End Times and Current Events
June 26, 2017, 10:25:32 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

first Gays, now polygamy! upnext? Chickens!!!

Shoutbox
June 21, 2017, 05:50:35 pm Romans 8 says: Mark, I don't want to flood your pm box. But just wanted to say I emailed bro Scott about this issue.
April 29, 2017, 05:20:18 am Christian40 says: What i'm thinking a strike on North Korea possible on some occultic date May 1? the aftermath of WW3 will bring in the Antichrist? Yeah Mayhem in May?
April 20, 2017, 04:55:44 pm Mark says:
April 06, 2017, 09:26:29 pm Mark says: TRUMP LAUNCHES 50+ MISSILES AIMED AT SYRIA
March 05, 2017, 01:16:17 am Christian40 says: i hope the rapture is this year i encourage You to keep working for the Lord
March 05, 2017, 01:06:24 am Christian40 says: i'm glad that the summer is over in Australia the heat was making me feel crazy its a good month to be in now
February 19, 2017, 07:55:44 am Romans 8 says: The month of February just FLIES BY, doesn't it? It being a < 30 day month helps too! (Unusually warm this month too!)
January 24, 2017, 09:38:51 pm Romans 8 says:
January 16, 2017, 07:17:24 pm Romans 8 says:
October 24, 2016, 03:38:23 am Christian40 says: i'm here again i get bonus time on the Net today Smiley
View Shout History
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: first Gays, now polygamy! upnext? Chickens!!!  (Read 2703 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« on: July 12, 2011, 06:24:50 pm »



Sister Wives family to challenge Utah polygamy laws

The family featured on the reality TV series "Sister Wives," about an ad executive and four women he calls spouses, is going to court to challenge the government's right to criminalize its lifestyle, the family's lawyer said on Tuesday.

The family, in a lawsuit to be filed on Wednesday, will challenge Utah's bigamy statute. It is not trying to get the government to recognize plural marriage, just to stay out of the intimate affairs of consenting adults.

"We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs," family attorney Jonathan Turley said in a statement.

"Sister Wives", which has just concluded its second season, premiered in the U.S. on the TLC cable network in September, earning strong ratings while also drawing the attention of authorities in the Utah town of Lehi, south of Salt Lake city, where the family shared a large house.

The show documents the world of Kody Brown, then 41, and the four women he lives with -- Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn -- along with their children, as they seek to fit in with mainstream society while maintaining their religious beliefs in plural marriage.

Brown is legally married to just one of the women, but counts the three others as "sister wives," a term in polygamous sects that refers to a husband's multiple marital partners.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/12/us-polygamy-utah-idUSTRE76B6TJ20110712
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 06:26:57 pm by Dok » Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8

Social Buttons

Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2011, 07:00:12 am »

'Sister Wives' Family Challenging Polygamy Law; No Surprise to Christians


Conservatives can say I told you so as Kody Brown of the TLC show "Sister Wives" plans to file a lawsuit Wednesday against Utah's ban on polygamy. Conservatives have been warning lawmakers that amending laws governing moral sexual behavior would open the floodgates for all kinds of consensual sexual relationships including polygamy. Now one Christian leader warns that America is falling into a downward spiral of sin.

Brown's attorney, Jonathan Turley, says he will argue that the arrangement between Brown and his four wives, Robyn, Christine, Meri and Janelle, is consensual and one made in the privacy of their own household and should therefore be legal. He is basing his assertion on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning sodomy laws for the benefit of gay couples.

In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the majority ruled that the state could not prosecute people for engaging in private, consensual sexual behavior.

Justice Antonin Scalia, known to be a conservative, dissented, warning in his written opinion that the ruling could question other laws trying to rein in immoral and unacceptable sexual behaviors such as "fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity."

Richard Land, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, also warned that medding with laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act – which defines marriage as between a man and a woman – encourages others to challenge the definition of marriage.

rest: http://www.christianpost.com/news/sister-wives-family-challenging-polygamy-law-no-surprise-to-christians-52193/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2011, 07:10:45 am »

Lets look at the similiar code words/tactics being used here.

consensual sexual relationships
is consensual and one made in the privacy of their own household and should therefore be legal.
the state could not prosecute people for engaging in private, consensual sexual behavior.
encourages others to challenge the definition of marriage.
'Well that's wrong.' According to you. Who are you to impose your morality on someone else?”
"Who are you to impose your morality on someone else?" are asserting that "the ultimate value is self-fulfillment."
“We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs.
 to end the stereotypes and unfair treatment

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2011, 06:45:46 am »

Reality TV polygamists sue for right to lifestyle choice - gay media repudiates

gay media repudiates  Cheesy that is so funny, what only the gays can have special rights? what a bunch of hypocrites

The polygamous stars of a TLC reality TV series are planning to challenge Utah’s law against bigamy, arguing that it is a violation of their right to a lifestyle choice consistent with their religious beliefs.

Pro-family activists have long warned that redefining marriage to include two men or two women would inevitably lead to legalized polygamy, with polygamists employing the “equality” and “consensual” rhetoric of the gay rights movement. However, gay rights commentators immediately distanced themselves from the polygamists’ suit, with one prominent commentator calling it “a political gift to anti-gay groups nationwide.”

Jonathan Turley, an attorney for the ‘Sister Wives’ stars, told the Associated Press in an email that he would file the lawsuit Wednesday. Turley represents Kody Brown and the four women he calls his wives: Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn.

“We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage,” wrote Turley on his blog. “We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs.”

The lawsuit, wrote Turley, “is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values - even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state.”

Utah attorney general spokesman Paul Murphy told the AP that the state would defend the law, noting, “So far the courts have held that states do have an interest to regulate marriage.”

In previous interviews, Kody Brown has pushed for social acceptance of his definition of marriage as a “civil rights” issue. “Part of our reason for ‘coming out’ is it’s a story that needs to be told,” Brown told the New York Daily News.

The legal development was widely noted by gay news services and blogs, many of which proactively scuttled any comparison between polygamy and same-sex “marriage.” Joe Jarvis of the Joe My God blog called the suit “a political gift to anti-gay groups nationwide,” and a Queerty article discouraged support for the Browns’ lawsuit among gay activists.

Bo Shell of the GA Voice agreed that the comparison was one of “old gay apples to polygamist oranges” - but nonetheless conceded a certain prominent point of contact.

“Rather than running for the hills in fear that I might prove anti-gay activists right, I’ll stand firm in my belief that the Browns, saying nothing of marriage equality, are beginning a fight that should draw immediate empathy from gay folks: the right to do whatever they chose in their own homes in private, consensual matters that don’t involve the government,” wrote Shell.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/reality-tv-polygamists-sue-for-right-to-lifestyle-choice-gay-media-repudiat
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 06:53:04 am by Dok » Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2011, 07:55:14 am »

Same-sex 'marriage' gateway to legal polygamy

Some are questioning the seriousness of a move currently under way in Colorado to repeal the state's Defense of Marriage Act.

A college student has filed a request to place the proposed repeal on a future ballot, but there is no indication that it is backed by any "gay marriage" advocacy group.

Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family's CitizenLink explains that two ballot issues arose in 2006. The approval of the first amended the state constitution to define marriage in the traditional fashion.

"The other was a domestic partnership civil union-type measure. That was defeated," Earll reports. "So actually in 2006, the people [of Colorado] were very clear that they wanted marriage to be between one man and one woman -- and they didn't want counterfeit marriage to come in through another alternative."

But she cites another reason for believing Colorado residents should be wary of any further challenge to traditional marriage.

"We are seeing growing evidence that the polygamists are moving forward in their attempts to redefine marriage to being more than one spouse," the Focus spokesperson warns. "To use the same-sex 'marriage' arguments will be one of the best ways that they will be able to achieve that."

If the attorney general's office approves the ballot language to repeal the defense of marriage amendment, supporters will have to obtain roughly 86,000 signatures before taking the issue to voters.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1398340
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2011, 08:35:14 am »

APA fending for ped.ophiles?

Several well-known researchers recently made unexpected arguments on pedophilia at an academic conference in Baltimore.

Liberty Counsel Action's Matt Barber attended the conference and says he felt he was on a different planet, as the presenting professionals aimed to remove pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," (DSM). That would mean that pedophilia would no longer be considered a mental disorder.

"The entire focus of the event was on the victimhood of the ped.ophiles," Barber accounts. There was "very little concern for the children who are the victims of these individuals when they are raped, who these individuals lust after."

And he says the experts' discussions were focused on "destigmatizing pedophilia ... removing the stigma, and [getting] the public to stop demonizing ped.philes."

But the attorney reports that the APA is already moving toward declassifying pedophilia as a mental disorder "by saying that a **** is only a **** in their latest DSM ... if they are distressed by their attractions or behaviors."

So Barber decides that would bring the APA one step closer to de-classifying pedophilia as a mental disorder, as they did homosexuality in the 1970s.

Concerning that issue, the APA board has also voted unanimously to endorse homosexual "marriage," which comes as no surprise to one traditional marriage activist, since the organization has contributed to 11 amicus briefs since 2004 in court cases that favor same-sex marriage. (Listen to audio report)

"The fact that the vote was 157 to nothing shows the liberal groups think that's at work in the APA," suggests Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). "I mean, these guys are like on another planet. In the real world, same-sex so-called marriage is very controversial, and society is divided over it. But in the APA, at least in this vote -- 157 to nothing -- everybody's for it."

But he is not convinced that all members would agree with the vote, so he is certain politics is at work within the organization.

"For them to say that opposition to same-sex marriage is causing psychological distress among lesbians and gays, I mean these guys have it completely backward," LaBarbera contends. "The reality is that self-described homosexuals and lesbians, they do have psychological problems because homosexuality is a perversion."

The AFTAH president adds that organizations like the APA "are ideologically and liberal left, and they're now at war with traditional and conservative America."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1413686
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2011, 05:42:45 am »

Baltimore conference: Normalize ped0philia
Exclusive: Les Kinsolving rips papers that failed to cover jaw-dropping sex confab


While I was on a brief vacation in Wyoming, Johns Hopkins University's Dr. Fred Berlin gave the keynote address at a Baltimore conference hosted by the latest pedophilia-acceptance group, called B4U-ACT.

This new organization differs from the North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, in that it comprises not only ped0philes, but also those who are not in that sexual orientation and want it to be publicly acceptable.

Among the 50 people who were in attendance at this outrageous event were two from Virginia's Liberty University, Matt Barber and Dr. Judith Reisman, who exposed it.

The Baltimore Sun, Washington Post and New York Times had no coverage of this event, which was attended by a number of admitted ****s – or, as this conference re-labeled them, "minor-attracted persons."

Among "highlights" of this conference, as reported by Barber and Reisman:

Ped0philes are "unfairly stigmatized and demonized" by society.


"Anglo-Americans' standard on age of consent is new (and 'puritanical'). In Europe, it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They've always been able to have sex at any age."


"An adult's desire to have sex with children is 'normative.'"


Our society should "maximize individual liberty. We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty."


Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to that witnessed at the conference, rather than scientific considerations that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder.


"The majority of ped0philes are gentle and rational."


The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders should "focus on the needs" of the ped0phile, and should have "a minimal focus on social control," rather than obsessing about "the need to protect children."


Self-described "gay activist" and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be "the object of our attention." He further objectified children, suggesting that ped0philes needn't gain consent from a child to have sex with "it" any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) "on or with" a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said in a statement:

"The mainstream media never tire of lambasting the Catholic Church for not responding strongly enough to allegations of sexual abuse of minors, yet these very same people show absolutely no interest in reporting on attempts to legitimize ped0philia. Many in the mental-health profession who seek to normalize ped0philia met last week in Baltimore, at an event that was summarily ignored by the media.

"B4U-ACT is the driving force behind this movement. It's goal is to reconceptualize our thinking about what they politely call 'minority-attracted persons.' If they had it their way, sex between adults and minors would no longer be taboo, and pedophilia would no longer be listed as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association."

That there has been no coverage of B4U-ACT in the Baltimore Sun, the Washington Post and the New York Times attests not only to their immorality, but also to their growing loss of subscribers.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=339113
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2011, 06:13:20 am »

Santorum: If marriage is for people who ‘love,’ why limit it ‘to just two people? Why not 10?’


If two people should be allowed to get married simply because they “love” one another, then why limit marriage “to just two people?” asked Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum in a recent interview. “Why not three people? Why not 10 people?  […] Why not [allow] nieces and aunts to marry?”

The former senator was responding to the arguments of gay “marriage” advocates, who say two people of the same sex who are in love should be allowed to “marry.”

“If marriage means ‘anyone who is in love,’ well, then, let everybody who is in love get married,” added the senator wryly.

Santorum made the remarks during an interview with Douglas Burns, co-publisher of The Carroll Daily Times Herald, last Thursday, August 25th.

Burns grilled the presidential candidate on his views about homosexual “marriage,” asking him, “How does the fact that there are a handful of gay couples married in Carroll [Iowa] affect my heterosexual life and your heterosexual life?”

“Because it changes the definition of an intrinsic element of society in a way that minimizes what that bond means to society,” retorted Santorum.

“Marriage is what marriage is. Marriage was around before government said what it was.”

The presidential candidate outlined a clearly definition of marriage, saying that it is exclusively a “union between a man and a woman […] for the purposes of having and rearing children and for the benefit of both the man and the woman involved in that relationship.”

Santorum argued that marriage is an “intrinsic value to society” because it creates “stable families of men and woman bonded together to raise children.”

“Young children are being indoctrinated as to what normal is.”

REST: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/santorum-if-marriage-is-for-people-who-love-why-limit-it-to-just-two-people
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2011, 08:05:43 am »

Will Same-Sex Marriage Lead to Legalized Polygamy?

Joe Darger and his three wives, Alina, Vicki and Valeri, are not seeking the right to marry, like same-sex couples in states throughout the country. The Utah foursome simply wants their polygamous marriage to be decriminalized.

Joe, Alina and Vicki appeared Friday on "The O’Reilly Factor," which airs on Fox News. They currently are promoting a book, Love Times 3, which the polygamous foursome jointly authored.

Darger and his wives said they are “independent fundamentalist Mormons” and that polygamy is accepted practice in their faith. As such, said husband Joe, polygamy “goes back five generations” in his family lineage.

Joe Darger is legally wed to Alina. By also taking Vicki and Valeri as his wives, unlawfully, he is subject to arrest on a felony count. Alina told Bill O’Reilly that the four “should have the right to participate in a polygamous marriage.”

If their four-way marriage does not invite enough scrutiny, there is also the matter of their family size. Altogether, the Dargers have 24 children which they financially support, said husband Joe, by an unspecified family business.

Polygamous families like the Dargers explain why most Americans are confused about the Mormon faith, according to a recent poll conducted by Gary Lawrence, a Mormon and author of Mormons Believe ... What?!.

In response to the question “Do Mormon’s practice polygamy?” 15 percent of those polled answered “definitely yes,” 31 percent answered “probably yes,” and 22 percent had no opinion.

In the mainstream Mormon faith practiced by such prominent adherents as Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, polygamy is punished by excommunication from the Church of Latter-day Saints.

Unfortunately for mainstream Mormons, their faith is often confused with that of independent fundamentalist Mormons, like the Dargers, who do indeed engage in modern day polygamy.

That confusion could grow even more pronounced with an increasing number of states no longer restricting marriage to one man and one woman.

If states recognize same-sex marriage, warned New York City Archbishop Timothy Dolan, it may very well lead lawmakers to “another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/will-same-sex-marriage-lead-to-legalized-polygamy-57640/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
akfools
Guest
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2011, 12:12:20 am »

'If he hadn't wanted more wives, I probably wouldn't have married him': How women are the driving force behind polygamous marriage

By Tamara Abraham

From an outsider's perspective, a man who can convince more than one woman to be married to him at any given time, clearly wears the trousers.

But a new documentary has revealed that it is actually the women instigating polygamous marriage in Mormon communities.

In the newest series of OWN's Our America, two 'sister wives', from Centennial Park, Arizona, describe how they chose their man, rather than the other way around.
Plural marriage: Isaiah (right), 28, from Centennial Park, Arizona, with his two wives Marlene, 28 (left), and Becca, 20 (centre)

Plural marriage: Isaiah (right), 28, from Centennial Park, Arizona, with his two wives Marlene, 28 (left), and Becca, 20 (centre)

Becca, 20, who has been married to Isaiah, 28, for a year and a half, told how she knew he was the one when she spotted him at church.

 
She told host Lisa Ling: 'One day I was in church, and I was sitting with my sister Sharon, and I saw him walk through the door.

'I had a feeling just come over me and I turned to Sharon and I said, yeah, that's who I feel like I belong to.'
Father figure: Isaiah, 28, from Centennial Park, Arizona, has four children with his two wives

Father figure: Isaiah already has four children with his two wives, and a fifth on the way

This was despite the fact that Isaiah had already been married to Marlene, also 28, for eight years already.

Today, Marlene and Becca describe themselves as being married to each other, in the same way that they are married to Isaiah.

And for Marlene, who is just weeks from giving birth to her fourth child, she never imagined marriage any other way.

'If Isaiah had told me that he didn't want this before we got married, I probably wouldn't have married him,' she said.

She says that she and Becca, after some initial teething problems, are 'inseparable'.

'I have, right now, my best friend living with me,' she said. 'I can talk to her about any of my problems. She completely understands because she's married to the same guy.'

Becca, who is now mother to a six-week-old daughter, added: 'I talk to her every day - I probably talk to her more than I talk to Isaiah.'
Inseparable: Becca (left) and Marlene (right) are best friends, and describe themselves as being married to each other, in the same way that they are married to Isaiah

Inseparable: Becca (left) and Marlene are best friends, and describe themselves as being married to each other, in the same way that they are married to Isaiah

Both plan to have many more children, and raise them together.

Marlene explained: 'We didn't want, "This is my child, this is your child". We wanted all of our kids to be raised together, you know, I'm mom, she's mom...

'I grew up with 25 brothers and sisters, and I loved it, and I want that for my kids.'

Speaking on GMA this morning, Lisa Ling explained how powerful Mormon women actually are in instigating plural marriage.

She told how a woman approaches the community's spiritual elders when she 'receives a sign from God' about the man she is supposed to marry.
Young love: Marlene and Isaiah married when they were just 18. When Becca married into the family nine years later, she was only 19

Young love: Marlene and Isaiah married when they were just 18. When Becca married into the family nine years later, she was only 19

She said: 'In this community it's actually the women who dictate who they're going to marry... They believe that at a certain point in their lives, and they don't know when it's going to happen, God will speak to them, and they will know instantly as soon as they see the man.

'The man is completely unaware - when the spiritual elders call them in, they may not even know who the girl is.'

The Church of Latter Day Saints teaches that Jesus was a polygamist, and many people living in Mormon communities, which typically shun media attention, know life no other way.

As Marlene said on Our America: 'I believe that this is the way God lives. And I believe that this is a superior way to live.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2049361/If-hadnt-wanted-wives-I-probably-wouldnt-married-How-women-driving-force-polygamous-marriage.html#ixzz1bUCj90iu
Report Spam   Logged
akfools
Guest
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2011, 12:14:04 am »

Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive. Lev 18:18    




Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2011, 06:54:28 pm »

Polygamy, Polyamory Fail in BC Supreme Court

It’s still illegal to marry more than one spouse in Canada.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that Canadian government has the right to prohibit polygamy and polyamory. The decision rejects an approach that could have had far-reaching effects on traditional marriage in countries around the world. The trial launched last November to examine the various harms of polygamy and polyamory to women, children and society.

ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks noted although some organizations claim that same-sex ‘marriage’ won’t open the door to polygamy and group marriage, that’s what nearly happened in British Columbia.

“Had marriage never been attacked there in the first place, it’s questionable whether this particular assault would have ever occurred,” Nimocks said. “Canada just dodged a bullet for the moment; Americans should take notice because this country need not risk the same thing.”

As ADF attorney Gerald Chipeur sees it, no government should experiment with a practice that has been clearly demonstrated as harmful to women, children, and societies around the world.

“The British Columbia Supreme Court recognized that marriage is about children and parents, and that Parliament has a very important role to play in protecting the family,” Chipeur says. “The court also recognized that Parliament, not the courts, has the authority to define marriage. I am pleased that the chief justice accepted our argument that, under the Constitution of Canada, Parliament may define marriage as no more than two people.”

Chipeur, an ADF allied attorney with the firm Miller Thomson LLP, called Dr. Shoshana Grossbard to testify before the court during the that began late last year. Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF), which was allowed by the court to intervene in the proceedings, presented Grossbard to the court because of her extensive research and expertise on the cross-cultural effects polygamy has on women and society. The evidence she presented established that polygamy is human trafficking in disguise.

Grossbard is one of two CLF experts whose findings were submitted to the court and only one of many witnesses who were examined throughout the proceedings, known as the Constitutional Reference on Polygamy.

The Reference, brought by the attorney general of British Columbia, asked the court to determine if Parliament may prohibit polygamy and polyamory and at the same time uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantee of religious freedom. The court concluded that prohibiting polygamy and other forms of group marriage does not jeopardize religious freedom rights under the Canadian Charter.

http://www.charismanews.com/culture/32404-polygamy-polyamory-fail-in-bc-supreme-court
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2011, 08:11:55 am »

And now incest?: Viral video has parents making out with teen kids

Twenty years ago when advocates of homosexuality were arguing for acceptance of gay sex, their opponents warned that it would lead to pedophilia and incest.  Such whistle blowers were labeled as bigots, haters and worse, and laughed into silence.

However, the warnings are coming true.  While incest may not yet be legal on the books, there is increasing pressure to legitimize it. The following video, which has gone viral on YouTube, might legitimately be seen a part of the conditioning process leading to such legitimization.  It features a high school prank where blindfolded teens are asked to guess who kissed them. Turns out it was their own father or mother.

In the video fathers can be seen passionately kissing their teen daughters on the lips, mothers with their teen sons, one even putting her son’s hand on her derriere, another making out on the floor with her son (although to be fair, one commenter on Youtube who said he was present at the pep rally said the boy tripped when he stepped back and his mother fell on top of him), all to the laughs, cheers, whoops and screams of the school staff and students.

Oh sure, there’s still an ick factor in there somewhere, but the very fact that organizers of this prank could find parents willing to make out with their children is proof enough that the taboo against incest has started to crumble.  It may be “just” a joke now, but even a few years ago such a joke would have been completely unthinkable.

Responding to the controversy over the incident, School District spokesman Tony Taschner told the Star Tribune that the same prank was pulled several years ago at Rosemount High, but, reports the paper, “the kisses were more like pecks on the cheek.” Principal John Wollersheim told the paper, “none of the students or parents involved in the kissing have complained to him.”

For a mere joke, parents are willing to sensually abuse their children? And it is abuse! 

This incident should serve as a wake up call to society. In essence the sexual revolution has been effective in removing the natural revulsion of pedophilia and incest.  Pedophilia and incest are becoming normalized, just as those who warned against the sexual revolution predicted. Remember, it was only a few months ago that we reported on a meeting involving academics from high-level institutions, including Harvard, who met in Baltimore with the aim of destigmatizing “minor-attracted persons” (i.e. pedophiles).

Even though Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote in his dissenting decision to the 2003 US Supreme Court ruling striking down anti-sodomy laws that the decision would lead to allowance of “adult incest, you’d be wrong if you believed that the genesis of all this revolves around acceptance of homosexuality.  That was just another casualty along the road of the revolution which divorced sex from its primary meaning and purpose – procreation.

The concept that sex is first and merely for pleasure, which was immensely aided by the advent of the birth control pill, has wrought untold destruction on the world.  It launched the sexual revolution from which has come rampant pornography, adultery, divorce, promiscuity, homosexuality, sexual abuse, ****, and, more recently, the growing acceptance of pedophilia and incest.

Do you think we’re still far away from societal acceptance of incest?  Think again.

• In 2007, the German brother-sister couple Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski asked the Constitutional Court to overturn the ban on incest.

• Also in 2007 a German Government publication which encouraged parents to sexually stimulate their infant children was only removed after LifeSiteNews and other media exposed it internationally.

• In 2008 the London Times ran an article by an unnamed ‘academic’ promoting incest.  The article was entitled “I had sex with my brother but I don’t feel guilty.”

• Last year in Switzerland there was a legislative proposal to legalize incest between consenting adults.

• And for years Planned Parenthood has been accused of covering up incest via their abortion ‘services’ without suffering severe consequences.

Logically, those without a moral compass formed by God have no basis for vehement objection even to incest - at least consensual contraceptive incest.  As University College London Professor Roland Littlewood put it: “The main problem is, of course, that the couple might produce unhealthy children. But if they don’t have children, then I see no reason why not, in this day and age. But then, I’m a scientist, not a moralist.”

So in the final analysis this news, as gross as it is, presents an opportunity for those who know the truth of God-given morality to speak to their friends and family about the ick factor they experience with incest.  Why is there an intuitive disgust over it when logically, from an amoral atheistic perspective, there is no real basis for such disgust?  The truth is that there is stamped on the human heart the Creator’s natural law and we must recognize it before it is too late.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/and-now-incest-viral-video-has-parents-making-out-with-teen-kids
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2012, 07:55:18 am »

Bestiality brothels spur call for animal sex ban


Madeleine Martin, the animal protection official for Hessian state government, said the law needed to be changed to make sex abuse of animals – known as zoophilia – a crime.

“It is punishable to distribute animal pornography, but the act itself is not,” she told the Frankfurter Rundschau daily paper on Friday.

“There are even animal brothels in Germany,” she said. Sex with animals was being increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice, and thus more acceptable.

“The abuse seems to be increasingly rapidly, and the internet offers an additional distribution platform,” she said.

She said the justice authorities had found it exceptionally difficult to convict a man from Hesse, who had offered pictures and instructions for animal sex abuse over the internet.

“Zoophilia must be completely banned in the reformed animal protection law,” said Martin, referring to the governments plan to rework that section of the law.

Sex with animals was banned until 1969, when the animal protection law was introduced, but failed to include a specific ban on zoophilia, the Frankfurter Rundschau said.

Martin said the current legal situation makes it too difficult for authorities to intervene – an animal has to be shown to have massive injuries before the animal protection laws prescribe action.

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120203-40531.html
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2012, 06:20:51 am »

'Transgender marriage' up next?
Court of Human Rights asked to halt 'social engineering'


A crucial case on marriage and family set to be heard by the European Court of Human Rights offers the increasingly controversial institution a chance to undo an error committed a decade ago and stop what Malta’s high court called “social engineering,” according to the European Center for Law and Justice.

Experts say even the U.S., embroiled in its own battle over same-sex marriage, could be affected by the ruling.

The case, Joanne Cassar vs. Malta, centers on a “transgender” person – a man who underwent surgery in 2005 to resemble a woman – seeking government recognition and sanction of a “marriage” to another man.

Following appeals, the deeply Catholic island nation in the Mediterranean Sea eventually refused to grant the plaintiff permission to marry a male partner.

For Cassar, however, the decision was unacceptable. Last summer, Cassar sued the government of Malta with the ECHR, claiming that a “right to marriage” outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.

The European rights court in Strasbourg, which ruled in the landmark 2002 Goodwin vs. United Kingdom judgment that marriage could not be based on biological sex, eventually agreed to hear the case. The outcome, however, is far from certain.

Malta’s constitutional court clearly acknowledged the decade-old marriage ruling by the ECHR, which stated that the European court was “not persuaded that at the date of this case it can still be assumed that these terms [man and woman] must refer to a determination of gender by purely biological criteria.”

However, Malta’s high court refused to apply the ECHR ruling in the Cassar case, arguing that the nation was not bound by the European decision, because the ruling was “social engineering” based on dubious notions of evolving societal norms, not law.

“Transgender people have a medical issue, they need their life to be easy – not too complex – and Malta is ready to do as much as possible to facilitate their daily life in many aspects,” European Center for Law and Justice Director Grégor Puppinck told WND in an interview.

“But when dealing with the issue of marriage and family, the court has to say that the right to marry and form a family is only one right – it’s not two rights – and there is no sense to force a state to give a right to marriage to somebody who does not meet the criteria,” he continued.

Puppinck was referring to the clear language in article 12 of the European Rights Convention.

“Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right,” it states.

According to the ECLJ, which recently filed a third-party brief in the case asking the European court to reverse its controversial 2002 decision, the right to marriage and to found a family are intrinsically linked as one right. And national governments must have the power to protect the institution of marriage by law.

“The Cassar case would be very simple to resolve if we still had a clear understanding of marriage and the role of the court,” the ECLJ brief states. “This case gives the court on opportunity to remold its jurisprudence on a solid foundation.”

The ECHR, charged with ensuring that the Council of Europe’s more than 40 member states respect the European Convention on Human Rights, had been asked since the 1980s to grant marriage rights to transgender people. It consistently refused.

After ruling on multiple occasions that there was no right for transgender or homosexual people to marry under article 12, however,  the court changed its case law through the 2002 Goodwin case. The court ruled that the terms “men” and “women” did not necessarily refer to biological sex. Instead, the ECHR declared, sex could also be determined by so-called “social” identity.

With the ruling, the ECHR purported to impose the highly controversial gender theory on all member states. The court also severed the crucial relationship between the right to marry and the right to form a family – the true purpose of societal recognition and protection of marriage, according to human rights experts.

More importantly, analysts say the ruling removed the universal and objective character of human rights, making them subjective. That determination could eventually lead to the complete destruction of the entire basis and philosophy underpinning human rights, ECLJ said.

“The authority of human rights is derived from their reflection of man’s nature; they are the result of what man is,” the non-profit group noted in its amicus curia brief filed with the court in June, adding that the concept is meant to guarantee the exercise of human capacities – prayer, speech, thought, formation of a family, and more. “Thus, human rights are not arbitrarily defined according to the will of an individual concerning each subject.”

Critics called the 2002 ruling an egregious example of “judicial activism” for the so-called “progressive” cause. Member states, however, have since been pressuring the transnational court to stop imposing its wild interpretations on Europe; and its authority was widely perceived as diminished in the wake of controversial rulings purporting to reinterpret the human rights convention.

Apparently the pressure had an effect, and analysts say the ECHR – after a “crisis” period – is in the process of reform. The court is now engaged in less activism than it was a decade ago because of member states demands.

According to the ECLJ, the Maltese high court ruling, which directly accused the European court of “social engineering,” offers the ECHR a perfect opportunity to undo its controversial 2002 ruling and respect the text of the rights convention.

“We are conscious of the problems of transgender people,” acknowledged ECLJ chief Puppinck, whose organization is asking the court to reverse its Goodwin ruling for several reasons. “But the court of Strasbourg cannot accept the gender theory and re-interpret the convention against its meaning.”

Puppinck explained that so-called “gender theory” is “purely a sociological theory” concocted by ideological sociologists. Essentially, it claims that gender is a “social construct” subject to interpretation and change.

While extraordinarily divisive, efforts to re-define gender and marriage have found some support in the U.S. as well – especially in President Obama’s administration, which has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, as it is required to do.

The U.S. government also has worked in recent years to normalize homosexuality and push homosexual marriage in the military.

“If Europe confirms this approach of making social-sexual identity prevail over the biological one, it would also be difficult for the United States to keep clear laws on marriage,” Puppinck warned. “Of course, the court of Strasbourg and the U.S. Supreme Court collaborate a lot.

“Firstly, from a legal point of view, it’s interconnected, because the case law from the court of Strasbourg is acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the United States, and vice versa,” he said.

“Secondly, from a cultural point of view, there’s no real difference between them, and I think that if the court of Strasbourg continues to go in this gender theory, you have no way to protect marriage,” Puppinck added.

The consequences of upholding the 2002 ruling will be far reaching as well.

“You can make any law you want – as clear as men and women can form a family, as clear as you want – but if you apply the gender theory, it doesn’t mean anything,” Puppinck said. “The words do not mean anything anymore.”

A ruling on the case is expected later this year, but no date has been set. A judgment in favor of the transgender person could spark a whole new conflict, as experts say the Maltese government might well refuse to accept it.

Malta, one of the most religious and conservative nations in Europe, is one of just three pro-life nations in the entire European Union. Even divorce on the small island was not legal until 2011.

“We can imagine that Malta would not easily accept obeying this ruling,” said Puppinck, noting that other national governments had resisted ECHR dictates on separate issues. “It will be interesting to see how the court in Strasbourg will manage the case against Malta.”

If it does end up in a showdown, a spokesman for the ECHR told WND that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe would have to decide on the enforcement measures.

The measures were not specified.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/transgender-marriage-up-next/?cat_orig=us
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2012, 02:07:58 pm »

Quote
Last summer, Cassar sued the government of Malta with the ECHR, claiming that a “right to marriage” outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.

What place does the UN have in an independent nation's business? That's the New World Order. Don't like your country, just claim your rights have been violated under UN treaty, and call in the UN "Peace Keepers" with their blue helmets and AK's. so they can "observe" the situation.

And of course the country is a prime target seeing they seem to be less conforming to the secular NWO, being "one of the most religious and conservative nations in Europe".
Report Spam   Logged
Christian40
Moderators
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3826


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2013, 11:21:27 pm »

A former Dutch MP has admitted that polygamous marriage is the "next logical step" following the introduction of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands.

Speaking to the French online magazine, Yagg, Boris Dittrich said there was now a movement in the Netherlands to introduce multi-partner marriages.

Campaign

Mr Dittrich, who led the campaign that resulted in the introduction of same-sex ‘marriages’ in the Netherlands in 2001, explained how he had pushed for a change in the law.

He admitted that he had started by campaigning for civil partnerships to get members of the public “used to the idea” that same-sex relationships were recognised by the law.

“We thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships”, he said.

“It appeared to be a good decision because people got used to the idea that two men or two women had their relationships recognised by the law and people called it a gay marriage”.

He said that the next logical step was to introduce full same-sex ‘marriages’, and that there was now a “discussion in the Netherlands that sometimes people want to marry with three people and maybe even more”.

Fears

The Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, has expressed fears that politicians would redefine marriage to include “multiple partners” after same-sex 'marriages' were introduced in the state in 2011.

Writing in his blog, Archbishop Dolan said: “The Church has always stood-up for marriage — one man and one woman, united in lifelong and faithful love, leading to new life in children – whenever and wherever it was in danger….And now we ring the steeple bell again at this latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, worried that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity.”

Criticism

Last year, a public notary in Brazil attracted criticism after permitting a civil union between one man and two women.

The youth wing of the Finnish Green Party also proposed the legalisation of polygamy in the country in July 2011, whilst the Toronto District School Board in Canada came under fire after releasing a poster in schools promoting polygamous marriages.

Comment 

Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, said: "The situation in Holland should act as a stark warning to the UK that once marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, pressure will grow for further redefinitions.

"After all, if marriage is reduced by the state to a contract between two people who love each other, there will no longer be any logical reason for prohibiting marriages between three or more people.  Where would we draw the line?"


http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/family/polygamy-is-next-logical-step-says-dutch-same-sex-marriage-campaigner
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2013, 01:23:55 am »

Yep, when there's leaven, there's CONFUSION.

A lot like what you see now here in the USA - when the homosexual agenda slowly but surely became acceptable, then the transgender agenda followed it. Pretty soon, everyone will be demanding every little "right" their heart desires.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2013, 05:11:01 am »

REDEFINE MARRIAGE? INCLUDE POLYGAMY, INCEST
Ex-Archbishop of Canterbury warns same-sex unions threaten institution


Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey is warning lawmakers in the United Kingdom – just an American judge warned years ago – that a redefinition of “marriage” to include same-sex duos would lead to other less-desired results, such as polygamy and incest.

The comments from Carey were reported recently by the Daily Mail, which said Carey told Prime Minister David Cameron that an “equal marriage” proposal would produce unwanted results.

The report said Carey cited under the redefinition that lawmakers are considering there would be no reason to exclude two sisters living together who want to be married and multiple-partner arrangements such as polygamy would have to be supported.

Carey, one of the most prominent campaigners against same-sex “marriage” since Cameron announced his plans for it two years ago, was echoing the comments from a California Supreme Court judge who issued a similar warning when that court created same-sex “marriage” for that state several years ago.

That creation later was struck down by voters, who adopted a state constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman – only.

However, homosexuals appealed to a homosexual judge, who struck down the constitution amendment, and the case now is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. judge who issued the warning was Justice Marvin Baxter of the California Supreme Court.

He dissented from the majority 2008 opinion that created same-sex “marriage” for a short time in the state, and said the consequences of the action were not thought out.

He wrote, “The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. … Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.

“Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”

His warning?

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

His comments largely were ignored by the media, other courts, and politicians. But now comes Carey with nearly the same warning.

Carey said the UK proposal overturns the understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman that has been around since the dawn of Christianity.

“A reason why we should be worried by the redefining of marriage is the unintended consequences of such a step,” he said.

“Once we let go of the exclusivity of a one-man one-woman relationship with procreation linking the generations, they why stop there?” he continued. “If it is about love and commitment, then it is entirely logical to extend marriage to two sisters bringing up children together. If it is merely about love and commitment, then there is nothing illogical about multiple relationships, such as two women and one man.”

He said the concept that marriage is for those who care deeply for each and want to spend their lives together is “a wholly inadequate understanding of marriage.”

“Those of us accused of being on the wrong side of history can only plead with the government to respect our concern that extending marriage to same-sex couples is not only unwise, but also sets a dangerous precedent,” he said.

The Mail reported his comments were released through a publication from Civitas, an activist organization there.

While votes are approaching on the issue in the UK, in the United States, a pair of coming Supreme Court rulings will reveal whether the nation will maintain marriage as the institution that binds society as it has for millennia, or whether it will slouch down the path to an anything-goes “marriage.”

Pending are decisions on the Proposition 8 dispute from California, where a homosexual judge, Vaughn Walker, ordered that the state must allow same-sex “marriage” in a ruling that would benefit him, too, and one on the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

President Barack Obama has used a form of “nullification” on DOMA, which has been federal law for decades. It simply says that for federal purposes, only a man and a woman are involved in marriage.

However, Obama, and his attorney general, Eric Holder, said they were not going to enforce it and they were not going to defend it as their oaths of office require.

Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, warned that that itself is a major threat.

By striking DOMA, he said, “It would set the precedent that the president can pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he does not.”

That, he said, would make a president an “autocratic dictator” by default, as he no longer would be bound by his oath of office to enforce all laws. The possibilities? If a president didn’t like the tax code, he simply could order federal agents not to enforce it.

Staver also warned a governmental endorsement of such alternative sexual lifestyles would create unsolvable clashes between those who want to pursue those lifestyles and the religion rights of the rest of society.

“We saw what happened in Massachusetts, and it’s just one of many, many examples of where same-sex marriage and same-sex unions come into play. Catholic charities have had to get out of the adoption ministry because they’re not going to violate their religious beliefs and place children in homes with same-sex couples. You see that with people who run bed and breakfasts, wedding photographers, cake decorators and it goes on and on and on, where you’re going to have to choose between your profession or same-sex agendas,” he said.

“Then you look at the public schools. Parental rights will be undermined. Children as young as kindergarten will be forced to have information fed to them about, not just tolerance and alternative families which is bad enough with regards to re-definition of the family, but that same-sex, aberrant sexual behavior is normative, good and healthy. That’s the kind of thing that you’re going to see in the public schools, and we’re seeing it already in some of these states like Massachusetts that have adopted same-sex marriage,” Staver said.

“This would be on a nationwide basis. It would be catastrophic. I think it would ultimately be the beginning of the end of the United States of America as we know it.”

In California it was Vaughn Walker who was the judge who heard the Prop 8 case. Critics noted that in additional to his personal interest in the case:

“Before the trial even began, the 9th Circuit issued an extraordinary write of mandamus to overturn Chief Judge Walker’s order requiring proponents to turn over confidential internal communications…”
“Also before the trial … the Supreme Court of the United States issued an emergency stay … enjoining Chief Judge Walker from video recording and disseminating the trial proceedings…”
“Walker’s decision recognizing a right under the Federal Constitution for same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages conflicts with the judgment of every state and federal appellate court to consider the validity of the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage. …”
Walker peremptorily held that gays and lesbians are a suspect class … even though all 11 Circuit Courts of Appeals … have repeatedly and squarely held to the contrary.”
“Walker refused to stay his judgment pending appeal. As a result, the 9th Circuit was forced to issue such a stay.”
In his ruling advancing same-sex “marriage” Walker also arrived at the following highly controversial legal findings:

“Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
“Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”
“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.”
“The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.”
“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
“Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/redefine-marriage-include-polygamy-incest/#dqx043GdXTzeYx2U.99
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 27, 2013, 06:32:29 pm »

Polygamists welcome Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage predicting relationships with multiple people will be next
'The nuclear family is not the majority' after marriage ruling, says activist
Court decision 'blazes a trail' for polygamous marriage, according to some


6/27/13

Polygamy activists have spoken of their hopes that the Supreme Court's landmark rulings on gay marriage could lead to a breakthrough for their cause too.

The top court in the U.S. yesterday ruled that the federal government must recognise same-sex marriages, and allowed judges to overrule a ban on gay marriage in California.

And some polygamists predict that the decisions will 'blaze the marriage equality trail', saying that 'the nuclear family is not the majority any more'.

During the ongoing debate over gay marriage in the past few years, the topic of polygamy has often been raised by critics who claim that extending marriage to homosexuals will eventually result in marriages involving multiple people.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349481/Polygamists-welcome-Supreme-Court-rulings-gay-marriage-predicting-relationships-multiple-people-next.html#ixzz2XSjrscUU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2013, 06:36:48 pm »

Didn't the Mormon church campaign for CA's Prop 8 measure not too long ago?

No, don't endorse this cult, but just saying!

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/utah-polygamist-family-celebrating-doma-ruling/article_d0bfeff8-de96-11e2-a1b4-0019bb2963f4.html
Utah polygamist family celebrating DOMA ruling
6/26/13

SALT LAKE CITY — Members of a Utah polygamist family lauded the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Wednesday to strike down a provision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act, saying it's a step toward changing perceptions of people like them as "second-class citizens."

Joe Darger, who wrote a book with his three wives entitled "Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage," said he and his family are celebrating the victory for gay marriage after the high court ruled that legally married same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that DOMA effectively made a subset of state-sanctioned marriages unequal.

Darger speculated the ruling could help other people in plural marriages, including the Brown family, which is suing to challenge a Utah law making bigamy a third-degree felony.

The case of the Browns, who star in the TLC reality TV show "Sister Wives," is pending before Judge Clark Waddoups. Darger said Waddoups may have been waiting on the DOMA ruling before stepping out on the polygamy case.

"I think this gives Waddoups all the ammunition he needs," Darger told The Salt Lake Tribune (http://bit.ly/17grBA7).

Lawyers involved in polygamy cases, however, expect the DOMA ruling will have limited impact on their efforts.

Washington D.C.-based attorney Jonathan Turley, who represents the Brown family, said the issue surrounding the DOMA and Proposition 8 rulings was the legal recognition of certain types of relationships, not criminalization.

"Our case is about the criminalization of relationships, rather than the recognition," Turley said. "What does help us is the reaffirmation of the court that these relationships are protected by due process."

The most significant part about the rulings for polygamists, he said, was that they represent a shift away from morality as a justification for a law.

"Only Justice (Antonin) Scalia and Justice (Clarence) Thomas continued to argue in favor of morality legislation," Turley said.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2013, 06:59:56 pm »

think about it. Now there is NO MORAL standard anymore. So the same argument used for sodomites can now be used and has to be applied to polygamists, and people who want to marry chickens.
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2013, 10:54:53 pm »

think about it. Now there is NO MORAL standard anymore. So the same argument used for sodomites can now be used and has to be applied to polygamists, and people who want to marry chickens.

To be frank, the trail goes back to the modern-day, 501c3 corporate church system - it was all and good when they spoke out against abortion, gay marriage, and supported family values. But nonetheless they were silent on some other very important issues like no-fault divorce, the NIV bible, contraceptives, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes(who pretty much did the same thing Obama is doing now), false teachers infiltrating their walls, etc.

Ultimately, when they did speak out on issues on abortion, gay marriage, and urging everyone to go out and vote, no one could take them seriously over the long haul b/c of all the other leaven they allowed in. 2006 was the year when the straw broke the camel's back b/c of the whole Ted Haggard scandal - that was when this 501c3 church system crowd started complaining how their faith felt shipwrecked. Well, they shouldn't have put their trust in a man in the first place.

Mat 7:3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.



Report Spam   Logged
cabot
Guest
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2013, 01:39:20 am »

Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive. Lev 18:18    





I was about to post this video.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2013, 04:06:31 am »

Another spammer! These trolls think they are so smart!  Roll Eyes

GPS watches? Seriously?

Nobody that I know of likes spam, nor wants to buy anything they are hawking, yet the spam keeps coming (all because the ISP's allow it yet they could stop spam over night if it paid better). When are those people going to get a clue NOBODY wants their junk!
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2013, 06:18:45 am »

Polygamists See Gay Marriage Ruling Opening Door to Multiple Marriages

Polygamists cheered the Supreme Court for their gay marriage rulings Wednesday, which they considered one step forward for the legal and social acceptance of multi-person relationships.

"We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail," Practical Polyamory spokeswoman Anita Wagner Illig told U.S. News & World Report.

The Supreme Court struck down a central portion of the Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday, a decision that will allow legally married same-sex couples to claim all the same federal benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

The Court also decided on California's Proposition 8 ruling, determining that supporters of the state's gay marriage ban have no legal standing. The high court upheld the lower court's decision to allow it.

Though the Court stopped short of legalizing gay marriage universally — it is still only recognized in 12 states and the District of Columbia — Wednesday's ruling was viewed  as a major step forward, especially by those involved in nontraditional relationships.

Polygamists, or people who are married to more than one person, cheered rulings.

"The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore," former polygamist Anne Wilde told BuzzFeed."Now it's grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose."

Others polygamists say they don’t want their lifestyle to necessarily be legalized, but just decriminalized.

"If you legalize plural marriage, that means the government is going to control certain aspects of it," Wilde said. "They might say, you have to make so much money, you can't have any more than four like it says in the Koran."

Soon after Wednesday's decisions were announced, people across the globe took to Twitter to speculate whether a court decision on polygamy could be next.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/polygamists-gay-marriage-ruling/2013/06/27/id/512233#ixzz2XbS9x6Eb

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 01, 2013, 11:12:50 am »

Rand Paul Suggests Gay-Marriage Ruling A Step Closer To Legalizing Human-Animal Unions

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., suggested Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act moves the country toward accepting marriages between people and animals. Paul’s comment came after radio talk show host Glenn Beck raised questions about whether the law could prohibit polygamous marriages following the ruling that requires the federal government to treat legally married gay couples the same as heterosexual couples. “Who are you to say, if I’m a devout Muslim and I come over here and have three wives ... that I can’t have multiple marriages?” Beck asked Paul.

rest: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130627/NEWS0103/306270052/Rand-Paul-suggests-gay-marriage-ruling-step-closer-human-animal-unions?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2013, 05:55:38 am »

Bestiality brothels are 'spreading through Germany' warns campaigner as abusers turn to sex with animals as 'lifestyle choice'

Animal welfare officer Madeleine Martin problem of 'erotic zoos' is growing
 She tells of farmer whose once friendly sheep began refusing human contact
 So when he put CCTV in his barn he watched men file in and abuse his herd

Bestiality brothels are spreading through Germany faster than ever thanks to a law that makes animal **** illegal but sex with animals legal, a livestock protection officer has warned.

 
Madeleine Martin told the Frankfurter Rundschau that current laws were not protecting animals from predatory zoophiles who are increasingly able to turn to bestiality as a 'lifestyle choice'.

 
She highlighted one case where a farmer in the Gross-Gerau region of southwest Germany, noticed his once friendly flock of sheep were beginning to shy away from human contact.

'There are now animal brothels in Germany,' Martin told the paper, adding that people were playing down the issue by by describing it as a 'lifestyle choice'.
 
Armed with a host of similar case studies, Ms Martin is now calling for the government to categorically ban bestiality across the country.
 
Last November German authorities said they were planning to reinstate an old law forbidding sex with animals after a sharp rise in incidents of bestiality along with websites promoting it.
 
Parliament began debating changes to the national Animal Protection Code with the agricultural committee of the Bundestag pledging fines of up to £20,000 for a first offence.
 
Bestiality dropped off the statute books as a crime in 1969 but in recent years the number of people believed to be participating in such acts has increased significantly.
 
There are even 'erotic zoos' which people can visit to abuse animals ranging from llamas to goats.
 
Hans-Michael Goldmann, chairman of the agriculture committee, said the government aimed to forbid using an animal 'for individual sexual acts and to outlaw people 'pimping' creatures to others for sexual use.'

German 'zoophile' group ZETA has announced it will mount a legal challenge should a ban on bestiality become law.
 
'Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,' said ZETA chairman Michael Kiok.
 
When the 1969 law banning sex with animals was banned the Animal Protection Law was introduced, but it failed to include a specific ban on zoophilia.
 
The terms bestiality and zoophilia are the formal names for having sex with animals for pleasure.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352779/Bestiality-brothels-spreading-Germany-campaigner-claims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html#ixzz2YM8fh2sJ
 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2013, 08:21:32 am »

Once you cross the moral standard their is no going back, and if you break it once for 1 set of special people, than you have to break for all of them.

Ped0philes Want Same Rights As Homosexuals

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, ped0philes have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals. Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2013, 09:09:14 am »

Once you cross the moral standard their is no going back, and if you break it once for 1 set of special people, than you have to break for all of them.


And let's not forget how the modern-day church system turned a blind eye to no-fault divorce within their walls even before the homosexual agenda got unleashed.(ie-even 2 prominent Christian leaders, Charles Stanley and Hal Lindsey, had divorces) Pt being that how can the modern-day church system expose homosexuality and the sanctity of marriage, when they themselves quit taking a stand on the sanctity of marriage and the family unit(by turning a blind eye to no-fault divorce, that is)? And not to mention too their blind submission to all of these lying, cheating, and murderous politicians since the 1980's.

Yes, if anything, the breakup of the sanctity of marriage and the family unit started many years ago, and has slowly eroded over time, only to freefall in our present day b/c when certain groups wanted their cake and eat it too, other groups started demanding their piece of the share.

Rom 2:1  Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Rom 2:2  But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Rom 2:3  And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Rom 2:4  Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Rom 2:5  But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines