Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I think the State has the power to require that a business person treat their customers fairly and equally.

The whole 'we don't serve your kind at this lunch counter' schtick doesn't exactly have the best historical pedigree.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality does not seek EQUAL TREATMENT, they are seeking SPECIAL TREATMENT. NO ONE ELSE IS ENTITLED TO FORCE OTHERS TO SERVE THEM DESPITE THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR and THAT is the injustice that you fraudulently drape in deceit to make it appear just.

What you've just defined is POWER MAKES RIGHT! This is a FOREIGN IDEA THAT IS HOSTILE TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE AMERICA... which were recognized and declared in DIRECT DEFIANCE OF THAT EVIL!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

PA Laws are LAW. LAW is only legitimate, where it SERVES JUSTICE. There is no justification to refuse to serve another who is offering compensation as required by the service provider, except where the service or sale of one's product serves to undermine the means of another to exercise their own rights. You can't force someone to sell them something or provide them a service that they reasonably know you'll use to harm them... . This of course has no potential bearing on issues of race. And it is the application of laws designed to preclude racial discrimination which are foolishly being used to preclude people from discriminating against those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality. Such is an UNJUST application of the law.

Unjust application of the law harms EVERYONE.

This is an excellent point, and highlights a fundamental difference in what we want government to accomplish. And this is why I consider your point of view every bit as wrong as those you oppose. Both of you want to use government to force people to behave the way you want. You just have different idea of how people should behave.

I don't want a government that "creates" justice by dictating how people treat each other. This is why libertarians emphasize the notion that government should seek to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate to us what kind of society that should be.

Government does not 'create' justice, it SERVES to promote the establishment of the justice intrinsic in nature's chronic quest for balance. And the principles that define America declared that the individual is endowed by their creator with inseparable rights. With those rights being sustained through the bearing of correlating responsibilities. IT is THOSE RIGHT SUSTAINING RESPONSIBILITIES which serve to guide each of us in how we 'should' treat one another.

I am not asking the government to force anyone to do anything. I am here and have consistently advocated that government should stay out of the forcing of people TO DO THINGS business... but then I am an American and, that's how we roll.

Let me be clear: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to use the power of government to FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR: I demand that government stop and I demand that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, keep that to which they claim IS THEIR RIGHT, BASED UPON THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY: PRIVATE.

And where they FAIL to BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY SUSTAINING THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY... I DEMAND THEY CONCEDE THAT SUCH IS NOT THEIR RIGHT!

You can't have it both ways and that is precisely what they're asking for... .

The Sodomy Laws were lifted because their private sexual lives were deemed their business... as a culture we agreed. SINCE THEN: THEY'VE MADE MORE AND MORE OF THOSE THINGS TO WHICH THEY'RE ENTITLED, BECAUSE IT IS PRIVATE BEHAVIOR: PUBLIC...

You can't claim the right to MARRY and then demand that the standards that define marriage be altered to accommodate your personal, subjective needs. and one can't claim a right to be treated equally before the law: WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEMANDING SPECIAL PROTECTIONS BY THE LAW!

Understand?

 

[Skylar]

Nature designed the species... Marriage is a response to that natural design, wherein Marriage represents the analogous joining of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, through the sustained bonding in sustainable coitus, two bodies, complimentarily joined as one body, for the purpose of procreation, which assures the propagation of the species. This, is natural law...

No one is required to have a child or be able to have a child in order to get married. And roughly 1 in 4 marriages never result in any children. Why then would deny gays and lesbians their right to marry because they fail to meet a standard that doesn't exist nor is applied to anyone?

There is no reason. Which might explain why 50 of 52 federal courts to hear such arguments have rejected them as meaningless rhetorical flotsam.

As an American, I am an individual, free unto myself and obligated to none beyond the Creator themselves and those to whom I have pledged my loyalty... OKA: SOVEREIGN. My consent to be governed, rest entirely upon the law be objective, fairly adjudicated and in all instance, serves justice.

As an American you have rights, privileges and immunities protected under the constitution that are protected by the constitution and the government. As an American you subject to the laws of the United States while within its jurisdiction and concurrent the laws of the State when within theirs. You don't decide when the law applies to you and when it doesn't. The laws apply to you regardless of your agreement to them. Authority lies ultimately with the People.

And you are not the People. You're a person. And we have more authority collectively than you do alone. We exercise that authority through the majority and imbue our representatives with our power. Thus our laws are authoritative. And your claims to immunity from from any law that you disagree with at your whim are not. Nor have no relevance to our system of law or the application of it.

If you have any doubt into the irrelevance of declaring your self a singular legal authority that is above the law and judicial review, might I direct you to the hapless James Timothy Turner. You can discuss the folly of your shared beliefs when he's released from prison for tax fraud in 2031.

Homosexuality deviates from the normality established by no less an authority than Nature itself. This is not even a debatable point.

Says you, citing yourself as 'nature'. See above regarding the legal irrelevance of your personal opinion regarding equal protection in the law for gays and lesbians. And of course, the irrelevance of your argument, as no one is held to the standard that you bizarrely insist we apply to gays and lesbians.

Your need to pretend that what is unquestionably abnormal is otherwise normal is either a delusion or a deceit.

I need acknowledge nothing more or less than the simple irrelevance of your personal opinion in defining the rights and freedoms of other people under the law.

Believe as you wish. No one cares.

However, here's how I see it. Where you seek to offer such fraudulent reasoning as truth. Only what you believe and keep to yourself, is your business. What you believe and profess publicly, will be considered, and where logically sound

I don't consider you an authoritative arbiter of logic either. Public support for gay marriage leads by 12 to 19 points. The record of gay marriage in the federal courts is 50 to 2. The USSC has upheld ever appellant court ruling overturning gay marriage, without exception. And overturned DOMA's provisions discriminating against gays and lesbians.

But they're all wrong and only you're right.....because you say so?

So much for your 'logic'. Your claims simply aren't logical, particularly rational, compelling or persuasive. Which is likely why a clear majority of the nation is on one side of this issue. And you're on the other. Get used to it.

There is no right to marry outside the standards which define marriage. The right to marry is equally defended in law which SUSTAINS THE STANDARD THAT NATURE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE DESIGN OF THE SPECIES.

Says you. But your conception of what is 'natural' is yours. Your conception of what defines marriage is yours. Your conception of what other people have a right to is yours. And you're welcome to your opinions.

They have nothing to do with the law. No one is required to have children or be able to have them to have a valid marriage under the law. Rendering the 'design of the species' argument meaningless even logically. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry you're going to need a very good reason. And failure to meet non-existent standards that apply to no one isn't a good reason. Nor has any circuit appellant court ever accepted it as such.

Nor is any state interest served in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. No one has less rights or is in anyway endangered or even inconvenienced if gays are allowed to marry. Its not as if marriage is a finite resources, and some bright eyed young straight couple is going to be turned away at the local courthouse because the 'gays got the last of the marriage'. There's enough for gays and straights alike.

Without a very compelling state interest and a very valid reason, you can't deny gays and lesbians their rights to marry. And the State has no such interest, nor such a reason. Which is why gay marriage bans have failed again and again and again....and gay marriage is now legal in 30 of 50 states.

This trend is likely to continue.

You're ignorant of the physiological traits of the respective genders?

More accurately, I don't see how their relevant to a discussion of marriage under the law. As no one is required to have children or be able to have chidlren to have a valid marriage. With a full 1 in 4 marriages never producing any children. Simply obliterating the idea that 'physiological traits of respective genders' have any relevance to the validity of any marriage.

What else have you got?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Homosexuality deviates from the normality established by no less an authority than Nature itself. This is not even a debatable point.”

It's an irrelevant point, subjective and unsubstantiated, having no bearing whatsoever on the merit of laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, laws which are in fact Constitutionally without merit.

 

[Skylar]

Let me be clear: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality seeks to use the power of government to FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR: I demand that government stop and I demand that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, keep that to which they claim IS THEIR RIGHT, BASED UPON THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY: PRIVATE.

That's simply not the debate. Gay marriage can be perfectly legal in your state.....and you can maintain whatever personal animus toward homosexuals or homosexuality you wish. You can believe as you wish. You can feel anyway you wish. And you're welcome to every personal conception, opinion, or mood that may strike you.

No one cares.....because your feelings aren't the basis of our laws.

Marriage equality is about equal protection in the law for gays and lesbian marriages. A recognition under the law that their marriages are as legally valid and carry the same rights, privileges and immunities as anyone else's. And this costs you nothing. How do rights being extended to gays and lesbians effect you? Do you lose rights because theirs are recognized? Is your marriage any less legally valid because theirs is too? Are you harmed in any way?

Of course not. You lose nothing if they gain equal recognition. There is no requirement of marriage they don't meet. No state interest in denying them their rights. And no rational reason to deny them their rights. There's simply no rational, legal, or constitutional basis to that denial, as there's no right or freedom lost by anyone else to balance against the denial of fundamental rights like the right to marry for gays and lesbians.

You can't have it both ways and that is precisely what they're asking for... .

There's no such dichotomy. They can have the right to privacy AND the right to marry. Just like you do. The need not choose one or the other, as you need not do so.

They are Americans. They have the same rights, privileges, freedoms and immunities that you do. And if you're going to deny them those rights, you need a damn good reason. And you have none.

You can't claim the right to MARRY and then demand that the standards that define marriage be altered to accommodate your personal, subjective needs. and one can't claim a right to be treated equally before the law: WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEMANDING SPECIAL PROTECTIONS BY THE LAW!

You've got it backwards. They don't need a justification to be married, as marriage is already a fundamental right for all Americans. You and your ilk need a valid justification to deny them their constitutional rights. A compelling state interest that is served by denying them and can't be served in any other plausible way. A rational reason to treat gays and lesbians as less under the law.

And you don't have one. Which is why you fail.

 

[Skylar]

he Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality does not seek EQUAL TREATMENT, they are seeking SPECIAL TREATMENT. NO ONE ELSE IS ENTITLED TO FORCE OTHERS TO SERVE THEM DESPITE THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR and THAT is the injustice that you fraudulently drape in deceit to make it appear just.

Gays and lesbians seek no special right. They want the same right to marry that you possess. And in court after court, State after State, they have it. Marriages recognized as being just as valid, as conveying the exact same rights, privileges and immunities as your marriage. Under the law, their marriage and your marriage are the same. As the rights they seek are the same.

What you've just defined is POWER MAKES RIGHT! This is a FOREIGN IDEA THAT IS HOSTILE TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE AMERICA... which were recognized and declared in DIRECT DEFIANCE OF THAT EVIL!

Quite the opposite. What I'm defending is the triumph of individual rights over abrogation of rights by the States. The authority of you and people like you to strip others of their constitutional rights is not a principle that defines America.

Individual rights and equality under the law are those defining principles. And they are powerfully served in marriage equality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature designed the species... Marriage is a response to that natural design, wherein Marriage represents the analogous joining of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, through the sustained bonding in sustainable coitus, two bodies, complimentarily joined as one body, for the purpose of procreation, which assures the propagation of the species. This, is natural law...

No one is required to have a child or be able to have a child in order to get married.

So what?

There is no reason.

False... there is reason... and your ignorance of its existence has no bearing on it.

Which might explain why 50 of 52 federal courts to hear such arguments have rejected them as meaningless rhetorical flotsam.

Appealing to popularity? ROFL! You should spend more time appealing to the understanding of reason.

As an American, I am an individual, free unto myself and obligated to none beyond the Creator themselves and those to whom I have pledged my loyalty... OKA: SOVEREIGN. My consent to be governed, rest entirely upon the law be objective, fairly adjudicated and in all instance, serves justice.

As an American you have rights, privileges and immunities protected under the constitution that are protected by the constitution and the government. As an American you subject to the laws of the United States while within its jurisdiction and concurrent the laws of the State when within theirs. You don't decide when the law applies to you and when it doesn't. The laws apply to you regardless of your agreement to them. Authority lies ultimately with the People.

Actually I DO decide when the law applies to me. Because I am an American and that is precisely the point which represents the cornerstone of the foundational principles that DEFINE America.

No law perverted to serve the subjective interests of those who define themselves by their rejection of reason, obligates me to do a dam' thing.

Where THAT premise defines the law: I don't give a dam' about the law. I care only about the service of justice. And rest assured that where there exist people who intend to use the law as a means to force others to serve in celebration of their perverse, subjective needs... I will stand against such and should it come to it, I will join in the eradication of that threat to the service of justice and my means to exercise my god-given rights.

In short... keep pushing this crap and we will put you people down. We'd prefer that ya just shut the ^*ck up and kept your private matters private. But if you can't do that for yourself, we, THE AMERICANS will help you find a way to do it.

Understand that THAT is my responsibility to bear, in sustaining my means to exercise my rights. And if doing so cost me my life, then I will leave this life, bearing my responsibilities to sustain my rights, thus with my means to exercise my rights, fully operational, just as they were endowed to me.

And you are not the People. You're a person.

Yes... I am a person. Who has precisely the same rights as you, and ten of you and ten million of you... .

Your desire to dress yourself up as a popular majority is irrelevant. For starters... you're little more than a mouthy minority... you're celebrating wins secured through a judicial insurgency; which overturned the will of the STARK MAJORITY. So, in terms of which of us represent the majority view, that would be ME!

I don't argue on behalf of that stark majority, I argue on behalf of sound reason and natural law. But you represent 1-2% of the population which enjoys assent by a temporal popularity of the 30% of which any group of large numbers will suffer in malcontents... .

The nation is on the precipice of economic Armageddon, and once that happens, few people will enjoy the time to tweet and facebook and otherwise seek popular assent by the least productive. And YOU, the Mouthy Minority will be found to be a nuisance by EVERYONE.

The Homosexuals who keep their private life private will do fine, as they always have and the rest of you will be beaten into submission by the powerful interests who need to constantly secure their power, and that inevitably comes down to keeping the steady Eddies of the Hard working, tax paying class HAPPY. And they're not going to be happy when they're constantly being told that Uncle Sally and Aunt Fred need 'em to force the baker to bake 'em a cake. Or the Pastor of a church of 5000 voters, to marry them.

Read your history Scamp... you're not the first homosexuals to 'fly free'... it's been done to death and it NEVER TURNS OUT WELL FOR YOU PEOPLE.

And we have more authority collectively than you do alone.

ROFLMNAO! That's ADORABLE! This is America scamp... we've beat the living hell out of more collectives than Carter has Pills. It's among the long list of things we are EXTREMELY good at. We'll put up with a fair amount of crap... but at some point... someone among the collective crosses a line and BAM! The collective is no more and all that they felt was permanent and sure, is rubble in the midst of unbridled uncertainty.

Homosexuality deviates from the normality established by no less an authority than Nature itself. This is not even a debatable point.

Says you, ...

No... Says Nature.

Your need to pretend that what is unquestionably abnormal is otherwise normal is either a delusion or a deceit.

I need acknowledge nothing more or less than the simple irrelevance of your personal opinion in defining the rights and freedoms of other people under the law.

What you've acknowledged is that you simultaneously believe that opinion of others is irrelevant and your opinion is fact.

This is the spurious species of reasoning common to the lowly relativist.

Here's what you are;

Relativism axiomatically rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is THE essential element of TRUTH!

TRUTH is the essential element of TRUST!

Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements needed for a soundly reasoned morality.

Objectivity, truth, trust and a soundly reasoned morality are the essential elements of JUSTICE.

Now, that's why you've no means to recognize what is otherwise OBVIOUS TRUTH with regard to sexual normality... and why you have no means to trust reasoning which ESTABLISHES SUCH AS TRUTH... and why you can't accept the soundly reasoned morality which provides for the fundamental standards of marriage and why your concern is PURELY for the APPEARANCE OF THE LAW (Color of Law) with NO CONCERN FOR THE JUSTICE, which is otherwise the ONLY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR THE LAW.

And with that:

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

he Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality does not seek EQUAL TREATMENT, they are seeking SPECIAL TREATMENT. NO ONE ELSE IS ENTITLED TO FORCE OTHERS TO SERVE THEM DESPITE THEIR ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR and THAT is the injustice that you fraudulently drape in deceit to make it appear just.

Gays and lesbians seek no special right. They want the same right to marry that you possess. And in court after court, State after State, they have it. Marriages recognized as being just as valid, as conveying the exact same rights, privileges and immunities as your marriage. Under the law, their marriage and your marriage are the same. As the rights they seek are the same.

There is no law anywhere in the United States which prohibits the sexually abnormal from marrying ANYONE, as long as they meet the fundamental standards of marriage, which merely meet the standard of human biology which mates men with wo-men.

The standard has always and will always apply EQUALLY TO EVERYONE... there is NO INEQUITY IN THE LAW OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.

Now does the marriage standard discriminate? Yes... that's the purpose of standards; discrimination is what they do. Now if it helps... cultural viability is NOT POSSIBLE absent discrimination. We discriminate against people ALL THE TIME! And usually for good reason. The marriage standard is no exception.

As a culture, it is FOOLISH TO NORMALIZE THAT WHICH NATURE SOUGHT TO RENDER ABNORMAL.

If you seek the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, I suggest you comport yourself within the standards that PROVIDE FOR THAT LEGITIMACY.

What you've just defined is POWER MAKES RIGHT! This is a FOREIGN IDEA THAT IS HOSTILE TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE AMERICA... which were recognized and declared in DIRECT DEFIANCE OF THAT EVIL!

Quite the opposite.

False.

Individual rights and equality under the law are those defining principles. And they are powerfully served in marriage equality.

There is no inequity in the law or the enforcement OF the LAW, regarding the sexually abnormal and MARRIAGE. Marriage is the joining of ONE MAN AND ONE WO-MAN!

If you're a sexually abnormal male who seeks application for marriage, you are axiomatically approved FOR the license, by merely applying with a person of the distinct gender.

As is EVERYONE ELSE!

And save me the drivel which intentionally and obtusely seeks to conflate race with homosexuality.

A black person is genetically BLACK... they have NO CHOICE in the matter. They can BEHAVE as they feel a white person would act all day and they're still black.

There is absolutely NO GENETIC component to sexuality... there IS a genetic component to GENDER.

See how that works? It wasn't FAIR to prevent whites from marrying blacks... because neither race CAN BE ANYTHING ELSE. Where a homosexual can BE homosexual on Monday and straight as an arrow on Tuesday, back to packin' fudge on Wednesday and so on. And while you CAN claim that you have no choice in the desire, you dam' sure have a choice in the BEHAVIOR.

And THAT BEHAVIOR was deemed LEGAL: BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF PRIVACY... NOT because it is so much as biologically sustainable, let alone something akin to normal.

What two men do in the privacy of their home with a couple of midgets, a goat, 12 gerbils, a unicycle, a plunger, a socket set, shower curtain and a case of quaker state... is THEIR OWN BUSINESS! But it BECOMES EVERYONE'S BUSINESS THE SECOND THEY START DEMANDING THAT THEIR TWISTED CRAP BE ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE ELSE!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man. Get that through your head and you'll be fine. Because that isn't going to change... as long as nature is setting the design of the species and that's never going to change, with the hubris of the intellectually less fortunate collective, which claims otherwise, notwithstanding.

 

[Skylar]

So what?

Why would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and is applied to no one? It makes no sense. As the capacity to have children is irrelevant to the validity of a marriage. For anyone. Rendering your entire 'nature' argument moot. As the criteria you insist we should exclude gays by using....isn't used by any State.

Appealing to popularity? ROFL! You should spend more time appealing to the understanding of reason.

More a demonstration of the history of failure of your standards to have any relevance to the outcome of any court case. As your standards are irrelevant to the law of any State, illogical, and unequally applied. You've never called for a straight couple who can't have children to be excluded from marriage. But oddly, insist that we should reject a gay couple for that exact reason.

Its a crap argument with a near perfect record of failure. And will likely remain so.

Actually I DO decide when the law applies to me. Because I am an American and that is precisely the point which represents the cornerstone of the foundational principles that DEFINE America.

Actually you don't. If you don't agree with say, speeding laws....and you're pulled over and ticketed, you're still subject to the law. The ticket. The fines. The points on your license. As an American, you're subject to the laws of America. You're agreement with that law isn't required for you to be within the jurisdiction of its application. Or for the law to be applied to you.

No law perverted to serve the subjective interests of those who define themselves by their rejection of reason, obligates me to do a dam' thing.

Save, of course, that you don't make that call. We do. We make the decision of what the laws will be, when they apply, and who they apply to. You alone do not. You can imagine that you're immune to all laws and none apply to you. Yet as 'Sovereign Citizen' James Timothy Turner so elegantly demonstrates with his 18 year prison, your subjective beliefs on how the law 'should' apply has no particular relevance to how the law *does* apply.

Your personal consent is not required for the application of our laws. As your disagreement changes nothing. Just ask Jimmy.

Where THAT premise defines the law: I don't give a dam' about the law. I care only about the service of justice. And rest assured that where there exist people who intend to use the law as a means to force others to serve in celebration of their perverse, subjective needs... I will stand against such and should it come to it, I will join in the eradication of that threat to the service of justice and my means to exercise my god-given rights.

It doesn't matter if you 'give a damn about the law'. It gives a damn about you. Violate it and get caught, and how much you care about the law will have no effect on the way the law is applied to you. As your personal beliefs are not a factor in the law's jurisdiction. No matter if you believe otherwise. The only relevant standard in the application of the law are the legal ones.

Not what you imagine.

The Homosexuals who keep their private life private will do fine, as they always have and the rest of you will be beaten into submission by the powerful interests who need to constantly secure their power, and that inevitably comes down to keeping the steady Eddies of the Hard working, tax paying class HAPPY. And they're not going to be happy when they're constantly being told that Uncle Sally and Aunt Fred need 'em to force the baker to bake 'em a cake. Or the Pastor of a church of 5000 voters, to marry them.

In reality, its fine if they're public or private. As your personal animus to homosexuals has no relevance to their legal rights. If they stay in the closets their entire life or walk down Market Street in a Feather Boa lip syncing 'Its Raining Men'.....their rights are the same.

You are irrelevant to their rights. Your feelings are irrelevant to their rights. Your beliefs are irrelevant to their rights. You define nothing, no law, no jurisdiction, no dichotomy, no 'either -or'. In terms of their rights, privileges and immunities under the law, you're exactly nobody.

Get used to the idea.

Yes... I am a person. Who has precisely the same rights as you, and ten of you and ten million of you... .

But not the same authority. We decide what the law is, who our representatives are, where and to whom our laws apply.

You, by yourself, define nothing in the law. Our application of authority is the majority. You by yourself have no threshold of authority, define no legal term, adjudicate nothing, create no laws, decide the application of no law. You are subject to our authority, as the power resides with the People.

Not with you alone.

This is America scamp... we've beat the living hell out of more collectives than Carter has Pills. It's among the long list of things we are EXTREMELY good at. We'll put up with a fair amount of crap... but at some point... someone among the collective crosses a line and BAM! The collective is no more and all that they felt was permanent and sure, is rubble in the midst of unbridled uncertainty.

Then tell me ....how many USSC cases have you adjudicated all by yourself? How many laws have passed with just your own vote alone? How many presidents have you elected with your vote alone?

You've done none of these things. As you don't have that authority. But we do. We excercise our authority through the majority. And through our representatives. And you are subject to our will, subject to certain constitutional guarantees. And no where in the constitution does it say you're above all law. Because you aren't.

I don't argue on behalf of that stark majority, I argue on behalf of sound reason and natural law. But you represent 1-2% of the population which enjoys assent by a temporal popularity of the 30% of which any group of large numbers will suffer in malcontents... .

Save your reasoning is deeply flawed and you don't define 'natural law'. You offer us nothing more or less than your personal opinions, based on your subjective perceptoin. And you're more than welcome to all of it.

No one cares. As we don't use you, your broken logic or flawed reason, your subjective conception of 'natural law'.......to define any portion of the ACTUAL law. And this is the part that you don't seem to get.

Which is why gays and lesbians are perfectly free to marry in 30 of 50 states.....despite your disagreement and jabber about your 'natural law'.

 

[Billy000]

I can't believe this thread has gotten to 184 pages. The obvious answer to this question is NO. I do support gay marriage though. I don't see how this debate has come to forcing any church to do anything however.

 

[Skylar]

No... Says Nature.

You aren't 'nature' either. You aren't 'natural law'. You aren't 'reason'. You aren't 'logic'. You aren't 'objective truth'. You aren't 'morality'. Its just you and your personal opinion. And while you're welcome to it, your personal opinion doesn't define our laws or the rights of anyone else.

What about this simple fact do you find so egregious?

What you've acknowledged is that you simultaneously believe that opinion of others is irrelevant and your opinion is fact.

What I've done is simply acknowledge that our law is not beholden to whatever you chose to believe. Nor are the rights of any other person bound to what you choose to believe.
You may be enamoured with your belief in your own infallibility, but your belief means nothing to me. And has absolutely no impact on the rights of anyone else.

Deal with it.

Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements needed for a soundly reasoned morality.

And your subjective opinion isn't objective truth. Subjective is not objective. Enjoy whatever opinion you want. But you don't define universal morality or any truth. There is no 'universal' definition of marriage. We define marriage, based on whatever criteria we choose.

We've chosen equality, fairness and reason as our standards. Not children. Not the ability to procreate. Not your personal conceptions of 'natural law'. Which is why when our laws are applied, your claims have no relevance to the outcome. While equality, fairness and reason dominate the outcome of virtually every federal court to hear the issue.

And marriage equality has prevailed with essentially a perfect record. As it should.

Now, that's why you've no means to recognize what is otherwise OBVIOUS TRUTH with regard to sexual abnormality... and why you have no means to trust reasoning which ESTABLISHES SUCH AS TRUTH... and why you can't accept the soundly reasoned morality which provides for the fundamental standards of marriage and why your concern is PURELY for the APPEARANCE OF THE LAW (Color of Law) with NO CONCERN FOR THE JUSTICE, which is otherwise the ONLY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR THE LAW.

You're confused. Its you I don't recognize as defining anything you've said. I don't accept you as an authoritative arbiter on objective truth, universal morality, natural law, reason, logic, or any of the other appeals to authority you've offered us. As your entire argument is predicated on everyone else accepting you as the sole authoritative infallible arbiter of all things related to truth, morality, nature, law and logic.....and you aren't, your entire argument collapses. As you've offered us nothing else.

There's nothing logical or rational or moral about making up a standard that applies to no one, applying it to gays and lesbians, then applying it to them exclusively for the sole purpose of of denying them their fundamental rights. Why would we ever do this?

There is no reason. Which is what court after court has found when addressing the topic. And why marriage equality continues to triumph in the face of arbitrary attempts at denying fundamental rights by your ilk.

 

[Skylar]

I can't believe this thread has gotten to 184 pages. The obvious answer to this question is NO. I do support gay marriage though. I don't see how this debate has come to forcing any church to do anything however.

It hasn't. A pair of ministers got a little melodramatic, declaring in their best Scarlett O'Hare impression that they were going to be subject to 180 years in prison for not marrying gays against their religious conviction....

.....until the city attorney pointed out that religious corporations were already exempt and not so much as a warning had been insued to the two ministers. Let alone charges of anything.

Apparently a fainting couch has become a prerequisite for being a gay marriage opponent these days. So many of them seem to have the 'vapors'.

 

[Skylar]

There is no law anywhere in the United States which prohibits the sexually abnormal from marrying ANYONE, as long as they meet the fundamental standards of marriage, which merely meet the standard of human biology which mates men with wo-men.

And what 'standard of human biology' would be exclusively relevant to marriage? No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married. Why then would gays and lesbians be excluded from marriage for failing to meet a standard that applies...

.....to no one?

[
The standard has always and will always apply EQUALLY TO EVERYONE... there is NO INEQUITY IN THE LAW OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.

Smiling.....obviously not. As 30 of 50 states with legal gay marriage demonstrate. I don't think 'always' means what you think it means.

There's no particular reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, as there is no requirement of marriage that your 'standards of human biology' can satisfy that a gay couple cannot. Nor is any straight couple denied access to marriage for failing to meet your 'standards of human biology'. Nor is there any state interest that is satisfied in denying gays. Nor is there any special right granted to gays and lesbians.

Its the same right: the fundamental right to marry. Which gays now enjoy with the same freedom and protection as straights do in the majority of our country.

There is no inequity in the law or the enforcement OF the LAW, regarding the sexually abnormal and MARRIAGE. Marriage is the joining of ONE MAN AND ONE WO-MAN!

Says you. Every appellant circuit court to hear the issue has said otherwise. And their findings are far more relevant to the application of law than your personal conceptions of 'natural law', as marriage is a legal institution. And it is whatever we decide it is. We've decided, under our constitution, that marriage encompasses same sex unions. If gay marriage is so recognized in any state, its so recognized in every state. As any marriage performed in a state that recognizes gay marriage must be honored and protected in every state in the union due to interstate reciprocity requirements of contracts in the constitution.

The moment gay marriage was legal in even one state, the issue was already decided nation wide. All that's left now are issues of cost and convenience. Can you get married in your own state....or do you need a little marriage tourism before your state is required to recognize your marriage as legally valid.

There is absolutely NO GENETIC component to sexuality... there IS a genetic component to GENDER.

Says you yet again. And as we've long since established, your assumptions of your own infallibility in any topic you chose to discuss means nothing. Worse for you, the entire issue you've chosen to discuss is irrelevant. As Romer V. Evans so elegantly demonstrated. They never once even addressed the question of whether or not homosexuality was innate or behavioral......because gays were protected either way. Per Romer, a law cannot violate rights, must serve a compelling state interest and can't target a specific group.

Gay marriage bans fail all three standards.

Take a look at who wrote the Romer decision. That would be old Mr. Swing voter himself....Justice Kennedy. Take a look at who wrote the recent Windsor decision in which DOMA provisions forbidding the recognition of gay marriages was overturned as unconstitutional. Justice Kennnedy again. You many not consider homosexuals to be a protected class. Kennedy certainly does.

Now what do you think the chances are that Justice Kennedy is going to ignore his own counsel and the binding precedents *he* wrote and instead abdicate his capacity to reason to your baseless assumptions of moral, legal and scientific infallibility?

I'd say its that number that comes just before zero.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL! SO you're a liar and an imbecile... answering the poser regarding to your state of mind.

Your position is therefore recognized as manifestly EVIL!
.

Just more bat guano crazy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.

Why?

Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.

Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity. Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross. The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals. Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.

 

[Geaux4it]

of course not. If guys want to go to funky town with chickens OK. Just don't ask for benefits associated with marriage.

-Geaux

Why shouldn't gays have the same rights and protections under marriage as anyone else?

Because I don't want them too. That's why

-Geaux

 

[dblack]

Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.

Why?

Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.

Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity. Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross. The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals. Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.

I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.

 

[dblack]

I can't believe this thread has gotten to 184 pages. The obvious answer to this question is NO. I do support gay marriage though. I don't see how this debate has come to forcing any church to do anything however.

Only if you miss the obvious point of the question - which is to recognize the absurdity of PA laws. The point isn't to force churches to marry people against their will. It's to recognize why it would be wrong. And it's not because of the First Amendment.

 

[RKMBrown]

Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.

Why?

Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.

Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity. Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross. The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals. Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.

I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.

So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation? Interesting. I disagree.

 

[Silhouette]

Why shouldn't gays have the same rights and protections under marriage as anyone else?

Because marriage isn't a free for all. It's an establishment primarily for the benefit of children. As such, we can predict from the lesbians in California drugging their 11 year old son to become a girl, and just the general underlying message to children of the gender opposite their gay "parents" that "your gender/you/ are disposable", gay pride parades and the LGBT veneration of Harvey Milk's sexuality, that gay marriage will harm children.

So far 0% of LGBTs have spoken out publicly against any of those atrocities towards children. Plus, "LGBT" doesnt' cover the gamut of all the others who may use the legal precedent that are also objectionable to the majority with respect to how those "arrangements" would harm kids in marriage.

Now we see already LGBTs trying to force their lifestyle [once their toe is in the door with "legal marriage"] onto pastors and other people of faith who are under a dire mandate [see Jude 1 in the New Testament] to not promote this lifestyle in any way shape or form. Christianity doesn't advocate harsh treatment towards individual gays doing their thing in privacy. But it is very clear that once that lifestyle spills out of the bedroom and into the streets...and most certainly marriage...christians are to "earnestly contend for the faith" ...else risk an eternity in the Pit of Fire.

Blind people cannot enjoy federal protection to drive, because that might harm people. Gay [and??????} people cannot enjoy federal protection for marriage because that might harm people [children/society after a few generations].