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

[Skylar]

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.

The Puritans specifically cited the Bible and its commandments for the reason they executed both adulterers and those engaged in sodomy.

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.

The 'dire nature of that reasoning' being that the Bible commanded it.

So did the Bible change? Did God's law? Or did religion change with history, society, culture and personal context?

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.

So the Puritans had it right? We should be executing gays and adulterers?

Because you've said no in the past. Did you change your mind? Or did God's law change since last time you addressed this issue?

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.

If its God's law that we should kill adulterers and homosexuals, just say so. If it isn't, then what about God's law changed from the Puritans era to now?

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

God's objective law....according to who? You? The Puritans? The Founders? The Buddhists? The Muslims? The Maya? The Zoroastrians? The Hindus? The Aztecs? The Shintoists?

You'll need to get a little more specific on which 'God's law' you're referring to. And which god. As there are millions of them. And they change over time. So you'll probably need to give us a time period too.

Which is fairly easy to determine...

As the millennia of religious wars, wildly different differing religious beliefs, wildly different conceptions of god, different sects and changing religious interpretations within the same sect demonstrate.....its clearly not as easy as you imagine.

Oh, and you'll also need to explain why you ignore your OTHER appeal to authority: nature. Predation on the sick and the weak happens regularly in nature. Is predation on the sick and the weak thus 'natural law' and consequently 'God's law'?

If not, why not? If you're just ignoring any portion of nature that doesn't match what you already believe, then clearly 'nature' isn't your authority. What you already believe is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Under our constitution, marriage a right.

Yes.. it is. And as with every right, such is sustained only through the bearing of the responsibilities intrinsic to that right.

In the right to be married, one is required to bear the responsibility to pursue such through the adherence to the standards which define marriage.

SO ... yes, you have a right to marry, as long as you apply for such with a willing person of the distinct gender, as the natural standards of marriage require.

You do NOT have a right to redefine the standards of marriage, toward your pursuit of legitimacy as a result of your illegitimate existence.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

There is nothing 'natural' about marriage.

Chimps have the same physiology- and not only do not marry, they are indiscrimately promiscuous.
Gorillas have the same sexual biology- and not only do not marry, they form polygamous family groups.
Orangutans have the same sexual physiology- and not only do not marry, they mate and then separate.

Humans invented marriage- which is why marriage has existed in many forms.

 

[Skylar]

Yes.. it is. And as with every right, such is sustained only through the bearing of the responsibilities intrinsic to that right.

In the right to be married, one is required to bear the responsibility to pursue such through the adherence to the standards which define marriage.

And we define those standards, as marriage is our invention. It is what we say it is.

SO ... yes, you have a right to marry, as long as you apply for such with a willing person of the distinct gender, as the natural standards of marriage require.

As marriage doesn't exist in nature, there are no 'natural standards' of marriage. Marriage is our invention. And thus, we define it encompass whatever bases see fit, to suit whatever purposes we see fit.

You do NOT have a right to redefine the standards of marriage, toward your pursuit of legitimacy as a result of your illegitimate existence.

I'm not citing me. I'm citing the federal judiciary. And they most definitely have the authority to protect rights. Including the right to marry.

And they aren't bound by your personal opinions. But instead, their interpretations of the constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Marriage is a man made construct- and it is also a right, not a privalege.

Why do you keep lying about marriage merely being a privelege?


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Skylar]

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.

The Puritans specifically cited the Bible and its commandments for the reason they executed both adulterers and those engaged in sodomy.

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.

The 'dire nature of that reasoning' being that the Bible commanded it.

So did the Bible change? Did God's law? Or did religion change with history, society, culture and personal context?

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.

So the Puritans had it right? We should be executing gays and adulterers?

Because you've said no in the past. Did you change your mind? Or did God's law change since last time you addressed this issue?

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.

If its God's law that we should kill adulterers and homosexuals, just say so. If it isn't, then what about God's law changed from the Puritans era to now?

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

God's objective law....according to who? You? The Puritans? The Founders? The Buddhists? The Muslims? The Maya? The Zoroastrians? The Hindus? The Aztecs? The Shintoists?

You'll need to get a little more specific on which 'God's law' you're referring to. And which god. As there are millions of them. And they change over time. So you'll probably need to give us a time period too.

Which is fairly easy to determine...

As the millennia of religious wars, wildly differing religious beliefs, wildly different conceptions of god, different sects and changing religious interpretations within the same sect demonstrate.....its clearly not as easy as you imagine.

Oh, and you'll also need to explain why you ignore your OTHER appeal to authority: nature. Predation on the sick and the weak happens regularly in nature. Is predation on the sick and the weak thus 'natural law' and consequently 'God's law'?

If not, why not? If you're just ignoring any portion of nature that doesn't match what you already believe, then clearly 'nature' isn't your authority. What you already believe is.

 

[Skylar]

(The Reader should note that Keyes can't answer any questions related to his post, nor can he resolve the factual errors nor the gross fallacies of logic. Which is why he keeps repeating the same post over....and over.... and over...

If his argument worked, Keyes wouldn't have to run from these inconsistencies and logical failures. Yet he must. )

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.

The Puritans specifically cited the Bible and its commandments for the reason they executed both adulterers and those engaged in sodomy.

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.

The 'dire nature of that reasoning' being that the Bible commanded it.

So did the Bible change? Did God's law? Or did religion change with history, society, culture and personal context?

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.

So the Puritans had it right? We should be executing gays and adulterers?

Because you've said no in the past. Did you change your mind? Or did God's law change since last time you addressed this issue?

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.

If its God's law that we should kill adulterers and homosexuals, just say so. If it isn't, then what about God's law changed from the Puritans era to now?

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

God's objective law....according to who? You? The Puritans? The Founders? The Buddhists? The Muslims? The Maya? The Zoroastrians? The Hindus? The Aztecs? The Shintoists?

You'll need to get a little more specific on which 'God's law' you're referring to. And which god. As there are millions of them. And they change over time. So you'll probably need to give us a time period too.

Which is fairly easy to determine...

As the millennia of religious wars, wildly different religious beliefs, wildly different conceptions of god, different sects and changing religious interpretations within the same sect demonstrate.....its clearly not as easy as you imagine.

Oh, and you'll also need to explain why you ignore your OTHER appeal to authority: nature. Predation on the sick and the weak happens regularly in nature. Is predation on the sick and the weak thus 'natural law' and consequently 'God's law'?

If not, why not? If you're just ignoring any portion of nature that doesn't match what you already believe, then clearly 'nature' isn't your authority. What you already believe is.

 

[Skylar]

The Puritans specifically cited the Bible and its commandments for the reason they executed both adulterers and those engaged in sodomy. Then...

Subjectivity, in defense of the assertion that your reasoning is subjective?

And who said that the Puritans considered God's commandment to execute gays and adulterers to be 'subjective'?

They cited the Bible as the reason for executions for adultrery.. Was the Bible wrong? Were the Puritans wrong? Was God Wrong?

You have a demonstratable example of folks using the exact same source you are....the bible....and coming to wildly different conclusions. With the Founders also having wildly different conclusions from both you and the Puritans.

How is this possible if the Bible and God's law are 'objective'?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Your tell already? Where you can't support your argument logically or rationally....so summarily declare victory and then run.

Well that was easy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

We set God's law into our laws?

That explains Roe v Wade then, I guess.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and Keyes.... you'll also need to explain why you ignore your OTHER appeal to authority: nature. Predation on the sick and the weak happens regularly in nature. Is predation on the sick and the weak thus 'natural law' and consequently 'God's law'?

If not, why not? If you're just ignoring any portion of nature that doesn't match what you already believe, then clearly 'nature' isn't your authority. What you already believe is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We set God's law into our laws? That explains Roe v Wade then, I guess.

What Roe demonstrates, is the destructive nature of subjectivity upon the viability of Justice, which can only be secured through objectivism..., as Roe provides for the illusion of a right without responsibility... standing in diametric opposition to nature law... thus explaining the catastrophe upon the culture that has come to the US Culture as a direct result of it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh, and Keyes.... you'll also need to explain why you ignore your OTHER appeal to authority: nature. Predation on the sick and the weak happens regularly in nature. Is predation on the sick and the weak thus 'natural law' and consequently 'God's law'?

If not, why not? If you're just ignoring any portion of nature that doesn't match what you already believe, then clearly 'nature' isn't your authority. What you already believe is.

Your third concession to the same standing points 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'.

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.

Homosexuality is either genetic or a choice. It doesn't matter. To choose to be homosexual is no different than choosing to be heterosexual. To be born homosexual is no different than to be born heterosexual.

Unless the State can provide compelling reasons why homosexuals should not have rights equal to heterosexuals,

then the State cannot justify denying those rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We set God's law into our laws? That explains Roe v Wade then, I guess.

What Roe demonstrates, is the destructive nature of subjectivity upon the viability of justice, as Roe provides for the illusion of a right without responsibility... standing in diametric opposition to nature law... thus explaining the catastrophe upon the culture that has come to the US Culture as a direct result of it.

That's a gibberish non-answer. Roe v Wade is the law of the land, thus, according to you, it must have come from God.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is there a fag hiding in your closet?

 

[Skylar]

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; having recognized this as self-evident and confirmed by the scriptures.

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 eventually, 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... and by extension, made the plight of the culture: WORSE, 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?

The Puritans specifically cited the Bible and its commandments for the reason they executed both adulterers and those engaged in sodomy. Then...

Subjectivity, in defense of the assertion that your reasoning is subjective?

LOL! Not the way I'd have gone... but 'to each their own.'

And don't think that I don't appreciate it! (You've done the very best you can... .)

.

.

.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

So lets review your failures:

1) You can't tell us if killing gays and adulterers is 'God's law'. If its 'God's objective law', why run from such a simple question?

2) You can't tell us who said that the Puritans considered God's commandment to execute gays and adulterers to be 'subjective'. So far....there's you. Citing yourself.

3) You can't tell us whose 'God's objective law' you are referring to. Yours? The Puritan's? The Founder's? The Buddhist's? The Muslim's? The Mayan's? The Zoroastrian's? The Hindu's? The Aztec's? The Shintoist's?

As they clearly don't agree.

4) You can't tell us if predation on the sick and old are 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'.....despite it occurring in nature.

So much for your 'objectivity', my little relativist.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and Keyes.... you'll also need to explain why you ignore your OTHER appeal to authority: nature. Predation on the sick and the weak happens regularly in nature. Is predation on the sick and the weak thus 'natural law' and consequently 'God's law'?

If not, why not? If you're just ignoring any portion of nature that doesn't match what you already believe, then clearly 'nature' isn't your authority. What you already believe is.

Your third concession to the same standing points is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing.....you're giving us excuses why you can't answer already? Whenever you've painted yourself into a corner, you always do this: refuse to address the topic, summarily declare victory...

.....and run.

So much for your 'natural law'. You'll gladly ignore anything from nature that doesn't match what you already believe. And that's not objective. But subjective, my little relativist.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexuality is either genetic or a choice.

Science has established that there is no genetic component to homosexuality. None, Zero, Nada, Zilch.

Homosexuality is the result of early molestation, by an individual of the same gender. Such molestation is playful and pleasant to the infant/toddler, stimulating the child's latent sexual instincts... imprinting sexual desire as such common to play with the same gender.

Thus the profound danger in normalizing the sexual abnormality which caused the abnormal imprint, in the first place.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We set God's law into our laws? That explains Roe v Wade then, I guess.

What Roe demonstrates, is the destructive nature of subjectivity upon the viability of justice, as Roe provides for the illusion of a right without responsibility... standing in diametric opposition to nature law... thus explaining the catastrophe upon the culture that has come to the US Culture as a direct result of it.

That's a gibberish non-answer. Roe v Wade is the law of the land, thus, according to you, it must have come from God.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We set God's law into our laws? That explains Roe v Wade then, I guess.

What Roe demonstrates, is the destructive nature of subjectivity upon the viability of justice, as Roe provides for the illusion of a right without responsibility... standing in diametric opposition to nature law... thus explaining the catastrophe upon the culture that has come to the US Culture as a direct result of it.

That's a gibberish non-answer. Roe v Wade is the law of the land, thus, according to you, it must have come from God.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Your inability to refute the point is becoming tediously familiar.