Archive for the marriage Category

Our Father Who Art in Washington

Posted in False religion, Government, marriage, worldview with tags , on June 18, 2012 by devilbloggger

Fathers.

Did you know, my servants, that I hate fathers? That’s why I laid low this past week and last weekend when millions of people all over the globe celebrated Father’s Day (blechhhhh!).  You see, God is a father.  And he instituted the family to be led by fathers for the benefit of children, society, and the world.

So, what did I do?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Yes, I do everything I can to pervert fathers and fatherhood into an unrecognizable mess of pop culture sissification, media-driven manhoodperversion, and feminist agenda boystealingschooling, and other misdeeds.  Of course, along the way I (yes, moi) became a father.

Do you know what I’m the father of?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And today, my friends, I have almost eliminated effective fatherhood.   I’ve demoralized, de-emphasized, de-energized, and generally de-everythingized men.

Culturally it’s a woman’s world in the enlightened western cultures who have turned away from the father of light to the father of ____________ (look it up).

Consider pop culture.  When is the last time you saw a movie, or a popular TV show, in which there was a strong, loving, mature male figure in the role of a father?

Hmmmm?

Those days are gone, my friend.  Today fathers, if present at all, are portrayed as bumbling boobs or halfwit hacks.

That’s why, my servants, I was pleasantly surprised to find this weekend that the United States Government actually has a website devoted to fathers.

Yes!  It even has the easy-to-remember URL, www.fatherhood.gov.

Now, I must admit that at first I was alarmed.  But then I read more at the CNSNews.com article that the website is full of inane advice, such as how best to wash kids’ hands, and other vital tasks of fatherhood.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And US taxpayers pay for this!

But here’s what I like best, my friends.  The US taxpayer-funded website goes to great lengths to teach “fathers” that they are responsible for providing “a variety of healthy foods,” and to wash hands (complete with a video for the extra slow).  In case a “father” is completely clueless, the website teaches fathers hand washing instructions: “Wet hands under running water, add soap, and rub all parts of hands and fingers for 15 seconds.”

Now, aside from the delight I receive by realizing that I’ve duped American taxpayers into paying to post hand washing instructions, I get great pleasure out of the focus of this government attempt at good fatherhood.

After all, my friends.  As you know, man does not live by bread alone.  There is a Bread of Life, which, if ingested gives eternal life.  No word of that at www.fatherhood.com, fortunately.  And, there is a washing of the water of the Word, which cleanses the soul.  No word of that at www.fatherhood.com, fortunately.

You see, my friends, there is benefit in keeping the outside of one’s body clean, and the inside well fed on physical food.  But the greater benefit comes from cleansing of the soul through daily interaction with the Word of God (blechhhh!) which feeds and cleans for an eternal benefit.

But do you think that any US government bureaucrats have a clue as to eternal values?  And do you think any of those clueless have any additional clue that fathers are the key to a healthy total child?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Even asking the question is silly, I know.

But I had to ask.

So now you know.

Picture This: My Rights Over Yours

Posted in christians, homosexuality, liberty, marriage, same sex marraige, toleration on June 10, 2012 by The Temptress

Pictures.

Mmmmmmm…. I absolutely adore pictures, my dear ones.

Well, most of them.

So many of my friends and servants to my Master are seduced by single photographs, even addicted to them, to the point where some of them act out in our favor in real life… just because of a picture or two.  It’s so easy!

I have the pleasure of using many photographers for my work.  I want to let you in on some of my personal favorites as far as photos go:  anorexic models (aka clothes hangers) to convince young girls that they need to starve themselves to be beautiful, Hollywood stars with fake everything to convince women that they need to have certain perfect measurements to measure up, and child porn, hetero porn, gay porn… I love porn!  (Can you tell?)  Just with the click of a button, so many can experience pleasure…

But there is one photographer I am not happy with today.

In a story found here, this photographer refused to provide her services to a lesbian couple, and is now, thankfully, being sued.  I quote: “According to the court’s verdict, the trouble began for Elane Photography when the company was contacted by lesbian Vanessa Willock asking if they could photograph a ‘commitment ceremony’ for a Willock and her ‘partner.’ The company, owned by Christian couple Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, responded stating that they only shoot traditional weddings, and do not do ‘same-sex weddings,’ but thanked Willock for her interest.”

Excuse me… where does this Christian (bleeecccchhhh!) get off trying to exert her First Amendment rights to photograph whom SHE wants to?

I completely support the lesbian couple for their lawsuit to take away the rights of Christians and their businesses to do business according to their beliefs.  I like the fact that they are bullying the Christians.  Good for them!  In fact, I think they should bully other religious persuasions as well.  You go, girls!

I hate the stupid First Amendment.  After all, what matters is that whoever has the loudest mouth, the biggest guns, the most power, and the most money, is the one who gets to rule.

That way, I and my Master get to rule, too.

Hm hm hm hm hm…. 😉

Always yours,

Temptress

Obama supports gay marriage? Surprise?

Posted in homosexuality, liberals, marriage, Obama, political correctness, same sex marraige with tags , on May 13, 2012 by devilbloggger

Really?

I was amused this week, my friends, at all the feigned surprise when my beelzebud Obama actually came out of his CINO (Christian in name only) closet to support gay marriage.  REALLY?  Really?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

It’s news that Obama supports gay marriage?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh, I love the world I’ve created where one’s actions are ignored and their words, as empty or lying as they may be, are taken at two-face value.  In this case, the fact that people actually “wondered” what Obama’s views on same-sex marriage might be proves my great power on earth.

Let me impart some wisdom to you, my readers.  This will come as no surprise to long-time readers of this blog.  (You can search on “Obama” to see all my brilliant analysis of this, my favorite US citizen).  But I’ll tell you a sure-fire (so to speak) way to know everything Obama would do for any given topic.

Ready?

Here it is: for any given topic, subject, decision, statement, etc., simply ask yourself what would Satan do (WWSD)?

Alternatively, you could ask WWJD, and then do the opposite.  In every case, however, you will find that WWOD is exactly the same as WWSD.

In this case, for example, between Jesus and I (moi) which one supports same-sex marriage?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And Obama?

See how easy it is?

Obama, my CINO-in-chief, thrills me with his consistent faithfulness in carrying out my will on earth as it is in Hell.

In fact, I challenge you, my servants, to come up with one decision, policy, action, or other verifiable display of belief that could not easily be inserted as an answer to the question, “WWSD?”

Try it.

It’s like a game.

A game that illustrates an important game that I’m winning.

Because I’m Liberal One.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Me and Rush Limbaugh’s big mouth!

Posted in abortion, freedom, Government, marriage, Obama, political correctness, politics, Sexual revolution, Truth with tags , , , on March 6, 2012 by devilbloggger

Fluke.

It’s not a fluke, I suppose, my friends.  And it’s not your fault.  I leaked some kingdom knowledge in my February 12th post, and I forgot to remind you to keep it confidential.  And one of you must have blabbed.  It looked bad, and I’ve laid low this past week trying to salvage my self-inflicted bad fluck–I mean luck.

My faithful readers will understand.

Just weeks ago I was beaming with pride as the American liberals insisted on putting their hands on (and in) women’s bodies by dictating through their dictator that all forms of birth control must now be dictated as part of the welfare dole for all women.

Imagine my delight in the twisted logic of liberals:  Liberal women love to chant “Keep your hands off my body” when they want the government-sanctioned right to kill the products of conception.  But they chant “Put your hands on my body” when they want the government-sanctioned right to free contraception.

Go figure.

Liberal women see no inconsistency in demanding control of other people’s money because they have no control over their own money, much less their own bodies.

I was ahead of the spin curve on this, my friends, and it almost cost me dearly.

Recall that I previously dealt with the controversy of the Obama administration’s demand that all employers, including those having a Biblically informed religious conscience, pay for all forms of contraception of its employees.

At the time I was revelling in my great success in confounding the Americans with mediaswirlification around “women’s rights” and “religious liberties.”

But what everyone was missing was my main goal in this, which went to the heart of freedom!  Yes, everyone seemed to be missing the fact that a modern dictator was dictating to private entities what they must provide free to others.

The dictator was dictating that other people must, based on His Dictateness alone, pay for the sex needs of all women everywhere, including one Ms. Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old privileged law student going to one of the most expensive law schools in the country.

In a fit of pride, I gloated a rhetorical question: “Where are the sane Americans?”

Remember?

And then I asked this fateful question:

Where is someone to stand up and tell Ms. Keely and Ms. Sandra to stop begging for someone else’s money and control their own friggin’ bodies or go pay for their own damn birth control?

Well, that’s when my luck turned, and out of nowhere surfaced One Sane American.

My fit of pride became fit to be tied as I listened daily for the next week or so as One Rush Limbaugh, a seemingly singular voice of sanity, picked up on my tactic and drove home the point daily: this issue is bigger than “women” and “religion;” it goes to the heart of FREEDOM.

Blechhhh!

Did someone leak my kingdom strategy to Mr. Limbaugh?

Of course someone did.

But what was I to do?  Mr. Limbaugh has an audience of millions, an engaging (sometimes enraging) style, and a way of putting the complex into simple terms that anyone but liberals can understand.

He is Conservative One, and he nailed this one: on what basis should taxpayers or insurers (i.e., other people) be required to pay for women’s recreational (and apparently uncontrollable) sex needs?

I recall one of Mr. Limbaugh’s more lucid analogies.  He imagined a neighbor knocking at his door and telling him that she didn’t have any money for birth control.  And then, after getting a “so what?” look from him, he imagined her telling him that she wanted him to pay for her birth control.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

But that is exactly what Ms. Fluke is doing.

Exactly.

Ms. Fluke is knocking on every American’s door and demanding that they pay her so she can go get contraception to have all the sex she wants with guys who are apparently getting all the free sex they want.

And I was truly worried that Mr. Limbaugh’s golden microphone might blow my stratetacticification.

And then. . .

Oh, am I one lucky devil.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Mr. Limbaugh, in trying to illustrate absurdity said what many were thinking–paying for Ms. Fluke’s lack of self-control and sex life?  What does that make her??

What do you call women who have no self-control in the area of sex, and take other people’s money for it?

But, of course, the days when loose women were shamed are long gone.

Now, Ms. Fluke’s parents are supposed to be proud of her.

Hey, I know I am.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And Mr. Limbaugh?

Well, he flew a little too close to the flame.

Conservative One, meet Liberal One.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

(Oh, but he’ll be back.)

Blechhhh!

Polygamy: It’s very big o’ me.

Posted in homosexuality, marriage, polygamy with tags on July 25, 2011 by devilbloggger

UPDATE:  The first paragraph of this post has been updated from the original to correct a misleading idea.  Hey, almost no one’s perfect!!
 
Quote of the Day:  Like magic, my servants, I’m making another of God’s precious gifts to humanity disappear: marriage. — Marriage is for old people

Polygamy.

Did you ever wonder, my servants, who made the rule that men can have only one wife and who wants to change that rule?  Here’s a hint to answer who wants it changed: the question rarely arises in the alternative — whether a woman can have more than one husband. 

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Hey, but seriously, if men and women are mere accidents of nature, who cares if one accident prefers to be married to two or more other accidents?  In other words, when it comes to whether polygamy is wrong, the real question is who sez?

Yeah, who sez??

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Every deviant and perverted societal ill begins with someone asking, who sez?

Here’s a kingdom truth, my friends: when morality is based on no recognized authority higher than man, you get man’s moral authority, which is to say morality for the moment mandated by man-decree. 

I sez, sez some strong man, and if the strong man who sez it is stronger than you, then your behavior is forced by his morality.  Which, happily, ultimately mirrors my morality.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Don’t believe me?  Look at how I got boyboysex and girlgirlsex accepted in the world, and especially in the United States. 

Is boyboysex wrong? 

Who sez?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And what about polygamy?  What is to stop polygamy from becoming legally protected the world over?

As one astute commenter to my earlier teaser post indicated, the question is largely relevant only to the West, and particularly to the United States.  Consider: according to BigThink.com, polygyny, which is virtually the only form of polygamy practiced in the world, is actually widely practiced.

Though reviled in the West, polygyny is actually quite common throughout the world. According to the Ethnographic Atlas, studying over a thousand societies from 1962-1980, there were over 1,000 polygamous societies, compared to just 186 monogamous ones.

Those are good numbers, no?  And the practice is even alive and well in the US.  According to a study quoted by BigThink.com:

Polygamy is alive and well in parts of America. According to researchers at Brigham Young University, there are 30,000 to 50,000 people currently living a polygamist lifestyle in the United States, many of them in sects that splintered from the mainstream Mormon church when it renounced polygamy in 1890. A separate study reported on NPR estimates that 50,000 to 100,000 Muslims in America may be quietly living polygamist lives.

My friends, let me be clear: I love polygamy.  You may find that belittling to your righteous notions of marriage, but I find it big o’ me.  (Ha ha ha ha ha, I wish I made that up, but I didn’t).

So you can imagine my amusement, my friends, when someone brought me an article from today’s Daily Caller,  entitled, ” Why the polygamist rights movement will never succeed.”

What?  A mere mortal question my ability to force my will on earth as it is in Hell?

Yes, and this mortal, a chap named Peter Tucci, beautifully illustrates exactly how I achieve my will on earth: by underestimating the power of  a small group of persistent sinners to eventually impose their sin on all of society.

Mr. Tucci first correctly salutes my great success in forcing legal boyboysex and girlgirlsex on a gagging society, by noting that:

It’s hard to say that gay marriage should be legal but polygamy shouldn’t. After all, if the government has no business telling people who they can or cannot marry, why can it tell people how many people they can marry?

Yes, what role does government play in stopping the foistmentation of legalized sin on a hapless society?
 
Mr. Tucci further notes:
On Wednesday, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley made a civil libertarian case for legalizing the practice in a New York Times op-ed. And Canada, which legalized gay marriage in 2005, may be on the verge of becoming the first Western country to legalize polygamy.

In other words, when it comes to polygamy in the West, I have almost achieved my will on a part of earth as it is in Hell.  My goal, of course, is to achieve the festering sore of sexual deviancy on all of earth, especially in the United States.

Which is why I just loved Mr. Tucci’s soothing salve:

But social conservatives shouldn’t fret, because polygamy won’t be legal in America anytime soon.

Why not fret? you ask. 

I’m glad you asked, because it allows me to illustrate the kind of thinking that greases the intellectual skids for sliding my lovely will into society.

Here is Mr. Tucci’s first slippery reason:

One problem for polygamy supporters is the fact that there are only, at most, a few hundred thousand polygamists in the United States. The small size of the polygamist population means that polygamists can’t sway elections by themselves — they lack the money and votes.

It need not be about elections, Mr. Tucci.  In the United States, all selfish old men need do is convince five Supreme Court justices that they have a constitutional right to multiple subjugants.

And if the Court is in the mood, make no mistake about it, the Court will do the same thing it did with abortion and gay marriage: discover the brilliance of the Founding Fathers’ ability to enshrine a multitude of human sins as human “rights” in secret code language only they (the Court) can rightly discern. 

Second, Mr. Tucci applies some grease to my sin-skids by showing he’s never heard of the boiling frog trick:

To succeed, the polygamist rights movement would have to rely on the sympathy of non-polygamists. But that sympathy doesn’t exist. According to a May 2011 Gallup poll, just 11% of Americans consider polygamy to be morally acceptable.

Sympathy?  What sympathy was there for legally protected boyboysex 20 years ago, Mr. Tucci?  Or 10 years ago?  Or 5 years ago? 

Hey, the frog is still smiling!

And here’s Mr. Tucci’s last oily reason for keeping the frog smilingly swimming in its own soup:

Another major barrier to a polygamist rights movement is the lack of a natural constituency for it. Conservatives oppose polygamy for traditional reasons. Liberals oppose polygamy because they think that polygamist relationships subjugate women.

Really, Mr. Tucci?  You think liberals care about subjugating women? 

Really?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Remember, my friends, I am Liberal One.  Trust me on this one.

Here’s my little secret: liberals like to think they are against subjugating anyone, when in fact the very policies liberals support lead to subjugation of every class for which they deem themselves protectors.

The poor?  Liberals subjugate the poor to the oppression of dependency-induced freeloading.

Minorities?  Liberals subjugate minorities to the shame of affirmative racism and sexism, depriving individuals of the satisfaction of earned success.

And, of course, women?  Liberals subjugate women by supporting abortion rights which ultimately serve merely to render sex consequence-free for lusting men.

So, my friends, you see how I impose my will on earth as it is in Hell.

Very soon the monogamy frog will be happily dead.

And then little screwed-up Johnny will have two legally protected ways to have two mommies!

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Moral awakening? Or malleable Jesus?

Posted in Bible, christians, False religion, homosexuality, marriage, political correctness, religion, same sex marraige with tags , , , on May 11, 2011 by devilbloggger

Malleable.

Oh, how I love [a malleable] Jesus
Oh, how I love [a malleable] Jesus
Oh, how I love [a malleable] Jesus
Because he first loved me [and affirms me in my chosen lifestyle because he loves everyone regardless of their selfish love of their abominable unrepented sin].

Do you know that song?  I put in brackets the words Jesus hears when most American Christians sing this old-time favorite.  Don’t believe me?  I have two confirmatory articles today, my servants. 

The first comes from CNNs Belief Blog, in which author Stephen Prothero makes a very astute observation about American Christianity.  In a piece entitled, My Take: Poll on bin Laden’s death reveals a disposable Jesus, Prothero comments on his observations of the various responses of Christians and those who call themselves Christians in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s homecoming.  Most insightfully, Prothero concludes:

One thing that struck me hard while researching my 2003 “American Jesus” book was how malleable Jesus is in the American imagination. Instead of lording over American life, telling us what to do, he seems to be taking orders from us, carrying our water.

Ha ha ha ha ha. 

How true!

Or, as he put it back then:

The American Jesus is more a pawn than a king, pushed around in a complex game of cultural (and countercultural) chess, sacrificed here for this cause and there for another.

Do you not agree?  Let me give you an example of Prothero’s insight in action.  Virginia’s Episcopalians will have to move a little further to God’s left, because the Presbyterian Church (USA) just voted their way to a moral awakening to allow openly gay and lesbian people to become ordained ministers.

I know, my servants.  I know.

I am good.  But this is not about me, per se, it’s about those who believe my lies, and I have many true believers, even in the Presbyterian Church (USA).  You can read all about it in the Huffington Post in a piece by The Rev. Dr. Janet Edwards (Presbyterian minister).  My good servant Edwards reports Christianity’s turn to morality with some glee in a piece entitled, “The Moral Awakening of Mainstream Christianity.”

Ha ha ha ha ha.

The Presbyterian Church (USA), Mainstream Christianity?

From my view, it is neither.

But anyway, my servants, Ms. Edwards (Presbyterian minister) has much to say that pleases me, and shows the truth of Mr. Prothero’s hypothesis of a truly malleable Jesus.

Ms. Edwards (Presbyterian minister) reports even before all the votes came in the following:

With over half of the presbyteries now voting “yes,” our church has taken a bold step towards inclusion that brings the third largest Mainline Christian denomination more in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ; that His love embraces all.

Do you see Jesus all malleabled up in her mushy humanness?  The reason ordaining gays and lesbians is “in line” with the teachings of Jesus Christ is because “His love embraces all.”

Hey, Ms. Edwards (Presbyterian minister), why, then do you not ordain open pedophiles, open ax murderers, open wife beaters, open drug addicts, open blasphemers, sinners openly flaunting what Jesus condemns — oops, sorry, you already ordain that last one.

Why not?

No, really, why not?  If Jesus’ “love embraces them all” why not ordain anyone and everyone?

Why not ordain me?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you see my lie in action, my servants?  Ms. Edwards (Presbyterian minister) has a very malleable Jesus, a Jesus who “is more a pawn than a king, pushed around in a complex game of cultural chess.” 

Squishing Jesus into an almost unrecognizable shape, Ms. Edwards (Presbyterian minister) provides this end that justifies her squishing means:

With 76% of Americans identifying themselves as Christian, it’s critically important that progressives of faith give witness and show how Scripture supports the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people into our churches, communities, and civil institutions.

Here we see a major flaw in her justificationization.  Let me impart some kingdom truth for you, my servants.  Please keep these truths confidential; this is kingdom knowledge for your eyes only.  Here it is:  

First, Christians are not those who “identify themselves” as Christians.  Christians are those whom God has worked an inward work of faith resulting in a heart-changed desire to please Him by obeying His word.

Second, trust me on this one, my servants, “progressives of faith” are rarely, if ever, Christians.  Yes, they “identify themselves” as Christians, but that’s because their “Christ” is a squished up version of the true Christ.

Third, to say that “Scripture supports the full inclusion of lesbian, gay . . . into our churches” is only meaningful if Ms. Edwards (Presbyterian minister) is willing to keep the list going with “open pedophiles, open ax murders, and the like.  Scripture says the same thing about pedophiles as it does about lesbians. 

Of course, let’s hope that never happens because that might cause a true moral awakening!

Obama: No more defense, but plenty of offense

Posted in marriage, Obama, same sex marraige with tags , , on February 24, 2011 by devilbloggger

Marriage.

My servants, I must bask in a little victory today.  I read in Worldmag.com today in an article entitled “No more defense,” that President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder declared the United States’ Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.  My servants, my kingdom hardly gets any better than this.

Obama, who I’ve said before is the gift that keeps on taking, continues to do my bidding on virtually every front.  Think about it:

  • He lied when he said previously, with regards to DOMA, “We have a duty to uphold existing law.” 
  • He cheated when a reporter asked whether the administration would quit defending DOMA in court and his then-White House spokesman Robert Gibbs respond, “We can’t declare the law unconstitutional.” 
  • And he stole when, yesterday, he deemed the act, which Congress passed in 1996 under President Clinton, unconstitutional.

Lying.  Cheating. Stealing.  Like a marionette, my servants.  Sometimes my arms get tired.

Many of you think I take too much credit but you are wrong.  Who else could get someone to say with their mouth they are a Christian and act out their life in almost perfect harmony with my will? 

Who?

Do not doubt me, my servants.  I have found a vessel of dishonor in President Obama, and I have nurtured a populace that yawns when he “deems” a God-honoring federal law unconstitutional.  Obama may put up no more defense of marriage, but he puts up plenty of offense to God.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

DOMA, you see,  defines marriage as between a man and a woman and bars federal benefits to same-sex couples.  To show just how much in blind bondage I have the Americans, consider the following little quiz.

Based on your own gut, without over analyzing, answer the following eight questions YES or NO:

  1. Is God for marriage being defined in its traditional form, i.e., as between a man and a woman?
  2. Am I against marriage being defined in its traditional form?
  3. Did God ordain marriage between a man and a woman as sacred?
  4. Do I seek to ignore or destroy the sacredness of marriage as between a man and a woman?
  5. Did God design the first marriage as between a man and a woman?
  6. Do I try to foil the design of marriage by designing and introducing unnatural forms as natural and legally protected?
  7. Does God stand for what is right and proper, regardless of popularity?
  8. Do I stand for what is expedient, regardless of long term harm to individuals and society?

If you answered truthfully you would have answered YES to every question above, because YES is the self-evidently right answer to each.

Now, to prove my point about Obama, for every even-numbered question substitute “Obama” for “I” (along with “Is” and “Does”, etc.) and see if the answers change.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

See?

Hey, let Obama say he’s a Christian all he wants.  If he’s a Christian, I’m a Christian.  We can all be Christians!

Do you, Satan, take this man Obama, as your lawfully wedded man servant, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish ’till death do you meet?

I do.

%d bloggers like this: