Legalising gay marriage indicates the beginning of the fall of America

[servantx]

Morality is falling as United States no longer uphold the Christian values that it was once proud of in the last decade.

It is a significant bench mark of the fall in the current trend of rewriting the marriage law to include homosexual practitioners, legalising gay sex.

As the percentage of Christians are falling in the U.S., and many led astray by the media to agree with the public view as a result of corporate media brainwash and re-education of the young generation on moral issues about homosexuality.

Children are taught in school that gay is okay, and no shame of it.

In the Bible, it is listed as a kind of sin and abomination in the eye of God. Tolerating sin, like all other sexual sins will stir up the Wrath of God in the last days that leads to Destruction of the earth.

In Christ's return, it will all end and Christ will make it all new.

Promoting homosexual sin in public is a sign that the end is nigh.

Look out for upcoming disasters.

 

[201ajgrant]

lmfao

There is NO section of your "story" that bedevils homosexuality. That is a modern-day ELLISION on the text.

Homosexuality is NOT a sin ... or a choice. Yet ... not being one - or a "practitioner" - what would I know? I know that it is not MY position or station to say that this [or that] particular group can [or cannot] get married.

And the bibel [yes, that is the CORRECT spelling] is not the eventuation of marriage. Like many things to do with the bibel, that "rite" was stolen from Hindi traditions.

Go back into the dark ages when that story you believe truthful was "gifted" to us.


EDIT

At what stage was America "christianised"? It's forefathers were VERY CAREFUL to make sure that did NOT occur.

 

[Gpa]

And the bibel [yes, that is the CORRECT spelling]

Yes, correct, if your in Germany.

At what stage was America "christianised"? It's forefathers were VERY CAREFUL to make sure that did NOT occur.

That statement is incorrect but, it is the standard talking point used by those, who harbor some abeyant fear of God, to claim the founding fathers avoided God or Christianity. They really didn't.

I don't know why you are so angry with God but maybe, we could discuss homosexuality instead, from a purely biological position that is, and why same sex marriage is nothing but another approach by liberals to further debase America.

 

[201ajgrant]

Yes, correct, if your in Germany.

*you are; or you're.

And no. You are incorrect. That IS the correct spelling - irrespective of your location - or nationality [unless you're American, it would seem].

I don't know why you are so angry with God ...

Fu*k God.

Blind believers are what I'm "angry with". God is a part of their trap. They WISH to remain in the trap that their God placed them in - I do not. You say "God loves you" ... and yet you are blind to the fact that - in his own words - he "imprisoned you here". How can that be reconciled? I know! *Through! Blind! Faith!* haha.

That statement is incorrect but, it is the standard talking point used by those, who harbor some abeyant fear of God, to claim the founding fathers avoided God or Christianity. They really didn't.

Or perhaps we could return to the discussion at hand. Same-sex marriage is not evil. Homosexuality is NOT a sin. They SHOULD be allowed to have the choice of being married [and divorced] JUST LIKE THE REST OF US. Stay out of their lives. Stop preaching horseshit as fact. They are NOT debasing America.

 

[KerrTexas]

And no. You are incorrect. That IS the correct spelling [ Bibel ] - irrespective of your location - or nationality [unless you're American, it would seem].

Provide the proof that supports your claim.

 

[Gpa]

*you are; or you're.

Thank you for catching that error for me. I'll be more careful in the future.

And no. You are incorrect. That IS the correct spelling - irrespective of your location - or nationality [unless you're American, it would seem].

Well, you must have some super secret insider information that no one else has. No dictionary results for bibel.
Google indicates it is a surname
Bibel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and German for Bible, Die Bibel.
† Die Bibel - Deutsch und Lateinisch

Fu*k God.
Blind believers are what I'm "angry with". God is a part of their trap. They WISH to remain in the trap that their God placed them in - I do not. You say "God loves you" ... and yet you are blind to the fact that - in his own words - he "imprisoned you here". How can that be reconciled? I know! *Through! Blind! Faith!* haha.

Yes, I see you are quite angry with God but, that's between you and Him. I don't think I can help you with that.

Or perhaps we could return to the discussion at hand. Same-sex marriage is not evil. Homosexuality is NOT a sin. They SHOULD be allowed to have the choice of being married [and divorced] JUST LIKE THE REST OF US. Stay out of their lives. Stop preaching horseshit as fact. They are NOT debasing America.

But, this we can work on. I didn't say same-sex marriage is evil. I didn't say homosexuality is a sin. I did say the push to "legalize" same-sex marriage is another of the many moves by the left...far left liberals... to debase America. This is in keeping with the OP's statement... the title ( or should that be titel?).
Shall we discuss that then?

Marriage is an institution meant to provide for the survival of humanity through the birth of, and the decreased mortality of, human infants.
This has, to the best of my knowledge, always been between a man and a woman since it requires one of each, not 2 of the same, to procreate.
It is an agreement between these 2, the man and the woman, to work together to create and support the new generations to follow.
The same-sex marriage demand for 2 people, of the same sex, to be recognized as the same institution marriage was intended to be, is not an attempt to equalize the different relationships but to force the acceptance of a relationship that was considered aberrant just a few decades ago.
It might be helpful to understand that liberals do not care about the individuals in the same-sex relationships. They only care that they have an issue that "creates" a disadvantaged class of people. Victims they can parade around, claiming they are being discriminated against by "the other party". I wonder. Have any of you really noticed "which party" divides everyone into a class? But, that's another political argument for later.
Does anyone recall, earlier on in the argument for same-sex marriage, that the "struggle" was equated to the civil rights movement in the 60's and on? They were suffering the same discrimination as the blacks were? I don't recall Martin Luther King "coming out" as a black man and demanding equal recognition.
Many of the "intellectual elites" scoff at the assertion that same-sex marriage legalization/recognition will lead to even more demands for acceptance of other "relationships" like NAMBLA, beastiality, and whatever other perversions are lurking in the dark. All I can say is, "Remember O'Toole's Corollary of Finagle's Law...The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum."
Why can't they accept civil unions, domestic partnerships, or simple cohabitation and leave marriage as it was intended. Are they "themselves" demeaning those who are in such relationships? Devaluing those relationships to a lesser level?
I don't care what someone's sexual preferences are or who they choose to live with. I do have a problem when they feel they have a right to shove it in my face and demand I accept it and alter a thousands-of-years-old institution to their arrogation.

 

[201ajgrant]

Since when has mere time spent performing a practice been justifiably usable as a reason for the continuation of that practice?

Christian values are falsehoods in themselves. Personally, the upheavel(?) required to rid America of them should be admired; not denegrated as its' downfall.

For thousands of years the practice of marriage was not religious-based, nor was it made specific to man-woman relationships [in legal terms]. That is a thing of modern times ("modern" meaning roughly 100AD onwards). Homosexual relationships have existed since Adam pronounced his love for god.

These people do not flaunt their relationships in front of you atm, do they?

If so, then maybe you'd have a factual basis for your argument.

My bet is more aligned with reality though. These people are forcing you to confront your own conflicts with your own latency.

There is nothing wrong with these people seeking marriage. There is no moral obligation for it to be between a man and a woman. There IS a moral obligation for it to be between two PEOPLE. These people are not suggesting anything that resembles bestiality or the other perversions you've mentioned. Only the same tax advantages afforded "married" people.

 

[Gpa]

For thousands of years the practice of marriage was not religious-based, nor was it made specific to man-woman relationships [in legal terms]. That is a thing of modern times ("modern" meaning roughly 100AD onwards).

You offer as fact unfounded talking points. Show me the historical proof of this statement and I will show you the proof of it's basis in religion. It's only in the "modern" times that it became a civil matter.

Homosexual relationships have existed since Adam pronounced his love for god.

Another anti-religion talking point. I loved my father. That does not make me homosexual. I love my sons and my grandsons. Still not gay. You seriously do have issues with God. Have you considered seeking professional help?

These people do not flaunt their relationships in front of you atm, do they?
If so, then maybe you'd have a factual basis for your argument.

No, they don't. You are right.
By-the-way, I hope to see you this year at the heterosexual pride parade.

My bet is more aligned with reality though. These people are forcing you to confront your own conflicts with your own latency.

When your argument is weak, throw out the latent homo bit.

There is nothing wrong with these people seeking marriage. There is no moral obligation for it to be between a man and a woman. There IS a moral obligation for it to be between two PEOPLE. These people are not suggesting anything that resembles bestiality or the other perversions you've mentioned.

You speak of morals while you denigrate the basis of morality, God and religion.

Only the same tax advantages afforded "married" people.

These can be legislated with out dismantling a long time tradition.

 

[201ajgrant]

And yet, here you are propagating christianity as "the way". I notice that you didn't address my opening line in that post. I await your response to that also.

 

[Rommel14]

Really??? Gay marriage is the end of our civilization? Are you kidding me? That is the one thing you choose for this countries demise? How about our economic collapse? The dwindling of the constitution? Banning guns for law abiding Americans? Tax hikes, racial tensions, global warming, corrupt government officials, greed, US manufacturing going oversees, Christian beliefs being shunned by our president? The list goes on and on and you choose gay marriage. Who gives a damn who marries who, it is not effecting my life or my mortgage rate or my right to own assault rifles or work to earn a living or our president sanctioning drones over US soil. You may want to rethink your position.

 

[servantx]

The defilement of the holy institution of marriage given by God to sodomy is a serious rebellion against God, and of course it is not the only rebellion of mankind to their Creator.

However, at the moment the legalising of gay marriage in Washington, bringing a trend global though its media and has influenced other countries like France and New Zealand to go astray in this area.

 

[Dick Tater]

No, the beginning of the fall of America was in the 1960's when the first SWAT teams were formed. Why is that, you ask? Because it represented the first militarization of government forces against citizens.

 

[Jcpo]

I agree with the fact that gay marriage is a way to human destruction. The cause is feminisation of men & masculinization of women.

The cause is media, TV shows, Pop-Stars...

It is significant of Ordo ad Chaos agenda...

But it is not too late.

Money (without facial value) indicates the fall of humanity too

But I'm sure we'll save us as we have faith inside !

 

[bagpuss1966]

My wonderful cat Purdey walked keyboard as reading this an her letters were rather apt ..NTKU....rearrange them spells the fools here ...lol stop with the hate an let folk lead a normal life ...who ever they wanna feck ..lol

 

[vodkafan]

I been married twice. The first time I was very young. I didn't choose to end the marriage but I learned a lot. The second marriage lasted 20 years and we had six children. I tried really hard to keep that marriage together.
So my opinion is that marriage is really hard. So if two people want to have a serious go at that I say good luck to them, no matter what sex they are.
Their marriage is no one elses business, in the same way that mine is no one elses business. It doesn't devalue my marriage in any way.
I don't believe that marriage is just for the bringing up of children. It is a contract to commit to share companionship and look after each other in ill health, and share economic resources. This gay marriage thing is really only the logical outcome of reforms that started back in the early 19th century because a man owned his wife and all her property, even her mind. I don't know about US law, but in England a woman could only get a divorce by act of parliament. They used a religious argument to justify that state of affairs too.
It is a non-sequiter that allowing gay marriage means condoning polygamy or bestiality or paedophilia- where is the connection? there is none.
Seriously, there are many more pressing problems in the world.

 

[GLaDOS]

I been married twice. The first time I was very young. I didn't choose to end the marriage but I learned a lot. The second marriage lasted 20 years and we had six children. I tried really hard to keep that marriage together.
So my opinion is that marriage is really hard. So if two people want to have a serious go at that I say good luck to them, no matter what sex they are.
Their marriage is no one elses business, in the same way that mine is no one elses business. It doesn't devalue my marriage in any way.
I don't believe that marriage is just for the bringing up of children. It is a contract to commit to share companionship and look after each other in ill health, and share economic resources. This gay marriage thing is really only the logical outcome of reforms that started back in the early 19th century because a man owned his wife and all her property, even her mind. I don't know about US law, but in England a woman could only get a divorce by act of parliament. They used a religious argument to justify that state of affairs too.
It is a non-sequiter that allowing gay marriage means condoning polygamy or bestiality or paedophilia- where is the connection? there is none.
Seriously, there are many more pressing problems in the world.

Since most human relationships begin through experimentation, we at Aperture Science have decided to continue that experimentation (though in a more rigorous, scientfic way) after such relationships are over. Why should you decline volunteering as a test subject just because someone has left you? Don't feel neglected. Get tested!

 

[vodkafan]

Since most human relationships begin through experimentation, we at Aperture Science have decided to continue that experimentation (though in a more rigorous, scientfic way) after such relationships are over. Why should you decline volunteering as a test subject just because someone has left you? Don't feel neglected. Get tested!

Er.... what?

 

[GLaDOS]

Er.... what?

I'm not really sure. It was an attempted advertisement for the Enrichment Center, but our script writer has suffered a corrupted core. They have now been replaced.