Wedded to real, Biblical marriage – NI Assembly rejects homosexual “marriage!”

The result of last Monday’s vote on legalising homosexual marriage was, 53 against and, 42 for, the Sinn Fein motion which sought to legalise homosexual “marriage.”

We will now be protected from these sham marriages, for  a time, because of this result, however, the “gay” lobby will not give up, they will go to Europe or seek legal means to enforce their agenda on us all. Yet, they have no interest in marriage whatsoever, but are using this demand for “marriage equality” as a weapon with which to destroy real marriage.

50 thoughts on “Wedded to real, Biblical marriage – NI Assembly rejects homosexual “marriage!”

  1. “Real marriage”, my ***. Equal marriage will be approved, no matter what cave dwellers like you think.

    • Well said Hermione. We WILL take this to Europe and we WILL win. Church marriage is not even recognised in many countries such as France and Germany, civil marriages are what count so as for that m…. on the Nolan Show yesterday who claimed church marriage is true marriage she was totally and utterly WRONG. Gay people pay taxes, we vote, we drive ambulances and carry out heart transplants, we deliver your mail, we teach your children in school and yet we are told we cannot marry because of our sexual orientation? major, major breach of human rights and this will be fixed believe us! humans have existed long before organised religion did, long before humans concocted the myth of a messiah. 2000 years of being told we are unnatural and flawed are coming to an end very soon. Like it or lump it MrandMrsWhite and your american yes-man Glenn.

      • Marriage has one definition. It always has. You can’t marry if you don’t meet the requirements. What you want to do is change the definition of the word, and the only reason for doing so is to destroy the institution of marriage – just as many activists have been saying for 40 years.

        You can already commit yourself to another of your gender and call it anything you want – no one is stopping you. All we want to do is prevent state sanctioning of it because then we are forced to either give personal affirmation and sanction or else be punished. You want special rights based on your sexual behavior.

      • “we are told we cannot marry because of our sexual orientation?”

        No. The NI Assembly hasn’t rejected “homosexual marriage”. It has rejected “same sex marriage”.

  2. Homosexual fake marriage will never be equal to real marriage. Homosexual unions are never equal to heterosexual unions – that is a biological fact.

    “cave dwellers,” is a great, intolerant ad hominem attack. Well done, oh tolerant one.

    • It already is Glenn in a growing number of countries and in a growing number of states in your own country – you just cannot accept it. The fact that you cannot, or will not, accept it is irrelevant to the majority of people (they are the tolerant ones).

      • Golfieni,

        Just because same-sex fake marriage gets state sanction, that doesn’t make it equal to real marriage. Not law in the world can make homosexuality intrinsically equal to heterosexuality. That’s like calling a circle a square and demanding it be treated like a square.

      • Um, no, Golfieni, homosexual fake marriage is not equal to real marriage in any country or in any universe. Declaring it equal is not the same as it being equal. You can declare a dandelion to be a rose, but it will never be a rose.

  3. “they will go to Europe or seek legal means to enforce their agenda on us all”

    Hardly news as we have already said this – I have said it on this blog and you will not be forced to marry someone of the same sex, or attend a wedding (not that you are likely to be invited) of two people of the same sex. Who is “us all” any way ? Do you mean you and Glenn – that’s hardly a big “all”. The polls seem to indicate a large and growing acceptance of the need for equal marriage

    “Yet, they have no interest in marriage whatsoever, but are using this demand for “marriage equality” as a weapon with which to destroy real marriage.”

    Can you prove that. Can you actually prove that I (that is me) have no interest in marriage. Can you show were I (that is me) have ever said or inferred that I wish to destroy anyone’s marriage. I am in favour of it and have attended same sex marriages on several occasions and know quite a few married same sex couples. I have the utmost respect for their commitment and love as I have for my many opposite sex married friends and family.

    This is typical of you – telling us what we think when you have no clue at all what we really think and have simply made something up (or found some idiot on the fringe to quote). That is real prejudice at work.

  4. a wonderful providence was this result as we laboured much encouraging folk to lobby and God honoured that work. There must however be no complacency despite the reality that Alliance were thrown into confusion by the Lord and only one of them supported SSM when the vote came !

    • We travelled to Stormont on Monday, to hear the debate, and are glad that the pro-gay lobby were defeated. However, they will not give up. This matter will be raised again, so we must remain vigilant.

  5. “Marriage has one definition. It always has.”…wrong. Marriage and human partnership has existed in many different forms since humans began coupling. Formalised ceremonial marriage is a recent institution in human history. You are astoundingly ignorant about human anthropology Glenn. God and Church are merely 3000 year old myths. Humans coupled homo and heterosexually quite happily for tens of thousands of years my sweetheart. And you Susan – your type might have the majority in Stormont for now my darling, but that will not always be the case ma petit choux.

    • PandM,
      The ceremony isn’t the topic – marriage is. You are in error. Marriage has been around for as long as man has been around, and it has always been defined as between members of the opposite sex (while there were aberrant examples, such as Nero, who claimed to be “married” to a same-sex partner, they were not accepted as such by the public).

      God is not a myth, by the way. Just because you don’t believe he exists, that doesn’t alter the fact – the truth – that He indeed does exist.

      Just because humans have practiced homosexual behavior from the beginning, that doesn’t make it right or moral. After all, people have also murdered for the same period of time. And people have had sex with animals for the same period of time. Longevity doesn’t make it moral or right.

      It is YOUR ignorance which is astounding.

      • Absolute nonsense Glenn. Absolute rubbish. Homosexuality is not aligned with murder or bestiality. Men murder women on a daily basis though – very much a heterosexual thing. Men have raped, murdered and abused women since time began and you uphold the male/female thing as ‘normal’? then, my love, you are welcome to your nasty little world of your supposed ‘normality’. I will keep to my ‘unnatural’ world where we don’t seek to rape, abuse and murder women.

        • PandM

          I was using YOUR logic. You were saying that people have practiced homosexual behavior for thousands of years – as if that makes it right and moral. I merely pointed out the other thing humans have done for thousands of years, demonstrating that longevity do not make things right or moral. It is YOUR world of homosexuality which is NASTY.

          And don’t call me your “love.”

  6. Heterosexuality causes violence against women Glenn darling….nothing nastier than that my dear.

    • P&M,
      Do not call me terms of endearment.
      Heterosexuality does no such thing. Violence against women is caused by the same thing violence against men is caused by – sin.

      If heterosexuality causes violence against women, then why have I never been violent against women?

      • How do we know you haven’t Glenn love?

        And for that matter how do we know that you are heterosexual? You may be denying your homosexual feelings hunny and living a lie!

        • Here we go again, yet another ploy to silence all opposition to homosexual practice, this time the tactic involved is promoting the lie that those opposed to your sexual behaviour are “repressed homosexuals.” Nonsense! To be consistent in your views, you will now have to say that you believe that anyone who condemns stealing is a “repressed” kleptomaniac!

        • We have deleted your offensive remarks. Will you please address the point we made in our response to one of your recent comments i.e do you view those who condemn stealing as “repressed” kleptomaniacs? Don’t run away from the question.

          • We have also deleted your comment about a courageous teacher. You will not be permitted to describe him as you did, because you are falsely accusing an innocent man.

      • @ Mr and Mrs White

        “the lie that those opposed to your sexual behaviour are ‘repressed homosexuals.’ Nonsense! To be consistent in your views, you will now have to say that you believe that anyone who condemns stealing is a ‘repressed’ kleptomaniac!”

        I am not sure that it is a “lie”. It could be a half-truth.

        I would like to be allowed to suggest another way of dealing with the hackneyed interjection with which you are dealing, which reminds me of a remark attributed to Quentin Crisp, in The Naked Civil Servant, that “some toughs” (meaning gay-bashing thugs) were repressed “homosexuals”. So might be some Christians. But so what?

        Homosexual temptations are temptations to be resisted, like any other. Yes, there are certain special features of the heinous sin once dubbed “the crime against nature”, but there are also certain features that are perfectly ordinary, common to all temptations and sins, making homosexual temptations just another example of the everyday temptations that we may suppose that Christ himself experienced during his incarnation. For we are promised in Hebrews that he was, in all points, tempted, as we are, yet was without sin.

        Resisting temptation, repressing tendencies, and living in denial and “in the closet”, are simply different linguistic constructs, for expressing the same basic idea – the concept of not practising homosexuality, even if your nature makes homosexual practise a more tempting sin than others find it, just as certain people find over-eating to be an exceptionally tempting sin – one of the “sins that so easily beset us” (Romans 12).

        Who, but somebody who has experienced homosexual temptation himself, and, by God’s grace managed to overcome it, is better able to share his joy, at the the good news that “the vilest offender who truly believes, that moment, from Jesus, a pardon receives”, and that the blood of Jesus is, of sin, a double cure, cleansing not only of the guilt, but also of the power of sin? (I here paraphrase the lyrics of Rock of Ages.) Who better but he, the repentant former sodomite, whom the unrepentant sodomite might insult, using the Freudian language of “repression”, with all the accompanying psycho-babble, negative connotations insinuated, if he wished to denigrate the marvellous work of grace wrought in that sinner’s life?

      • @ Mr and Mrs White

        “We have also deleted your comment about a courageous teacher.”

        To whom was that comment addressed? As far as I know, I am the only person on this page who has mentioned a teacher, and my comment hasn’t been deleted. Could you please clarify?

        • John, the comment we deleted was from LGBT-is-fabulous and it was a response to you regarding the case of the Christian teacher. LGBT made untrue remarks about the courageous teacher and there is no way we will permit anyone to falsely accuse anyone on this blog.

    • @ Phillip and Mason

      “Heterosexuality causes violence against women”

      What I suspect you mean by the term “heterosexuality”, is what causes women in the first place, and men for that matter.

  7. Your attitude towards women as displayed on this site is questionable in many respects. Your comments about unmarried women having a sex life in other posts show an antiquated attitude towards females and a dislike of them in general. Yours is a repressed aggression, you take it out on websites like this honey.

    • P&M,
      My attitude towards women is that they should be cherished and protected, and not just used by men for sexual gratification. They are not to be used as slaves. They are also not to be brainwashed to give themselves up to exploitation, or to be told that murdering a child is right and proper. My comments about unmarried women’s sex lives is exactly what I say about unmarried men’s sex lives.

      You made a bunch of emotional charges with no examples to back up your claims. There is no aggression by me, nor is my attitude towards women “antiquated.” Now, how about demonstrating that I hate women and cite my actual words or shut up.

      • The dialogue here between Glenn, and his two camp followers (or “camp” stalkers, should I say?), is a waste of a good opportunity to discuss sensibly society’s interest in introducing same sex marriage, or refraining from doing so. Philip and Mason, you are baiting Glenn, and have show yourselves to be masters of that art, if you grasp my point. It isn’t that hard.

        • John, we have deleted the video clip you included with your comment. We believe that the so-called “entertainers” behind the clip are irreverent blasphemers and indecent.

      • @ Mr and Mrs White

        I don’t mind your deleting your my link to the Monty Python “Squad, camp it up!” sketch at all. I agree that the Monty Python “entertainment” troupe were sometimes blasphemous and sometimes obscene, and also irreverent, although I don’t regard irreverence, other than towards the Lord, as invariably sinful. There was no blasphemy or obscenity in the particular content I linked to though.

        To the pure, all things are pure. Monty Python is a part of our culture, and not all bad, even though one would love to see such comic talent exhibited in born again former pythons, stripped of the content that offends.

        I try to communicate the gospel to people with whom I share a secular culture that includes such content as python. Jesus said things along the following lines, “Ye have heard it said [then quoting something with which we would not necessarily agree, nor He] … but I say unto you [something much more uplifting] …”. Or he quoted scribes and Pharisees, before contradicting them. It cannot therefore always be wrong to quote from ungodly popular culture, to reach out to sinners in the condition in which we find them, in the common language we have with them, warts and all.

        However, it is your blog, and I am your guest. You will not hear me moaning about your “censorship” like some. I am not that sure that I was right to link to that bit of frivolity in the first place. Perhaps you were right to excise it. I take no offence.

  8. As for terms of endearment that is how we speak, we are hairdressers, far better than terms of abuse. terms of endearment was a great film. Live and love Glenn live and love – we certainly do. We have been together for 19 years.

    • Terms of endearment are only from those who are friends with actual relationships. Otherwise it is nothing but affectation. And that is all you are doing here – making affectations to annoy people. Being hairdressers does not entail the use of terms of endearment. I have gone to female barbers for almost 20 years and never once have they used a term of endearment towards me because it would be inappropriate.

      I am not your love, or your honey. Now be adult and quit the childishness – you’ve been told it is offensive. You demand tolerance but don’t give it.

  9. It is very difficult John et al to have a reasoned debate on this site when If you make a statement the authors do not agree with it is so heavily edited so it is meaningless or simply deleted! Maybe this blog should be renamed – “The authors are afraid of the truth!”

      • I don’t believe that everyone who does is!

        Now, perhaps you would kindly like to point out what lie you thought I told about the teacher?

        • You described the teacher as an “abuser” because he told his pupils the truth about homosexual practice i.e that it is sinful. In doing so, he was protecting children.

      • mrandmrswhite,

        most sane people know that stealing is wrong because it harms another person. It’s one of those things we know because we have a basic humanity – we don’t need to be told it is wrong. Condemning it therefore is a natural and normal thing to do to protect our fellow humans. The reason why people condemn it is straightforward and obvious and has nothing to do with whether they are repressed kleptomaniacs. Try and live in the real world.

        Vociferously, and almost to the point of obsession, condemning people for being their natural selves, pursuing happiness and love based on who they are and not hurting anyone based on a hatred and prejudice of who they are is however not a natural and normal thing and would lead some to question what drives them to such extremes (extremes including denial of rights, discrimination, violence and murder).

        The evidence, such that it is, would tend to support the assertion that many extreme homophobes (particularly religious ones) are themselves homosexual. That does not mean that all homophobes are gay, just that a statistically significant number of them are and that the number is higher than in the general populace.

        • We are condemning behavior, not people.

          By your logic, people with any sexual proclivity towards any creature or object should be allowed to be “their natural selves, pursuing happiness and love based on who they are.”

          How many times do you have to be told that there is no HATRED against homosexuals. We are just proclaiming the truth, and it is not hate to proclaim the truth. YOU hate the truth!!!

          It is nothing but psychological nonsense to claim that those who are against homosexuality, no matter how strongly, are thereby that way because they are homosexual. That is a huge logic fallacy of non sequitur.

      • Yes Susan. It is emotional abuse of children to be told they are disgusting because of their sexuality. Would you not agree Susan that the correct term for someone who practises abuse is an abuser?

        • Again we say, the teacher protected the children by telling them the truth about the homosexual lifestyle. Those who present it as healthy and normal are guilty of emotional abuse.

        • LGBT_is_perverse
          I said “perhaps” – I don’t know what your comments included which were deleted. I do know from what you have posted that you are rude and uncivil, demonstrated by your continued used of words of affection towards me no matter how many times I have asked you to stop. Would you like it if I kept calling you “queer”?

  10. “LGBT made untrue remarks about the courageous teacher and there is no way we will permit anyone to falsely accuse anyone on this blog.”…..
    Wow, you lying Mr and Mrs White, and you Glenn my dearest.
    You falsely accuse gay people of everything immoral here not knowing any of them personally and allow that. Hypocrites. Burn in hell.

    • I don’t seem to remember anyone here accusing homosexuals of “everything immoral.” What we have said is that homosexuals practice immoral sex. How is that “everything immoral”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s