End Times and Current Events
December 18, 2017, 06:46:20 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

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

Shoutbox
November 24, 2017, 07:52:34 pm tennis shoe says: What happened to BA? He seems to have vanished.
November 14, 2017, 01:43:05 am Mark says:
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: first Gays, now polygamy! upnext? Chickens!!!  (Read 2805 times)
McChristian
Guest
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2013, 03:00:55 pm »

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

One of the comments on there just made me laugh:

"People who identify as homosexual/transgender/etc are in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM similar as pedophiles. Period.
What a disgusting display of bigotry. I’m forwarding this “site” to various gay rights groups to see if they can but an end to this nonsense."
Report Spam   Logged
McChristian
Guest
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2013, 04:02:26 pm »

Polygamy is stupid, have on spouse that's it.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2013, 05:56:30 pm »

Polygamy is stupid, have on spouse that's it.

And nothing more than a lust of the flesh.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2013, 02:30:59 pm »

Ped0philes want same rights as homosexuals
Claim unfair to be stigmatized for sexual orientation


by Jack Minor –

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 ped0philia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of ped0philia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

B4U-Act  calls ped0philes “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from  childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Ped0philia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “ped0philia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another  – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that ped0philia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Ped0philes are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say, “True ped0philes have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing ped0philes to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, ped0philes do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said ped0philes’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Ped0philia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for ped0philes to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of  age.”

Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517
« Last Edit: August 05, 2013, 02:34:54 pm by Mark » 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: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2013, 09:07:02 am »

Investigation suggests 'multiple partners' coming norm
 
Foursome uses calendar to track 'who's in what bedroom'


A controversial BBC radio investigation concludes monogamy is out of date and “multiple partners” is the coming norm.
 
With many Western nations abandoning the biblical concept of marriage, including New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, BBC Radio 4 host Jo Fidgen questioned whether there still is room for sexual fidelity in a “society where choice is everything,” the U.K.’s Christian Institute reported.

Several prominent individuals in those nations have warned that society’s fast adoption of same-sex “marriage” also would break down barriers to legalizing polygamy.
 
According to the institute, the BBC program “neglects to examine the effects of polyamorous relationships on children and the show’s presenter said she didn’t want to ‘get into a debate about what’s best for society or whether we are genetically programmed to have one partner or many.’”
 
Fidgen said in the report: “We don’t see any contradiction in loving more than one friend. No one asks us to only love one of our children. Why shouldn’t it be any different with romantic love.”
 
The BBC show, called “Monogamy and the Rules of Love,” focused on four adults, a pair of cohabiting couples, who use a Google calendar to plan when they have sex with each other.
 
The program suggested opposition to sharing lovers between an unlimited number of sexual partners could disappear with a decade.
 
The report focuses on Charlie (a woman), Tom, Sarah and Chris (a man). Charlie and Tom are married, as are Sarah and Chris. But Charlie and Chris and Tom and Sarah also are involved with each other. As are Charlie and Sarah.
 
Charlie states: “We use a Google calendar to keep track of date nights. Who gets the TV and who is in what bedroom.”
 
Also quoted in the report is Esther Perel, a Belgian “sex therapist” who says monogamy’s influence is vanishing.
 
Perel said such foursome relationships will be common in as soon as 10 years.
 
“These relationship pioneers are revising the rules of love to promote sexual honesty over exclusivity,” said Fidgen. “If they persuade people there’s a viable model then monogamy becomes a choice rather than the default.”
 
The Christian Institute noted that in June, polyamorists in Canada called for the same legal status for their lifestyle choice that people in other relationships enjoy.
 
Canada redefined marriage to include same-sex duos in 2005 and saw a major legal case involving polygamy in 2011, brought by the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association.
 
In May, polyamorous supporters in New Zealand called for legal recognition just weeks after same-sex marriage was legalized in the country.
 
In the Netherlands, the politician who brought same-sex marriage to the country said in March that “group marriage” was being discussed.
 
In the U.S., the American Family Association is asking voters to support a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution by Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., that would define marriage as one man and one woman.
 
The proposal comes after a legal scholar admitted that the arguments used to justify same-sex marriage will pave the way for legalization of polygamy and incest.
 
“We have a reached a frightening impasse,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “I fear the day just years from now when marriage has absolutely no definition at all.”
 
He cited a commentary by Kent Greenfield, a Boston College law school professor. Greenfield in 2011 wrote that members of the Occupy Wall Street movement pursue “a more substantive and robust view of liberty” than members of the tea party.
 
“This view of freedom often requires government assistance and attention,” he explained. “To protect people from discrimination, you need government to penalize it. To ameliorate poverty, you need government to create educational systems, school lunch programs, and homeless shelters.”
 
In a column for the American Prospect, Greenfield frankly discussed arguments for expanding marriage that make “us sound dangerously close to those who oppose same-sex marriage by claiming it is ‘unnatural.’”
 
“As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related,” Greenfield said.
 
Wildmon said that after marriage is increasingly watered down “until it is meaningless, marriage won’t be anything but a freewill agreement between any two people, or more than two people.”
 
“Since marriage is ultimately about the optimal nurturing environment for vulnerable young children, destabilizing the institution of marriage is a terrible thing to do to America’s children,” he said.
 
“God gave us the responsibility to protect this sacred union, and we should resist any effort to destroy it. What God has defined, man must not redefine.”
 
Huelskamp’s House Joint Resolution 51 is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman.
 
It states: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
 
The Kansas congressman has admitted it might be an uphill battle to protect traditional marriage but said he won’t know whether it will fly until he tries it.

video: http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/investigation-suggests-multiple-partners-coming-norm/

In his article for the American Prospect, Greenfield said the left “is in this bind in part because our arguments for expanding the marriage right to same-sex couples have been so compelling.”
 
“Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of ‘fundamental rights’ and equal protection,” Greenfield said.
 
The dispute was escalated with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the court’s refusal to review a decision by a homosexual judge in California that homosexuals there must be given marriage rights.
 
In a recent column, WND Founder and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah raised the issue of marriage rights for polygamists and others.
 
“So why is one ‘lifestyle’ affirmed by the popular culture, the political class and the judiciary and the other is ignored – even to the point of jailing those who dare to practice it? This is not a rhetorical question. I really want an answer from someone who believes the right, just, moral course of action is to redefine marriage as an institution between any two people, regardless of their sex. It’s a question that deserves an answer as we march, without thought, into a brave new world of sexual revolution, casting aside 6,000 years of human tradition inspired by God’s law and an institution that has formed the cornerstone of civilization,” he said.
 
WND also recently reported on the reaction from advocates for multiple partners following the Supreme Court decisions.
 
“We polyamorists are grateful to our brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,” Anita Wagner Illig told U.S. News and World Report.
 
Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey predicted what appears to be developing.
 
The London Daily Mail reported Carey told Prime Minister David Cameron that an “equal marriage” proposal would have further consequences.
 
Carey pointed out some British lawmakers are recognizing that if they permit same-sex marriage, there would be no reason to bar two sisters from being married or multiple-partner arrangements.
 
A California Supreme Court justice, Marvin Baxter, issued a similar warning when his court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2008.
 
Voters later that year overruled the decision, adopting a state constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, that defined marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. But a homosexual federal judge, Vaughn Walker, struck down Proposition 8 in 2010.
 
Baxter dissented from the majority 2008 opinion that created same-sex marriage for a short time in the state, arguing the consequences of the decision 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?”
 
Carey’s warning was nearly the same.
 
“Once we let go of the exclusivity of a one-man, one-woman relationship with procreation linking the generations, they why stop there?” he said. “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.”
 
Brazil, which started out by expanding marriage to same-sex duos nearly a decade ago, allowed three people in a polygamous relationship to have a civil union.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/investigation-suggests-multiple-partners-coming-norm/#DEKkFIjxEcF9oklx.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
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: August 26, 2013, 12:26:57 pm »

Speaking of "predictive programming", remember that 1987 "The Running Man" movie which centered around a global economy collapse and foot riots, and the masses were entertained by this very popular "reality" game show.

Fast-forward to our present day - it seems like since the turn of the 21st Century, these "reality" game shows have become THE popular tv shows, and the global economy is on the verge of collapse.

Pt being that these "reality" game shows, which have been many in number, have served as predictive programming on the masses. One of the first ones in the year 2000 was "Big Brother".
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2013, 12:17:44 pm »

http://nationalreview.com/article/358552/california-protects-****-teachers-kevin-d-williamson
9/16/13
California Protects **** Teachers

Schools can’t be sued for teachers’ long-ago sexual misconduct.


If you want to molest children in California, a word of advice: Make sure you have a good union.

California has enacted a number of changes — one cannot call them “reforms” with a straight face — to its electoral system of late, notable among them the creation of an “independent commission” to draw up electoral districts and the institution of a top-two primary system, in which primary elections are putatively nonpartisan and the top two vote-getters face off in the general election, regardless of party. The outcome, wholly foreseeable, has been to strengthen the position of Democrats as a whole while reducing the power of both the Democratic and Republican parties as institutions. In 29 of the electoral races decided in November 2012, one of the parties was locked out of the general election — and, to nobody’s surprise, it was the Republican party that was locked out in 20 of those 29 races.


This arrangement greatly expands the power of the non-party institutional players, most notable among them the public-sector unions, which are in effect California’s third and most powerful political party. They hardly needed to have their political clout enhanced: Over the last 30 years, they have enjoyed a 75 percent kill rate fighting ballot initiatives they opposed. The entrenchment of government-union power has had predictable economic consequences (see “Penniless in Paradise,” National Review, August 2012) but also some strange non-economic effects. The strangest of them may be the state’s decision to exempt government agencies, including public schools, from a new measure intended to enable civil measures against organizations that harbor pedophiles.

In 2014, California will open a litigation “window” allowing victims of sex abuse to file lawsuits against the employers of those who abused them, on the theory that those employers are in some instances partly culpable for the abuse, which is indeed the case. The “window” is needed because, in many sex-abuse cases, the statute of limitations for civil actions runs out before victims come forward. Perversely, the law exposes only the employers; the abusers themselves remain immune to litigation.

The crosshairs here are upon the Catholic Church, which paid out some $1.2 billion to more than 1,000 victims of abuse under a similar “window” opened in 2003. A secondary target is the Boy Scouts.

Even over the many decades that the 2003 window covered — 1950 to 2005 — those 1,000 victims present a shocking number. How much more shocking, then, that in the Los Angeles Unified School District alone some 600 teachers over a four-year period were fired, have resigned, or were facing sanctions because of “inappropriate conduct” relating to students. The lumping of cases together somewhat obscures things: About 60 teachers faced punishment for outright sexual relations with students (or other minors), while others were punished for offenses such as showing pornography to students, forcing students to act out “master and slave” sexual role-play scenarios, taking a student on a field trip to a sex shop, lining girls up in the classroom to judge their relative breast size before having them do jumping jacks, and old-fashioned sexual harassment. Some of these teachers had complaints in their files dating back years that had not been acted upon, while another teacher, in an episode unhappily reminiscent of Catholic priest-shuffling practices, had been in hot water at six different schools for sexual misconduct. If we limit ourselves to those cases of actual sexual relations, then a little crude extrapolation from Los Angeles’s 662,140 students to California’s 6.2 million total public-school students suggests that, in California each year, seven to eight times as much sexual misconduct takes place in public schools as in the Catholic Church.

So why have the California government schools — to say nothing of other state agencies — been exempted from the promise of richly deserved punitive litigation?

And it does not stop with litigation windows. In 2012, the Assembly considered a bill making it easier to fire teachers who sexually abuse students. Consider for a second that word “easier” — should anything be easier than simply firing somebody who molests children? The bill was written in response to the case of a Los Angeles elementary-school teacher who was fired after being accused of sexually abusing his students, and who challenged his firing. Rather than act in accord with the horrifying details of the case, the school district paid the teacher $40,000 to drop his appeal. That’s small change compared with the $30 million settlement the district is paying to the teacher’s alleged victims as a result of the case, or, for that matter, compared with the $23 million bail requirement that is keeping teacher Mark Berndt behind bars as he awaits trial on 23 felony counts of gruesome sexual abuse.

Against that background, making it easier to fire teachers facing credible accusations of sexual abuse seems like a pretty straightforward proposition. But the California Teachers Association and other unions presented a united front against a bill passed by the state senate, and it died in the Assembly.

The scandal bar — the collection of lawyers that exists to file wildly profitable lawsuits against the Catholic Church — contains some members that are unsavory to say the least, and, as with any similar case in which emotions run high and great sums of money are at stake, there has been no shortage of exaggeration and profiteering related to the scandal and its litigation. But as distasteful as those bottom-feeding lawyers may be, they are, whether they intend to or not, helping to serve the larger cause of justice, and such evils as they may perpetrate are, painful as it is to write, minor compared to the evil that was harbored and in too many cases enabled by the Catholic Church. And that evil, unspeakable as it is, is in all likelihood overshadowed by what is taking place in public schools in California and elsewhere. But if it comes down to the interests of a unionized government employee vs. those of a nonunionized sex-crime victim, look for the union label.

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

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: October 30, 2013, 12:28:35 pm »

Pedophilia Now Classified as Sexual Orientation

The American Psychological Association (APA) has changed the classification of pedophilia from a disorder to a sexual orientation or preference in its latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V).

Neon Tommy is reporting that the APA is drawing “a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder.”

For instance, pedophilia is defined in the new edition as referring “to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality,” the report states.

This is not a total surprise as the classification of pedophilia in the DSM has been steadily evolving over the years. The previous edition categorized pedophilia as a disorder only if the fantasies or urges involve children under the age of 13, if they last at least six months, if the individual has acted upon them, or if they cause distress such as legal problems.

Paul Christiano, a registered sex offender and spokesperson for B4U-ACT, a pedophila advocacy group that offers support for “minor-attracted persons”, wants to see the system changed because of its one-size-fits-all approach that treats a man who committed 20 consecutive rapes and a 19-year-old boy who had sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend the same way.

There is some basis for wanting a change, writes Hannah Maluyao for Neon Tommy, but the grounds for this change are “murky” with B4U-ACT.

For example, when questioned about the most responsible way in which a **** should manage his sexual desires, Christiano said they encourage their members to keep their preferences as a purely mental exercise that is never acted upon.

“B4U-ACT does not condone illegal activity,” Christiano insisted.

“Yet how can we be assured that such behavior remains entirely in the mind and not carried out in the bedroom?” Maluyao asks. “Answer: we can’t.”

Christiano has also advocated for the “sexual autonomy” of children, saying in his senior thesis as a graduate student, that they “should not be left in the dark about their own sexuality.” More education in sexuality would help them to better understand boundaries.

“However, there is an underlying suggestion that with sexual knowledge comes sexual consent,” Mulayao writes. “If children were permitted to be more sexually autonomous, would they then be able to fully consent to a sexual relationship or more importantly, a sexual relationship with an adult?”

Caitlin Myers, a doctorate student in Sociology at the University of Southern California told Mulayao that while open discussion of sexuality would be good, children still cannot give consent.

“In theory,” Myers says, “pedophilia as a practiced sexual orientation walks a thin line. There is no possibility of pedophilia becoming an accepted sexual orientation in current culture.”

Dr. Gregory Popcak of the Pastoral Solutions Institute, and organization dedicated to helping Catholics find faith-filled solutions to marriage, family, and personal problems, does not believe people should be too concerned about these changes to the DSM. The changes made were more editorial than clinical.

“From what I can tell, the DSM V criteria for Pedophilic Disorder shouldn’t bother anyone,” he writes for Patheos.  “I’m, personally, not sure what to make of those who refer to the idea of a pedophilic orientation.  If it is just to distinguish between ideation and actions, I think that’s fine.  In fact, that would be exactly how the Catholic Church thinks of it.  One can have a predisposition to a sin or even a strong temptation to a sin without committing a sin. There is a big difference between thinking about robbing a bank and actually robbing it. Neither is good, but only the latter is actually sinful.”

However, he goes on to warn that “if calling it an orientation is somehow used  or co-opted by some social advocacy group to justify pedophilia as ‘just another normal expression of sexual desires’  then that would be seriously problematic.  That said, I don’t really think that’s what’s happening–at this time, anyway.”

http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=25249&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+delicious%2Fgqlf+%28Christian+Headlines+Top+Headlines%29
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
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: October 30, 2013, 02:37:21 pm »

A sick society has only gotten sicker...
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #39 on: October 31, 2013, 04:24:42 am »

Quote
“In theory,” Myers says, “pedophilia as a practiced sexual orientation walks a thin line. There is no possibility of pedophilia becoming an accepted sexual orientation in current culture.”

Really? It pretty much is already. And pretty much every worldly society throughout time have not opposed pedophiles. In ancient Greek and Roman societies, and in a certain religious cult it still is, it was a commonly accepted practice.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2013, 10:42:06 am »

http://gma.yahoo.com/same-sex-adoptions-next-frontier-lgbt-advocates-140058130.html
Same-Sex Adoptions Next Frontier for LGBT Advocates
11/6/13

Philip McAdoo and his partner, Sean Cavanaugh, were in the process of adopting their son, Zaden, while living in New York City before same-sex marriage was legalized there in 2011.

But by the time the official papers were finalized last year, they had moved to Georgia where laws prohibit gay marriage and adoption.

"During that whole period, we were being watched and observed before the adoption was finalized," said McAdoo, a 42-year-old doctoral student in education. "All that period we were considered a family, but only one of us was allowed to adopt him."

Zaden, now 8, was a foster child, in desperate need of a family.

30 States Ban Second Parent Adoption

Today, an estimated 399,546 children remain in foster care in the United States, according to 2012 statistics from the U.S. Administration for Children and Families. Of those, 101,719 are waiting to be adopted and 23,439 have "aged out" of the system.

"We wanted a black boy because they are considered the hardest to adopt and most at risk," McAdoo said.

California Considers Multiple Legal Parents

In Georgia, where the couple moved because Cavanaugh works for the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 7,669 children are in foster care and 1,645 of them are waiting for homes, according Allies for Adoption, a campaign to allow adoption by lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender couples in all 50 states.

Its public education campaign is sponsored by the Family Equality Council, a national organization that advocates for LGBT parents and their children.

They say, too, that many potentially good parents are being overlooked. The majority of states do not allow adoption by same-sex couples.

"Right now there are children waiting to find a forever family, and until we knock down barriers to adoption by LGBT people in every state, we are failing them as a nation," said Gabriel Blau, executive director of the Family Equality Council."

Same-sex couples with children are four times more likely than their heterosexual couples to be raising an adopted child and six times more likely to be raising foster children, according to research from the Williams Institute, an LGBT think thank at UCLA.

Yet only 19 states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex couples to adopt jointly; only 13 states and D.C. allow second-parent adoptions; and only six states explicitly ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in foster care.

But Focus on the Family, a Christian ministry that is dedicated to helping parents raise children according to Biblical principles, said the push to legalize same-sex adoption has a "fundamental flaw."

"The ideal in the foster care system is to give children what they don't have -- a forever loving home with both a mother and a father," spokesman Paul Batura wrote in a statement to ABC News. "But by its very nature, same-sex parenting deprives a child of a mother or a father.

"We believe an adopted child has as much right as any other child to be raised in the environment most likely to promote, preserve and protect his or her emotional, psychological and physical well-being -- in other words, with a married mother and father."

In 2013, the Supreme Court dismantled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), giving same-sex couples who are married the same federal rights as their heterosexual counterparts. But the states still have a patchwork of laws regarding marriage, adoption, taxes and inheritance laws.

Through a loophole in the law, McAdoo and Cavanaugh were allowed to adopt Zaden in a small Georgia county where one rotating judge interprets the law more liberally. But Zaden only has one parent on his birth certificate.

"We were flabbergasted," McAdoo said. "His birth certificate will follow him for the rest of his life and only one of us is acknowledged. I am on it, but my partner is not. ... I wonder what it will mean and what kind of hurdles there are."

According to a variety of studies, children raised in LGBT families fare as well as in hetersexual families.

"The research is unequivocal that lesbians and gays make good parents," said Adam Pertman, president of the Donaldson Adoption Institute and author of "Adoption Nation."

"It doesn't mean they do any more than straight parents, but when kids need homes, there is zero reason not to do this.
 
"Laws that are implicitly or explicitly aimed at adults are, in fact, hurting children because they simply eliminate good potential parents," he said. "If children are our primary focus, then we should be taking steps to include, rather than exclude, "more and more adults."

An estimated 6 million children are being raised in the United States by a least one LGBT parent, according to the Williams Institute.

In states like Michigan, there is a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, as well as an explicit on one adoption.

Kent Love-Ramirez, director of communications at Michigan State University, and Diego Love-Ramirez, a pilot for Delta Airlines, were legally married in Washington, D.C., and live in Lansing, the Michigan capital. But they have not been allowed to adopt their 3-year-old son, Lucas.

The couple has been together for 11 years and were subject to a thorough home study. The birth mother selected them from other couples, including straight ones, to raise Lucas in an open adoption, they said.

"Fortunately, we would go to the doctor's appointments and we were both present at the birth," Kent Love-Ramirez, 43, said. "Diego cut the umbilical cord. It was quite a blessing."

But only one was legally able to adopt and the couple refuses to say which one. They have jumped through "extra hoops" to ensure the nonlegal parent has guardianship rights, rather than next of kin.

"We have recognition at the federal level, but not the state level," Love-Ramirez said. "Honestly, the biggest fear is a situation I hate to imagine: If we were divorced or separated, the nonlegal parent would have no rights."

Pat Silverthorn, a 53-year-old tech specialist in an elementary school, has no legal rights to her 12-year-old son Corey. She and her spouse, Sue Anna Clark, 57, were married in Washington, D.C., and live in Reston, Va., where their marriage and adoption is not recognized.

"We adopted Corey when he was four in New York City, but the adoption couldn't be finalized right away because there were issues with the birth father and not being able to find him," Silverthorn said.

Clark, who is Corey's legal parent, recently retired and no longer has health insurance from her job as a high school teacher. So now, instead of paying $100 a month, she pays $950 a month for Corey's and her coverage.

Silverthorn, who is working with benefits, cannot include their son because she is not the legal parent.

"In Virginia, they have done everything they can to put obstacles in our way," she said.

Even if the couple moved across the river to Washington, D.C., where gay marriage is legal, Silverthorn still would not be able to include Corey on her health policy, because she works in Virginia.

"We have a right to live in Virginia and to continue to live here," she said. "We know many, many couples like ours. In our world, our neighbors and in school soccer clubs we are just parents -- like everyone else.

"We have never encountered a neighbor or a co-worker or teacher who has been anything other than treat us like a family."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 28, 2013, 01:28:54 pm »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/open-marriage-_n_4345000.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
11/26/13
Couple Has An Open Marriage So Complicated, It's Hard To Keep Track

Michael loves his wife, Kamala. Michael also likes his 27-year-old girlfriend, Rachel. So six months ago, Kamala decided to do what most wives would never even consider: she invited Rachel to come live with them and their six year-old son.

Monogamy just doesn't work for the couple, whose relationship is featured on Showtime’s "Polyamory: Married & Dating." What does work for them is a polyamorous lifestyle, Kamala and Michael tell Nightline reporter Nick Watt in the report above. (Rachel is not the first person they've invited into their relationship during the course of their 12-year marriage; the couple previously shared their home with another couple, and Kamala has been in a relationship with another woman for two years.)

"Monogamy can be a really beautiful agreement between people when they're deeply in love and they don't have desire for another," Kamala says. "But most people in our society are just monogamous because their vows said 'I will forsake all others.'"

The trio's seemingly blissful relationship -- they do yoga together, love tantric sex and collectively raise the couple's son -- leaves the Nightline reporter wondering if maybe they're on to something. With so many marriages ending in divorce -- oftentimes because of infidelity -- is polyamory the answer to all our divorce woes?

Jenny Block, author of Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage, thinks so.

“It’s becoming clear that heterosexual monogamous marriage simply doesn’t work for most people. And I think people are tired of being unhappy and dissatisfied," she told the Daily Beast earlier this month.

"We cannot control our own desires and we certainly cannot control the desires of others,” said Block, who has been in an open marriage for the past 10 years. “You cannot tell someone, ‘Don’t be attracted to anyone else. Don’t desire anyone else.’ You can say, ‘If we’re going to be together, I want it to be monogamous.’ But you cannot control the other person’s heart and mind. The heart wants what it wants.”

Conversations about polyamorous relationship may be increasingly common, but that doesn't necessarily mean American couples are adopting the lifestyle in large numbers. Pamela Haag, whose 2011 book, Marriage Confidential, included discussions with couples in open marriages, says that by her estimates, only about 5 percent of all marriages meet the definition of "open."

Watch the video above to hear more about Kamala and Michael's open marriage, then check out the slideshow below for 5 celeb couples who've been rumored to be in open relationships.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Cor 7:1  Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1Co 7:2  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co 7:3  Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1Co 7:4  The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Co 7:5  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
1Co 7:6  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2013, 04:27:15 pm »

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/14/Federal-Judge-Rules-Laws-Against-Polygamy-Unconstitutional
12/14/13
Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional

In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional.

In his 91-page opinion in Brown v. Buhman, on Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down Utah’s law making polygamy a crime. In so doing, he may have opened Pandora’s Box.

As a condition for becoming a state in 1896, Congress required Utah to outlaw polygamy, which is marriage between three or more persons. This case involved a family of fundamentalist offshoots of nineteenth-century Mormonism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints disavowed polygamy in 1890, and again in 1904, but some splinter groups continue the practice.

Waddoups’ opinion would not only cover such groups, however, but also Muslims or anyone else who claims a right—religious or otherwise—to have multiple-person marriages. He notes that the Supreme Court ruled against polygamy in its 1878 case Reynolds v. U.S., but said he cannot simply rest upon that decision “without seriously addressing the much developed constitutional jurisprudence that now protects individuals from the criminal consequences intended by legislatures to apply to certain personal choices.”

In its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case, the Supreme Court overruled previous sexuality precedents by declaring unconstitutional laws that made homosexual sodomy a crime, holding that although the Constitution says nothing about sex or marriage, there is nonetheless a right to consensual sexual activity between adults that government cannot regulate. This was over the vigorous dissent of conservative justices, who said that the Constitution commits such questions of marriage and morality to the states and the democratic process, and that therefore federal courts have no power to impose their own moral judgments.

The Lawrence case lays the foundation that has been cited for a decade now in court to make the case for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. If government cannot forbid homosexual conduct, this argument goes, then neither can it deny those who define themselves by homosexual behavior to officially recognize any such relationship as a marriage. It began a political, religious, and philosophical debate in America between two different definitions of marriage and family.

For over 5,000 years of recorded human history, marriage laws worldwide were about providing a social structure for producing and raising children. These laws simply acknowledged the biological reality that only sex between a man and a woman can produce a baby, and that, correspondingly, that every child born into the world has two parents, one of which is a man, the other a woman.

Marriage laws were designed to secure parental rights for that man and woman over the child they had created, and also imposed strict duties and obligations on each of them for raising that child. As part of that, those laws also bound the man and woman to each other, imposing obligations of sexually exclusivity, mutual care, and support.

Those laws were created for the nurturing of those children, and assign the gender role of demanding the man’s protection and support of the woman during pregnancy and once the children were born. They were designed primarily for the protection of children, and secondarily for the support of women.

A man and woman would form a new family to act as a single unit in society, and care for any children resulting from their monogamous sexual relationship. Thus, marriage has been defined as the union of one man and one woman. More precisely, it is the union of (1) two consenting persons, (2) of opposite biological sex, (3) who are not close blood relatives.

The new conception of marriage, rooted in the proliferation of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s and the sexual revolution, is that marriage is about personal happiness and fulfillment. People should be free to form whatever relationships they find personally satisfying and to follow whatever their personal sexual inclinations are to engage in whatever form of sexual behavior they find gratifying.

If, therefore, you have a right to officially recognize those homosexual relationships through redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, then there is no reason to say it cannot include more than two people, so long as everyone is a consenting adult.

This lawsuit is the brainchild of Prof. Jonathan Turley at George Washington University. He’s designed a two-step strategy, piggybacking on same-sex marriage: first, decriminalize polygamy, then assert a right to official recognition of polygamy.

As Turley explained in previous court filings, he believes there is a “right to self-determination of private relations and family matters free of government intrusion.” He noted that many oppose polygamy, and goes on to assert that polygamists “are entitled to protection from such majoritarian animus and bias vis-à-vis their private lifestyles and relations. Their status under domestic law is a civil rights issue deserving the same protections afforded to homosexuals and other minority groups.”

The exact legal arguments for same-sex marriage equally apply to multiple-person marriages. Turley acknowledges that marriage laws that do not include both are “a tool for the imposition of a uniform moral agenda or tenets on citizens.”

Turley then goes on to make clear he is not only arguing for the form of polygamy technically called polygyny, which is one man with multiple women. In other words, he also argues for a right to polyandry (one woman with multiple men) and polyamory (multiple men with multiple women).

Waddoups concluded that Reynolds has been overtaken by Lawrence and other recent legal developments. While keeping in place for now the Utah law against issuing multiple marriage certificates for polygamous marriage (the second step of the Turley strategy), he invalidated the criminal law against multiple adults cohabiting together as a family, which is the core of the laws against polygamy.

This case will likely now go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #43 on: December 15, 2013, 02:33:26 am »

Quote
For over 5,000 years of recorded human history, marriage laws worldwide were about providing a social structure for producing and raising children. These laws simply acknowledged the biological reality that only sex between a man and a woman can produce a baby, and that, correspondingly, that every child born into the world has two parents, one of which is a man, the other a woman.

Marriage laws were designed to secure parental rights for that man and woman over the child they had created, and also imposed strict duties and obligations on each of them for raising that child. As part of that, those laws also bound the man and woman to each other, imposing obligations of sexually exclusivity, mutual care, and support.

Those laws were created for the nurturing of those children, and assign the gender role of demanding the man’s protection and support of the woman during pregnancy and once the children were born. They were designed primarily for the protection of children, and secondarily for the support of women.

Now that is a bunch of bs doubletalk. The only reason for marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is money, tax money and who owes what. The state could care less who marries whom, just so long as the government knows who is legally and financially responsible.

The state is secular and has zero interest in who can marry. It makes no difference to the state if they are the same sex or not, so churchianity needs to back off and quit trying to force non-believers into something they don't want, and quit trying to say the US is a "Christian nation" when it's not.

There are no rules for the unbelieving world, which is why they say you can do what you want so long as it doesn't harm anybody. So it stands to reason they would take it as far as allowed, claiming a right to do whatever they want, including issues involving marriage and sex.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: December 17, 2013, 01:08:57 pm »

North Dakota to Let Man in Same-Sex Marriage Wed Woman, Too

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion last week confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband.
 
While many wildly speculated that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, they probably never thought it would be like this. Presented with a legal hypothetical, Attorney General Stenehjem answered three questions: whether someone in a same-sex marriage in another state can also receive a marriage license to someone of the opposite sex in North Dakota, whether they can file legal documents as "Single" when they possess a same-sex marriage license in another state, and whether this would open the individual up for prosecution under another state's bigamy laws. The Attorney General's response can be read in full PDF form here.
 
The answer to all these questions, essentially, is that a person can legally possess two marriage licenses in North Dakota, because a same-sex marriage license is not recognized. The Attorney General did not comment on whether such a situation would lead to a bigamy charge in another state, suggesting it was "inappropriate" to comment on laws outside of North Dakota.
 
North Dakota's constitution prohibits same-sex marriage since the state voted to amend it in 2004, and the state has an additional statute prohibiting same-sex unions from valid recognition. Marriages performed outside of the state are also recognized in North Dakota only when they do not violate the laws of North Dakota, which would already invalidate same-sex marriages, but the statute goes further to explicitly cite the illegitimacy of same-sex marriages in that state.
 
In addition to state laws permitting this activity, the Attorney General cites one of the few provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act still standing after this summer's Supreme Court decision: no state can be made to respect a same-sex marriage license from another state.
 
North Dakota's strict laws against same-sex unions had previously led to tax issues, as well, with the state requesting that anyone holding a same-sex marriage license in another state file their taxes as a single person, essentially eliminating the tax benefits that come with a marriage. Without even looking at the moral implications of forcing a couple with a legal marriage license to declare themselves single, this clearly looks like a recipe for tax code disaster. This opinion in particular, which allows a heterosexual union even when there previously exists a homosexual one, creates a situation in which three individuals are bound and three individuals are filing as married to each other. Because of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, the heterosexual union from North Dakota would have to be recognized in some form in the state that provided the same-sex marriage license--whether recognized as a criminal, bigamous act or as a legal license that yields tax credits.
 
The opinion also creates the most explicit conflict between states on gay marriage yet. It pits North Dakota against states like New York, Massachusetts, and Hawaii that now have to choose between violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and upholding a marriage license they issued or acknowledging North Dakota's intransigence and violating the state's standards on gay rights. The legal opinion's uncanny timing also pairs it in headlines with the easing of polygamy laws in Utah, and provides a stark contrast between what self-proclaimed polygamists want from their government and what the individual wishing to marry twice in this case does.
 
The "Sister Wives" family that won the Utah suit only have one marriage license among them, and do not wish to receive any more. The man in the North Dakota case wants two marriage licenses, and the right to proclaim himself single on legal documents until he receives his second. The latter creates the bigger problem, because the parties in the case want further government involvement in their lives--not to get the government out of their lives--and this forces state governments to turn on each other.
 
The good news for all involved is that a case in which a man wants to marry a woman after having married a man is a genuinely unusual one, reading almost as a thought experiment designed to challenge law students on how to apply the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit and Comity Clauses. But there is at least one case--that which inspired this legal opinion, and will provide much to talk about in upcoming months, when the individuals that inspired the opinion will likely receive their marriage license.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/16/North-Dakota-Allows-Man-In-Same-Sex-Marriage-To-Also-Marry-Woman
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: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: January 17, 2014, 08:43:14 am »

America’s Incest Obsession: “Flowers in the Attic” is Back, as are the Memories
 

Ahead of the new Lifetime movie adaptation of V.C. Andrews 1979 cult classic, we explore why incest plot lines are so enduring in popular culture
 
Lifetime’s Flowers in the Attic, the movie adaptation of V.C. Andrews’ sordid and soapy tale of family dysfunction, will air tomorrow night, and for millions of American women in their 30s and 40s, it’s sure to be mandatory viewing.
 
The 1979 novel is remembered as the book that was passed beneath desks and read under covers—the raunchiest pages frayed, dog-eared, even highlighted by countless teenage girls.
 
Though 1987’s campy, unfaithfully rendered film version was generally considered a bust, Lifetime’s reboot is promising fealty to even the dirtiest details. And with a glittering cast of Kiernan Shipka, Heather Graham and Ellen Bursytn, the network is clearly banking on living-room premiere parties, replete with wine spritzers and butter-free popcorn. In fact, Lifetime is so confident, that it’s already announced a sequel.

The plot of Flowers in the Attic is itself is a delicious assault on family morals, with details considered so lurid and depraved that a Vocativ employee, in her girlhood, recalls furtively reading it piecemeal in the magazine aisle as her mother shopped for groceries.

Thematically, one could argue that it’s a story about child abuse and its devastating effects. Four children are locked away in the attic of their puritanical grandma’s mansion where they are tortured and abandoned—but that’s not why a generation of 14-year-old girls went gaga over it. The giddiness, as most remember, was all about the incest.

Yes, the elder two siblings, Cathy and Chris, develop feelings for one another and eventually, [SPOILER ALERT!] have sex. The mutual deflowering itself is described in this notorious paragraph that some teenage girls would recite like the canon:
 
“He yelled out something like, “You’re mine, Cathy! Mine! You’ll always be mine!”…I had the strong dancer’s legs, he had the biceps and greater weight…Somehow we wound up on that old mattress… And that is where he took me, and forced in that swollen, rigid male sex part of him that had to be satisfied. It drove into my tight and resisting flesh which tore and bled.”
 
Sure, it’s quite explicit for girls still in throes of pubescent soul-searching (it makes Judy Blume’s much-banned Forever seem like a Golden Book), but the allure of something as forbidden and morally reprehensible as incest was, and still is, hard to resist. It’s the reason why storytellers of every medium have employed the taboo for centuries, and why writers (especially those in primetime television) are still heavily exploiting it today.

A survey of incest plot lines in popular culture over the past few years alone includes Game of Thrones (sister and brother, Cersei and Jaime); Boardwalk Empire (mother and son, Gillian and Jimmy); Dexter (adopted sister and brother, Deb and Dexter); Bored to Death (half-sister and brother, Jonathan and Rose); Bates Motel (mother and son, Norma and Norman; and Top of the Lake (half-sister and brother, Robin and Johnno, though was only a scare)—not to mention, Brothers and Sisters, Supernatural, Nip/Tuck, Lost, Veronica Mars, Californication, Six Feet Under and the upcoming mini-series The Spoils of Babylon, which stars Toby Maguire and Kristen Wiig as romantically-involved, adopted siblings.

So what, you might be wondering, is wrong with us?
 
“It’s one of the few things along with cannibalism that we don’t have any interest in doing, but we have a great interest in reading about it or watching it onscreen,” says Professor James B. Twitchell, author of Forbidden Partners: The Incest Taboo in Modern Culture. “The titillation of getting close to it is very powerful.”



It's more than Primetime: According to Google Trends, even searches for "incest ****" have shot up in the last 10 years.
 
Like rubbernecking at car accidents, incest’s entertainment value is yet another product of the fact that deep-down we’re all a little bit more twisted than we’d like to think we are. As one Goodreads reviewer describes her relationship with Flowers in the Attic:
 
“This book made me feel literally sick to my stomach at times and, yet, I couldn’t get enough! I loved every minute of it. There really isn’t much that is redeeming about this book, and it may have warped my sexuality in ways I’ll never understand, but I have a soft spot for it.”

As a taboo, incest is unique in that it is seemingly eternal and relatively universal. Apart from cases involving royal bloodlines or marriage outside of immediate family members (which was still common even in the last century), nearly every culture and time period has associated the act with scandal. And though it can be seen in stories as far back as Ancient Greek mythology, it wasn’t until the advent of the Gothic novel in the late 18th century that the alluring tabloid subject realized its lucrative powers.
 
As an entertainment device, incest’s appeal is multifaceted, arousing the viewer by way of both horror and sex. On the terror front, “it seems to generate a literal physiological response,” says Twitchell. “It makes the hair on the back of your neck stand.” The source of such fear can range from simple revulsion to moral corruption, to a deep-seated phobia of genetic retaliation, but it never fails to elicit at least some kind of hair-raising reaction.

https://www.vocativ.com/01-2014/americas-incest-obsession-flowers-attic-back-memories/
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 08:46:26 am by Mark » 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
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: January 17, 2014, 12:46:42 pm »

The 1979 novel is remembered as the book that was passed beneath desks and read under covers—the raunchiest pages frayed, dog-eared, even highlighted by countless teenage girls.

And as we all see - when one generation tolerates and ultimately embraces something, it ends up being accepted like it's pure morals in the next generation.

For example, look at Churchianity - the previous Churchianity generation may have believed(until they were blue in the face) good morals like anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-family, etc - but THAT WAS ALL as they held to commandments of men and these perverted non-KJBs. Ultimately, look at the reaping of the seeds of their next Millenial generation, which have contrary beliefs on these very issues, and to boot hold New Age beliefs that their previous generation taught them to "judge not".

Quote
Sure, it’s quite explicit for girls still in throes of pubescent soul-searching (it makes Judy Blume’s much-banned Forever seem like a Golden Book), but the allure of something as forbidden and morally reprehensible as incest was, and still is, hard to resist. It’s the reason why storytellers of every medium have employed the taboo for centuries, and why writers (especially those in primetime television) are still heavily exploiting it today.

Saw an ad for it on tv the other day - there's a scene where the boy holds up a bible to the girl and says something like, "Please forgive me for doing this"(before they do their immoral thing, that is). Abominable, but no surprise as yet another Hollywood attempt to openly blaspheme the word of God.

Quote
“This book made me feel literally sick to my stomach at times and, yet, I couldn’t get enough! I loved every minute of it. There really isn’t much that is redeeming about this book, and it may have warped my sexuality in ways I’ll never understand, but I have a soft spot for it.”

And this is the big problem with these occult books - they are VERY seducing. Last year when I was at Barnes and Noble, there was a book that looked like it was exposing the occult. But when I started reading 4-5 pages of it(in one of their chapters exposing maitreya and the new age), it was getting to a point where they were trying to INDOCTRINATE you by using very crafty words(they were trying to convince you that Paul was indoctrinated in the esoteric schools). That was when the Holy Spirit really nudged me to put it down. Otherwise, if I had kept reading it, I would have started to believe every bit of it word for word.

This is also where some of these Christian ministries have made the wrong turn for the worst - they thought they could expose a lot of this occult stuff by studying it themselves first. But next thing they know, they started getting too much into it, that they spent LESS time on the word of God, and ultimately started indoctrinating themselves into this luciferian thought(ie-one Christian blog I used to keep up with started attacking the Jews, and then the King James Bible after he spent too much time in this stuff - next thing I knew, he shut his blog down).

Quote
As a taboo, incest is unique in that it is seemingly eternal and relatively universal. Apart from cases involving royal bloodlines or marriage outside of immediate family members (which was still common even in the last century), nearly every culture and time period has associated the act with scandal. And though it can be seen in stories as far back as Ancient Greek mythology, it wasn’t until the advent of the Gothic novel in the late 18th century that the alluring tabloid subject realized its lucrative powers.

As I understand it, the high level Illuminati families and people inbreed themselves - I believe the Darwins did. Bill Clinton is in that Rockefeller bloodline. And Rick Warren looks very similar to David Rockefeller, Jr.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #47 on: January 17, 2014, 02:21:34 pm »

Quote
this is the big problem with these occult books - they are VERY seducing.

Because they are, "doctrines of devils", in that those carnal things are taught in a spiritual kind of way. They play on the emotions and bodily lusts of men. Jesus thankfully made it very clear though, that we walk in the spirit to not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, knowing that even though we will at times be...uh...not so spiritual, we are saved from our own imperfections. Thank you Jesus!

Quote
Ultimately, look at the reaping of the seeds of their next Millenial generation, which have contrary beliefs on these very issues, and to boot hold New Age beliefs that their previous generation taught them to "judge not".

I see that as just a continuation of the enemy saying, "Yeah hath God said...?"

Yes, in fact God IS saying "Judge not.", but the father of lies wants to make it seem any judgement is not charity, and the world instead calls it "discrimination". The lie is in what they define as judgement.

"I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?" 1 Corinthians 6:5 (KJB)

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

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: February 24, 2014, 10:19:46 am »

NY Attorney Wants Laws to 'Create Alternatives to Marriage'
Polyamory for instance


Diana Adams, an attorney in New York, wants laws that would allow for alternative relationships to have the same benefits as traditional marriage. Not just gay marriage, but polyamorous relationships as well.

Her website states:

    Diana Adams believes that 'family' extends beyond the traditional nuclear family of Mom, Dad, two kids, and a dog to include other loving, mutually supporting families.

She was recently interviewed by The Atlantic, where she spoke of her own polyamorous relationship. She says she is in a "primary" relationship but is "romantically involved with several other men and women." She says this is simply her orientation:

    I really think that polyamory for me is an orientation, like being heterosexual or homosexual.

While she doesn't feel that open relationships are for everybody, she does suggest discussing polyamory as a viable option in saving the institution of marriage. She is even helping a "polyamorous triad" set up an LLC to "share their finances."

She also says multiple-parent households could do wonders for children:

    There are a lot of things we can do with co-parenting. With the busy lives that we lead, I think that three adults per child is actually a great ratio. So many parents are overburdened.

According her law website, she will even fight child custody cases for families whose sadomasochist, bondage and kink lifestyles are "being inappropriately and unfairly conflated with immorality and emotional instability, and distracting from the true best interests of the child."

But lest anyone think that this is all about satiating deviant sexual desires, let Adams put your mind at ease. As she told The Atlantic:

    My partner Ed is a wonderful feminist man, though sometimes I’d really like to be out on a date with the kind of man who wants to open car doors for me and treat me like a princess. I don't want that all the time, but I might want that once a month.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/ny-attorney-wants-laws-create-alternatives-marriage
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: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2014, 05:28:50 am »

Bestiality Now Making US Headlines, Not Always Illegal

Bestiality is an abomination, but would you believe it’s legal in some parts of the United States—and in some parts of the world?

The rise of bestiality in America (and around the world) is troublesome. Believe it or not, bestiality cases are all over the news. A flood of stories has emerged in just the past few weeks alone. What in the world is going on?

According to charges filed Wednesday in Tippecanoe Superior Court 5 in Lafayette, Ind., a man was caught on home video engaging in sexual acts with a dog. The 52-year-old, David Arnold, faces two Class D felony counts in connection with the abominable bestiality, JCOnline.com reports.

Meanwhile, James Lee Lyons, 53, was just sentenced to eight years in prison for sexually abusing dogs. He was arrested twice on bestiality charges—and convicted in 1998 of attempted sexual battery on a child and sexual act with a child while in a familial role, according to the St. Augustine Record.

It’s too bad for Arnold and Lyons that they didn’t get busted for bestiality in Alabama, where having sex with animals remains legal. The Alabama Senate is just now addressing bestiality, voting to make it a crime in January. But at least for now, it remains legal. All I can say to that is, really?

Bestiality is illegal in Canada. But that’s not stopping men from having sex with their four-legged friends. Anthony Volgmann, a 30-year-old volunteer with the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, pled guilty to charges of bestiality and corrupting morals, WebProNews reports: “Volgmann was found to have had performed sexual acts with dogs under his care during his time as a dog walker between January and September in 2013. He also posted pictures of his acts online which resulted in the corrupting morals charge.”

The abomination of bestiality is absolutely legal in Denmark. Indeed, there are actually legal animal brothels in the nation. “Danish animal owners advertise openly that they offer sex with animals, without intervention from police or other authorities," the Danish newspaper 24timer was cited as saying.

"Animals involved reportedly have many years of experience, and they actually crave the sexual stimulation. Animal owners charge from DKK 500 to 1000 (USD $85 to $170), the newspaper found,” International Business Times reports. “Pornographic movies involving the act of bestiality are also widely available in the Internet, especially because production and sale of such materials are legal in countries such as Denmark.”

Skip over to England, and bestiality is illegal. Nevertheless, Paul Lovell, 61, was found guilty of engaging in bestiality with farm animals. Cows and sheep, to be specific. As disgusting as this is, apparently some people find it acceptable and others find it amusing. “Sniggering could be heard during the trial of Paul Lovell, who allegedly tried to have sex with a sheep near the Premier League side’s state-of-the-art facility in Enfield, north London, on September 4,” Metro reports.

The stories of bestiality go on and on. Google News turns up 1,530 current news stories related to bestiality in just .23 seconds, from teens having sex with pregnant pit bulls to Charlie Sheen making vile bestiality slurs about his ex-wife. So if you think this issue is rare, think again. I don’t believe we’ll see bestiality widely accepted any time soon, but with a new study reporting gay marriage is surging in popularity and the mainstream media push for polyamory, is it out of the question to think that bestiality boosters will be next in line for equal rights?

The Bible is clear: “Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion” (Lev. 18:23). And again, “Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death” (Ex. 22:19). And again, “Cursed is the one who lies with any kind of animal. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’" (Deut. 27:21).

Of course, the Bible is clear on homosexuality, too, but that’s not stopping anyone. As I said last week, the shadow of Sodom and Gomorrah is hanging over America. God help us. Pray that our children and their children aren’t wooed into the immorality that’s rushing into land.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/watchman-on-the-wall/42935-bestiality-now-making-us-headlines-not-always-illegal
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 #50 on: February 28, 2014, 11:58:10 am »

Quote
It’s too bad for Arnold and Lyons that they didn’t get busted for bestiality in Alabama, where having sex with animals remains legal. The Alabama Senate is just now addressing bestiality, voting to make it a crime in January. But at least for now, it remains legal. All I can say to that is, really?

Yes, really. As disgusting as it may be, that's the carnal world...

19  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 (KJB)
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: March 10, 2014, 05:34:19 am »

‘My Five Wives’ TLC Reality Show to Follow Life of Utah Polygamist

A new reality show coming to The Learning Channel (TLC) tonight will feature a Utah polygamist and his five wives, with whom he has fathered 24 children.

My Five Wives will follow the life of Brady Williams, 43, and his wives Rhonda, 43, Paulie, 41, Robyn, 40, Rosemary, 40, and Nonie, 35. Williams is married to Paulie, and the others co-habitate with Williams without marriage licences. Each have conceived a range of four to six children with Williams.

“Believing in equality for everyone and a God who loves and accepts all—a belief system Brady and his family call progressive polygamy—the Williams family emphasize that their choice to be together is more about their mutual love and commitment than it is about religion,” a summary of the show from TLC outlines. “Though their beliefs and their decision to leave their church have led them to be shunned by their community and estranged from many family members, the Williams believe their sacrifices are worth it.”

“When I married Brady, I still had it in my mind that, that was how I was going to make it to heaven was by living in a plural marriage situation and I wanted to make it to heaven,” Rhonda told reporters.

Williams, a former Mormon, joined the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) for a time, but states that he no longer belongs to any religion.

“There shouldn’t be the fear of hell or the promise of heaven,” he told television station KUTV.

According to reports, Williams’ wives live in two separate homes, and each night he stays with a different woman. Cameras followed Williams and his wives for three months, recording their interactions, including inter-”family” disputes and rumors of pregnancy and adoption.

“[E]ach one-hour episode offers a candid look at a controversial lifestyle and goes behind closed doors to share an intimate portrait of this big, loving, progressive family,” TLC outlines. “From dealing with everyday issues like maintaining a strong marriage and raising children to more complicated issues such as jealousy, loneliness and their schedules with Brady, nothing is off-limits.”

“We’re just like any other family, just on a bigger scale,” one of the women states in the trailer for the broadcast.

Similar to the reality show Sister Wives featuring Kody Brown and his four wives, My Fives Wives Seeks to gain acceptance and tolerance of the polygamist lifestyle.

t’s important to stand up for what’s right. And it’s right to allow consenting adults who are well-adjusted and not coerced to be able to share their lives and raise their children in a stable and loving environment,” Williams told the Salt Lake Tribune.

But others have stated that promoting polygamy is far from “what’s right”—especially in the eyes of God.

“When we take a look back at Scripture, and the immoral behavior of those living in Sodom and Gomorrah, we find everything that is taking place today with the sexual immoral behavior, as it was back in those days. So what can we truly expect from God if he destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah?” asks the blog Prophesies of the End Times. “[Many] Bible verses have significance to why God said a man should have one wife…and a woman as his wife. So why has America and other countries taken a path to that of Sodom and Gomorrah?”

Warning: Implied profanity
vid
http://christiannews.net/2014/03/09/my-five-wives-tlc-reality-show-to-follow-life-of-utah-polygamist/
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
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 10, 2014, 12:35:30 pm »

Quote
“There shouldn’t be the fear of hell or the promise of heaven,” he told television station KUTV.

Saying there is no promise of heaven is all but spitting in God's face.

Luke 1:68  Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
Luk 1:69  And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
Luk 1:70  As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
Luk 1:71  That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luk 1:72  To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luk 1:73  The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
Luk 1:74  That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
Luk 1:75  In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: March 10, 2014, 12:45:29 pm »

Jhn 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
Jhn 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Jhn 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
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: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: March 20, 2014, 04:08:53 am »

More Danes opting for open relationships

A growing number of Danes are questioning the concept of monogamy. Social scientists say they see a growing interest in open relationships and free love.

“It's not a revolution like the one we saw in the 1960s, but it is a significant trend that is becoming really interesting,” Susanne Lysbye, the head of Dansk Sexologforening,  the Danish sexologists association, told  Kristeligt Dagblad newspaper. “It is becoming more common to stand openly and publicly declare yourself to be non-monogamous.”

The Facebook group ‘Polyamori in Denmark’ has more than 200 members and another closed group counts some 500 members.

Free love lessons
Author Sara Skaarup, who is in an open relationship herself, gives lectures on how to make it work.

“I think the growing interest in open relationships is because more Danes are becoming aware that there are other ways to live,” Skaarup told Kristeligt Dagblad. She said that this decade's version of free love is based more on mutual agreements, contracts between the couple and rules than the '60s version.

“Open relationships require absolute consensus and clear rules, but things still very often go wrong,” she said.

http://cphpost.dk/news/more-danes-opting-for-open-relationships.8867.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
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: March 22, 2014, 11:43:59 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/kenya-legalises-polygamy-without-wifes-consent-135856380.html
3/21/14
Kenya legalises polygamy without wife's consent

Nairobi (AFP) - Kenya's parliament has passed a bill allowing men to marry as many women as they want, prompting a furious backlash from female lawmakers who stormed out, reports said Friday.

The bill, which amended existing marriage legislation, was passed late on Thursday to formalise customary law about marrying more than one person.

The proposed bill had initially given a wife the right to veto the husband's choice, but male members of parliament overcame party divisions to push through a text that dropped this clause.

"When you marry an African woman, she must know the second one is on the way, and a third wife... this is Africa," MP Junet Mohammed told the house, according to Nairobi's Capital FM.

As in many parts of Africa, polygamy is common among traditional communities in Kenya, as well as among the country's Muslim community, which accounts for up to a fifth of the population.

"Any time a man comes home with a woman, that would be assumed to be a second or third wife," said Samuel Chepkong'a, chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, the Daily Nation newspaper reported.

"Under customary law, women or wives you have married do not need to be told when you're coming home with a second or third wife. Any lady you bring home is your wife," he added.

- Men fear 'women's tongues' -

Female MPs stormed out of the late-night session in fury after a heated debate.

"We know that men are afraid of women's tongues more than anything else," female legislator Soipan Tuya told fellow MPs, according to Capital FM.

"But at the end of the day, if you are the man of the house, and you choose to bring on another party -- and they may be two or three -- I think it behoves you to be man enough to agree that your wife and family should know," she added.

A clause in which a partner who had promised marriage but then backed out of the wedding could face financial damages was also dropped, as male MPs argued it could have been used to extort cash.

They also argued that marriage should be based on love, and not have a financial cost placed upon it.

Parliamentary majority leader Aden Duale, a Muslim, said that men marrying more than one woman was part of the Islamic faith, but also highlighted Biblical stories to justify Christians not asking their wife before taking another.

"I want my Christian brothers to read the Old Testament -- King David and King Solomon never consulted anybody to marry a second wife," Duale told the house.

Women are not allowed to marry more than one man in Kenya.

The bill must now pass before the president to be signed before becoming law.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: April 25, 2014, 06:14:50 am »

The next marriage redefinition? Massachusetts lesbian ‘throuple’ expecting their first child (Video)

Three “married” lesbians in Massachusetts have announced they are expecting the first of several children intended for their polygamous union. But marriage advocates say the story confirms their warnings about the slippery slope created by redefining marriage and granting legal privileges based on a self-identified characteristic like sexual orientation.

The three women – Doll, 30; Brynn, 32; and Kitten, 27 – are not legally married to all the members of the polyamorous coupling, something not permitted under state or federal law.

Brynn and Doll have been together since 2009. However, it is Brynn and Kitten who were legally “married” in a ceremony last August; Doll was “handfasted” to both.

“We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided,” Brynn said.

They consider themselves a “throuple.” Brynn said, “I like to think of us as a romantic committee.”

The idea for the ceremony, culminated when each of their fathers walked them down the aisle, came from Kitten. “Marriage had always been an important symbol of commitment for me,” she said.

After the ceremony, the three set up house and divided chores, with Brynn working a 40-hour week to bring home the money, Doll cooking, and Kitten cleaning the house. And bearing the children.

Kitten announced that she had used IVF to become pregnant by an anonymous sperm donor. She hopes to bear three children, one for each of the mothers. She expects to deliver the first in July.

Until it occurred, proponents of same-sex “marriage” dismissed the argument that gay “marriage” would undermine monogamy. But Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of The Ruth Institute, said she was not surprised to learn of the trio. “We have been saying for some time that once you remove the gender requirement there is no reason for marriage to be confined to only two people,” Dr. Morse told LifeSiteNews.com.

Like the gay rights movement, the Massachusetts throuple hopes to strike a blow for polyamorous “rights.”

Brynn says she hopes anyone who hears of her story will learn, “Polyfidelity is not something that is seedy or something that's meant to be hidden away. It can be a perfectly acceptable and functional choice of life and love.”

The fidelity and functionality of her relationships has been tested in the past; Brynn has been married to two other women. Still, she says she wants society to accord their relationship the same status as heterosexual marriage.

“The three of us have been brave enough to stand tall and go against what society calls normal,” Brynn said. “We are simply people trying to live the life that we feel is best for us and we deserve the rights afforded to others.”

Like homosexual activists in their bid to redefine marriage, polyamorists seem to present themselves as passive inheritors of a predetermined sexual inclination.

Kitten, a fashion designer, says after her male fiancè broke up with her, “I realized that I hadn't been happy in my previous monogamous relationships and I discovered that I was poly.” Doll added that she “never thought that much about it and I had never really 'come out' as poly to my friends and family. To me, it was just how I was.”

“Two of these ladies believe they were 'born' polyamorous,” Dr. Morse told LifeSiteNews. “This is a whole new category that has not been legally explored.”

That should give pause as lawmakers in states and cities around the nation create new laws barring “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, often with severe penalties. “Some of us have said for a long time that sexual orientation is a category that people can define themselves into and out of,” she said. Therefore, “lawyers have no business creating a protected class around a trait that you define yourself.”

The announcement is the culmination of the notion that marriage has an infinitely elastic definition, according to Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.

“Ideas have consequences,” George said. Once society rejects the notion of marriage as a conjugal union “with its central structuring norm of sexual complementarity in favor of a concept” that “'love makes a family,' then what possible principled basis could be identified for a norm 'restricting' marriage to two-person partnerships, as opposed to polyamorous sexual ensembles of three or more persons?”

He added that more than 300 'LGBT' scholars and allies, including Gloria Steinem and Barbara Ehrenreich, “have bitten the bullet and said that there is no reason not to further re-shape 'marriage' to include multiple partner unions” by signing the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” manifesto.

The 2006 document presents “a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships.”

Among those relationships the document said should be granted equal “recognition and benefits” as heterosexual marriages are “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” and “queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households.”

Proclaiming themselves “part of an interdependent, global community,” signatories admit, “The struggle for same-sex marriage rights is only one part of a larger effort.”

Lesbian author Masha Gessen admitted the gay “marriage” movement used lies and deception to destroy the concept of marriage to the audience of the 2012 Sydney Writer's Festival.

“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie,” she confessed.

“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist,” she said.

George said the same slogans and arguments can be used to promote polygamous or polyamorous “marriage” as same-sex “marriage.”

The Family Policy Institute of Washington greeted the news by saying, “And if you don't think it's the most wonderful thing in the world, you are, of course, a bigot.”

Focusing on the Massachusetts trio with the impending birth of a child, Dr. Morse told LifeSiteNews.com, “I predict that within five years of the birth of the baby this relationship will be in complete shambles. Every adult knows that when you place a baby into a mother's arms that many things change in ways that she could not predict.”

“I have read many lesbian custody cases,” she said. “Reading between the lines, what I see is that the mother cannot quite accept the idea that her child will call somebody else mommy. The mother thinks she is the one and only mother. She has more trouble than she expected sharing the care of her child with another woman.”

She forecast, “The law will take sides with the women who are not related to the baby against the interests of the woman who is in fact the biological mother of the baby. That's my prediction: this thing will break down within five years. Much to the detriment of the child.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-next-marriage-redefinition-massachusetts-lesbian-throuple-expecting-the
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
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: April 25, 2014, 09:08:27 am »

I read about this yesterday - talk about the lost world being in CONFUSION now.

Read the chapter in Acts yesterday when Paul entered into that city where they worshipped the goddess Diana - THAT city just went into GREAT confusion.

IOW - paganism will always bring sodomy.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: May 07, 2014, 01:06:48 pm »

Florida man demands right to wed computer
Man sues for the right to marry his ****-laden Macbook, arguing that if gays are allowed to marry then so should other sexual minorities


 Chris Sevier, a man from Florida, believes he should be allowed to wed his Macbook.

Mr Sevier argues that if gays should be allowed to marry, then so should other sexual minorities.

Mr Sevier states he has fallen in love with a pornography laden computer.

“Over time, I began preferring sex with my computer over sex with real women,” he told a court in Florida.

This appears to be not a passing holiday romance, but a lifelong commitment.



If gays have the right to “marry their object of sexual desire, even if they lack corresponding sexual parts, then I should have the right to marry my preferred sexual object”, he said.

Mr Sevier, who describes himself as “a former judge advocate and combat veteran”, is persistent, filing claims not only in Florida but also Utah.

The Utah claim, which in reality is an attempt to throw a spanner in the works of a gay marriage case in the federal court, runs to 50 pages.

Mr Sevier argues that allowing gays to marry but denying him the same right amounts to discrimination.

“We are in different classes of sexual orientation,” he told the court in Utah.

If gays feel as is they are second class citizens, Mr Sevier argues then “those of us in the real minority, who want to marry machines and animals, certainly feel like third class citizens”.

Mr Sevier apparently sought a marriage licence for himself and his “machine spouse”, but for some reason was denied.

“The exclusion from marriage to a machine denies myself a dignity and status of immense import,” he argues in his motion.

Mr Sevier cites legal precedents around the world - including a case where a woman married a dolphin and a Chinese man wed a cardboard cutout of himself.

“Allowing my marriage to go forward will not adversely impact the fertility rate any more or less than a same sex couples.

“If there is a risk that is posed to traditional marriage and children, both man-man couples and man-machine couples pose it equally.

“In considering the equal protection clause, there are no fewer policy reasons for preventing man-machine couples from marrying than there are for same-sex couples.”

Unfortunately for Mr Sevier, the courts in Florida and Utah, found his legal arguments unpersuasive.

But with the gay marriage being tested in courts across the country, more motions are inevitable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10814098/marriage-gay-marriage-mac-wedding-computer-Florida-Utah.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
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: May 08, 2014, 12:37:55 am »

Florida man demands right to wed computer
Man sues for the right to marry his ****-laden Macbook, arguing that if gays are allowed to marry then so should other sexual minorities


Talk about predictive programming here...Dunno - but the guy in this story looks almost exactly like the main character guy in this (similarly themed)movie...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_(film)

Her is a 2013 American science fiction romantic comedy-drama film written, produced and directed by Spike Jonze. The film stars Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara, Olivia Wilde, and Scarlett Johansson as the voice of Samantha. The film centers on a man who develops a relationship with an intelligent computer operating system (OS) with a female voice and personality. It marks Jonze's solo screenwriting debut. The film premiered at the 2013 New York Film Festival and was released theatrically in the United States on December 18, 2013.[3][4]
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 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