Just shows the thug government for what it is, a brute beast forcing people to embrace whatever lie it deems "truth". No surprise, as it acts as if people can switch from being male to female or female to male and by golly, we are all supposed to BELIEVE A LIE or else we are haters.
Yeah, we hate falsehood and hate being told that we must embrace and validate that which is contrary to natural order, reason, and biological truths. We are expected to deny blatant reality.
None of that needs to be framed in a religious context and shouldn't be, because doing so conveniently equates ***simply being in one's right mind*** with being a religious zealot/bigot/hater who has the unmitigated gall to impose his religious beliefs upon others.
Beast.gov is fast redefining truth and sane thinking as [subjective and intolerant] religious tenets that have no business existing in the enlightened, modern world.
Already we see how the mobs of impulsive, self-important, drama queen social media zombies rally around half-truth tales of woe (lies), falsely speaking evil of business owners or managers for racism or hate or for being intolerant of whatever we are supposed to tolerate according to the whiners and liars.
Consensus is their lying king. To speak the truth is to threaten the king and his lying kingdom.
Organizing for Destruction
"Pogrom is a Russian word designating an attack, accompanied by destruction, looting of property, murder, and rape, perpetrated by one section of the population against another."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/pogroms.html
My “FAVORITE” Phrase:
“Everybody know.....”
“Consensus is their lying king. To speak the truth is to threaten the king and his lying kingdom.”
The Obama Pogrom..has a “nice” ring to it...
With religious people I argue from a religious basis. With non-religious people, I argue with objective reasoning and demonstrable evidence.
As the woman's belief in religion is guiding her opinion on the issue, it is worthwhile to understand her religious motivation to grasp how objectionable is participating in this desecration of natural law. It is germane to this topic.
Beast.gov is fast redefining truth and sane thinking as [subjective and intolerant] religious tenets that have no business existing in the enlightened, modern world.
Already we see how the mobs of impulsive, self-important, drama queen social media zombies rally around half-truth tales of woe (lies), falsely speaking evil of business owners or managers for racism or hate or for being intolerant of whatever we are supposed to tolerate according to the whiners and liars.
Consensus is their lying king. To speak the truth is to threaten the king and his lying kingdom. "Pogrom is a Russian word designating an attack, accompanied by destruction, looting of property, murder, and rape, perpetrated by one section of the population against another."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/pogroms.html
No argument from me. This is exactly what I sense is coming. I'm going to ping someone to your message that needs to read it. Especially the "Beast.gov" comment. We have been having a ongoing dispute as to where and when "Beast.Gov" first opened it's eyes.
Just shows the thug government for what it is, a brute beast forcing people to embrace whatever lie it deems "truth". No surprise, as it acts as if people can switch from being male to female or female to male and by golly, we are all supposed to BELIEVE A LIE or else we are haters.
I am probably just not understanding your argument here so please excuse me if I am way off base. I am sensing an inconsistency of sorts.
If such things as homosexual marriage and "sex-change" are indeed "fake" or "lies" or are untrue or not real, then there would appear to be no need to deal with them at all. There is no need to address things that don't exist.
However, if what you really mean by those terms is that you disagree with things (homosexual marriage, "sex-change") that you acknowledge do exist, then I would suggest that you dispense with those terms (fake, lies, etc.) because I think the use of those terms merely makes your position less coherent.
In other words, if you are saying what I think you are saying, you could put it as follows: "The government has begun using the term 'marriage' in an overly broad fashion, a fashion which would encompass a legal union between two persons of the same sex. I believe that usage amounts to a perversion of the term marriage, a term which necessarily includes only legal unions between two persons of opposite sexes."
I understand why you want to use the terms "lie" and "fake" (all attacks are based upon negative associations), but I think the term "perversion" will be just as effective for your purpose.
But, again, I may be completely missing what you're attempting to do here. If so, I apologize for having wasted your time.
The Lord defined marriage in Genesis. Indeed, any other definition is based on a lie. From the father of lies. (John 8:44)