4 votes

What the Devil says about gay marriage.

I am the Devil, I am the State.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, America for feeding my hungry belly. I require power and domination over the lives of all men and women, and you have proudly given me more of that which I seek. Homosexuality, fornication, and adultery are now illegal thanks to your tireless efforts to legislate morality on others.

You see, "Marriage" used to belong to religious traditions: everything from Pagan binding ceremonies to Christian weddings, and now you have acquiesced and given it to me! Marriage is no longer a religious institution, but it is now a State licensed activity. I have gladly granted your request, but I see now that we haven't gone far enough in making sure that "God's Plan" for marriage and sex are being followed.

Now that you have given me the power over your lives, I am instituting the following dictates:
1. Marriage is between a man and a women exclusively.

2. The State can only issue 10,000 marriage certificates a year (we are backed up on paperwork). The waiting period for a certificate is between 400-600 days. A Marriage is not valid until a license is received.

3. Both individuals wishing to be wed must be of good moral standing. No certificates will be issued to anyone who has been convicted of a crime. No certificates will be issued to anyone who is delinquent on their taxes. No certificates will be issued to anyone on the "no-fly" list.

4. Any child not born from a State authorized marriage is now evidence of a crime. The State will confiscate any child born out of wedlock. If you are found guilty of the crime of fornication or adultery, the paraphernalia (in the form of a child), will be incinerated and destroyed.

I am overjoyed at these new laws and that you have entrusted me, the devil, to make sure that God's Plan is being followed on Earth. God Bless you all and muhwaahahahaha.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I Have Decided To Avoid Gay Subject Posts

As well as religious ones. They serve no real purpose except to cause friction on DP. They cause us to alienate each other over subjects that don't help liberty so I see no point in letting myself get upset over this stuff anymore. Divide and conquer seems to be the goal of some of the people here and I refuse to play that game anymore. I worry enough about drones, gun bans, geo-engineering, GMO poisoning, the police state, cameras on top of every streetlight phone tapping, etc. I don't really care if two gay people get the same protections as straight people or if some people think I am going to Hell for disagreeing with their views.

skippy

I'm with you in general,

But if you notice I never addressed the issue of morality. I was only trying to point out that delivering power to the state has unintended and sometimes devastating consequences. Doing so would not be in the best interests of gay people or the church. The government cares less about either group unless it can rally them to make stupid decisions by giving their rights away.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

I know what you mean skippy, but do you really think

that burying your head in the sand is the answer? All this friction is caused by people that get "needlessly" riled up and fail to keep their emotions in check. If people stopped with their "PRE-concieved" notions, took a step back, analyzed the facts from different sources, and looked at it "objectively" without opinion, this community/movement would have a better chance at coming together.

We "should" be able to discuss anything here, without emotions getting high and debate turning hostile. We ARE better than that and we should be setting the example. Fear is never the answer. You know what group also tend to stir things up "intentionally"? Trolls, and "dis-info" agents. We should never let "them" win. It's what "they" want.

Thought I'd point that out since I know you're not alone in your sentiments skippy, and rightly so I may add. Having said that, I most certainly see your point.

Now they'll think you're

Now they'll think you're going to hell for avoiding the issue.

LOL

Thank God morality is legislated...

...or murder, robbery, rape, torture, etc. would become more rampant than people could imagine. Without some restraints on morality, man knows no end to evil.

Just look at China, for example, that has no laws to protect dogs and cats there -- fur manufacturers over there are skinning them alive -- yes, ALIVE -- an estimated million a year, and then they are mislabeling the material to say "imitation" fur (there's no labeling law there either) and shipping it to the U.S.

So enough of this "can't legislate morality" line. It's a bogus argument. For there's one thing government has an absolute duty to do, and that is to legislate morality.

peta would be proud

Since PETA has been outed finally in admitting that they really don't care about the lives of animals. They just want to sue you for wearing fur to make money off of lawsuits. Ah, the hypocrisy just to pervert the legal system.

I saw a couple of articles about how peta was taking in animals saying, don't worry we will find them a good home. Then turning around and putting these animals into the incinerators.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

What does skinning dogs and cats alive...

...have to do with PETA?

You can't be saying it's okay to skin cats and dogs alive (sometimes they're still alive after they've been skinned and die slowly) -- or are you?

btw, I used to believe the folks that make it a business to "warn" the public about PETA. But then I followed the money. The organizations that work overtime in order to give PETA a bad name just happen to be paid for by the meat/dairy/fur industries. What a coincidence.

People don't commit those

People don't commit those crimes out of fear of consequences, they just have no desire to act that way. Things like murder, robbery, rape, torture, etc. are not moral legislation, they are legislated because people who do those things are doing them to another person, thereby harming them. People mostly refrain from speeding because they don't want to get into an accident at high speeds, not because of a fear of being ticketed. An actual example of legislation of morality would be something like the southern states criminalizing consensual homosexual sex while they clearly have no business barging in on their bedrooms. The war on drugs is legislation on morality. You can't have a crime without a victim. To think so is Orwellian.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Morals have to do with the entire gamut of life,

not just sex and drugs. Life isn't a series of pigeonholes that are separate from all the other pigeonholes, but a seamless whole. Morals don't have to do with just a sex pigeonhole. It's immoral to murder, kidnap, enslave, torture, rape, skin animals alive, practice reckless endangerment, steal, lie in court, and so forth.

"Morals, the practice of the duties of life; as a man of correct morals. 2. Conduct; behavior; course of life, in regard to good and evil."

"Moral; 1. Relating to the practice, manners, or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong.

"Having to do with virtue and ethics." --Definition quotes taken from Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

So, yes, laws against certain types of immoral behavior are legislating morality. Some immoral behaviors are crimes and need to be legislated, and other immoral behaviors are not crimes and must not be legislated.

Reckless endangerment is an

Reckless endangerment is an example of a thought crime. It's your common victimless crime, which is an oxymoron. You can't legislate morality. Morals are subjective. Harming other people does not fall under morality. It's just something that's engrained in everyone from birth...it's objective. Just the fact that you saying stuff like sex and drugs are immoral but things that hurt others are also immoral but need to be legislated against is pure subjectivity. This is all semantics here. Punishing people for crimes is not moral legislation.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I didn't say sex and drugs are immoral.

Having a fence around the edge of the flat roof of a tall building is an example of practicing the principle of not being negligent about others' safety, as in: not engaging in reckless endangerment. English common law is based on case law, general principles that adults are supposed to be able to understand and apply. It is immoral for adults to leave dangerous situations lying about or to create them by negligent, reckless behavior. Adults are not supposed to need zillions of nit-picky, legalistic rules, they are supposed to understand moral principles and act on them. A person ought not be fined for leaving a large, unprotected pit in a sidewalk, but if a person negligently causes another person to be harmed, he must be forced to make appropriate restitution. This is how a society legislates morality. It all boils down to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Those are moral principles.

Moral legislation are laws

Moral legislation are laws that try to regulate behavior. Laws that punish actual deeds that hurt people don't regulate behavior. Everyone has the free will to just live life or to go around hurting others. You can't take that away from people. God doesn't, so who is some human to try to take another human's free will? It's not immoral to not put a fence around a roof. Going around making everything safe with law is a nanny state. I don't want any new cars because I don't like air bags. Why is it not my choice to die? The laws you talk about don't stop harm, they stop possible harm. It's Orwellian horse shit. "Do unto others" has nothing to do with going around enforcing safety based on a bunch of "ifs." It's lunacy and it needs to stop.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

???

You said: "Things like murder, robbery, rape, torture, etc. are not moral legislation, they are legislated because people who do those things are doing them to another person, thereby harming them."

Sorry but if doing harm to others is not a moral issue, then nothing is.

While those acts are immoral,

While those acts are immoral, the laws that punish against them are not considered moral legislation. I will say that you don't even need any law on the books and we could still have a justice system to punish people for such things. In every normal human it's ingrained from God (or nature, if that's your thing) that those things are wrong. Moral legislation is religion-based and goes after specific groups. Moral legislation creates crimes from actions that do not have a victim. In most of those cases the government tries claim someone as a victim just because an Orwellian "something could have happened to someone." Marriage being licensed is moral legislation. Seat belts, speeding, DUI enforcement, drug laws. Those are examples of moral legislation. The state arresting and charging two people consensually fighting into two assault charges is moral legislation. If you are victimized and refuse to press charges, but the state turns around and presses charges...that's moral legislation.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

You miss the point.

When it is said one cannot legislate morality, the reference is to victimless crimes where the legislation is directed at outlawing sin and vice.
That means gambling, drug use, prostitution, smoking, scratching in public, sodomy, etc. It does not refer to laws protecting individual rights to life, and property from crimes like murder, rape, torture, robbery, assault, battery, trespass, fraud and so forth.
China has lots of laws. And labor camps.
Though cats and dogs are cute and cuddly, they are not humans. They are animals. Cow skin is made into leather belts and used to cover furniture. Cows, goats, sheep, when killed according to kosher rules, are drained of their blood while alive. Lobsters are boiled alive. What makes dogs and cats so special?
If you want so save other people's property from a painful death, it would be best for you to purchase it from them beforehand rather than tell them what they may or may not do with it, and use the coercive power of the state to enforce your values upon others.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Have you seen the pictures?

Cats and dogs, some still alive after being skinned, all dying a slow death. It's beyond inhumane; it's ghastly.

If you see the pictures and still think it's okay because they're just animals, then God help you.

"The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel." ~ Proverbs 12:10

Are There No Animal Groups

attempting to stop that?

skippy

Yes, there are, thank God.

Many of them. But since it's China, all they can do is tell people not to buy so-called "imitation fur" made in China -- because it isn't.

The Humane Society and some other groups are lobbying to include "imitation" fur made in China in the already existing ban. I think it would still be difficult to control, though. I think the best way to put them out of business is to warn the public.

The OP is a mix of some good and mostly backwardsness.

Satan would license marriage and open it to all but traditional couples. People would be allowed to marry animals (nature worship goes in line with the push to classify humans as animals), and if it was possible, he would condone inter-species offspring. He would push every kind of depravity you can imagine. He would condone children out of wedlock, allow the depraved to adopt children, and generally seek to destroy strong traditional families. Everything I said I see happening before my eyes, and it's the work of satan.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

You missed my point..

I'm simply pointing out that once the State has control of defining marriage, the State has control of defining marriage. Christians are hanging themselves on this issue and pushing to give their authority to the state.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

I disagree--the problem is this

The problem is that we have to face REALITY. The United States is on the edge of a fascist abyss. Many Americans are still asleep and do not realize that they have been systematically brain-washed through the TV & Hollywood for the past 4-5 decades. I've witnessed it. I am a Baby Boomer and know how America was when I was young, and it was NOT LIKE THIS!

Our country was bound together, as two people in a marriage are bound together, by similar values and beliefs. The majority of Americans were "Christians" at that time. The GOVERNMENT only began allowing immigration of foreign cultures into America in the 60's with the Vietnam War. These cultures were not "Christian". Throughout time, the government & their Media conspirators sought to undermine this nation's Christian beliefs! Through systematic desensitization, they have succeeded in brainwashing our Generation X & watering down many of their parent's beliefs. Through the decades, not only the massive increases in illegal, as well as legal immigration, has taken a definite toll on our culture in many ways, & ultimately on you young people's lives---both morally AND financially. It is a TRAGEDY!

I know a lot of the youth "think" that they are hip, that the older generation's beliefs are outdated and old-fashioned, but THAT is exactly what our wonderful government control-freaks have brainwashed you to believe, so now we are staring at so many young who have lost their belief in GOD.

Getting to your point now~~~IF we were living under an "ideal" government, I would agree with you that the best form is like Dr. Paul has said, the one that our Founding Fathers had crafted. But, we are NOT living in this reality right now, maybe someday, God willing, but not now, so what I'm saying is that "we" Christians feel we HAVE to fight these Feinsteins (who are so desiring you young people to just THROW your parent's values out the window) any way we can.

One last thought, you need to ask yourself WHY would the "State" have tried to invade the Movie Business & TV Business? Do you really believe they JUST RECENTLY STARTED to brainwash the public? And, do you really believe they would never undermine our religion which has been the glue to America for generations? THINK AGAIN, because I can testify that THAT is EXACTLY what they have done.

We would like your support, because it would help our cause of liberty.

So you're basically

So you're basically portraying Christians who want to have a governmental definition of marriage as evil instead of just misguided. There are too many factors right now to just give everyone an open pass on it. I don't think the government should be involved in it, but as long as we have the Fed and the IRS, you will just have people pretending to be gay to get tax benefits.

A lot of changes need to happen, but I am not of the opinion that change needs to come in steps. It really just won't work to do things slowly. To get back to the founding principles and get this nation back to prosperity and to actually not be hated in the world there needs to be an instant change. Erase every amendment after the 10th and bring back the original 13th. Abolish every unconstitutional federal department and agency and get rid of the private Fed and IRS. End all wars, close all foreign bases, and keep our ships in our own waters. Get out of the UN, NATO, and the IMF.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Not even close,

I didn't portray Christians in any light whatsoever and no chain of logic can possible infer that to be the case.

What you actually did say, however, is puzzling: The State needs more authority, so one day we can take authority away from the State.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

When did I claim that "the

When did I claim that "the state" needs more power? I corrected you as to what the devil would really do. He would license it under the state and then open it up to everyone except who is depraved, taking away its meaning/tainting it with filth. I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself; the government should not even be involved in marriage. I disagree that we can and should work on these things slowly. If tomorrow the government opened it up to all, we would have an even worse welfare system than we do now. You would have people pretending to be gay to get tax breaks.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Wow!

Are you running for President in 2016, by any chance? You'd probably get my vote.

Your two posts on this thread were very well stated.

Maybe I'll run in 2020! I'm

Maybe I'll run in 2020! I'm not eligible (35 years old) in 2016. I don't see it being that hard of a job if our government minded its own business here and abroad. We really need a president that isn't some jerk-off who's never lived a common life. I'd probably do the same that Ron Paul proposed and massively slash my salary to something sane.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Never mind.

What you wrote about morality nixed it for me; so you would not get my vote.

You're insane.

You're insane.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Nice try...

...but sweet talk doesn't work with me. You still wouldn't get my vote :-)

It's not sweet talk. You're

It's not sweet talk. You're literally insane if you think you can go around legislating morality (regulating behavior). I don't want your vote, and I would like you to just leave me be.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.