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

[Syriusly]

Why would you oppose two people of the same sex ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in 37 of 50 States, its also the joining of one man and one man.....or one woman and one woman.

You LIE: AGAIN!

37 of 50 states do not support the normalization of Sexual Abnormality.
.

In 37 of 50 states, people in love are getting legally married, despite the best efforts of bigots

Sucks to be you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not one state requires anyone getting married to be able to have kids or to have them for a marraige to be valid. ... Why would we exempt gays from marriage... [sic]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Not one state excludes homosexuals from marriage.

13 still do.

Until June.....

Nope... There is not a single state in the United State which has ever refused to allow a homosexual to marry... as long as the homosexual had the strength of character to respect the natural standards of marriage, which require that the homosexual apply to marry with a person of the distinct gender.

The same requirement that is required of everyone else... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why would you oppose two people of the same sex ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

View attachment 37176

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

You LIE: AGAIN!

Nope. I'm 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 States, marriage is also the joining of one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. As all the gays and lesbians getting married every day in most of the country demonstrate.

And in all likely, across the entire country come June.

You're referring to the Relativists on the Federal Judiciary who overturned the will of the vast majority of the people, in the vast majority of the States, who elected the vast majority of the Legislators who authored, debated and passed bills which were signed into law by the vast majority of the Governors to defend the natural standards of nature that define marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

Relativist judges in comparison to what? Relativist deists like yourself? Remember, you've already run screaming from the truck sized holes in your 'God's Objective Law' nonsense.

If even you are going to treat your claims like the garbage they are, surely you'll understand if we treat them the same way.

 

[Syriusly]

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Ahem, but then again, anti miscegenation laws were introduced by the Democrats. So in a sense, you are trying to render the religious beliefs of others as "archaic and backward."

Duly noted, sir/madam

Miscegnation laws were indeed introduced by deeply Conservative Christian Democrats.

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

 

[Syriusly]

There are those who seem to have suddenly discovered that there exists Public Accommodation laws in the United States- because in some states they apply to homosexuals too- and are suddenly outraged by PA laws- again because in some states they apply to homosexuals.

Tis the symptom of the notion of homosexuals being a protected class. They suddenly think they can use the law to completely mute the beliefs of someone else. .

In other words the law is being enforced.

And suddenly you object to PA laws.

 

[Skylar]

Not one state requires anyone getting married to be able to have kids or to have them for a marraige to be valid. ... Why would we exempt gays from marriage... [sic]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Not one state excludes homosexuals from marriage.

13 still do.

Until June.....

Nope... There is not a single state in the United State which has ever refused to allow a homosexual to marry... as long as the homosexual had the strength of character to respect the natural standards of marriage, which require that the homosexual apply to marry with a person of the distinct gender.

The same requirement that is required of everyone else... .

Alas, in our system of laws the restriction itself must meet constitutional muster, just as the interracial bans of years past had to meet the same standard. And as virtually every federal court to hear the issue has concluded, same sex marriage bans have no rational basis, serve no state interest and have no valid legislative end.

Which is why same sex marriage is gloriously legal in 37 of 50 States. And most likely, 50 of 50 in a matter of months.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are those who seem to have suddenly discovered that there exists Public Accommodation laws in the United States- because in some states they apply to homosexuals too- and are suddenly outraged by PA laws- again because in some states they apply to homosexuals.

Tis the symptom of the notion of homosexuals being a protected class. They suddenly think they can use the law to completely mute the beliefs of someone else. .

In other words the law is being enforced.

And suddenly you object to PA laws.

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

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would you oppose two people of the same sex ...

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

No it's not. But thanks for proving you have no rational, reasonable, logical argument for opposing same sex marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are those who seem to have suddenly discovered that there exists Public Accommodation laws in the United States- because in some states they apply to homosexuals too- and are suddenly outraged by PA laws- again because in some states they apply to homosexuals.

Tis the symptom of the notion of homosexuals being a protected class. They suddenly think they can use the law to completely mute the beliefs of someone else. .

In other words the law is being enforced.

And suddenly you object to PA laws.

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

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

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would you oppose two people of the same sex ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

View attachment 37176

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

This guy's statement of surrender is a strange one, but it's one nonetheless.

 

[Seawytch]

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Ahem, but then again, anti miscegenation laws were introduced by the Democrats. So in a sense, you are trying to render the religious beliefs of others as "archaic and backward."

Duly noted, sir/madam

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Ahem, but then again, anti miscegenation laws were introduced by the Democrats. So in a sense, you are trying to render the religious beliefs of others as "archaic and backward."

Duly noted, sir/madam

Can you name ANY Democrats currently in favor of reinstituting miscegenation laws?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No it's not.

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

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

 

[TemplarKormac]

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Ahem, but then again, anti miscegenation laws were introduced by the Democrats. So in a sense, you are trying to render the religious beliefs of others as "archaic and backward."

Duly noted, sir/madam

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

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

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

 

[Seawytch]

There are those who seem to have suddenly discovered that there exists Public Accommodation laws in the United States- because in some states they apply to homosexuals too- and are suddenly outraged by PA laws- again because in some states they apply to homosexuals.

Tis the symptom of the notion of homosexuals being a protected class. They suddenly think they can use the law to completely mute the beliefs of someone else. .

In other words the law is being enforced.

And suddenly you object to PA laws.

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

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

 

[Seawytch]

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Ahem, but then again, anti miscegenation laws were introduced by the Democrats. So in a sense, you are trying to render the religious beliefs of others as "archaic and backward."

Duly noted, sir/madam

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

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

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

I ran to disown them by saying Democrat twice. Yeah, okay.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Ahem, but then again, anti miscegenation laws were introduced by the Democrats. So in a sense, you are trying to render the religious beliefs of others as "archaic and backward."

Duly noted, sir/madam

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

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

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

Party affiliation is irrelevant. You are an asshole. The latter is relevant.

You want to argue this issue? Argue with me. I'm a liberal, and a registered Independent. Shove your party affiliation canard up your fat ass,

and proceed to the relevant argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a few years, this battle will seem as archaic and backward as the battle against mixed race marriage.

Ahem, but then again, anti miscegenation laws were introduced by the Democrats. So in a sense, you are trying to render the religious beliefs of others as "archaic and backward."

Duly noted, sir/madam

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

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

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

Robert E. Lee was a Democrat. Was he a liberal? Was he a conservative?

 

[Seawytch]

No it's not.

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

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

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