Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Nature...

Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.

Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.

Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage....

Chimpanzees, Organgutans and Gorilla's are genetically very close to humans. LIke humans they have sex- they don't realize it is for procreation- but they have sex.

Gorilla's naturally form family groups of multiple females with one dominant male.

Chimpanzee's naturally form loose knit groups in which the males and females mix and mate fairly promiscuously.

And then we have Orangutans....whose males and females only come together to mate.

Nature is all over the place here. What nature seems to be saying is that there is only one way to procreate- but there are lots of ways to be sexual and lots of bondings between sexual partners.

Nature doesn't say anything about marriage being between a man and a woman.

 

[Skylar]

It doesn't assume that sexuality serves the singular purpose of procreation, it recognizes that fact that procreate is the singular PURPOSE of sexuality.

Obviously there is more. Else the infertile would never, ever do it. And yet old people, well past their procreating years continue to have sex. Just as couples who will never have children because they use birth control.

All of which explicitly and demonstratably proves you wrong. There's clearly more than one purpose to sex. Just like there's more than one purpose to eating. And more one purpose to marriage. Procreation is A purpose. Fueling the body is A purpose. Having children is A purpose.

You have to prove that there is no other. And you can't. While I can demonstrably prove you're wrong on sex, food and marriage. By showing you alternative and perfectly valid reasons to do all three that have nothing to do with procreation, fuel or children.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're trying to imply that the appeal to authority is fallacious.

I'm not implying it. I'm straight up saying it.

ROFLMNAO! I know... and to be perfectly honest, That's why I set you up to clarify it.

In point of fact: noting an authority is not an appeal which holds the authority above all other considerations, in terms of fact and reason.

What you're claiming is that there are no authorities, and that the mere mentioning of the authoritative, in and of itself discredits the argument, without regard to fact and/or reasoning intrinsic to the argument.

This demonstrates the invalid nature of your argument. Again... .

 

[Skylar]

In point of fact: noting an authority is not an appeal which holds the authority above all other considerations, in terms of fact and reason.

Which is why your argument fails; it can't stand on reason or logic. You insist that sex has only one purpose: procreation. Then why would the infertile EVER have sex? You can't say. Your logic breaks....so utterly that you refuse to address the topic.

You insist that marriage has only one purpose: children. How then could the infertile be married or the marriages of the childless be valid? Yet the are. Your logic breaks again....and you refuse to discuss this topic as well.

Your claims are akin to saying that since the only biological purpose of eating is fuel, that having a piece of birthday cake to celebrate your son's 4th birthday is 'fraudulent', 'deceptive' and 'evil'.

Its not. Your entire basis of reason is just silly.

Your argument requires that there can be no other purpose in sex, food or marriage. And I can demonstrably prove that there are. You can't prove you case. And I just disproved it. Your logic failed. Your reason failed. All you're left with are appeals to authority.

Which are nothing but fallacies of logic. And thus logically invalid.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, the concept of 'marriage' arose from our primal nature to mate with the opposite sex. It is not a legal institution, it is a human birthright which transcends the limitations of law. It was specifically designed without homosexuals in mind. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration, an abnormality in the human genetic code. The majority of the human race is attracted to the opposite sex, which is the dominant trait among the human species, and all other forms of mammalian species.

I do advocate their equal treatment under the law, but that doesn't stop me from having a negative opinion of their... lifestyle. They attempt to change a practice that has existed for eons, to suit their own ways of life, fine. But they mustn't force that way of life onto anyone else. It seems here, and in the case of that mayor in Houston, that such things are becoming a reality.

Do you really want equality? Or do you want submission?

Not in the context of what is being discussed, civil marriage. Religions can "define" whatever they want however they want.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It doesn't assume that sexuality serves the singular purpose of procreation, it recognizes that fact that procreate is the singular PURPOSE of sexuality.

Obviously there is more.

You're conflating the purpose with the perversion which adapts it for other things, such as entertainment. with the purpose. This without regard to the chaos, calamity and catastrophe which such adaptions produce.

For instance, illegitimate conception, the murder of the most innocent of human beings in order to escape accountability for the illegitimate behavior, the manifestation and spreading of disease, unstable, broken homes, unstable individuals created by unstable homes... low cultural production, cultural subsidy of the unstable, low productive... crimes of passion wrought from behavior common to low character, economic crime, etc, etc...

In general, rationalizations which serve to promote deviant sexuality, serve to promote deviancy in most if not every aspect of the individual's life, which promotes the likelihood that such will influence another toward deviancy and so it goes bending the neighborhood, the town, the county, state and nation toward deviancy until the inherent regressive nature of such rots it all... and it all goes to hell.

 

[Seawytch]

Drama queen^^^^

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In point of fact: noting an authority is not an appeal which holds the authority above all other considerations, in terms of fact and reason.

Which is why your argument fails; it can't stand on reason or logic.

ROFLMNAO! I guess I will just never tire of watching the logically illiterate appeal to the authority of logic, even as they are in the throes of fallaciously lamenting the appeal to authority!

LOL! You really gotta love the sweet ironies... they're positively DELISH! ( You can NOT make this crap UP!)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Drama queen^^^^

Ohh... A deflective concession. How sweet.

Let's make it official... "Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted!"

 

[Seawytch]

Drama queen^^^^

Ohh... A deflective concession. How sweet.

Let's make it official... "Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted!"

Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Race doesn't exist. Genetically there is only one race.

Homosexuality is a choice.

Closing your eyes and pretending there were not laws preventing people from marrying based on race, does not make them go away. ("Judicial activism" does ) You wish to use the law to deny me the right to civilly marry based on the gender of my consenting adult partner. How is that different from people wishing to deny civil marriage to people based on their race?

no one has said that those laws did not exist. only that trying to compare race to sexual orientation is a false analogy

{Whew} Good thing nobody is...just comparing discrimination.

Nobody is comparing discriminations?

ROFL! That is the entire argument of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... "You DID IT FOR THEM, you gotta do it for US!"

Of course, blacks can't reflect any color except that which they were born with. It's a genetic component of their life, which of course is the same for white folks.

This is not true for the lowly ranks of the sexually abnormal. There is no genetic component to homosexuality... it is a learned behavior, which takes a CHOICE before one engages in it and most of all, it takes PRACTICE to BE homosexual.

This of course demonstrates that there is no potential equity in the decision to provide for different races to marry, as long as the bi-racial applicants represent the distinct genders, and only one of each and the stripping of the natural standards inherent in marriage, in order to help the illegitimate feel better about their sad selves.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]

LOL! "Legally"? ROFL! Then that means that you're working under ILLEGITIMATE LAW. This of course, because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and this without regard to the perverse pretenses to the contrary.

(It should be noted that the fundamental trait of relativism is the rejection of objectivity.

Objectivity is the essential element of 'truth'. Truth is the essential element of Trust.

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

And all of those are the essential elements of Justice.

Now folks, take a moment and note the total disregard of ANYTHING remotely akin to a moral component, by a person who flatly rejects any sense of the intrinsic truth that homosexuality is the INVERSE of the human sexuality standard, that the choice to respond to the cravings born of that deviant sexuality, demonstrates a deviant character..., this as a result of the inability to trust in the cultural standards which recognize the principles in nature which prohibit viability in those who make the choice to engage in such behavior, along with the total disregard for any sense of justice, wherein the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of states refuse to accept the lowering of Marriage standard to include circumstances which nature itself rejects.

Setting their own personal needs, wants and desires over the good of everyone else. So bereft of objectivity, these people need only to point toward the COLOR of LAW, wherein a handful of illicit judicial decisions temporarily set aside THE LAW, established by the due processes common to The LAW.

And most importantly, unable to merely accept the temporary judicial win, they come to publicly profess that they're enjoying 'POPULAR SUPPORT in 30 of 50 States'. Which is false, and they know its false. Such represents a deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence YOU, the public, who they believe are ignorant of the truth... They consider you to be fools.

Now with regard to fools and the vacuous leaning on of 'LEGALITIES'... imagine how comforting that species of reasoning was to those who were LEGALLY stripping innocent people of their property and lives.

I expect that the comfort dried up pretty quick when it was determined that such was IMMORAL and because of that, millions of people who felt that way decided to stop it.

And guess what happened THEN! All those people who were engaged in IMMORAL behavior, were forced to stop. And not one **** was given about how THE LAW that provided them with the means to FEEL REAL IMPORTANT... and not a single one of those immoral cranks was 'GRANDFATHERED IN'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where, nobody cares about what you think.

Your opinion is not evidence, so you are simply "feeling".

No one cares.

 

[Skylar]

You're conflating the purpose with the perversion which adapts it for other things, such as entertainment. with the purpose. This without regard to the chaos, calamity and catastrophe which such adaptions produce.

So if say, your grandparents, who are entirely too old to have children.... have sex, that brings calamity, chaos and catastrophe? Your claims are getting more shrill and silly as they get less logical, rational, or connected to reality.

And you completely fled from my question: if the only possible purpose for sex is procreation, they why would infertile couples ever do it? You have no answer. Your logic is broken. Your argument void of reason......as its shattered by a simple question you can't possibly answer.

For instance, illegitimate conception, the murder of the most innocent of human beings in order to escape accountability for the illegitimate behavior, the manifestation and spreading of disease, unstable, broken homes, unstable individuals created by unstable homes... low cultural production, cultural subsidy of the unstable, low productive... crimes of passion wrought from behavior common to low character, economic crime, etc, etc...

How do gay men produce 'illegitimate conception'? How would a pair of infertile couples? You said that the only purpose in sex was procreation. And if they can't procreate, how then can they bring any of the calamity, chaos and catastrophe you're speaking of?

Your argument is a disjoined, confused, self contradictory mess. You're literally citing illegitimate conception as a reason that gay men can't be married to each other. Um, slick, that's not how it works.

In general, rationalizations which serve to promote deviant sexuality, serve to promote deviancy in most if not every aspect of the individual's life, which promotes the likelihood that such will influence another toward deviancy and so it goes bending the neighborhood, the town, the county, state and nation toward deviancy until the inherent regressive nature of such rots it all... and it all goes to hell.

With sexual deviancy being any sex that doesn't service the one and only purpose of sex....procreation? So any woman who ever has sex after menopause is a sexual deviant, fraudulent, deceptive and evil? After all, if she ever has sex again, she's not serving your 'one purpose'. And you've said that there's no other purpose in sex. God forbid she ever get married after menopause. As you've insisted marriage can only have one purpose as well.

So following your confused, incoherent logic.....infertile couples having sex are deviants? After all, they can't service the 'only purpose of sex' either. How about your grandparents? If Nanna and Pop-pop decide to knock some boots, they're 'fraudulent, deceptive, evil deviants'?

Laughing.....say it ain't so, Nanna!

Your argument is hopelessly broken. You can't resolve the theory killing holes in your claims. You can't shore up any of the irreconcilable holes in your reasoning and your logic. You can't explain why infertile couples would ever have sex, or ever get married. You can't explain why their marriages are valid if they can't ever have children. You can't explain why the marriages of childless couples remain valid. As all of it gloriously contradicts your every assertion.

Are you starting to see why the silly nonsense you've been spewing has zero relevance to the outcome of any court case?

 

[Syriusly]

Drama queen^^^^

Ohh... A deflective concession. How sweet.

Let's make it official... "Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted!"

Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]

Set game match.

Nicely played...nicely played.

 

[Skylar]

Objectivity is the essential element of 'truth'. Truth is the essential element of Trust.

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

And all of those are the essential elements of Justice.

The obvious problem with your narrative being....your argument is entirely subjective. You insist that there is only one purpose to sex.....what you say it is. Yet I've demonstrably proven that there are many purposes. Else your neither your grand parents nor an infertile couple would ever have sex. Yet they do. Killing your subjective argument.

You've insisted that there is only one purpose in marriage: to have children. Yet the marriages of the infertile are still valid. As are the marriages are those who choose not to have children. Demonstrating yet again that there are other valid, legitimate purposes in marriage beyond children. Killing your subjective argument yet again.

You're stuck, slick. Your argument requires that there can be NO other purpose for sex or marriage save the one you acknowledge. And I've already proven that's simply not so. Your claims are akin to insisting that since the only biological purpose of eating is to fuel the body, that have a piece of birthday cake to celebrate your son's birthday is 'fraudulent' 'deceptive' ' deviant' and 'evil'.

Smiling.....um, no. Your subjective, silly nonsense just doesn't make the slightest sense. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

In point of fact: noting an authority is not an appeal which holds the authority above all other considerations, in terms of fact and reason.

Which is why your argument fails; it can't stand on reason or logic.

ROFLMNAO! I guess I will just never tire of watching the logically illiterate appeal to the authority of logic, even as they are in the throes of fallaciously lamenting the appeal to authority!

LOL! You really gotta love the sweet ironies... they're positively DELISH! ( You can NOT make this crap UP!)

Laughing...keep running, buddy. Those questions you can't possibly answer are right behind you.

If the only purpose in sex is procreation, why would infertile couples ever have sex?

Of the only purpose in marriage is to have children, they why are infertile the marriages of infertile couples still valid?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Marriage recognized under our law is very much our creation. The legally recognized institution of marriage that is protected by our laws and constitution? That's all I'm concerned with.

Uh sure, so what was marriage before it was governed by law, Skylar? You do understand that the only reason the government recognizes marriage in the first place is because they can tax two people at once? They don't care about marriage equality in the slightest, simply exploiting the fact that they can tax two individuals, whether they be gay or straight.

And why do we need a government or laws to make a marriage legitimate?

 

[Skylar]

Uh sure, so what was marriage before it was governed by law, Skylar?

Irrelevant to the marriage under the law. As marriage under the law is defined by us, subject to our laws, our constitutional guarantees, and equal protection under the law.

Again, Templar.....you enjoy 'primal' and 'transcendental' marriage. You define it anyway you like. You can shuck it, hug it, wrap in a bow. I could care less. Its all yours. I'll stick with marriage under the law. And all the rights and privileges it brings under the law.

Sounds like a win-win to me!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yet mating occurred before there was marriage- and marriage occurs without mating. What marriage was originally intended for- well that we will never really know- what marriage was intended for has changed over time- for example women no longer become the property of men when they marry. Current marriage is very different from what was 'intended'.

Yes, in the earliest times of our race, mating between the opposite sexes was how our species maintained continuity. Marriage was not even a thought in their minds. Humanity didn't proliferate itself by having the same two sexes mating. That seems to be the one critical fact you ignore. For a species like ours to reproduce, heterosexual mating must occur. Men cannot impregnate men, women cannot impregnate women via sexual intercourse. This further proves homosexuality is a flaw in the human genome, it is a literal antithesis to procreation.

Of course, I know what marriage is now in the present. But instead of the spouse not being the property of the other, the couple is the property of their government. The institution of marriage is a cash cow, not necessarily a legally protected right. So focused on being recognized by an already intrusive government you are, that you forget the ultimate goal of marriage altogether.