Wedding??

Posted on December 29, 2011 by KG

Excuse me while I go and throw up.
Insulting, homosexual, attention-seekers–a wedding is between a man and a woman and anything else is a sham and an insult to married couples. To put this celebration of deviant behaviour on the front page is a perfect illustration of the degenerate and degraded state of our culture.
Perhaps they’ll hold this parody at one of their local beats?
UPDATE:  Well well! The item has been moved from the front page and in the same place there is now an item about a man and a woman getting married!  The above link has been changed so it points to the original report. Thanks to Adolf for the tip.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Wedding??

  1. Redbaiter says:
    December 29, 2011 at 09:21

    Yep, they just have to turn it into a media event.

    The main work of journalists and newspapers these days is pushing propaganda for liberal causes.

  2. Oswald Bastable says:
    December 29, 2011 at 09:26

    A product of the ‘Look at me- I’M SPECIAL!!!’ culture.

    • KG says:
      December 29, 2011 at 15:38

      And that’s the truth of the matter–their sexual habits have become a matter of utter, yawning indifference to most people, and they can’t handle the fact.
      The thrill is gone.
      So they constantly look for new ways to grab the limelight, to emphasise what cutting-edge brave and fascinating people they are. The only thing worse than being persecuted is being ignored.. :lol:

  3. Kris K says:
    December 29, 2011 at 10:01

    Yep, more simpering sodomites trying to legitimise their perverted lifestyles all while delegitimising genuine bible-based marriage and by extension the normal family – the very foundation of a healthy and prosperous society/culture.

    And some people [all the useful idiots] wonder why Western democracy is failing all around the globe.

    A society with no moral foundation will always fail and will eventually be ripe for totalitarian take-over and subjugation.

    Better start brushing up on your Arabic, morons – “Allahu akbar”.

    • Brooding Log Cabin Nutter says:
      December 29, 2011 at 10:21

      The problem as I see it Kris, is that for the most recent couple of generations of western so-called civilisation, ‘love’ has been turned into just mere rutting – I won’t go into all the other perversions or I’ll be joining KG and throwing up – and getting yer ‘ole has become the be all and end all of their miserable stinking lives.

      If they can only exist at this very basic level, how on earth can they be expected to appreciate the subtleties of Christianity I wonder?

      A recent survey in the UK found that only around 1.5% of the population were self declared homosexuals so one also needs to ask why it is that the MSM are trying to push the completely spurious, vile and disgusting habits of these evil people on the rest of us?

      • Kris K says:
        December 29, 2011 at 10:46

        Why indeed, BLCN – of course most of us here know exactly why – Judeo-Christian morality, Christianity itself, and the God behind it must ALL be done away with if the Marxist ‘utopia’ is to be ushered in.

        The Marxist ‘elite’ just love getting behind [excuse the pun] the sodomite/lesbian, Islamist et al agendas as these ideologies view Christianity as the enemy just as much as the Marxist ‘elite’ themselves do.

        • Brooding Log Cabin Nutter says:
          December 29, 2011 at 11:25

          Yes, and I strongly suspect the sodomites, lesbians and Islamists you mention are just ‘useful idiots’ – a phrase I believe was first used by Stalin – to be disposed of in their droves as in the manner used by Stalin’s near contemporary Adolf Hitler when their usefulness comes to it’s inevitable end. And sadly they’ll have no-one to mourn them.

  4. David says:
    December 29, 2011 at 10:10

    “deligitimising genuine bible-based marriage”

    Please help me out, I’m having trouble finding Jesus’s words in support of marriage. Nor does Genisis have anything to say about Adam & Eve’s wedding.

  5. Andrei says:
    December 29, 2011 at 10:18

    Nor does Genisis have anything to say about Adam & Eve’s wedding.

    Think again

    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

  6. Kris K says:
    December 29, 2011 at 11:27

    Further to what Andrei outlined about Adam and Eve’s wedding [where God Himself officiated and blessed the union], lets have a little look at what marriage IS NOT. And this time I’ll cite Christ Himself:

    Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    Lev 18:30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

    Christ’s own words:

    Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

    Christ Himself is referencing Leviticus and elsewhere in the Bible where what/who is abominable is defined.

    So while God blessed Adam and Eve’s marriage [and indeed all biblical marriages], He condemns as “abomination” same-sex union. He even goes further and states that sodomites and lesbians will be numbered amongst those who are excluded from heaven and will suffer the “second death”.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    • KG says:
      December 29, 2011 at 13:15

      Thank you, gentlemen. :smile: I love the smell of good old fire and brimstone–there’s too much appeasement around among Christians these days.

      Carry on and continue your education elsewhere, David.

      • Kris K says:
        December 29, 2011 at 14:16

        “appeasement” – what’s that? Can’t find it anywhere in MY dictionary [or the Bible for that matter]. I don’t do “compromise” either ;)

        I’m pretty sure my ‘intolerance’ goes down like a cup of cold sick with many a ‘liberal Christian’ :mrgreen:

        • Brooding Log Cabin Nutter says:
          December 29, 2011 at 14:36

          Your ‘intolerance’ is nothing compared with theirs Kris. This is a quote from today’s NY Times where gay supporting Federal and State governments are following the example of the UK and deliberately witholding funding from Catholic adoption agencies if they don’t undertake to foster out to homosexuals:
          “In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services.
          I wish I was a good enough Christian to ask G*d’s forgiveness of them but I’m not and as far as I’m concerned they can rot in hell for the ruination of those little lives either parented by homosexuals or destined to grow up state institutions for lack of sufficient numbers of adoptive parents.

  7. KG says:
    December 29, 2011 at 14:44

    “I wish I was a good enough Christian to ask G*d’s forgiveness of them ..”
    You and me both, Log. I’m on His crap-list and in no position to ask it for me, let alone anybody else. But I suspect these things are being taken care of…….. ;-)

    • Brooding Log Cabin Nutter says:
      December 29, 2011 at 16:04

      No-ones rushed in to say aaaawwww poor KG; G*d DOES love you despite your many faults! So I won’t either. But the way I look at it, you get the sin of Adam washed off when you get baptised then spend the rest of your life battling through a thicket of temptation and yes, sinfulness (and yea I know all about that but least said soonest mended!) until it begins to thin out a bit towards the end, as long as you’ve got a good compass in way some religious education behind you. That’s my theory anyway, now I await Kris jumping on me!

    • Kris K says:
      December 29, 2011 at 17:44

      BLCN [& KG],
      Sorry, been busy and only just checked back.

      Over on my blog I have outlined what I believe constitutes biblical salvation:
      https://balaamsarse.wordpress.com/what-is-the-biblical-gospel/

      I haven’t mentioned there where [water] baptism fits in, but suffice to say I believe the Bible is clear that water baptism, which we do in obedience AFTER salvation, only pictures what happens AT salvation when we receive Christ as Lord and Saviour, and are SIMULTANEOUSLY baptised by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ; the biblical church:

      1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

      Please note, this is a “dry” baptism which is a spiritual transaction whereby the Holy Spirit immerses us into the Body of Christ – AT THE POINT WE BELIEVE UPON CHRIST AS OUR SAVIOUR.

      I believe the Bible is clear that salvation is by faith [on Christ] ALONE, otherwise [water] baptism becomes a work, and salvation is not by works.

      And like KG none of us are ever “good enough” – we’re all on God’s “crap-list” – and yet He died for our sins anyway. We come to Him spots and all and simply say, “I’m sorry, please foprgive me, and thankyou for dieing on my behalf for my sins Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, my Saviour” [Or words to that effect]. God/Christ knows our heart and if we have genuinely repented and received Him as our Lord and Saviour then we have salvation.

      And while we will sin, even as Christians AFTER salvation, once we have genuinely received Christ we can NEVER lose our salvation: Once saved always saved. Sure, we can disappoint God through sin, but we are secure in Him for all eternity. Belief and faith is all we have to offer Him.

      [PS I may do a more detailed post over on my blog at a later date covering the whole area of spirit baptism at salvation versus water baptism after salvation – citing all the versus which I believe make this position crystal clear.]

    • Ciaron says:
      December 29, 2011 at 18:24

      I’m on His crap-list and in no position to ask it for me,

      My brother, you are in the perfect position to ask and God wants to give it to you :grin:

  8. Fairfacts Media says:
    December 29, 2011 at 14:46

    Now, now everyone, let us have a look at the realities here.
    Tamati Coffey and his ‘boy’ are no more attention seeking than say Matthew McCaaunghey, who I see in today’s papers has announced his engagement and also finds his activities covered by the media.
    It is all part of the celebrity obsessed culture we have, and I agree with you on that.
    Then, we have today’s papers also reporting Sinead O’Connor who has just finished her fourth marriage.
    I would argue the way she suddenly gets hitched and then divorced is far more damaging to the institution of marriage than two lads wanting to make their love public.

    I agree with you about the word ‘marriage’ as it does have traditional/ heterosexual connotations, but surely it is far better for two people of the same gender to make committments to each other than to go on ‘beats’ as you describe.
    Maybe we need to find a word other than ‘marriage’ and ‘weddings’ to describe such partnerings as opposed to the rather unsexy sounding ‘civil union.’

    I am sure Western civilisation is best supported by encouraging that 1.5% to form stable relationships with each other than to keep on ‘rutting’ as one of the commentators also describes.
    A read up on the ‘conservative arguments for gay marriage’ or whatever you want to call such unions, offers some sound reasoning to consider.

    • Brooding Log Cabin Nutter says:
      December 29, 2011 at 15:08

      There is a distinction surely to be made between so-called ‘celebs’ who’s ‘product’ is themselves and who pay professional agents to get their name in the papers so film and TV producers will consider offering them work; and those who in the case of the pair KG introduces, seem to have just rang up the newspaper announcing a bit of scurrilous nonsense and which would otherwise have gone unnoticed? As should the doings of any 1.5% of the population in similar sized groups like cat fanciers clubs for example. People are not normally interested in this sort of stuff and stories like that pointed out by KG only find there way into the news because an agenda is being followed.

    • KG says:
      December 29, 2011 at 15:09

      Sigh….let’s take those one at a time Fairfacts.
      The word “marriage” fucking doesn’t merely have “traditional/heterosexual connotations”. Got that? It’s A TRADITIONAL HETEROSEXUAL INSTITUTION and regarded as sacred by those of us who value the family and a society founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
      Already, you’re downplaying the importance of it. We won’t.
      “I would argue the way she suddenly gets hitched and then divorced is far more damaging to the institution of marriage than two lads wanting to make their love public.”
      The two “lads” are free to make their love public. What they are not free to do is parody a much-loved sacred institution in order to do so. The fact that celebrities use faux marriages as a publicity vehicle has nothing to do with the point of the post.
      In one sentence you say these two are “no more attention seeking than…” and later in the same comment you speak of them wanting to make their love “public”. Which is it?
      “Maybe we need to find a word other than ‘marriage’ and ‘weddings’ to describe such partnerings as opposed to the rather unsexy sounding ‘civil union.’”
      You’re happy to see the marriage ceremony parodied because “civil union” is “unsexy sounding”??
      That displays perfectly the shallowness of the arguments in support of this obscenity. Go find a ‘sexy’ sounding name of your own and leave ours alone, ok?
      “but surely it is far better for two people of the same gender to make committments to each other than to go on ‘beats’ as you describe..”
      I’ve got news for you, sunshine–a very large number of those who frequent the beats are married. Why would a homosexual married couple suddenly behave differently?

  9. KG says:
    December 29, 2011 at 15:14

    “People are not normally interested in this sort of stuff and stories like that pointed out by KG only find there way into the news because an agenda is being followed.”
    Yes indeed. A very old, very evil and destructive agenda at that.

    • Brooding Log Cabin Nutter says:
      December 29, 2011 at 15:27

      Love the rant KG. More power to your keyboard arm! :lol:

      • KG says:
        December 29, 2011 at 15:39

        Thank you, sir. :smile:

        • Darin says:
          December 29, 2011 at 15:56

          Right on KG,it’s worth noting that the older generation gays don’t want gay marriage either.It’s only the activist,whoring queers that want that title and it’s all about tearing down the traditonal family and Church and little to do with any “rights”.

  10. Anonymous says:
    December 29, 2011 at 16:11

    A gay German medical researcher, Martin Dannecker published a study in 1991 involving 900 homosexual male “couples” which found 83% of men in “steady relationships” were taking part in numerous sexual encounters outside of the core relationship over a one year period. In fact, even more bleak, Dannecker’s work showed that homosexual men in steady partnerships “the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 over a one year period” in contrast, single homosexual males had 45 sexual contacts in the same period.

    Another recent study done in the AIDS magazine (2003) found that most homosexual relationships lasted 18 months at most, and even during periods of “total monogamy” each partner still notched up a further 12 conquests outside of the relationship.

    An Advocate study in 1994 found that 50% of it’s respondents claimed to be “monogamous”, yet 85% of those same respondents reported that the biggest problem in their relationship was the fights caused when partners cheated. (do the math on that one!)

    The answer for all this is simple: Homoxexuals (the men in particular) are really better described as “pansexual”. They seek sexual gratification at any time by any means possible in order to achieve their erotic desires, and long term monogamous relationships are the last thing these people want – another reason why “gay marriage” is such a fraud.

    • Brooding Log Cabin Nutter says:
      December 29, 2011 at 16:52

      An early study apparently reckoned Neanderthals were slowly displaced by us Homo Sapiens over time but they’ve more recently come up with the idea that there was an intimate intermingling of the two species – like Caucasian and Maori in New Zealand, make of that what you will! – and now though I’m no paleoanthropologist, perhaps I can suggest that the social pathology of homosexuals and indeed of the whole of the so-called ‘progressives’ and Guardian readership etc is descended from this mixed breed creature. There must be some way surely, of explaining if not this way, whatever way it was that inflicted such a ‘community’ of self seeking, self destructive bunch of pathologically lying scum on the rest of human nature?

    • KG says:
      December 29, 2011 at 18:12

      Facts are such a bitch… :lol: Thanks for that, Anon.
      We got to know a whole bunch of homosexual guys when we lived in Tasmania (insert Tasmania joke here) and apart from being damn good neighbours they were a talented, interesting and enormously kind lot of people.
      But…..their personal relationships seemed – to an outsider at least – to be a kaleidoscope of shifting allegiances and affairs and monumental rows. And if one word summed this aspect up it would be “promiscuous”.
      “Marriage” was obviously the last thing on their minds–but then, they weren’t attention-seeking activists.

  11. KG says:
    December 29, 2011 at 18:26

    “An early study apparently reckoned Neanderthals were slowly displaced by us Homo Sapiens over time ..”
    They still live among us, BLCN–Oswald Bastable has first-hand experience of them.
    http://oswaldbastable.blogspot.com/
    And I have seen whereof he speaks, the very ones he lives in close proximity to….
    But seriously, the scum you speak of may just be the result of half a century of relentless conditioning. Ring the bell of welfare and a little power over others– and like Pavlov’s dogs, they begin salivating….

    • Brooding Log Cabin Nutter says:
      December 29, 2011 at 19:03

      Man after my own heart and I see he’s only around half an hour away over the hill from me!
      Yea, I was tongue in cheek there and I tend to agree with you that there’s been a sinister brainwashing going on – learned no doubt from the way the likes of Hitler seemed to be able to twist people round his little finger and get them to believe they were a blond haired super race whereas in fact they appear to be heading to become three times losers in the past one hundred years.

      • Kris K says:
        December 30, 2011 at 10:05

        You must live in my neighbourhood then, BLCN :cool: Well, in the greater region, anyway – it would take me about an hour [heading north and over the hill] to get to Oswald land.

  12. Fairfacts Media says:
    December 29, 2011 at 20:21

    Cheers KG, thanks for your comments.
    Re-reading the Stuff story, it seems that Coffey just gave two tweets way back on the subject. It looks more a case of the media seeking attention for this couple rather than the pair themselves. Jason Gunn also blew their cover too.
    We should remember, gay marriage or whatever we call it, is still quite new, and speaking as a journalist, there is still a fair amount of novelty value concerning it, and we do have celebrities involved so you can see why the media is keen to follow the story.
    I too look forward to the day when the media cares little about such events, when such events are old hat and non-controversial.
    I accept your arguments about me finding a name for such gay unions.
    Like you, I will agree that traditional heterosexual marriage and the children that result from it is the bedrock of society and civilisation.
    Trouble is, not everyone is ‘straight’- something you note yourself from the married men who then go off with other men.
    I would say marriages concerning guys married to women who then go off with other men is worse than them being in a stable partnership with another man.
    But such men enter such marriages to keep up public appearances.
    It would be better if they could go for what they truly want in the first place and avoid the cheating. How would their wives feel if they found out?

    Darin, you are right about older gays opposing gay marriage.
    One chap I know in his 70s told me that gays then felt ostracised from society and thus sought alternative structures, such as much sleeping around, or they were into radical politics.
    In our more enlightened times, there is not the same shunning of gays that there used to be.
    Thus, younger gays are not ostracised by society, they just want to be part of it, be like everyone else, go to work, pay their taxes, get a house, a partner, etc.
    As I read elsewhere, what can be more conservative than wanting to get married and fight for your country!
    And though there remains much progress to be made, gays are increasingly ditching the left for the right, politically.

  13. Robertvdl says:
    December 29, 2011 at 20:22

    The thing is that it is NOT natural. You need a man and a woman to create a new life and you need a man and a woman to raise a child . In all the other combinations there is always ALWAYS something missing.
    That is why in a relationship between a man and a woman marriage is an extra it is not a must.You don’t need to let the world know you are a couple, they know you are.
    Your ‘marriage’ starts with the first kiss, with the first time you touch her hand, that you feel good just because she is there. You have no need for someone or something else.
    You Take My Breath Away

    http://youtu.be/4vlDQUk1VIs

    Freddie Mercury never found it . It killed him. There was always something missing.

    • Darin says:
      December 30, 2011 at 00:24

      “The thing is that it is NOT natural.”

      That’s why there is no cure for AIDS,scientists try as they may cannot get male lab rats to butt F–k each other.

  14. Robertvdl says:
    December 30, 2011 at 05:57

    California will also become the first state to require students to learn about the societal contributions of gays and lesbians.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/29/new-state-laws-set-to-ring-in-2012/#ixzz1hxI1PXIV

  16. Kris K says:
    December 30, 2011 at 10:20

    Thanks for the links, Robert – more attempts to paint homosexual perverts as ‘normal’ and as positive contributers to society. When in reality everything they stand for, every ‘right’ they claim only takes society further into the abyss of moral depravity and confusion over what is healthy, true and normal.

    If parents aren’t actively countering this normalising of perverted lifestyles currently being taught in schools to our kids, and the further introduction of such programmes, then the next generation will be completely lost – if they by and large aren’t already.