Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, if you are suffering physical and mental health issues because of the Board, please stop. Your family and friends need you.

 

[Skylar]

Sil, if you are suffering physical and mental health issues because of the Board, please stop. Your family and friends need you.

Sil has already doubled down on flat out insanity....insisting that the gays have inflitrated all polling agencies that show support for same sex marriage. And insisting that Gallup is now falsifying its polling results as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 1960s.

And no, I'm not joking.

Sil's way past batshit. This issue is literally driving him insane.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

UPDATE!​

Skylar has trotted out another pre-refuted RESPONSE:

Rejecting your subjective opinion isn't rejecting natural law. As your opinion isn't natural law. Its just your personal opinion. Which defines nothing objectively.

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

In effect that is Skylar informing you that:

Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works. ...

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]

UPDATE! Keys got his head handed to him above, and his regurgitated relativistic responses are only reflective of his narrow world view. He is entitled to it, of course, but it has no meaning to anyone else. Marriage is what the various cultures throughout history of man say it is, not what says Keys.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Marriage is not subject to public accommodation.

 

[mdk]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

No, they shouldn't. Churches should not be subject to public accommodation laws at all. They are free to allow or disallow any person as they see fit.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

No, they shouldn't. Churches should not be subject to public accommodation laws at all. They are free to allow or disallow any person as they see fit.

Why not?

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Marriage is not subject to public accommodation.

Why not?

 

[mdk]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

No, they shouldn't. Churches should not be subject to public accommodation laws at all. They are free to allow or disallow any person as they see fit.

Why not?

I don't want the state interfering in matters of the church. Perhaps you do but I certainly do not.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

No, they shouldn't. Churches should not be subject to public accommodation laws at all. They are free to allow or disallow any person as they see fit.

Why not?

I don't want the state interfering in matters of the church. Perhaps you do but I certainly do not.

I don't want the state interfering any of these kinds of matters, but our laws should apply equally to everyone.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

Churches are places of Religion. They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.

To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.

All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .

Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?

I'd love to get the address of such a Church. I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

I don't know what you're going on about. To be clear, I'm adamantly opposed to PA laws. But just governed demands equal protection. If anyone has to obey a shitty law, everyone should.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Churches are exempt, dumbass.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

I don't know what you're going on about. To be clear, I'm adamantly opposed to PA laws. But just governed demands equal protection. If anyone has to obey a shitty law, everyone should.

No American is obligated to obey unjust law.

Churches are no exception to that.

The PA Laws were not written to protect poor behavior and the 'interpretation' of such for the purposes of protecting sexual deviancy is simply evidence of a growing mass-delusion by a group pf people who clearly have nefarious intent.

I didn't get your original point. Please pardon the passion... .

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

Churches are places of Religion. They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.

To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.

All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .

Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?

I'd love to get the address of such a Church. I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.

Simple Google search.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Churches are exempt, dumbass.

He's asking WHY.

And he's doing so to point out the illegitimate nature of the PA laws.

Churches can't refuse to do a black wedding... and if the SCOTUS were to decide to normalize sexual deviancy, Churches would not be exempt.

So stop playing coy and man up with your desire to see churches forced into that which the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is designed to do.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Getting back to the topic of the thread - if other "public accommodations" are going to be forced to service gay weddings, churches should follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Churches do follow the same laws as the lowest common denominators.

What evidence do you have that such is not the case?

If bakers, and other service providers are to be legally required to serve gays, there's no reason churches should be excluded.

Bakers are not required to serve anyone whose behavior infringes upon their means to operate their business.

We're not talking about individuals who are of a genetic minority who are therefore subjected to irrational prejudices common to those who appear different, or who are struggling with severe physical limitations; issues which are inarguably beyond their control.

We are talking about people whose BEHAVIOR runs geometrically counter to the human physiological standard. Behavior which subjects them disproportionately to disease, which demonstrates a profound tendency toward poor choices in every aspect of their lives, stemming from severe mental disorder.

For Pete's sake... we're talking about people who SUE PEOPLE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO CATER THEIR PRETEND WEDDING.

Don't embarrass yourself by equating BEHAVIOR with genetic and traumatic physical deformity.

Churches are places of Religion. They do not offer a service, beyond providing a place where people of a common set of beliefs can come to worship and fellowship with one another.

To the best of my knowledge, Churches encourage all people to come and fellowship with the Father, particularly deviants.

All they ask is that people come with a civil demeanor and an open heart... .

Are you suggesting that Churches are turning away homosexuals?

I'd love to get the address of such a Church. I've got a few thoughts I'd like to share with the Pastor.

Simple Google search.

Isn't it adorable how the best it can do is ride a feckless implication?

LOL! It's as classic as it is pitiful.