0af1d2f8f25ecaafa40cbef22090d9faa22aa79e

Slovakia Bans Counterfeit ‘Gay Marriage’

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

While the U.S. seems bound and determined to destroy natural marriage and family, other nations around the world have figured out that radically deconstructing these fundamental cornerstone institutions – institutions necessary to the survival of any healthy society – will have devastating effects in the long-term.

Slovakia is the latest such nation. Lawmakers there have constitutionally banned counterfeit “same-sex marriage.”

Yahoo News reports:

Slovakia’s parliament on Wednesday amended its constitution to define marriage as a union between man and woman, effectively closing the door to same-sex marriage and stirring protest among rights groups.

The amendment, drafted by leftist Prime Minister Robert Fico’s Smer-Social Democraty party and the opposition Christian Democrats, was backed by 102 lawmakers while 18 voted against it.

The amendment required a two-thirds majority in the 150-member parliament.

“The marriage amendment will not bring about any drastic changes, it only seals in the constitution what is already defined by law,” said Fico, whose Smer is a member of the traditionally liberal Party of European Socialists group in the European Parliament.

The European Union’s newest member Croatia outlawed same-sex marriage in a referendum last year, triggering a similar constitutional amendment, but swiftly passed a civil union law for same-sex couples.

No form of same-sex civil union is legal in Slovakia, where more than 70 percent of the population of 5.4 million is Christian, according to a 2011 census. …

Same-sex marriage is legal in a handful of the 27 other EU states including Britain and France, while civil unions are recognized by the Czech Republic, Germany and others.

Let’s pray that this pro-family trend across the world continues. As the radical “LGBT” agenda continues to weaken America, obliterate religious liberty and hurt and confuse countless children and families, we can at least take solace in the fact that much of the world has not been duped by this demonic incursion of sexual anarchy.

Still, come what may, know this: In the end, Truth wins out.

And Truth has a name: Yeshua, Christ Jesus.

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • garybryson

    Might be a great place for the anti gay faction to consider moving.

    • thisoldspouse

      Naw, we’ll just model are government accordingly. A Constitutional amendment would be a great start.

      • garybryson

        Don’t hold your breath spouser…LOL! That will never happen and you and I both know it.

      • The Professor

        “Naw, we’ll just model are government accordingly.”

        Don’t you mean “our” government? BTW, I wouldn’t hold my breath for an amendment to the US Constitution.

      • ErickMN

        Creepy old man obsessed with homosexuality says what?

      • vorpal

        Hasn’t that been tried at least twice and failed miserably?

        If you couldn’t do it in the mid 2000s, you’re certainly not going to be able to do it now.

        • thisoldspouse

          Then we’ll try again. If the population finally get a belly full of the perversion you are pushing, it could happen.

          • garybryson

            Doubtful old woman..doubtful

          • vorpal

            Awww, spousey-pie, given that our support continues to increase, I sincerely doubt that there’s any risk of that happening, but it’s just so gosh-darned super-adorable to watch you far-righties shake your fists with your empty threats and sound so serious like there’s a snowball’s chance in the LAKE OF FIRE that you might actually revert everyone’s hearts to your hateful, evil ways!

            And you wonder why I’m so fond of you all.

          • thisoldspouse

            What “support?” You are delusional. These court decisions are based on the delusions of single judges.

          • Truth Offends

            If there was a serious attempt to pass a marriage amendment to the US Constitution, I think it would have a very good chance of passing–mostly b/c America, I think, would then see just how hateful the pro-homosexual movement can truly be. Sometimes it takes people to actually see evil before they can recognize it. And if up for a vote, I think America would vote against evil. (Maybe I’m wrong.)

          • vorpal

            Well over half the country supports us now, and the opposition is throwing their hands up left and right: even such hardcore SSM opponents like Maggie Gallagher and Jennifer Roeback Morse have both said that SSM as the law of the land is inevitable, as have Sen. Orrin Hatch and Bill O’Reilly. Your side has lost. You will go down in history as the big embarrassment of the early 21st century. Congratulations on that: you worked hard for it, and you’ve earned it!

            Oh noes: all the judges, who rule over and over again consistently that banning SSM is a violation of the constitution, must clearly be delusional because they don’t agree with you. Clearly, as with homosexuality, you heterosexual Christians are the experts in law, too, knowing better than all the judges (as again, you know better than all gay people, medical professionals, and researchers in LGBT issues).

            Your salty widdle tears are just so unbelievably delicious, thisoldspouse.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Considering that acceptance of GLBT folk has been on a continuous *upswing*, and people tend to report more positive feelings towards GLBT the more they know, I wouldn’t hold out much hope.

      • Find the Truth

        I’m afraid you’ll have to leave OUR country to create YOUR hateful new Republic… It’s not happening on United States soil. I also would like to know how the gay couple down the street threaten MY marriage? My wife and I have been together for almost 30 years, my parents will celebrate their 56th this year yet according to your kind the gay people will destroy marriage… Why hasn’t it happened? Perhaps you should re-think your hateful position???

        • vorpal

          Thanks for the support, Find the Truth. It is much appreciated.

          • Find the Truth

            You bet…we have to support one another to overcome the ignorace of the right!

        • Mehow

          Differing opinion of principled dissent is not hateful.

          This country, until activist judge rulings in several states now, including yet another one recently, passed outright SSM bans. Is that another hateful era?

          This is my country, too. You seem to forget that.

          • garybryson

            Here we go with the ridiculous routine about activist judges. Pathetic.

          • Mehow

            They are exactly that.

            Especially when they make up crap that is not lawful to suit personal beliefs.

            If I 1000% agreed in sentiment with SSM, I would STILL oppose the ruling like in Wisconsin because it’s legally false.

            Her reasoning is NOT sound. You should, too, but typically the usual SSM proponent just is glad they won.

            If so many polled are now flipped, why cannot those states put up those same “same sex marriage bans” up and reverse them one by one instead of ONE person substituting their will on an entire state that typically voted contrary?

            You need to learn the critical difference between being sympathetic with the outcome or goals of a ruling and supporting the legal approach and reasoning to arrive there.

            One can oppose, even being liberal, Brown v Board of Edu. in that the legal logic was flawed, or Roe, etc.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Her reasoning is NOT sound.

            On what grounds? Orientation is being treated with heightened scrutiny, and there is no indication that the state met that goal.

            why cannot those states put up those same “same sex marriage bans” up and reverse them one by one instead of ONE person substituting their will on an entire state that typically voted contrary?

            Because one of the roles of the courts is to judge whether laws are in accordance with the Constitution. I suspect you know this, but you seem to need it repeated.

          • Find the Truth

            Principled dissent would include the use of actual facts, you don’t have any…How about you answer the question I asked in my post??? How is gay marriage going to harm my marriage??? Do you have an answer?

          • Mehow

            You were told, you just won’t accept the answer.

            SSM does not cause INDIVIDUAL SPECIFIC marriages of opposite sexers to be illegal, etc.

            It creates the environment where that union is devalued and eventually rendered into chaos or worse.

            You keep using a straw man here.

            When I have a marriage, and other “marriages” of same sex couples are everywhere, that affects the traditional family unit, it needs no study to prove, it’s self evident to any thinking person, because the structure or building block is undermined and obscured.

            Parents of opposite genders sport contrasting and complimentary gender roles for children. And others around our children in interacting with them, ditto.

            To expect that activists already loudly claiming that no value exist for a mother and a father as compared to same sex versions, you are not making a credible argument that your intent is NOT to undermine the traditional family unit.

            You are also dishonest about biology and reality.

            And don’t start with that “the state does not demand the couple have a baby to marry” crud.

            It’s much more involved and complex than that.

            No, the state does not demand proof of reproductive intent for each applicant, but a compelling state interest exists for opposite sex parent legal protection, if only to more solidly tie a presumptive bio father to the scene. In theory, he can give agreed paternity without marriage, but we all know just doing that is not going yield satisfactory results over the long term and with many persons in society.

            Opposite sex couples provide examples for the children of others, in sleepovers, visits, BBQs, etc. and those social situations where you normalize homosexuality are not going to have zero consequences on children.

            Quit pretending otherwise.

            This is about more than you or your selfish needs.

          • Steven Schwartz

            it’s self evident to any thinking person,

            Every time I hear this, I hear “This is dogma, and no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise”. Which rather makes the rest of your comment pointless, as it’s not based on an assessment of reality, but on your dogma.

          • Find the Truth

            First, I was told nothing by you or anyone else on this thread…

            “SSM does not cause INDIVIDUAL SPECIFIC marriages of opposite sexers to be illegal, etc” – I never said it did and this point is irrelevant.

            “It creates the environment where that union is devalued and eventually rendered into chaos or worse.” – According to whom? That’s a personal opinion based up NOTHING but what you’ve trumped up in your own mind. SSM will NOT harm my marriage or cause any chaos in my life, that’s a FACT…
            You comments on the effects on children are for the most part irrelevant because the VAST majority of same sex couples don’t have any and secondarily, in the case where children are present there has been NO proof that the children have been harmed psychologically in any way, shape, or form… Once again, you substitute your own opinion and claim it is legitimate, it’s not.
            Your crew has decided to use the term “traditional marriage” and pretend that marriage has been one man, one woman forever, that’s a flat out lie and you know it. Men took multiple wives for the overwhelming portion of human history. Such practices were not limited by geographical location or by the religion of the people involved, ALL participated…

  • Jeanette Victoria

    Well at least some parts of the world show common sense

    • garybryson

      Ciao!

    • vorpal

      The part of the word behind your keyboard seems to be sorely lacking.

    • http://littlekiwilovesbauhaus.blogspot.com/ Little Kiwi

      Jeanette is best known for being the inspiration for Faye Dunaway’s character in “CHINATOWN”

      “She’s my daughter…sister…daughter..sister she’s my daughter AND my sister!”

      yes, jeanette. we know. and it’s sad.

    • Michael Hampton

      Oh Honey. According to the Bible, you should let the men talk. Now go have more babies and let us men folk talk about real issues like the Bible tells you.

    • Red Mann

      Yep, right here in the good ol USA where human decency is slowing triumphing of you Bible-blinded bigots. The idea that you would endorse the evil behavior of these inhuman laws says a lot about you and your perverted view of religion.

    • Jeanette Victoria

      Right on cue the pro-perversity crowd chimes in their their usual pathetic name calling. You all do a nice job of confimg decent folks reasons why they don’t want to affirm the absurdity of “same sex “marriage”.

      • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

        Well, when you start your comment calling the side which advocates for civil equality the ‘pro-perversity’ side you really don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to decrying name-calling.

        Common sense is the resort of those who cannot substantial their arguments thoroughly. For marriage equality advocates it’s common sense that consenting adults should be able to get married regardless of gender. Plenty of parts of the world show THAT kind of common sense. Slovakia isn’t one of them.

        • Jeanette Victoria

          You can deny biology until the end of time and fling invectives at those who point out the truth but reality will always remain the same. Two men or two women can not procreate and cannot have a marriage, it is a biological impossibility. To claim otherwise is perverse.

          • garybryson

            And again, there is prerequisite for procreation in marriage. Your holy man isn’t needed either. Biology has nothing to do with it. Your argument is a fail.

          • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

            Here we go again, the conflation of biological reproduction with religious/cultural ceremony with legal contract which gives the couple benefits and responsibilities enforceable by law. Do you see how these things are different? A couple who wishes to marry need never have children, one or both can be infertile. Or do you not think that marriages which are childless are legitimate? Either way, your opinion does not affect the legal reality of their marriage. So score one for you, two men cannot biologically reproduce, but reproduction has nothing to do with marriage.

            Now, I can see the mental gymnastics involved: people who have a theocratic Christian worldview tend to believe that sexual activity for any other reason than procreation is wrong and that any sexual activity outside of a marriage (a Christian marriage) is wrong. Therefore, in their quest to regulate humans’ sexual activity, they need to ban same-sex marriage because its only purpose is emotional and sexual fulfillment (of course, there have been plenty of attempts to ban non-procreative sex as well, but since that affects heterosexuals, those movements have not really gathered steam). Not to mention (I’m sure you feel this way) it’s icky. So, since your religion has irrevocably linked the ritual of marriage with biological reproduction (or its ‘potential’ or some other vapid excuse for not affecting infertile heterosexuals’ marriages which your argument undoubtedly would), it is impossible to you that marriage could exist without biological reproduction. Are you married? Do you have children? Was your marriage “real” until you had a child? Of course not. If you are married, from the moment you signed the document in a courthouse (not a church, let me remind you) you have been married. Biological reproduction nor your specific religious dogmas have anything to do with public marital policy. To suggest that they do is, by the standards of the 1st Amendment “perverse”.

  • Theodore Fenton

    “Natural” marriage has been under attack for many years now. I work in my judicial circuit’s divorce court five days a week, and I see the destruction of “natural” marriage almost every day, many resulting in child endangerment.

    • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

      A few names you should look up: Felecia and Cody Beemer of Warren, Ohio; Jessica Dutro and Brian Canady of Hillsboro, Oregon; Lisa Biron of the Alliance Defendin Freedom; John and Nita Jackson and their sons of Perquiman’s County, North Carolina

      Natural Marriage! It never results in child endangerment!

  • NYCBullDog

    Please feel free to move there Matt!

  • http://littlekiwilovesbauhaus.blogspot.com/ Little Kiwi

    Barber, Brian Brown , Rick Santorum – three men destined to join Rick Warren in driving at least one of their own son’s to suicide.

    It’s depressing, but it’s going to happen. After a life of living with an unrepentant bigot for a father, the youngest Warren took a gun and blew his brains out.

    And it’ll happen to Barbar. And Brian Brown. And Rick Santorum. You hate gay marriage so much that your closeted gay child will likely ensure you attend their funeral instead of their wedding.

    Prepare for a world of hurt.

    • thisoldspouse

      And you celebrate this, right?

      • http://littlekiwilovesbauhaus.blogspot.com/ Little Kiwi

        No. My family and I march in the pride parades every year – showing that Love Makes a Family. My dad holds high his “I love my Gay Son” sign. This is why I’m still here, and Rick Warrens’ son blew his brains out. And why Barber, LaBarbera, and Santorum will be attending their own son’s funerals.

        They’d rather their gay sons die than come out. And sadly, they’ll get their wish. Mark my work.

        • thisoldspouse

          Hypocrite. You dance on the graves of confused kids who think they’re “gay” because they are a powerful emotional tool to extort feelings of guilt and penance from a duped society. These kids, the circumstances of who’s deaths are often lied about to be cast as solely about their sexuality, mean nothing to you beyond their usefulness as a political tool.

          God will have much to say in judgement about this exceedingly horrific crime.

    • Truth Offends

      I would just like to note for the record that the poster “Little Kiwi” made a very hateful and despicable comment about Rick Warren and his son. In his comment, Little Kiwi also drew a comparison b/w Rick Warren’s son and the sons of Matt Barber, Brian Brown, and Rick Santorum.

      At the time of this posting, his comment had nine (9) upvotes: 3 guests, garybryson, Scot Lanway, Find the Truth, queertardo, tom_ beauchom, luyten

      • David Thompson

        Don’t forget that David Thompson upvoted it as well.

        • Truth Offends

          You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • grada3784

            Why? Christians drop the big one on gays all the time. Don’t you realize that after your opponent is repeatedly nuked with Christian dogma, shame is no longer a piece you can play.

      • vorpal

        There have been a number of well-known cases of anti-LGBT parents rejecting their children or expressing anti-LGBT sentiments around their children (who they did not know to be LGBT), and those children ended up killing themselves. The parents and, as far as I’m concerned, the segment of society who feed their anti-LGBT sentiment are directly to blame on their deaths. You have blood on your hands.

        When Christians start killing themselves because of gay bullying, then I MIGHT believe that you have a case when you talk about being bullied by homosexuals. Until then, your claims are pretty ridiculous, and most people recognize them as what is rapidly becoming recognized as the standard displays of hysterics and theatrics from the right.

        • Truth Offends

          You should be ashamed of yourself for placing blame on others for any homosexual’s suicide without proof. Maybe the APA was too hasty in removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders!
          And, you’re the one being “hysterical and theatrical” making it sound as if homosexual youth are killing themselves right and left–and saying “you have blood on your hands”!
          Tell me, how many homosexual youth have committed suicide? Of those, how many have committed suicide b/c of being bullied? (And, I’m not asking for the number that is, “as far as you’re concerned” !)

          • vorpal

            I’m not ashamed at all. There’s been proof in more than a few cases: suicide notes, for example, explaining why the child killed him / herself.

            I’m not being theatrical at all. If you can’t imagine the burden of growing up in a society that bombards you with shame for your very existence and for something as fundamental to a human being as their ability to share, experience, and receive love, and on top of that, to have to live in fear of being rejected by your peers, friends, family, and religious community unless you live a carefully crafted lie, you have no compassion.

            I have no idea how many LGBT youth have committed suicide. I believe that 42% or so have attempted suicide at one time or another, if I remember correctly.

      • garybryson

        Quit whining you big baby!

      • http://littlekiwilovesbauhaus.blogspot.com/ Little Kiwi

        I would like to note for the record that Rick Warren drove his own son, and countless LGBT youth, to suicide.

        why should WE be ashamed of ourselves? Promoting LGBT Equality and understanding doesn’t cause people to take their lives. Promoting anti-gay hatred does. Don’t believe me? Wait until you bury one of your own.

        Hateful and Despicable comments? Look at the anti-gay hatred promoted by these bigoted men. Mark my word – each one will bury a son, just like rick warren did.

  • whatdidhesay

    I challenge Barber to produce one iota of evidence natural marriage and family is being “destroyed” by same sex marriage. One example, please. One. I’m waiting.

    • ErickMN

      You’ll be waiting a long time. Barber is all about lies and deception. That’s all he’s got.

    • garybryson

      They cant even answer when asked how does marriage equality hurt your marriage. They are nothing more than parrots and liars for their holy man

      • Mehow

        SSM marriage does not *directly* “hurt” my marriage.

        What it does do is corrupt the family unit and allow unhealthy models of parenting that are not based in nature or biology, and that matters since mothers and fathers parent differently and give different, but equally valuable things to kids.

        And they set examples for other kids in their midst in social situations even when childless. It’s Adam and Eve, not Amy and Steve.

        Over time, the family unit crumbles or is made unrecognizable from healthy biologically based norms, religion may not even enter the picture here.

        This argument that allowing SSM has no impact on straight marriage is positively maddening because it’s not true, but the question is framed in an impossible way for the right side, the pro-marriage in the traditional sense, to prevail, by the media.

        • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

          Projection. Panicked projection, hypotheticals, and hand-wringing. Not a justifiable reason to deny people rights and privileges, including but not limited to joint tax returns, hospital visitation rights, child custody, and others.

          It’s true that marriage equality will affect people like you. You won’t be able to pretend we don’t exist and maybe even people won’t want to associate with you if you voice those opinions which people are beginning to consider as bigoted as they now consider people who favored segregation. Same deal.

          • Mehow

            Projection, no.

            My objections are not based on religious beliefs.

            They are based on reality and children. It’s almost mind bending we have people as ignorant as you in this world.

            I should not say ignorant, I should say as pretzel logic hampered where you cannot separate what you WANT or think you want from what you want forced onto society irrespective of the consequences to it or its children.

            It’s a selfish view. Even some pedophiles realize their BEHAVIOR may not square (if acted out) with appropriate actions with children, so despite their feelings of attraction they remain celibate.

            Your last point is another typical play on the “this is the new interracial marriage several years later” tactic.

            This is not equivalent, despite your fantasies, to women voting or not. That is an unrelated subject in which you try convince yourself that history has a liberal bias, etc.

            Canada and Holland, nice examples of healthy environments for children-not.

          • vorpal

            I’d say that Canada (can’t speak for Holland) is a fantastic place to raise children: far better education than the US, far better health care, far more equitable distribution of wealth, and far less racism and disadvantaged minority groups. What exactly is to hate?

          • grada3784

            So every heterosexual marries only for the sake of the children, even those not their own.

            Thanks for the chuckle.

    • Halou

      Many gay men marry women as a sham and a cover under which they can hide themselves, it’s called ‘bearding’. When gay men figuratively get the beard to look like “real men”. But on gay marriages being made legal, the need to be unhappily shackled in such an arrangement becomes obsolete.

      It is obvious that such “traditional” beard marriages will be destroyed by the advance of gay rights, with people like John Paulk being liberated from his painful marriage when he embraced equality.

      I can’t imagine why Matt Barber feels so threatened by the liberation from beards.

      • thisoldspouse

        I doubt “Rev.” Gene Robinson would have abandoned his wife and children had the campaign for marriage redefinition never gained any speed.

    • vorpal

      Haven’t we all learned by this point that when presented with facts or asked relevant questions, these people simply ignore them and respond by parroting more ridiculous rhetoric?

      • Jacobus Arminius

        Hey, Vorpal did you read today’s article: The Myth of ‘Gay’ Male Monogamy?

        • vorpal

          No yet, but I’ll see if I can dig it up. Regardless, my husband and I are monogamous, and although we’re introverted and choose to not socialize very much (and even when we do, most of our friends are heterosexuals), the majority of long-term gay couples that we know ARE absolutely monogamous.

          I admit that we also know several in open relationships or with pre-decided arrangements, but we also know a number of heterosexual couples in the same situations. I suspect that it’s more common amongst gay men (and far less so amongst lesbians than any other group), but that is more a product of monogamy being less appealing to men than to women.

        • grada3784

          Some men are monogamous; some are not. Straight or gay makes no difference. That’s why prostitution has always flourished.

    • no more mr. nice guy

      Here’s one:
      On 4/17/13 , Masha Gessen, just one psychotic and hallucinogenic lesbian homosexual pervert said: “It’s a no-brainer that homosexual activists should have the right [wrong] to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for gay [homosexual] marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.”

      • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

        Oklahoma Republican Representative Mike Turner: “(My constituents are) willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all.”

        Sounds to me like there are loonies on both sides of the debate. Far fewer loonies on the side which just wants equal rights for all citizens. Turner is pulling the classic “if the blacks can use the pool now we’ll just have to close the pool!”

        • no more mr. nice guy

          Gessen admits that homos LIE.
          She not only admits to lying 2x but she says that the real goal is to destroy the institution of marriage which means destroying civilization as we know it.

          • garybryson

            Curious as to when Gessen started speaking for all homosexual. If that’s the best you’ve got……..s

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Why did you respond for “whatdidhesay” who asked for just one example? Why is “whatdidhesay” silent in response to the “just one example” he requested?

        • Mehow

          You do this a lot don’t you?

          You attempt to discredit the debater by trying to make him look extreme to fence sitters.

          You could try to explain why he may be interested in that.

          But that would take more thought than ad hominem invective.

      • Mehow

        And no doubt they know (some of them) that they lie and the marriage institution will be eroded and weakened by holding up faux marriage as equal and identical essentially to traditional marriage.

        • no more mr. nice guy

          When it comes to sex; marriage; parenting; adopting; educating; and unlimited unsupervised access to children [the heathen homosexual prey of choice], homosexuals are always less than and inferior to heterosexuals. No civil law can ever change that especially since the civil laws are rigged in behalf of heathenism.
          Even the moronic know that two redundant men and/or two redundant women can never be the same as and equal to one complimentary man and one complimentary women.
          No minority can claim legitimate discrimination unless the majority refuses to let the minority play by the rules set by the majority. Majorities always make the rules. Otherwise, we should abolish elections and simply let the homo-ridden courts decide everything.
          The historic and culturally universal definition of marriage is and has long been one man and one women only. Therefore, the only time homo’s can claim marital discrimination is if two heterosexual men and/or two heterosexual women were permitted to marry while two homosexual men and/or two homosexual women were forbidden to marry.
          That’s not the case. What we have is long standing premeditated and highly orchestrated pandemonium to wreck and ruin the USA from the inside out.
          The imbecilic and oxymoronic homosexual marriage is the most brazen example of societal discrimination ever.
          These dehumanized perverts are in the misery loves company and the conversion to perversion business

          • Mehow

            “The historic and culturally universal definition of marriage is and has
            long been one man and one women only. Therefore, the only time homo’s
            can claim marital discrimination is if two heterosexual men and/or two
            heterosexual women were permitted to marry while two homosexual men
            and/or two homosexual women were forbidden to marry.”

            Precisely. That’s what makes, among several other document specific reasons, the decisions by federal judges citing 14th amendment violations of the Constitution out of bounds.

            No such violation exists here.

            It’s a gender based situation, not self perceived and claimed sexual orientation. I cannot even tell what that is regarding you other than by taking your word for it.

            Since 2 men of ANY “sexual orientation” cannot marry, nor 2 women, of any SO, there is no discrimination. The homosexuals actually want new definitions, new rights, they are NOT fighting for “marriage equality because they are already not denied in any way that I am not being a straight.

      • whatdidhesay

        Obviously, she’s had a ton of influence and her beliefs are being enacted into law at this very moment. Good try.

        • no more mr. nice guy

          Thank you for admitting that the homo’s want to wreck marriage.

      • vorpal

        What makes a “lesbian homosexual pervert” hallucinogenic, exactly?

        • no more mr. nice guy

          You are referring to the description: “Psychopathic and hallucinogenic lesbian homosexual pervert”.
          That description is not only self-evident to all but the hateful homosexual heathens, it is clearly supported by WEBSTER as follows:
          1) WEBSTER defines “psychopathic personality” as : “an emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by clear perceptions of reality except for the individual’s social and moral obligations and often the pursuit of immediate personal gratification in criminal acts, drug addiction, or sexual perversion”.
          The Crime Against Nature is defined as: Sodomy. Sodomy is the homosexual monogamy. The Crime Against Nature has morphed [with premeditated orchestration] into a Crime Against Humanity having killed 36 million while infecting another 75 million since saluting of sodomy began with the laughable 2003 Lawrence v. Texas. Supreme-less Supreme Court capitulation. Moreover, homosexuality and drug addiction are like Siamese twins.
          Homosexuals are exponentially more likely to be addicted to drugs as part of their heathenisms as opposed to normal, natural and healthy humans.
          WEBSTER defines perversion as: “to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right:
          CORRUPT; to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted: MISDIRECT; to divert to a wrong end or purpose: MISUSE”. Hence the word perversion is a pin-point-perfect synonym for homosexual acts and behaviors. Sodomy, as an example, is a diversion to a wrong end purpose inside a wrong end place. The we have the unparalleled perversions of: “rimming”; “fisting”; “bare-backing”; “bug chasing”; “pegging”; “golden showers”; “brown showers” ; “rose budding”; “circuit parties”; “fulsome street parades”; “taking the express”; and other rectal ooze infected rectum wrecking perversions.
          WEBSTER defines hallucination as: “to affect with visions or imaginary perceptions; a perception of objects with no reality usu. arising from disorders of the nervous system or in response to drugs; an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion:DELUSION
          When one man sees and then uses another man as if the other man was a woman and calls the other man his wife; when one man sees another man’s rectum as a vagina, clearly such “visions” are hallucinogenic. [Ditto for women].

    • Mehow

      You would ignore it regardless, so quite posturing. This is a long term decay, not indie cases. It’s the environment and modeling that’s involved. Allowing SSM does not DIRECTLY destroy standard traditional marriage, it erodes it over time with unhealthy for kids models inseminated into the cultural fabric.

      You are creating a strawman to knock down. Permitting SSM is not likely to lead to laws directly banning opposite sex marriages. The destruction and confusion to the family unit will occur nevertheless, just ad surely as it would on allowing polygamy.

      This is about children and families, not your perceived personal needs short term.

      • garybryson

        Childrens have been shown to do just as well in a same sex family as they do in a “traditional” family if you will. This has nothing to do with kids and families, but everything to do with forcing your religious views on society.

        • no more mr. nice guy

          Giving children [the homosexual prey of choice] over to homo’s via adoption is akin to allowing wolves; wild rabid dogs; and other vermin the right to guard chicken coups!

          • vorpal

            Unlike giving them to Christians, who slaver over them like hungry bears, eager to pervert their minds through repetitious indoctrination into their evil religion.

        • Mehow

          That is a lie. Next, if a prepared troll, you will cite studies. Experience tells us this cannot be true. Biology ditto. We’d have tons of same sex families if not, and we have not over millennia.

          You are in rank denial if you assert no difference or value of having 2 opposite sex parents, who provide different things to children in role modeling and teaching.

          It has EVERYTHING to do with that, and should be the leading argument. You are impacting straight marriage, not directly but very significantly indirectly.

          I’m not coming at this from a religious angle. I’m coming at it from a logic and common sense angle.

          It’s bat sheet crazy to assert all this “same sex parents are no problem and just as good as a mother and father” stuff but SSM advocates do this all the time.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Experience tells us this cannot be true. Biology ditto

            At one point in time, experience would have told us we could not fly. I am disappointed to see you disavow the notion of progress.

            Indeed, once upon a time, that same sentence could easily hav represented the worldview of someone explaining why PoC were inferior — experience tells us they cannot achieve what white people can. The same is true for women.

            By writing off “studies” you’re reifying an old worldview, one steeped in religious prejudice, and denying the very scientific method I *presume* you would espouse.

            I’m coming at it from a logic and common sense angle.

            Then your logic should be telling you to look at data, rather than relying on “common sense” that is often wrong.

          • Dan

            Hawaii Supreme Court testamony:
            Dr Eggebeen (witness against marriage equality) also conceded that “gay and lesbian couples can , and do, make excellent parents” “that they are capable of raising a healthy child”, and “that children of same sex couples would be helped if their families had access to or were able to receive benefits of marriage”.

            Dr. Charlotte Patterson: there was “no data or research which establishes that gay fathers and lesbian mothers are less capable of being good parents than non-gay people.

            Dr. David Brodzinsky: The issue is not the structural variable, biological versus nonbiological, one parent versus two parent. The issue is really the process variables, how children are cared for, is the child provided warmth, it the child provided consistency of care, is the child provided a stimulated environment, is the e child given support…. and when you take a look at structural variables, there’s not all that much support that structural variable in and of themselves are all that important.

            Dr. Pepper Shwartz: “the primary quality of parenting is not the parenting structure, or biology, but is the nurturing relationship between parent and child.”

            Child Protective Services across the country document daily, having opposite sex parents is no guarantee of success, freedom from abuse, or even survival.

      • vorpal

        Oh noes, just as what happened with interracial marriage.

        Does your side have ANY ability to learn from history? I constantly hear that the END TIMES are upon us in our lifetime, despite the fact that the END TIMES have been descending – according to Christians – for as far back as the END TIMES have been predicted.

        So I guess I’ve answered my own question, i.e. NO.

        • no more mr. nice guy

          You must be referring to the Supreme Court ruling in “Loving v. Virginia”.
          That ruling did not say that two black men or two black women could marry. All it said was that a black man could marry a white woman and that a black woman could marry a white man.
          Thus, “Loving v. Virginia” is a precedent that supports and strengthens the timeless definition of marriage.

          • vorpal

            What a convoluted, little delusional brain you have.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Classic! You can’t refute the facts so you attack the messenger who provided the facts! Your so easy!
            Did “Loving v. Virginia” determine that two black men and/or two black women could marry or did it determine that one black man could marry one white women and/or that one black woman could marry one white man??????????

  • jc

    Um – there is no such thing as “natural marriage.” Or “traditional marriage” for that marriage – unless you could biblical polygamy and women as chattel. As for procreation, when City Hall issued my marriage license, they didn’t ask if I was sterile, or whether I would promise to have children, if I could. Still waiting for one single cogent reason as to why gays should not be allowed to get a civil marriage. Oh – and all these gay people came from straight couples, by the way.

    • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

      I’ve noticed this… there is a multi-part conflation of the word marriage so that ‘natural’ marriage can seem like a real thing. There’s sexual monogamy, there’s biological reproduction, and there’s a legal contract between two adults. Only the last part is a marriage, and that confers a significant number of rights and responsibilities which opposite-sex couples enjoy (and same-sex couples in many countries and about half of the US according to population). Nothing natural about it. And in fact the use of the word ‘natural’ is itself a semantic ruse, since it is just a cover for the word biblical or something which connects their stance directly to biblical morality, which is not a legitimate basis of legislation. There is nothing morally correct about what is natural. Malaria is natural. Birth defects are natural. Wheelchairs? Unnatural. Ban wheelchairs! Ban unnatural marriage! No actual underlying logic, just a deep, animal hatred for the unknown.

    • Halou

      I once tried to get naturally married, unfortunately I was required to produce a child every 9 months, such was natural marriage’s demand for the birth of children, even had to have the impregnation witnessed and verified by independent and religious observers to make absolutely sure I was fulfilling the natural marriage obligations.
      Needless to say I chickened out and remained unmarried. Who would want to life a life of near endless baby-making? I didn’t want to have to wait until the age of 55 to be freed from natural marriage by nature’s divorce, the menopause.

    • Lightning Baltimore

      “Natural marriage” was coined by the Catholic Church nearly 1000 years ago. As a Catholic concept, it should have no place in secular law.

      • Halou

        These people’s understanding of history begins in 1945 when their original approach to the “Jewish question” ended badly and they had to rethink it.

    • Mehow

      That’s a stawman.

      Straights can adopt. It’s an asymmetric parenting role. And childless straights provide healthy family unit examples for kids during sleepovers.

      The ghey mafia wants to pretend that unless all straights marrying have kids, these arguments do not apply and it’s discrimination UNLESS sterile and child free by choice opposite sex couples are banned from marrying, to “make it fair” etc.

      Not so. Not by a long shot.

      Most couples, BTW, WILL bear children, so the question is unnecessary to ask on an individual basis. No compelling state interest exists in the state sanctifying SSM.

      Try again.

      • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

        Wow, kids during sleepovers, what an awkwardly specific example… I didn’t realize that childless heterosexual couples have a public-service-sleepover quota to fulfill. Why would a childless couple *host* a sleepover for kids? The usual reason for a sleepover is that the host has a child and that child’s friend is spending the night. Really poor example. In either case, the idea that parenting roles must be rigidly gender-specific has been disproven. I encourage you to look up Felecia and Cody Beemer of Warren, Ohio or John and Nita Jackson and their sons of Perquiman’s County, North Carolina. Really nice balanced parenting there. One thing I’ve noticed about the opposition to marriage equality is that their only interest is in generalities. Individuals and their problems hold no interest nor sympathy. It is also notable that you use the term sanctifying in referring to the legalization of same-sex marriage. Either you meant ‘sanctioning’ or you have conflated the legal contract with the religious ritual. The religious ritual is not legally binding and confers no legally enforceable rights nor responsibilities. So sanctifying has nothing to do with marriage equality. That’s up to your church, not the state.

        • Mehow

          Society will be massively affected by such unions, to pretend otherwise is sophistry. There is a reason the social norm has been established thus for opposite sex unions, aside from even plain sexual dimorphism to be displayed. The sleepover was one of many, but not a poor example. It happens all the time and kids learn from socially accepted models throughout society. That’s going to be everywhere in a society sanctioning SSM. You cannot safely normalize something that is inherently not normal or biologically sound. It’s base level common sense, something in short supply today. Picking abusive opposite sex parents who abuse kids is a poor example, since that’s red herring. It’s clear to anyone not in denial (that this needs to explained to you is depressing) that 2 parents of opposite genders is optimum. You also proved your own point to be false about it harming straights. The traditional family is fodder for you, because you suggest no gender-specific roles are not essential. Obviously, that’s both untrue but if so, the destruction of the mother-father biology approved family unit is not a problem for you and is seen as fine for kids. Stop calling it marriage equality. You are seeking to redefine marriage, pure and simple. 2 men (regardless of sexual orientation they profess to have which is not provable to observing 3rd parties anyway) cannot marry. 2 women cannot marry. A man and woman can. It is independent of so-called sexual orientation claims, so no discrimination exists. This is fundamental error of logic that is made all the time here.

  • Halou

    The so-called amendment to Slovakia’s Constitution says the following: “it will be impossible for the rights and duties associated with marriage to be conferred in any way other than a legally recognised union between a man and a woman”.

    This presents a major problem for Slovakia since it explicitly prohibits not just marriages, but the rights of gay citizens in any form whatsoever. This is in direct contradiction to ruling from the European Court (of which Slovakia is a member) which decided last year in a case against Greece, declaring that while member states can ban marriages for gay people they cannot ban the rights associated with marriage, since to do so would be in breach of articles 8 and 14 of European law (to which Slovakia is also signed up).

    When Robert Fico said the amendment “seals in the constitution what is already defined by law”, he was lying.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Oh, poor Fat Matt. I suggest you pack up all yer bigoted shite and move your fat tail to Slovakia. Nobody here would miss you.

  • luyten

    It’s amazing how these people talk about god and spirituality yet endorse the cold blooded murder and violence against of gay people in this world. The hypocrisy is so sickening that I sometimes feel they should be charged with crimes against humanity and sent to prison.
    Yes, Matt – you are that EVIL !

    • ErickMN

      Agreed, agreed, agreed.

    • Halou

      You should know that one of them, Scott Lively, is already facing trial for crimes against humanity. Evidently you can’t just go forth and lobby foreign governments with requests to exterminate their minorities without facing any consequences.

    • Mehow

      Most of us supporting traditional marriage are not violent to homosexuals at all. I have no intention of harming anyone with violence. I just maintain marriage is by definition between a man and woman. It’s nothing more or less than that. To imply otherwise is dishonest debate tactics.

      • M Doyle

        Yes, I am old enough to remember southerners saying, well, we wouldn’t harm black folks, lynchings are not right, we just happen to believe that black and white folks shouldn’t get married, shouldn’t go to school together, why, we love Abby, our colored maid, and she’s a good person, she just doesn’t belong in the country club.

        You sound just like that to every decent person in America.

        • Mehow

          You did it again. You do not know me. I have known a number of homosexual persons in my life. I have never raised a hand to any of them. And you conflate issues that ar NOT comparable and try to make it look like SSM is the “new” miscegenation argument repackaged.

          It’s not.

          2 persons trying to get married of opposite genders of differing races is obvious to 3rd parties. Sexual orientation self-professed, is NOT. There is no compelling argument save for some schoolyard taunts against marrying outside one’s own race. Clarence Thomas, SC justice is an example.

          There are a number of arguments against SSM, aside from biology, which refute its soundness for children. And this applies whether or not a couple individually chooses to reproduce.

          You also appeal to emotion, and try to make people who oppose SSM out to be mere simpleton bigots. This is dishonest debate tactics.

          • Steven Schwartz

            2 persons trying to get married of opposite genders of differing races is obvious to 3rd parties.

            A minor historical note: This is not true. Under many laws in the South during the Jim Crow era, “race” was determined by ancestry, and people could, and did, “pass” as white when by law they were not.

            So, no, “race” was not something always visible.

            which refute its soundness for children.

            I presume by this you mean reproduction without intervention — since there is data that same-sex parenting is not bad for children.

            And, Mehow, *you* may not be violent; but what you are doing is encouraging and supporting second-class status for GLBT folk; which helps validate violence against them by other people. That was the point, I think, of M Doyle’s comment.

          • Dan

            Your arguments have been shown to be irrational when examined.

            Procreation, children, and even ability to have sex, are not legal requirements for marriage. They may be religious requirements for some, but they are not requirements of law.

          • grada3784

            Does a person have to know you to get a first impression of what you’re coming across like?

      • luyten

        Excuse me, but Matt Barber has called same-sex marriage a “demonic incursion” – that is violent !
        He is basically dehumanizing gay people…of which you support. I want to marry my boyfriend one day and total strangers like you are preventing that. People like you are harming MY LIFE. My life is not your life. I deserve to live my life the way I want to !

        • Mehow

          No, he’s coming at it on ONE level from a strictly biblical perspective. Lots of people oppose SSM despite what the media tells you and are NOT religious and whom do not blindly aggressively hate persons who are homosexual.

          Marriage is a matter between a man and woman. If you insist upon exclusivity in your relationship, there are or can be legal remedies to ensure hospital consents, wills, etc. are provided for without creating a separate right nobody else currently has.

          Again, it’s about gender. That’s why it’s correctly called SSM, not “gay marriage” etc. Any man can marry any woman not closely related to him. Ditto for the reverse. It is independent of self perceived claimed sexual orientation.

          You seek to redefine marriage, it was NEVER about “being able to marry WHOEVER you want, etc.

          • luyten

            Many people who are not religious have been tainted by religious brainwashing hence atheists who oppose gay marriage.
            We do not seek to redefine marriage. It is you who seek to exclude gay people from being married.

            Guess what? You are now the fringe because of your hate and disloyalty to your fellow human beings.

            I feel sorry for you.

            The future is going to be about marriage equality – whether you like it or now – We will not be going back.

          • vorpal

            I think you’ll find that it’s called “SSM” because many homosexuals / bisexuals / queers do not use the label “gay” for themselves, so the term SSM is more technically correct.

          • Dan

            Marriage, is technically correct, as it is the same legally for all couples, regardless of gender.

          • vorpal

            Agreed. The only reason I refer to my marriage as a “gay marriage” is to specify the gender of my partner in relation to myself. (Alternatively, I’ll call it my marriage to my big gay husband.) The only reason I refer to SSM is to specifically highlight the political struggle going on about that specifically.

          • Dan

            I’ve been evolving on the terminology, and have come to realize any different label, labels as different, and therefore, worth less.

            “Legal marriage for couples regardless of gender” isn’t as easy to say, but legally correct. Semantics may not be inportant for you and those who understand marriage is marriage, but to those opposed to marriage equality, semantics remains their best tool for trying to stigmatize, demonize, and justify harming gay people.

          • vorpal

            I do agree completely in principle. As a mathematician, though, I’m a sucker for as much precision and accuracy as possible, and in my mind, SSM is clearly a subset of marriage, which means every SSM is a completely valid marriage and can fully be called a marriage. However, as I said, I fully understand your argument in the context of human psychology and rights.

          • Dan

            When the gender restriction is removed, the legal marriages are indistinguishable. The thousands of laws are the same, regardless of gender. 2=2

          • vorpal

            And thank goodness for that!

          • Steven Schwartz

            Lots of people oppose SSM despite what the media tells you and are NOT religious

            Then why? What is so important about excluding GLBT folk from “marriage” to you?

            And if you appeal back to “traditional definitions”, then, I’m afraid, whether or not *you* are religious, as luyten mentions, you are perpetuating religious views that hardened into our culture.

          • Dan

            Marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.
            Gender provides no compelling or even rational interest in protecting the equal rights of others. Legal marriage for all couples is the same marriage, regardless of gender.

  • SorryNotSorry

    Haha Matt, you crazy as hell.

  • mikek44224

    So the US has always gone by the biblical definition of “natural marriage”? But what about:

    -Forced marriages between rape victims and their rapists (Deut: 22: 28-29)
    -Forced marriages between virgin prisoners of war and their captors (Num 31: 1-18, 21: 11-14)
    - Forced marriages between widows without sons and their dead husbands’ brothers (Gen. 38: 6-10)

    Why have those never been woven into the fabric of “traditional” Americana? Who are we mere mortals to exclude facets of God’s perfect model for domestic tranquility?

  • KnownDonorDad

    While the U.S. seems bound and determined to destroy natural marriage and family…

    Mr. Barber, I must stop you right there and ask a question. How, exactly, does extending civil marriage rights to gay couples instead of just to straight couples damage the straight couples’ marriages? This argument simply hasn’t held up in the courts, and it’s losing traction daily in the arena of U.S. public opinion, for the simple reason that specific detriments haven’t been spelled out. You have every right to be in a church that restricts marriage rites as they see fit, of course, but where are your arguments for how legalizing civil same-sex marriage does harm to straight couples’ marriages?

  • Michael Hampton

    Since your lies were all destroyed here in the US, all you have is try and export your hatred and fear mongering to other countries. Like you and Scott Lively did when you went to Uganda and Scott wrote their law that calls for the death penalty for homosexuality.

    And Matt, shouldn’t you go on a diet? Treating the temple that the Lord gave you that way is shameful. What an unrepentant sinner you are, you glutton.

  • thisoldspouse

    Funny that Slovakia is a tiny, inconsequential country, and yet sodomites will now attack it with vengeance to make it bend to their will. Evil tolerates no dissent, no matter how obscure.

    • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

      Funny that the LGBT community makes up such a tiny portion of the total world population, and yet Christians and conservatives attack them with a vengeance to make them bend to their will. Theocracy tolerates no dissent, no matter how harmless.

      • thisoldspouse

        At tiny portion with a VERY BIG MOUTH.

        • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

          We’ve seen what happens when we stay silent.
          Hey, isn’t Barber’s friend Scott Lively on trial for crimes against humanity for trying to recreate this kind of thing in Uganda? (not to mention his and other Christian organizations’ involvement in Russia)

          • Guest

            The ‘gay holocaust’ myth has been debunked already.
            You are not entitled to be perverts, it’s against the law.

          • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

            Congrats Matt! Another holocaust denier/genocidal aspirant on your side of the debate!

            Consider reading: “War and Genocide: A Consice History of the Holocaust”, “Holocaust Forgotten – Five Million Non-Jewish Victims”, or any other number of books which accurately document the organized persecution of gay people. That role appears to have been taken over by Scott Lively and his bunch.

          • Truth Offends

            The Jews (6 million) were most notably those who fell victim to the Nazi’s. But, there were many others who also fell victim to the Nazi’s, including, but not limited to the following:
            Poles, Slavs, Romanies, the mentally ill and mentally retarded, the deaf and physically disabled, communists, socialists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, political prisoners, Soviet POWs, non-Europeans (including Africans and Asians), and homosexuals.

          • Dan

            Genocide is still genocide.

            Numbers don’t change that.
            Coretta Scott King: “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

          • Steven Schwartz

            You are not entitled to be perverts, it’s against the law.

            Not in this country, it’s not. Not in many civilized parts of the world.

          • Guest

            Everywhere.

      • Guest

        The virus is probably the smallest of life forms, yet AIDS is fatal and could become a threat to all humanity. Your ‘community’ must be eradicated for the good of society. You can run, but you can’t hide.

        • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

          my god. That is exactly the kind of thing which pulls rational people to the defense of their gay neighbors, friends, siblings, and parents. HIV and AIDS are not gay-exclusive diseases, and Christian efforts to deceive poor, uneducated African countries by denying the facts about the safety and effectiveness of contraceptives and prophylactics is more of a threat to human populations than healthy, disease-free, sexually responsible gay adults. Sounds to me like you missed your prime time. That was back in the 40s in Germany.

          • Guest

            You mean when homosexuals formed the Nazi Party and tried to take over the world, killing over 50 million people in the process? It would be better to wipe your kind out completely than to allow your pestilence to spread again.

          • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

            Flagged for intent to incite genocide. He’s all yours Matt!

          • Guest

            Genocide involves the destruction of a distinct people or ethnicity, not the execution of criminals. You’re not a ‘community’, you’re a fringe element not unique to any particular people. Such defective individuals are present in all races and ethnicities, and they’re well rid of you. If thieves and robbers spread deadly diseases the way homosexual perverts do then it would be prudent to eliminate them, even the kleptomaniacs who can’t help themselves, to protect the lives of others. The needs of the many outweigh the base desires of the few, and of you there are indeed only a few. And no one will miss you, they’ll be relieved that you’re gone.

          • Steven Schwartz

            And once upon a time, the same could have been said of Christians — aren’t *you* lucky they weren’t wiped out?

            But I’ll remember this the next time I hear Jacobus or Matthew T. Mason talk about how “No, it’s not about hating homosexuals, it’s just about not having their views forced on us.” Because I don’t see them rushing to deny you, here; only when they get called on being allied with bigots do they bother to claim their innocence.

            You, sir, are exactly *why* same-sex marriage is winning in courts; because there is no question that GLBT folks suffer discrimination and persecution, and that puts them in a protected class.

            Congratulations: your hatred is causing your own defeat.

          • Guest

            Nonsense. You’re dismissed.

        • disqus_oCvsL5SBJH

          Flagged for intent to incite genocide.

    • Dan

      Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

  • jc

    We aren’t going to have children. You gonna invalidate my marriage? F you

  • Sam

    The first marriage was Adam and Eve. This is what God intended for us. The gay advocates are using their sin as a battering ram to corrupt society. For these people there is a special place in hell.

    • Dan

      Marriage has taken many forms beyond the 8 found in the bible, in different cultures, places, and times, including same sex couples despite popular claims to the contrary. Allowing Larry and Steve to get married won’t stop the Adams and Eves from doing the same thing. Your desire to harm gay people is the threat to society, not treating others as you do yourself.

    • Foxxblood

      Adam and Eve? In the Garden of Eden? I had no idea you supported incest.

      No person in the entire world that has EVER lived has ever deserved to be burned in hell forever. It is incredible immoral for you even to suggest this. You should be ashamed.

      • Sam

        Yes, there is a God and YOU are not Him. I don’t make the rules, God does! Now go back into your hole, please.

        • Foxxblood

          If evil is not allowed in heaven YOU most certainly are not going. Suggesting that someone would burn in hell FOREVER simply for thinking differently then yourself is the MOST evil act possible. Also – suggesting that brother and sisters have sex with each other is an immoral and fitly act. You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • Sam

            Read the Bible. Adam and Eve were not brother and sister. Also, angels came down to earth and married the human women in the very beginning. You are making things up just to argue. Are you crazy?

          • Foxxblood

            I am sorry my mentally deficient friend. Adam and Eve had to have children and they had to have sex or the human race would not have continued. Yes – when brother and sister have sex it IS incest. Morally bankrupt individuals such as yourself are not mentally capable of judging other individuals sex habits. Anyone who believes that burning someone in hell forever for any reason is a sick and twisted individual.

      • Sam

        If you don’t repent and follow Jesus, you will not live for eternity. Evil cannot enter the gates of heaven. If you wait until Tribulation to repent, you will have to take the mark of the beast or get your head cut off. Who does that? The Muslims, that’s who. The Bible is a great way to find out your future.

  • Natalie

    Good job.

  • Dan

    Reliance on demeaning, demonizing, dehumanizing terminology, usually indicates the lack of a rational argument, as the article demonstrates.

    Discrimination and promotion of prejudice is the threat to the American ideals of liberty and equal protections of the laws for all persons.

  • Brian

    Matt, I’m sorry to hear about your divorce. Since your state now has legal gay marriage, I assume your marriage has been destroyed, as you say. Fret not, though. You can move to Slovakia!

  • lexi

    i want to share a testimony of my life to every one. i was married to my husband, i love him so much we have been married for 5 years now with two kids. when he went for a vacation to France he meant a lady who en charm him with her beauty, he told me that he is no longer interested in the marriage any more. i was so confuse and seeking for help, i don’t know what to do until I complained to my friend and told her about my problem. she told me not to worry about it that she had a similar problem before and introduce me to a man called Dr Saibaba. who cast a spell on her ex and bring him back to her after 2days. she ask me to contact Dr Saibaba. I contacted him to help me bring back my husband and he ask me not to worry about it that the gods of his fore-fathers will fight for me. He told me by two days he will re-unite me and my husband together. After two days my husband called and told me he is coming back to sought out things with me, I was surprise when I saw him and he started crying for forgiveness and that he never knew what came upon him that he will never leave me again or the kids. Right now I am the happiest woman on earth for what this great spell caster did for me and my husband, you can contact Dr Saibaba on any problem, he is very nice, here is his contact templesaibaba@yahoo.com

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!