Thursday, August 5, 2010

Andrei Lead us not into damnation

No surprises here but an activist gay Judge has overturned California's ban on gay marriage.

And every report you see, hear, or read on this matter will cast it in this way - a ban has been overturned and a fight for human rights and equality is being won.

Horse radish of course - its just a self indulgent vocal minority determined to get their own way - to give a great poke in the eye to the sacred institution of the family.

And despite this ruling, which will be challenged, they can never get marriage, that God given sacrament which was given to us to bond man and woman together for the purpose of continuing the human race.

Gay marriage is just a mockery of this, a hollow sham and its real purpose is not one of advancing human rights. Rather it is for the degradation of a holy institution.

Antonio Gramsci understood that two pillars that stood in the way of the Marxist new order for mankind were the Church and the Family. And that these would have to be degraded before the glorious revolution could occur.

Of course the whiners who are the face of movement do not realize that they are just useful idiots in the cause of bringing damnation upon us and our society.

Gramsci might have believed that his ideas would bring about a socialist utopia but the law of unintended consequences applies and the most probable outcome of all of this is that the clitoris loppers shall inherit the Earth.

10 comment(s):

x said...

"Blessed are the clitoris loppers for they shall inherit the Earth."

It just doesn't have the same ring to it, somehow.

Canterbury Atheists said...

Andrei, what has so radically changed since New Zealand legalised same-sex marriages? The damnation (what-ever that is?) you predict is already upon us, like a scene from Mad Max? Cripes, I must check I’ve got enough ammunition and food in the cupboards to keep the rabid hordes at bay.

The concept of marriage pre-dates Christianity by millennia so your God ‘Yahweh’ doesn’t hold a monopoly on its tenants –not by a long shot – infact Christian marriage laws are relatively ‘fresh off the boat’.

The Babylonians had the first known ‘written’ marriage codes about 1800 years before Yahweh’s son allegedly came on the scene. So why don’t we adopt their rules on union or that of a remote tribe from The Brazilian jungle?

In case you haven’t noticed now and again men and women breed with or without the sanctity of a Christian wedding. Couples also declare their love and commitment in a situation they choose and not one you see fit to be right and automatically superior in exactly the same fashion as Catholic conquistadors of the past (minus the mass rapes, executions, cultural destruction and genocide)

All the best.

Paul.

Lucia Maria said...

Paul,

Christianity goes back to the absolute beginning of time when God made man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply.

Over the years since that point, marriage has warped to allow polygamy and divorce, but neither of those two were part of the original design.

Marriage is considered a primordial sacrament, but it is made holy by the coming together of a baptised man and woman. The Church merely recognises marriage, She doesn't confer it.

Lucia Maria said...

While as there is no marriage to be recognised when it comes to persons of the same sex.

Andrei said...

In case you haven’t noticed now and again men and women breed with or without the sanctity of a Christian wedding

Well yes I had noticed Paul, this is just the latest assault on traditional marriage.

I have also noticed that 100% of the babies murdered in this country are the offspring of such couplings.

I have also noticed that the Jewish people who for the most part practiced monogamy are still with us, whereas the Cartheginians who practiced child sacrifice,for example are not.

Canterbury Atheists said...

“Christianity goes back to the absolute beginning of time” – are you being serious Lucia?

Who is your script-writer?

Here’s a clue.

Whenever you see a BC beside a date – the BC means ‘before Christ’.

It’s a bit of a giveaway.

Andrei, this concept of traditional marriage (read: Christian marriage) being somehow superior to other forms of union is rubbish – it’s like obliquely saying “it was better in our day”

Plenty of peoples of the Bible, ancient civilizations are no longer with us – so what? The demise of a civilization is complex. To blame the collapse of the Carthaginians on their marriage customs and treatment of children is to re-write history. The Romans came and raped and pillaged them and basically integrated them into their empire like they normally did. By the way that’s the same Roman as in say Roman Catholic. The Romans of that time practiced monogamy, polygamy, shacking-up and any other type of union you can thing of – with impunity. Monogamy was actually the norm in pre-Roman Carthage – so your example is a poor one if you want to advance the cause of monogamy using historic example.

Moving-on using your logic a large percentage of those babies murdered were themselves Maori, or the perpetrators were Maori and therefore we should stop them breading – right?

Yes, it would be better for kids to have a mum and dad who love them - but it's not a perfect world and plenty of marriages under Gods eye (or does have have more than one?) end-up in divorce.

By the way in Columbia you can get married in a Catholic Church (with a letter from mum and dad) at 14 – but I guess that’s O.K by you?

Got to shoot out to boxing.

See ya guys.

Paul.

Lucia Maria said...

Paul,

I'll be more accurate, then. Swap "goes" with "refers". So with that word swap, what I said now reads:

Christianity refers back to the absolute beginning of time when God made man and woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply.

Over the years since that point, marriage has warped to allow polygamy and divorce, but neither of those two were part of the original design.

Marriage is considered a primordial sacrament, but it is made holy by the coming together of a baptised man and woman. The Church merely recognises marriage, She doesn't confer it.

scrubone said...

A better term is "redemptive history" I think.

"Gay marriage" is like talking about yellow black. It's logically impossible. It's impossible to marry someone of the same sex, just as it's impossible to marry an animal or multiple people.

Gays portray themselves as shut out of something that everyone else gets, but in actual fact they're perfectly entitled to the same rights as everyone else - to marry someone within the very narrow definition that has always existed since thousands of years ago.

I would like to say that it's extraordinary that a gay judge wouldn't recuse himself, but actually that doesn't surprise me at all.

Canterbury Atheists said...

Hey, that’s a good point you broached Lucia – polygamy! How could I have missed-it in terms of Christian tradition and scripture? The Bible allows polygamy in both the Old Testament and the New Testaments.

In Exodus 21:10 , a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

Moses and Solomon were big on wives and mistress’s.

But back to marriage and your concept of ‘traditional marriage’.

If you wish to practice a more traditional form of formal marriage - then why not one from say pre-Roman Cathage? Which is patently far, far more ‘traditional’ than the Christian one, and therefore must automatically be some-how superior?

For that matter - why not go the whole hog and practice a traditional cave-man wedding?

Here’s the deal….couples get together (with or without wedlock) for a myriad of reasons – love, emotional and financial dependency, convenience etc.

Sometimes these couples happen to be two males and two females.

The marriage practices of one age, culture differ and evolve.

Nothing you say will stop this happening.

Nice chatting.

Paul.

Footnote: Interestingly married Christians in the U.S divorce at higher rates than married atheists (and this statistic comes from a Christian source rather than an secular one)
http://canterburyatheists.blogspot.com/2008/10/family-first-highlights.html

Hendy said...

Oh, he's such an activist judge. Appointed by Reagan; renominated by Bush; nomination blocked by NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. It's obvious that he'd overturn the ban.

"just a self indulgent vocal minority determined to get their own way"

Like Loving vs Virginia? At the time, interracial marriage was less popular in American minds than gay marriage is today. So, what's right isn't always popular.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.