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

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I like you Templar, I just think too many of you take this issue too far and far to serious. And as I stated earlier this issue will kill republicans at the poll

Here's the catch, I'm not a Republican. I like you too Gramps, I agree with you on a lot of things.

Republican or not we are both looking for a more conservative government. The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about. I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.

That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.

I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.

Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Republican or not we are both looking for a more conservative government. The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about. I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.

So you aren't concerned with social issues; which would be the issues that are central to the viability of your culture?

Huh... Tell me, given that you're on record as being interested in a 'more conservative' government, and absent the social aspect that only leaves the fiscal aspect... so lets assume the social issue aspect is abandoned.

On what basis then do you find the potential for fiscal conservatism being a possibility in a culture who rejects conservative principle; which is to say: natural law?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.

That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.

I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.

Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.

I'm not talking about free speech bro.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.

That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.

I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.

Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.

I'm not talking about free speech bro.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics

Politics is one thing, civil discourse is another. Political discourse, however, is a manner of free speech. And since our politicians are elected by people in whom these issues naturally arise, these issues will continue being brought up to them regularly, meaning they do have a place in our political landscape. Also, these issues are debated upon by the average citizen. We have bigger issues (ISIS, Immigration, Economy, etc.), but that doesn't dictate which issue takes precedent and which issues shouldn't be discussed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.

That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.

I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.

Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.

I'm not talking about free speech bro.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics

These issues are being debated by citizens... in a forum designed for just that. So clearly these discussions are relevant to politicians governing, beyond the advocacies presented bearing upon the preference for a given politician... .

What in your mind needs to be governed?

 

[Skylar]

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 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 they were and that by Liberalizing the culture's enforcement, the culture would not see an increase in either.

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 them. Where they claim a right to undermine the viability of your culture, by demanding that their deviancy is perfectly normal and that YOU are a deviant for not accepting them as normal... that THEY have the right to their life, as they live it, to force perversion on you and your children, to undermine the legitimacy of your marriage, by forcing marriage to accept illegitimacy... to promote the acceptance of infidelity and the endless other examples of sexual abnormality as perfectly NORMAL!

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

Your 'summary victory' schtick and rout already? That was easy. In the mean time your failure to resolve any of the holes in your claims remains a testament to the uselessness of your 'objective law' nonsense for any reader who happens by:

1) Keyes can't tell us if killing gays and adulterers is 'God's law'. If its 'God's objective law', why would Keyes run from such a simple question?

2) Keyes can't tell us who said that the Puritans considered God's commandment to execute gays and adulterers to be 'subjective'. So far....there's Keyes. Citing Keyes.

3) Keyes can't tell us whose 'God's objective law' he are referring to. His? The Puritan's? The Founder's? The Buddhist's? The Muslim's? The Mayan's? The Zoroastrian's? The Hindu's? The Aztec's? The Shintoist's?

As they clearly don't agree.

4) Keyes can't tell us if predation on the sick and old are 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'.....despite it occurring in nature.

Keep running.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your inability to refute the point is becoming tediously familiar.

The issue is your inability to recognize when your point has been refuted.

Let me show you, in specific terms where that happened:

We set God's law into our laws? That explains Roe v Wade then, I guess.

That was your point.

What Roe demonstrates, is the destructive nature of subjectivity upon the viability of Justice, which can only be secured through objectivism... as Roe provides for the illusion of a right without responsibility... standing in diametric opposition to nature law... thus explaining the catastrophe upon the culture that has come to the US Culture as a direct result of it.

As noted, that was me, refuting your point. We know this because that is where you fled from the point...

That's a gibberish non-answer. Roe v Wade is the law of the land, thus, according to you, it must have come from God.

That was you conceding to me that you had no means to sustain your failed attempt at a point.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.

That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.

I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.

Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.

I'm not talking about free speech bro.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics

Politics is one thing, civil discourse is another. Political discourse, however, is a manner of free speech. And since our politicians are elected by people in whom these issues naturally arise, these issues will continue being brought up to them regularly, meaning they do have a place in our political landscape. Also, these issues are debated upon by the average citizen. We have bigger issues (ISIS, Immigration, Economy, etc.), but that doesn't dictate which issue takes precedent and which issues shouldn't be discussed.

I seriously doubt that gay marriage will be much of a topic for discussion in the coming years. Legally, the issue is likely to be resolved in June in the same manner of Loving V. Virginia. With the public already supporting gay marriage by 12 to 19 points and the opposition concentrated among the elderly, the sheer attrition of time will widdle away at opposition to gay marriage.

I suspect it will be no more an issue in 5 years than interracial marriage is now. There's simply no downside.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.

That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.

I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.

Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.

I'm not talking about free speech bro.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics

These issues are being debated by citizens... in a forum designed for just that. So clearly these discussions are relevant to politicians governing, beyond the advocacies presented bearing upon the preference for a given politician... .

What in your mind needs to be governed?

I can tell you what doesn't need to be governed.
Who Sally wants to bump uglies with or marry.

Congress should create a law that says ANY business can REFUSE to serve ANY customer for ANY reason.

Making homosexuality illegal is NOT the proper recourse to protect a dumb business person.

 

[Syriusly]

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 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 they were and that by Liberalizing the culture's enforcement, the culture would not see an increase in either.

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 them. Where they claim a right to undermine the viability of your culture, by demanding that their deviancy is perfectly normal and that YOU are a deviant for not accepting them as normal... that THEY have the right to their life, as they live it, to force perversion on you and your children, to undermine the legitimacy of your marriage, by forcing marriage to accept illegitimacy... to promote the acceptance of infidelity and the endless other examples of sexual abnormality as perfectly NORMAL!

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

Your 'summary victory' schtick and rout already? That was easy. In the mean time your failure to resolve any of the holes in your claims remains a testament to the uselessness of your 'objective law' nonsense for any reader who happens by:

1) Keyes can't tell us if killing gays and adulterers is 'God's law'. If its 'God's objective law', why would Keyes run from such a simple question?

2) Keyes can't tell us who said that the Puritans considered God's commandment to execute gays and adulterers to be 'subjective'. So far....there's Keyes. Citing Keyes.

3) Keyes can't tell us whose 'God's objective law' he are referring to. His? The Puritan's? The Founder's? The Buddhist's? The Muslim's? The Mayan's? The Zoroastrian's? The Hindu's? The Aztec's? The Shintoist's?

As they clearly don't agree.

4) Keyes can't tell us if predation on the sick and old are 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'.....despite it occurring in nature.

Keep running.

Keyes is an idiot and impossible to have an actual dialogue with.

He just declares victory and runs cackling down the street in his bedclothes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 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 they were and that by Liberalizing the culture's enforcement, the culture would not see an increase in either.

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 them. Where they claim a right to undermine the viability of your culture, by demanding that their deviancy is perfectly normal and that YOU are a deviant for not accepting them as normal... that THEY have the right to their life, as they live it, to force perversion on you and your children, to undermine the legitimacy of your marriage, by forcing marriage to accept illegitimacy... to promote the acceptance of infidelity and the endless other examples of sexual abnormality as perfectly NORMAL!

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

Your 'summary victory' schtick and rout already? That was easy. In the mean time your failure to resolve any of the holes in your claims remains a testament to the uselessness of your 'objective law' nonsense for any reader who happens by:

1) Keyes can't tell us if killing gays and adulterers is 'God's law'. If its 'God's objective law', why would Keyes run from such a simple question?

2) Keyes can't tell us who said that the Puritans considered God's commandment to execute gays and adulterers to be 'subjective'. So far....there's Keyes. Citing Keyes.

3) Keyes can't tell us whose 'God's objective law' he are referring to. His? The Puritan's? The Founder's? The Buddhist's? The Muslim's? The Mayan's? The Zoroastrian's? The Hindu's? The Aztec's? The Shintoist's?

As they clearly don't agree.

4) Keyes can't tell us if predation on the sick and old are 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'.....despite it occurring in nature.

Keep running.

Eh, so you use this reasoning to disabuse a believer from his beliefs? Keep talking, by all means, carry on.

 

[Skylar]

Your inability to refute the point is becoming tediously familiar.

The issue is your inability to recognize when your point has been refuted.

It hasn't. Your arbitrary declaration of victory and refusal to discuss the topic is your rout. Your signal to us that you've lost and you know you've lost.

Logic and reason aren't your allies here, Keyes. As your argument collapses when held to them.

What Roe demonstrates, is the destructive nature of subjectivity upon the viability of Justice, which can only be secured through objectivism... as Roe provides for the illusion of a right without responsibility... standing in diametric opposition to nature law... thus explaining the catastrophe upon the culture that has come to the US Culture as a direct result of it.

You don't use objective standards but subjective, relativistic standards. Where you arbitrarily ignore anything from any of the various 'Authorities' you appeal to. You claim to speak for nature. But you ignore anything from nature that you don't want to believe. You claim to speak for God. But you ignore any commandment from god that doesn't match what you want to believe.

That's not objective. But subjectivism. Where your actual authority is your own beliefs. Wile the authorities you give lip service to are little more than confirmation bias, cited when they match what you believe and ignored when they don't.

So the 'subjectivism' and 'objectivism' dichotomy you imagine is yet another fallacy. As you've got subjectivism on both sides of the argument. Including yours.

See how that works?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I suspect it will be no more an issue in 5 years than interracial marriage is now. There's simply no downside.

Problem here is that with the ruling of Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, this issue may be more lasting than you realize.

 

[Syriusly]

The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.

That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.

I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.

Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.

I'm not talking about free speech bro.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics

These issues are being debated by citizens... in a forum designed for just that. So clearly these discussions are relevant to politicians governing, beyond the advocacies presented bearing upon the preference for a given politician... .

What in your mind needs to be governed?

I can tell you what doesn't need to be governed.
Who Sally wants to bump ugliest with or marry.

Congress should create a law that says ANY business can REFUSE to serve ANY customer for ANY reason.

Making homosexuality illegal is NOT the proper recourse to protect a dumb business person.

Congress could start by revoking the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Republicans have the majority- and could pass that legislation anytime they wanted to.

 

[Skylar]

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 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 they were and that by Liberalizing the culture's enforcement, the culture would not see an increase in either.

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 them. Where they claim a right to undermine the viability of your culture, by demanding that their deviancy is perfectly normal and that YOU are a deviant for not accepting them as normal... that THEY have the right to their life, as they live it, to force perversion on you and your children, to undermine the legitimacy of your marriage, by forcing marriage to accept illegitimacy... to promote the acceptance of infidelity and the endless other examples of sexual abnormality as perfectly NORMAL!

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

Your 'summary victory' schtick and rout already? That was easy. In the mean time your failure to resolve any of the holes in your claims remains a testament to the uselessness of your 'objective law' nonsense for any reader who happens by:

1) Keyes can't tell us if killing gays and adulterers is 'God's law'. If its 'God's objective law', why would Keyes run from such a simple question?

2) Keyes can't tell us who said that the Puritans considered God's commandment to execute gays and adulterers to be 'subjective'. So far....there's Keyes. Citing Keyes.

3) Keyes can't tell us whose 'God's objective law' he are referring to. His? The Puritan's? The Founder's? The Buddhist's? The Muslim's? The Mayan's? The Zoroastrian's? The Hindu's? The Aztec's? The Shintoist's?

As they clearly don't agree.

4) Keyes can't tell us if predation on the sick and old are 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'.....despite it occurring in nature.

Keep running.

Eh, so you use this reasoning to disabuse a believer from his beliefs? Keep talking, by all means, carry on.

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

But you can use it to demonstrate how absurd such a mentality is. How subjective. How logically inconsistent. How arbitrary. How willfully ignorant. And I use Keyes for exactly that purpose.

 

[Seawytch]

The only difference I see is you take up social issues that I simply don't care about.

That's perfectly normal. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or care for that matter.

I don't believe they have a place in political discourse & that the acceptance or rejection of the issues by the public at large is more than enough.

Freedom of speech, Gramps. Like it or not.

I'm not talking about free speech bro.
I am stating that these issues don't need to be governed by politicians. Hence they have no place in politics

These issues are being debated by citizens... in a forum designed for just that. So clearly these discussions are relevant to politicians governing, beyond the advocacies presented bearing upon the preference for a given politician... .

What in your mind needs to be governed?

I can tell you what doesn't need to be governed.
Who Sally wants to bump ugliest with or marry.

Congress should create a law that says ANY business can REFUSE to serve ANY customer for ANY reason.

Making homosexuality illegal is NOT the proper recourse to protect a dumb business person.

Congress could start by revoking the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Republicans have the majority- and could pass that legislation anytime they wanted to.

That's the logical choice for these "states rights" folks.

 

[Seawytch]

Did I forget to mention that ALL Public Accommodation laws that protect gays are STATE or LOCAL laws?

 

[Skylar]

I suspect it will be no more an issue in 5 years than interracial marriage is now. There's simply no downside.

Problem here is that with the ruling of Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, this issue may be more lasting than you realize.

I don't think so. PA laws have a pretty solid basis in precedent. Especially state PA laws, where the authority to regulate intrastate commerce is pristinely uncontested. To grant religious justification for discrimination would kick open a very wide door. As the same basis would work when discriminating against women, blacks, Catholics, anyone.

Its too far sweeping. While the Hobby Lobby ruling was very narrow, applying to only one law. Not all of commerce.

 

[Seawytch]

I suspect it will be no more an issue in 5 years than interracial marriage is now. There's simply no downside.

Problem here is that with the ruling of Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, this issue may be more lasting than you realize.

I don't think so. PA laws have a pretty solid basis in precedent. Especially state PA laws, where the authority to regulate intrastate commerce is pristinely uncontested. To grant religious justification for discrimination would kick open a very wide door. As the same basis would work when discriminating against women, blacks, Catholics, anyone.

Its too far sweeping. While the Hobby Lobby ruling was very narrow, applying to only one law. Not all of commerce.

Exactly. Both Alito and Kennedy made assurances that the ruling would not open the door to legal discrimination and that it applied narrowly to birth control.