two are ready? Would you see that as something normal or abnormal to do? Now what allows disease to travel and manifest itself in humans? What is the root of these problems?

What is the root of these problems? I presume you mean sexually transmitted disease and not your problem with trying to identify everything as 'normal' or 'abnormal'.

Well if I was a Christian I would say God, because I would believe that God created everything in the world.

But since I am not a Christian, I would blame evolution and biology.

Evolution created sexually transmitted diseases and biology ensures that they will spread absent human intervention to prevent their spread.

But isn't there a code of (ethics and morals) that if people live by them, well don't these diseases completely fail in their attempts to come in contact with them, and then destroy them over time ? If live by a code handed down by our creator, then these things we are talking about (fail) in there attempts to infect those people who live by such a code of ethics and morals.

Now who do you think gave us the code to live by, and did he send down a bag full of condoms with the code

IF there is a God- and that God intentionally afflected the human race with Syphillis and HIV, and HPV and Herpes- then I reject that God.

I don't give a damn about his 'code'- why the hell did he want to see humans die in misery?

You want to attack and rave against God, yet you don't acknowledge the evil one? Now how interesting is that?