An Alabama Pastor's Epic Speech against Gay Marriage (Please finish drinking your beverage first)

The verses calling homosexuality an "abomination" are also Mosaic law.

Except that homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament. Keep trying old fool

Quote?


1 Corinthians 6:9-11

According to that passage, homosexuality is equated to drunkenness and adultery.

Let me know when Christians get as upset about those things as they do about the gays.

Galatians 5:19

No mention of homosexuality there, either.

Colossians 3:5-7

No mention of homosexuality.

1 Timothy 1:10

That verse refers to temporal laws, and could be interpreted as a call for making homosexuality illegal - but I see no condemnation by God.

Titus 1:16

No mention of homosexuality.

Jude 1:4, 7, and 19

No mention of homosexuality.

Revelation 21:27

No mention of homosexuality.
The verses calling homosexuality an "abomination" are also Mosaic law.

Except that homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament. Keep trying old fool

Quote?

Matthew 19:1-8

That passage is referring to divorce, and makes no mention of homosexuality.

Romans 1:18-32

That passage describes God punishing men by making them homosexual, not condemning homosexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

According to that passage, homosexuality is equated to drunkenness and adultery.

Let me know when Christians get as upset about those things as they do about the gays.

Galatians 5:19

No mention of homosexuality there, either.

Colossians 3:5-7

No mention of homosexuality.

1 Timothy 1:10

That verse refers to temporal laws, and could be interpreted as a call for making homosexuality illegal - but I see no condemnation by God.

Titus 1:16

No mention of homosexuality.

Jude 1:4, 7, and 19

No mention of homosexuality.

Revelation 21:27

No mention of homosexuality.

There is a difference between getting upset and what the bible actually says. BTW how do you know they don't get upset?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

As seen in Romans 1 18-32 homosexuality is considered sexual immorality so yes it does mention it just not specifically.
Galatians 5:19New International Version (NIV)
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;

Again see Romans 1 18:32 it is included in sexual immorality.
Colossians 3:5-7New International Version (NIV)
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality,impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.[a] 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived.

Not specifically speaking about homosexuals but instead talking about sin in general and how it should be viewed. Certainly Homosexuality, being considered immoral is included in this as sin.
Titus 1 10 - 16
Rebuking Those Who Fail to Do Good
10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretansare always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”[c] 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

Talking about the New Jerusalem here but it's the same as others: See Romans 1 18-32

Revelation 21:27New International Version (NIV)
27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.


Here it's talking about ungodly people. 4 talks about ungodly people, 7 makes mention of Sodom and Gomorrah and their sexual immorality as already established in Romans 1 18- 32 and in Jude 1 17-19 it clearly points out that in the end times people will follow their ungodly desires of which Homosexuality is considered a part thereof.
Jude 1 3-23
The Sin and Doom of Ungodly People
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contendfor the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about[b]long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”[d]10 Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them.

11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.

12 These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves.They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”[e] 16 These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.
A Call to Persevere
17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

20 But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.[f]


Are you kidding me? It's temporal only? I'm sorry where does it say that? It's simply talking about the law every good Jew observed not the priesthood. As James put it
James 2:10New International Version (NIV)
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Therefore if the law is good if used properly and if one stumbles at just one point breaks the entire law then one can assume that none are righteous and 8-11 applies to them. If man were capable of keeping the entire law there would have been no need for sacrifices and Jesus himself.

1Timothy 3-11
Timothy Charged to Oppose False Teachers
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesusso that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
 
Christians need to get a grip. Fagots are here to stay, get used to it.

Christians are here to stay, too. Gay people must get used to that fact as well.

I wish some stupid christian would come around HERE spouting all that nonsense all loud like the moron in the video. I got sumpin for his dumb black ass. I'm not all that color prejudiced but my pit bulls...That's a whole different matter. My pits are definitely prejudiced. They would strait up tear that Neegro a new asshole.

You sir, are racist. Plus, you contradict yourself in just under 30 words "I got sumpin for his dumb black ass. I'm not all that color prejudiced but my pit bulls...That's a whole different matter. My pits are definitely prejudiced."

Moving along
Or he is trying to start a flame war in order to get the thread shut down eh?
 
Except that homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament. Keep trying old fool

Quote?


1 Corinthians 6:9-11

According to that passage, homosexuality is equated to drunkenness and adultery.

Let me know when Christians get as upset about those things as they do about the gays.

Galatians 5:19

No mention of homosexuality there, either.

Colossians 3:5-7

No mention of homosexuality.

1 Timothy 1:10

That verse refers to temporal laws, and could be interpreted as a call for making homosexuality illegal - but I see no condemnation by God.

Titus 1:16

No mention of homosexuality.

Jude 1:4, 7, and 19

No mention of homosexuality.

Revelation 21:27

No mention of homosexuality.
Except that homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament. Keep trying old fool

Quote?

Matthew 19:1-8

That passage is referring to divorce, and makes no mention of homosexuality.

Romans 1:18-32

That passage describes God punishing men by making them homosexual, not condemning homosexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

According to that passage, homosexuality is equated to drunkenness and adultery.

Let me know when Christians get as upset about those things as they do about the gays.

Galatians 5:19

No mention of homosexuality there, either.

Colossians 3:5-7

No mention of homosexuality.

1 Timothy 1:10

That verse refers to temporal laws, and could be interpreted as a call for making homosexuality illegal - but I see no condemnation by God.

Titus 1:16

No mention of homosexuality.

Jude 1:4, 7, and 19

No mention of homosexuality.

Revelation 21:27

No mention of homosexuality.

There is a difference between getting upset and what the bible actually says. BTW how do you know they don't get upset?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

As seen in Romans 1 18-32 homosexuality is considered sexual immorality so yes it does mention it just not specifically.
Galatians 5:19New International Version (NIV)
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;

Again see Romans 1 18:32 it is included in sexual immorality.
Colossians 3:5-7New International Version (NIV)
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality,impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.[a] 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived.

Not specifically speaking about homosexuals but instead talking about sin in general and how it should be viewed. Certainly Homosexuality, being considered immoral is included in this as sin.
Titus 1 10 - 16
Rebuking Those Who Fail to Do Good
10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretansare always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”[c] 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

Talking about the New Jerusalem here but it's the same as others: See Romans 1 18-32

Revelation 21:27New International Version (NIV)
27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
What does that have to do with civil law?
IDK I'm just telling Doc the claims he makes in his post is biblically wrong.
 
Christians need to get a grip. Fagots are here to stay, get used to it.

Christians are here to stay, too. Gay people must get used to that fact as well.

I wish some stupid christian would come around HERE spouting all that nonsense all loud like the moron in the video. I got sumpin for his dumb black ass. I'm not all that color prejudiced but my pit bulls...That's a whole different matter. My pits are definitely prejudiced. They would strait up tear that Neegro a new asshole.

You sir, are racist. Plus, you contradict yourself in just under 30 words "I got sumpin for his dumb black ass. I'm not all that color prejudiced but my pit bulls...That's a whole different matter. My pits are definitely prejudiced."

Moving along
Or he is trying to start a flame war in order to get the thread shut down eh?

Well, he pretty much failed.
 
I am not homosexual. I have never "experimented" with it when in high school or any other time. However, I refuse to denigrate homosexuals because I am not God and it is not my place to judge them FOR Him.
But that's me.
 
. But you must admire the gall and the guts of a Birmingham Pastor named Cedric Hatcher for absolutely taking a taking a Town Hall meeting by storm, throwing political correctness to the wind to voice his mind on the topic of homosexuality.5

No, I really don't have to.
 
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court is about to rule otherwise

And they will answer to God for that, RW. Good night.

If the Supreme Court 'Decides' that Marriage is a Cup of soup, served with two midgets, a goat, a box of Cherios and a gallon of Wesson Oil... that will not change the fact that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

THAT
is how nature designed it and, how nature thus defines Marriage. The Supreme Court is irrelevant in such matters.

But the Supreme could begin the formal end of the United States by such a decision. And as a result end the lives of a hundred million US citizens.

The simple fact is that it's going to happen one way or another... so that's as good a place to start as any, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Except that homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament. Keep trying old fool

Quote?

Matthew 19:1-8

That passage is referring to divorce, and makes no mention of homosexuality.

Romans 1:18-32

That passage describes God punishing men by making them homosexual, not condemning homosexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

According to that passage, homosexuality is equated to drunkenness and adultery.

Let me know when Christians get as upset about those things as they do about the gays.

Galatians 5:19

No mention of homosexuality there, either.

Colossians 3:5-7

No mention of homosexuality.

1 Timothy 1:10

That verse refers to temporal laws, and could be interpreted as a call for making homosexuality illegal - but I see no condemnation by God.

Titus 1:16

No mention of homosexuality.

Jude 1:4, 7, and 19

No mention of homosexuality.

Revelation 21:27

No mention of homosexuality.

For Matthew 19:1-8

Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality? Of course, when asked about marriage, Jesus issued a sweeping condemnation of all sexual relationships outside of the male/female model established in Genesis 1:27, which he specifically cited.

For Romans 1:18-32

That passage says nothing of the sort. God didn't make them homosexual, he gave them over the something they were already doing in defiance of God. "Gave them over to their sinful lust" for example.

For 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Uh, we have tried to pass laws stopping Liquor stores from selling alcohol on Sundays here in the Deep South. People who claim to be Christians but don't fulfill the vows of marriage give Christianity a bad name, using the faith as a status symbol not an actual conviction.

For Galatians 5:19

Take note: "Works of the flesh are manifest
which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness...

For Ephesians 5:3-7 and Colossians 3:5-7:


Just what was Paul (a disciple of Jesus Christ, the son of God who was the embodiment of God's will) referring to at the Church of Ephesus or Colosse when he warned against "uncleanliness"?

For 1 Timothy 1:10:

Note the phrase Paul uses, “defiling themselves with mankind." You'd have to be willfully ignorant not to know what that meant.

For Titus 1:16:

This was the most direct condemnation by Paul, he exposes the mistakes and mindsets of those who have defiled themselves and have committed abominations in the sight of God, for example, Homosexuality.

For Jude 1:4, 7 and 19:

Jude refers to the Sodomites going after "strange flesh" hence the phraseology "heterosarx" in Greek. So, what else would Jude have been referring to if not to homosexuality?

For Revelation 21:27:

Perhaps you are being selective or something here, but it is clear in these verses that Homosexuality is an abomination, even here in this verse. It says none shall enter paradise who work abominations. Geesh. I mean come on, stop trying to twist and contort the Bible to the point where it either says nothing about Homosexuality, or in some cases with others, condones it.
No, I think I'll continue to do so.

I know it makes your position harder to defend, but tough shit.

Does it?

How so?

It's a Straw argument, resting upon (as all straw reasoning does) a false premise.

Black people are genetically forced into reflecting a light-brown to a dark caramel hue... they cannot go to bed on Monday, as a brown person and wake up Tuesday morning a lovely chartreuse. They're going to be the color that their genetic composition requires them TO BE.

The Sexually abnormal however, are such because they CHOOSE to engage in sex with people of their own gender. This as a result of a perversion of human reasoning, OKA: A disorder of the mind. With absolutely NO GENETIC component, whatsoever... .

We know this because the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality has spent Hundreds of Millions of Dollars to find some... ANY feeble strand of faux-scientific drivel which could on SOME LEVEL... ANY LEVEL... provide for a rationalization which could possibly show SOME connection between Sexual Abnormality and genetic composition of the deviant, whose sexual preference deviates from the human physiological NORM!

And despite MANY CRUEL RUMORS... no genetic component to sexual abnormality exists.

So, the addle-minded nonsense which says that 'because the court found that people with genetic issues which keep them from being white... can marry white people... that the court must find that men and can 'marry' men... is LUDICROUS!

People CHOOSE their religion, and yet, we give them religious rights and freedoms.

ROFLMNAO! You give people rights, do ya?


Tell me, from where do you get these rights you give people?
 
I think "Christians" need to follow the path of Jesus and leave people the fuck alone. Love them, as he said, and get the fuck out of their bedrooms where they don't belong, as I said.
Oh so your back in the bedroom now ? I always said how in the world did sexual orientation get listed on the special status list with the government, when peoples sex life is suppose to remain in the bedroom to begin with ?

It's fascinating how Relativism works, isn't it?

In fact, the right to privacy can only exist where the person who is exercising that right, bears the sustaining responsibilities inherent to such... not the least of those is to not exercise that right to the detriment of another's means to exercise their own rights and to KEEP THAT WHICH THEY CLAIM TO BE RIGHTFULLY PRIVATE: PRIVATE!

We're not discussing private behavior here... we're discussing PUBLIC POLICY. And there is absolutely NOTHING PRIVATE, ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY.

And there is NO POTENTIAL FOR A RIGHT WHICH INFRINGES ON THE MEANS OF ANOTHER TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN RIGHTS. And it is the RESPONSIBILITY of every individual to who claims the right to live in a viable culture, to reject public policy which threatens the viability of their culture. This is part and parcel of sustaining the right to live free.
 
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court is about to rule otherwise

And they will answer to God for that, RW. Good night.
Well, if and when that happens, the Supreme Court makes the final determination as to what the Constitution means.

It's one of the many advantages of living in a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law.
 
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court is about to rule otherwise

And they will answer to God for that, RW. Good night.
Well, if and when that happens, the Supreme Court makes the final determination as to what the Constitution means.

It's one of the many advantages of living in a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law.
And not to some crazy concept of god that no one can agree on anyways.
 
Homosexuality does not deviate from the norm.

Homosexuality, not only deviates from the Human Physiological Norm, it deviates AS FAR FROM THAT NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE... (Where the subjects are limited to humans).

That you're not sufficiently intelligent to understand that otherwise incredibly simple, irrefutable FACT is irrelevant.

And what's more, this behavior is a result of a perversion of human reasoning... a perversion which is part and parcel of a destructive nature, to which humanity has long referred as: EVIL.

As has been demonstrated above, it is the same perversion which claims that what is demonstrably, irrefutable abnormal... is perfectly normal.

It is the same perversion which claims a right to murder pre-born children, as a means to justify fruitless sex... behavior which amounts to little more than addiction to the doses of pleasure hormones resultant from the behavior.

It is the same perversion which demands a right to the property of another, based upon a perception that because the person who produced that property has it, that the claimant of the perverse right needs it.

It is the same perversion that holds that where one pays another to not produce, that such will promote an increase in production.

It is... the product of a disordered mental process... thus such is a mental disorder. And this without regard to how many among the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, VOTE to declare abnormality, normal.
 
Last edited:
Well, if and when that happens, the Supreme Court makes the final determination as to what the Constitution means.

It's one of the many advantages of living in a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law.


Yes, the Rule of Law. A critical function of cultural viability and a wholly objective concept.

Sadly, the Ideological Left rests entirely in Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is designed entirely from Relativism and is evidence of why Relativism is death to viability as it destroys any sense of "The Rule of Law", as "the Law" becomes subjective.

What Clayton is telling you is that 'The Supreme Court has the last word and whatever their ruling, we must abide by it!'.

Which is simple nonsense... to wit:


The Supreme Court of the United States, could 'Decide' ... that the Sky is Red, based upon the Article 1, Section 2 of the USC.

In no way would that change the color of the sky from blue to red... and in no way would that change the reality that USC Art 1, Sec 2 can determine the color of the sky, or that such was ever designed to do so.

What such WOULD MEAN is that the SCOTUS had separated itself from any sense of objectivity... thus it cannot serve the public trust.

Trust which provides the SCOTUS and all facets of government with its power... thus removing all legitimacy from the SCOTUS and the balance of government, most certainly relieving all Americans from any obligation to give a dam' what the comes out of the SCOTUS or what the government has to say about anything. And in THAT we see that subjectivity is poison to the rule of law; the viability of such rests entirely in objectivity.

By no less an authority than Nature itself... the design of Human physiology defines Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

The SCOTUS was not consulted in the human physiological design... thus it's ruling as to such, is irrelevant.

What's more, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE of the United States have decided through the VAST MAJORITY of the respective States, having elected the VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS WHO VOTED TO RECOGNIZE AND DEFEND THAT NATURAL STANDARD...by duly passing legislation relevant ot those majority of states, which was duly signed into law by the Chief Executives of those States... given that the US Constitution was written in recognition of natural law... the SCOTUS would sever any sense of legitimacy it may still possess, where it should decide to 'find' in the US Constitution, that which the US Constitution was written to reject.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court is about to rule otherwise

And they will answer to God for that, RW. Good night.
Well, if and when that happens, the Supreme Court makes the final determination as to what the Constitution means.

It's one of the many advantages of living in a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law.

The Supreme Court of the United States, could 'Decide' tomorrow that the Sky is Red, based upon the Article 1, Section 2 of the USC.

In no way would that change the color of the sky from blue to red... and in no way would that change the reality that USC Art 1, Sec 2 can determine the color of the sky, or that such was ever designed to do so.

What such WOULD MEAN is that the SCOTUS had separated itself from the public trust... . Trust which provides the SCOTUS with its power... thus removing all legitimacy from the SCOTUS, certainly relieving all Americans from any obligation to give a dam' what the comes out of the SCOTUS.

By no less an authority than Nature itself... the design of Human physiology defines Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

The SCOTUS was not consulted in the human physiological design... thus it's ruling as to such, is irrelevant.

What's more, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE of the United States have decided through the VAST MAJORITY of the respective States, having elected the VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS WHO VOTED TO RECOGNIZE AND DEFEND THAT NATURAL STANDARD...by duly passing legislation relevant ot those majority of states, which was duly signed into law by the Chief Executives of those States... given that the US Constitution was written in recognition of natural law... the SCOTUS would sever any sense of legitimacy it may still possess, where it should decide to 'find' in the US Constitution, that which the US Constitution was written to reject.
The fags won, and you lost. Sorry, but not really.
 
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court is about to rule otherwise

And they will answer to God for that, RW. Good night.
Well, if and when that happens, the Supreme Court makes the final determination as to what the Constitution means.

It's one of the many advantages of living in a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law.

The Supreme Court of the United States, could 'Decide' tomorrow that the Sky is Red, based upon the Article 1, Section 2 of the USC.

In no way would that change the color of the sky from blue to red... and in no way would that change the reality that USC Art 1, Sec 2 can determine the color of the sky, or that such was ever designed to do so.

What such WOULD MEAN is that the SCOTUS had separated itself from the public trust... . Trust which provides the SCOTUS with its power... thus removing all legitimacy from the SCOTUS, certainly relieving all Americans from any obligation to give a dam' what the comes out of the SCOTUS.

By no less an authority than Nature itself... the design of Human physiology defines Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

The SCOTUS was not consulted in the human physiological design... thus it's ruling as to such, is irrelevant.

What's more, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE of the United States have decided through the VAST MAJORITY of the respective States, having elected the VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS WHO VOTED TO RECOGNIZE AND DEFEND THAT NATURAL STANDARD...by duly passing legislation relevant ot those majority of states, which was duly signed into law by the Chief Executives of those States... given that the US Constitution was written in recognition of natural law... the SCOTUS would sever any sense of legitimacy it may still possess, where it should decide to 'find' in the US Constitution, that which the US Constitution was written to reject.
You obviously have never read a ruling from a federal court. It may be over your head, but they have to clearly explain the Constitutional grounds for their decisions. Again....probably over your head.
 
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court is about to rule otherwise

And they will answer to God for that, RW. Good night.
Well, if and when that happens, the Supreme Court makes the final determination as to what the Constitution means.

It's one of the many advantages of living in a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law.
And not to some crazy concept of god that no one can agree on anyways.
Didn't you say Jesus said in one of these post ?
 
Now I will start off by saying that his views don't necessarily reflect mine, so save the "you're a bigot" or "you're a homophobe", "or where in the Bible does it say this, that or the other thing" posts. But you must admire the gall and the guts of a Birmingham Pastor named Cedric Hatcher for absolutely taking a taking a Town Hall meeting by storm, throwing political correctness to the wind to voice his mind on the topic of homosexuality.

Why do we treat ignorance and bigotry as something to be respected when you dress it up in vestments and call it religion?

latest


basically, all Homophobic arguments come down to two basic premises.

1) My Imaginary Pixie in the Sky thinks it's bad! Of course, most of you ignore a shitload of other things your Imaginary Sky Pixie tells you to do, which is why you weren't out stoning the neighbors for working yesterday after you got done stoning your daughter for getting her cherry popped.

2) I think it's icky when two dudes do it. In fact, most of you consider is sooooo icky that you all just can't stop describing it in pornographic detail.
 

Forum List

Back
Top