Skip to content
  • quickshooter

    Marriage used to be a holy oath that if ever broken it would mean shame/ex-communication

    after KIKES secularized it became shitty
    fag marriage, weaponized marriage against straight men, and of course now they’re pushing the pedophillia angle of “love is love”
    marriage is no longer sacred, marriage is nothing more than a finaical contract that the (((divorce court))) could make it’s shekels

    remove kikes from marriage,outlaw all faggotry, feminism, and miscegeny
    and make marriage sacred again.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6c60a1fcd9a9ec428919c1a41b69d142a6a3a8b068d1ca49ea804e8856f5a6cd.jpg

    • Kakurenjou

      You do know that marriage has existed long before Christianity, right?

      • Regardless of some of his word choices, he isn’t wrong. Even before Christianity, divorce was not what it is today; even if the laws were formally the same as what might exist today in any given pre-Christian state, modern social conditions enabled by secularist, antinatalist, and feminist government policies outside of marriage itself actually make things much worse.

        Gay marriage just reduces marriage to joint filing on your taxes with some random person. Even when a woman had a scandal about marrying her brother for immigration fraud purposes this year, it didn’t become a major scandal and her seat stayed Safe D just because no one cares about it. Marriage no longer serves any purpose except exploiting it for benefits from the government.

    • Meme King

      Though marriage has existed in cultures before and independent of christianity (rome, east asia, mesopotamia, etc.) and was in most cases not a religious thing, maybe outlawing divorce would be a very good thing.

      • quickshooter

        outlawing divorce would be a great first step

  • En Chi

    Hebrews 13
    4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God
    will judge.

    If they would see the sad consequences of their sinful behaviour and their lasciviousness:
    Romans 1
    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the
    natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one
    toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in
    themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    • TrueWOPR

      From the same faith that tells you to mutilate all boys at day 8, that life is not valid until 2 months out of the womb, and women are property.

      …So *mostly* wrong, but not entirely. ;P

  • aphirst

    “In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners.”

    Quoted directly from the source you site. Please don’t misquote it!

    • AAAAA

      isn’t misquoted. the source just mentions multiple studies.

      the 28% was a fairly accurate assessment pre-aids. more recent and relevant data i would agree, the median is about 3-4 times compared to heterosexuals

    • E S M

      http://www.academia.edu/24310251/A_comparative_demographic_and_sexual_profile_of_older_homosexually_active_men

      “There is no way of enumerating the population of homosexually active men. Participants were necessarily volunteers. Recruitment sources included sections of the organised gay community (radio, venues, gyms, businesses, publications); places of sexual contact within, outside, and marginal to organised gay communities (gay brothels, sex shops, beats, saunas); health centres frequented by gay men; and pornography outlets. Strategies for contacting potential respondents included standard advertising that emphasised he importance of research information, advertising with some sexual titillation, cards and fliers, stickers and posters, notices in Personals columns, and articles and interviews in the media”

      I feel like some of the studies cited have sampling issues that may throw their conclusions into question

  • Fantaman

    How the hell can you have this many partners?

    • E S M

      The source is from 1978 (read: before AIDS), and several of the studies quoted use nonrandom samples of Australian prostitutes

  • Jake

    Yes, because “ex-gay” Christian organizations a great source to justify your propaganda.

  • Kakurenjou

    Your so-called source is flawed and biased, and you should feel ashamed for having to stoop so low to perpetuate your vile opinions.

Primary Sidebar