Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

I repeat what I posted probably 2000 posts ago.

Should atheists be forced to conduct religious ceremonies?

No more than churches should be- or will be- forced to conduct religious ceremonies.

No one but the Right Wing is claiming- or suggesting forcing Churches to marry anyone other than who the Church allows to marry.

Well they already tried to force pastors to have their sermons redacted in favor of LGBT propaganda in Texas. But yeah, I'm sure that machine will check itself short of forcing churches to marry LGBTs

Wow, that poll above is impressive. Over 80% in one of the largest/most popular polls ever at USMB..

 

[Syriusly]

I repeat what I posted probably 2000 posts ago.

Should atheists be forced to conduct religious ceremonies?

No more than churches should be- or will be- forced to conduct religious ceremonies.

No one but the Right Wing is claiming- or suggesting forcing Churches to marry anyone other than who the Church allows to marry.

Well they already tried to force pastors to have their sermons redacted in favor of LGBT propaganda in Texas. But yeah, I'm sure that machine will check itself short of forcing churches to marry LGBTs

Wow, that poll above is impressive. Over 80% in one of the largest/most popular polls ever at USMB..

Should atheists be forced to conduct religious ceremonies?[/QUOTE]

No more than churches should be- or will be- forced to conduct religious ceremonies.

No one but the Right Wing is claiming- or suggesting forcing Churches to marry anyone other than who the Church allows to marry

 

[Skylar]

Well they already tried to force pastors to have their sermons redacted in favor of LGBT propaganda in Texas. But yeah, I'm sure that machine will check itself short of forcing churches to marry LGBTs

Redacted, huh? Can you back that claim up? I've heard of sermons being subpenas being issued for the sermons. But I've never heard that they were redacted. Or that there was an attempt to do so.

 

[Skylar]

Without regard to the potential validity within the adjudicated 'edict', that the ends can be claimed as 'judicial', this justifies their deceitful MEANS.

That's your personal opinion. I've found the judiciary's reasoning to be both consistent and logical.

IT IS "THE LAW" therefore it is valid... And this without regard to the truth, without regard to the damage that such does to the means of The People to: TRUST THE LAW, or that THE LAW fails in the service of Justice.

The obvious problem with that reasoning being that you don't define truth. You define only your opinions and feelings. And your feelings have no particular relevance to any one else's rights.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So we fight over definition. When the people have had the opportunity to decide they have universally decided NOT to change the definition of marriage. The majority of the victories that that gay "rights" side sees is won in the courts not legislature.

We fight over rights. And whether or not those definitions violate them by arbitrary excluding groups for no particular reason.[sic]

A 'need' does not a 'right' make. This without regard to the whimsy of the intellectually less fortunate who claim otherwise.

You see, according to the principles that define America... declared in the Charter of American Principle... A "RIGHT" is endowed to us through the Creator of the Universe; Nature's God.

Nature defined the biological construct of the human being, which includes the respective and distinct genders. Those genders define human sexuality. As such, there is no RIGHT to pretend that sexual cravings which deviate from the standard, established by nature... and to adapt such in the COLOR OF LAW, as a means to force others to accept that pretense as anything other than what it is, a deceitful perversion of human sexuality.

There is no POTENTIAL for a right to force others to accept a deceit... and this without regard to HOW MANY individuals you manage to set upon the US Federal Judiciary who subjectively STATE OTHERWISE, claiming that because those who demonstrably fall well within the fundamental standard of an institution, but which do not specifically endeavor toward the precise scope of its natural purposes, axiomatically cripples the standard requiring that those who reject the standard itself should be accepted, because of the original exception. The reasoning is simply not valid and establishes in law that ALL EXCLUSIONS ARE ILLEGAL. Which is as absurd as it is destructive.

All such reasoning, set into law will do, is force 'The People' to bear the responsibilities which constitute their duty, to 'throw off such government, and to provide new guards for the nations future security'.

There is literally no alternative, beyond conceding to "THE DEATH" that comes axiomatic with tolerating evil. And make no mistake: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is manifestly evil.

We know this because of your own testimony, here, part and parcel of which is your standing refusal to simply take a stand against further predictable encroachments upon decency, not the least of which is the on-going efforts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality to "LEGALIZE" the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It simply is not reasonable to expect that a person guided by reason, whose intentions are honorable, would not simply answer a query which seeks to determine one's position on something so otherwise simple, as whether or not THEY CLAIM THAT THE NEED OF SOME ADULTS TO USE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION CONSTITUTES A RIGHT OF THOSE ADULTS TO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

Where one refuses to answer such, the reasonable presumption is that the respondent's belief is in the affirmative, which because of the deceitful nature of their advocacy, to admit such at this point is to undermine the goal of establishing such AS LEGAL, at which time they can then CROW in delight that "EVERYONE" accepts their twisted perversions, except the representation of a tiny minority, which they will project upon the relevant opposition.

The goal and the method is illustrated beautifully in the exchange provided below:

There really is nothing I see in the COTUS that even speaks to marriage one way or the other. Thus we are in a new world, let the people decide. But that won't hold for the left wing which MUST get their own way by hook or by crook.

The Federal Judiciary clearly disagrees.

Without regard to the potential validity within the adjudicated 'edict', that the ends can be claimed as 'judicial', this justifies their deceitful MEANS.

IT IS "THE LAW" therefore it is valid... And this without regard to the truth, without regard to the damage that such does to the means of The People to: TRUST THE LAW, or that THE LAW fails in the service of Justice.

And this all stemming upon nothing else, beyond THEIR OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS... having axiomatically REJECTED ALL SENSE of OBJECTIVITY... thus any concern for how it effects YOU, or more accurately put, ANYONE WHO IS NOT THEM!

It should be noted at this point, that THIS IS THE SAME PERSPECTIVE OF THAT WHICH WE KNOW AS:

THE VIRUS​

 

[Skylar]

You see, according to the principles that define America... declared in the Charter of American Principle... A "RIGHT" is endowed to us through the Creator of the Universe; Nature's God.

The Creator, huh? God, huh?

Seems you've been holding out on us regarding your actual motivations.

Nature defined the biological construct of the human being, which includes the respective and distinct genders. Those genders define human sexuality. As such, there is no RIGHT to pretend that sexual cravings which deviate from the standard, established by nature... and to adapt such in the COLOR OF LAW, as a means to force others to accept that pretense as anything other than what it is, a deceitful perversion of human sexuality.

Who says that marriage is defined exclusively by biological construction? That it has no purpose beyond procreation? Infertile couples can clearly get married. Grandparents can clearly say married. The marriages of childless couples remain valid even if they never have kids. Which 1 in 4 never do.

There's clearly more purposes to marriage than procreation. And have nothing to do with with children or the ability to have them.

Your reasoning doesn't work. Your logic is flawed. And thus, your conclusions are invalid.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You see, according to the principles that define America... declared in the Charter of American Principle... A "RIGHT" is endowed to us through the Creator of the Universe; Nature's God.

The Creator, huh? God, huh?

Seems you've been holding out on us regarding your actual motivations.

How so? And please, be SPECIFIC!

 

[Silhouette]

That's your personal opinion. I've found the judiciary's reasoning to be both consistent and logical.

.

Justices shouldn't pander to ass-kissers. But you've got a point. They probably do.

But your point on the Judiciary being consistent and logical neglects to point out that most of the lower courts quite obviously have not read Windsor 2103.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature defined the biological construct of the human being, which includes the respective and distinct genders. Those genders define human sexuality. As such, there is no RIGHT to pretend that sexual cravings which deviate from the standard, established by nature... and to adapt such in the COLOR OF LAW, as a means to force others to accept that pretense as anything other than what it is, a deceitful perversion of human sexuality.

Who says that marriage is defined exclusively by biological construction?

If not the force that designed the species at issue and the specific traits and composition of the respective genders within and specific to that issue, then what could reasonably be used as a more just arbiter?

 

[Skylar]

ut your point on the Judiciary being consistent and logical neglects to point out that most of the lower courts quite obviously have not read Windsor 2103.

On the contrary, they have. The 'conflict' you assert regarding the lower court decisions and Winsdor is the came 'conflict' you assert exists between the SCOTUS and Windsor in their refusal to grant stays regarding gay marriage: that Windsor affirms the constitutionality of gay marriage bans and puts State marriage laws above judicial review.

But Windsor doesn't do either. Or even mention either. You imagined both claims. Putting the 'conflict' you perceive firmly in the territory of your own imagination.

And the lower courts can't read that.

 

[Skylar]

If not the force that designed the species at issue and the specific traits and composition of the respective genders within and specific to that issue, then what could reasonably be used as a more just arbiter?

Smiling...and what force would that be? C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it. You've already started with your blather about 'The Creator' and 'God'. You might as well just drop the pretense and tell who you really claim to speak for.

 

[Skylar]

You see, according to the principles that define America... declared in the Charter of American Principle... A "RIGHT" is endowed to us through the Creator of the Universe; Nature's God.

The Creator, huh? God, huh?

Seems you've been holding out on us regarding your actual motivations.

How so? And please, be SPECIFIC!

You're now citing 'The Creator' and 'God' and 'The Force That Designed Our Species' as your appeal to authority. That's new. Before your appeals to authority were only 'the laws of nature'. And 'objective truth'.

Its becoming increasingly obvious that yours is a religious argument. So why not stop denying your faith and make your claims. I mean, the rooster has crown twice already.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That it has no purpose beyond procreation?

The issue here is not the purpose, but the standard which the biological design of the species demonstrated as the purpose. You're claiming, in effect, that because others participate; others who readily meet the aforementioned natural standards, that this axiomatically provides that those who reject those standards should also be accepted. IS that your claim and if so, on what basis are you setting that claim?

There's clearly more purposes to marriage than procreation. And have nothing to do with with children or the ability to have them.

So you're claiming that multiple perspective in application, provide through the net effect, that such has multiple purpose?

To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?

If not, where do you specifically see the distinction?

 

[Skylar]

The issue here is not the purpose, but the standard which the biological design of the species demonstrated as the purpose. You're claiming, in effect, that because others participate; others who readily meet the aforementioned natural standards, that this axiomatically provides that those who reject those standards should also be accepted. IS that your claim and if so, on what basis are you setting that claim?

Again, says who? We have demonstrable examples that marriage has a purpose that has nothing to do with 'biological design'. Infertile couples, older couples, couples who never have kids, even your grandparents. Their marriages are all valid, despite their total failure to satisfy any of the purposes of 'biological design'.

Since the product of 'biological design' is clearly not a requirement for a valid marriage, the standard is arbitrary. No one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to have a valid marriage.

Then on what basis would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.....as your requirements apply to no one? There is none. Which is why your argument fails logically, rationally....and of course, legally.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If not the force that designed the species at issue and the specific traits and composition of the respective genders within and specific to that issue, then what could reasonably be used as a more just arbiter?

Smiling...and what force would that be?

The Force common to nature; the force that created the universe... with such being readily observed even today as a result of the energy it exerted... and the laws it established for that energy, laws which are timeless, unchanging, inalterable and enforced without regard to the whimsy of the subjective need.

Are you not aware of the Creator of the Universe and the energy common to such? Such seems unlikely, given the 15 billion years that such has been otherwise obvious to all but the least among us.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The issue here is not the purpose, but the standard which the biological design of the species demonstrated as the purpose. You're claiming, in effect, that because others participate; others who readily meet the aforementioned natural standards, that this axiomatically provides that those who reject those standards should also be accepted. IS that your claim and if so, on what basis are you setting that claim?

Again, says who?

Again... Says Nature.

 

[Skylar]

To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?

The standards themselves are arbitrary, as there's no function the standard satisfies that is required for a valid marriage. It would be like saying that one must have blonde hair to be married. There's nothing about blonde hair that is required to form a valid marriage. The requirement serves no mandatory function. It simply is. And thus uselessly arbitrary.

Likewise, there's nothing about your 'fundamental standard' that is required to form a valid marriage. No one is required to have kids or be able to have kids in order to have a valid marriage. Meaning that 'biological design' doesn't produce any function that is necessary for a valid marriage. And is thus as arbitrary as blonde hair.

Your definitions require that there is only ONE possible purpose in marriage: procreation. There is more than one. Just like there's more than one purpose in sex. Just like there is more than one purpose in eating.

 

[Skylar]

To infertile seniors who otherwise meet the fundamental standards of marriage, marry... for the purpose of establishing a stable home marked by the complimenting traits of the respective genders, joining as one, in sustainable union and you claim that this provides for a distinct purpose? Isn't it an adaption of the purpose?

Again, nature doesn't say anything about the 'exclusive purpose of marriage', you do. And we have demonstrable examples that you're wrong. Since there are other purposes than 'biological design' that satisfy the requirements of a valid marriage, excluding someone on a failure to meet a non-mandatory standard that doesn't prevent ANYONE from entering into marriage is invalid. And grossly unfair.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're now citing 'The Creator' and 'God' and 'The Force That Designed Our Species' as your appeal to authority.

No... I am only noting the authority and appealing to the relevant facts intrinsic to that authority, and the specifics wherein sound reason recognizes that those facts govern every specific aspect of reality, wherein the immutable laws established by such, govern every aspect of the creation, including human behavior.

Its your ignorance of the laws of nature that govern human reasoning, which leaves you subject to fatally flawed logical constructs, wherein you google narrow definitions, grasp key words and erroneously apply them where they are otherwise inappropriate... which confused you in regards to 'appeals', 'authority' and such.