AA group sent packing or church would be forced to host homosexual events

How?

No more than obese people do.

Another lie.

No the OP was a lie. What the law in NJ is that if you have a business open to the public you can't discriminate against gays. It really is that simple.

But that is not homosexuality......and that shows just how disgusting you are getting.

Define homosexual ideology.

Meaning you are making things up

 

i am incapable of procreation, should my marriage be illegal?

 

Through the marriage benefits that homosexuals take advantage of that tax dollars are paying for. There are both direct and indirect costs.

Yes they do because they are receiving the benefit SOLELY because they are married but they are not providing any benefit back to society in return for those benefits.

Homosexuals are 44x more likely to have HIV than their heterosexual counterparts. They also contract syphilis at ridiculous rates as well.

No that's not accurate. What it said is that because of the tax exempt status of the church's facility that because they rented it out to people who were not part of the congregation then they needed to rent it out to everyone. But that's not the issue. The homosexuals didn't care about the tax exempt status. The tax exempt status was the excuse used by the judge. The homosexuals simply wanted to force the church to allow them to rent the same facility.

And it's not just in NJ there are several other municipalities who have attempted to enact that legislation. That shows its not a one-time thing by one gay couple addressing one tax-exempt building. It's a pattern of behavior.

Maybe you should attempt to define homosexuality. Because from those statements it indicates you don't know what it is.

That homosexuality is a normal behavior and should be normalized throughout society including with little children.

Haven't made a thing up. Homosexuals are lecherous without my assistance.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not about marriage. It's about marriage benefits. Nobody would stop you from getting married. They would stop you from receiving the benefits of marriage.

And if we were testing every single couple and you were incapable of procreation you absolutely should not receive marriage benefits that are specifically for the promotion of procreation. Fortunately for you we don't test every single couple and we provide the benefit to all heterosexuals who get married.

 

Please show where they were forced

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

 

Or ANY marriage for that matter!

 

If I own a business I cant fire a homosexual for the same valid reasons I could fire a non-homosexual for.

If I own a business I cant refuse my services to a homosexual as I could a non-homosexual.

Liberals are perverting this LGBT cause the same way they perverted civil rights, by taking (*)(*)(*)(*) way way way beyond what is actually equal.

Preferential treatment is a cornerstone of the liberal population manipulation game.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the percentage of persons who self-identify as LGBT (the 5% you reference) are responsible for all or even most acts of homosexual child molestation.

Most perpetrators of homosexual child molestation are close family members, fathers, brothers, uncles who either self-report or are assumed to have an heterosexual orientation.

If you are going to count every single person who has ever conducted any kind of homosexual sex act as "a homosexual" then their numbers are going to be far greater than 5%. That's what every single, accredited, medical and social scientific organization in the western world attests to, even the US Dept. of Veterans Affairs but I doubt that's of any consequence.

 

Even if you double, even TRIPLE the amount of homosexuals out there they're STILL grossly over-represented in regards to those numbers. Not to mention we're completely ignoring the fact that only ~1/2 of those LGBT are men. So if you want to get technical, closer to 2.5 or 3% of the population is committing 27% of the child molestation. Even if you double, triple even quadruple that... the numbers are still grossly disproportionate.

 

They were not forced to sanction the event or even participate in the event. They ran afoul of the law because they were given tax breaks and benefits to open a public facility. Would you be ok with a mosque being granted tax relief and credits (aka your taxes) with the requirements of a public facility and then not letting in Christians?

Interracial marriages are still banned in some churches, no one can force a church to marry anyone. This is a flat out lie by social conservative pundits to scare voters - and I see it is working well.

 

I think that in a lot of ways, Christianity is meant to be a minority religion, designed for subversion. That was forgotten during the religion's ascendency which has culminated in mega-Church awkwardness but I suspect that we are only seeing the beginning of the fight. Christians are far more efficient as charitable organizations than anyone else because that is just the character of Christianity, secular charities are more concerned with their private jets and fancy mixers. The homosexual lobby wants blood and lust and will never willingly end their campaign but given long enough I think people will start to remember why they liked Christianity.

 

I didn't state that they were forced to sanction or participate in the event. But they were forced to allow people who were engaging in activity which their religion considers to be abhorrent to use their facilities. Muslims DO receive tax exempt status for their mosques and they are allowed to perform marriage ceremonies in their facilities without allowing Christians to do the same.

 

But there is absolutely no evidence that that 2.5 to 3% are the people committing the 27% of acts of homosexual child molestation. That's because they are not. The vast majority of acts of homosexual molestation are committed by the other 97% who don't identify as gay: the Jerry Sanduskies of this world.

Even if only a tiny fraction of them commit such acts the numbers are greater because there's far more of them out there. Many are multiple offenders. Many are married to heterosexual partners who are either complicit or in a state of denial.

A lot of the time it's people own fathers and brothers doing these things. Probably the very last people you'd expect.

We even had criminologists who specialize in these things come on here and attest to this.

I'm not going to waste anymore time discussing this issue on here anymore. I've done so time and time again and it gets boring and predictable. If anybody's really interested in the stats they can look up the APA the AMA the AAP the BMA and countless others.

Nobody will ever submit the stats you're extrapolating in court because they are so easily debunked by expert witnesses and they don't want to look like fools regardless of their disdain for the LGBT community.

 

There's plenty of evidence. But a heterosexual male does not have sex with another male regardless of age. If a male has a sex with another male then he is by definition either a homosexual or a bisexual... but he CANNOT be heterosexual. It is an impossibility.

So their fathers or brothers are homosexual or bisexual? What's your point?

I'll be more than happy to debate anybody any time on this subject and I'll be more than happy to show their argument is nothing more than hypocritical, unfounded and specious propaganda to attempt to further an agenda.

Is that the same APA that claims they ACCIDENTALLY printed that pedophilia was a sexual orientation? What was that a typo?

You can dislike the numbers all you'd like. But it won't change the numbers.

I tell you what. How about you give me what you think the % of americans that have engaged in male on male or female on female activity is.

 

The problem here is with your methodology and termanology:
There are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Studies have found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Your view that gay men are attracted to children is disgusting and shows your lack of bias on the issue of gay issues. Logic suggests that by far the most likely explanation is that pedophile males who are willing to rape children to satisfy themselves sexually will tend to have much more access to boys.

[source][source][source]

So far you have attempted and failed to tie homosexuals to forcing churches to marry them and pedophilia.
Beastility or incest are next on the list I believe.

 

Again, this was not inside the church - it was in a beachfront property that the church owned that was promoted for public use utilizing public tax initiatives. The church did not "perform marriage ceremonies" as in your last example so I am not sure why you included it.

Are you really not understanding the basis for this or are you being purposely obtuse.

 

Wrong you are conflating the two terms. Pedophilia and child molestation are different. Pedophilia is a subjective psychological diagnosis. Child molestation is an illegal activity that someone engages in.

I'm not concerned with the subjective mental state of the offender which is largely based upon his honest answers during a psychological examination. A subjective diagnosis where you could find 12 psychologists that say he is a pedophile and I can find 12 who say he isn't. I'm not interested in a subjective claim. I'm solely interested in the action of the individual.

If they are a male and they molest ONLY female children then they are a heterosexual child molester.
If they are a male and they molest ONLY male children then they are a homosexual child molester.
If they are a male and they molest BOTH male and female children then they are a bisexual child molester.

That is not subjective.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the other legislation that homosexuals have been trying to get passed in other states does not differentiate between the two.

 

And you should recognize the difference between pedophilia and child molestation.

 

We're talking about what people claim they are in open surveys or do you think people answer with totally candid honesty as in: "Well, I consider myself heterosexual and I have a girlfriend (or wife) but I've been diddling my little brother since he was six, what category do you think I should go in?"?

My point is about ratios, you're intelligent, I'm sure you can figure it out.

Well then take it to open court or better still, phone up the Family Research Counsel or the Traditional Values Coalition and have their lawyers present your stats for you. After so many years of unsuccessfully lobbying against pro-LGBT issues I'm sure they'll be over the moon to finally be in possession of the smoking gun they so desperately require to win.

Yes that's them.

Nope, you're right, the numbers remain what they are, it's how you interpret them that's at issue.

I don't know, how about 27%? (and let's not forget, you are deriving your statistics from the number of offences with no indication of the number of persons committing those offences or even the number of victims. Often a person commits multiple offences against a single person because circumstance dictates that they can).

 

I am unaware of any court cases that have gone anywhere regarding forcing churches to perform same sex weddings but lawsuits are fairly easy to file so I would not doubt it. However, churches are protected from this - the Loving decision did not force interracial marriages from happening just as no decision is under serious consideration to do so for same sex unions. If a ruling was ever issued it would be immediately struck down, as it should be.

 

I said legislation not rulings. I know of at least two governments that have attempted to institute legislation that would require churches to rent any facility to homosexuals that they rent to anyone else outside of their congregation. So if a church rents a room in their church to a boy scout group outside of their congregation on a Tuesday night they'd be forced to allow homosexuals to rent it for their gay wedding. If they rent the chapel to a couple that's not in their congregation to get married they must also rent to homosexuals to have a wedding as well. If they rent space in their church for another smaller church to meet on other days, they'd have to allow homosexuals to rent their church for homosexual weddings.

 

Do you have any idea how many frivolous legislations are attempted? So you are stating that the law allowing the church to discriminate is still in effect everywhere in the US? So your entire line of reasoning is based on something that some overzealous lawmakers were stopped from doing, awesome...

There has also been frivolous legislation to permit government employees to deny service to gays in the name of “religious liberty” including the police and firefighters. The bill also sought to allow any institution to deny service to gays; this includes hospitals and government facilities and parks.


Which group do you think is actually being threatened?

 

you don't know what you are talking about. People who prey on young boys don't do because they are attracted to the same-sex, in fact they are attracted to someone who is not yet sexual.

No that would be you.

 

10,000 different kinds of bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

 

Drop the procreation bull(*)(*)(*)(*), would ya'? It's nothing but another trite smokescreen you guys use because you have nothing else. Just admit your despicable bigotry and be done with it. Bigots, in-and-of-themselves, are bad enough. But bigots that cloak themselves in religion take it to a greater low.