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

[Syriusly]

They're already inventing fantasies to back their outrage of a ruling they know is coming.

Remember back in 2008 how people laughed at Beck when he said: "Before this man is out of office, you will look around and not recognize your country. Men will be marrying men, Iran will have nuclear weapons and Iraq will again be controlled by Islamic lunatics, as a direct result of the perverse reasoning that the Democrats have now set into the office of the President of the United States... "

Iran now has nuclear weapons?

Obama has nothing to do with the wonderful expansion of marriage equality.

Iraq? If we had not driven Hussein out of office, there would be no ISIS- but ISIS does not control Iraq.

It's ironic too, that you don't mention how ISIS, as well as most of Islam, actively seek out and persecute homosexuals..

Well since that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to- no it isn't ironic.

ISIS, like presumably all radical Islam, absolutely persecutes Homosexuals- homosexuals in Iraq are in far more danger now than before we drove Sadam Hussein from office and opened the door for the religious factionalism in Iraq.

Yes- that persecution is wrong- and yes- much of the worst persecution of homosexuals in the world is in Islamic countries.

Are we all in agreement that that is wrong? Or do you agree with the Muslims when it comes to homosexuals?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then the Bible gets it wrong.

ROFLMNAO! Did it?

How about Science?

Did science: 'get it wrong', too?

I ask, because science is what informs us that human physiological normality; which is to say the sustainable, natural defining traits of human sexuality, is established through the distinct but complimenting genders, each designed for sexual intercourse with the other.

Thus defining Marriage, which is the analogous union representing the consequential ramifications of sound intercourse... , wherein one man joins with one woman.

See how that works?

Now... I'd LOVE to take your word for it. I really would, but you're an imbecile, citing feckless drivel of the absurd variety... SOOoooo.... Given that such is about as weak as such gets, I'm going to have to go with Science and The Bible, which confirms science... in terms of its establishing that as one might expect would be the case, nature is following God's will.

(Go figure, Right?) LOL! Now be honest... THAT PISSES YOU OFF! ... LOL! Don't it?

Science supports polygamy. The Bible supports polygamy. Nature supports polygamy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Science supports polygamy. The Bible supports polygamy. Nature supports polygamy.

In truth, none of the above supports polygamy.

And this despite your desperate needs for such to be the case.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They're already inventing fantasies to back their outrage of a ruling they know is coming.

Remember back in 2008 how people laughed at Beck when he said: "Before this man is out of office, you will look around and not recognize your country. Men will be marrying men, Iran will have nuclear weapons and Iraq will again be controlled by Islamic lunatics, as a direct result of the perverse reasoning that the Democrats have now set into the office of the President of the United States... "

Iran now has nuclear weapons?

Obama has nothing to do with the wonderful expansion of marriage equality.

Iraq? If we had not driven Hussein out of office, there would be no ISIS- but ISIS does not control Iraq.

It's ironic too, that you don't mention how ISIS, as well as most of Islam, actively seek out and persecute homosexuals. But hey, it's just the Christians right? At least we don't throw them off the top of buildings.

This is one of my favorite arguments EVAH! We shouldn't fight for equal rights here because extremist Muslims in other countries kill gays. (Often said with such longing too)

Extremist Christians want to too. Hello Uganda.

The Sexually Abnormal enjoy the same rights as everyone else in the United States.

The claim that such is not the case is ABSURD!!

You are not seeking equal RIGHTS... you're seeking to be declared LEGITIMATE!

But because your behavior is ILLEGITIMATE, YOU are illegitimate and you don't 'feel' that it's fair that everyone else gets to be legitimate, when you aren't.

There's no right to act illegitimately and be accepted as legitimate.

You have a right to be legitimate... but do exercise that right, you must bear the responsibility which sustains that right to NOT ACT ILLEGITIMATELY.

See how that works?

Claiming that gays are illegitimate is subjective. You're the objective guy, aren't you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Science supports polygamy. The Bible supports polygamy. Nature supports polygamy.

In truth, neither supports polygamy.

And this despite your desperate needs for such to be the case.

Prove it. Prove that the natural order of the primate species is monogamy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Science supports polygamy. The Bible supports polygamy. Nature supports polygamy.

In truth, neither supports polygamy.

And this despite your desperate needs for such to be the case.

Prove it. Prove that the natural order of the primate species is monogamy.

ROFLMNAO!

Well OK... I submit the human species, a function of nature, wherein Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

This established by the same thing that establishes normality in every other conceivable category: That which is common to such.

Go find the most ludicrous percentage you can find with regard to marriage of more than one man and one woman. And when ya return with that percentage, I'll share with you the percentage of Marriage represented by one man and one woman.

And just to save us some time... Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader: How cool was it that the idiot demanded that I prove her argument? LOL! You can NOT make this crap up!)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Science supports polygamy. The Bible supports polygamy. Nature supports polygamy.

In truth, neither supports polygamy.

And this despite your desperate needs for such to be the case.

Prove it. Prove that the natural order of the primate species is monogamy.

ROFLMNAO!

Well OK... I submit the human species, a function of nature, wherein Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

This established by the same thing that establishes normality in every other conceivable category: That which is common to such.

Go find the most ludicrous percentage you can find with regard to marriage of more than one man and one woman. And when ya return with that percentage, I'll share with you the percentage of Marriage represented by one man and one woman.

And just to save us some time... Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

You just acknowledged that polygamy also fits the definition of marriage and don't even realize you did.

 

[AceRothstein]

Just fucking get over gay marriage already. It is going to be the law of the land soon and it isn't going to go away.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Nobody is arguing they have a religious belief against heterosexuals marrying under state laws.
But some people are arguing they have religious beliefs against same sex marriages,
and do not agree to have this through the state. So you are right, to be fair, NOBODY should
have their marriages through the state unless this is agreed upon how such laws are written to be UNBIASED.

If we were fair to ALL beliefs, we could ALL agree to have marriages remain private through churches, and only have civil unions and contracts through govt that are NEUTRAL.

Until there is agreement, both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples can have
marriages through their churches or private institutions. But not unless the people of a state AGREE on a state law can marriages be sanctified through the state, or else any bias in the laws, one way or the other, are seen as discriminating against the other beliefs.

I agree, that the state laws should not be biased for or against either heterosexual or homosexual couples. If the laws cannot be written NEUTRALLY and INCLUSIVELY enough to satisfy people of all beliefs, then the marriages should just be left to churches or private parties.

NOTE: this is NOT the same as race, because orientation has been changed in people
and cannot be proven WHICH cases are changeable or unchangeable, as both types of cases have occurred. Since this is a spiritual private matter, laws cannot be made one way or another, but such beliefs should remain private. If people AGREE on laws, then yes, those laws can be passed through states that are written neutrally enough not violate anyone's beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Just fucking get over gay marriage already. It is going to be the law of the land soon and it isn't going to go away.

AceRothstein
gay marriage is already protected under freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws.
the issue is whether the BELIEF in "right to marriage" and BELIEF in same sex marriage
can be imposed by state law over equal BELIEFS in traditional marriage only.

The two beliefs are equal, so for any law to be consistent with Constitutional equal protections,
it should not impose either one belief or the other, but should remain NEUTRAL where either belief can be practiced without punishing or excluding anyone.

The govt CANNOT force anyone to change their beliefs. So both beliefs have to be accommodated and treated equally, or else leave the matter to the private sector and keep it out of govt.

 

[Syriusly]

Just fucking get over gay marriage already. It is going to be the law of the land soon and it isn't going to go away.

AceRothstein
gay marriage is already protected under freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws.
the issue is whether the BELIEF in "right to marriage" and BELIEF in same sex marriage
can be imposed by state law over equal BELIEFS in traditional marriage only..

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

Simple as that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

And just where do you get that notion?

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

States should have rights, none of which should cater to your sensitivities.

Simple as that.

Far from it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well since that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to- no it isn't ironic.

Actually, I was responding to the post you made in response. Don't move the goalposts.

 

[emilynghiem]

Just fucking get over gay marriage already. It is going to be the law of the land soon and it isn't going to go away.

AceRothstein
gay marriage is already protected under freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws.
the issue is whether the BELIEF in "right to marriage" and BELIEF in same sex marriage
can be imposed by state law over equal BELIEFS in traditional marriage only..

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

Simple as that.

Hi Syriusly As long as State laws are written neutrally I agree.
So change any language that invokes religious issues, and keep it secular.

Atheists INSIST on removing words such as GOD that are against their beliefs.
So why not remove words like MARRIAGE that are religiously weighted with meanings,
and just have civil unions civil contracts or some other term that doesn't offend the religious beliefs of others. Maybe adding a hyphen "civil-marriage", anything that people of a state AGREE IS ENOUGH to clarify it is not a religious endorsement.

If Atheists can sue to remove references to God, so can Christians sue to remove references to Marriage
that should be PRIVATE and not imposed by public laws UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT.

 

[Seawytch]

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

And just where do you get that notion?

A better question is where do you get the notion that they are...because prohibitions on murder just happen to also appear in the 10 Commandments?

You wouldn't have a problem with state laws based on Sharia I take it?

 

[asaratis]

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?

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

 

[Seawytch]

Just fucking get over gay marriage already. It is going to be the law of the land soon and it isn't going to go away.

AceRothstein
gay marriage is already protected under freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws.
the issue is whether the BELIEF in "right to marriage" and BELIEF in same sex marriage
can be imposed by state law over equal BELIEFS in traditional marriage only..

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

Simple as that.

Hi Syriusly As long as State laws are written neutrally I agree.
So change any language that invokes religious issues, and keep it secular.

Atheists INSIST on removing words such as GOD that are against their beliefs.
So why not remove words like MARRIAGE that are religiously weighted with meanings,
and just have civil unions civil contracts or some other term that doesn't offend the religious beliefs of others. Maybe adding a hyphen "civil-marriage", anything that people of a state AGREE IS ENOUGH to clarify it is not a religious endorsement.

If Atheists can sue to remove references to God, so can Christians sue to remove references to Marriage
that should be PRIVATE and not imposed by public laws UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT.

Nobody is stopping you from trying to make that happen. Good luck. In the mean time, gays will keep getting married.

 

[Syriusly]

Just fucking get over gay marriage already. It is going to be the law of the land soon and it isn't going to go away.

AceRothstein
gay marriage is already protected under freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws.
the issue is whether the BELIEF in "right to marriage" and BELIEF in same sex marriage
can be imposed by state law over equal BELIEFS in traditional marriage only..

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

Simple as that.

Hi Syriusly As long as State laws are written neutrally I agree.
So change any language that invokes religious issues, and keep it secular.

Atheists INSIST on removing words such as GOD that are against their beliefs.
So why not remove words like MARRIAGE that are religiously weighted with meanings,
and just have civil unions civil contracts or some other term that doesn't offend the religious beliefs of others.

If Atheists can sue to remove references to God, so can Christians sue to remove references to Marriage
that should be PRIVATE and not imposed by public laws UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT.

Christians don't own the word marriage.

State laws are written to be religiously neutral.

The State has had marriage laws for about the length of the history of our country- and right now in 37 of 50 states, same gender couples have marriage equality. Eliminating state marriage just in order to deny marriage to homosexuals seems rather to be shooting the cow because its not giving enough milk.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

It wasn't redefined when blacks could marry whites and it is not redefined because women can marry women.

One was discrimination based on race, the other gender.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

I am not saying that they are the same- I am saying that rational for either being against the law is the same.

In the states that outlawed mixed race marraiges, the definition of marriage excluded opposite race couples- that changed.

What I have seen homosexual couples claim that they want is to be treated legally the same way my wife and I are treated.

And I think they should be. Just like I think a mixed race couple should be treated just thee same as my wife and I are legally treated.