Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

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

Shhh. Don't ruin this. You have no idea the library of hapless silly shit this guy has already given me. Why ruin the batshit gravy train now.

 

[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. 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.

The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.

This is not even a remotely debatable point. That you are incapable of admitting what is otherwise obvious, is again: A presentation of a profound delusion, thus likely presents your suffering a severe 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.)

 

[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.

The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.

This is not even a remotely debatable point. That you are incapable of admitting what is otherwise obvious, is again: A presentation of a profound delusion, thus likely presents your suffering a severe 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.)

Well, every reputable professional medical or psychological group disagrees, but continue on in your trip down rant lane.

 

[Syriusly]

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

And in related news- from the actual article:

In a 6-0 decision siding with Nguyen, Judge Robert Smith wrote, "First cousins are allowed to marry in New York, and I conclude that it was not the Legislature's purpose to avert the similar, relatively small, genetic risk inherent in relationships like this one."

According to court documents, Maine is the only state that expressly allows marriages between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. Courts in four states, including Kansas and Missouri, have upheld such marriages, while about 30 states have banned them.

Far from a 'matter of time"- Maine had already allowed this.

Have fun about fantasizing about everyone going to hell though.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Thank you, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The issue is not hetero-sexuality. The issue is sexual normality as defined by the standard intrinsic to human physiology. Pursuit of children for sexual gratification, inarguably deviates from that standard.

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.)

 

[Syriusly]

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

Why do you want adults to have sex with children?

Children cannot legally provide consent to have sex.

If sex with children is what you want- you will have to change the law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.)

Well, every reputable professional medical or psychological group disagrees, but continue on in your trip down rant lane.[/QUOTE]

Wow~

IF that had any relevance to anything said here, and was not set upon a wholly invalid logical construct, MAN! Would that have been a great point.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.

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.

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.

Says you, citing yourself as 'Advocates of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality'. Which means nothing.

You still haven't presented the slightest evidence, reason or logic that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. Just like you couldn't establish that the only purpose of sex is procreation. Or the only purpose of marriage is children.

You simply 'say' it must be so. Based on you claiming to speak for the authority you're appealing to. Your claims don't hold up when tested against logic, reason, or rational thinking. Anymore than insisting that since the only 'standard intrinsic to human physiology' for eating is fueling the body.....then having a piece of birthday cake to celebrate your son's 4th birthday party is 'deceptive', 'abhorrent', 'fraudulent' 'deviant' and 'evil'.

Smiling.....no, it isn't. There's more than one purpose to sex. There's more than one purpose to marriage. And there's more than one purpose to eating. None are defined exclusively by 'standard intrinsic human physiology'.

Your logic doesn't work. Your reason doesn't work. Try again.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.

For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...

No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.

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.)

 

[Syriusly]

The proof that homosexuality deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology is established in the deviation of homosexuality FROM THE STANDARD INTRINSIC TO HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY: Wherein the male genitalia is designed to penetrate the female genitalia... this design being central to the means by which the species propagates.

For your claim that no child should be left with a homosexual, you would have to establish that child molestation is inherent to homosexuality. ...

No... I need only establish that those who crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children, suffer from the psychosis inherent in sexual abnormality and that homosexuality presents with sexual abnormality.

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.)

The bat guano crazy is almost over?

Oh we know that is not true.

 

[Seawytch]

No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Isn't it cool how they can't answer the simple question?

And this even as they would have you believe that the pursuit of children for sexual gratification is "WRONG!" and that it has ABSOLUTELY >NO COMMONALITY< with their own abnormal sexual proclivities.

They never fail to IMPLY that they reject the pursuit of children for sexual gratification, YET they never seem quite able to specify their contest of such.

Here's a clue: Where you corner them into professing a contest: IT ALWAYS RESTS IN LEGALITY! "It's against the LAW"... (which of course was the case with sodomy, until the law was recently changed, based upon the subjective edicts of "SCIENCE!", which 'determined' that sexual abnormality is PERFECTLY NORMAL.)

See the problem?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.

There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality", as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great numbers of Heteros and Homos are not involved with The pursuit of children for sexual gratification is central to the movement which Advocates for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Says you, citing you. But you haven't factually established that. You simply declare it must be so....

....and then just keep repeating yourself. If your claim had merit, you could use reason, logic, and evidence to factually establish. You can't. Ending your babble before it even began.

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

And when did I do this? You're using the 'when did you stop beating your wife' fallacy. Its like the logical fallacy sampling platter with you.

Once again, your argument breaks at the exact same place: you can't logically or rationally establish your claim. You simply say it must be so. Because you say so.

Yawning...nope. You're nobody. You define nothing and you speak for no one but yourself.

You're still stuck trying to logically and rationally support your debunked claim that marriage has only one purpose, and that sex has only one purpose. Neither of which you can prove. And I've logically and rationally disproven dozens of times. You're just stacking your rhetorical failures like cord wood.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

OVER TWO HOURS and 6 posts advancing the simple inquiry posted above...

"Things that make ya go HMmmm."

 

[Skylar]

And can I take it to your rout to pedophilia and your stark refusal to discuss the topic of the thread......that even you acknowledge that your arguments opposing the legality of same sex marraige make no sense?

I mean, if sex has only one purpose: procreation.....why then would infertile couples ever have sex. I mean, are Nanna and Pop-pop sexual deviants for engaging in relations outside your 'only one purpose'? They have no more chance of having a child than a gay couple. Yet they still knock boots.

And if marriage serves only one purpose; children.....why are the marriages of the infertile and childless still valid? If children were truly the only purpose in marriage, than the marriage of anyone unable to fulfill that purpose would be invalid.

But it isn't.

How do you explain these truck sized holes in your reason and logic? How do you reconcile these obvious contradictions to your assertions? How do you explain these incontrovertible demonstrates that there is indeed more than one purpose in sex. And more than one purpose in marriage?

You don't. You can't. As your logic doesn't work. And never has.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Says you, citing you. But you haven't factually established that ...

The Board should recognize that the above member concludes in her own mind, that there is no evidence that the pursuit of children for sexual gratification presents ANY deviation from human sexual normality...

This is the current state of the regression of this cult. They're now sufficiently comfortable to no longer even feign a contest against pedophilia.

Again... it should be noted that this began with my assertion that those determined to legalize pedophilia are central to the movement to legalize homosexuality.

 

[Skylar]

No the bat guano crazy isn't over. They'll get crazier with each new marriage equality state.

There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality", as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Then what possible purpose would be served in opposing gay marriage...if gay marriage doesn't exist? If its a universal truth and objective morality and the laws of nature and all the other appeals to authority you've offered........then no law or legal recognition would change that.

Thus, why bother opposing gay marriage under the law. Its not like it has any impact on your conceptions of yourself as the infallible arbiter of all objective truth. Or in anyway changes the nature of marriage as you understand it.

So.....you keep believing whatever you'd like. And we'll keep expanding marriage rights under the law for gays and lesbians across the country.

Sounds like a win-win to me.