Gay Marriage and the NWO Agenda

a reply to: AuranVector

Look hard enough?

Wow, that is some hateful stuff right there.

You claim that you don't have anything against homosexuals, but you consider 99.9 percent of them unfit to raise children and morally corrupt or perverse.

Do you know what the definition of of pre-conceived notion is? Do you know that just because you call your brand of hate, critical thinking, just makes it even worse kinds of hate?

Unbelievable.

~Tenth

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Yeeaahhhhh but your wrong at least in the USA, Canada,UK and many other places so.....by the law also :O
It's marriage for all .

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I submitted "Unnatural conjoining of two sub-humans" but no one took my idea.. so i guess Marriage has to do for now

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: AuranVector

Here's a UK example, more than 1400 white British girls, often under the age of 16 being sex slaves for 350 Pakistani men, they even had petrol thrown on them, drugged, raped, all sorts and many weren't street urchins either. The authorities KNEW about it, but they admitted they didn't act because they ''feared being called racists''. And that was just Rotherham, there are are least 54 other such gangs being in the UK.

The reality is the pedophiles and those that ignored it due to race are racists.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Rotherham: In the face of such evil, who is the racist now?
The Yorkshire town where 1,400 girls have been sexually abused by Asian men is a byword for depravity – all because people wouldn’t rock the multicultural boat

lawandfreedomfoundation.org...

Recently, one newspaper took the initiative of asking all the police
forces in England and Wales whether or not they had current
investigations into specific grooming gangs.41 Whilst 1 in 3 forces did
not respond, from those organisations who did respond, it transpired
that in early 2013 there were at least 54 on-going investigations
into different grooming gangs in various parts of the country.
Some of these investigations concerned grooming gangs in Devon,
Kent and Suffolk, counties far away both geographically and
demographically from the towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, the
type of towns which people might imagine would be the scene of
these crimes. Often we have heard reports of related events which
strongly indicate that gangs are operating in an area, even when we
have been unable to locate even a failed prosecution of a grooming
gang in that area.

This is truly nauseating. This was once the England of T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) and Sir Winston Churchill. Do you think they would have put up with this for an instant?

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Just marriage for all now.
No such thing as gay marriage.

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Let any other combination use civil unions. It's better to use a new word or words than to try and alter existing meanings.

Cheers - Dave

According to who? That's certainly not the case in America now that SS marriage is legal.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

marriage is defined as between a man and a women.

That's how you define it. I define it as a legal bond between two people that have a specific relationship to one another. It does not matter what you call it, it still IS what it IS.

We are so stuck on the symbology of words that we don't notice that it doesn't make one bit of difference.

You ever watch that crazy South Park? There was one episode with aliens where all nouns were simply called malek (I think that was the word). So....


Malek told malek that malek's malek was bothering malek. So Malek picked up a malek and cut out the offending malek.

An extreme case in confusion, but considering the insanity lately, it doesn't appear far off.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Funny enough, I knew what you meant. We assign whatever meaning we want to words, and for the most part, everyone understands, because those meanings become common usage. Using the word "toast" as a slang is okay even if it has a meaning that is totally different from the original. Our brains don't explode when we change the meaning of words or phrases. Changing the meaning of the word marriage to two people who officially commit to each other regardless of sexual orientation will become as common as using the word "toast" to mean doomed or destroyed.

Give us some credit for having the brains to redefine the word "marriage" and still be able to understand it, will ya?

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Ridiculous comparison.

I also think it's ridiculous to believe that your objection is merely based in terminology.
Not buying it, Dave.

a reply to: Megatronus

Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years across almost every culture and society that has existed. Possibly with the exception of polygamist cultures. Who cares if this recent development states otherwise. It's messing with meanings and therefore our ability to communicate.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: AuranVector

Look hard enough?

Wow, that is some hateful stuff right there.

You claim that you don't have anything against homosexuals, but you consider 99.9 percent of them unfit to raise children and morally corrupt or perverse.

Do you know what the definition of of pre-conceived notion is? Do you know that just because you call your brand of hate, critical thinking, just makes it even worse kinds of hate?

Unbelievable.

~Tenth

I don't know what you're talking about. I never said this:

"You claim that you don't have anything against homosexuals, but you consider 99.9 percent of them unfit to raise children and morally corrupt or perverse."

This is simply untrue. In what post did I say that "99.9 percent of them unfit to raise children and morally corrupt or perverse." ???

I never did, nor did I imply it.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Not true many places have had same sex marriages in the past.

www.theguardian.com...

Doesn't matter what you say though does it you can bleat all you want the fact remains marriage for all and most people in modern society agrees.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Clearly the OP (along with a couple of other people on this thread) has an agenda. And that agenda is to put down gays. They are trying to hide that agenda behind NWO nonsense in order to cover up their hatred.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

So if someone said Marriage you would have no idea what they are talking about?

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Not necessarily, there are plenty cultures that carried out same sex weddings. It was common in Greece and I believe Rome. if you had of asked them if it only one man and one woman they would have said no. Fact is it hasnt always been defined that way. Its only since christianity too a firm hold and it was suddenly frowned upon that it became officially one man and woman. Infact I think the phrase one man and one woman is actually directly out of the Bible.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Funny enough, I knew what you meant. We assign whatever meaning we want to words, and for the most part, everyone understands, because those meanings become common usage. Using the word "toast" as a slang is okay even if it has a meaning that is totally different from the original. Our brains don't explode when we change the meaning of words or phrases. Changing the meaning of the word marriage to two people who officially commit to each other regardless of sexual orientation will become as common as using the word "toast" to mean doomed or destroyed.

Give us some credit for having the brains to redefine the word "marriage" and still be able to understand it, will ya?

Positive change is generally applied quickly, because it is beneficial to a majority of the population. Negative change is applied incrementally little bits at a time. These changes being applied to society are incremental. I certainly realize that most people understand slang terminology, the meme becomes embedded, the same applies here.

Cheers - Dave

ATTENTION!

It's a controversial topic, please keep it civil and within the T&C. Stop the OT sidetracking, personal slags and keep in mind that this thread is in the Conspiracy forum and not the Social Issues forum or one of the Political forums.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Clearly the OP (along with a couple of other people on this thread) has an agenda. And that agenda is to put down gays. They are trying to hide that agenda behind NWO nonsense in order to cover up their hatred.

Where have I put down Gays? I have nothing against Gay people.

The Gays have been used for the Globalist agenda.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Not true many places have had same sex marriages in the past.

www.theguardian.com...

Doesn't matter what you say though does it you can bleat all you want the fact remains marriage for all and most people in modern society agrees.

I don't see any history in your link on ss marriage apart from it being made illegal or frowned upon. I am not sure about the Roman empire, but they did collapse long before 300ad. Constantine's efforts were simply a regrouping in order to merge and attempt to centralize control after failure using religion as the mode of control.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: AuranVector

So your answer to this NWO problem is to go back to not allowing gays to marry the consenting adult of their choice?

Hmmm ..... that's convenient.