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

[Skylar]

Oh, I could never convince Keyes of anything. His argument is based on his own infallibility on any topic he discusses. You can't penetrate that kind of mentality using reason, logic, or evidence.

Your logic is consistently fallacious.

Oh, my logic is sound. You claim that 'observations of nature' tell you 'natural law', and thus 'god's law'. But you ignore anything in nature that doesn't match what you already believe.

Predation of the sick and old happens all the time in nature. Is predation of the sick and old 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'? Of course not. You don't like predation on the sick and old.....so you summarily ignore it in nature.

Eliminating 'nature' as your source. But demonstrating that your subjective beliefs are the basis of your conclusions. As anything in nature that doesn't match what you already believe is ignored and dismissed.

And you do the same thing with any authority you cite. You ignore the Bible, ignore what you believe to be God, ignore the dictionary, ignore any source you cite as authoritative.....if you don't like it.

That's not objective. That's hopelessly relativistic and subjective.

Your argument that Religion is subjective, rests entirely upon the subjectivity common to HUMAN BEINGS... this you post in contest to the position which states that human beings are inherently subjective, and that given the destructive nature of subjectivism, the objectivity intrinsic to Religion offsets the destructive nature of humanity.

My argument that religion is subjective rests on the fact that religion has no leviathan. God doesn't break ties. So there's no way to know whose interpretations match 'objective moral truth' ....or if anyone's does. You imagine that your personal interpretations are infallible. But so does every other devout theist.

And there's nothing to indicate that any of you are right. Its all subjective interpretation.

That's hardly objective. To say nothing of your silly claims of 'objective moral truth'. You've provided us with nothing but your personal opinion to back any of your claims of objective truth.

And you aren't enough.

Worse, your process is wildly unreliable. You reject Islam as being God's objective law, despite your fellow theists using the same process of faith that you do. And your beliefs regarding the Bible are exclusive. It can't be Jesus AND the Greek Pantheon of Gods. It is one or the other. Which means that if one mutually exclusive theistic religion is accurate, all others must be inaccurate.

Which means, using your own logic, almost all theists that have ever lived are self deluded.

Which brings us to 1 of 3 likely conclusions:

1) Only 1 mutual exclusive religion accurately understands 'God's objective Law'.
2) No religion accurately understands 'God's Objective Law'.
3) There is no 'God's Objective Law'.

Option 2 and 3 preclude you from having any objective moral system or truth. So your best case scenario is Option 1. And the odds that of all the theists in all the world, of all the sects, interpretations, of all the holy books, of the millions upon millions of conceptions of god, that in all of human history....

.....that YOU happened to get it right, is ridiculously low. Its orders and orders and orders of magnitude more likely that you're among the self deluded masses of theists.

Meaning that your conclusions are almost certainly self deluded, subjective nonsense.

That's my argument for your subjectivity. And you can't touch it, as my reasoning is sound. All you can do is refuse to discuss it, bizarrely declare victory...

.....and run. Well, run.

 

[Skylar]

Haven't you seen the whole thread about the passing of the Keystone pipe legislation even though Obama is going to veto it?

Uh yeah, they are acting on the will of their constituencies... for once.

Republicans have no will to overturn the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Why should they?

I doubt they will even pander to their libertarian and/or racist constituents by pretending that they will.

Well, you have nothing to worry about then, do you?

I am not worried about much of anything.

There are those who seem to have suddenly discovered that there exists Public Accomodation laws in the United States- because in some states they apply to homosexuals too- and are suddenly outraged by PA laws- again because in some states they apply to homosexuals.

If anyone objects to those laws- then they should be trying to get them repealed- but instead they just complain when the law is enforced- when homosexuals are involved.

Meanwhile- when it comes to gay marriage in America- I am very pleased by the progress that has been made.

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Marriage is about having children and raising them. Homosexuality is only about sex.

Unless it isn't.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Homosexuality takes nothing from anyone. It harms no one.

No? Well that would come as a surprise to the 1.5 million people that contracted the HIV and died of AIDs in 2013, as a direct result of their sexually abnormal behavior.

Most people with HIV and AIDS are straight. With straight sex being the primary method of transmission.

We've had this discussion before and you abandoned it when I gave you the numbers most HIV cases around the world.

Do you really think the numbers have changed since the last time you lost this argument?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Promiscuity is relatively unhealthy.

Huh... No kiddin'?

Here's a newsflash: Promiscuity is unhealthy... PERIOD!

But it's always good to hear from the lowly relativists... .

So why oppose same sex marriage? Isn't marriage a pledge to 'forsake all others'? Isn't that a Biblical admonition?

Why would you oppose two people of the same sex joining together, and in the process, forsaking all others? Why would you treat that as some sort of abomination, when in fact, in principle, it is an exercise of God's plan?

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are those who seem to have suddenly discovered that there exists Public Accommodation laws in the United States- because in some states they apply to homosexuals too- and are suddenly outraged by PA laws- again because in some states they apply to homosexuals.

Tis the symptom of the notion of homosexuals being a protected class. They suddenly think they can use the law to completely mute the beliefs of someone else.

Go read Federalist #10 and read for yourself the dangers of a minority gaining influence over the majority.

 

[Skylar]

Promiscuity is relatively unhealthy.

Huh... No kiddin'?

Here's a newsflash: Promiscuity is unhealthy... PERIOD!

But it's always good to hear from the lowly relativists... .

So why oppose same sex marriage? Isn't marriage a pledge to 'forsake all others'? Isn't that a Biblical admonition?

Why would you oppose two people of the same sex joining together, and in the process, forsaking all others? Why would you treat that as some sort of abomination, when in fact, in principle, it is an exercise of God's plan?

I've tried to teach conservatives that the gay marriage issue is actually a huge win for them. They've made such a good argument for monogamy and family that they've convinced a large portion of the gay community of the merits.

Think of June's ruling as a win for monogomy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Ahem, but then again, anti miscegenation laws were introduced by the Democrats. So in a sense, you are trying to render the religious beliefs of others as "archaic and backward."

Duly noted, sir/madam

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Ahem, but then again, anti miscegenation laws were introduced by the Democrats. So in a sense, you are trying to render the religious beliefs of others as "archaic and backward."

Duly noted, sir/madam

Party is irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

There are those who seem to have suddenly discovered that there exists Public Accommodation laws in the United States- because in some states they apply to homosexuals too- and are suddenly outraged by PA laws- again because in some states they apply to homosexuals.

Tis the symptom of the notion of homosexuals being a protected class. They suddenly think they can use the law to completely mute the beliefs of someone else.

Says who?

The Baker in question has been quite vocal. There's an entire thread dedicated to her letter. And there's been no gag order or insistence that the Baker not express her opposition to same sex marriage. Only a ruling that the PA laws be applied.

Your 'mute the beliefs' strawman is getting straw all over everything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are those who seem to have suddenly discovered that there exists Public Accommodation laws in the United States- because in some states they apply to homosexuals too- and are suddenly outraged by PA laws- again because in some states they apply to homosexuals.

Tis the symptom of the notion of homosexuals being a protected class. They suddenly think they can use the law to completely mute the beliefs of someone else.

Go read Federalist #10 and read for yourself the dangers of a minority gaining influence over the majority.

Your beliefs can only be exercised if they conform to the Constitution. You cannot, for example, commit human sacrifice,

no matter how 'religious' your view of it is.

 

[Skylar]

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Ahem, but then again, anti miscegenation laws were introduced by the Democrats. So in a sense, you are trying to render the religious beliefs of others as "archaic and backward."

Duly noted, sir/madam

He's right, Templar. You can try to make this about party. But you're going to have an increasingly difficult time finding folks with any fucks to give on gay marriage a few years after June's ruling.

 

[bodecea]

Haven't you seen the whole thread about the passing of the Keystone pipe legislation even though Obama is going to veto it?

Uh yeah, they are acting on the will of their constituencies... for once.

Republicans have no will to overturn the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Why should they?

I doubt they will even pander to their libertarian and/or racist constituents by pretending that they will.

Well, you have nothing to worry about then, do you?

I am not worried about much of anything.

There are those who seem to have suddenly discovered that there exists Public Accomodation laws in the United States- because in some states they apply to homosexuals too- and are suddenly outraged by PA laws- again because in some states they apply to homosexuals.

If anyone objects to those laws- then they should be trying to get them repealed- but instead they just complain when the law is enforced- when homosexuals are involved.

Meanwhile- when it comes to gay marriage in America- I am very pleased by the progress that has been made.

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Marriage is about having children and raising them. Homosexuality is only about sex.

So...it's a requirement of marriage to have children. And all married people have children or else their marriage is annulled. Right?

 

[Skylar]

Haven't you seen the whole thread about the passing of the Keystone pipe legislation even though Obama is going to veto it?

Uh yeah, they are acting on the will of their constituencies... for once.

Republicans have no will to overturn the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Why should they?

I doubt they will even pander to their libertarian and/or racist constituents by pretending that they will.

Well, you have nothing to worry about then, do you?

I am not worried about much of anything.

There are those who seem to have suddenly discovered that there exists Public Accomodation laws in the United States- because in some states they apply to homosexuals too- and are suddenly outraged by PA laws- again because in some states they apply to homosexuals.

If anyone objects to those laws- then they should be trying to get them repealed- but instead they just complain when the law is enforced- when homosexuals are involved.

Meanwhile- when it comes to gay marriage in America- I am very pleased by the progress that has been made.

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Marriage is about having children and raising them. Homosexuality is only about sex.

So...it's a requirement of marriage to have children. And all married people have children or else their marriage is annulled. Right?

Not one state requires anyone getting married to be able to have kids or to have them for a marraige to be valid.

Not one.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

We wouldn't. And in 37 of 50 States, we don't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why would you oppose two people of the same sex ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not one state requires anyone getting married to be able to have kids or to have them for a marraige to be valid. ... Why would we exempt gays from marriage... [sic]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Not one state excludes homosexuals from marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Why would you oppose two people of the same sex ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in 37 of 50 States, its also the joining of one man and one man.....or one woman and one woman.

 

[Skylar]

Not one state requires anyone getting married to be able to have kids or to have them for a marraige to be valid. ... Why would we exempt gays from marriage... [sic]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Not one state excludes homosexuals from marriage.

13 still do.

Until June.....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why would you oppose two people of the same sex ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in 37 of 50 States, its also the joining of one man and one man.....or one woman and one woman.

You LIE: AGAIN!

37 of 50 states do not support the normalization of Sexual Abnormality.

You're referring to the Relativists on the Federal Judiciary who overturned the will of the vast majority of the people, in the vast majority of the States, who elected the vast majority of the Legislators who authored, debated and passed bills which were signed into law by the vast majority of the Governors to defend the natural standards of nature that define marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

You then promote that overturning of the majority of the people, as such reflecting the will of the majority...

A DECEIT ADVANCED THROUGH FRAUDULENCE MEANS AS AN ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE IGNORANT!​

Thus representing once again... your having turned from the truth, therefore conceding to that otherwise self-evident truth.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Syriusly]

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would you oppose two people of the same sex ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.