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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

ROFLMNAO! Now how precious is THAT?

 

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

Then... because of the dire nature of that reasoning, some came to subjectively 'feel' that those laws were too harsh. And the laws were (subjectively) 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 SUBJECTIVE 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; the subjective Liberals said that by liberalizing the culture's enforcement, the culture would not see an increase in either, if the standards were subjectively lowered.

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 their own.

Where they claim a right to undermine the viability of your culture, by demanding that their deviancy is perfectly normal and quite literally... that YOU are a deviant for not accepting deviancy as normal. THEY further claim a right to their life, as they live it; with no responsibility on their part to not exercise their rights to the detriment of your means to exercise your own.

What's more they claim the right to force perversion upon you and your children; to undermine the legitimacy of your marriage, by forcing the lowering of the marriage standards, to accept illegitimacy... to promote the acceptance of infidelity and to force you to accept the endless other examples of sexual abnormality, as perfectly NORMAL!

In truth, God has not changed, thus as I have stated time and again, God... 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 being the essential element which sustains that human viability and 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.

All arguments citing God as a source are fallacious since the existence of God cannot be established as fact.

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.)


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted, as well.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Puritians believed they were following God's law, just like you do. But they came to radically different conclusions.

Once again you come to concede that Natural Law is objective and humanity subjective.

Congrats THAT is your 250th concession to that SAME point.

Your 250th concession to the SAME POINT: is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You have no method of demonstrating you're right, or could be right.

Not so... I have done this many times, but most recently I did so here... maybe you'll recognize 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.

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 subjectively 'feel' that those laws were too harsh. And the laws were (subjectively) 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 SUBJECTIVE 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; the subjective Liberals said that by liberalizing the culture's enforcement, the culture would not see an increase in either, if the standards were subjectively lowered.

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 their own.

Where they claim a right to undermine the viability of your culture, by demanding that their deviancy is perfectly normal and quite literally... that YOU are a deviant for not accepting deviancy as normal. THEY further claim a right to their life, as they live it; with no responsibility on their part to not exercise their rights to the detriment of your means to exercise your own.

What's more they claim the right to force perversion upon you and your children; to undermine the legitimacy of your marriage, by forcing the lowering of the marriage standards, to accept illegitimacy... to promote the acceptance of infidelity and to force you to accept the endless other examples of sexual abnormality, as perfectly NORMAL!

In truth, God has not changed, thus as I have stated time and again, God... 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 being the essential element which sustains that human viability and 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.

All arguments citing God as a source are fallacious since the existence of God cannot be established as fact.

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.)


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted, as well.

 

[Skylar]

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.

But you're not using sound reasoning. For example, you claim that your observations of nature show you 'natural law' and thus 'God's law'. But you ignore any part of nature you don't like.

Predation of the old and sick, for example. That's all over nature. But it doesn't align with what you want to believe. So you ignore it. But in ignoring a huge part of nature, you're not using nature as the basis of 'natural law'. You're using what you want to believe as your basis.

Anything that affirms what you already believe, you cite. Anything that doesn't, you ignore. That's plain old confirmation bias. And its a classic fallacy of logic.

Logical fallacies aren't 'sound reasoning'. But they are the beating heart of your subjective, relativist beliefs.

 

[Skylar]

The Puritians believed they were following God's law, just like you do. But they came to radically different conclusions.

Once again you come to concede that Natural Law is objective and humanity subjective.

You're obviously confused. I didn't even mention natural law in what you cited. So how could I 'concede' anything about it?

I've critiqued your belief in 'God's Objective Law'. The Puritians cited the same law. Yet they came to radically different conclusions than you do. You can't both be right. Nor is there anything that mandates that either of you are.

So either God changed his mind in the last 400 years......or at least one of you are horribly mistaken.

And you can't demonstrate which one of you is right, or if either of you are. All you can do is state your personal opinion on what you believe God's Objective Law to be. Backed by nothing but your subjective faith.

And your subjective faith and personal opinion isn't objective anything. But subjective relativism.

 

[Skylar]

You have no method of demonstrating you're right, or could be right.

Not so... I have done this many times, but most recently I did so here... maybe you'll recognize it:

But that's not you demonstrating your beliefs are accurate. That's merely stating your beliefs. In other words, the Begging the Question fallacy. Where you believe what you do because of your beliefs.

Its an argument without corners and a classic fallacy of logic. And fallacies of logic aren't 'sound reasoning'. Quite the opposite.

 

[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)

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

It is relevant to us and our families. Just ask Justice Kennedy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

It is relevant to us and our families. Just ask Justice Kennedy.

So you're saying Kennedy is sexually abnormal? Or that he has mentally disordered people in his family?

If that's twue... He MUST recuse himself from any case which considers such. And given that the booze-hound has already de-legitimized herself having disclosed her own prejudices... she's out.

So any hearing of Sexually abnormal issues by the SCOTUS with those two involved, the SCOTUS decision will be wholly illegitimate.

 

[Syriusly]

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:]

I can only imagine how fast the room emptied once you started into that craziness.....

 

[Syriusly]

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.

It is relevant to us and our families. Just ask Justice Kennedy.

So you're saying Kennedy is sexually abnormal? Or that he has mentally disordered people in his family?

If that's twue... He MUST recuse himself from any case which considers such. And given that the booze-hound has already de-legitimized herself having disclosed her own prejudices... she's out.

So any hearing of Sexually abnormal issues by the SCOTUS with those two involved, the SCOTUS decision will be wholly illegitimate.

We all know that if the Supreme Court doesn't rule as how you command it to you will proclaim the decision illegitimate.

 

[Skylar]

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.

It is relevant to us and our families. Just ask Justice Kennedy.

So you're saying Kennedy is sexually abnormal?

Wow. You suck at paraphrasing.

Let me educate you, since you clearly not following along:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Windsor v. US

That harm to children, that relevance.

So any hearing of Sexually abnormal issues by the SCOTUS with those two involved, the SCOTUS decision will be wholly illegitimate.

Says you. Citing you. And you're nobody.

 

[Skylar]

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.

It is relevant to us and our families. Just ask Justice Kennedy.

So you're saying Kennedy is sexually abnormal? Or that he has mentally disordered people in his family?

If that's twue... He MUST recuse himself from any case which considers such. And given that the booze-hound has already de-legitimized herself having disclosed her own prejudices... she's out.

So any hearing of Sexually abnormal issues by the SCOTUS with those two involved, the SCOTUS decision will be wholly illegitimate.

We all know that if the Supreme Court doesn't rule as how you command it to you will proclaim the decision illegitimate.

Of course. They're already inventing fantasies to back their outrage of a ruling they know is coming. The 'Kennedy is gay' fantasy is just a new delusion.

 

[asaratis]

Please read again. You said the pastor's comments were hateful, alas saying he was hateful. I've had many liberals today use hatred as an argument, not necessarily calling me hateful in the process. Go read the threads about Rudy Giuliani if you don't believe me.

And I do want people to respond, or I would have never posted this thread to begin with. Putting it out there kind of says "hey come comment on this thread!" does it not?

So, why is it anyone who doesn't agree with or has a problem with men in size 13 or 14 shoes kissing each other on the mouth suddenly hateful? I oppose gay marriage as a personal opinion, but that has no bearing on my belief the people should be treated equally under the law. And that's just it, from your perspective. There are many more you are failing to consider.

In your opinion, would you consider someone who "doesn't agree or has a problem with" black men kissing white women in public as "hateful"?

STOP trying to compare homo marriage to blacks in any shape or form. Homosexuals are NOT a race

No, I think I'll continue to do so.

I know it makes your position harder to defend, but tough shit.

It only reveals your ignorance

Actually, no. It reveals your lack of critical thinking skills.

A black man kissing a black man is the same as a black man kissing a white woman?
Homosexuality and interracial issues are the same?

 

[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

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.

But since the word 'conservative' is used to (sometimes mistakenly) label Republicans this day and age, you attempt to attribute them to the Republican way of thinking as it is today. Not all Christians are Republicans, either.

But what you are doing is stereotypical.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And those 'religious belief's are as archaic and backward as the opposition to marriage equality for same gender couples.

Except that the Bible says nothing about blacks and whites getting together, while it specifically condemns homosexuality. Care to refute me on that?

 

[Seawytch]

In your opinion, would you consider someone who "doesn't agree or has a problem with" black men kissing white women in public as "hateful"?

STOP trying to compare homo marriage to blacks in any shape or form. Homosexuals are NOT a race

No, I think I'll continue to do so.

I know it makes your position harder to defend, but tough shit.

It only reveals your ignorance

Actually, no. It reveals your lack of critical thinking skills.

A black man kissing a black man is the same as a black man kissing a white woman?
Homosexuality and interracial issues are the same?

The discrimination is.

Bet You Can t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite

How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire

 

[Seawytch]

And those 'religious belief's are as archaic and backward as the opposition to marriage equality for same gender couples.

Except that the Bible says nothing about blacks and whites getting together, while it specifically condemns homosexuality. Care to refute me on that?

That's what YOU believe. The segregationists and anti miscegenationists are as certain of their biblical passages as you are of yours. I believe you're both wrong.

I don't believe that Jesus condemns loving, committed same sex relationships. Promiscuity? Absolutely. Prostitution? You bet.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Promiscuity?

Same sex promiscuity?

 

[Skylar]

And those 'religious belief's are as archaic and backward as the opposition to marriage equality for same gender couples.

Except that the Bible says nothing about blacks and whites getting together, while it specifically condemns homosexuality. Care to refute me on that?

I'll let Judge Leon Bazile demonstrate the irrelevance of your claims for me:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Judge Leon Bazile convicting Richard and Mildred Loving of interracial marriage

Whether or not any of that was actually in the Bible, the judge interpreted it was the will of God. The Bible doesn't even mention lesbianism, nor prohibit it any way. But its lumped in with male male homosexuality by pretty much every Christian I've ever met.

So what relevance does it being 'in the Bible' have with anything we're discussing?