Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Lefties are so given to that noun "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?

Tom- if it wasn't illegal- would you be out shooting guys you think are gay right now? I mean if you were able to afford a gun?

 

[ShackledNation]

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... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology. The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus. The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations. You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.

Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as. Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions. They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy. Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether. Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!

Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.

So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.

Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.

Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.

That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.

 

[ShackledNation]

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... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology. The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus. The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations. You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.

Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as. Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions. They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy. Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether. Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!

Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.

So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.

Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.

Homosexuality is not a 'mistake'... it is a response to one's environment. And a manifestation produced by the weakest of characters. The first and most likely is the environmental trigger common to another homosexual having sexually abused an infant or more likely a toddler.

The act is not violent, but playful... the child sees such as a game, with someone they trust and the game is enjoyable and endears them to the adult. This prematurely triggers the child's own physiological network, imprinting the sex response to the gender which first aroused it.

My guess is that this is the primary generator responsible for producing homosexuals. Seconded by social pressures such as levels of competition for mates of the distinct gender, etc...

The homosexuals chronically deny this... but such would likely and purposefully occur in the very early stages of development, before the child is able to communicate verbally. Thus prior to the point when one's brain begins 'writing' long term, conscious memory.

This then sets in the subconscious and manifest sooner in some than others... all of which likely stems from any number of other considerations, such as the influence of the Father or the lack of same, perhaps inadequate male guidance during the formative years... and of course the level of competition for mates of the distinct gender and social pressure. A pressure which is less today than it has ever been in the US and we have seen a stark increase in children who 'claim' to be homosexual... of course they claim it on tuesday, deny it on wednesday and repeat it as their need for 'speciality' ebbs and flows, but the component is identified there nonetheless.

I'm gay, and I was never molested. Nor was any other gay person I know. Your argument is BS and has been debunked numerous times. Sexual abuse is not any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.

 

[bendog]

NY Court ok's incest. We knew it was just a matter of time. Onward to beastiality and Satan's burning pit of perpetual pain!

Woman s marriage to half-uncle legal N.Y. top court rules - Yahoo News

It is too late for repentence. Surely, God will reign down his righteous wrath on this nation that has turned its back on His Plan

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm gay, and I was never molested. Nor was any other gay person I know. Your argument is BS and has been debunked numerous times. Sexual abuse is not any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.

No kiddin'?

So you're suffering from sexual deviancy... and to the best of your knowledge you were never molested?

Do tell... well... I'm suffering from economic deviancy and to the best of my knowledge, I've never be rich.

So, now that we've shared our mutual irrelevancies, we should discuss that the prevalence of sexual abuse among the sexually normal and the abnormal, is irrelevant, because, the sexually normal will not molest a child... while sexual abnormality is the VERY first requirement for someone TO molest a child. Can't have the second, without the first.

See how that works? And just as an FYI: (that's why its supremely foolish to allow those who identify themselves through their sexual deviancy, to get anywhere NEAR a position of trust over a child and to EVER allow such to be alone with a child... particularly children in the earlier stages of development. This due to the certainty that those children who cannot communicate verbally, thus cannot tell Mommy where Uncle Freddy touched little Eddy. What's more, at such a stage, there's also no chance of their having a conscious memory of such.)

This is how we can be certain that the 'debunking' claim is nonsense. It's like voter fraud... With thousands of voters having filed through the poll, no one can say that Fred voted for Ed, John and Wilbur? All we know for sure is that Fred was at all three polling stations and that Ed, John and Wilbur are DEAD!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

NY Court ok's incest. We knew it was just a matter of time. Onward to beastiality and Satan's burning pit of perpetual pain!

Woman s marriage to half-uncle legal N.Y. top court rules - Yahoo News

It is too late for repentence. Surely, God will reign down his righteous wrath on this nation that has turned its back on His Plan

Surely... And don't think for a moment that the economic catastrophe common to the failure of socialist policy forcing financial markets to set aside sound lending principle in favor for a perverse notion of 'fairness', could ever be an example of THAT! NO NO! That's just the natural consequences of tolerating unsound economic policy... NOTHING "SUPER-NATURAL" about THAT!

Of course... God is nature, so there's nothing super-natural about God, but let's not get into THAT whole thing... .

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where r my keys is suffering from spiritual deviancy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology. The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus. The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations. You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.

Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as. Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions. They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy. Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether. Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!

Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.

So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.

Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.

Really? So recessive traits are mistakes? White skin is a mistake? Red hair is a mistake? Blue eyes are a mistake? No. You pretend to root your argument in "nature" and "biology" but if you applied your reasoning to all other variations in the human genome you would be faced with absurd and unacceptable conclusions.

That something is a recessive or less common trait does not automatically make it a "mistake." That is a total non sequitur.

"Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion. Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... . Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!

Recognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population. Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.

The problem is that "Religion" is the typical purveyor of the calls for such discipline and the major cause of 'the problem' are found in those areas which eschew religion, which is also the same areas suffering the greatest population stress, which also suffer the highest instances of homosexuality, which are the same areas where one finds the highest popular calls for the normalization of sexual abnormality... .

So, well... you see "The Problem".

 

[Skylar]

"Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion. Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... . Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!

Unless it doesn't, Chicken little.

ecognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population. Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.

If population increases are your concern, why would you oppose a marriage between two gay men? I don't think procreation works the way you think it works.

The problem is that "Religion" is the typical purveyor of the calls for such discipline and the major cause of 'the problem' are found in those areas which eschew religion, which is also the same areas suffering the greatest population stress, which also suffer the highest instances of homosexuality, which are the same areas where one finds the highest popular calls for the normalization of sexual abnormality... .

The problem is that your argument assumes cause and effect that logically you can't support. You simply say it must be so based on empty appeals to authority. And appealing to the authority of 'nature' makes no more logical sense than appealing to the authority of 'god'. As in either case we would have to accept you as an infallible arbiter.

And you aren't.

If your argument had merit, it could stand on its logic and its reason and wouldn't be utterly dependent on fallacies of logic. But it can't. When faced with the huge crippling holes in your reasoning, you ignore them.

No rational person ever would. And that's why your reasoning doesn't appeal to the rational mind. Nor does it have the slightest relevance to the law or the rights of anyone else.

 

[Skylar]

So, now that we've shared our mutual irrelevancies, we should discuss that the prevalence of sexual abuse among the sexually normal and the abnormal, is irrelevant, because, the sexually normal will not molest a child... while sexual abnormality is the VERY first requirement for someone TO molest a child. Can't have the second, without the first.

That's a 'no true scotsman' fallacy. As the moment a heterosexual man molests a child, per you he's no longer heterosexual. BUT....if a homosexual molests a child, they're still homosexual.

Your reasoning is a self contradictory mess, based, as always, on classic fallacies of logic.

See how that works?

Laughing...clearly you don't.

And just as an FYI: (that's why its supremely foolish to allow those who identify themselves through their sexual deviancy, to get anywhere NEAR a position of trust over a child and to EVER allow such to be alone with a child... particularly children in the earlier stages of development. This due to the certainty that those children who cannot communicate verbally, thus cannot tell Mommy where Uncle Freddy touched little Eddy. What's more, at such a stage, there's also no chance of their having a conscious memory of such.)

Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality. But its not. And 'poof' another of your logical fallacies goes back to midden heap of failed rhetorical contrivances.

Are you starting to see why nothing you're posting has the slightest relevance on anyone else's rights? And why when your arguments are made in court, they're laughed out of it? You might want to look into that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Mistake" is a poorly reasoned conclusion. Such alterations provide some useful purpose, and surges in instances of homosexuality typically portends cultural collapse... . Therefore, normalizing such is a profoundly BAD IDEA!

Unless it doesn't, Chicken little.

It doesn't? So you're saying that you have data which holds that instances of homosexuality are consistent in both small relatively unstressed rurality and high-stress urban environments?

LOL! Are you sure?

I ask because we don't get many cries for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality from Buhggtussel or Dry Wells. And there is no end to the hue and cry for such in every population center in the western world. So... it would appear that you've once again demonstrated that your argument has hit its maximum fecal capacity.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[r]ecognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population. Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.

If population increases are your concern, why would you oppose a marriage between two gay men? I don't think procreation works the way you think it works.

Who said I was worried about population problems. I'm worried about normalizing harbingers. It's the cultural equivalent of ignoring "BRIDGE OUT"... it simply never ends well.

FTR: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The problem is that "Religion" is the typical purveyor of the calls for such discipline and the major cause of 'the problem' are found in those areas which eschew religion, which is also the same areas suffering the greatest population stress, which also suffer the highest instances of homosexuality, which are the same areas where one finds the highest popular calls for the normalization of sexual abnormality... .

The problem is that your argument assumes cause and effect that logically you can't support.

Your subjective NEED to REJECT that which is otherwise obvious, has no actual bearing on the validity of that which is otherwise obvious.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

It doesn't? So you're saying that you have data which holds that instances of homosexuality are consistent in both small relatively unstressed rurality and high-stress urban environments?

I'm saying there's no evidence of homosexuality causing any collapse in society. Or that our society is collapsing as homosexuality becomes more accepted. There's no cause and effect.

Who said I was worried about population problems. I'm worried about normalizing harbingers. It's the cultural equivalent of ignoring "BRIDGE OUT"... it simply never ends well.

Harbingers who can't have children because they lead to this ?

r]ecognizing such would likely provide a culture with the means to alter its behavior, such as how it is treating procreation... where such would perhaps be taken lightly, causing unsustainable increases in population. Particular in unsustainable circumstances through inviable individuals, causing unsustainable demands on resources... the solution to such being that coitus be discouraged except where the individuals are capable of bearing the responsibilities common to procreation.

I don't think procreation works the way you think it does. As there's zero connection between recognizing gay marriage and 'unsustainable increases in population'.

 

[Skylar]

Your subjective NEED to REJECT that which is otherwise obvious, has no actual bearing on the validity of that which is otherwise obvious.

See how that works?

My need is for logical, rational, well reasoned arguments. And your claims fail so consistently on that front that even YOU refuse to discuss them. For example, if the only purpose of sex is procreation....then why would infertile people ever have sex? If the sole purpose of marrige is children, then why are the infertile allowed to marry and the marriages of the childless still valid?

You have no answers as your logic doesn't work. So you flee from the logical inconsistencies in your claims and make empty appeals to authority. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have to run from the holes in your reasoning. And you wouldn't need the appeals to authority that your claims are utterly dependent upon.

Shrugs....which is why your arguments are so consistently irrelevant to the rights of anyone else.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, now that we've shared our mutual irrelevancies, we should discuss that the prevalence of sexual abuse among the sexually normal and the abnormal, is irrelevant, because, the sexually normal will not molest a child... while sexual abnormality is the VERY first requirement for someone TO molest a child. Can't have the second, without the first.

That's a 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

No, 'that' is an incontrovertible fact. You're assuming that sex with a female child by an adult male is 'hetero-sexual' therefore 'normal' sexuality.

Pursuing children for sexual gratification deviates from the sexual standard, wherein sexual behavior serves procreation. You 'feel' that sexual behavior serves your entertainment and you feel that this subjective need on your part rises above the purpose intrinsic to such, further seeing that recognition and defense of, along with the adherence to the purpose of sexual behavior is a threat to you use sex for your personal entertainment. There's nothing I can do to help you with that. As THAT presents as a symptom of some form of sociopathy.

Your argument only works if child molestation were inherent to homosexuality.

The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality. The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Please inform the board of your PERSONAL REASONS FOR YOUR REJECTION OF ALLOWING CARING ADULTS TO PURSUE LOVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN.

This query will be reposted every time the above member posts on this thread, until she provides the board the courtesy of a response.

(LOL! Enjoy folks, it's almost over.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your subjective NEED to REJECT that which is otherwise obvious, has no actual bearing on the validity of that which is otherwise obvious.See how that works?

... if the only purpose of sex is procreation....then why would infertile people ever have sex? If the sole purpose of marrige is children, then why are the infertile allowed to marry and the marriages of the childless still valid?

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works, because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,because circular reasoning works,

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

OOops... It appears we have encountered a STUMPER.

(Color me SHOCKED!)

 

[bendog]

Your subjective NEED to REJECT that which is otherwise obvious, has no actual bearing on the validity of that which is otherwise obvious.See how that works?

... if the only purpose of sex is procreation....then why would infertile people ever have sex? If the sole purpose of marrige is children, then why are the infertile allowed to marry and the marriages of the childless still valid?

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

You're proof. There is no reputable support for homosexuality being some deviancy or illness.

 

[Skylar]

No, 'that' is an incontrovertible fact. You're assuming that sex with a female child by an adult male is 'hetero-sexual' therefore 'normal' sexuality.

That's obviously a No True Scotsman fallacy. Where any heterosexual who abuses a child is 'no true heterosexual'. Even the subject matter of sex crimes is the same.

The term was coined by Antony Flew, who gave an example of a Scotsman who sees a newspaper article about a series of sex crimes taking place in Brighton, and responds that "no Scotsman would do such a thing." When later confronted with evidence of another Scotsman doing even worse acts, his response is that "no true Scotsman would do such a thing," thus disavowing membership in the group "Scotsman" to the criminal on the basis that the commission of the crime is evidence for not being a Scotsman.

However, this is a fallacy as there is nothing in the definition of "Scotsman" which makes such acts impossible. The term "No True Scotsman" has since expanded to refer to anyone who attempts to disown or distance themselves from wayward members of a group by excluding them from it.

No True Scotsman - RationalWiki

Without logical fallacies, your posts would be little more than punctuation.

The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality. The use of children for sexual gratification is a deviation from human sexual normality. The distinctions are otherwise irrelevant.

For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. You can't. The logic of your claims is broken. Your reasoning doesn't work. And you conclusion is thus invalid.

You're not particularly good at this, are you?

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning doesn't work. You're still fleeing from the failiures in your own logic. You won't discuss your own assumptions, you can't possibly justify them, and you flee whenever they're mentioned.

The fact that logic breaks when applied to these questions...

... if the only purpose of sex is procreation....then why would infertile people ever have sex? If the sole purpose of marrige is children, then why are the infertile allowed to marry and the marriages of the childless still valid?

...is blatantly obvious to anyone who watches you run. Keep running. You're demonstrating why your claims have no particular merit: because they can't stand up to logical or rational scrutiny.