Quote: (11-21-2014 12:42 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:
Quote: (11-21-2014 12:04 PM)Soberane Wrote:
Quote: (11-20-2014 09:07 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:
Quote: (11-19-2014 10:31 PM)Soberane Wrote:
Quote: (11-19-2014 09:52 PM)CRR Wrote:
I'm fine with gay marriage, I have no issues with gay people. I work with several, all are cool with me. Likewise, I work with a few churchgoing folk, and they are cool with me as well. With almost anything*, so long as no one forces their views/lifestyle on me, we're on good terms.
I have nothing in common with the Duggars or the Duck Dynasty guys, nor have I ever watched their shows. And if people want to protest, go for it. But to advocate silence for people espousing contrary views is absolutely wrong.
SJW actions are often contrary to freedom of speech.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Besides, hell if I'm going to give up Chick-Fil-A.
*I don't consider all religions equal, nor do I think all this transgender/transsexual/cisgender normal, but that's a different discussion.
Marriage had nothing to do with the government as an institution, at the beginning a man and a women will get married with a ceremony at the church, close friends and family, not paper signed. It was a moral code, a way to say, "they can fuck and make babies and not face shame".
The point of marriage was to secure the offspring, give them a stable family and creating a community where everyone else is doing the same, so that society as a whole move forward.
As the government grow every generation. The government saw a huge potential in getting involve in the institution, when the government and population was small, the government had little control over people lives, (this was a reason to not allow women the right to vote, legal matters never affect them directly).
When gays beg the government to legalize gay marriage, in reality they are asking
just to an institution that got involved in the original marriage. Government did not create marriage, but gays behave like it did.
I agree, the solution i would like the most is to have government stop recognizing all marriages. You can name anyone in your will and name anyone for shared health benefits etc.
Shared property should be managed through separate agreements.
Marriage should be established through religious or personal commitment only. Gays who want to say "we are married" can go ahead and say it and be held accountable to themselves. People who want to say "we are married under the eyes of god" can be held accountable to themselves, god and shamed by their church if they abandon those vows.
Especially nowadays, when paternity can be established by DNA, the state doesn't need some sort of convoluted way to establish who is legally responsible for a child's well being tied to marriage.
The problem is that gays are very narcissistic, they could have a lawyer sing some documents to show who is responsible for who, just like old people can declare one of his/her kids to be the one with legal power when in the hospital, but they want to imitated what heterosexual people do, they beg the government for marriage, and now they want to force bakeries and other business to celebrate their so called marriage, with the help of the government, how big is a gay population in the USA? around 2% if I remember correctly, if you want to see society collapse in action, ask yourself how such small population has so much power over the media, government, and private corporations.
They only have the power the cultural marxists in high places give them. The fact that there are gays trying to use the law to force Christians to either serve them or go out of business should be proof enough what is at work here.
They have yet to do this to Muslims, Jews, or any other religious group in this country as far as I know.
They are pawns of their Satanic masters.
The same way PETA never attack "Hell's Angels" for wearing real leather, the part that really make people angry is that for liberalism and others SJW bullshit to exist they need a Christian conservative base to allow them to, minority rights do not exist outside Christian countries.
Those same people would not survive in a Muslim country, where did Malala Yousafzai run to after being hit in the head?
Quote:Quote:
While Malala was laughing, playing and enjoying the safety of receiving an education in a predominantly white country found upon Christian morals, school girls in Africa were being kidnapped.
Quote:Quote:http://www.returnofkings.com/45748/nobel...-hypocrite
So yes, never fear you ladies of the 2nd and 3rd world. You, too, can brave all those bad men and receive an education: so long as there are prosperous countries founded upon and still more or less exercising European Christian morals that still exist for you to run to (and which you can afford to run off to in the first place), and that you’re willing to be a hollow mascot for the powers that be in those countries.
The essential difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals could not exist without conservatives to defend their freedom and support economically.
Conservative, on the other hand, could exist and live quiet well without liberals.
In theory, by attacking Christian conservative, liberals are attacking themselves. Once there is not more Christians, they will go not longer exist.