The Homosexual Dilemma

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now. It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.

Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves. (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)

And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.

Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.

Mark

And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?

There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.

Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.

I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.

Mark

Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture. All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.

Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.

The question is, if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in your city, could a team of horses keep you from marching in it?

 

[bodecea]

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

Just like churches got forced to marry interracial couples.
Just like churches got forced to marry inter-faith couples.
Just like churches got forced to marry previously divorced couples.

Right?

Wrong

Exactly. Churches are not forced to marry anyone or any catagory that they don't wish to. Glad to see that you agree.

 

[bodecea]

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Really? Even churches right here in Idaho are being threatened if they don't perform same sex marriages. Coeur d'Alene city officials have told pastors they'll go to jail if they don't marry gays. If tolerance is what you pride yourself on, you're on the WRONG side.

You are lying.

 

[80zephyr]

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Catholic churches require you to be Catholic to marry in a Catholic Church? I guess I'll have to tell my non Catholic future daughter in law that she can't be married in a Catholic church since the date is already set.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now. It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.

Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves. (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)

Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.

Mark

And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?

There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.

Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.

I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.

Mark

Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture. All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.

Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.

The question is, if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in your city, could a team of horses keep you from marching in it?

Well, I wouldn't even know if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in my city. You'd have to keep us informed. And then, if you notified us, I'd be the first to turn my back on them.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to. At least on this planet.

Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times

 

[bodecea]

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to. At least on this planet.

Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times

That was a for-profit wedding chapel like those you see in Vegas. You DID know that, right?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Catholic churches require you to be Catholic to marry in a Catholic Church? I guess I'll have to tell my non Catholic future daughter in law that she can't be married in a Catholic church since the date is already set.

Mark

Easy with the friendly fire. Peach is one of us. As a Catholic I can clear that up. We will marry any baptized Christian of any Christian faith.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves. (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)
Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture. All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.

Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.

The question is, if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in your city, could a team of horses keep you from marching in it?

Well, I wouldn't even know if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in my city. You'd have to keep us informed. And then, if you notified us, I'd be the first to turn my back on them.

I'm sure you're on their email list. You'll have plenty of notice.

Why would I be on their email list? That doesn't even make any sense.

Neither are your accusations against me. Get the point now?

 

[80zephyr]

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to. At least on this planet.

Does the Church of England know about this?

Mark

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to. At least on this planet.

Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times

That was a for-profit wedding chapel like those you see in Vegas. You DID know that, right?

PASTORS.

 

[bodecea]

Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.

The question is, if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in your city, could a team of horses keep you from marching in it?

Well, I wouldn't even know if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in my city. You'd have to keep us informed. And then, if you notified us, I'd be the first to turn my back on them.

I'm sure you're on their email list. You'll have plenty of notice.

Why would I be on their email list? That doesn't even make any sense.

Neither are your accusations against me. Get the point now?

What accusations against you?

 

[bodecea]

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to. At least on this planet.

Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times

That was a for-profit wedding chapel like those you see in Vegas. You DID know that, right?

PASTORS.

For Profit Business.

 

[bodecea]

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to. At least on this planet.

Does the Church of England know about this?

Mark

The Church of England is in the U.S.?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

Just like churches got forced to marry interracial couples.
Just like churches got forced to marry inter-faith couples.
Just like churches got forced to marry previously divorced couples.

Right?

Wrong

Hey, great!! Now that you have showed us how an "enlightened" person faces these arbitrary taboos, maybe you can now tell me if you favor allowing pedophilia? I mean, it certainly is arbitrary, right?

Mark

Pedophilia, as any intelligent person realizes, involves an adult taking advantage of a child, rather than two adults involved in something consensual.

Are you functionally retarded by any chance?

Lol. Society sets adulthood. It is an arbitrary number society sets using a code of morals in develops from...nothing. There are no "rules" when setting a moral code. Therefore, all taboos are arbitrary. If a 7 year old girl can marry in a Muslim country, they are now following their own arbitrary moral code. And if they have slaves, it is again their moral code. So it stoning to death a homosexual.

Your problem is, is that you are so ingrained in your own arbitrary morality that you can claim you need to be an adult to be moral. As I have already pointed out with my examples, that is simply not true.

And for you to state your own moral code is right while a Muslin countries would be wrong has no basis in fact. They are all arbitrary.

We could, as a society, condone murdering each other, and that would become part of our moral code.

So now tell me, which moral code isn't arbitrary?

Mark

And therein you respond to the problem...

The Left rejects the objectivity essential to establishing a sound morality, thus they reject morality out of hand... while mouthing that anyone can live a moral life, without any sense of morality... except that cloak it behind their rejection of Religion.

Therefore, where Morality becomes opinion, who are you to force your opinion onto someone else?

And brick by brick the foundation of the culture is removed, until the culture has no foundation at which point it collapses under the weight of its own shifting mass.

Again, we cannot fault the Left... when the reason they do what they do, is because we have allowed them to do it.

 

[80zephyr]

Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now. It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.

Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves. (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)

And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?

There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.

Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.

I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.

Mark

Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture. All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.

Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.

Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.

Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.

So much for the news being unbiased.

Mark

Again, I guess we can always rely on certain posters to keep us up to date on NAMBLA.

Translation: I want to bury the past. Anything that brings a bad light to homosexuality must be marginalized and stifled. All that matters is the "cause".

Mark

 

[Coyote]

Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Yes, but it's up to the individual church. No one can FORCE that church to marry if it's against their doctrine. There is no law that can force a church to marry anyone they don't want to.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now. It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.

Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves. (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)

I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.

Mark

Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture. All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.

Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.

Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.

Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.

So much for the news being unbiased.

Mark

Again, I guess we can always rely on certain posters to keep us up to date on NAMBLA.

Translation: I want to bury the past. Anything that brings a bad light to homosexuality must be marginalized and stifled. All that matters is the "cause".

Mark

Actually, Translation: We can always rely on posters like you keeping us up to date on NAMBLA.

 

[bodecea]

Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.

The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.

"Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.

Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens. If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Yes, but it's up to the individual church. No one can FORCE that church to marry if it's against their doctrine. There is no law that can force a church to marry anyone they don't want to.

Yeah....I missed all those law-suits forcing churches to marry inter-racial, inter-faith couples that they didn't want to. I missed all those law-suits forcing synagogues to marry christian couples.

 

[80zephyr]

Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.

No. It doesn't. Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to. At least on this planet.

Does the Church of England know about this?

Mark

The Church of England is in the U.S.?

No. But, your statement said "planet". I am fairly sure that England is on our planet.

Mark