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

[Syriusly]

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

Yes, Southern Christian Democrats...what are the common factors?

Those Southern Christian Democrats used the bible and religion to justify anti miscegenation. Who are they most like now?

They still were Democrats, weren't they? Look how quickly you run to disown them!

Absolutely they were Democrats- they were Conservative Christian Democrats. Republicans of the era were progressive Christians for the most part.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No it's not.

Then why does the genetic structure of the human species suggest otherwise? No man ever reproduces with another man by sticking his Johnson in another man's backside, and no woman ever reproduces by playing strap ons with another woman. Homosexuality is not compatible with the species. Gay men need surrogate mothers, lesbians need artificial insemination.

So, there is your rational argument, but I gather it will bounce off of that thick skull of yours.

Compatible in what way? Priests and nuns are celibate. Should we ban Catholicism because the most holy of their religion refuse to reproduce?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No it's not.

Then why does the genetic structure of the human species suggest otherwise? No man ever reproduces with another man by sticking his Johnson in another man's backside, and no woman ever reproduces by playing strap ons with another woman. Homosexuality is not compatible with the species. Gay men need surrogate mothers, lesbians need artificial insemination.

So, there is your rational argument, but I gather it will bounce off of that thick skull of yours.

If 10% of the human species are homosexual and do not reproduce, what harm does that cause to the species?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No it's not.

Then why does the genetic structure of the human species suggest otherwise? No man ever reproduces with another man by sticking his Johnson in another man's backside, and no woman ever reproduces by playing strap ons with another woman. Homosexuality is not compatible with the species. Gay men need surrogate mothers, lesbians need artificial insemination.

So, there is your rational argument, but I gather it will bounce off of that thick skull of yours.

How many children have you produced? At what point does your refusal to reproduce become a detriment to our civilization?

 

[Syriusly]

No it's not.

Then why does the genetic structure of the human species suggest otherwise? No man ever reproduces with another man by sticking his Johnson in another man's backside, and no woman ever reproduces by playing strap ons with another woman. Homosexuality is not compatible with the species. Gay men need surrogate mothers, lesbians need artificial insemination.

So, there is your rational argument, but I gather it will bounce off of that thick skull of yours.

A rational argument for what exactly?

Humans have babies with or without marriage.
Humans get married with or without children.

Homosexuality has no effect on the species- look at the places in the world where human reproduction rates are at the lowest- and its not because of homosexuals not doing their part.

Marriage is a human invention- and now includes same gender couples in 37 states- no matter how much you object to it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No it's not.

Then why does the genetic structure of the human species suggest otherwise? No man ever reproduces with another man by sticking his Johnson in another man's backside, and no woman ever reproduces by playing strap ons with another woman. Homosexuality is not compatible with the species. Gay men need surrogate mothers, lesbians need artificial insemination.

So, there is your rational argument, but I gather it will bounce off of that thick skull of yours.

Straight people use both IVF and AI. The inability to procreate has never invalidated the civil marriage of any heterosexual couple anywhere. Why would you apply a different standard for civil marriage to gays than you do to straights?

Why is he applying a different standard to himself? He has no children.

 

[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. .

In other words the law is being enforced.

And suddenly you object to PA laws.

In other words, the law is forcing people to violate their beliefs. Yes, it is being enforced to the point where it forces someone to act against their conscience.

So lets theorize for a moment here. If gay marriage laws violate the conscience of a gay couple, then shouldn't laws forcing a Christian to serve them also violate the Christian's conscience?

Suddenly the law is allowed to dictate the consciences of any given individual.

The law doesn't dictate conscience. The law regulates action. If a business owner who does business with the public discriminates illegally, its their actions that are subject to sanction.

Their motivation is theirs.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

No it's not.

Oh my... The "Nuh uh!" defense... how shall we EVER overcome?

 

[Skylar]

No it's not.

Then why does the genetic structure of the human species suggest otherwise? No man ever reproduces with another man by sticking his Johnson in another man's backside, and no woman ever reproduces by playing strap ons with another woman. Homosexuality is not compatible with the species. Gay men need surrogate mothers, lesbians need artificial insemination.

So, there is your rational argument, but I gather it will bounce off of that thick skull of yours.

Compatible in what way? Priests and nuns are celibate. Should we ban Catholicism because the most holy of their religion refuse to reproduce?

Lets not forget monastic Buddhism!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The law should force people to violate their beliefs if their beliefs are unacceptable.

HEY LOOK! It's the formula for civil war! And from a cult which has absolutely no means to survive such a war.

HOW COOL IS THAT?

 

[Seawytch]

No it's not.

Then why does the genetic structure of the human species suggest otherwise? No man ever reproduces with another man by sticking his Johnson in another man's backside, and no woman ever reproduces by playing strap ons with another woman. Homosexuality is not compatible with the species. Gay men need surrogate mothers, lesbians need artificial insemination.

So, there is your rational argument, but I gather it will bounce off of that thick skull of yours.

If 10% of the human species are homosexual and do not reproduce, what harm does that cause to the species?

Gays can and DO reproduce. (And adopt)

 

[Skylar]

The law should force people to violate their beliefs if their beliefs are unacceptable.

HEY LOOK! It's the formula for civil war! And from a cult which has absolutely no means to survive such a war.

HOW COOL IS THAT?

Yeah, there's not going to be any civil war over gay marriage. You forget.......your ilk aren't willing to bleed. You're only willing to hurt people if you can get away without any consequences.

And war involves consequences.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So someone asked me today: "What exactly does Relativism look like?" I gave them a detailed understanding of the defining traits of the sickness... but nothing serves as a better demonstration of what Relativism is, than a picture:

Party affiliation is irrelevant. ...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Gays can and DO reproduce. (And adopt)

ROFLMNAO!
Delusion is such a wonderfully entertaining thing to watch.

 

[Skylar]

So someone asked me today: "What exactly does Relativism look like?" I gave them a detailed understanding of the defining traits of the sickness... but nothing serves as a better demonstration of what Relativism is, than a picture:

Party affiliation is irrelevant. ...

Or you could show them pretty much any of your posts. As you're about as committed to relativism and subjectivity as any poster I know.

 

[Skylar]

Gays can and DO reproduce. (And adopt)

ROFLMNAO!
Delusion is such a wonderfully entertaining thing to watch.

I don't think delusion means what you think it means. As gays use surrogates or adopt all the time. And lesbians have kids quite regularly.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays can and DO reproduce. (And adopt)

ROFLMNAO!
Delusion is such a wonderfully entertaining thing to watch.

I don't think delusion means what you think it means. As gays use surrogates or adopt all the time. And lesbians have kids quite regularly.

I've had five babies. I freaking pee when I sneeze. I wish that was a delusion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No it's not.

Then why does the genetic structure of the human species suggest otherwise? No man ever reproduces with another man by sticking his Johnson in another man's backside, and no woman ever reproduces by playing strap ons with another woman. Homosexuality is not compatible with the species. Gay men need surrogate mothers, lesbians need artificial insemination.

So, there is your rational argument, but I gather it will bounce off of that thick skull of yours.

If 10% of the human species are homosexual and do not reproduce, what harm does that cause to the species?

Gays can and DO reproduce. (And adopt)

It's irrelevant. Don't let them frame the argument.

 

[Skylar]

OH! A cling-on. (She too doesn't want to address the simple and otherwise irrefutable fact, that since the subjective removal of sodomy and adultery laws, has ... as nature [God] requires such must, only increased the destruction to the culture manifested through adultery and sodomy. But she can't do so because TO DO SO would not reflect well upon her relativist world... and in that, it becomes obvious that she chooses instead to yield from the argument, thus conceding to the standing positions, intrinsic to that argument.)

The Puritians believed they were following God's law, just like you do. But they came to radically different conclusions. You can't both be right. Its one or the other or neither. And since you're both claiming the same 'objective' source (God), at least one of you is horribly mistaken.

And that's the rub. You have no method of demonstrating you're right, or could be right. As your 'evidence' is your subjective faith. You simply assume you are correct and your conclusions are infallible. Just like every theist. But God doesn't break ties. So your assumption of infallibility v. another theist's assumption of infallibility doesn't actually demonstrate any 'objective truth'.

But instead, competing interpretations based on personal opinion. Which isn't objective. But subjective.

And since almost all theistic systems are mutually exclusive, by your own logic, almost all theists that have ever lived are self deluded. As if one is right, that means all the others are wrong. The odds that of all the theists of all the religions of all the sects inspired by all the holy books in the whole of human history, that YOU got it right is ridiculously slim.

Worse for you, there's nothing that mandates that anyone got it right. Or could. And still all you offer us is your personal opinion.

You're not enough.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Satanists want to perform ritual human sacrifice. The law forces them to violate their beliefs. Oh well...

Yes... it turns out that someone believing something is irrelevant. Because what IS relevant is that what someone believes is only relevant when that something rests in sound reasoning, thus serves justice.

Satanism and every other aspect of humanism, including Islam... fails reason, thus such 'feelings' fail to serve justice in every conceivable way and it is there, where we can rest assured that such would-be religions are in fact, not religious at all... but subjective notions which serve only the interests of the individual and those who 'feel' as they feel about their respective kinks.

And yes... soundly reasoned people have every responsibility to shut down such lunatics, to reject their deviant reasoning and where they refuse to shut the fuck up, sit down and do as their told... they forfeit their right to their lives and in that the soundly reasoned are morally justified to destroy them.

And that is the nature of nature... and what separates humanity from the lower species... the animals and insects, leftists and humanists.