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

[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?

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?

If you feel mentioning shoe sizes and batteries when discussing gay marriage makes a coherent and epic speech than have it mate.

You're trying terribly hard to make my post something that it is not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you believe that marriage is one man one woman by the dictates of Nature, and you believe that Nature can dictate the law to our government,

then you can't let the States decide the marriage question.

 

[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.

Polygamy most likely existed in nature in the most primitive societies of humans. Your 'nature' argument can't be logical if you reject the natural occurrence of polygamy among the primates,

including humans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since some here are pretending they're making 'scientific' arguments:

Polygamy left its mark on the human genome - life - 26 September 2008 - New Scientist

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Irrelevant.

The issue is solely legal, having nothing to do with religion

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.



I tell you what, hoss, Duracell didn't have no batteries on the shelf that morning.

"I know Alabama pay [sic] a lotta money yesterday. I know somebody else who paid a lotta money too: Duracell ain't got no batteries on the shelf this morning. All 'them batteries gone. I tried to find a battery for my radio this morning, couldn't find there [sic] nowhere. I said, "what happened?" They said, "Rev, them done bought all the batteries last night, they celebrated some kind of way, just bought all the batteries." I don't know what they do to batteries, but I mo preach.. I ain't going there. I don't know what they did with all them batteries."

-2:19 through 2:45

Studies have proven the overwhelming majority of self-described homophobes are closeted homosexuals. Given how many pastors there are, but how few do this sort of thing, the ones who do are worth closer scrutiny.

Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn Psychology Today

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

Irrelevant.

The issue is solely legal, having nothing to do with religion

I agree with you that it has nothing to do with religion. It's a legal issue based on the Law Book of all Law Books! The Holy Bible! If the people disregard it? They are asking for judgment to follow. It is that simple, Clayton. This nation was dedicated to God at Ground Zero location - by George Washington many years ago! God has not forgotten that! It does appear many in this generation have! Too bad! God changes not!
He's the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Word! Heaven and earth may pass away but God's Word will NEVER pass away! Keep the Commandments of God and obey Him. Not the latest fad coming down the pike.

 

[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.

Human 'reasoning' when coupled with the laws of nature should logically conclude that the strongest smartest men should reproduce the most relative to their weaker male counterparts.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Irrelevant.

The issue is solely legal, having nothing to do with religion

I agree with you that it has nothing to do with religion. It's a legal issue based on the Law Book of all Law Books! The Holy Bible! If the people disregard it? They are asking for judgment to follow. It is that simple, Clayton. This nation was dedicated to God at Ground Zero location - by George Washington many years ago! God has not forgotten that! It does appear many in this generation have! Too bad! God changes not!
He's the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Word! Heaven and earth may pass away but God's Word will NEVER pass away! Keep the Commandments of God and obey Him. Not the latest fad coming down the pike.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Polygamy most likely existed in nature in the most primitive societies of humans. Your 'nature' argument can't be logical if you reject the natural occurrence of polygamy among the primates,

including humans.

Humans don't live by "nature's law", period. We don't kill our weak and sick. We fly and wear clothing. We cook our food...so many "unnatural" things.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Polygamy most likely existed in nature in the most primitive societies of humans. Your 'nature' argument can't be logical if you reject the natural occurrence of polygamy among the primates,

including humans.

Humans don't live by "nature's law", period. We don't kill our weak and sick. We fly and wear clothing. We cook our food...so many "unnatural" things.

And that's exactly my point. 'Nature' is like the 'Bible' is like 'God' for these folks: just another source to cherry pick. You don't like predation on the weak and sick? You can omit it from 'natural law'. Don't like the call for execution for sodomy? Interpret around it in your citations of the Bible.

When you can arbitrarily ignore any portion of your 'authority' that you don't like, your source isn't the 'authority'.

Its yourself.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

If you feel mentioning shoe sizes and batteries when discussing gay marriage makes a coherent and epic speech than have it mate.

You're trying terribly hard to make my post something that it is not.

I think you tried to do that to my thread buddy. You are being as obfuscatory as you can be.

 

[beagle9]

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

You say this as if you control the laws or as if the laws belong to you and those who think like you. I hate to be the one who tells you, but the libs don't have copyrights on the laws or the judicial.

 

[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

You say this as if you control the laws or as if the laws belong to you and those who think like you. I hate to be the one who tells you, but the libs don't have copyrights on the laws or the judicial.

Maybe not.....but the constitution does

Where the religious freaks fall short

 

[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!

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

You say this as if you control the laws or as if the laws belong to you and those who think like you. I hate to be the one who tells you, but the libs don't have copyrights on the laws or the judiciary.

Maybe not.....but the constitution does

Where the religious freaks fall short

But Left-think rejects the Objectivity intrinsic to the viability of the Constitution. Understand... absent objectivity, the Constitution is meaningless, as is the legal code and any other instrument of sound governance, etc.

But that is common sense, founded in objective reason and as a Relativist, there is NO WAY you could have known that.

 

[JoeB131]

Marriage was created by God because God said it was not good for man to be alone.

Then why do Marriages exist before the Hebrew god was invented?

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.

Nobody is asking your Imaginary Sky Pixie to do anything. frankly, God is a personal thing for people. Some people believe in a God who is totally cool with the gays...

 

[JoeB131]

We need to stop calling people like this "christian" - they are a twisted version of christianity, like Isil is a twisted version of Islam.

But here's the problem. When you have a book like the BIble or the Koran with a bunch of stuff in there, crazy people can cherry pick to justify whatever bad behavior they want.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

To be fair I don't hear fags bitching about christians or their lifestyles. Can't say the same thing from the opposite perspective

Your'e joking, right? Gays complain every time Christians point out tat homosexuality is a sin.

Reread what you just wrote to me slowly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

You say this as if you control the laws or as if the laws belong to you and those who think like you. I hate to be the one who tells you, but the libs don't have copyrights on the laws or the judiciary.

Maybe not.....but the constitution does

Where the religious freaks fall short

But Left-think rejects the Objectivity intrinsic to the viability of the Constitution. Understand... absent objectivity, the Constitution is meaningless, as is the legal code and any other instrument of sound governance, etc.

But that is common sense, founded in objective reason and as a Relativist, there is NO WAY you could have known that.

All government put in place by votes is subjective.

 

[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'.

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!

Marriage is a legal contract that if offered to persons of a certain category must be offered to all persons in that category under equal protection rights. The category of two persons of the same sex is sufficiently similar to the category of two persons of the opposite sex to qualify it for equal protection.