Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says you.

ROFLMNAO! Oh that is mighty impressive!

Few adults would attempt the "SAYS YOU!" defense... and for good reason.

Most adults are not mentally disturbed.

The Cult of Hetero-fascism has Duggar as a poster boy, yet nothing is said to condemn this evil.

LMAO! Now how precious is THAT?

Imagine the unforgivable temerity of a people who would defend viability at the risk of hurting the feelings of the mentally disordered! And the irony wherein they run to mimic that which they claim is LOSING!

It is sorta flattering...

Even if it is just some idiotic algorithm running on some 40 year old kid's Dell laptop, in some mom's basement.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When it costs you your health and damages you personally so much, the physical and emotional toll are too much to bear?

Yeah... fighting evil do take its toll.

The good news is that Sil is not alone, as God does all the heavy lifting.

It would be nice if even MOST people would pick up the Cross... as that would shut it down pretty quick.

But we are not to question why... our's is but to DO.

But you are compelled to do it *anyway*

"Compelled to Do it Anyway, despite the cost"... that is the definition of "Duty". And it's what Americans... DO.

But hey... In fairness to you, as a Relativist of the Mouthy British Socialist variety, you lack the strength of character to understand anything about Honor... because to understand honor, one must have a sense of objective truth; what it is, where it comes from and the essential nature of such, so there's no way you could ever possibly come to understand that.

 

[Skylar]

Says you.

ROFLMNAO! Oh that is mighty impressive!

Few adults would attempt the "SAYS YOU!" defense... and for good reason.

Again, if that's all I'd said, you might have a point. Alas, your omissions don't make all the other refutations of your silly subjective opinnion

Says you. And nothing you just cited is a 'cult'. You're making this shit up as you go along, citing yourself.

Back in reality, a picture of a guy in rainbow underwear factually establishes a guy in rainbow underwear. All the 'cult' babble is homophobe fan fiction.

Given that you can't factually establish any of your 'cult' babble, I can understand why you'd omit any mention of it.

Keep running, Keys. Ignoring what you can't rationally argue against is pretty much all you have left.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Cult of Hetero-fascism has Duggar as a saint with Keys and Sil as high priests; it must be so, for nothing is said to condemn this evil.

 

[Skylar]

When it costs you your health and damages you personally so much, the physical and emotional toll are too much to bear?

Yeah... fighting evil do take its toll.

Then you're arguing WHY there's a compulsive obsession rather than if there is one.

That's progress of a sort, I suppose.

The good news is that Sil is not alone, as God does all the heavy lifting.

Whose God? Remember, your conception of God is hopelessly interpretive and inescapably culturally relativistic. There's nothing that mandates that you got it right. In fact, since most religions are mutually exclusive, that means that if any one religion got it right all the others had to be wrong. IWith their followers being little more than self deluded believers in fantasy and fallacy.

Using the logic of religion, in all likelihood...... you're among the self deluded. As the odds that of all the conceptions of god in all of history in all the world that YOU happened to get it right are astonishingly slim. Worse......there's no mandate that anyone got it right. Its entirely possible that you all got it wrong. In fact, given that the self deluded are using the *exact* same process of faith and belief that you are now...

...it probable that everyone got it wrong.

So with the overwhelming probability that your idea of 'god' is merely your own self delusion......what 'heavy lifting' could your self delusion do?

 

[Skylar]

"Compelled to Do it Anyway, despite the cost"... that is the definition of "Duty". And it's what Americans... DO.

Is this anything like your imaginary 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals'?

But hey... In fairness to you, as a Relativist of the Mouthy British Socialist variety, you lack the strength of character to understand anything about Honor... because to understand honor, one must have a sense of objective truth; what it is, where it comes from and the essential nature of such, so there's no way you could ever possibly come to understand that.

I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable. Nor do I put much weight in your 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals'.

That's just you wanting to hurt people. And there's nothing honorable in that.

And 'British socialist'? That's remarkably specific. Can you back that up with anything but more of the same imaginary babble that you base all your other subjective assumptions on?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again, if that's all I'd said

LOL! That is the preface, thus the foundation of your point, it is invalid... and absurdly, HYSTERICALLY so. Thus it invalidating ANYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IT.

Have you EVER cracked so much as a Reader's Digest Article on Reason, Logic or the Art of Debate?

The evidence of your would be 'effort' says otherwise. For instance, it is a mathematical certainty that you've never once stood up in formal debate.

Understand this: Words mean things. And when you assert a principle which invalidates opinion, you have just invalidated what it is you're about to do, including any reference you're about to cite.

See how that works?

But IF you ever DO decide to stand up and assert that drivel in formal debate, PLEASE, PLEASE let me know as I would pay good money to hear that entire hall break out in open laughter.

And it would serve a valuable purpose, educating at least two generations on what happens when you forget the fundamentals of reason and attempt to engage in an exercise of such.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Whose God?

Does it matter?

If so, how so?

If not, why not?

 

[Skylar]

Whose God?

Does it matter?

Well, if your conception of God is inaccurate and there's nothing about a 'first mover' that mandates intentionality, sentience, intelligence, design, uniqueness, goodness, awareness that we exist, or even current existence....

......then your entire basis of reasoning regarding 'god's law' would be meaningless babble. Would it not?

I'd say that's pretty relevant.

 

[dblack]

I realize this thread is just a proxy for homophobes and gay rights activists to duke it out, but that's unfortunate. The actual question raised by the OP - whether churches should be required to follow the law, is worth discussing.

 

[Skylar]

I realize this thread is just a proxy for homophobes and gay rights activists to duke it out, but that's unfortunate. The actual question raised by the OP - whether churches should be required to follow the law, is worth discussing.

its been discussed. The overwhelmingly consensus is that no, they shouldn't be.

 

[mdk]

It seems Keys isn't finished with his crybaby meltdown yet. What a delight to behold!

 

[dblack]

I realize this thread is just a proxy for homophobes and gay rights activists to duke it out, but that's unfortunate. The actual question raised by the OP - whether churches should be required to follow the law, is worth discussing.

its been discussed. The overwhelmingly consensus is that no, they shouldn't be.

It hasn't really. Mostly, this thread has just been you and other gay-rights supporters squaring off agains Keys and other nitwits. No one really talks much about the real issue of first amendment rights and how it fits in with anti-discrimination laws.

Listen, I'm actually sympathetic to your cause. I have gay friends and I support gay marriage rights. But corporatism is a subtle and corrosive trend. If we don't wake up and fight it, we'll be regretting it soon.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable.

So what? You're brain is dysfunctional, disordered. You suffer a mental disorder which precludes you from being capable of objective reason.

For Pete's sake... you can't even distinguish between a debate of sound public policy and an attack... .

Sil and everyone else here contesting the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, is doing everything we possibly can to PREVENT attacks upon homosexuals.

Yet despite your spending A WEEK DENYING that Normalizing Sexual Abnormality would NEVER affect the means to speak out freely against such, in the US, there you are DEMANDING that speaking out against such IS AN ATTACK UPON SUCH.

Do you realize that there is not a single lucid, coherent, logically valid tenet within the scope of your cult? That every single point you people stand upon is a LIE.

And a lie which you defend as CONCRETE TRUTH. Which... do you further understand that THAT is "Delusion"... and that "Delusion" is that mental disorder that your sexual deviancy presents?

Thus do you further realize, that everything you have said here, DEMONSTRATES that you people are not only NOT NORMAL... but that you're dangerously abnormal?

And do you realize that political cults have historically used dangerously abnormal people to gain power... and no cult has ever used such more prolifically than the Ideological Left... and DO you have any idea what happens to the dangerously abnormal, once the Left finds the power that it craves?

Ya see scamp... people with the power to CHOOSE, aren't known for their acceptance of inconvenience... and what do you suppose dangerously abnormal people do best?

That's a lot for you to think about. Catch up and we'll continue after you embarrass yourself sufficiently with this...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Whose God?

Does it matter?

Well, if your conception of God is inaccurate and there's nothing about a 'first mover' that mandates intentionality, sentience, intelligence, design, uniqueness, goodness, awareness that we exist, or even current existence....

......then your entire basis of reasoning regarding 'god's law' would be meaningless babble. Would it not?

I'd say that's pretty relevant.

No... it's not.

My conception of God is irrelevant... as God is what God is, without regard to my perspective of God, or anyone else's.

You're the one that is getting caught up in the notion that because different people have different perspective of God that this in some way has a bearing on what or who God is.

Th fact is that God is the answer. And this is never MORE so, than where the problem is Evil.

 

[Silhouette]

I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable.

Neo gay dictionary defines "attacking" as: lucid and thoughtful rebuttal to any advancements the cult of LGBT wants to make legal shoehorn inroads into the heart of the majority who find their cult repugnant.

See my signature for details.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It hasn't really. Mostly, this thread has just been you and other gay-rights supporters squaring off agains Keys and other nitwits.

Ahhh... How positively sweet! (Envy is so flattering.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

All the Board is witnessing the death throes of the Cult of Hetero-Fascism with its cult icon, Saint Duggar. Not one person has condemned his behavior or the overwhelming problem of heteros attacking children.

On this and several other threads, Keys and Sil have been whipped in debate. Sil becomes every more emotionally fragile and Keys more shrill and verbose. The latter has trouble following the rules of the CDZ. He has trouble being civil when he is easily refuted.

That is not going to change.

 

[Skylar]

Whose God?

Does it matter?

Well, if your conception of God is inaccurate and there's nothing about a 'first mover' that mandates intentionality, sentience, intelligence, design, uniqueness, goodness, awareness that we exist, or even current existence....

......then your entire basis of reasoning regarding 'god's law' would be meaningless babble. Would it not?

I'd say that's pretty relevant.

No... it's not.

My conception of God is irrelevant... as God is what God is, without regard to my perspective of God, or anyone else's.

Yet if God is different than you suppose, and you've been making judgments based on fallacious assumptions....that would have a dramatic impact on the accuracy your perception and the validity of your judgment.

Your assumptions and your conclusions if founded in fallacies, would lack objective validity. As they would be inconsistent with god's *actual* law. Rather than the fallacies that you mistakenly assumed are god's law.

And in all probability, you're following fallacious assumptions and false conceptions. Meaning that that any conclusions you draw from those fallacious assumptoins would in all likelyhood be fallacious.

In which case your entire argument would be wrong.

You're the one that is getting caught up in the notion that because different people have different perspective of God that this in some way has a bearing on what or who God is.

Tell us about the Muslims. The validity of their view. And the validity of their judgments. Remembering of course that you've already condemned them as evil.

And demonstrated my point about mutual exclusivity. And just how wrong false assumptions about god can be and how utterly they can invalidate one's conclusions....using your own logic.

Recognizing that you are most likely just as self deluded and just as wrong as they are.

Th fact is that God is the answer. And this is never MORE so, than where the problem is Evil.

You can't even definitively describe the attributes of god or establish that that god is good. Or aware of us. Or sentient.

Remember, your logical basis of assumption of god is the first mover argument. And the first mover needs no sentience, no intelligence, no goodness, no intention, no design, not even continued existence. It merely moved first.

You assume design. You assume sentience. You assume goodness, intent, awareness, and continued existence. But in all likelihood.....you're self deluded. And this using the logic of religion

 

[Skylar]

I just don't consider attacking gays to be honorable.

Neo gay dictionary defines "attacking" as: lucid and thoughtful rebuttal to any advancements the cult of LGBT wants to make legal shoehorn inroads into the heart of the majority who find their cult repugnant.

See my signature for details.

'Eradicating' homosexuals would be considered an attack by any sense of the word. And you've already described the eradication of homosexuals as a 'responsibility'.

That's not a 'gay dictionary'. That's just your desire to hurt people. And there's nothing honorable about that.