Gay Marriage and the NWO Agenda

a reply to: ketsuko

Less people get married.

Yeah, well. That's been happening for a while in the US too. Maybe the numbers will get a bump now, though.

nomblog.com...

originally posted by: AuranVector

The NWO slave does not need to have his loyalties divided; he does not need a family. His loyalties should be solely for the corporation who employs/owns him.

If that's the plan, it's definitely not working. I'm sure the average American has less loyalty to his/her employer than 30 or 40 years ago--especially if it's a large corporation.

a reply to: ketsuko
I don't see it as having to do with "guy-marriage", at least not in SA.
The factors have been there for a while, and they are partly economic.
Maybe the media has scared some off with horror stories about marriage, and financial exploitation for either party.
It's usually women who are eager, but the men are lackluster for a long time.
I guess the same goes for same-sex couples, where one partner has more economic resources.

We also have traditional marriages for African and Muslim polygamists in SA (our President has four current wives).
However, in African marriage you must pay a bride-price for each wife (traditionally cattle).
Nowadays many young men can no longer afford it.

Even in other cultures, people want some kind of surety.
Women have more opportunities and study longer too.
It's become rather Malthusian.

I could think of cases of people who had a first marriage at a young age, but it didn't work out (to say the least).
Later they are much more cautious, or hear much more stories on why to be careful.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Willtell
Nothing is forever it could be that marriage is going the way of polygamy.


Maybe humankind is evolving to a non marriage arrangement where the state will care for the children


Sure the parents can come by a few days a week and hug their kids but at least the state want likely produce Charles Mansions, and Dylann Roofs…
What did Hillary say: It takes a village

What's your rationale for the state not producing Masons or Roofs?

Maybe the state won’t abuse the kids like many parents do and condemn the kids to a lifetime of misery

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Willtell
Nothing is forever it could be that marriage is going the way of polygamy.


Maybe humankind is evolving to a non marriage arrangement where the state will care for the children


Sure the parents can come by a few days a week and hug their kids but at least the state want likely produce Charles Mansions, and Dylann Roofs…
What did Hillary say: It takes a village

What's your rationale for the state not producing Masons or Roofs?

Maybe the state won’t abuse the kids like many parents do and condemn the kids to a lifetime of misery

As evidenced by all those public school teachers who NEVER ever do abusive things? /sarcasm

a reply to: ketsuko
However, if there's one thing about the current imagery about same-sex marriage that's annoying, it is the illusion of egalitarianism.
Two soldiers, two models, two of the same.

Yeah maybe sometimes it happens and works out in marriages, but usually it has to do with more.

That's also a very Western image, and other post-colonial queer cultures may have a lot of gender identities where only the male (for example) "feminine partner" is regarded by society as "gay", while the more "masculine partner" is considered socially "straight" (no matter his orientation).

Maybe it's not only the gay imagery, but the exaggerated notion of egalitarianism may create false expectations.

If I think of egalitarian things to do with the same gender, I'd think more like a fishing trip, golf, gym, or a pub-crawl.
Marriage would be the least of them.
Yet in heterosexual marriage having a "trophy wife" for an older, richer man is quite acceptable.
So there are various stereotypes going round.
Not all of them are helpful.

I mean whatever your orientation, I feel as a male there's a love and a way to be with your comrades, and perhaps patriarchy is nothing but unadmitted "love" and bonding between males.

There's no way I could ever be egalitarian like that with a spouse - male or female.
I mean, not to be abusive in any way, but what I see on social media just does not take into account that people enjoy power relationships sometimes.
If I see another two bears, another two blond muscular twinks, or another two hipsters with matching glasses kissing I think I'm going to hurl.
Why not marry the mirror?

a reply to: AuranVector

yep

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: AuranVector

I think you are on to something here. I've posted on numerous threads about the demise of a true Family life and your post seems to back it up completely and also shed new light on this 'Agenda'.

I knew something wasn't right with this World!!

Your gut is right about that. For over 60 years there's been a NWO Globalist agenda steering the world that most are not even aware of. The Left, the Democratic Party is on the fast track to the NWO. The Republicans are on a slightly slower track -- which buys us some time.

I don't think anyone can become a US presidential candidate without the blessings of the Bilderbergers.

In any case, the Globalists love to divide & distract to conquer. The Gay marriage "civil rights" issue has done a great job of that. But the real goal of this is to help destroy traditional society and its values. The good NWO slaves that are being shaped for the future should not have any moral boundaries. It's very "Brave New World."

It also helps depopulation that same-sex couples are naturally sterile. If they want children they have to enlist the help of a third party of the opposite sex.

a reply to: AuranVector

How can it decrease population?.
The amount of gay folk is the same percentage as a thousand years ago.
Absolute bonkers paraniod bs.
Get over it.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: AuranVector

So you agree that the Supreme Court ruling is a GOOD and JUST ruling, correct? You agree that removing bans on same-sex marriage is what we SHOULD be doing, right?

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should have honored the will of California’s voters by upholding Proposition 8 (the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman) until the VOTERS changed the law.

The decision on Gay marriage should have been left up to individual states. There were states that willingly allowed Gay marriage.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: AuranVector

How can it decrease population?.
The amount of gay folk is the same percentage as a thousand years ago.
Absolute bonkers paraniod bs.
Get over it.

Some believe that homosexuality increases when a species over-populates.
Something like Nature's way to cut down the birth rate.

Besides your statement, "The amount of gay folk is the same percentage as a thousand years ago." doesn't really make any sense in this context.

a reply to: AuranVector

Uh huh. And what if a state voted to bring back lynching of blacks in that state? What if a state voted to confiscate all guns in that state? What if a state voted to ban everyone from even talking about a belief in God?

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: b14warrior

There is a lot of weight to the Europe churches ruling being illegal under right to belief. It probably is illegal IMO.

Under various acts, the state telling the church that which it is allowed to believe in is illegal and if it does it to one church then it can do it to them all, and in the interests of fairness if it forces the Christian church into accepting gay marriages it legally should tell the Roman Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc churches to do the same in the interests of fairness and non discriminatory practice.

Excellent point. But of course, you can't force the Muslims to perform Gay marriages, it wouldn't be politically correct (they're a protected group) and they might take some heads.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: AuranVector
The amount of gay folk is the same percentage as a thousand years ago.
Absolute bonkers paraniod bs.
Get over it.

Can you cite any article that confirms what you said above? I can't find anything on the web that indicates that the percentage of gay folk is consistent across time and different societies.

If what you say is true -- this is compelling evidence. But I don't think what you say is true. In fact, I just intuitively think that homosexuality was much more prevalent in the distant past. I think you are factually wrong.

I have to admit-- one reason I don't believe you is that you are so casually dismissive (you say "bonkers paranoid bs", which is not helpful in making your points.)

However, if you have any citations or evidence that shows that the percentage of homosexuals is consistent across time and societies, you can make your point strongly with me at least, and probably others. Specifically, if the percentage of homosexuals is static, this is no longer even an issue worth discussing IMO.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: AuranVector

You clearly get it, but don't expect much praise for that. The deniers and label-makers will be here full force, because you stated the truth. Hang on to your hat!

The attackers remind me of "Pod People" from "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers." You know when the pod people spot someone who's still human and not of their hive mind, they start this shrill, high-pitched shrieking to alert other pod people to attack the human.

a reply to: AuranVector

Hmmm, I wondered exactly who these people are who will be getting fake gay married. Maybe it will be pod people??? The NWO leaders could grow their own fake gay people! Brilliant!

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Can someone explain to me exactly how the Gay Agenda got mixed up with the NWO?

I guess you didn't understand the OP. I have to confess it was written in a hurry.

Are you not familiar with the NWO? There are informative threads in this forum.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

What is it that makes people strong and self-sufficient individuals able to live their lives without needing to depend on government or those in power to give and take and make all the important decisions for them?

Strong neighborhood communities. Strong faith communities. Strong families.

When people have one or more of those three, they turn to each other in their times of need. When you remove or break down those three, they have no one except the power structure you put in place for them.

Excellent. A slave raised by the State (corporation), has only the State to lean on.

Just think if they ever unleashed all currently illegal drugs (heroin, crack, meth, etc.) as some want to do (Soros).

They will create junkies who will do anything for their next fix. Talk about a slave they can control.

But junkies aren't very productive. I think by releasing the drugs to the general public, they can easily identify the weak links that need to be eliminated first.

originally posted by: AuranVector
The attackers remind me of "Pod People" from "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers." You know when the pod people spot someone who's still human and not of their hive mind, they start this shrill, high-pitched shrieking to alert other pod people to attack the human.

Yes! Great movie and metaphor. There is a strange parallel to that movie here on ATS, on this thread, and also many others.

en.wikipedia.org...

In fact, you easily see this distinctive behavior (emitting piercing shrieks to notify others) all over the place in our society, which is why the movie was so fantastic and reflective of a hidden truth. Pod people. Quite mysterious and disturbing -- I think they actually exist in some form or another.

originally posted by: eire91
a reply to: AuranVector

We were the first country in the world here in Ireland to legalise same sex marriage by popular vote on May 22nd of this year.

Thank you for your input. When I first heard about it, I thought it strange. I mean I thought Ireland was a staunchly Catholic country. May be not so much anymore.