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

[emilynghiem]

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

God rules... period.

That God is allowing you the means to destroy yourself and your culture through separation of your culture from HIS RULES... does not change that.

The evidence is simply irrefutable.

You claim that there is no God and that as a consequence, the 'rules of those who claim to such to be in alignment with God are not any 'better' than the rules set forth by those who have no consideration for God.

But let's look at, just the recent record, shall we?

God says: Keep your penis out of the anus of other me and do not go injecting yourself with illicit drugs, because it reduces your means to make sound choices, thus risking you personal viability and subsequently the health and well being of those around you.

You Say: No thanks... I think I'll do as I want...

And PRESTO! You got THE HIV!

Not a good example ya say?

Ok... Let's try this:

God says: "Those who discipline their lives toward the securing of a home through the sound stewardship of long term debt, shall be rewarded with a 'home of their own'. God calls this "FAIR"!

You say: "THAT'S NOT FAIR, GOD! Everyone deserves a home of their own! And to do that, you go about separating God's rules regarding the viable practices which sustain the industries that provide and service the provision of long term home buying debt, replacing such with your own notion of fairness; a notion which DEVIATES from God's definition of fairness... .

And PRESTO! Catastrophic collapse of the International Financial Markets.

Now... what's interesting to me, is how TO YOU: NONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR STANDS TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU >> IF YOUR IDEAS WORK OR NOT!

Now, when a person is incapable of understanding if the consequences of their behavior work or do not work, THAT person is otherwise recognized as IN-FUCKIN'-SANE!

LOL!

But not you idiots... No NO!

"We're not insane... WE'RE PROGRESSIVES!"

Which is to say that you want others to believe that behavior which CLAIMS that it is going to produce GOOD, but which consistently produces BAD, is PROGRESS... because you INTENDED GOOD! As if your intentions in ANY WAY were EVEN RELEVANT to the consequences, LET ALONE EXCUSED YOU FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM!

So... THAT is why I prefer to recognize the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH: That it's a spectacularly BAD IDEA to let those whose 'feelings' EXCLUSIVELY result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe, to:

REDEFINE: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION! ​

Where_r_my_Keys Yes Where, you have the right to your beliefs,
and cannot be forced to have to prove them or give them up because of govt laws.
However, by the same token, NYcarbineer Seawytch Syriusly and others have
equal right to their beliefs and cannot be excluded by law either.

So they do have the right to marriage laws that include them and their beliefs
equally as you and I do. If we cannot agree on this publicly, it should be left to
district level or private churches or whatever can accommodate us equally.

The same reason it would be unconstitutional to impose their beliefs in conflict with yours,
it is equally unconstitutional for you or me to impose our beliefs on them. I believe
in consensus and even that must be agreed upon by free choice and cannot be forced by law.
or even that contradicts religious freedom.

since these are personal matters of belief, they cannot be forced by govt.
we either agree what laws to pass, or we remove them from govt jurisdiction
and pass neutral laws on where we agree and keep our beliefs out of it that others oppose.

 

[NLT]

I had to see this again

 

[emilynghiem]

A sound religion, is a religion which is aligned with the God's law... which is to say: The Laws of Nature.

Where_r_my_Keys Yes, and the critical part of human nature is free will and the right of consent.
The spirit of our Constitutional laws is based on the consent of the governed.

So by these laws, even the things you find to be true, must be chosen by free will because this is
someone's personal and spiritual beliefs that are involved here. The state can FOLLOW such
agreed laws, such as laws against murder we all AGREE on, but cannot impose laws that
touch on religious or spiritual beliefs without the consent of the people affected. This is part of natural law also!

People will only consent to laws and govt they AGREE to, and will oppose that which is inconsistent.
so conflicts must be resolved so we consent to the laws and don't abuse govt to impose on you, me or others.

We are EQUAL under law, which is also a Christian concept.

 

[emilynghiem]

I had to see this again

When is the Rap Version coming out. Like this one on Antoine Dodson
I still love cuz he's so honest and sincere. Just love that:

 

[Skylar]

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

God rules... period.

Which God? Yahweh? Amaterasu? Allah? The million gods of Hinduism? Shiva? Krishna? The other million gods of shintoism? Jesus? Spenta Mainyu? Tlaloc? The Maize Gods? Horus? Zeus? Crom?

You'll need to be a little more specific.

The evidence is simply irrefutable.

I don't think 'irrefutable' means what you think it means. I'd even question your command of the word 'evidence'.

The word you're looking for is 'opinion'. Subjective opinion. Where you believe what you want to believe and then insist that whatever you believe is objective moral truth. And personal opinion isn't objective truth. But subjective belief.

You claim that there is no God and that as a consequence, the 'rules of those who claim to such to be in alignment with God are not any 'better' than the rules set forth by those who have no consideration for God.

You assume a god exists. Even following that assumption how do you know you know anything about God. Or could? There are literally millions of conceptions of God. With thousands and thousands of mutually exclusive religions. So lets look at this logically.

If any of the mutually exclusive religions is correct about 'objective moral truth' and their conception of god, that means by definition all the others are wrong. Which means that using your own standards, almost all theists are self deluded, following false conceptions of god and truth. Despite using the exact same processes that you do.

And there's the elephant in the living room: nothing mandates that any of you got it right.

So we're left with 3 likely scenarios:

1) That there is objective moral truth and only one religious sect got it right.
2) That there is objective moral truth and no religious sect got it right.
3) That there is no objective moral truth (or perhaps, we can't comprehend it).

Option 2 and 3 preclude your claims immediately. So your best case scenario is the ridiculously unlikely scenario that of all the religions, of all holy books, of all conceptions of god, of all sects, of all interpretations.....

......only YOU and your sect managed to get it right.

With it being orders of magnitude by orders of magnitude more likely that you are among the self deluded who follow a false conception god and objective moral truth.

All by your own logic of theism. No thank you.

 

[emilynghiem]

God rules... period.

Which God? Yahweh? Amaterasu? Allah? The million gods of Hinduism? Shiva? Krishna? The other million gods of shintoism? Jesus? Spenta Mainyu? Tlaloc? The Maize Gods? Horus? Zeus? Crom?

You'll need to be a little more specific.

...

You assume a god exists. Even following that assumption how do you know you know anything about God. Or could? There are literally millions of conceptions of God. With thousands and thousands of mutually exclusive religions. So lets look at this logically.

Hi Skylar
God is a metaphor or personification of Life or Nature. Creation or Universe.
If you are Christian God means Love. If you are Buddhist, Wisdom may be the name for God you align with closest, though many secular humanists prefer Truth as the equivalent of seeking the Kingdom of God.

What we haven't proven is that all these things point to the SAME Source of Life or God.

But all people I've ever met believe in some forces or laws of Life or Truth or Nature.

We just don't all agree that this is what is meant by God, and don't agree we all believe in the same Source
of Life or Truth.

We all agree that people believe in different things, and just don't believe or agree these are consistent
and haven't proven they are all included under the one/same God.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

So... the sexually abnormal polygamists, lost in court?

Do TELL!

So you're saying that the US Federal Court has held that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One woman?

FASCINATING!

I wonder how that hasn't come up already? Seems like where the issue is OBJECTIVE RULES RELATING TO THE GOVERNANCE OF EVERYONE: EQUALLY... which is to say "LAW", that judicial conclusions regarding the COURTS DEFINING MARRIAGE TO PRECLUDE MORE THAN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, would have come up in a discussion whether TWO MEN or TWO WOMEN can 'BE MARRIED!'.

Surely... some one will look into that one.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

So you object to both the State law- and that the courts have not agreed with your objection?

The law absolutely protects the religious- see the word 'creed' below- no business can discriminate against just because you are religious.

Washington State Law Prohibits
Discrimination in Places of
Public Accommodation
The law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on the following:
•
Race •
Honorably discharged veteran or military status
• Color
• HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C status
• National Origin
• Pregnancy or maternity
• Sex • Sexual orientation or gender identity
• Creed • Use of a guide dog or service animal by a person
with a disability
• Disability
UNDER RCW 49.60.215, A PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION CANNOT:
•
Refuse or withold entrance;
• Charge a different rate or offer different terms and conditions of service;
• Prohibit entrance of a service animal.
• Make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment that is discriminatory

Hi Syriusly
Notice the policy also states CREED.
So people whose CREED is in conflict, also have to be protected and included equally
and cannot be discriminated against due to faith-based arguments.

It is not yet proven that "sexual orientation or gender identity"
is a behavioral choice or not; so this remains faith-based EITHER WAY..

yes- Creed - a business owner cannot refuse to sell to a Christian because of his creed.

And a business owner cannot refuse to sell to a homosexual because of his sexual orientation.

Nothing to do with either behavior or faith of the owner- entirely based upon the discrimination to a customer.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuals living together and loving each other does not bother me or any of my friends in the least.

Doesn't bother anyone that I know... me included.

It's the redefinition of marriage that presents a problem. There is NO NEED to redefine it in order to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples. None whatsoever!

Just well said!

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in 37 States, DC and Canada- it is the joining of 1 man and 1 man or 1 woman and 1 woman.

And that is lovely progress.

 

[emilynghiem]

And in 37 States, DC and Canada- it is the joining of 1 man and 1 man or 1 woman and 1 woman.

And that is lovely progress.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Sure, Syriusly, as long as the laws don't exclude or demean the beliefs of others.
Otherwise, the same mistake as before is being repeated again.
Defeating the purpose of equal inclusion and creating MORE backlash against gays.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

God rules... period.

That God is allowing you the means to destroy yourself and your culture through separation of your culture from HIS RULES... does not change that.

The evidence is simply irrefutable.

You claim that there is no God and that as a consequence, the 'rules of those who claim to such to be in alignment with God are not any 'better' than the rules set forth by those who have no consideration for God.

But let's look at, just the recent record, shall we?

God says: Keep your penis out of the anus of other me and do not go injecting yourself with illicit drugs, because it reduces your means to make sound choices, thus risking you personal viability and subsequently the health and well being of those around you.

You Say: No thanks... I think I'll do as I want...

And PRESTO! You got THE HIV!

Not a good example ya say?

Ok... Let's try this:

God says: "Those who discipline their lives toward the securing of a home through the sound stewardship of long term debt, shall be rewarded with a 'home of their own'. God calls this "FAIR"!

You say: "THAT'S NOT FAIR, GOD! Everyone deserves a home of their own! And to do that, you go about separating God's rules regarding the viable practices which sustain the industries that provide and service the provision of long term home buying debt, replacing such with your own notion of fairness; a notion which DEVIATES from God's definition of fairness... .

And PRESTO! Catastrophic collapse of the International Financial Markets.

Now... what's interesting to me, is how TO YOU: NONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR STANDS TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU >> IF YOUR IDEAS WORK OR NOT!

Now, when a person is incapable of understanding if the consequences of their behavior work or do not work, THAT person is otherwise recognized as IN-FUCKIN'-SANE!

LOL!

But not you idiots... No NO!

"We're not insane... WE'RE PROGRESSIVES!"

Which is to say that you want others to believe that behavior which CLAIMS that it is going to produce GOOD, but which consistently produces BAD, is PROGRESS... because you INTENDED GOOD! As if your intentions in ANY WAY were EVEN RELEVANT to the consequences, LET ALONE EXCUSED YOU FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM!

So... THAT is why I prefer to recognize the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH: That it's a spectacularly BAD IDEA to let those whose 'feelings' EXCLUSIVELY result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe, to:

REDEFINE: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION! ​

Where_r_my_Keys Yes Where, you have the right to your beliefs,
and cannot be forced to have to prove them or give them up because of govt laws.
However, by the same token, NYcarbineer Seawytch Syriusly and others have
equal right to their beliefs and cannot be excluded by law either.

So they do have the right to marriage laws that include them and their beliefs
equally as you and I do. If we cannot agree on this publicly, it should be left to
district level or private churches or whatever can accommodate us equally.

The same reason it would be unconstitutional to impose their beliefs in conflict with yours,
it is equally unconstitutional for you or me to impose our beliefs on them. I believe
in consensus and even that must be agreed upon by free choice and cannot be forced by law.
or even that contradicts religious freedom.

since these are personal matters of belief, they cannot be forced by govt.
we either agree what laws to pass, or we remove them from govt jurisdiction
and pass neutral laws on where we agree and keep our beliefs out of it that others oppose.

Hello Emily.

"... you have the right to your beliefs, and cannot be forced to have to prove them or give them up because of govt laws. However, by the same token, NYcarbineer Seawytch Syriusly and others have
equal right to their beliefs and cannot be excluded by law either."

To the extent that all of the beliefs are reasonable, which is to say, resting upon valid reason... substantiated by the evidence in nature that those beliefs reflect reality, then what you say it true.

But where you simply ascribe that 'a belief', any belief deserves equal standing with every other... is, and forgive me for the certainty here, simply false and, I respectfully submit, absurdly so.

What they are asking, without fear of over simplifying their position, is that reasonable people accept that deviancy; which is to say that behavior which PROFOUNDLY deviates from human physiological NORMALITY be accepted as NORMAL HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY.

Emily... THAT is in purely scientific terms: FALSE. Without regard to ANY "BELIEF"... without consideration of ANY RELIGIOUS TENET: what they are claiming as TRUTH, is FALSE. It is NOT-TRUE, in terms of THE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL REALITY!

They are further demanding that THOSE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL REALITIES REST IN VACUOUS, MEANINGLESS OPINION, THAT SUCH REFLECTS MERELY THE BIASED INTERPRETATION; A FALSELY PREJUDICED VIEW OF ARCAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEF!

And in that, Emily, reasonable people; which is to say, people who are in possession of a strong sense of reality, can rest assured that such 'BELIEFS' are a manifestation of a disordered mind.

And in that, reasonable people can recognize the HISTORICAL opinion of eons of civilization, wherein EVERY CULTURE IN HUMAN HISTORY, DURING THE PERIODS OF SUBSTANTIAL VIABILITY, recognized that homosexual behavior was the result of a mental disorder.

And we can test that against the history wherein ONCE SUCH BEHAVIOR CAME TO BE EXCEPTED AS NORMAL... the viability of those culture's evaporated, and shortly thereafter, so evaporated THE CULTURE.

So, no ma'am... all 'beliefs' are not equal... and subsequently all beliefs ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE US CONSTITUTION OR NATURE ITSELF, as being such.

If we cannot agree upon that SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH... we cannot agree upon anything.

Understand, the Founders of the United States did not recognize the 'beliefs' of King George and the British parliament which had long subjugated their means to exercise their God-given rights.

And I NEED you to understand that: IT WAS THIS SINGULAR TRUTH FROM WHICH THE UNITED STATES CAME INTO EXISTENCE.

What's more... as in all matters of mathematical certainty, where the positive is true, as represented by our founding, it is certain that the negative is just as true, thus the inversion; which is to say the turning from that self-evident truth, can ONLY lead to our cultural demise.

These are immutable laws of nature Emily... they're right there in front of you. It is impossible to NOT see them, except and unless one simply refuses TO see them. Which is very common, because to recognize them brings the responsibility to comport one's behavior, within them.

And that's HARD!

And because IT is HARD, the Ideological Left has evolved through centuries of rationalizations, in vane grope for an EASIER WAY.

The problem is, it only appears easier on the front end; but in reality, it never is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Could you quote God, or a God, opposing same sex marriage, and in the process prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a God actually said it?

I do not take your word for it that God opposes same sex marriage. Why should I?

Oh I can do better than that. I can show you God's design of the human species.

God conveyed this, through his design of the human species... 'THE OUTEE WILL JOIN WITH THE INEE. Whereupon he created the male, representing the OUTEE and the female representing the inee... He then gave each their respective traits... wherein the outee compliments the requirements and needs of the inee and vice-versa. What's MORE... the design not only works, it works PERFECTLY! Thus proving the viable, sustainable characteristics OF "The Design", which indisputably, we find: GOD'S WILL in terms of Human Sexuality.

Now to accept this you must also accept that a design provides the rules for operation.

You probably will reject that, and in so doing, expose you 'beliefs' as not only unreasonable, more importantly: UNTENABLE!

(That means your 'beliefs' are proven, through the rejection of irrefutable truth, to be indefensible... thus unsustainable. I encourage you to look up the words you feel don't 'work' for you... and perhaps in that, you'll find some glint of reality, which if you're lucky will set you on some path toward an epiphany [a glimpse of the truth].

And as unlikely as that is, we can only hope... .)

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Where_r_my_Keys
I know this challenges our faith in following civil authorities and trusting that enforcing laws
consistently will steer towards the right direction we agree on anyway.

Please trust that SCIENCE will prove that homosexuality can change, and has been
healed where such conditions were unnatural. People will attest to that, and science can show this.

We do not need to be so afraid that we rely on faith-based arguments
when we can prove our points using science that MEETS secular standards
and proves this once and for all.

Do you see this is God's will to use THIS issue to prove that spiritual healing does work naturally
and freely, and is not fraud or forced or anything negative.

Nobody cared enough to do the medical research to prove spiritual healing, when it would
have saved lived from cancer, mental illness, and all kinds of deadly physical and criminal illnesses.
So nobody pushed to prove it scientifically, when there wasn't enough motivation.

But now, with THIS issue, suddenly people do care enough to push for proof.

Now we can organize enough support to prove spiritual healing
has cured people of unnatural conditions that include homosexual attractions.

And because of the push for funds invested in marijuana research and medical benefits,
why not push for equal resources invested in research on spiritual healing which is even
more natural and applies to a wider range of conditions, including healing addictions and abuse,
physical diseases and personal relationships.

God will use ALL THINGS for his good purposes.

So I join with you in prayer and absolute faith that even better things
than we imagined will come from these conflicts that seem so negative right now.

May I please pray with you for full forgiveness and corrections of all the
wrongs that we see going on, so that all can be made right in Christ Jesus?
Amen!

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

God rules... period.

That God is allowing you the means to destroy yourself and your culture through separation of your culture from HIS RULES... does not change that.

The evidence is simply irrefutable.

You claim that there is no God and that as a consequence, the 'rules of those who claim to such to be in alignment with God are not any 'better' than the rules set forth by those who have no consideration for God.

But let's look at, just the recent record, shall we?

God says: Keep your penis out of the anus of other me and do not go injecting yourself with illicit drugs, because it reduces your means to make sound choices, thus risking you personal viability and subsequently the health and well being of those around you.

You Say: No thanks... I think I'll do as I want...

And PRESTO! You got THE HIV!

Not a good example ya say?

Ok... Let's try this:

God says: "Those who discipline their lives toward the securing of a home through the sound stewardship of long term debt, shall be rewarded with a 'home of their own'. God calls this "FAIR"!

You say: "THAT'S NOT FAIR, GOD! Everyone deserves a home of their own! And to do that, you go about separating God's rules regarding the viable practices which sustain the industries that provide and service the provision of long term home buying debt, replacing such with your own notion of fairness; a notion which DEVIATES from God's definition of fairness... .

And PRESTO! Catastrophic collapse of the International Financial Markets.

Now... what's interesting to me, is how TO YOU: NONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR STANDS TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU >> IF YOUR IDEAS WORK OR NOT!

Now, when a person is incapable of understanding if the consequences of their behavior work or do not work, THAT person is otherwise recognized as IN-FUCKIN'-SANE!

LOL!

But not you idiots... No NO!

"We're not insane... WE'RE PROGRESSIVES!"

Which is to say that you want others to believe that behavior which CLAIMS that it is going to produce GOOD, but which consistently produces BAD, is PROGRESS... because you INTENDED GOOD! As if your intentions in ANY WAY were EVEN RELEVANT to the consequences, LET ALONE EXCUSED YOU FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM!

So... THAT is why I prefer to recognize the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH: That it's a spectacularly BAD IDEA to let those whose 'feelings' EXCLUSIVELY result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe, to:

REDEFINE: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION! ​

Where_r_my_Keys Yes Where, you have the right to your beliefs,
and cannot be forced to have to prove them or give them up because of govt laws.
However, by the same token, NYcarbineer Seawytch Syriusly and others have
equal right to their beliefs and cannot be excluded by law either.

So they do have the right to marriage laws that include them and their beliefs
equally as you and I do. If we cannot agree on this publicly, it should be left to
district level or private churches or whatever can accommodate us equally.

The same reason it would be unconstitutional to impose their beliefs in conflict with yours,
it is equally unconstitutional for you or me to impose our beliefs on them. I believe
in consensus and even that must be agreed upon by free choice and cannot be forced by law.
or even that contradicts religious freedom.

since these are personal matters of belief, they cannot be forced by govt.
we either agree what laws to pass, or we remove them from govt jurisdiction
and pass neutral laws on where we agree and keep our beliefs out of it that others oppose.

Hello Emily.

"... you have the right to your beliefs, and cannot be forced to have to prove them or give them up because of govt laws. However, by the same token, NYcarbineer Seawytch Syriusly and others have
equal right to their beliefs and cannot be excluded by law either."

To the extent that all of the beliefs are reasonable, which is to say, resting upon valid reason... substantiated by the evidence in nature that those beliefs reflect reality, then what you say it true.

But where you simply ascribe that 'a belief', any belief deserves equal standing with every other... is, and forgive me for the certainty here, simply false and, I respectfully submit, absurdly so.

What they are asking, without fear of over simplifying their position, is that reasonable people accept that deviancy; which is to say that behavior which PROFOUNDLY deviates from human physiological NORMALITY be accepted as NORMAL HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY.

Emily... THAT is in purely scientific terms: FALSE. Without regard to ANY "BELIEF"... without consideration of ANY RELIGIOUS TENET: what they are claiming as TRUTH, is FALSE. It is NOT-TRUE, in terms of THE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL REALITY!

They are further demanding that THOSE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL REALITIES REST IN VACUOUS, MEANINGLESS OPINION, THAT SUCH REFLECTS MERELY THE BIASED INTERPRETATION; A FALSELY PREJUDICED VIEW OF ARCAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEF!

And in that, Emily, reasonable people; which is to say, people who are in possession of a strong sense of reality, can rest assured that such 'BELIEFS' are a manifestation of a disordered mind.

And in that, reasonable people can recognize the HISTORICAL opinion of eons of civilization, wherein EVERY CULTURE IN HUMAN HISTORY, DURING THE PERIODS OF SUBSTANTIAL VIABILITY, recognized that homosexual behavior was the result of a mental disorder.

And we can test that against the history wherein ONCE SUCH BEHAVIOR CAME TO BE EXCEPTED AS NORMAL... the viability of those culture's evaporated, and shortly thereafter, so evaporated THE CULTURE.

So, no ma'am... all 'beliefs' are not equal... and subsequently all beliefs ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE US CONSTITUTION OR NATURE ITSELF, as being such.

If we cannot agree upon that SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH... we cannot agree upon anything.

Understand, the Founders of the United States did not recognize the 'beliefs' of King George and the British parliament which had long subjugated their means to exercise their God-given rights.

And I NEED you to understand that: IT WAS THIS SINGULAR TRUTH FROM WHICH THE UNITED STATES CAME INTO EXISTENCE.

What's more... as in all matters of mathematical certainty, where the positive is true, as represented by our founding, it is certain that the negative is just as true, thus the inversion; which is to say the turning from that self-evident truth, can ONLY lead to our cultural demise.

These are immutable laws of nature Emily... they're right there in front of you. It is impossible to NOT see them, except and unless one simply refuses TO see them. Which is very common, because to recognize them brings the responsibility to comport one's behavior, within them.

And that's HARD!

And because IT is HARD, the Ideological Left has evolved through centuries of rationalizations, in vane grope for an EASIER WAY.

The problem is, it only appears easier on the front end; but in reality, it never is.

Not to worry, God has a plan for the gentiles, and these natural laws will lead to perfect unity and understanding
between both folds of the flock made one, new, whole and fulfilled in Christ Jesus, Amen.

 

[Skylar]

To the extent that all of the beliefs are reasonable, which is to say, resting upon valid reason... substantiated by the evidence in nature that those beliefs reflect reality, then what you say it true.

But your reasoning isn't valid. For example, you insist that we can observe nature to determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But what of predation of the young, the sick, and the old? That happens all the time in nature. Is that 'natural law', and thus 'god's law'?

Of course not. You don't like that observation, so you ignore it. Just as you do anything in nature that doesn't support what you already believe. Thus, nature isn't your source or your authority. You are. As anything that disagrees with you, you ignore.

Even nature. Even god. Even the Bible. Your only authority is you. And you citing your beliefs as a justification for your beliefs is a circular argument. And not valid reasoning at all.

But where you simply ascribe that 'a belief', any belief deserves equal standing with every other... is, and forgive me for the certainty here, simply false and, I respectfully submit, absurdly so.

But who decides what's 'reasonable'? These terms are spectacularly subjective, and differer in application from person to person.

You assume an objective moral truth. And then assume that you understand it. And then assume that objective moral truth is what you believe. And then assume that your conception of objective moral truth is infallible and any other must be wrong.

You're offering us a series of nested assumptions, each hopelessly reliant on the last. Where a flaw in any one of them causes all subsequent assumptions to collapse.

But you can't actually prove any of them. You're offering us a relativist, subjective opinion. And then bizarrely insisting that your subjective opinion is objective fact. When in reality, subjective opinion is not objective fact.

Emily... THAT is in purely scientific terms: FALSE. Without regard to ANY "BELIEF"... without consideration of ANY RELIGIOUS TENET: what they are claiming as TRUTH, is FALSE. It is NOT-TRUE, in terms of THE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL REALITY!

That gay sex doesn't produce children is a fundamental biological reality.

All the other judgments you've applied to it are just your personal opinion. You've described gays as 'abhorred' 'despised', 'loathed' and insisted that unless gays 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that they are going to see a war against them that 'will make hate crimes look like Sunday brunch.'

That's all you. And has nothing to do with 'fundamental biological reality'. The worst thing we can say about gays is that their sex is unproductive. So is masterbation, sex on birth control, old people fucking, head, etc.. Unproductive sex has no particular moral connotations.

You imagine that it does. And your imagination isn't evidence of anything but your opinion. Which is hopelessly subjective.

And we can test that against the history wherein ONCE SUCH BEHAVIOR CAME TO BE EXCEPTED AS NORMAL... the viability of those culture's evaporated, and shortly thereafter, so evaporated THE CULTURE.

Virtually every civilization in that has ever existed in history 'evaporated' and collapsed. If they embraced homosexuality. if they didn't. They're virtually all gone.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', then clearly you're not describing a causative relationship.

This is simple logic. And it obliterates your entire argument easily

These are immutable laws of nature Emily... they're right there in front of you. It is impossible to NOT see them, except and unless one simply refuses TO see them. Which is very common, because to recognize them brings the responsibility to comport one's behavior, within them.

No, your opinion is not an immutable law of nature. You cherry pick nature and ignore anything that doesn't conform to what you already believe. Predation of the sick and old is natural. But you don't like it, so you reject it as natural law.

Nature isn't your authority. You are.

Just as you cherry pick history, ignoring any civilization that collapsed but didn't embrace homosexuality.

History isn't your authority. You are.

Just as you cherry pick the bible, ignoring any passage that doesn't match what you want to believe.

The Bible isn't your authority. You are.

And you aren't enough.

 

[emilynghiem]

Skylar 1. People have testified that they were healed of their homosexual attractions
and orientation through spiritual prayer and therapy, and will explain this was not natural for them.
2. Many gay people do not need to have marriage through state laws to feel equal.

So this shows that it is only a biased viewpoint that is being pushed, and is not legally necessary for all people as a class
as claimed. It is faith based, so that cannot be pushed by law against the equally defensible beliefs and faith of others.

Science can prove that such cases of spiritual healing are valid.
So if you want proof, this will show at least those cases are valid and the rest remain faith based.

 

[Seawytch]

And in 37 States, DC and Canada- it is the joining of 1 man and 1 man or 1 woman and 1 woman.

And that is lovely progress.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Sure, Syriusly, as long as the laws don't exclude or demean the beliefs of others.
Otherwise, the same mistake as before is being repeated again.
Defeating the purpose of equal inclusion and creating MORE backlash against gays.[/QUOTE]

The law doesn't. The law treats all equally regardless of their religious affiliation. Civil and religious marriage are already a completely separate thing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Dear Where_r_my_Keys
I know this challenges our faith in following civil authorities and trusting that enforcing laws
consistently will steer towards the right direction we agree on anyway.

Please trust that SCIENCE will prove that homosexuality can change, and has been
healed where such conditions were unnatural. People will attest to that, and science can show this.

We do not need to be so afraid that we rely on faith-based arguments
when we can prove our points using science that MEETS secular standards
and proves this once and for all.

Do you see this is God's will to use THIS issue to prove that spiritual healing does work naturally
and freely, and is not fraud or forced or anything negative.

Nobody cared enough to do the medical research to prove spiritual healing, when it would
have saved lived from cancer, mental illness, and all kinds of deadly physical and criminal illnesses.
So nobody pushed to prove it scientifically, when there wasn't enough motivation.

But now, with THIS issue, suddenly people do care enough to push for proof.

Now we can organize enough support to prove spiritual healing
has cured people of unnatural conditions that include homosexual attractions.

And because of the push for funds invested in marijuana research and medical benefits,
why not push for equal resources invested in research on spiritual healing which is even
more natural and applies to a wider range of conditions, including healing addictions and abuse,
physical diseases and personal relationships.

God will use ALL THINGS for his good purposes.

So I join with you in prayer and absolute faith that even better things
than we imagined will come from these conflicts that seem so negative right now.

May I please pray with you for full forgiveness and corrections of all the
wrongs that we see going on, so that all can be made right in Christ Jesus?
Amen!

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

God rules... period.

That God is allowing you the means to destroy yourself and your culture through separation of your culture from HIS RULES... does not change that.

The evidence is simply irrefutable.

You claim that there is no God and that as a consequence, the 'rules of those who claim to such to be in alignment with God are not any 'better' than the rules set forth by those who have no consideration for God.

But let's look at, just the recent record, shall we?

God says: Keep your penis out of the anus of other me and do not go injecting yourself with illicit drugs, because it reduces your means to make sound choices, thus risking you personal viability and subsequently the health and well being of those around you.

You Say: No thanks... I think I'll do as I want...

And PRESTO! You got THE HIV!

Not a good example ya say?

Ok... Let's try this:

God says: "Those who discipline their lives toward the securing of a home through the sound stewardship of long term debt, shall be rewarded with a 'home of their own'. God calls this "FAIR"!

You say: "THAT'S NOT FAIR, GOD! Everyone deserves a home of their own! And to do that, you go about separating God's rules regarding the viable practices which sustain the industries that provide and service the provision of long term home buying debt, replacing such with your own notion of fairness; a notion which DEVIATES from God's definition of fairness... .

And PRESTO! Catastrophic collapse of the International Financial Markets.

Now... what's interesting to me, is how TO YOU: NONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR STANDS TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU >> IF YOUR IDEAS WORK OR NOT!

Now, when a person is incapable of understanding if the consequences of their behavior work or do not work, THAT person is otherwise recognized as IN-FUCKIN'-SANE!

LOL!

But not you idiots... No NO!

"We're not insane... WE'RE PROGRESSIVES!"

Which is to say that you want others to believe that behavior which CLAIMS that it is going to produce GOOD, but which consistently produces BAD, is PROGRESS... because you INTENDED GOOD! As if your intentions in ANY WAY were EVEN RELEVANT to the consequences, LET ALONE EXCUSED YOU FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM!

So... THAT is why I prefer to recognize the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH: That it's a spectacularly BAD IDEA to let those whose 'feelings' EXCLUSIVELY result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe, to:

REDEFINE: THE NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION! ​

Where_r_my_Keys Yes Where, you have the right to your beliefs,
and cannot be forced to have to prove them or give them up because of govt laws.
However, by the same token, NYcarbineer Seawytch Syriusly and others have
equal right to their beliefs and cannot be excluded by law either.

So they do have the right to marriage laws that include them and their beliefs
equally as you and I do. If we cannot agree on this publicly, it should be left to
district level or private churches or whatever can accommodate us equally.

The same reason it would be unconstitutional to impose their beliefs in conflict with yours,
it is equally unconstitutional for you or me to impose our beliefs on them. I believe
in consensus and even that must be agreed upon by free choice and cannot be forced by law.
or even that contradicts religious freedom.

since these are personal matters of belief, they cannot be forced by govt.
we either agree what laws to pass, or we remove them from govt jurisdiction
and pass neutral laws on where we agree and keep our beliefs out of it that others oppose.

Hello Emily.

"... you have the right to your beliefs, and cannot be forced to have to prove them or give them up because of govt laws. However, by the same token, NYcarbineer Seawytch Syriusly and others have
equal right to their beliefs and cannot be excluded by law either."

To the extent that all of the beliefs are reasonable, which is to say, resting upon valid reason... substantiated by the evidence in nature that those beliefs reflect reality, then what you say it true.

But where you simply ascribe that 'a belief', any belief deserves equal standing with every other... is, and forgive me for the certainty here, simply false and, I respectfully submit, absurdly so.

What they are asking, without fear of over simplifying their position, is that reasonable people accept that deviancy; which is to say that behavior which PROFOUNDLY deviates from human physiological NORMALITY be accepted as NORMAL HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY.

Emily... THAT is in purely scientific terms: FALSE. Without regard to ANY "BELIEF"... without consideration of ANY RELIGIOUS TENET: what they are claiming as TRUTH, is FALSE. It is NOT-TRUE, in terms of THE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL REALITY!

They are further demanding that THOSE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL REALITIES REST IN VACUOUS, MEANINGLESS OPINION, THAT SUCH REFLECTS MERELY THE BIASED INTERPRETATION; A FALSELY PREJUDICED VIEW OF ARCAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEF!

And in that, Emily, reasonable people; which is to say, people who are in possession of a strong sense of reality, can rest assured that such 'BELIEFS' are a manifestation of a disordered mind.

And in that, reasonable people can recognize the HISTORICAL opinion of eons of civilization, wherein EVERY CULTURE IN HUMAN HISTORY, DURING THE PERIODS OF SUBSTANTIAL VIABILITY, recognized that homosexual behavior was the result of a mental disorder.

And we can test that against the history wherein ONCE SUCH BEHAVIOR CAME TO BE EXCEPTED AS NORMAL... the viability of those culture's evaporated, and shortly thereafter, so evaporated THE CULTURE.

So, no ma'am... all 'beliefs' are not equal... and subsequently all beliefs ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE US CONSTITUTION OR NATURE ITSELF, as being such.

If we cannot agree upon that SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH... we cannot agree upon anything.

Understand, the Founders of the United States did not recognize the 'beliefs' of King George and the British parliament which had long subjugated their means to exercise their God-given rights.

And I NEED you to understand that: IT WAS THIS SINGULAR TRUTH FROM WHICH THE UNITED STATES CAME INTO EXISTENCE.

What's more... as in all matters of mathematical certainty, where the positive is true, as represented by our founding, it is certain that the negative is just as true, thus the inversion; which is to say the turning from that self-evident truth, can ONLY lead to our cultural demise.

These are immutable laws of nature Emily... they're right there in front of you. It is impossible to NOT see them, except and unless one simply refuses TO see them. Which is very common, because to recognize them brings the responsibility to comport one's behavior, within them.

And that's HARD!

And because IT is HARD, the Ideological Left has evolved through centuries of rationalizations, in vane grope for an EASIER WAY.

The problem is, it only appears easier on the front end; but in reality, it never is.

Not to worry, God has a plan for the gentiles, and these natural laws will lead to perfect unity and understanding
between both folds of the flock made one, new, whole and fulfilled in Christ Jesus, Amen.

Emily, we agree...

But God's will is truth. And truth can only be found, through the rejection of falsity. And where we attempt to compromise with falsity, even toward the pursuit of the truth, we do not get halfway toward the truth, we actually 'get' farther from the truth, by half measures. Which, is the surest and fastest path to destruction.

Emily, they're wrong. Nature does not require that they recognize themselves as wrong to be wrong.

They're animated by un-truth... and because of that, they are impervious to reason.

Did you see the cabby just ask me for 'a quote from God?'.

Do you understand that it did so, not because it is searching for evidence of God's will... it did that because it rejects the existence of God and as such God's law.

The simple truth is, IF God were to materialize directly in front of it and perform all manner of 'miracles'... altering matter from inanimate composition to life... it would not recognize God, and that is because it cannot and that is because it lacks the means to reason.

For Pete's sale Emily... these people just witnesses socialist policy DESTROY the financial markets... rendering the planet into economic chaos. And they have absolutely NO MEANS to understand what they saw.

They promoted unprincipled behavior... that unprincipled behavior resulted in catastrophe and they immediately turn to blame those who promote principled behavior for THEIR FAILURE. THAT IS A PRESENTATION OF A DISORDERED MIND. A perversion of human reasoning; the inability to discern REALITY!

There's no right to impart catastrophe onto others by misleading them to believe that which is false, to be true.

I truly appreciate your point of view, but I cannot agree that tolerating the intolerable is going to produce anything but more intolerable behavior.

Look around you... they are crippling the WESTERN CIVILIZATION. And we're approaching a point where there will be no means to stop it, where the Left exists.

And yes... I realize that what that means. And in my 54th year of life, with innocent, defenseless grand-babies all about me, I have no desire to experience that hell or subject these children to it. But, I am not the one causing it... therefore I have no means to stop it, short of conveying to as many as possible, the reasoning which mathematically demonstrates the absolute certainty of the errors intrinsic to their way.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Defeating the purpose of equal inclusion...

"Equal Inclusion"... of what?

Does the 14th amendment provide that every idea is equal? That every person with every far-flung notion has a RESPONSIBILITY to subject the consequences of their 'beliefs' upon everyone else and IF the law precludes them from doing so THAT THE LAW IS USURPING THE RIGHT WHICH IS SUSTAINED ONLY THROUGH THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO INJURE AS MANY PEOPLE AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE?

No... it doesn't.

The amendment guarantees that RACIAL DISTINCTION will not stand as a reason for a person to be treated differently from ANY OTHER PERSON.

RACE... now, where SPECIFICALLY does "RACE EQUALITY" establish that PROFOUND SEXUAL DEVIANCY MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS SEXUAL EQUALITY?

(The Reader should know that despite the ANSA Cult REJECTING THAT REALITY, they will have NO MEANS TO ADDRESS that point. And as such, they will ignore it, or immediately set out to deflect from it.)

 

[emilynghiem]

And in 37 States, DC and Canada- it is the joining of 1 man and 1 man or 1 woman and 1 woman.

And that is lovely progress.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Sure, Syriusly, as long as the laws don't exclude or demean the beliefs of others.
Otherwise, the same mistake as before is being repeated again.
Defeating the purpose of equal inclusion and creating MORE backlash against gays.[/QUOTE]

The law doesn't. The law treats all equally regardless of their religious affiliation. Civil and religious marriage are already a completely separate thing.[/QUOTE]

TO YOU Seawytch
To people whose beliefs and whose mindsets don't separate laws the way we do,
this language is like trying to impose GOD on Atheists. it's just a word, but it invokes BELIEFS.

That's fine if you don't see the difference.
I am perfectly fine translating Jesus into Justice, God into Life/Nature, and those words don't have to be
changed for me either.

But I happen to RESPECT if people's inherent beliefs can't agree with how something is worded,
and may need that to be changed.

Nobody has to justify their beliefs to me for me to recognize them and work with them.

If you want YOUR laws to say that, then don't pass them in a state where other citizens
have the right NOT to have that wording in the laws.

Sorry that you do not respect or understand the beliefs of others equally as your own.
I do, as a Constitutionalist. And I cannot make you follow the Golden Rule and treat
the consent of others equally weighted as your own. In mediation, the people in conflict
are weighed the same, and if they are not comfortable with how a resolution is worded, it is changed.

Sorry this isn't your standard, but it's the one I use to defend and protect the beliefs of others
equally as my own, even and especially when I don't agree or don't understand.

I am fine with creating a level of law and state system, such as through the Democrats and our party platform
so that people can have the marriage laws they want, and it doesn't have to affect people who disagree.

Otherwise, all people, all couples should have "civil unions" through the state
and keep marriage private so everyone is equal.

Whatever people in a state agree on, that's their rights and their laws.
But as long as the state and laws I am under affect people with opposing beliefs,
I will support a consensus to make sure all beliefs are included and the laws are worded where everyone consents.

That's fine, Seawytch, if that is enough to work in your state, and all the citizens there agree to the language.

I live in Texas and right now, they are even celebrating the anniversary of passing
a ban on gay marriage. So to get an alternative system set up would be a victory.
I believe this can be done by consensus, and same with resolving issues over the ACA and those mandates.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

Because their Religious belief flies in the face of nature, God and the principles that define America.

Says who?

And simply holding 'a' religious belief, does not a valid Religious belief: MAKE.

And who decides what a 'valid' religious belief is? God doesn't break ties.

FYI: That's the same principle that will strike down the attempts of Islam to impart Sharia Law upon those walking upon US SOIL... at least where governance over those on that soil respects American Principle.

So 'valid religious belief' should trump US laws. But not 'invalid' religious belief. With apparently you deciding which is which.

Can you get more subjective and relativistic?

It's a classic theocratic argument. He wants God to rule, but he wants someone other than God to make the rules.

It's called consensus. Since we cannot prove such things,
and since we rely on our personal religious and political beliefs,
the standard we end up going by is whether we consent or not and what we consent to.

So in order to include all people's relative beliefs and values, of what we consent to or not,
this means a consensus on subjective policies that affect our personal lives which govt is not supposed to dictate for us.

We have courts in case the consensus is wrong. Don't forget what the rightwingers love to call consensus...

...mob rule.