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

[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'.

Marriage isn't a 'scientific fact'.

False...

Marriage is the natural consequence of the natural design intrinsic to human physiology.

Such is not even a remotely debatable fact... with the chronic attempt by the intellectually less fortunate, to attempt to debate such.

But again, the reason that they cannot accept this incontestable, self-evident truth, is that they suffer the consequences of a disordered mind; their intellectual operating systems deviates significantly from that required to reason soundly; thus their means to reason is addled by this profound deviancy, or intellectual perversion.

You are not married are you?

Marriage is about a relationship between two people that love each other. A committment to a lifelong relationship

There are no societal or religious requirement to have children

Oh! Looky here... A deflection from the standing points! Thus demonstrating the contributor yielding to those standing points.

Contributor: Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

There is nothing abnormal about homosexual sex.

So... then what would be the purpose behind the word: Homosexual?

I mean if homosexual is normal... There would be no reason for the word, would there? Because, homosexual would just be 'sexual'.

YET! There is the word.

(Of course, in TRUTH, not only does homosexuality deviate from the human physiological norm... HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT NORM: AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.)

That's the most retarded argument I've read all year so far, and since this is USMB, that's saying a lot.

Why do we have the word Catholic, if being a Catholic Christian is 'normal'? Wouldn't we just call them 'Christians'?

See how THAT works?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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?

There is nothing abnormal about homosexual sex. Why not just call them homosexuals?

So... then what would be the purpose behind the word: Homosexual?

I mean if homosexual is normal... There would be no reason for the word, would there? Because, homosexual would just be 'sexual'.

YET! There is the word.

(Of course, in TRUTH, not only does homosexuality deviate from the human physiological norm... HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT NORM: AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.)

That's the most retarded argument I've read all year so far, and since this is USMB, that's saying a lot.

Why do we have the word Catholic, if being a Catholic Christian is 'normal'? Wouldn't we just call them 'Christians'?

See how THAT works?

Why do we have top or bottom homosexuals? AHAHAHAHA

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Gosh darn it. If the gubmint stopped protecting and defining marriage for us, people will stop marrying and having kids!!!

The Government does not define marriage. Just as it does not define murder, theft, dishonesty, dishonor, libel, etc... Nature defines these things.

Government, being comprised of human beings, merely observes the natural laws that define such and recognizes such in its legal code.

If nature defined people as homosexual....who are we to argue?

Once again dear Reader, we're treated to a demonstration of the perversion of human reasoning which Advocates to Normalize Abnormality.

By the above cited reasoning, humanity should also not argue with nature's design of Breast Cancer or other such abnormalities which deviate from the human physiological norm? 'We should just accept it as being 'part of who and what we are and move on... .'

 

[rightwinger]

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'.

Marriage isn't a 'scientific fact'.

False...

Marriage is the natural consequence of the natural design intrinsic to human physiology.

Such is not even a remotely debatable fact... with the chronic attempt by the intellectually less fortunate, to attempt to debate such.

But again, the reason that they cannot accept this incontestable, self-evident truth, is that they suffer the consequences of a disordered mind; their intellectual operating systems deviates significantly from that required to reason soundly; thus their means to reason is addled by this profound deviancy, or intellectual perversion.

You are not married are you?

Marriage is about a relationship between two people that love each other. A committment to a lifelong relationship

There are no societal or religious requirement to have children

Oh! Looky here... A deflection from the standing points! Thus demonstrating the contributor yielding to those standing points.

Contributor: Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted!

You aren't married are you?

You demonstrate no understanding of relationships

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gosh darn it. If the gubmint stopped protecting and defining marriage for us, people will stop marrying and having kids!!!

The Government does not define marriage. Just as it does not define murder, theft, dishonesty, dishonor, libel, etc... Nature defines these things.

Government, being comprised of human beings, merely observes the natural laws that define such and recognizes such in its legal code.

Government defines legal marriage.

Polygamy is natural marriage by the way.

 

[rightwinger]

Gosh darn it. If the gubmint stopped protecting and defining marriage for us, people will stop marrying and having kids!!!

The Government does not define marriage. Just as it does not define murder, theft, dishonesty, dishonor, libel, etc... Nature defines these things.

Government, being comprised of human beings, merely observes the natural laws that define such and recognizes such in its legal code.

If nature defined people as homosexual....who are we to argue?

Once again dear Reader, we're treated to a demonstration of the perversion of human reasoning which Advocates to Normalize Abnormality.

By the above cited reasoning, humanity should also not argue with nature's design of Breast Cancer or other such abnormalities which deviate from the human physiological norm? 'We should just accept it as being 'part of who and what we are and move on... .'

Homosexuality is not a disease

Try again

 

[NYcarbineer]

If heterosexual sex between married couples only when trying to reproduce were the only real 'normal',

then practically no one is normal.

 

[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?

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.

Well then,I suggest you learn to apply those standards to your detractors.

 

[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?

There is nothing abnormal about homosexual sex.

So... then what would be the purpose behind the word: Homosexual?

I mean if homosexual is normal... There would be no reason for the word, would there? Because, homosexual would just be 'sexual'.

YET! There is the word.

(Of course, in TRUTH, not only does homosexuality deviate from the human physiological norm... HOMOSEXUALITY DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THAT NORM: AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.)

That's the most retarded argument I've read all year so far, and since this is USMB, that's saying a lot.

Why do we have the word Catholic, if being a Catholic Christian is 'normal'? Wouldn't we just call them 'Christians'?

See how THAT works?

We have the word Catholic, because that is what the romans called Christians.

Of course... "Rome" was a state which normalized Homosexuality... and since ya brought it up, prior to Rome doing so, Rome controlled the civilized world.

Since it normalized Sexual Abnormality however, Rome is but a tiny, run down urban zone in an otherwise irrelevant nation...

ROFLMNAO!

So catastrophic was the normalization of abnormality to Rome, that it was DEFEATED AND CONQUERED BY ILLITERATES.

Thank you for bringing that up. EXCELLENT demonstration of 'why' the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is FOOLISH beyond measure.

(Except where the goal is to reduce the United States to being addled to the degree that illiterate hordes will defeat it... If such is one's goal.... THAT would be a SUPER IDEA!)

 

[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.

Well then,I suggest you learn to apply those standards to your detractors.

How am I not applying those standards to my detractors?

 

[Skylar]

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'.

Marriage isn't a 'scientific fact'.

False...

Marriage is the natural consequence of the natural design intrinsic to human physiology.

Says you. Back in reality, marriage doesn't exist in nature. Fucking does. We invented marriage, and we define marriage. It is whatever we agree it is.

Marriage has been defined as a financial arraignment, an arrangement of ownership, determined by the individuals involved or determined by families, involving 2 partners or dozens, all depending on the circumstances and culture.

With the millions of infertile and childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrates, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them in our culture.

Such is not even a remotely debatable fact... with the chronic attempt by the intellectually less fortunate, to attempt to debate such.

Obvious nonsense. As demonstrated above.

But again, the reason that they cannot accept this incontestable, self-evident truth, is that they suffer the consequences of a disordered mind; their intellectual operating systems deviates significantly from that required to reason soundly; thus their means to reason is addled by this profound deviancy, or intellectual perversion.

More accurately, I reject your subjective, relativistic assumptions as they are void of a sound logical or rational basis.

Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Thus, its irrational to conclude that marriage is defined by nature. Worse, there are millions upon millions of couples that are married....and explicitly contradict your assumptions. And millennia of historic examples that don't comply with your assumptions. Invalidating your claims both practically and logically.

....yet again.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If heterosexual sex between married couples only when trying to reproduce were the only real 'normal',

then practically no one is normal.

The reader should understand that what the contributor cited above is trying to convey, is that 'Because Sex "feels good", that means that humanity should set aside all discipline regarding such and 'do it', whenever one can, with whomever will allow one to 'do it' to....

Extrapolate that reasoning to anything... and what you will get is limited to: Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe.

In effect, what the individual is claiming is that humanity needs to stop being concerned with the physiological function of intercourse... the mind-numbing responsibilities intrinsic to such are not 'responsibilities' at all... but merely social contrivances designed to control the masses, or some such drivel.

Again... all the individual is conveying is a perversion of human reasoning, which leads ONLY to disaster, first personal disaster, then by extension, cultural disaster.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says you.

Says nature... .

 

[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?

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.

Well then,I suggest you learn to apply those standards to your detractors.

How am I not applying those standards to my detractors?

These combined responses to my thread by people similar to yourself, your reaction to the speech. You called it 'incoherent' yet the rest of us understood it just fine. Your response to said speech indicated your intolerance, and therefore suggested to me your standards only work one way. Clear?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Gosh darn it. If the gubmint stopped protecting and defining marriage for us, people will stop marrying and having kids!!!

The Government does not define marriage. Just as it does not define murder, theft, dishonesty, dishonor, libel, etc... Nature defines these things.

Government, being comprised of human beings, merely observes the natural laws that define such and recognizes such in its legal code.

Government defines legal marriage.

Nature defines Marriage. Government merely recognizes the natural defining attributes of such and establishes law to preclude perverse reasoning from separating the culture from the viability inherent in those natural laws.

Polygamy is natural marriage by the way.

Polygamy is a consequence of the perversion of human reasoning, which rejects the defining laws of nature.

 

[rightwinger]

So what are the reasons against gay marriage?

People marrying their dogs and batteries

 

[Skylar]

Says you.

Says nature... .

Says you, cherry picking what you want from nature, and ignoring what you don't. As relativists like yourself have done for millennia.

Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Absolutely destroying your latest appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gosh darn it. If the gubmint stopped protecting and defining marriage for us, people will stop marrying and having kids!!!

The Government does not define marriage. Just as it does not define murder, theft, dishonesty, dishonor, libel, etc... Nature defines these things.

Government, being comprised of human beings, merely observes the natural laws that define such and recognizes such in its legal code.

Government defines legal marriage.

Nature defines Marriage. Government merely recognizes the natural defining attributes of such and establishes law to preclude perverse reasoning from separating the culture from the viability inherent in those natural laws.

Polygamy is natural marriage by the way.

Polygamy is a consequence of the perversion of human reasoning, which rejects the defining laws of nature.

Homosexuality a natural condition among humans. It is natural for human societies to have a minority population within them that are homosexual.

If nature is the issue then homosexuals have a natural right to their orientation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gosh darn it. If the gubmint stopped protecting and defining marriage for us, people will stop marrying and having kids!!!

The Government does not define marriage. Just as it does not define murder, theft, dishonesty, dishonor, libel, etc... Nature defines these things.

Government, being comprised of human beings, merely observes the natural laws that define such and recognizes such in its legal code.

Government defines legal marriage.

Nature defines Marriage. Government merely recognizes the natural defining attributes of such and establishes law to preclude perverse reasoning from separating the culture from the viability inherent in those natural laws.

Polygamy is natural marriage by the way.

Polygamy is a consequence of the perversion of human reasoning, which rejects the defining laws of nature.

Everyone knows a homosexual couple who live in a defacto married relationship, regardless of the law. They are by NATURE oriented to same sex marriage.

Is that your argument?