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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Intolerance of intolerance is not bigotry. You moron.

 

[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 does not define murder?

lol, then how is it that one person killing another person, depending on the circumstance, could be liable under the law for a long list of possible consequences,

or, could be liable for no consequences at all?

 

[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

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.

Again with the objective v relativist argument. You're a relativist. You use the processes of relativism, you cherry pick your own sources based on your own judgment, and you use a system of morality that changes with society, culture, history and personal context.

You're literally engaging in the very behavior you're condemning. And you know it. Which is why you avoid any discussion of your own subjectivity. As you know in any debate using logic and reason, you lose.

Even on the 'objectivity of the constitution', you'll gladly wipe your ass with commonly understood terms at the time of the writing of the constitution for whatever you want to believe. Remember your blunders with 'natural born'? Where you ignored English common law and the commonly recognized meaning of the term during the era of the founders.....and insisted that the term could only be understood from the dictionary *today*?

Until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you ignored the dictionary too.

That's not objectivity. That's hopelessly subjective relativism. Where the only standard you use.....is yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Government does not define murder? lol, then how is it that one person killing another person, depending on the circumstance, could be liable under the law for a long list of possible consequences, or, could be liable for no consequences at all?

ROFLMNAO!

OH my! ... you see a definition of murder and you think we came up with that.

You see this: "Sun: any star in the universe similar to the sun, with or without planets." and you say "We did that! We created the heavens... Aren't we a powerful!?"

Which is a most delicious irony, given that you were in the "If you own a business, you didn't build that..." herd.

In truth, we observe the laws of nature, which is to say God's Law and we set them into our laws.

In truth, you cherry pick the laws of nature. And ignore whatever you don't like. For example: in nature there is rampant predation of the sick and the old.

Would then predation on the sick and the old be 'natural law' and thus a demonstration of 'god's law'?

Of course not. Because you don't like predation on the sick and old. Thus, you ignore it entirely. As you do any part of nature that doesn't conform to what you already believe. Just as you ignore any part of the bible that doesn't conform to what you already believe.

Eliminating both nature and god as your 'authority'. Your only authority is yourself. Where you apply your own judgment, your own beliefs, your own culture, your own history, the influences of your society and your own personal context to cherry pick what you want to believe.

Um, that's not 'objectivity'. That's subjective relativism. And its the beating heart of your belief system.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Intolerance of intolerance is not bigotry. You moron.

Wow~ Now THAT is stunning.

Reader, do you see how the subject contributor has determined that because of her own cultural, societal, historical and personal context, "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from themselves..." does not apply to her and people who hold her opinions.

This is a perverse species of reasoning known as Relativism. It is the same intellectual deviancy which finds sexual abnormality to be 'perfectly normal' ... and it is a highly destructive disorder of the human mind.

For those unfamiliar with it, 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.

 

[Skylar]

For those unfamiliar with it, 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.

But you don't use objective standards, Keyes. You use subjective standards. You claim that 'observations of nature' are the basis of your beliefs. But that's clearly nonsense. As you ignore any portion of nature that you don't like, even if the behavior in question is rampant.

Such as.....predation of the sick and old. Its a regular occurrence in nature. But plays no part in your 'natural laaw' or your conception of 'God's law'. If nature is the authority you're appealing to, then anything that occurs in nature would be as valid as anything else.

But you cherry pick. Selecting those portions of nature that conform to what you already believe. And ignoring anything that doesn't. That's not objectivity. That's subjectivity. That's the cherry picking fallacy. And confirmation bias. Your process is the logical fallacy gift basket.

You do the same thing with the Bible. The Bible clearly calls for gay men engaged in sodomy to be killed. But you 'interpret around' that portion of the Bible, ignoring its call for execution. Why? Because you don't like it.

The Puritans executed for sodomy and adultery.

The Founders executed for sodomy but not adultery.

Modern Christians don't execute for either. Or call for the executions for either. Nor do you.

Did God change in the last 400 years? Or did religious beliefs change in line with history, culture, society and personal context? You know the answer. But you run from it as it demonstrates the absurdity of religion as an 'objective' basis of morality. As religion is subject to all the processes of relativism.

You're a subjective relativist, Keyes. And your 'objective morality' is just an empty appeal to authority. An authority you'll gladly ignore whenever its inconvenient to your argument.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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?

No.

Why would you think that?

Calling someone incoherent because of what they say is not racist, regardless of whether the person is white or black.

 

[Syriusly]

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'.

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

Marriage is entirely a human invention.

Marriage has nothing to do with 'natural design'.

But that would be a great argument if you were trying to argue in favor of polygamy......

 

[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.

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?

No.

Why would you think that?

Calling someone incoherent because of what they say is not racist, regardless of whether the person is white or black.

Then why do I ask is that the reaction from a liberal? If you put down a black man in front of one, they scream racism. Do you not see your own double standards sitting before you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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'.

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

Marriage is entirely a human invention.

Marriage has nothing to do with 'natural design'.

But that would be a great argument if you were trying to argue in favor of polygamy......

'Natural design' says that our species perpetuates itself via asexual reproduction, via a male/female relationship. Hence why humans feel the need to bond, i.e. Marriage. So, where does that leave you?

Homosexuality is an anomaly in our species, a recessive trait, it probably isn't even genetic, since I've seen women who have been severely abused by their husbands suddenly switch to being lesbians because of that experience.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Government does not define murder? lol, then how is it that one person killing another person, depending on the circumstance, could be liable under the law for a long list of possible consequences, or, could be liable for no consequences at all?

ROFLMNAO!

OH my! ... you see a definition of murder and you think we came up with that.

You see this: "Sun: any star in the universe similar to the sun, with or without planets." and you say "We did that! We created the heavens... Aren't we a powerful! thing?"

Which is a most delicious irony, given that you were counted among the "If you own a business, you didn't build that..." herd.

In truth, we observe the laws of nature, which is to say God's Law and we set them into our laws.

We do this through objective reasoning, so... in FAIRNESS... as a Leftist, there is NO WAY that you could have known that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Intolerance of intolerance is not bigotry. You moron.

Wow~ Now THAT is stunning.

Reader, do you see how the subject contributor has determined that because of her own cultural, societal, historical and personal context, "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from themselves..." does not apply to her and people who hold her opinions.

This is a perverse species of reasoning known as Relativism. It is the same intellectual deviancy which finds sexual abnormality to be 'perfectly normal' ... and it is a highly destructive disorder of the human mind.

For those unfamiliar with it, 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.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Ahh... So once again, what we see is a person who is Intolerant of the differing ideas of others... who feels that marriage is a product, a contract designed by man and where such benefits one group over another that such is not FAIR... and this you have concluded from your own associations, born from your own relative experiences?

Which is to say that your feelings rests upon your own cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such, Marriage can never be something resting upon soundly reasoned absolutes, because that would set it above your perverse notions of 'fairness'?

(The Reader should know that THIS is the EXACT SAME PREMISE that was recently applied to the financial markets and resulted in fairly short order, in the catastrophic failure of those markets and so far, 8 years of international economic depression have been set upon us for our having allowed it.

And HERE we find the same would-be 'people', advocating that such should be applied to the nucleus, or core of civilization itself... of course, adults disagree, as such may well be the worst thing that the human mind has ever devised... with the consequences of such being beyond the scope of the mind to so much as even comprehend.)

Oh! Now THAT is fascinatin'.

It truly is... because you see at that point, the Reader should readily recognize that the species of reasoning being applied here is that of the lowly Relativist. Which we recently learned provided for the rationalization wherein you find yourself to be something well beyond a bigot, and as would be expected in such a circumstance, you're wholly incapable of recognizing such.

Oh well... setting aside that presentation of delusion, Marriage is the inevitable 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 and mentally disordered to attempt the debate of such.

Sadly, 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 cognitive deviancy, or intellectual perversion.

Such is the nature of Relativism. It's the product of a diseased mind... and the tolerance of such 'ideas' have wrought destruction on untold numbers of cultures which have long since slipped into history... with no less than two examples of such, in our own time; The USSR and The Third Reich of Germany. With both having been built upon Relativism, their historical paths each, respectively... resulted in the mass-murder of Tens of Millions of innocent people; consequently resulting the planetary contest of their existence, due to the evil that each represented, thus in their respective destruction.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Ahh... So once again, what we see is a person who is Intolerant of the differing ideas of others... who feels that marriage is a product, a contract designed by man and where such benefits one group over another that such is not FAIR... and this you have concluded from your own associations, born from your own relative experiences?

..in comparison to what? Your subjective, relativistic cherry picking of your appeals to authority where you claim to speak for nature, god and objective truth?

Um, that's not objectivity. That's relativistic subjectivity. As you well know.....avoiding the topic like it were on fire.

Which is to say that your feelings rests upon your own cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such, Marriage can never be something resting upon soundly reasoned absolutes, because that would set it above your perverse notions of 'fairness'?

As does your beliefs.

Why don't you call for the execution of gays and adulterers despite the Bible clearly commanding it? You've interpreted around it. Putting your judgment above a direct commandment of what you believe to be god.

Why don't you recognize predation on the sick and old as 'natural law' and 'god's law', despite it being rampant in nature? You don't like it. So you ignore any portion of nature you don't like.

And the basis of cherry picking you use.....is your own cultural, societal, historical and personal context. Your authority is you. As you'll ignore any portion of your supposed 'authority' you don't like.

That's not objective. But subjective.

 

[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'.

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

Marriage is entirely a human invention.

Marriage has nothing to do with 'natural design'.

But that would be a great argument if you were trying to argue in favor of polygamy......

'Natural design' says that our species perpetuates itself via asexual reproduction, via a male/female relationship. Hence why humans feel the need to bond, i.e. Marriage. So, where does that leave you?

Nature doesn't have marriage. Nature has fucking. We invented marriage. And sometimes its one man and one woman. Sometimes one man and many women. And in 37 of 50 States, two men and no women. Or two women and no men.

As marriage is our construct, it can mean whatever we want it to mean to serve whatever purposses we see fit. It can have multiple valid bases. And as all the infertile and childless couples 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.

Why then would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

 

[Silhouette]

Nature doesn't have marriage. Nature has fucking. We invented marriage. And sometimes its one man and one woman. Sometimes one man and many women. And in 37 of 50 States, two men and no women. Or two women and no men.

As marriage is our construct, it can mean whatever we want it to mean to serve whatever purposses we see fit. It can have multiple valid bases. And as all the infertile and childless couples 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.

Why then would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

I'm glad you've finally conceded that marriage is a man made construct and as such is subject not as a "right for all to enjoy" but as a privelege that only a few who qualify may enjoy...as set by majority regulation at the state level.. "We" in the United States means "the Majority of the governed" of the separate states.

..and why is it a man made construct? Because long, long LOOONNG ago people realized that children need a best and stable environment in which to thrive so they could survive to adulthood as sane, productive members of society.

With that in mind, the Prince's Trust survey spells out just how damaging to 50% of kids caught up in the gay lifestyle such experimental "marriages" can be: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[SwimExpert]

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

Bravo to this man for showing us everything wrong with our country today.

 

[Skylar]

Nature doesn't have marriage. Nature has fucking. We invented marriage. And sometimes its one man and one woman. Sometimes one man and many women. And in 37 of 50 States, two men and no women. Or two women and no men.

As marriage is our construct, it can mean whatever we want it to mean to serve whatever purposses we see fit. It can have multiple valid bases. And as all the infertile and childless couples 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.

Why then would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

I'm glad you've finally conceded that marriage is a man made construct and as such is subject not as a "right for all to enjoy" but as a privelege that only a few who qualify may enjoy...as set by majority regulation at the state level.. "We" in the United States means "the Majority of the governed" of the separate states.

Under our constitution, marriage a right.

You can disagree. But neither I nor the courts give a shit. Marriage is still a recognized right.

..and why is it a man made construct? Because long, long LOOONNG ago people realized that children need a best and stable environment in which to thrive so they could survive to adulthood as sane, productive members of society.

And under our system of law, there's no requirement to have children or be able to have children in order to get married. Meaning there's a perfectly valid basis of marriage today that has nothing to do with kids.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

I've never gotten a good answer to that question. As there is none.

With that in mind, the Prince's Trust survey spells out just how damaging to 50% of kids caught up in the gay lifestyle such experimental "marriages" can be: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Prince Trust study never even mentions same sex parenting, gay marriage or measures the effects of any parenting.

You're citing yourself. And like your insistence that marriage is a privilege and not a right, neither I nor the courts give a shit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Puritans executed for sodomy and adultery.

The Founders executed for sodomy but not adultery.

Modern Christians don't execute for either. Or call for the executions for either. Nor do you.

Hmm... Now let's see... The Puritans executed for sodomy and adultery, and this on the basis that such was a manifestation of evil and destructive to the community.

Then... because of the dire nature of that reasoning, some came to 'feel' that those laws were too harsh. And the law was liberalized and the executions of both sodomites and adulterers were set aside.

Now... God's law, being objective, determined that homosexuality and adultery were destructive to mankind, thus destructive to civilization. Over time, SUBJECTIVE PEOPLE liberalized the enforcement of God's law.

Now... Objectivity was set aside for the easier subjectivity, on the premise that the objectivity was too harsh and the threats claimed by God's objective law were overstated, that sodomy and adultery were not as destructive as God claimed they were and that by Liberalizing the culture's enforcement, the culture would not see an increase in either.

So... the question is, which was true? God's Objective Law or The Liberal Subjective reduction in the enforcement of those laws?

Which is fairly easy to determine...

Let's consult the reader, shall we?

Reader:

In your own observation of the passing cultural scene, do you find that the liberalization of the sodomy laws, have increased or decreased the effect that sodomites have on your culture?

Have the removal of laws against Adultery; which existed and passed from existence long before you or I were born... did removing those laws cause the culture to see in increase in adultery or a decrease...

Another way to look at it, is have families been made stronger or weaker by the subjective removal of the cultural discipline against sodomy and adultery?

Which at the end of the day, simply brings us to which, objective reasoning or subjective reasoning... which has served the culture better?

Now... you should prepare yourself for the Relativists onslaught, wherein they rain hate upon those with opinions different from them. Where they claim a right to undermine the viability of your culture, by demanding that their deviancy is perfectly normal and that YOU are a deviant for not accepting them as normal... that THEY have the right to their life, as they live it, to force perversion on you and your children, to undermine the legitimacy of your marriage, by forcing marriage to accept illegitimacy... to promote the acceptance of infidelity and the endless other examples of sexual abnormality as perfectly NORMAL!

In truth, God has not changed, thus as I have stated time and again, Nature is objective... and the concerted studied and adherence to nature; OKA: Religion is likewise OBJECTIVE.

This while the nature of the human being is SUBJECTIVE...

The former viable, the objectivity the essential element which sustains that viability, with the latter being destructive... .

Thus the necessity for the human being to focus upon the objectivity in nature, through the study of such; religion... which by virtue of the nature of the inherent evil common to humanity, can only slow the decay... what the above cited contributor is doing is what that evil does... conflating truth with falsity, demanding that the objectivity of natural law, equates with the human subjectivity... which is a deceit, fraudulently advanced, as a means to influence the ignorant.

To know the truth, you need simply ask yourself, if the liberalization of sodomy and adultery laws have improved the culture or made things worse.

Now here is the best part... You know that such have not made the culture worse, but made the culture MUCH WORSE.

Where you recognize the obvious, and perhaps... despite your own experience in adultery and/or sodomy such has been destructive to you and your own life... you're practicing objective reasoning.

Where you see the obvious and rationalize that adultery has not been destructive and that removal of sodomy laws has not caused the sodomites to further infect the culture with their perverse reasoning... you're practicing subjective reasoning, OKA: Delusion... a presentation of psychosis, AKA: A mental disorder... .

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is entirely a human invention.

Marriage is the natural consequence of the natural design intrinsic to human physiology. Wherein one man and one woman join together, analogous to sustainable coitus, forming one entity.