Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[MaryL]

What? Did mommy just remind you it's past your bedtime? What NOW?

 

[MaryL]

Let them eat cake, isn't that Mary Antoinette once said?

 

[MaryL]

I wish I could eat cake right now. Chocolate, Strawberry, vanilla . Gluten. Damn it, doesn't care if you are gay or straight or a bloody mass murderer head hunting cannibal. You people debate away, I wish I could just have a slice of that.....

 

[beagle9]

Forcing people to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.

If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.

When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.

And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?

 

[beagle9]

Forcing people to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.

If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.

When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.

If your religion and the store you want shop at don't mesh, find another store.

Um, gays aren't being rejected from a store because of their religion.

Try again.

Could their choices made in life, be the same thing as a person making a religious choice in life ? If so then why does it only work in one way for you, but not in the other for another ? The gay figures his or her choice made for themselves in life is right, and that their choice should be honored, but they are not affording that same right to another who has decided that their choice to be Christian in life is also right, and that it should be also honored in life. The thing is, how does America fix this situation ? The government attacking and trampling on the rights of Christianity is not the solution at all. What a mess!

 

[MaryL]

Forcing people to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.

If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.

When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.

And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?

Attacking? Isn't that a tad...hysterical? Nobody is attacking anyone here, last time I checked. I am an atheist. I just can't stand men butt screwing each other and whatnot pretending that somehow, magically, you get enough lawyers and bitch and whine loud long and hard, people are just going to accept THAT it's the same as man and woman making love and having children, and need marriage and respect. Nope. Dream on, dream on.

 

[Syriusly]

Forcing people to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.

If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.

When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.

. I just can't stand men butt screwing each other

And that explains you entirely.

Why you would care how anyone else is having sex- or why you would wonder how people getting married have sex just explains who you are.

 

[Skylar]

Forcing people to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.

If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.

When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.

And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?

Holding Christians to the same standards that everyone else is held to isn't an 'attack'.

Nixing your entire premise.

 

[Silhouette]

Forcing people to do things against their will and violating their religion is ALL freedom is about here in America.

If you don't want to sell to gays, don't engage in an job that requires it. I'd give the same advice to someone whose religion prevents them from killing any animal working at a slaughterhouse. Or someone who can't work on Sunday trying to get into the NFL.

When your religion and your job don't mesh, find a job that does.

And what will be the next attack to come, otherwise when the barn door is flung wide open in these new ways ?

Attacking? Isn't that a tad...hysterical? Nobody is attacking anyone here, last time I checked. I am an atheist. I just can't stand men butt screwing each other and whatnot pretending that somehow, magically, you get enough lawyers and bitch and whine loud long and hard, people are just going to accept THAT it's the same as man and woman making love and having children, and need marriage and respect. Nope. Dream on, dream on.

What Mary said ^^

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.

With your assumption debunked by one simple fact: there is no marriage in nature.

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Let's review:

Just take a moment to examine this exchange, wherein a degenerate claimed that the Natural Standard of Marriage is false; meaning that as demonstrated above, the Homo-cult is wholly denying that nature has any laws governing human behavior and that such includes human physiology and the extension of such which we express through the word Marriage.

They claim that assigning Marriage as governed by Natural Law... is a function of pretense designed to distract you, the observer or "Reader" from reality or the issue at hand. This they advise you is an invalid logical construct known as "straw reasoning".

To which I simply replied by breaking the respective elements of Reality down into their respective components, which requires the opposition to either accept the existence of such, or to deny reality...

For your convenience, I repeat the exercise, below:

So the reasoning is that of straw?

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts the the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

Now... are you coming to reject that fact?

So... the question now becomes, 'what was the response?'

The first Militant simply conceded to the argument by refusing to even acknowledge the Argument and hasn't been seen in the Thread since.

The Second Militant, desperately wanted to ignore it, but its inability to deny its subjective need, precluded it from being able to ignore it and folded through the following EPIC FAILURE!:

Oh! So Natural Law is straw reasoning. Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

So your conclusion is then, that the argument is straw reasoning, which is to say: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)

Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...

WOW~ So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning?

Wherein you're literally claiming that there are no "readers" observing this discussion through the processing of the written word?

Such is as Delusional as it is... HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the WORD!)

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; which is now formally noted and accepted.


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw; a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?

Now, the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

There is no marriage in nature.

Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar, Faun and by extension, the homo-cult's in its entirety, must inevitably concede to the reality that in point of unassailable fact:

Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who come to claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them inequitable.

And with that said, Skylar, Faun and the entirely of the Homo-Cult's 6th Concession... in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

UPDATE!​

Skylar has trotted out a NEW RESPONSE:

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage'

Let's review to recall how she got there:

[So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.

With your assumption debunked by one simple fact: there is no marriage in nature.

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Let's review:

Just take a moment to examine this exchange, wherein a degenerate claimed that the Natural Standard of Marriage is false; meaning that as demonstrated above, the Homo-cult is wholly denying that nature has any laws governing human behavior and that such includes human physiology and the extension of such which we express through the word Marriage.

They claim that assigning Marriage as governed by Natural Law... is a function of pretense designed to distract you, the observer or "Reader" from reality or the issue at hand. This they advise you is an invalid logical construct known as "straw reasoning".

To which I simply replied by breaking the respective elements of Reality down into their respective components, which requires the opposition to either accept the existence of such, or to deny reality...

For your convenience, I repeat the exercise, below:

So the reasoning is that of straw?

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts the the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

Now... are you coming to reject that fact?

So... the question now becomes, 'what was the response?'

The first Militant simply conceded to the argument by refusing to even acknowledge the Argument and hasn't been seen in the Thread since.

The Second Militant, desperately wanted to ignore it, but its inability to deny its subjective need, precluded it from being able to ignore it and folded through the following EPIC FAILURE!:

Oh! So Natural Law is straw reasoning. Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

So your conclusion is then, that the argument is straw reasoning, which is to say: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)

Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...

WOW~ So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning?

Wherein you're literally claiming that there are no "readers" observing this discussion through the processing of the written word?

Such is as Delusional as it is... HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the WORD!)

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; which is now formally noted and accepted.


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw; a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?

Now, the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

There is no marriage in nature.

Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar, Faun and by extension, the homo-cult's in its entirety, must inevitably concede to the reality that in point of unassailable fact:

Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who come to claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them inequitable.

And with that said, Skylar, Faun and the entirely of the Homo-Cult's 6th Concession... in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys, adorably, believes he is an authority. Next. No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks. The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.

 

[Silhouette]

Keys, adorably, believes he is an authority. Next. No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks. The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.

But a church is nothing more than the sum of its parts: individual Christians. And they have ALREADY BEEN forced to accomodate "gay weddings".

What you're trying to sell is similar to saying this: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for America, but just not individual Americans.."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys, adorably, believes he is an authority. Next. No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks. The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.

But a church is nothing more than the sum of its parts: individual Christians. And they have ALREADY BEEN forced to accomodate "gay weddings".

What you're trying to sell is similar to saying this: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for America, but just not individual Americans.."

I couldn't help but to see, when I pulled back the ignore curtain, that the idiot whose name will go unmentioned, claimed that I declared myself as an 'AUTHORITY!', which it implies is impossible... .

THEN! LOL! in its next breath... it declares itself an authority, on nothing other than the same principle that it just rejected as being so much as EVEN POSSIBLE!

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT hide the idiots... but Ignore really does help.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys, adorably, believes he is an authority. Next. No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks. The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.

But a church is nothing more than the sum of its parts: individual Christians. And they have ALREADY BEEN forced to accomodate "gay weddings".

What you're trying to sell is similar to saying this: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for America, but just not individual Americans.."

You only are saying that, and you are wrong as usual, Sil. No, no church has been forced to hold a wedding.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys, adorably, believes he is an authority. Next. No church in its private capacity will be forced to marry folks. The cult of hetero-fascism fails yet again.

But a church is nothing more than the sum of its parts: individual Christians. And they have ALREADY BEEN forced to accomodate "gay weddings".

What you're trying to sell is similar to saying this: "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for America, but just not individual Americans.."

And ONLY when hey keep it to themselves!

Sadly, for the would-be opposition... The Right to exercise one's religion does not rest upon the right to privacy. As was the case for the irrational decision to lift the Sodomy Laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys, who is absolutely illiterate on this subject, has always claimed to an authority on natural law. In fact, he is an oaf.

The right has every to its beliefs, but it will not be allowed to force its beliefs on others in the private realm of other religious organizations or in the public square.

Their day of power is over.

 

[Silhouette]

You only are saying that, and you are wrong as usual, Sil. No, no church has been forced to hold a wedding.

I'm sorry, does the Constitution discuss freedom of religion or freedom of "church"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You only are saying that, and you are wrong as usual, Sil. No, no church has been forced to hold a wedding.

I'm sorry, does the Constitution discuss freedom of religion or freedom of "church"?

Deflection does not help. No church has been forced to marry anyone. Show us one, please. Also post on CDZ.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You only are saying that, and you are wrong as usual, Sil. No, no church has been forced to hold a wedding.

I'm sorry, does the Constitution discuss freedom of religion or freedom of "church"?

One implies the other, since lots of religion happens,.....................................................wait for it,.................................................in churches.