# The deconstruction of marriage



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/03 ... riage.html

I read this and thought wow he is spot on. If your young this may not make sense to you, but if your old enough to have watched some history unfold it will be very familiar. For me it started becoming clear during the liberation movement. Women were encouraged to be more masculine and they worked at femanizing men at the same time. Not long after we heard men describe themselves as "metrosexuals". I guess that means anything goes. It's confusing watching people like Oprah fawn over a gay man. Why, he doesn't want you anyway lady, he wants another guy.
As for gay marriage that is not so much for equal rights as it is destroying marriage as we know it. I have talked to people who watch where this is going very close and they say that the group marriage people are salivating over their future chances. There are many who want one man two women, one woman four men, ten women eight men etc. It's a joke to us perhaps, but it's also very serious and there are many who do want this.

It's a long read, but it will be worth it.



> Wednesday, March 27, 2013
> 
> The Deconstruction of Marriage
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is my take on the whole issue.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. So what ever your religion states is acceptable then that is what it should be.

I think you shouldn't have to buy a marriage license. It should be a union license and the actual act of Marriage is your religion.

What I mean is if you are a man and woman and you go to the court house....it isn't a marriage. It is a union. If you are a man and woman and go to a church....you got married because it was a church service....but the paperwork and document you sign is a "union license".

Then it goes the same with same sex.....and if your religious affiliation deems same sex marriage....the actual ceremony is marriage but the paperwork is union.

Because you are married under the church.....not government.

I know that thought is bouncing around and is clear as mud. But Marriage is in the eyes of religion.....so where is the separation of church and state here??? That is why all licenses should have been "Civil Union" licenses and not marriage.


----------



## jacobsol80 (Aug 12, 2008)

Marriage is a religious tenet. Union is reserved for the government. I don't really care who is involved in a union. Just don't tell me it is a marriage.


----------



## jacobsol80 (Aug 12, 2008)

Chuck Smith said:


> Here is my take on the whole issue.
> 
> Marriage is a religious ceremony. So what ever your religion states is acceptable then that is what it should be.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Marriage is a religious tenet. Union is reserved for the government. I don't really care who is involved in a union. Just don't tell me it is a marriage


Agreed and the point I was trying to make.... Marriage is defined by religion or is a religious ceremony. So it should be up to each individual religion to deem if same sex is ok or not ok. IMO


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

I did not know this until a few years ago. There are many priests or whatever they are called who will marry same sex couples. They have been able to get married for quite some time. If you want to get married just search for someone to do it. It is not that hard.

Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.


----------



## lindyrigem (Apr 10, 2011)

about 13 yrs ago i moved to oregon and lived there for 2 yrs. before moving back to north dakota. having lived in north dakota my whole life i quickly found out that oregon is alot more liberal when it comes to same sex couples. i lived about a stones throw from the beach and after i had finally gotten moved in i figured i would go down to the beach and relax. when i got to the beach there were quite a few people and a few same sex couples, both men and women that were strolling on the beach holding hands enjoying the day i guess. i found myself pondering the question is this ok or not. the answer i came up with for myself was these people arent hurting anybody and theyre happy i guess i really dont mind i guess. all i ask is dont push it on me but if two consenting adults of the same sex are happy together and want to get married thats ok with me. your thing about paligomists seeing an opening through gay marriage being legalized is kind of a stretch.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's not a stretch at all. I talk with the people who are watching this. People who believe in polygamy are so sure that same sex marriage is going through that they are working on the wording for bills of their own. Groups like the North Dakota Family Alliance watch things like this closely as do many many other organizations. When I said they are waiting in the wings it wasn't something I was guessing at. Same with NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) who want the age of consent dropped way down.



> UK Guardian releases study saying pedophilia 'normal' may be good for children


http://www.examiner.com/article/uk-guar ... r-children

Many people think these things are all far fetched. I look back at the 1960's and we thought anyone admitting publicly that they were gay was far fetched. Then I watched the 1970's, 80's, 90's and still thought same sex marriage was far fetched. If this don't stop some guy will bend little ten year old Bobby over a log for a candy bar and his parents will have nothing to say about it. Far fetched today, but not if NAMBLA gets their way. 
If you think NAMBLA is a fringe organization you should understand that the person who is the head of education for Obama said something to the effect that he admires ?????? can't remember his name, but he is the founder of NAMBLA. Also, NAMBLA was all upset with Hillary when she was senator because she didn't invite them to the New York gay pride parade. It's hard for us to believe because it's hard for sane people to imagine these things. 
Where will we be in 50 years if we don't stop this. 
One of the problems we have is we let people define words. Yesteryear tolerance meant more or less ignoring. Today tolerance means acceptance. If that's true then tolerance is not a virtue, but rather a total lack of principles.

I hear what your saying about gays on the beach in Oregon. When bell bottom jeans came out I thought they were the ugliest thing I had ever seen. Three years later I had a couple of pair. It's sort of like the conditioning of Pavlov's dog. What did you think the first time you seen a couple of these guys making out on the beach? What was your reaction a year later? Why do they have to make a spectacle of themselves more than heterosexuals? I don't like seeing heterosexuals doing that publicly, get a room.


----------



## lindyrigem (Apr 10, 2011)

i hear what youre saying plainsman. i didnt ever see any guys making out or women either. enough of that. nambla is an awful organization full of pedifiles and child molestors (they should all be shot as far as im concerned). i dont agree with poligimy either i think a union or marriage should be between two consenting adults. the way i feel is that a man or woman doesnt just wake up one morning and all of a sudden theyre gay when they never were before. you cant catch gay if you accidently stand by a gay person. these are consenting adults and i really dont feel that they are hurting anyone by being together if theyre happy. theyre not putting anyone in harms way by being gay. personally im as straight as an arrow and if i see 2 guys together i just dont look or move away from them cause im not real comfortable around male gayness (two females doesnt bother me much though, i guess thats a guy thing)


----------



## lindyrigem (Apr 10, 2011)

i really dont see legalizing gay marriage as being a gateway to nambla and the poligimists being able to accomplish their agendas. i believe the whole gay marriage issue will ultimately be decided by the us supreme court. theres alot of strong feelings on both sides of this issue.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> you cant catch gay if you accidently stand by a gay person


 :rollin:

I think it's psychological, but that's very important. Some people think there were as many gays 100 years ago, but I don't. I think it's become more prevalent because as kids see it on tv and are taught that it's normal in sex ed at school they get curious. I read one place that one out of three college women have experimented with it. So I see it as conditioning. For me thinking about two guys is about enough to gag a maggot. Why do they feel the need to be exhibitionists. More so than straight people. It's like they are trying to shove it down our throat (no pun intended).

You know I look at this thing with priests molesting little boys and wonder why. Were they gay, thought they would never marry, but didn't like the idea of homosexuality so they desiccated their life to God? It's hard to repress nature and with no outlet their brain takes a hike. After all you don't see these guys molesting little girls that often. I think if they let priests get married you would see most or all of this problem go away.

I'll bet the age of consent comes down in the next few years. If you look at where our nation is going it isn't good.


----------

