Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....godless Secularism wants to undermine marriage, the family, and religion plus our whole society by forcing everybody to accept sodomy and homosexuality as being normal....they want to place the State in control of all morality.....this of course will lead to further abominations....such as fatherless or motherless children becoming a 'choice'....engineered children will be next....
Actually, in this case I think it's not the left - but the right - who are arguing in favor of state-controlled morality, right?
The left really just wants two adult humans to have the freedom to choose who they want to marry; those who oppose want the gov't to pro-actively make that decision for them (from a gender perspective), specifically for moral reasons.
If it were up to me, I say humans of adult age should have the freedom to choose. This is what I never got about the Republicans; they preach "less gov't" but on the flipside want that gov't to be more Authoritative. You can see the same thing around the pot prohibition debate as well (with most GOP'ers, but not all).
I'm no Democrat, I'm just pointing out.
.
The God less scum will be wanting beastiality marriage next, or marriage between
grown men and young under aged girls, and boys. This homosexual marriage is just
all a smokescreen, and or steping stone for other Secularist and New World Order
agenda.
Dude, gay marriage is about two adult aged humans agreeing to get married. That's adult humans over the age of 17-18 who are old enough to make decisions for themselves.
On the flipside (see if you can follow me here)...
Adult humans marrying a non-consenting animal (who can't speak/think like a human), or a child (who's too young to make a decision) is an entirely different thing. Those are examples of a person infringing on the rights of another person and therefore NOT ALLOWED.
If you can't see the difference, you need to open your eyes up and start using that brain of yours, pal.
.
Look at what it is they are consenting to, putting each others spern up their rectum!?
Consenting to a perverted sexual act is just as outrageous as beastiality, or wanting
to mate with an underage child.
Consenting adults does not make it ok, or right.
society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....godless Secularism wants to undermine marriage, the family, and religion plus our whole society by forcing everybody to accept sodomy and homosexuality as being normal....they want to place the State in control of all morality.....this of course will lead to further abominations....such as fatherless or motherless children becoming a 'choice'....engineered children will be next....
Actually, in this case I think it's not the left - but the right - who are arguing in favor of state-controlled morality, right?
The left really just wants two adult humans to have the freedom to choose who they want to marry; those who oppose want the gov't to pro-actively make that decision for them (from a gender perspective), specifically for moral reasons.
If it were up to me, I say humans of adult age should have the freedom to choose. This is what I never got about the Republicans; they preach "less gov't" but on the flipside want that gov't to be more Authoritative. You can see the same thing around the pot prohibition debate as well (with most GOP'ers, but not all).
I'm no Democrat, I'm just pointing out.
.
in this case both sides are arguing for a state-condoned form of morality....on one side you have traditional morals based on natural law......on the other you have godless relativistic Secularism....
society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....godless Secularism wants to undermine marriage, the family, and religion plus our whole society by forcing everybody to accept sodomy and homosexuality as being normal....they want to place the State in control of all morality.....this of course will lead to further abominations....such as fatherless or motherless children becoming a 'choice'....engineered children will be next....
Actually, in this case I think it's not the left - but the right - who are arguing in favor of state-controlled morality, right?
The left really just wants two adult humans to have the freedom to choose who they want to marry; those who oppose want the gov't to pro-actively make that decision for them (from a gender perspective), specifically for moral reasons.
If it were up to me, I say humans of adult age should have the freedom to choose. This is what I never got about the Republicans; they preach "less gov't" but on the flipside want that gov't to be more Authoritative. You can see the same thing around the pot prohibition debate as well (with most GOP'ers, but not all).
I'm no Democrat, I'm just pointing out.
.
in this case both sides are arguing for a state-condoned form of morality....on one side you have traditional morals based on natural law......on the other you have godless relativistic Secularism....
society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....Actually, in this case I think it's not the left - but the right - who are arguing in favor of state-controlled morality, right?
The left really just wants two adult humans to have the freedom to choose who they want to marry; those who oppose want the gov't to pro-actively make that decision for them (from a gender perspective), specifically for moral reasons.
If it were up to me, I say humans of adult age should have the freedom to choose. This is what I never got about the Republicans; they preach "less gov't" but on the flipside want that gov't to be more Authoritative. You can see the same thing around the pot prohibition debate as well (with most GOP'ers, but not all).
I'm no Democrat, I'm just pointing out.
.
in this case both sides are arguing for a state-condoned form of morality....on one side you have traditional morals based on natural law......on the other you have godless relativistic Secularism....
Well, I don't know if I fully agree with that (with regards to marriage specifically... the left is VERY forceful with initiatives in other areas that I absolutely abhor).
Sounds to me like (A) one side is saying two consenting adults can only marry in this one specific way, and (B) the other is saying "well if they're adults, and can make sound decisions for themselves, they should have a choice of who they marry and the gov't should not butt in and define it for them".
.
society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....
in this case both sides are arguing for a state-condoned form of morality....on one side you have traditional morals based on natural law......on the other you have godless relativistic Secularism....
Well, I don't know if I fully agree with that (with regards to marriage specifically... the left is VERY forceful with initiatives in other areas that I absolutely abhor).
Sounds to me like (A) one side is saying two consenting adults can only marry in this one specific way, and (B) the other is saying "well if they're adults, and can make sound decisions for themselves, they should have a choice of who they marry and the gov't should not butt in and define it for them".
.
traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?
Those would be third world countries ruled by Muslim dictators.To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?
And also to brainwash society into thinking that a sexual perversion, homosexuality,
is somehow normal, and natural, which it most certainly is not.
There are countries outside of America were you will receive the death penalty for homosexual conduct. Marriage would be considered another aberation of the already
perverted act of homosexuality, when compared to a normal man and woman union.
It is a disgrace that America has degenerated to actually contemplating weather or not
to give sexually perverted homosexuals a titile that has been reserved for thousands of
years for a man and woman, whose purpose is for the procreation of life and family.
This is homo marriage issue is just another reason why America is so hated
throughout the rest of the world.
We have reached one of lowest moral states in all of our history.
I'm all for gay marriage to begin with but if gay marriage undermines your idea of moral superiority, then I'm really all for it.society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....
in this case both sides are arguing for a state-condoned form of morality....on one side you have traditional morals based on natural law......on the other you have godless relativistic Secularism....
Well, I don't know if I fully agree with that (with regards to marriage specifically... the left is VERY forceful with initiatives in other areas that I absolutely abhor).
Sounds to me like (A) one side is saying two consenting adults can only marry in this one specific way, and (B) the other is saying "well if they're adults, and can make sound decisions for themselves, they should have a choice of who they marry and the gov't should not butt in and define it for them".
.
traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?
Well, I don't know if I fully agree with that (with regards to marriage specifically... the left is VERY forceful with initiatives in other areas that I absolutely abhor).
Sounds to me like (A) one side is saying two consenting adults can only marry in this one specific way, and (B) the other is saying "well if they're adults, and can make sound decisions for themselves, they should have a choice of who they marry and the gov't should not butt in and define it for them".
.
traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?
That is opinion, not fact.
Same goes for infertile couples wanting to raise children.
I'm all for gay marriage to begin with but if gay marriage undermines your idea of moral superiority, then I'm really all for it.Well, I don't know if I fully agree with that (with regards to marriage specifically... the left is VERY forceful with initiatives in other areas that I absolutely abhor).
Sounds to me like (A) one side is saying two consenting adults can only marry in this one specific way, and (B) the other is saying "well if they're adults, and can make sound decisions for themselves, they should have a choice of who they marry and the gov't should not butt in and define it for them".
.
traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?
society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....Actually, in this case I think it's not the left - but the right - who are arguing in favor of state-controlled morality, right?
The left really just wants two adult humans to have the freedom to choose who they want to marry; those who oppose want the gov't to pro-actively make that decision for them (from a gender perspective), specifically for moral reasons.
If it were up to me, I say humans of adult age should have the freedom to choose. This is what I never got about the Republicans; they preach "less gov't" but on the flipside want that gov't to be more Authoritative. You can see the same thing around the pot prohibition debate as well (with most GOP'ers, but not all).
I'm no Democrat, I'm just pointing out.
.
in this case both sides are arguing for a state-condoned form of morality....on one side you have traditional morals based on natural law......on the other you have godless relativistic Secularism....
When there's no proof of God, and no forced Religious Law in a free Country, than God-based morals need not be discussed when arguing Civil Law.
society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....
in this case both sides are arguing for a state-condoned form of morality....on one side you have traditional morals based on natural law......on the other you have godless relativistic Secularism....
When there's no proof of God, and no forced Religious Law in a free Country, than God-based morals need not be discussed when arguing Civil Law.
that's bullshit...this country was established by religious people.....and laws reflected their morals right from the beginning...
traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?
That is opinion, not fact.
Same goes for infertile couples wanting to raise children.
you are entitled to your own opinion....as are others....
when we make the laws that we live by in this country.....they should reflect the opinions and morals of the majority....
despite what leftist judges have ruled and despite what leftie polls say.....the majority in this country are still pro-traditional marriage...even in fruits-and-nuts California...as Prop 8 proved in Nov. 2008....
society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....
in this case both sides are arguing for a state-condoned form of morality....on one side you have traditional morals based on natural law......on the other you have godless relativistic Secularism....
Well, I don't know if I fully agree with that (with regards to marriage specifically... the left is VERY forceful with initiatives in other areas that I absolutely abhor).
Sounds to me like (A) one side is saying two consenting adults can only marry in this one specific way, and (B) the other is saying "well if they're adults, and can make sound decisions for themselves, they should have a choice of who they marry and the gov't should not butt in and define it for them".
.
traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?
To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?
And yet several states will only allow 1st cousins to marry if they can prove that one or both are incapable of having children. So right there is proof that, in those states at the minimum, marriage is absolutely considered more than about having and raising children.society is simply a reflection of the morals held by the people reflected in their laws....
in this case both sides are arguing for a state-condoned form of morality....on one side you have traditional morals based on natural law......on the other you have godless relativistic Secularism....
Well, I don't know if I fully agree with that (with regards to marriage specifically... the left is VERY forceful with initiatives in other areas that I absolutely abhor).
Sounds to me like (A) one side is saying two consenting adults can only marry in this one specific way, and (B) the other is saying "well if they're adults, and can make sound decisions for themselves, they should have a choice of who they marry and the gov't should not butt in and define it for them".
.
traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....
When there's no proof of God, and no forced Religious Law in a free Country, than God-based morals need not be discussed when arguing Civil Law.
that's bullshit...this country was established by religious people.....and laws reflected their morals right from the beginning...
No, the Laws reflect common sense laws for any society.
Or else, it would be "law" to love thy neighbor as thyself. (it's not).
But if you're going to pretend that "thou shalt not murder" is somehow fucking unique to your Religion, have a cookie because that's retarded and cookies seem to really do it for retarded people, like they really appreciate them in a way a new child really appreciates the newness of life.
It's amazing.
in the cases where gays use sperm donors or surrogates...Well, I don't know if I fully agree with that (with regards to marriage specifically... the left is VERY forceful with initiatives in other areas that I absolutely abhor).
Sounds to me like (A) one side is saying two consenting adults can only marry in this one specific way, and (B) the other is saying "well if they're adults, and can make sound decisions for themselves, they should have a choice of who they marry and the gov't should not butt in and define it for them".
.
traditional marriage is about having and raising children with both a mother and a father and promoting a stable society.....'gay marriage' only undermines that stability....because children become pawns and are denied either their real father or real mother and real parents become dispensible....so which marriage do you think is morally superior...?
Here’s the thing. There are always going to be gay people, and they’re going to always be adopting/having kids, period. You can’t stop this. So, either you deny them the right to share assets, insurance, ect (and proactively hurt the children involved in those relationships), or you allow them to receive those benefits. That's one way of looking at it.
Secondly, I don’t agree with your argument that ‘because the household is same sex the kid will be adversely affected’.
But what does adversely affect children? It's things like when a child is abandoned, or when a child has an abusive dad, or when the child has a mom that doesn't care about him/her, or when a child has uneducated/unmotivated parents that don't push him/her to succeed. That's what you should at least focus on first, in my opinion, if you're worried about the well being of our country's youth.
Obviously, you agree that gay parents are just as capable as straight parents of being loving and supporting of their kids, right? So what’s the issue?
Quick question…
If there was an orphan, would you rather see that kid grow up without parents (in an institution) or with a loving, stable, same-sex couple?
