by Tim Brown
In this election cycle two states became the first in the country to approve homosexual unions which they call “marriage,” but the will of the people via a vote. This broke a 32 state losing streak for the perverted in our society and demonstrates once again that we are not under the blessing of God, but under His judgement. Voters in Maine, Washington, and Maryland approved of allowing sodomites and lesbians to redefine “marriage” while voters in Minnesota rejected it.
Maryland approved the redefinition of marriage 52 to 48 percent. Maine voters approved the redefinition of marriage 52 to 47 percent. Washington voted to approve the redefinition of marriage 51.8 to 48.2 percent.
Minnesota stuck to the actual definition of the word marriage with a vote of 51 to 48 percent.
Let’s put something in context here, because it is of utmost importance and that is that homosexual “marriage” was not approved, but rather redefining marriage was. Let me demonstrate.
According to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, marriage is defined as:
In this election cycle two states became the first in the country to approve homosexual unions which they call “marriage,” but the will of the people via a vote. This broke a 32 state losing streak for the perverted in our society and demonstrates once again that we are not under the blessing of God, but under His judgement. Voters in Maine, Washington, and Maryland approved of allowing sodomites and lesbians to redefine “marriage” while voters in Minnesota rejected it.
Maryland approved the redefinition of marriage 52 to 48 percent. Maine voters approved the redefinition of marriage 52 to 47 percent. Washington voted to approve the redefinition of marriage 51.8 to 48.2 percent.
Minnesota stuck to the actual definition of the word marriage with a vote of 51 to 48 percent.
Let’s put something in context here, because it is of utmost importance and that is that homosexual “marriage” was not approved, but rather redefining marriage was. Let me demonstrate.
According to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, marriage is defined as:
MAR’RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for
life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a
contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live
together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate
them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of
preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting
domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
For those who think there was not a rich Christian heritage in early
America both before and after the U.S. Constitution was framed, just
look at what else Noah Webster added to the definition to make the
point.
So we have a working definition of marriage that has existed long before Webster as he sought to derive the definition of words in how they were applied.
We are not talking a civics class here. We are actually talking English. I have had many atheists I’ve engaged that promote homosexual “marriage” as a civil right and then they will say silly things like “Well blacks were not able to marry whites in the past and we redefined that” or “women were not able to vote in the past and we redefined that.”
Well no genius, we didn’t redefine marriage. Because some people didn’t believe that people of different ethnic backgrounds should marry one another did not change the definition of marriage. It was still union of a man and a woman (ethnicity was never a part of the definition.) The same is true with voting. The definition of voting was never changed. In both of these situations “law” was changed, not definitions.
In the measures passed not only is law changed, but definitions as well.
Liberals, Communists and Socialists are happy to start redefining language. This is one way they get into the culture to change it. Thye began in the homosexual movement to remove words like “queer”, “homosexual”, and “sodomite” and instead substitute the word “gay.” Now the term “gay” is common place for homosexuality, but not on this site it isn’t.
Understand something though my friends. While Barack Obama endorsed homosexual “marriage” earlier this year, he did not implement any law in which the government recognized or approved of it. However, his opponent in this election, despite his rhetoric did implement homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts as governor. I tired numerous times to warn conservatives that Romney was a liberal and he had a record to demonstrate it. His was the first state to truly have legalized homosexual “marriages” and it didn’t come from the legislature or the courts, but from his directive. You can read the information here and there is far more on his record here, not that it matters now, but perhaps it will wake some people up as to what the man really was.
Be warned here, it will not be long before the Republican party sees this and begins endorsing homosexual “marriage.” You can count on it. They were just getting us ready for it this year with their candidate, similar to having us believe their candidate was a Christian when he is demonstrably not. Additionally many leaders in the GOP were endorsing and supporting a Massachusetts candidate who was openly homosexual.
While I am completely in agreement with the comment that government should stay out of our bedrooms, I have to ask the crowd that screams that the loudest, which is the openly homosexual community, why then do they demand the government redefine marriage for them? Additionally, if they kept homosexuality in the bedroom, no one would be saying anything, but they don’t. They would rather come out of the closet, exposing their shame, rather than clean it. What does redefining marriage actually do for them?
I’ll tell you. It is meant to make you accept them as normal so that their consciences don’t bother them about their perversion. It is as simple as that. They know they are doing wrong, but they love their pleasure more than they love God.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.
So we have a working definition of marriage that has existed long before Webster as he sought to derive the definition of words in how they were applied.
We are not talking a civics class here. We are actually talking English. I have had many atheists I’ve engaged that promote homosexual “marriage” as a civil right and then they will say silly things like “Well blacks were not able to marry whites in the past and we redefined that” or “women were not able to vote in the past and we redefined that.”
Well no genius, we didn’t redefine marriage. Because some people didn’t believe that people of different ethnic backgrounds should marry one another did not change the definition of marriage. It was still union of a man and a woman (ethnicity was never a part of the definition.) The same is true with voting. The definition of voting was never changed. In both of these situations “law” was changed, not definitions.
In the measures passed not only is law changed, but definitions as well.
Liberals, Communists and Socialists are happy to start redefining language. This is one way they get into the culture to change it. Thye began in the homosexual movement to remove words like “queer”, “homosexual”, and “sodomite” and instead substitute the word “gay.” Now the term “gay” is common place for homosexuality, but not on this site it isn’t.
Understand something though my friends. While Barack Obama endorsed homosexual “marriage” earlier this year, he did not implement any law in which the government recognized or approved of it. However, his opponent in this election, despite his rhetoric did implement homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts as governor. I tired numerous times to warn conservatives that Romney was a liberal and he had a record to demonstrate it. His was the first state to truly have legalized homosexual “marriages” and it didn’t come from the legislature or the courts, but from his directive. You can read the information here and there is far more on his record here, not that it matters now, but perhaps it will wake some people up as to what the man really was.
Be warned here, it will not be long before the Republican party sees this and begins endorsing homosexual “marriage.” You can count on it. They were just getting us ready for it this year with their candidate, similar to having us believe their candidate was a Christian when he is demonstrably not. Additionally many leaders in the GOP were endorsing and supporting a Massachusetts candidate who was openly homosexual.
While I am completely in agreement with the comment that government should stay out of our bedrooms, I have to ask the crowd that screams that the loudest, which is the openly homosexual community, why then do they demand the government redefine marriage for them? Additionally, if they kept homosexuality in the bedroom, no one would be saying anything, but they don’t. They would rather come out of the closet, exposing their shame, rather than clean it. What does redefining marriage actually do for them?
I’ll tell you. It is meant to make you accept them as normal so that their consciences don’t bother them about their perversion. It is as simple as that. They know they are doing wrong, but they love their pleasure more than they love God.
No comments:
Post a Comment