Please – watch the video all the way through to the end. The good Reverend makes a point about parallel questions in the history of civil rights.

Thanks, Ursarodinia



  1. Brian says:

    Preach it!

  2. Chris Basten says:

    This man is a perfect example of a Talibangelist. Be afraid.

  3. Chris Basten says:

    Whoops. Yeah I should have waited till the end before commenting.

  4. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    There really is no need to watch the whole thing as the tape starts with: “It says in the Bible…..” //// Of course nothing but BS occurs thereafter.

    It is amusing that the bible is NO SOURCE for moral/legal direction. In fact, it is our biological Darwinian DNA sourced human/homo sapien Ape Troop culture that provides our moral outlook. Apes do not support gay marriage…. it violates the Morman code of Superior Apes getting all the babes. Course, Hoomans are not Lesser Apes and differences do arise. But then, Apes don’t believe in marriage at all so maybe that whole analogy fails? …… So….. who cares what Apes or the Bible, or the Book of Morman says? What are we good people living pursuant to the Constitution going to determine for ourselves???

    the “problem” with this video is that the argument as stated against interracial marriage IS accepted by too many people, and could easily be reversed to be a calling cry again. such is the recidivist appeal of the Republican Party.

    Rmoney—leading in national popularity polls with women. Even monkeys would be ashamed.

    • Zybch says:

      You might be interested in the Bonobo chimps. Lots of gay, straight, kinky and butt sex going on with those guys.

      • Nate says:

        They will be interested in them when they want to get ‘married’ the next time.

  5. pedro says:

    The title pretty much resumes WonderEd

    • noname says:

      PP(pointless pedro) oh did PP not like the Ed’s blog?

      Did the blog hurt PP little feedings.

      PP not like American values of free press?

      Time for PP to climb back under that Communist rock he came from.

  6. msbpodcast says:

    God, Yaweh, Allah, Zoroaster, Baal, Cthuulu, Moroni, TFSM, Bob, Scientology, all of the named and unnamed deities have one thing in common: They don’t fuckin’ exist.

    That man was pulling your leg and without even giving you a reach-around.

    I don’t care if that just tears him up inside…

    I call bullshit when I step in it.

  7. Admfubar says:

    at first glance on the headline i thought this was a classic joke about three people that walk into a bar…
    ok off to watch video

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      A preacher, Christian fundamentalism and Gay rights guy walk into a bar and all three hate each other because they believe different things.

      None of the things each believes in affects the other two but each is upset that the others don’t believe the same way they do.

      This is what stupid people do.

      BobboNote: yes, this is a bit sketchy with the gay guy “but” he could get everything he wants by private contract==but he would rather force the issue on the others because you know at root, he’s no different from them.

    • MikeN says:

      A black man, a gay guy, a Muslim, and a Communist walk into a bar. The bartender says, “How are you doing Mr President!”

  8. Admfubar says:

    oh wait i was right a preacher, some council reps and voters walk into a council meeting….. i forget how the rest of the joke goes…

    :P

  9. Nate says:

    Racial identity ≠ chosen gender identity

    • Jack says:

      No one is equating race and gender. What is being compared is the justifications for discrimination . . .
      hate = hate

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Isn’t it pretty clear what WITH all the hatred at the statistically less occuring that gender is not a free choice as might be which football team to root for?

        NO DOUBT–some very small percentage of people do choose to act out sexually in some manner, or have a period of experimentation but JUST LOOK! Across time and cultures LGBT has been from 4-10% depending on the issue discussed.

        Choosing to be gay has the same intentionality as my choosing to be hetero: ie==none.

        But what is Freedom?===> LEAVING OTHER PEOPLE ALONE.

        COYOTE.

      • ± says:

        Jack, I fucking hate you.

      • Nate says:

        Who are you to say that someone hates somebody else, you don’t know their heart and I would suggest that you hate that persons individuality to say that you do.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Obviously it’s not gender identity. Go get your forehead slapped now.

    • eighthnote says:

      If you want to go that route, then consider this:

      chosen religious identity ≠ chosen gender identity.

      What makes one of these any more valid than the other?

      I do not believe that sexual orientation is chosen…there is sufficient evidence in my mind that this is something “decided” at an early age, influenced by any number of factors – including those of a genetic origin. Religion on the other hand – is indisputably something one chooses.

  10. jcj7161 says:

    the ending is…he was wearing panty hose the whole time…another republican in denial…

  11. dusanmal says:

    Two things (no matter what the video sez’ or shows):
    1) Every religion has its own set of standards, mostly clearly defined. NO ONE in the free world is forced to accept said religion if he/she does not agree with the teachings. (Exemption being at the current moment of history only in Islamic states). So, if what preacher preaches stems from the roots of that theology – good for him. If you do not agree with such teaching – do not participate or claim to be of that religion, you are not. There is no democratic theological discussions possible. If latter – you have no right to complain about the religion you do not follow. End of story. (And if preacher lies to himself – it is matter for himself).
    2) “parallel questions in the history of civil rights” is offensive in this context. Civil rights are there to protect basic human rights of all people regardless of any identifiers we might staple to them. I have not seen human rights denial to any of homosexual community. They are (again in all of the free modern world but in certain Islamic states) free as anyone else to live, not be incarcerated without due trial, pursue whatever life path decision they have (including sexuality), free to express themselves with speech, free to participate or not in any religion by their own choice, free to carry arms (except in certain Liberal Progressive states and cities),… Marriage is not a civil right. It is social contract. Even than, they are free to marry anyone of opposite sex they wish. And only one of it. Not a dog or a dolphin. Not a bunch of other people. Not one of the same sex. Because that is not definition of marriage. English speaking people may be further confused by existence of the term “spouse”. Some languages simply do not have it. In my native language “husband” is same word as “male” and “wife” as “female”. There are no other expressions to describe them. Because over thousands of years of language forming there was no need for other expression. I personally support idea that society needs to establish social contracts for other situations and name them appropriately, but not marriage as that term does not apply. Create rights, responsibilities and character of parties involved in that social contract as you wish. Enable uniting same sex, many people, people and animals or plants… That is OK. That is Civilized. Just give each contract its own name and give participants appropriate labels, both created by the very people who want and need these contracts. But than it would be TOLERANCE (special needs groups tolerating mainstream society AND mainstream society tolerating special need groups). And that is not acceptable by militant rightists. They want unquestionable acceptance. Sorry, there is no universal human right for unquestionable acceptance. Forced acceptance is fascism. Check that South Park episode on Tolerance and Acceptance.

    • eighthnote says:

      > Marriage is not a civil right. It is social contract. Even than, they are free to marry anyone of opposite sex they wish.

      Do you believe in religious freedom? Do you believe in the right to petition the government for redress of grievances? These *are* basic rights. However you define it, gays have the right to petition their government to change what you’re calling a social contract – especially since this contract has major legal implications.

      This is also where religious freedom comes into play – there isn’t one rational argument against gay marriage that is *not* rooted in some religious context. Thus, we have a legal climate that is being created to favor one religious perspective over another. Not only does this raise constitutional issues, it clearly limits the religious freedom of the group being denied the opportunity to participate in a beneficial social status.

      Finally, to suggest that gays have the same rights, as long as they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex is no different than saying Christians have the same right to be religious as long as they choose Islam. Both scenarios are equally absurd.

      • MikeN says:

        Nope it’s not the same. The equivalent is if Christians demanded that freedom of Islamic worship meant they get to worship at church.

        Or if you prefer, the Supreme Court recently heard a case as to whether a taco shop is the same as a sandwich shop, because of the lease terms at a mall.

        Redefining marriage to suit homosexuals is the agenda, as they are free to marry right now.

  12. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    The premise race = sexual choice is unsupported. While some attempt to say people are born that way, fact is many change sides in their life time, and sometimes back again.

    Look at bobbo.

    Can you really equate the two.

    No.

    But you can do as most Christian fundamentalists do…stay out of our churches, leave our freedom of speech alone, and we don’t care if you bend over for the same sex under every shady tree…

    We will point in your direction, to illustrate the folly we speak of.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Obviously the premise “sexual choice” is unsupported. If it was a choice thenyou’d be butt hugging the first hairy lumberjack that crossed your path.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        Clearly “premise” is misunderstood by you…

        Race is not a choice, you don’t choose to be black or white, and then reverse again, Michael Jackson not withstanding.

        Sexual preference is.

        Therefore the argument the “pastor” made, is UNSOUND.

        Yes, sound arguments require valid premises….

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Oh Alfie==your understanding of “choice” is about as clearly understood as others make about “gender.” Too stupid to ever use a book, including the ever present dictionary, or even the google which is at your fingertips, before expounded on what you just lazily assume.

          Doubt this?

          I’ll give you a bifurcated proof option:

          Define Gender -or- Tell us when and what factors YOU used to decide to become an unhinged fundie.

          GO!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            Arguments aren’t won by definition, a fallacy.

            I’ve met former gays who are now straight Christians with children, in Christian marriage.

            Its a choice.

            I’ll grant genetics might make one predisposed to a choice, but we remain a free people, not automatons.

            We aren’t robots.

            If we are robots, then slavery is obviously what is best for us.

            Do you want to be enslaved…or are you free to make choices.

            If you can’t choose your sexual preference…then what can you choose…and doesn’t that pale in importance?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            The religious mind set on display==nothing but absolutes.

            I have no doubt at all there are people claiming to have been gay or straight are now claiming vice versa and some of them will change again. Yes… people do make choices.

            but not everyone makes the same choices.

            Most people do not make choices about their sexual orientation (ie–gender role)….. but we do make choices about how low we will go to score. Maybe thats what you’re thinking about?

            Beer goggles and religious fervor are never good mental constipations from which to assume conscious decision making. Angel on my right shoulder, Devil on my Left.

            We are all caught in the middle, unless we are standing on one side or the other.

            Alfie–good discussion the other day about anti-choice Puke legislators the other day: “do they really believe these things, or do they only pander to their base whom they assume believe it.” The consensus was that it was a mix of motives.

            ……. not an absolute.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            Already many suggest we are robots predetermined to act as we do…tyranny rises naturally from such belief, especially if Government disagrees with the “program.”

            Its called a “slippery slope” argument, sometimes sound, sometimes not.

            But equating race with sexual choice is obviously unsound, unlike race there is a choice in action as well as appearance.

            There is a moral component in one that is lacking in the other….no one is morally sinful because of their race, but homosexuality is considered a sin by the religions of the world.

            Therefore we cannot condemn those who would separate themselves from homosexuals as we would those who separate themselves from other races.

            While scripture commands we love all regardless of race, it does demand those practicing sin be separated from the congregation, lest God’s anger spill over on all.

            Its not about absolutes, its about the First Amendment.

            I don’t care if you chose the gay lifestyle, I retain my constitutional right of free assembly, speech and religion.

            You have no right to impose your choices on me or my church, or my speech.

            Nor do you have any right to my pocket book.

            Nor that of my church or any institution the church deems fit to fund to further their sect.

            I object to preferential treatment gays receive…in Government housing, jobs and contracts…

            Hopefully we can roll back the progressive insanity that makes the majority slaves of the perverted minority.

          • Nate says:

            Hey, bobbo, you have to at least agree on one absolute, and that is that this comment system put in place on this site is ABSOLUTE SHIT!

    • immovableobject says:

      Sure, I suppose you can choose who to have sex with, but you can’t choose whom you *want* to have sex with. You can’t choose whom you actually will fall in love with. So don’t tell me that homosexuality is a matter of choice.

      Religious homophobes don’t recognize the unfairness of telling gays that they have the “choice” to either marry someone they don’t really want, or do just do without the state recognized benefits of marriage to the person they actually love and want to share a life with.

  13. MikeN says:

    I’m sure those civil rights marchers love hearing that they were marching for gay marriage. If only George Wallace had thought of it.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      Black Pastor Calls Obama “Judas” on Gay Marriage
      August 01, 2012

      All Audio & Video »
      BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

      RUSH: There’s a guy out there who is in real trouble, folks. And it’s Barack Hussein Obama, who, as we now know, almost has genuine slave blood. Yes, we had that story yesterday from the joyful AP. He’s almost got direct linkage to slave number one in this country. They can’t prove it. That didn’t stop them from running the story. Dawn, you weren’t here yesterday. You don’t know about this. Oh, this was hilarious.

      Anyway, some black men of the cloth. A coalition of black ministers is not happy with Barack Obama because of his gay marriage support. You know, Democrats are talking about putting a plank in the party platform supporting gay marriage. The White House is not saying anything about that. But there is a black minister out there, the Reverend Williams Owens. He’s the head of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, and he said, “For the president to bow to the money as Judas did for Jesus Christ is a disgrace and a shame.” He was referring to Obama doing an about-face regarding gay marriage and the millions of dollars in campaign donations that the flip-flop earned him. We have the audio sound bites. Yesterday in Washington, the National Press Club, the Coalition of African-American Pastors held a presser to launch a nationwide campaign opposing Obama’s support of gay marriage. The Reverend Williams Owens spoke. Here is a portion of what he said.

      http://rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/01/black_pastor_calls_obama_judas_on_gay_marriage

      • Captain Obvious says:

        Obviously Rush is an expert on personal perversion. It takes one to know one, and you know Rush.

        • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

          Again you reveal uncritical reasoning is your preference…

          You could have read what the BLACK PASTOR had to say on this subject…

          But you chose unsound ad hominem against Rush Limbaugh who is irrelevant to the issue at hand…he only pointed to someone who is…

          • Captain Obvious says:

            Obviously BLACK PASTOR must be Lord Voldemort since we can’t speak his name.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            Again you revealed how shallow and agenda driven you are….Rush gave his name.

          • Captain Obvious says:

            Obviously I’m not shallow driven, whatever that means. Home schooling?

          • So what says:

            Captain you give alfie to much credit, he’s an admitted high school drop out.

  14. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    An integral part of leaving religious people free to practice their religion, is to exempt them from financially supporting the gay community.

    Gays enjoy a privilege status in our society, aside from being a specially protected class in the work place, granted priority in Government hiring, their medical expenses directly related to their perversity are paid by others.

    Hence the Gay community is rolling in dough, while more traditional Americans are sleeping in tent cities…suffering.

    Its time to end the privilege, and restore personal responsibility .

    The Gay community should be the sole arbiters in the treatment gays receive because of their perversity….and they alone should pay for it.

    Leave us religious folks out of it. We prefer giving our funds to those who want to work, and can’t find any…or who are sick because of no direct fault of their own…but because Satan incited Adam and Eve to rebel and we got kicked out of paradise…

    You perverts take care of your community…

    Meanwhile we remain free to warn everyone of the fires of hell for all who work evil, gay or straight, Jew or Gentile….God is not a respecter of persons….

    And while we’re at it, you fornicators and pay for your own contraception and abortions….we insist our money not go to that evil either. Let your sin be on your own head, undiluted.

    • LD says:

      …”An integral part of leaving religious people free to practice their religion, is to exempt them from financially supporting the gay community.

      and more importantly … An integral part of leaving non-religious people to live without religion, is to exempt them from financially supporting the religious community.

    • flatwombat says:

      Our youngest daughter and her husband were married this summer by an openly gay minister who they’ve been friends with since childhood. She performed one of the most beautiful ceremonies I’ve ever seen, involving not only the bride and groom but all family and friends.

      One of the guests was my former employee’s daughter, also a lesbian and who plans to marry her fiancée next summer. Both women have good careers and are caring and self-supporting.

      Several of our friends and a business associate are also gay and all had respected careers and achievements both in business and in the community.

      All of these people are kind, sweet, loving and caring individuals, not receiving a dime because of sexual orientation and fully deserving a good life which they’ve made with their own efforts and with whomever they choose.

      It’s very sad that you choose to cover your obvious hatred of people who have different lives by quoting bible verses. Look a bit deeper into yourself to see the real truth about your feelings.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        I don’t recall citing any Bible verses.

        I certainly don’t hate gays, its the homosexual sin that is hated, not the sinner.

        But I wan’t arguing Christian theology…rather my appeal is to the first Amendment.

        Just as I don’t expect you pay the freight of my church, my religion, or for the consequences of my practices…

        Neither should you expect I pay for the consequences of the gay life style.

        When STD’s affect lesbian mouths, or Sodomized rear ends go foul….YOU pay for it if you agree with that perversion.

        I don’t want to pay for it. Leave me out of your choices.

      • MikeN says:

        But that is not a marriage, which is between a man and a woman. Marrying two woman or two men is an oxymoron. Indeed, there is no reason for government to get involved if the whole purpose is to have two people who love each other be in a relationship. One possible exception is to protect women who will be dumped for a younger woman, but no-fault divorce laws eliminated that.

  15. wow says:

    T.E.A.D. you are the king of trolls…..
    The weird thing is you are right.
    Some comments are best kept to yourself these days.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Obviously Alfie and his friends want to restrict marriage and do social engineering in the name of their God given morality. Government should either get out of the marriage business or open it up to everyone.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        You misrepresent my position, I don’t care if you grab your ankles at every opportunity…

        Leave the rest of us out of it. Pay your own freight.

        We need to expunge all those on the public weal because they are “gay” and claimed discrimination….or getting medical attention that is funded by those who have moral objections to the choice of homosexuality.

        I don’t care if you get married in one of the apostate churches and call it matrimony.

        We will simply use another word for heterosexual marriage that you won’t desire, one that refers to Christ…that you will cringe from like a vampire does the sunlight.

  16. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Hey Alfie===you didn’t build those churches yourself. Our taxes all went to pay for the roads, ports, boats etc that brought the raw material to you and support the infrastructure…. you know? We grew the trees so you could print your bibles. You didn’t print those bibles yourself!

    Nice meme you righties and fundies are trying and half succeeding from time to time==that sectors of society don’t have to pay for something that benefits society in general. Society does give up a lot to support your non-taxed status. Its purely Supreme Court law too–if I’m not mistaken.

    So happy not to be afflicted. I’d even pay you money to keep it that way.

    Ha, ha. Silly Hoomans. On your knees!!!

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      Incorrect, parishioners paid for their own churches.

      And you atheists are the biggest freeloaders of all…barely 10% of the population, you consume 25% of our courts resources with all your specious arguments and lawsuits.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      More to the point, your argument is unsound…Churches are people organized, who do pay taxes. Churches are a net benefit to the community, they do charitable works that the state would have to pay for, if they didn’t.

      For a long time churches funded medical care for the poor, that’s why there are so many hospitals with religious names. We built them.

      You argue tax free is the same as paid for, but that is arguing “nothing” is “something,” a “non action” is “action.” If that had any validity, then crime by others could be prosecuted as though you did the crime, if you didn’t act to prevent it.

      So your premise doesn’t hold up…the churches aren’t getting money because they don’t pay taxes. The state isn’t getting what doesn’t belong to them in the first place.

      • Captain Obvious says:

        Obviously they should file as charities. Easy peasy. I donate money to religious and non-religious organisations that are above-the-board charities.

        • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

          As we learned in the Obama Tax Mandate, every citizen is subject to behavior modification as the Congress should will.

          Congress has the power to tax into destruction any behavior it deems proper.

          That is why the Supreme Court has ruled the constitution gives the church tax exempt status….because the state cannot make any law that affects a church.

          They don’t have to file as a charity, they aren’t subject to taxation. And they have the right to preach whatever they want…without government interference.

  17. Angel H. Wong says:

    Let’s put a Right Wing spin on it:

    See? We were right all along. This is what happens if you let interracial marriage happen. Now the f*gs and the lesbians want to get married too. What’s next? People marrying with animals?

    • Mextli says:

      Yes

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      You are irrational, but even a broken clock points to the right time twice a day.

      If a concept older than recorded history can be fundamentally redefined so it includes what it once specifically excluded….not definition is sacred.

      So polygamy, bestiality…clearly can be incorporated in any new definition of marriage. The slippery slope argument is valid here, once the restraint is gone….there is no restraint and any combination is possible.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Obviously that was too easy. I would really like to meet a consenting pig one day. Or maybe one of those super chimps that can do math, play the xylophone and vote.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        One of your pre-eminent Progressive Rights Organization, NAMBLA, dispute the need for informed consent.

        You can’t argue the progressive position by contradicting a fundamental point in it.

        It is presumed polygamous marriage all have consent. But why would such be required of an animal….we eat animals, don’t we…without their consent.

        But it is progressive we progress beyond the need for humans in marriage, just as the event horizon for marriage was greatly inflated to include homosexuals…

        Or are you counter revolutionary?

        If so, on what precise basis do you predicate your argument? There are, in progressive land, no absolutes….so by what authority can such things be governed? Aren’t you superimposing your morals on others when you forbid human animal relationships?

        • Captain Obvious says:

          Obviously NAMBLA is joke, like you. When a pig can enter into a civil contract which stands up in court, then I’ll lay off the bacon.

          You’re a libertarian in name only.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            Captain Obtuse, Obvious clearly being a pun….

            A libertarian by definition isn’t superimposing his rules on others…

            You would deny a fellow progressive, who votes for all the right Democrats, and supports all the causes dear to your heart….

            A loving relationship with a pig…

            THAT is not libertarian…

            Once language can be redefined to mean anything, marriage is a term that could refer to a relationship with a beast, just as its been made to refer to a relationship with the same sex.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            And NAMBLA isn’t a joke…its progressive standing cannot be disputed.

            What you fail (or refuse) to consider, are the consequences of changing the meaning of a word that has been the same for all recorded history, throughout the planet.

            If such an established word can be redefined, all language can be redefined…including any language that protects your freedom….it can be changed to mean your slavery.

            THAT is why I’m against changing the meaning of the word “marriage,”….precise language is what a nation of laws needs…not equivocal terms.

        • Captain Obvious says:

          OK, before you get your knickers in a knot NAMBLA is a joke. Sexual predators should be slammed in jail and never let out. Gay, straight, catholic priest, whatever.

          Obviously NAMBLA isn’t a “liberal position” anymore than a catholic priest who abuses boys is a “conservative position”. Though I’m starting to think you’re a cross dresser.

          • MikeN says:

            NAMBLA members have made it into high positions in Obama’s administration. Pedophilia is more popular than you think, and not just among Star Trek fans.

          • Captain Obvious says:

            LOL. Obviously you just jumped the shark. Give me 20.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Angel, I always laugh at how conservatives hide behind children and sheep, so to speak.

  18. Nate says:

    That is the disconnect when it comes to equating racial discrimination with gender identity choice discrimination. Even if gender identity was ingrained in a persons DNA, they don’t HAVE to act on it. However, a persons race is without a doubt ingrained in a persons DNA, and regardless of whether they want to act on it or not, the visual reality makes that unable to be chosen either way, for them.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      You are right, these aren’t the same thing and therefore must be treated differently.

      While a person might choose to be gay for a time, then go straight….they can’t choose to be white for a time, then go black…etc…

      There is a moral component in homosexual behavior that is absent in racial identity…its not morally wrong to be white, black, brown, red or whatever….but religion world wide throughout history has labeled homosexuality morally wrong…a choice people should not make.

      • MikeN says:

        How about we allow a gay marriage for Michael Jackson and leave it at that?