Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Speech for my introductory communications class.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:36 PM
Original message
Speech for my introductory communications class.
Below is a speech I wrote for my introductory communications class. I gave it this last Thursday and let me tell you the response was very interesting.

To set the mood, I live in Boise, Idaho and I came into class with a nice pair of slacks, a nice shirt, dress shoes, a tie, and combed and parted hair. I didn't give them a disclaimer, so I won't give you all one either.

Enjoy.

---------------------------------
Ladies and gentlemen, today I stand before you to call your attention to a growing threat to our nation. As a concerned citizen with ties to the religious community, I feel it is my duty, my solemn obligation to open your eyes to one of the problems facing the American family today. Marriage, ladies and gentlemen, is the fundamental unit of our society. As all of you know, especially the guys in the room, this is how we prove to society that we own a particular woman, as God intended. Marriage today, however, is far different than it used to be.

In the small amount of time I have, I will trace the roots of marriage from the beginning to today, not starting with the paganistic and immoral marriages of the Greeks or the Romans in which women were more equal to men, but starting from the Godly times after the death of our lord and savior Jesus Christ. I will tell you about the homosexual filth that is attempting to remake our marriage laws and why they should be stopped at all costs, and finally, I will tell you a little of what you can do to send the message to these heathens that we as upright Christian moralists will no longer allow their perversions to corrupt us.

In medieval times, after the death of our beloved savior, one white woman and one white man were joined as husband and wife only after their parents decided that they should be. Any property the woman owned going into the relationship automatically became her husband’s, as God intended, and once married that was it, there was no possibility of divorce. This, ladies and gentlemen, was the original definition of marriage (Glenda)(Marriage).

The first wrong we as a society allowed to be perpetrated on this nation was the ungodly ruling from a Massachusetts court in 1639 allowing a man and a woman to divorce (Riley). Unlimited divorce for pleasure’s sake was later perpetrated on us by the California legislature in 1970 (Ryan). Then the feminists came, feminism being the only movement in U.S. History that started when women figured out how to put on shoes while they were pregnant and in the kitchen. Because of the pressure put on the court system and the legislature by the ungodly feminist movement divorce became and still is an unalienable right. Sadly, over 50% of today’s marriages end in divorce. If we want marriage to last as a binding commitment, we must do two things. First, we must ban divorce from our midst. Second if our wives refuse to acknowledge their place in God's society we'll just cut their feet off. They can still birth our children and cook our food, as God intended, but let them try to put shoes on stumps.

The second thing to weaken the foundation of marriage was the ungodly Supreme Court decision allowing interracial couples to marry. Historically, blacks and whites had been kept separate and we should have kept them that way. In fact, before the Satan worshipers on the court issued their decision, the Georgia Supreme Court in 1869 said that interracial marriages were unnatural and against God's law of nature (God created the races on different continents, therefore they weren’t meant to mix). Other courts said rightly that we should base marriage laws on tradition and interracial marriages had never been part of that tradition (Colbert). Society rightfully knew that allowing these unions would degrade conventional marriages, and ladies and gentlemen they have. We all know that to be the case.

It’s bad enough that we let those kinds of people, Mexicans and black folk alike, marry even each other in this country. I say we ban their marriages as we ban the homosexuals from marrying. If we do you can be guaranteed that the divorce rate in this country will drop to 10 or 15%. We won’t get 0% until we ban divorce entirely but I don't think God will be happy until the travesty of divorce goes into the dustpan of history anyway. Not only with marriages, foreigners are trying to corrupt the very fabric of our society. We should rally or congressmen to put a fence completely around this nation. Furthermore everyone who has ever migrated to the United States and their progeny should be put to death; that will show them.

The final horror that has been perpetrated on parts of this country, including Massachusetts, is homosexual marriage. What's next? Do we allow these people to visit each other in hospitals when they're sick? Do we give them the ungodly ability to inherit from their monogamous sex-partner-of-the-decade without having to jump through legal hoops? Do we let them cover each other with the insurance offered by the companies they work for without paying anything extra? I say no. They want to flout God's immutable law; they can do without all of the extras. I say we continue to use society's laws to make it as difficult as possible for them to live normal lives. When a man is left with no house, no car, no mementos of his life with the other person after his “partner” dies and his “partner's” family comes in and takes everything because the will was contested in court, we can all rest assure that God is pointing his mighty finger and laughing at him.

Those people want to marry for love, who needs that in this country? Historical marriages were based on what your parents wanted for you, not on love and not on anything else. If you didn’t love each other, well you learned to get along with each other really quickly. As long as we have survival of the species, as God intended, nothing else matters. Individual happiness doesn’t matter. In fact, as far as the homosexuals go we should just burn them all at the stake until they renounce their wicked and sinfully evil ways. If they repent before they die, maybe almighty God will have mercy on their souls. While we’re at it, let’s throw the Jews, the Mormons, the Catholics, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Quakers, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, the Scientologists, the Shriners, the Baptists, the Confucionists, the Satanists, the Frotteurists, the Pentecostals, the Methodists, the Anglicans, the Zoroastrians, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Hare Krishnas, the Secularists, the Agnostics, the Atheists, and the Pagans into the same flames. We’ll have a Godly fumigation! That’s what you get for being part of the wrong religion.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I hope you’ve enjoyed the history lesson. I hope you see that our marriage laws must be protected from the soulless filth that is trying to remake everything we’ve worked so hard for. As far as what YOU can do about it. In the next election this state is voting on an amendment to Idaho’s constitution that will ban marriage for same-sex couples. If you want to be part of a Godly crusade that seeks to eliminate the slide into moral decay that leads to things like free choice and respect for all people regardless of who they are, then you will vote for this amendment.

If you'd rather see these Godless creatures marry for love and commitment in direct violation of what is generally held by God's true followers as biblical truth, then the rest of us will laugh at you from heavenly paradise while you roast in the deepest pits of hell.

Today we've begun with the homosexuals; tomorrow we target those with ungodly belief systems and then foreigners. Marriage, ladies and gentlemen, will be what tradition tells us it must be, and all who will be left in this nation will be those people who hold these truths to be self evident. We can do it; all it takes is baby steps.


Works Cited
“Marriage.” 7 Apr. 2006. Wikipedia. 5 Apr. 2006. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage>

King, Colbert. “Marriage in The March of Time.” 8 Apr. 2006. Washingtonpost.com. 12 Feb. 2005. p. A19.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17600-2005Feb11.html>

Riley, Glenda. 7 Apr. 2006. “Divorce: An American Tradition.” Sunshine for Women. <http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/divorce.html>

Ryan-Vollmar, Sysan. 7 Apr. 2006. “The Case for Same-Sex Marriage.” 27 June-3 July. 2003. Boston Pheonix. <http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/02977835.htm>

Zorn, Eric. “Marriage Issue Just As Plain As Black & White.” Chicago Tribune May 19, 1996. p. 4C1.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. So, what was the response?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think it took a little too long to get to the point....n/t
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radio_Guy Donating Member (875 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Agreed. Did you write out every word?
The key to giving a good speech is to know your subject and speak about it extemporaneously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I did write out every word,
but I wrote it two weeks before I actually gave it and had had enough time to go through it enough that I could do the speech without anything but a piece of paper with a couple of starting words from each paragraph stenciled out.

A little bit longer and I will have it memorized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radio_Guy Donating Member (875 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. It is a good start
Soon you'll be using simple note cards in outline form. It takes time, though. Hang in there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. Beautiful, but may have been a little over a lot of pointy heads
Sarcasm is often lost on literalists and always lost on the stupid.

I do think you probably reached every reachable kid in there, though.

Well done!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Awesome! I dare you to give it in front of an anti-gay group...
This was written in the grand tradition of Deacon Fred.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/education/edu/edclips.rm?start=15:21&end=17:56

http://www.godlessamericans.org/photos.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. I don't think people get it otherwise.
I've written many letters to the editor and I've talked to a large number of people, but the same tired old arguments get tossed back in my face. This way, at least, I have fun doing it.

I think if I stick with this approach, it will do two things. One it will piss off those who are closed-minded enough to be pissed off by these kinds of things, and it will also serve to make people think about their long-held beliefs. I don't care if they change their minds, I just want them to think about what they've been saying and to be absolutely sure that they believe how they think they do.

I honestly didn't know what to expect with giving the speech. I thought most of the Freshmen in the room would agree with my assessments but I really wasn't sure about that. If it has been a hostile crowd, I still would have done it.

I may rewrite into a 3 minute speech so that it could be done at the less-than-friendly Idaho state capitol building. The issue of same-sex marriage has already been pushed through by them, but it would be fun to rub their noses into it each and every time something unexpected happens with the constitutional amendment (as has happened in Ohio).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Here's my little "revenge fantasy"...
Edited on Fri Apr-21-06 03:30 PM by IanDB1
getting invited to speak in front of an anti-gay rally, supposedly as "one of their own," with the TV cameras rolling...

And then, start spouting direct quotes from Adolf Hitler, Pausing for applause and cheering...

And this is sort of how I would end the speech...


"Is this what you believe?"

(crowd cheers, "Yes! Yes!")

"Is this what you stand for?"

(crowd cheers, "Yes! Yes!")

"Is this who all of you are?"

(crowd cheers, "Yes! Yes!")

"Well, I can't take credit for my speech today.

These words were delivered in in a speech in 1939 by a man named Adolf Hitler.

This, my friends is what you believe, what you stand for, what you are today. This is what you have become. Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!"

At about that point, I expect I'd be getting tackled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UncleSepp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. You'd be better off with a Goebbels speech
Hitler's rants in German are bad enough. In English, they're next to incomprehensible. The call and response chant would turn from an outstretched arm and a "Sieg- Heil" to a hand scratching a head and a hearty "Say what?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota Libra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. What was the response exactly?? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debau2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. Response from the crowd? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
8. The Response.
Half way through the first paragraph I looked at a couple of people in the audience, and the response was as I had hoped for. Just by their body language I could tell what a few of them were thinking. One guy in front was drawing into himself as if he wanted to prepare to be attacked, or to hear something he didn't want to.

At the end, people seemed to be quite impressed. Two of the people in the room claimed that they didn't care one way or the other about the issue of gay marriage, but the gal said that she could see why I would feel as strongly about it as I do.

We talked about the speech and what people liked and didn't like. They all came to the conclusion that it placed things out nicely for them and summed everything up the same way. They were, also, in agreement that I spoke too fast and that the speech would go better if I slowed it down some.

When we started talking about the issue, everyone seemed to have this weird response, namely that it's Christianity against the homosexuals. I tried to make it clear that that wasn't always the case, but with the "as God intended"s and the "our lord and savior, Jesus Christ" comment, I may have given them the wrong idea. I could have written it from the point of view of the flying spaghetti monster, but that would have been extremely silly and I don't think it would have connected for some of them.

We had a nice, hour long, discussion about the pros and cons of gay marriage and--due to the large amount of research I've done on the topic--I think I was able to respond to all arguments that people threw out against same-sex marriage.

I wasn't really trying to argue for or against anything. I wanted to highlight the issue from a conservative point of view and take the arguments to their logical conclusions while showing the audience that throughout the years some of the same arguments had been used to attack people from widely divergent religious and belief systems. I wanted them to hear the arguments together and to come up to their own conclusions on the issue without me telling them one way or the other how to think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeaveIraqNow Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
13. Your a bigot too.
I know very well what you wrote was just to mock the christian view but if thats what you really think christians believe you are the biggest bigot I have ever heard of. The original meaning of marriage only reflected the times where women were persecuted everywhere, citing what it was then does not mean that is what current marriage is. If you truly believe what you have written is the true beliefs of the majority of christians then you have become the bigot that you think your fighting against. I doubt you will make it past a few paragraphs in your speech before you are stopped and disciplined for your bigoted ideas. It is not okay to distort the culture of any religion muslim, christian, hindu or any other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You might want to take a gander over at Reply #3 on this thread (nm)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Re: Your comments.
When I wrote the speech I wrote the beginning from the point of view of a conservative Christian fundamentalist, it is true. Language specific to the Christian religion was used because most of the voices against the issue I was talking about (i.e., gay marriage) are Christian. Christian beliefs have been twisted in the past to form arguments against specific groups or individuals and I was attempting to show that now is not any different.

I also tried to ameliorate those effects later on when every religion I could think of (including most Christians sects) were targeted. Not only religions, but comments were made about women, race, even homosexuals (what no comment on that?).

As for the "bigot" comment you can call me anything you want, I won't fight you on it. The only thing that mattered to me was that the speech made everyone in the classroom think, and that works for me.

So say whatever you want after this post, free speech is something we can all look forward to, but I won't respond to it. I know who I am, and I knew that some people wouldn't get what this whole thing was about. I'm okay with that too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-21-06 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I"m curious where it was stated that this is the opinion of a majority of
"Christians."

As a Christian myself, I was throughly amused by the speech. It was taking the exact words of these so-called traditionalists and looking at them literally. If they literally want to return to the original concept of marriage, then it is exactly as stated in the speech. Turning their ideas and their rhetoric back on them is quite witty.

Homophobic bigots don't represent Christian beliefs. They merely represent the stupidity and idiotic hatred of a minority of this country who has hijacked the Christian faith and used it to manipulate less informed people and those who are afraid to speak and learn for themselves.

I might suggest rereading the speech with a view of it being a turning back of their words on them. You might have a different opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. I was a fundamentalist for years . . .
and I didn't see any distortion. Care to elaborate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. How dare he accuse Christians of saying what Christians actually say!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC