Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[RKMBrown]

I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.

Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.

Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.

Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL. Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... . See the problem?

I see the problem. Pretty much it's you, and people like you.

hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well

Isn't that what I said

To be honest, I don't know, so many people saying so many things that I'm sorta skim reading except for obvious idiots like Keys and SeaWytch

It's like playing whack a mole.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL. Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... . See the problem?

I see the problem. Pretty much it's you, and people like you.

hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well

Isn't that what I said

To be honest, I don't know, so many people saying so many things that I'm sorta skim reading except for obvious idiots like Keys and SeaWytch

It's like playing whack a mole.

More like whack a turd

 

[Toro]

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

^^^^^
Ravi

lol

 

[Ravi]

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

^^^^^
Ravi

lol

I think he's got me on ignore, how awesome is that! Talk about a concession!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Toro]

No one is even interested in changing the consent age for drinking a ******* beer, let alone for *******.

LOL!

And this folks is why most people should never vote. They're simply not smart enough to understand the risks.

LOL Sonny, I graduated from WEST POINT, I have a graduate degree from PRINCETON. Both paid for by the US Army, my intelligence is unquestioned.

Your slippery slope diminishes my intelligence none in the least.

Well scamp... you did not graduate West Point. I'm fairly familiar with that breed and you've no kinship with 'em.

Cadets are taught to reason soundly and no one who graduated from West Point would cite the incontestable demonstration of a slippery cultural slope as fallacious. Because in no universe is it fallacious. YA see, they're taught what fallacious reasoning is and what it is not. So they do not succumb to the unenviable consequences common to such, when doing so will inevitably cost good men their lives and cripple their means to complete their mission.

Neither would they declare their bonafides in a desperate appeal, after having pushed such a feeble minded position. West Pointers rarely find themselves in such a position, but ... only because they know better.

Knights Out


moron

There's only one knight where Where_r_my_PubliusInfinitum is concerned.

 

[Toro]

Ravi, the 320 point advocate of homosexuality ...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To which I would say, 'So the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood, thus the 'means' to consent?

Therefore the only thing separating a child from being perfectly suited, using your own reasoning, is the changing of the law which defines the legal means to consent to sexual activity. Which is a rationalization bereft of reason, thoroughly deceitful, utterly fraudulent... and wholly immoral... designed for no other purpose than to influence the ignorant into believing that people like you, are reasonable people, which in truth, you're not.

And it's not reasonable because it provides for the application of the same fraudulent science to 'declare' children capable of consenting and the laws relevant to 'consent' will be lifted JUST as the laws regarding sodomy were lifted; deviant reasoning advancing deceitful 'science', through fraudulent means... all designed to FOOL PEOPLE. Without regard to the catastrophic effect that such decisions create for EVERYONE.

Now before the question comes: "What catastrophes have lifting the sodomy laws created?" I will refer you to the topic of this very discussion, wherein we are considering IF IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO REJECT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY TO BE FORCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SANCTIFYING OF SUCH!

The topic being created BY PEOPLE IN POWER LITERALLY TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE POLICE POWERS TO FORCE THEM TO DO JUST THAT!

Ya jumped the shark, AGAIN kids and don't think we don't appreciate it. Because in trying to **** us... ya fucked yourselves.

And how COOL is THAT?LOL! Pretty dam' cool!

so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood? Dodge, pure and simple.

keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2) ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.

This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.

I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.

Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.

Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.

Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL. Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... . See the problem?

I see the problem. Pretty much it's you, and people like you.

hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well

I'm not a problem of any kind... as I am not forcing anyone to do anything.

I am publicly advocating for the recognition and defense of, respect for and adherence to the sound, sustainable principles of nature... . That some sense that as a threat, merely demonstrates, in incontrovertible terms, that those people are animated by Evil, which by its nature, axiomatically rejects those principles.

Which of course, not only a problem, its a PERFECT demonstration of THE PROBLEM which the title of this thread speaks to.

(Now for the professed graduates of the USMA among us, that means that what YOU just did, was to prove the validity inherent in the contest of The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality and the assertion that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is overtly intent upon using the police powers of the State to force others to accept their perversion of human reasoning.)

LOL! Now how cool is THAT?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You sure remind me of PI, for sure.

 

[RKMBrown]

so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood? Dodge, pure and simple.

keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2) ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.

This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.

I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.

Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.

Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.

Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL. Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... . See the problem?

I see the problem. Pretty much it's you, and people like you.

hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well

I'm not a problem of any kind... as I am not forcing anyone to do anything.

I am publicly advocating for the recognition and defense of, respect for and adherence to the sound, sustainable principles of nature... . That some sense that as a threat, merely demonstrates, in incontrovertible terms, that those people are animated by Evil, which by its nature, axiomatically rejects those principles.

Which of course, not only a problem, its a PERFECT demonstration of THE PROBLEM which the title of this thread speaks to.

(Now for the professed graduates of the USMA among us, that means that what YOU just did, was to prove the validity inherent in the contest of The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality and the assertion that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is overtly intent upon using the police powers of the State to force others to accept their perversion of human reasoning.)

LOL! Now how cool is THAT?

^ dumb ass retard thinks restricting consenting adults from marriage is allowing him to live in liberty.

 

[Seawytch]

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.

Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a ****** is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the **** up

Your opinion is not supported by a majority of Americans.

In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK

 

[Syriusly]

Churches? No.

Religions? No.
Religious people? No.

One religion [LGBT] .

More of Silhouette's bat guano craziness.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your opinion is not supported by a majority of Americans.

In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK

LOL!

So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?

Oh! Now THAT IS FASCINATIN'!

I wonder if there is ANY evidence in human history that would disprove, discredit and otherwise REFUTE THAT SPURIOUS PIDDLE?

LOL!


I'll leave the question open so that other contributors might offer up some cogent examples.

 

[Syriusly]

so the issue is the legal status indicating adulthood? Dodge, pure and simple.

keys two biggest issues: (1) misdefines homosexuals as pedofiles; (2) ignore the many more times to the nth power of homosexuals abusing children.

This is why he and his ilk have very little respect among those who actually think about this issue.

I think BOTH sides are completely wrong on that issue.

Pedophiles can not be classified as either homosexual or heterosexual. They in fact prefer PRESEXUAL children, that is what the word means.

Any adult relationship they are in is for pretext and substitute stimulation only. They are not attracted to adults either of the same or of the opposite sex, at all.

Pedophiles are appropriately classified as SEXUALLY ABNORMAL. Just as Homosexuality is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL... . See the problem?

I see the problem. Pretty much it's you, and people like you.

hes not the only problem. Gays that won't respect others is a problem as well

I'm not a problem of any kind... as I am not forcing anyone to do anything.

I am publicly advocating for the recognition and defense of, respect for and adherence to the sound, sustainable principles of nature... . That some sense that as a threat, merely demonstrates, in incontrovertible terms, that those people are animated by Evil, which by its nature, axiomatically rejects those principles.

Which of course, not only a problem, its a PERFECT demonstration of THE PROBLEM which the title of this thread speaks to.

(Now for the professed graduates of the USMA among us, that means that what YOU just did, was to prove the validity inherent in the contest of The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality and the assertion that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is overtly intent upon using the police powers of the State to force others to accept their perversion of human reasoning.)

LOL! Now how cool is THAT?

I have found it simpler to respond to Keys posts by pointing out that they are irrational and incoherent rants- i.e. bat guano crazy.

Just faster to get to the conclusion and doesn't waste as much of my time.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the **** up

There is literally not only no 'right to be immoral', there is no POTENTIAL FOR A RIGHT to 'be immoral'.

Ya see, that is another CLASSIC example of what an actual graduate of the USMA, would know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys knows very, very little.

 

[ShackledNation]

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.

Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a ****** is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the **** up

And the bigot shows his true colors and resorts to name calling when his fallacy is revealed. Typical. And I'm sure you would have a better argument if everyone just agreed with you, but guess what? That isn't going to happen as long as you continue to be wrong.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi, the 320 point advocate of homosexuality ...

This makes me miss neg rep all over again.

 

[ShackledNation]

You are conflating two definitions of normal. You are correct that homosexuality is, in the statistical sense, abnormal.

No... I am recognizing what normal means... and rejecting the 'feelings' of those who NEED 'normal' to mean nothing.

This based upon the physiological design of the human species, OKA: the human sexual standard, with absolutely no consideration of statistics.

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts. You are conflating two meanings of normal, simple as that. You are arguing that because homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense (aka most people are not gay), it is abnormal in the moral sense.

You might as well be arguing "Since most people are not gay, being gay is wrong." Which, of course, is a total non sequitur.

Whatever, you would have a better, and more honest, argument if you would just admit that being a ****** is immoral, but hey guess what? In this country you have a right to be immoral if you want, so keys can shut the **** up

Well I will admit that being a biggot is immoral, but hey guess what- you have a right to be a bigot if you want- if that is your choice.

I wouldn't disagree that being a bigot is amoral. See, I have the integrity to state such a thing, you have NO integrity, none, not even a portion of one.

Do they suck your integrity out of you when you declare yourself a liberal or what?

Homosexuality is not immoral, and the majority of Americans agree that is is not immoral. Stating gays are immoral has nothing to do with integrity.

 

[ShackledNation]

The word "normal" means different things in different contexts.

No... no it doesn't. It means the same thing, in every context.

No it doesn't. Learn English. There are eight different definitions of normal. They do not all apply in every context. You are conflating definitions 2 and 3 in the below dictionary.
Normal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It's pretty simple alright. But as simple as it is, you have 'created' a 'new' meaning of normal; the 'new-normal', which only renders the word MEANINGLESS.

No I haven't. Again, read a dictionary. You are conflating two definitions of the word normal. And apparently you don't even realize it, which just shows the failure of the United States education system.

False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference. Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.

Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.

Let's try it this way:

normal: conforming to a standard.

abnormal: deviating from what is normal

deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards

perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.

rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.

irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.

delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

 

[ShackledNation]

Your opinion is not supported by a majority of Americans.

In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK

LOL!

So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?

No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.