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

[JoeB131]

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.

Yes, some of you will never outgrown your bronze age superstitions, but that's not a sound basis for policy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This is true idiocy.

There is no 'conflict' between Christians and gay Americans – indeed, the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian.

And gay Americans fighting for their civil rights against those seeking to deny them their rights motivated by Christian dogma does not constitute gay Americans being 'anti-Christian.'

This 'victimhood' mentality maintained by some Christians such as the OP is ridiculous and unwarranted.

 

[Seawytch]

Let me be the first to thank you...that was a muthafuggan hoot!

It made the homos mad...

Looks like the guy in the OP is the "mad" one.

I'm referring to you and the posse of perverted clowns you carnival with

Why would my "side" be mad? We're winning this fight.

Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within the next 6 months. Your "side" is losing ground by the minute.

And this is exactly why there will always be hatred. Bragging about it will only being about more animosity. Good for them though, equality is equality. Though, I get lectured about hatred, but then there are people who (intentionally or not) make statements which stir the pot.

While gay marriage will be legal, the process is shaking out where those who have religious and moral objections as businessmen and women can refuse to serve homosexuals, via the Hobby Lobby decision. I see this as a stalemate.

No TemplarKormac, that's not how the process is "shaking out". Both Alito and Kennedy pointed out that the Hobby Lobby decision would not open the door to legalized discrimination. They made it clear that it was a very narrow decision that applied only to birth control.

And here is a recent New Mexico Supreme Court ruling:

The case was rather open-and-shut. On March 1, 2013, “Stutzman refused to provide to Ingersoll a service she provided to others,” Ekstrom wrote. What she believes about same-sex marriage is immaterial, because the law’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation “address conduct, not beliefs.” Agreeing with the plaintiffs and the attorney general, Ekstrom asserted that “no Court has ever held that religiously motivated conduct, expressive or otherwise, trumps state discrimination law in public accommodations.” He also pointed out that Stutzman is not a minister nor is Arlene’s Flowers a religious organization. Likewise, the law does not specifically target her because of her beliefs, but is “neutral and generally applicable” to all people of all beliefs.

Ekstrom agreed that “the State’s compelling interest in combating discrimination in public accommodations is well settled” and is not superseded by an individual’s religious beliefs. As the Supreme Court wrote in the 1982 case United States v. Lee, “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption… operates to impose [the follower’s] religious faith on the [person sought to be protected by the law.]”​

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know how the story plays out, you lose in the end

Is that what your crystal ball tells you, oh great Swami?

LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's a mistake where ever the perversion is coddled, just look at Sodom and Gomorrah

You mean that story where the "good guy" offers his virgin daughters to the crowd so they'd just leave him alone? And then his wife is killed for looking back at all the commotion?

That story?

Makes my point, the gays mock christians evey chance they get.

Lie.

 

[Seawytch]

It also says that wearing a cotton/polyester blend is an abomination.

Old Covenant, it was done away with by the New Covenant and it was also Mosaic Law which only applied
to Jews, you've been crushed and your Biblical knowledge is laughable

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

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

Quote?

Romans Chapter 1
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Wait a minute...did you actually read it? It said that god made them do it. They weren't born gay like the people Jesus himself talks about...god was making these people fuck each other as punishment. If they had been gays he was punishing, he would have made them fuck straights.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

If you think marriage is only about procreation you may be right

If you consider a marriage being the state sanctioning the relationship between two consenting adults and providing legal status....the Supreme Court will straighten it out

 

[Seawytch]

If you liked the anti gay rant in the OP video...you should enjoy this one too...(make sure you get all the way to the end)

Missouri Pastor Phil Snider Fiery Controversial Anti Gay Rights Speech

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

If you think marriage is only about procreation you may be right

If you consider a marriage being the state sanctioning the relationship between two consenting adults and providing legal status....the Supreme Court will straighten it out

Marriage was created by God because God said it was not good for man to be alone. So he created Eve as a help mate to Adam. God created man and woman for relationship first with Him and then with each other. Out of the relationship came forth children because God blessed them. As God is the creator of marriage - He is also the One who defines marriage - and God defines marriage as between a man and a woman, RW. There is no getting around that. It is an abomination to ask God to unite two men or two women in holy matrimony. Those who do such a thing are calling for the wrath of God upon their own heads. Why do such a thing? There is only one thing to do. Repent and turn from that sin and ask Jesus Christ to save you. Choose life and live in Him.

 

[mdk]

A short but incoherent rant about marrying brooms/rats and an odd mention of batteries selling out does not an epic speech make. If it does, I guess we can add the word "epic" to the long list of things that ain't what they used to be.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why do we treat ignorance and bigotry...

FIRST RULE of BIGOTRY?

The first to use the word, is a bigot.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Therefore, we can rest assured, that where one is accusing another of being intolerant, THAT... in and of itself is a demonstration of: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

A short but incoherent rant about marrying brooms/rats and an odd mention of batteries selling out does not an epic speech make. If it does, I guess we can add the word "epic" to the long list of things that ain't what they used to be.

His point is what is next? Where does it end?

 

[TemplarKormac]

A short but incoherent rant about marrying brooms/rats and an odd mention of batteries selling out does not an epic speech make. If it does, I guess we can add the word "epic" to the long list of things that ain't what they used to be.

You know, I sit here and consider the irony, that if this man were a black pastor making a "short but incoherent" rant in support of gay marriage, you would be praising him. Hootin' and a hollerin.' On top of that, you call him incoherent. Wait, if I called Obama or any other black liberal that, I would be racist, would I not?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

If you think marriage is only about procreation you may be right

If you consider a marriage being the state sanctioning the relationship between two consenting adults and providing legal status....the Supreme Court will straighten it out

Marriage was created by God because God said it was not good for man to be alone. So he created Eve as a help mate to Adam. God created man and woman for relationship first with Him and then with each other. Out of the relationship came forth children because God blessed them. As God is the creator of marriage - He is also the One who defines marriage - and God defines marriage as between a man and a woman, RW. There is no getting around that. It is an abomination to ask God to unite two men or two women in holy matrimony. Those who do such a thing are calling for the wrath of God upon their own heads. Why do such a thing? There is only one thing to do. Repent and turn from that sin and ask Jesus Christ to save you. Choose life and live in Him.

Which has no bearing on the legal institution of marriage

If your religion says that you must hate fags, then you are free to practice it
You are not free to force the government to accept your hatred

 

[rightwinger]

A short but incoherent rant about marrying brooms/rats and an odd mention of batteries selling out does not an epic speech make. If it does, I guess we can add the word "epic" to the long list of things that ain't what they used to be.

Guess his moral credibility was shot

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So where a Relativist is informed that nature designed the human species... and that the natural design of human physiology therefore defines Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman...

The Relativist, being incapable of discerning objective truth says what?

ROFLMNAO! You Ready?

Remember that Relativism, because it rejects objectivity can NEVER serve JUSTICE...

What does the Relativist say, about the natural, intrinsic design of Human Physiology as it relates to the nucleus of the culture; the most essential element, which DEFINES cultural viability?

Ready?

Which has no bearing on the legal institution of marriage... .

LMAO!

Folks, you can NOT make this crap up!

 

[rightwinger]

So where a Relativist is informed that nature designed the human species... and that the natural design of human physiology therefore defines Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman...

The Relativist, being incapable of discerning objective truth says what?

ROFLMNAO! You Ready?

Remember that Relativism, because it rejects objectivity can NEVER serve JUSTICE...

What does the Relativist say, about the natural, intrinsic design of Human Physiology as it relates to the nucleus of the culture; the most essential element, which DEFINES cultural viability?

Ready?

Which has no bearing on the legal institution of marriage... .

LMAO!

Folks, you can NOT make this crap up!

Your religious based hatred of those different than you has no bearing on our laws

 

[mdk]

A short but incoherent rant about marrying brooms/rats and an odd mention of batteries selling out does not an epic speech make. If it does, I guess we can add the word "epic" to the long list of things that ain't what they used to be.

You know, I sit here and consider the irony, that if this man were a black pastor making a "short but incoherent" rant in support of gay marriage, you would be praising him. Hootin' and a hollerin.' On top of that, you call him incoherent. Wait, if I called Obama or any other black liberal that, I would be racist, would I not?

Yes, if a pastor, black or otherwise, came out and made a incoherent speech in support of gay I would still call it incoherent. Besides, what does batteries allegedly selling out have to do with gay marriage? Nothing.


And no, if you called a speech incoherent that was made by a black liberal or Obama you would not be a racist. Some fool may and try make that claim but it would in fact not make you a racist.

 

[Carla_Danger]

A short but incoherent rant about marrying brooms/rats and an odd mention of batteries selling out does not an epic speech make. If it does, I guess we can add the word "epic" to the long list of things that ain't what they used to be.

You know, I sit here and consider the irony, that if this man were a black pastor making a "short but incoherent" rant in support of gay marriage, you would be praising him. Hootin' and a hollerin.' On top of that, you call him incoherent. Wait, if I called Obama or any other black liberal that, I would be racist, would I not?

Yes, if a pastor, black or otherwise, came out and made a incoherent speech in support of gay I would call it still call it incoherent. Besides, what does batteries allegedly selling out have to do with gay marriage? Nothing.


And no, if you called a speech incoherent that was made by a black liberal or Obama you would not be a racist. Some fool may and try make that claim but it would in fact not make you a racist.

What does the size of their shoes have to do with anything? Did I miss something?

 

[Skylar]

So where a Relativist is informed that nature designed the human species... and that the natural design of human physiology therefore defines Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman...

The Relativist, being incapable of discerning objective truth says what?

ROFLMNAO! You Ready?

Remember that Relativism, because it rejects objectivity can NEVER serve JUSTICE...

What does the Relativist say, about the natural, intrinsic design of Human Physiology as it relates to the nucleus of the culture; the most essential element, which DEFINES cultural viability?

Ready?

Which has no bearing on the legal institution of marriage... .

LMAO!

Folks, you can NOT make this crap up!

Your religious based hatred of those different than you has no bearing on our laws

Have I made any reference to religion?

(The answer is: No! Not a religious word)

But I have referred to the laws of nature, wherein, IRREFUTABLY... Science informs us that the biological composition of the human being, is predicated upon the perpetuation of the species. In short, the fundamental priority of the species is its own propagation, as such determines the viability of the species itself.

And the scientific consensus is, that the propagation of the species is 'super important'.

As a result, the species has within its physiological design, two distinct genders... gender which are designed for no other purpose than the joining of the male with the female body... which forms ONE BODY.

This 'union' is expressed analogically of that natural act in the natural act wherein the male and female join as one entity... that entity is known as "MARRIAGE".

Now what you're demanding here is that we, as a culture, pretend that two men can so join... they cannot. There is no biological construct wherein Men can sustainable join together.

The attempt to do so, is a perversion of human reasoning... thus such represents a disorder of the reasoning typical or normal to humanity, just as the act which attempts to join male with male, not only deviates from the human physiological norm... HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL NORM AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

Now, again, you are asking the culture to accept that SUCH PROFOUND ABNORMALITY in terms of the reasoning which accepts it and the act itself... is perfectly normal.

And THAT is, as noted above: A PRESENTATION OF A MENTAL DISORDER.

Culture's which set government policy upon the output of the disordered mind, have been historically speaking, DESTROYED by the consequences of that insanity.

But you're invited to attempt to provide a rebuttal to that otherwise irrefutable fact, but... you should know that there is no potential to effectively rebut, irrefutable fact.

See how that works?

Your religious beliefs are relative and subjective, Keyes. As you gladly, eagerly ignore any portion of the Bible you don't like. As does any Christian. As does any theist.

Marriage isn't from nature. Nature compels fucking. It doesn't compel marriage, nor defines marriage. We do. Your 'objective' definition is mere cherry picking what you want from nature and ignoring anything you don't. Just like you do your subjective beliefs about religion.

Which is why your appeal to authority is so void of rational merit. As your standard is neither God nor nature, as you ignore any part of either you don't like. Your standard is you and what you want to believe.

Just like any relativist.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your religious beliefs are relative and subjective, Keyes...

Once again... The Perverse Reasoning which Advocates to Normalize Sexual Abnormality finds objective, scientific FACT to be an expression of 'Religion'.

This is the SECOND attempt to fraudulently paint objective, scientific fact as "Religion".

Now Reader, WHY do you think THAT is?