End Times and Current Events
August 22, 2017, 09:24:12 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

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

Shoutbox
August 21, 2017, 04:12:33 am Christian40 says: Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Galatians 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
July 24, 2017, 11:47:30 am Romans 14:21 says: Yeah, just saw Dr. Johnson talking about it in his last audio study. Haven't listened to it yet, but looking forward to hearing that.
July 23, 2017, 03:58:47 am Christian40 says: i learnt that magnesium is one of the best things for the body and should be like a number one for good health
July 18, 2017, 04:09:19 am Christian40 says: BBC International on youtube has some good videos by Dr Gene Kim
June 21, 2017, 05:50:35 pm Romans 14:21 says: Mark, I don't want to flood your pm box. But just wanted to say I emailed bro Scott about this issue.
April 29, 2017, 05:20:18 am Christian40 says: What i'm thinking a strike on North Korea possible on some occultic date May 1? the aftermath of WW3 will bring in the Antichrist? Yeah Mayhem in May?
April 20, 2017, 04:55:44 pm Mark says:
April 06, 2017, 09:26:29 pm Mark says: TRUMP LAUNCHES 50+ MISSILES AIMED AT SYRIA
March 05, 2017, 01:16:17 am Christian40 says: i hope the rapture is this year i encourage You to keep working for the Lord
March 05, 2017, 01:06:24 am Christian40 says: i'm glad that the summer is over in Australia the heat was making me feel crazy its a good month to be in now
View Shout History
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: first Gays, now polygamy! upnext? Chickens!!!  (Read 2752 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #60 on: May 11, 2014, 07:13:14 am »

Is It Time To Change Our Views Of Adultery and Marriage?

In today's society, marriage happens when two people (usually a man and a woman) fall in love and decide to spend the rest of their lives together in monogamy. But did you know that wasn't always the case? In fact, the modern version of marriage emerged a mere couple of hundred years ago. In the past, marriage rarely involved love (most marriages were arranged based on income and social status), and the majority of societies allowed and expected plural marriages, with either multiple wives or multiple husbands.

Clearly the concept of marriage has changed greatly over the years. And with today's rate of divorce between 40 and 50 percent, coupled with the prevalence of adultery in many marriages, perhaps it's time for the concept of marriage to continue to evolve. According to Associated Press, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41 percent of spouses admit to infidelity, either physical or emotional. This leads me to ask, "Are we really supposed to be with just one person our whole life? And if not, must we get re-married five times? Are there alternative ways to perceive and participate in a marriage that will guarantee its success?"

Adultery May Be Inevitable

Hundreds of years ago, life expectancy was a fraction of what it is today. When two people in their 20s got married, it was quite possible that one of the two would be deceased within 10-15 years -- often much sooner. Today, however, that same young couple could be together for 60 or more years! Is it realistic to think that two people could be emotionally, mentally, physically and sexually compatible for that long? I've known several marriages that last that long, and a few even look happy, which is great. However, they're few and far between.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not condoning adultery as we know it, because I'm not strictly talking about sex. But because it is so taboo, when you consider the historical context of marriage, isn't being shocked by adultery a bit of an overreaction?

Of course, no one can deny that when you lie and do something behind another person's back, you are doing something wrong. You're breaking an agreement, and that lacks integrity. You're breaking trust with the other person, which is most definitely hurtful. But in the course of a long term relationship, taking into account the practical realities of our human need to experience life on our own, or through experiences with other platonic or romantic relationships, perhaps a new kind of conversation can unfold with your spouse or partner where you jointly communicate your needs and set reasonable and practical parameters of what is and isn't allowed in your marriage, so the negative and hidden behaviors associated with adultery don't take place.

A Lesson From the Japanese

The Japanese culture, which views marriage as vital for social status, not something you do for love, has a booming adultery industry. Online adultery site Ashley Madison says Japan was the fastest country to reach 1 million users, and the ratio of women to men on the site is about two-to-one.

I worked in Japan off and on for nearly a decade and often heard people say that marriage was more of a business and didn't encompass the whole being. Men would say, "I got married because you have to marry to be respected as a man. You can't get a job in a good company if you're not married." Similarly, women often said, "If you're a woman and you're not married, it looks bad on you, it's hard to fit in, and you can't have children or you and your child will be shamed." As a result, many people in Japan get married to anyone, whether they're attracted to them or not, because in that culture marriage makes you legitimate, which is true in many cultures. In fact, I once asked several men why they regularly visited hostess clubs (night clubs that employ female staff to act like "rent-a-girlfriends" to men), and they all said similar sentiments: "My wife is cool with it. That's our culture. She doesn't love me either. She's thrilled that I'm gone and I'm not bugging her for sex or company." Clearly, in the Japanese culture, the concept of marriage is viewed very differently than the widely held beliefs of it in the West, showing that marriage cannot be a one-size-fits-all concept.

An Evolving View of Marriage

Since marriage has evolved so much over the ages, and different cultures have different views of it even today, perhaps it's time for the age-old institution to evolve yet again. Maybe the tenets of a successful marriage should not be whether the couple stays monogamous for decades, but rather whether the couple openly communicates about what their unique marriage will look like, what will be deemed acceptable and what will not, and then honoring that joint decision.

For example, most couples that end up on my couch say that they have fallen into complacency. One or both people in the relationship have checked out, but they don't want to divorce for the sake of their children. Or they still love each other, valuing each other as a support system and as close friends, but don't feel sexual toward one another. Or one partner feels the need for solitude to work on themself, separate from the responsibilities required in a relationship. In any of these cases, they're all frustrated by the limitations put upon them by the traditional expectations of marriage.

I always tell my clients to create a vision plan of what they want their marriage to look like and what they'd both be okay with. This will enable their relationship to grow within the confines of how they, as a unique couple, define marriage. One of my couples took a year off; another couple decided to live separately but stay BFF's because they enjoyed each other's friendship, but the passion died. And guess what eventually happened to both couples? They ended up back together again because they had breathing room and felt that simply having the freedom to do what they wanted shifted their energy back to their original partner. Sometimes, as the saying goes, "absence makes the heart grow fonder." But perhaps "abstinence" could be an appropriate substitution in that statement?

Having that kind of openness to look at the relationship is key to happiness and reducing the shame of hiding your wants and needs from your life partner. If marriage is a sacred union, then we owe it to our partner to be honest with them, however complicated each other's individual expectations may be.

In my work as a Hollywood life coach and spiritual teacher, I see many clients who are divorcing and cite adultery as the main factor. And when I ask why the adultery occurred, the adulterous party usually explains they felt emotionally disconnected from their partner and felt trapped -- that the communication was gone. Imagine how many divorces and heartbreaks we could avoid if our culture was okay with having this type of open communication -- the type of willingness to allow the marriage to evolve into something both parties can agree on, even if it's not society's customary image of marriage?

If we're going to broaden or evolve the definition of marriage to incorporate modern realities, communication is the first step. Therefore, I urge everyone to talk with their spouse or partner today and together co-create what your marriage will be. Yes, it really is that simple... and it's the surest way to ensure a happy and healthy relationship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-haisha/is-it-time-to-change-our-adultery_b_5242171.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Report Spam   Logged

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: May 11, 2014, 07:53:37 am »

Or read 1 Corinthians 7...

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.
1Co 7:7  For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
1Co 7:8  I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Co 7:9  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1Co 7:10  And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11  But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
1Co 7:12  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:13  And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Co 7:14  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1Co 7:15  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
1Co 7:16  For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
1Co 7:17  But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
1Co 7:18  Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
1Co 7:19  Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
1Co 7:20  Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
1Co 7:21  Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
1Co 7:22  For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
1Co 7:23  Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
1Co 7:24  Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
1Co 7:25  Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
1Co 7:26  I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
1Co 7:27  Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1Co 7:28  But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
1Co 7:29  But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
1Co 7:30  And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
1Co 7:31  And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
1Co 7:32  But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
1Co 7:33  But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
1Co 7:34  There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
1Co 7:35  And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
1Co 7:36  But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
1Co 7:37  Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
1Co 7:38  So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
1Co 7:39  The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
1Co 7:40  But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #62 on: May 11, 2014, 08:08:46 am »

or

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

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: June 24, 2014, 12:23:35 pm »

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/51688/20140620/will-polygamy-be-the-next-homosexuality.htm
6/20/14
Will Polygamy Be the Next Homosexuality?

As the battle for marriage equality rages on, a different, more obscure kind of sexual immorality is slowly rearing its ugly head: polygamy.

Polygamy is defined as the "the custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time," a practice which directly violates the Biblical commandment instructing marriage to be between a single man and wife (1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6).

However, the secular media is increasingly attempting to normalize, and even glamorize this kind of perverted lifestyle.

Showtime is airing an original series called Polyamory: Married & Dating, which follows two polyamorous families living in Southern California. The show follows in the footsteps of "Sister Wives," which shows a depicting a man "happily married" to three wives.

Most recently, NBC released a show called True Believers, in which viewers get an inside look into what it's like to "live with multiple partners without sacrificing the comforts of home." The producers get up close and person with five adults and a 9-year-old girl who see nothing amiss with their lifestyle.

Jennifer LeClaire, author of "The Making of a Prophet" calls the push for polygamy a "new level of debauchery," warning that it will soon follow in the footsteps of the homosexual agenda in becoming a national issue. 

"The prince of the power of the air is using media to push a new level of debauchery to generations young and old," she writes.

"ABC has preached the "gospel of polyamory" in its attempt to move past gay marriage into further destruction of God's plan for the family."

"Slowly and steadily, the push for polyamory is rising in the media, in many ways taking a page from the gay agenda's playbook. Polyamory is already a legislative issue in Canada. Rest assured, America is next. The shadow of Sodom and Gomorrah hangs over America. Perversion is rising.


Currently, polyamory is illegal in 21 states, but recent polls suggest that number may change. NBC reports that 5 percent of people in the United States are in polyamorous relationships and reveals there are over 900 in Atlanta's polyamory community.

LeClaire warns against complacency, saying Christians have an obligation to protect God's plan for the family and protect the next generation. She encourages Christians to unite together and pray for the preservation of traditional marriage.

"If we sit by and complain or stick our heads in the sand, arguing that Christians should not be discussing these issues, then we're admitting defeat and displeasing Christ. But if you believe that God can deliver some from the grip of immorality...then drop to your knees and join with me in intercessory prayer. It's not only about setting the captives free-it's about protecting the next generation of young minds the media is molding.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: July 08, 2014, 10:45:35 am »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'
How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences

7/5/14

 "Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

 A key factor in what happened all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, allegedly, the corridors of power was not just institutional failings or establishment “conspiracies”, but a climate of far greater intellectual tolerance of practices that horrify today.

With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shrinking taboos against premarital sex, the Seventies was an era of quite sudden sexual emancipation. Many liberals, of course, saw through PIE’s cynical rhetoric of “child lib”. But to others on the Left, sex by or with children was just another repressive boundary to be swept away – and some of the most important backing came from academia.

In 1981, a respectable publisher, Batsford, published Perspectives on Paedophilia, edited by Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University, to challenge what Dr Taylor’s introduction called the “prejudice” against child sex. Disturbingly, the book was aimed at “social workers, community workers, probation officers and child care workers”.

The public, wrote Dr Taylor, “generally thinks of paedophiles as sick or evil men who lurk around school playgrounds in the hope of attempting unspecified beastliness with unsuspecting innocent children”. That, he reassured readers, was merely a “stereotype”, both “inaccurate and unhelpful”, which flew in the face of the “empirical realities of paedophile behaviour”. Why, most adult-child sexual relationships occurred in the family!

The perspectives of most, though not all, the contributors, appeared strongly pro-paedophile. At least two were members of PIE and at least one, Peter Righton, (who was, incredibly, director of education at the National Institute for Social Work) was later convicted of child sex crimes. But from the viewpoint of today, the fascinating thing about Perspectives on Paedophilia is that at least two of its contributors are still academically active and influential.

 Ken Plummer is emeritus professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and teaches courses, the most recent scheduled for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles,” he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia, “are not intrinsic to the phenomen[on] but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities …

“Paedophiles are told they are the seducers and rapists of children; they know their experiences are often loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and innocent, devoid of sexuality; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they meet that this is not the case.”

As recently as 2012, Prof Plummer published on his personal blog a chapter he wrote in another book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, in 1991. “As homosexuality has become slightly less open to sustained moral panic, the new pariah of 'child molester’ has become the latest folk devil,” he wrote. “Many adult paedophiles say that boys actively seek out sex partners … 'childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object.”

Prof Plummer confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that he had been a member of PIE in order to “facilitate” his research. He said: “I would never want any of my work to be used as a rationale for doing 'bad things’ – and I regard all coercive, abusive, exploitative sexuality as a 'bad thing’. I am sorry if it has impacted anyone negatively this way, or if it has encouraged this.” However, he did not answer when asked if he still held the views he expressed in the Eighties and Nineties. A spokesman for Essex University claimed Prof Plummer’s work “did not express support for paedophilia” and cited the university’s charter which gave academic staff “freedom within the law to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy”.

Graham Powell is one of the country’s most distinguished psychologists, a past president of the British Psychological Society and a current provider of psychology support services to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Crime Squad, the Metropolitan Police, Kent Police, Essex Police and the Internet Watch Foundation.

In Perspectives on Paedophilia, however, he co-authored a chapter which stated: “In the public mind, paedophile attention is generally assumed to be traumatic and to have lasting and wholly deleterious consequences for the victim. The evidence that we have considered here does not support this view … we need to ask not why are the effects of paedophile action so large, but why so small.”

The chapter does admit that there were “methodological problems” with the studies the authors relied on which “leave our conclusions somewhat muted”. Dr Powell told The Sunday Telegraph last week that “what I wrote was completely wrong and it is a matter of deep regret that it could in any way have made things more difficult [for victims]”. He said: “The literature [scientific evidence] was so poor in 1981, people just didn’t realise what was going on. There was a lack of understanding at the academic level.” Dr Powell said he had never been a member of PIE.

In other academic quarters, with rather fewer excuses, that lack of understanding appears to be reasserting itself. The Cambridge University conference, on July 4-5 last year, was about the classification of sexuality in the DSM, a standard international psychiatric manual used by the police and courts.

After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated. The proposal arose because puberty in children has started ever earlier in recent decades and as a result, it was argued, the current definition of paedophilia – pre-pubertal sexual attraction – missed out too many young people.

Ray Blanchard, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who led the APA’s working group on the subject, said that unless some other way was found of encompassing hebephilia in the new manual, that was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”.

Prof Blanchard was in turn criticised by a speaker at the Cambridge conference, Patrick Singy, of Union College, New York, who said hebephilia would be abused as a diagnosis to detain sex offenders as “mentally ill” under US “sexually violent predator” laws even after they had completed their sentences.

But perhaps the most controversial presentation of all was by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, who stated in a presentation on the “prevalence of paedophilia” that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”.

O’Carroll, the former PIE leader, was thrilled, and described on his blog how he joined Prof Tromovitch and a colleague for drinks after the conference. “The conversation flowed most agreeably, along with the drinks and the beautiful River Cam,” he said.

It’s fair to say the Tromovitch view does not represent majority academic opinion. It’s likely, too, that some of the academic protests against the “stigmatisation” of paedophiles are as much a backlash against the harshness of sex offender laws as anything else. Finally, of course, academic inquiry is supposed to question conventional wisdom and to deal rigorously with the evidence, whether or not the conclusions it leads you to are popular.

Even so, there really is now no shortage of evidence about the harm done by child abuse. In the latest frenzy about the crimes of the past, it’s worth watching whether we could, in the future, go back to the intellectual climate which allowed them.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2014, 11:21:07 am »

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

Judge in Australia says incest may no longer be a taboo and the only reason it is criminal is potential birth abnormalities, which can be solved by abortion

 A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.

"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone."

Judge Neilson made the comments during the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister. The man has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his sister when she was 10 or 11 years old in 1973 or 1974 but has pleaded not guilty to charges relating to sex they had in 1981, when she was 18 and he was 26.

"By that stage they are both mature adults," the judge said.

"The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become 'free' when the second relationship broke down. The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister but we've come a long way from the 1950s – when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful."

The comments were labelled misogynistic and "completely disgraceful" by Sally Dowling, the crown prosecutor, who has asked an appeal court to appoint another judge.

"The reference to abortion is particularly repellent," she said.

Dr Cathy Kezelman, an advocate for preventing child sex abuse, said incest was horrific, regardless of the ages of those involved.

"The relational betrayal of the horrors of incest between a brother and sister of any age is abhorrently criminal," she told The Sydney Morning Herald.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html
Report Spam   Logged

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

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

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2014, 11:33:09 am »

Why sexual deviance is getting worse

There are atheists and liberals, some who are both, who believe there is no need for God in order for morality to be maintained in a society. They argue that people can act morally apart from a supreme authority.

I agree that people can act morally apart from God's standard. However, the real question is why should they? If there is no supreme authority -- no God -- then why behave morally?

If there is no God, there are no objective standards for moral behavior. The logical progression leads to anarchy. Everyone does what is right in his or her eyes. This is clearly seen in the area of sexual expression.

If there is no God, then there is no objective, authoritative standard when it comes to sexual expression. The logical result is sexual anarchy.

I attended a debate in downtown Portland, Ore., more than a decade ago regarding whether it was appropriate for Oregon public schools to promote homosexuality as natural, normal and healthy.

At some point during the discussion someone suggested homosexuality and incest were morally equivalent.

When the debate ended, I was confronted by a woman who identified herself as a lesbian. She was furious that we "Bible-thumpers" were ignorant enough to equate incest with homosexuality.

I listened to her tirade until she paused to take a breath. Then I asked her, "Why are you so upset with homosexuality and incest being morally equivalent."

"Because of the use of power by an adult authority figure to manipulate a younger person for the purpose of gaining sex," she replied.

"That is not incest," I said. "You have described pedophilia (sex with children) or ephebophilia (sex with teens) but not incest."

I continued, "Incest is persons who are related to one another having sexual relations. Why do you care if two adults who are in the same family consent to a sexual relationship?"

"It is just wrong," the woman said. "It is not natural!"

"Really?" I said. "I agree with you that it is not natural for the same reason your sexual behavior is not natural, because the Bible indicates what is natural, normal and healthy."

The woman glared at me.

"If we reject God's standards, we are left with nothing more than subjective criteria," I said. "Incest might be wrong for you but there is no way you can say it is wrong for anyone else."

I continued, "So you are judging those who pursue incest by your own subjective ethic -- the same thing you accuse us 'Bible-thumpers' of doing."

The woman stomped off.

The evidence of a sexual anarchy is all around us. It is the result of rejecting God's authoritative standards and embracing a subjective morality.

The sexual expressions of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism were once deemed to be aberrant and perverse. Not anymore. These behaviors are now celebrated by many around the world as natural, normal and healthy.

Children as young as 5 who say they were born the "wrong" sex are encouraged by parents to pursue their feelings. Some are even given drugs to impede the onset of puberty.

Sexual anarchy is progressing toward the acceptance of more and more perverse behavior. Adult incest, which the lesbian in Portland believed to be unnatural, is already accepted in many countries.

Among the countries that do not punish consensual adult incest are Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Luxembourg, Turkey, Russia, India, Israel, China, Sweden, Brazil and Japan.

A judge in Australia recently said that adult "incest may no longer be a taboo and the only reason it is criminal is potential birth abnormalities, which can be solved by abortion," London's Daily Telegraph reported.

If there ever were a case of two wrongs not making a right, it is the judge's linking of incest with abortion. It is moral anarchy on steroids.

Another form of sexual expression that some regard as acceptable is pedophilia.

Consider the following:

In an article titled "Mental Health's Cold Shoulder Treatment of Pedophilia" from "Behavioral Health Management," Douglas Edwards cited Fred Berlin of the Johns Hopkins Department of Psychiatry: "Dr. Berlin discounts the common view that pedophilia is a conscious choice. He regards pedophilia as a lifelong sexual orientation, just as hetero- and homosexuality, and he says patients can be terrified by the discovery of pedophilic cravings."

Richard Gardner, the late clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, argued that America's attitude toward child sexual encounters was out of step with the cultures of the world. In his book "True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse," Gardner blamed the oppressive morality of the Bible for the American view of pedophilia. He also wrote, "It is of interest that of all the ancient peoples it may very well be that the Jews were the only ones who were punitive toward pedophiles.""

These are just two of several dozen so-called scholarly articles advocating pedophilia as a natural, normal and healthy sexual expression.

Sexual anarchy is unfolding before our very eyes and it will continue until our culture once again recognizes God as the supreme authority for sexual morality. Until then, sexual expression will become even more perverse. You ain't seen nothing yet.

http://www.bpnews.net/firstperson/42955/firstperson-why-sexual-deviance-is-getting-worse
Report Spam   Logged

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: July 24, 2014, 07:55:42 pm »

Yes, you read it right!

Woman Marries Man, Becomes a Lesbian, Marries a Woman Who Became a Man
7/17/14

“A woman marries man, has two kids, decides she's a lesbian, finds another lesbian who has a sex change to become a man so they can marry. Now she's ‘married’ to a woman who looks like a man ... because she likes women. Insanity." — Dan Brannan

There are some things that can’t be made up.

They are stranger than fiction.

Here’s a story I missed.

It seems to fit in the category of the “new normal” to make the abnormal normal.

If you are normal, in the usual sense of the word, then you are the new abnormal.

This comment on the story seems to sum up the absurdity of it all: "I'm confused, if she's a lesbian why is she with someone now who is male?"

The goal of these bizarre stories on popular shows like Oprah is to show the most outrageous acts, bubble wrap them in "love," present them to the world as a "special relationship," thus defining deviancy down.

Once this type of absurd relationship is accepted, then any relationship or behavior can be accepted. Who are we to judge what love is?


A former guest on Oprah has opened up about the extreme lengths her partner went to in order for them to be able to get married.

Christine Tringali Nunes, 44, was married to her husband Joe for seven years before they both came out as gay in a 2006 episode of Oprah.

Eight years later, on Sunday night's episode of Oprah: Where Are They Now? the mother-of-two revealed that she is now the wife of the 'love of her life' Jacki, who made quite the sacrifice to be able to marry her.

Jacki explains that she first spotted Christine, a yoga instructor in Sacramento, California, when she appeared on Oprah, and was immediately smitten.

'When the camera panned over to her, my initial response was, "Oh, my God. That woman's beautiful," recalls Jacki, who works for UPS. 'I would have never thought she was a lesbian if I saw her walking the streets.'

After they got to know each other, Christine and Jacki fell in love, and Christine asked her partner to marry her.

At the time, however, same-sex marriage was illegal in their home state of California.

That's when they discovered a loophole in the law. 'I started looking into transgender,' says Jacki.

'In the eyes of the courts, if I were to have my gender changed to male, just like that — she gets my social security, she gets my pension.'

So in early 2013, Jacki elected to have a double mastectomy. In April of that year, she officially changed her sex to 'male' on her birth certificate.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/16316/woman-marries-man-becomes-lesbian-wants-marry-woman-became-man/#DtgiSVHtmpMV7hcu.99
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: August 27, 2014, 10:16:04 pm »

http://fox13now.com/2014/08/27/federal-judge-strikes-down-portion-of-utahs-ban-on-polygamy/
8/27/14
Federal judge strikes down part of Utah’s ban on polygamy

SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge declared a portion of Utah’s polygamy ban unconstitutional late Wednesday, essentially decriminalizing polygamy in the state.

U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups ruled the phrase in the law “‘or cohabits with another person’ is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is without a rational basis under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by reality TV polygamist Kody Brown and his wives, who left Utah fearing prosecution. They sued the state, arguing that the ban violated their right to freely practice their religion.

The ruling follows a similar order in December of last year that the judge took back while he decided the issue of damages. In the order, Judge Waddoups did preserve the phrases “marry” and “purports to marry” to “save the statute from being invalidated in its entirety.”

The judge also awarded financial compensation to the Brown family.

The Utah Attorney General’s Office told FOX 13 late Wednesday it was reviewing the ruling. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes told FOX 13’s Ben Winslow in an interview last year that he intended to appeal to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a statement, Brown family attorney Jonathan Turley said he hoped Reyes would not appeal.

“After this decision, abuse of spouses and children will continue to be prosecuted regardless of whether they occur in monogamous or polygamous families. These protective services will only be strengthened now that many families can openly integrate into society and not fear prosecution merely because of their family structure,” he wrote.

“Utah is a state that was founded by citizens seeking those very rights against government abuse. Utah is better place because of the courageous decision of Judge Waddoups and the commitment of the Brown family in defense of our Constitution.”

Kody Brown and his wives issued a statement late Wednesday. It reads:

“The entire Brown family is gratified and thankful for this final ruling from Judge Waddoups. The decision brings closure for our family and further reaffirms the right of all families to be free from government abuse. While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our religious beliefs. Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs. We hope that Attorney General Reyes will see this as a victory of us all in defending the freedom of religion and other rights in our precious Constitution. We want to particularly thank our lead counsel Professor Jonathan Turley who represented us through the criminal investigation and then led the fight against this law to reach this historic decision. We also want to thank the team of lawyers and students from George Washington, including our local counsel Adam Alba. We are so honored and blessed to have been able to serve as the vehicle for this milestone ruling. Professor Turley has pledged to defend this decision on appeal and we are equally committed to fight to preserve this now final and complete victory.”
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: August 28, 2014, 05:41:39 am »

You knew that was coming.... Up next... Chickens  Shocked seriously
Report Spam   Logged

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: August 28, 2014, 10:01:20 am »

You knew that was coming.... Up next... Chickens  Shocked seriously

Yes - I was thinking the same thing.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: September 13, 2014, 03:12:41 pm »

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/12/is-polygamy-the-next-gay-marriage.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29
9/12/14

Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage?

Should we really care if more than two consenting adults want to marry each other, or if polygamy advocates see the LGBT movement as an inspiration?


A few years ago, when I was rushing my daughter to pre-school one morning, a similarly tardy and exasperated-looking mom passed us on the stairs. My daughter took this as an opportunity to announce, “I have two moms.” The exasperated mom picked up her hunched shoulders to turn to Willa and, after a sigh, say, “You don’t know how lucky you are.”

This has happened to us a lot. On more occasions than I can count, overwhelmed straight parents have proclaimed how much they wish their family had two moms and, thus, extra help. This conversation often bleeds easily into a “the more the merrier” logic followed by some joke about polygamy. Like, “I’d sleep with 10 wives and husbands as long as it meant I could actually sleep in once in a while!”

And if most parents are being honest, the idea of more hands on deck is mighty appealing, even if we may not understand the emotional arrangements of open marriages and might legitimately be skeptical about the gender imbalances often found in polygamy.

Back in the early days of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement’s push for marriage equality, this slippery slope to polygamy was pragmatically taboo. After all, arguments about gay marriage leading to polygamy were lobbed almost entirely with the purpose of derailing the gay rights agenda. And there was also something inherently offensive about making the connection, along the same lines of suggesting that gay marriage would lead to people marrying goats. Never mind the fact that opposite-sex goat-human marriage had been looming as a dangerous temptation all along…

Still, people often mention polygamy and gay marriage in the same sentence (not to mention the same essay). Recently—in, surprise, Utah—a judge struck down a part of that state’s anti-polygamy law. Mind you, the Utah law makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison when someone “cohabits with another person” to whom they aren’t legally married. This makes me wonder whether Utah also outlaws the combustion engine, the Internet and other realities of modern life, but anyway there you have it. 

The legal challenge came after the state sued the stars of Sister Wives, a TV show that follows the real life of one husband, his four wives, and their 17 children. Now here’s the thing: Sister Wives premiered in September 2010, but Kody and Meri married in 1990, Kody and Janelle married in 1993, and Kody and Christine married in 1994. In other words, all those marriages predate even the earliest adoption of gay marriage in America, which was in Massachusetts in 2004. And second, in the Sister Wives family, Kody married each of the women, but the women didn’t marry each other. 

In other words, polygamy, as it generally is practiced in the United States, is a predominantly heterosexual enterprise—like heterosexuality (or the male ideal of heterosexuality) on steroids. After all, while the percentage of married women who have affairs has risen in recent decades, married men still do most of the cheating. Conservatives concerned about the high rate of divorce in America should stop blaming gay marriage but instead heterosexual infidelity—a prime culprit in 55 percent of divorces.

If couples want to bring cheating out of the deceitful shadows and instead incorporate it openly into their relationship—plus have more hands on deck for kids and more earners in the household in a tough economy—who are we to judge? 

Seriously, I’m a bit too traditional and jealous for that sort of thing, but I’m also too traditional to wear jeggings outside the house. Still, you (mostly) don’t see me judging anyone else for doing so. 

In 2013 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples, pro-polygamy groups heralded the ruling as a step away from the conventional one-man one-woman definition of marriage and, thus, as opening the door to polygamy. I get that, and to an extent pro-polygamy activists may be trying to latch their still-widely unpopular cause onto the increasingly victorious rainbow bandwagon. 

But while it’s mildly understandable that some see these conversations as conceptually linked—“If we’re changing the marriage laws to include gay couples, how else might we change them?”—polygamy doesn’t inherently flow from gay marriage. If anything, what polygamy does flow from is a general opening up of options.

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

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #72 on: September 28, 2014, 07:25:39 am »

Decriminalize incest, says German gvmt’s ethics council

 Shocked

A German advisory council on ethics has told the government it should decriminalize incest between consenting adults. But Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrats have wasted no time in rejecting the advice.

On Wednesday the National Ethics Council voted, by a two-to-one margin, to call for the decriminalization of incest. “Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the council explained in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”

Many might deem the “fundamental right…to sexual self-determination” considerably more of an abstraction than “protection of the family,” including both judges and politicians.

But the ethics council argued that because incest was rare in Germany though illegal (several news reports cited a study by the Max Planck Institute claiming two to four percent of Germans have had incestuous relations), it would remain rare if legalized, and did not need a law to suppress it.

The council also dismissed the risk of producing children with genetic defects in incestuous relationships. Not because the risk isn’t real – it is, because both parents are more likely to have and therefore to transmit the defective gene – but because there was no law against non-incestuous marriages between partners with the same defective genes.

The council, created by law to advise the German government on ethical issues around health and science and comprised of 26 members with impressive academic degrees drawn from medical, scientific and theological fields, has a history of dismissing traditional morality. In the past, for example, the council recommended removal of legal restrictions against embryonic stem cell research.

Still, a minority of members reliably speak up for Christian morality. In this case, nine members released their own statement, defending current incest law because it “protected the integrity and incompatibility of different familial roles, as an important precondition of healthy personality development.”

This idea that children should be free of sexual exploitation not only by parents but by brothers and sisters, relying on them for protection and support, apparently did not occur to most of the experts.

However, it did occur to the judges in the case that led to the ethics council’s consideration of incest.  This involved brother and sister Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski, who had had four children together, two of whom are disabled, before a court jailed the brother and removed all but the youngest from the sister. In 2012, the brother lost an appeal to the European Human Rights Council.

The German court stated: “Incestuous connections lead to an overlap of family relationships and social roles and thus to a disturbance of a family bereft of [clear] assignments. … Children of an incestuous relationship have great difficulty finding their place in the family structure and building relationships of trust with their next caregivers. The vital function of the family for the human community … is crucially disturbed if its ordered structure is shaken by incestuous relations.”

As for the government that the ethicists purport to advise, Germany’s Christian Democrats, it rejected the recommendation. “The abolition of the offense of incest between siblings would be the wrong signal,” said spokesperson Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker. “Eliminating the threat of punishment against incestuous acts within families would run counter to the protection of undisturbed development for children.”

The social prohibition on incest is by no means universal: incest was the rule rather than the exception in classical Egyptian Pharaonic court culture, where such relations were pursued as a means of preserving dynastic bloodlines. Napoleon abolished the law against incest in France.

Moreover, the appeal of incest among America’s pop culture leaders is also evident: American novelist John Irving, for example, championed abortion on demand in Cider House Rules and incest in Hotel New Hampshire.  Moviemaker Woody Allen first engaged in the familiar Hollywood trope of having a sexual relationship with a woman young enough to be his daughter, Mia Farrow, by actually marrying Farrow’s daughter, Soon-Yi.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/decriminalize-incest-says-german-gvmts-ethics-council
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: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #73 on: October 11, 2014, 08:15:54 am »

HuffPo Gay Voices Asks 'Should Incest Between Consenting Adults Be Legalized?'

"Should incest between consenting adult siblings be legalized?" asked HuffPost Gay Voices Thursday.

The rather controversial question, which left many frequent visitors to the site scratching their heads, came in response to recent headlines out of Germany where an ethics panel suggested decriminalizing sex between two adult siblings, a proposal soundly rejected by the German government.

Though the article, written by Curtis Wong, doesn't exactly come out for or against the ethics panel's proposal, it certainly doesn't provide much dissent. Actually, the article gives no dissent and instead provides only quotes in favor of decriminalizing incest from a man named Jesse Bering, author of the book Perv: The Sexual Deviant In All Of Us."

In an interview with HuffPost Live, Bering said the following in regards to incest: "I suppose I take an unpopular view that it's actually moral progress. There are certain caveats that we need to include with our analysis of whether incest is wrong or right, but for me, the biggest point is a matter of harm."

During the same interview, Bering also spoke about two famous Czech born brothers named Elijah and Milo Peters who have performed adult scenes together.

"The fact that they're violating this," said Bering, "this taboo notion of your brother or your sister being completely off-limits from a sexual perspective, I think, attracts... a large contingency of the viewing public."

He added, "It's a carnival-esque affair, but it's actual sexual arousing to us because it probably taps into something, whether we want to admit it or not, deeply unconscious about the possible patterns of attraction to... our relatives."

Readers of HuffPost Gay Voices did not take the article kindly. Many were just angry the article might "give the GOP too much ammo" against gay marriage. However, some adopted the old leftist adage: "if it doesn't affect me, who cares!"

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/huffpo-gay-voices-asks-should-incest-between-consenting-adults-be-legalized
Report Spam   Logged

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: October 11, 2014, 10:24:44 am »

HuffPo also put out an article scoffing the pre-trib rapture the other day.(speaking of which, these post-trib "teachers" are really coming out of the woodwork now)

With that being said - incest IS a form of sodomy too - b/c it's a crime against nature. IOW, you legalize one aspect of sodomy, the floodgates will open in a bit way.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #75 on: November 07, 2014, 07:49:47 am »

New York’s Highest Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Incest ‘Marriage’ Between Uncle and Niece

New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, has ruled that a marriage between a half-uncle and a half-niece is legal in a unanimous court decision.

According to the ruling, while “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages.”

The case revolved around a 34-year-old Vietnamese citizen Huyen Nguyen, 34, who appealed to a ruling by an immigration judge declaring that her marriage in 2000 in Rochester was invalid. This ruling would have resulted to her deportation from the United States. Her husband, Vu Truong, 38, was her mother’s half-brother. According to the couple’s lawyer, Michael Marscalkowski, the case was not done for immigration purposes. The couple has stayed together for more than 14 years and husband Vu Truong works as a truck driver. They have no children together.

“This really was an all-or-nothing issue for them,” Marscalkowski commented. “If this would have been denied, she would have been deported and sent back to Vietnam.”

Marscalkowski said he won the case by focusing on the statutory provisions of the state’s domestic-relations law.

The statute provided that “a marriage is incestuous and void whether the relatives are legitimate or illegitimate between either: 1. An ancestor and a descendant; 2. A brother and sister of either the whole or half-blood; 3. An uncle and niece or an aunt and nephew.”

Incest is a crime punishable by a $50 to $100 fine and up to six months in jail.

On the matter of consanguinity or blood relations, Marscalkowski argued during court proceedings, that half-uncles and nieces share the same level of genetic ties as first cousins. This would only result to only one-eighth of the DNA.

“It really was the equivalent of cousins marrying, which has been allowed in New York state for well over 100 years,” Marszalkowski said.

The six-person panel of judges reviewing the case acknowledged that while they are not scientists, they noted that the “genetic risk in a half-uncle, half-niece relationship is half what it would be if the parties were related by the full blood.” This would lessen any genetic abnormalities that would result from children born from the union.

Drawing from past case decisions, Judge Robert Smith of the Court of Appeals opined that such marriages were lawful in New York until 1893 and it is still lawful in Rhode Island.

Judge Victoria Graffeo and two other judges on the panel, however, hesitated on their opinion, stating that Legislature should revisit the issue.

“Such relationships could implicate one of the purposes underlying incest laws, i.e., ‘maintaining the stability of the family hierarchy by protecting young family members from exploitation by older family members in positions of authority, and by reducing competition and jealous friction among family members,’ Graffeo wrote.

Michael Stutman from the firm Mischon de Reya, an independent attorney and family relations expert, said that the ruling reflects the realities of contemporary American families.

Stutman commented that “as people are more mobile and living longer marriages are ending and people remarry and you get blended families with step children and half children.”

Commenting on the rationale behind the court decision, Stutman argues “There are plenty of other societies that allow so-called intermarriage without worrying about genetic defects. And frankly we have a long history of cousins marrying each other, take FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt,” he said.

However, Jason McGuire, executive director of the conservative civil rights group, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, implied that this court’s decision would create a dangerous legal precedent.

“If government’s only interest in marriage is who loves each other, than what logical stopping point is there?” McGuire said.

http://christiannews.net/2014/10/30/new-yorks-highest-court-rules-in-favor-of-incest-marriage-between-uncle-and-niece/
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: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #76 on: December 03, 2014, 05:17:39 am »

Is it now OK to have sex with animals?
A baffling new article in New York suggests that many people think the answer is yes..


I have a very 2014 question for you: How would you respond if you found out that a man living down the street regularly has sexual intercourse with a horse?

Would you be morally disgusted? Consider him and his behavior an abomination? Turn him in to the police? (This would be an option in the roughly three-quarters of states that — for now — treat bestiality as a felony or misdemeanor.)

Or would you perhaps suppress your gag reflex and try hard to be tolerant, liberal, affirming, supportive? Maybe you'd even utter the slogan that deserves to be emblazoned over our age as its all-purpose motto and mantra: Who am I to judge?

Thanks to New York magazine, which recently ran a completely nonjudgmental 6,200-word interview with a "zoophile" who regularly enjoys sex with a mare — unironic headline: "What it's like to date a horse" — these questions have been much on my mind.

They should be on yours, too.

Because this is a very big deal, in cultural and moral terms.

No, not the fact of bestiality, which (like incest) has always been with us, but the fact of an acclaimed, mainstream publication treating it as a matter of complete moral indifference. (Aside, of course, from the requisite concern about animal abuse — a nonhuman analog to the pervasive emphasis on consent as the only relevant moral criterion for judging sexual behavior. The interview dispenses with this worry by informing us that the zoophile regularly brings his equine lover to orgasm orally — and that she often initiates acts of intimacy, showing that she appears to enjoy their sexual interactions.)

Am I worried that large numbers of people will soon choose to shack up with their pets or farm animals? Not at all. I can't imagine that very many people will ever be drawn to bestiality, no matter how casually it is treated in the media.

Why, then, is the New York interview a big deal? Because it's perhaps the most vivid sign yet that, in effect, the United States (and indeed the entire Western world) is running an experiment — one with very few, if any, antecedents in human history. The experiment will test what happens when a culture systematically purges all publicly affirmed notions of human flourishing, virtue and vice, elevation and degradation.

Moral and religious traditionalists have seen this coming and warned about its consequences for years. And indeed, they are the ones raising the loudest ruckus about the New York interview.

I share some of their concerns. But there are at least two problems with their analysis of the experiment.

First, the trads are wrong to blame the purging of publicly affirmed notions of human flourishing on the spread of relativism. Viewed from inside traditionalist notions of virtue and vice, a culture that seeks to redefine "normal" to include zoophilia might seem like a culture defined by relativism. But it isn't. Rather, it's a culture fervently devoted to the moral principle of equal recognition and affirmation — in a word, to an absolute ethic of niceness. Moral condemnation can be mean, and therefore it's morally wrong — that's the way growing numbers of Americans think about these issues.

Of course, these nonjudgmental Americans would think differently — they would continue to publicly affirm notions of human flourishing and condemn acts that diverge from the norm — if they confidently believed in the foundation of these judgments. But increasingly, they do not. Judeo-Christian piety used to supply it for many, but no longer.

Then there's the option of basing our judgments on what conservative bioethicist Leon Kass once called "the wisdom of repugnance" — that is, on our commonsense moral intuitions. But as the liberal philosopher Martha Nussbaum has argued, the "ick factor" just isn't a reliable basis on which to make moral evaluations. And we know that from lived experience. Interracial romances once seemed icky, but then they didn't. Next it was homosexual acts that passed through the looking glass from repellant to respectable. Faced with this slippage and uncertainty — with a long string of reversals in moral judgment — it's no wonder that the ethic of unconditional niceness increasingly trumps all other considerations.

And that brings us to the second way in which the trads go wrong — in speaking confidently about how we're "galloping toward Gomorrah." This implies that they know exactly where the experiment is going to end up. The truth is that they — and we — have no idea at all. Because there has never been a human society built exclusively on a morality of rights (individual consent) and an ethic of niceness, with no overarching vision of a higher human good to override or compete with it.

As I noted above, I find it hard to imagine that more than a tiny fraction of human beings will ever choose to engage in sex acts with animals, even if and when the taboo has been thoroughly deconstructed and the behavior mainstreamed by dozens of sympathetic stories in the media. I suspect the same is true about incest and polyamory. Most people will continue to live boring, mundane sex lives, monogamously committed to one human being of the opposite sex at a time.

So what, then, is there to worry about? Why is this cultural experiment a big deal?

Because it stands as a stunning testament to our ignorance about ourselves. Roughly 2,500 years since Socrates first raised the question of how we should live, several centuries since the Enlightenment encouraged us to seek and promulgate scientific knowledge about the universe and human nature, Western humanity seems to have come to the conclusion that we haven't got a clue about an answer. There is no consensus whatsoever about what ways of life are intrinsically good or bad for human beings.

Get married and have kids? If that's what you want, sounds good. Live in a polyamorous arrangement? As long as everyone consents, have fun. What about my intense desire to copulate with a horse? Just make sure no one gets hurt — with hurt defined in the narrowest of terms (covering physical harm and the violation of personal preferences).

That's all we've got. Or at least all we're left with, now that we've shed the (ostensibly) discredited notions of human virtue that most people once affirmed.

Is that good enough? Can we do without a publicly affirmed vision of human flourishing? Fulfilling personal preferences (whatever they happen to be), seeking consent in all interactions, and abiding by the imperative of universal niceness — is that sufficient to bring happiness? Or will a world that tells us in a million ways that we are radically undetermined in our ends leave us feeling empty, lost, alone, unmoored, at sea, spiritually adrift?

I have no idea.

But I suspect we're going to find out soon enough.

http://theweek.com/article/index/272578/is-it-now-ok-to-have-sex-with-animals
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: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #77 on: January 19, 2015, 09:17:26 am »

Report: New York Woman to ‘Marry’ Her Biological Father

A New York woman from the Great Lakes region says that she is set to marry her biological father after being estranged from him for 12 years—a report some say confirms the slippery slope America is on concerning the devaluation and redefinition of marriage.

The unnamed woman is 18 years old and says that she was conceived by her parents on prom night when they were 18 themselves. Her parents soon split and her mother, who struggles with a mental disorder, married another man, and then another—neither of whom she particularly liked.

“[W]hat I missed was a fatherly figure,” she told New York Magazine last week. “My mom’s always picked the wrong guy out of the crowd and she’s had a couple of divorces. I’m still not really close with my current stepfather even though they’ve been together for ten years.”

The girl, who says she identifies as bisexual, told the publication that she experimented with lesbianism as a young girl.

“I had a girlfriend in middle school and that was the most major sexual experience I’d ever had,” she stated. “But she was very religious and every time we were intimate she would sob and read me verses out of the Bible. It made me feel like I’d hurt her.”

She also had a relationship with a teenage boy, but when her mother felt that matters were becoming inappropriate, she pulled her out of school and homeschooled her for a time.

When she was in high school, the girl’s biological father reached out via Facebook to reconnect. She later stayed with him for a few days, and found herself feeling emotionally and physically attracted.

“[W]e didn’t know what was going on, but admitted that we had strong feelings for each other,” she told the publication. “We discussed whether it was wrong and then we kissed. And then we made out, and then we made love for the first time. That was when I lost my virginity.”

But the teen said she didn’t feel remorse over being involved in an incestuous relationship.

“I didn’t regret it at all. I was happy for once in my life,” she stated. “We fell deeply in love.”

The two now plan to “marry,” and then move to New Jersey where incest is legal.

“I don’t believe you need a piece of paper to prove that you want to be with the person you love,” she said.

Some are now stating that the report demonstrates the slippery slope that Christians have been warning about surrounding the push for homosexual “marriage.”

“Being an adult is always cited as a reason not to judge anyone which is not justifiable, especially for morally-related topics. People react this way because there is a trigger that affects the conscience telling you something is not right,” one commenter wrote. “I don’t believe that being wrong and right are relative; there should still be moral standards because ‘being happy’ is not an excuse for doing something that is wrong.”

“[W]e were told not to make the slippery slope argument with the homosexual agenda. This is now ‘just another lifestyle’ that we are supposed to embrace and accept as ‘normal,'” another stated. “We are truly lost as a nation and a society. God help us.”

http://christiannews.net/2015/01/19/report-new-york-woman-to-marry-her-biological-father/
Report Spam   Logged

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: January 19, 2015, 09:47:50 am »

30, 20, even 10 years ago - this would have been heavily frowned on, VERY.

Things are getting very ugly, albeit very fast.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #79 on: January 19, 2015, 10:43:36 am »

30, 20, even 10 years ago - this would have been heavily frowned on, VERY.

Things are getting very ugly, albeit very fast.

30 20 years ago this would have been 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
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: February 10, 2015, 02:04:18 pm »

http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/624444/alabama-supreme-court-chief-justice-father-daughter-weddings-next
2/10/15
Alabama judge: What's next? Daddy-daughter marriages?

Why did Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore order state’s probate judges to telling them to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples?

Besides arguing that judges weren’t bound by the ruling of a federal judge that the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, Moore hinted it would lead down a slippery slope, including marriages between parents and their children.

“Do they stop with one man and one man or one woman and one woman?” he asked. “Or do they go to multiple marriages? Or do they go to marriages between men and their daughters or women and their sons?”

And Moore is standing by his assertation that gay marriage is a state issue.

“I think that the definition of the word marriage is not found within the powers designated to the federal government,” Moore said.

On Tuesday, more Alabama courthouses allowed same-sex marriages despite Moore’s objections, but other counties still refused, which prompted a new round of federal court action.

So far, of the 67 counties in the state, gay couples can marry in at least 10 of them.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: February 19, 2015, 03:37:11 pm »

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=30913
LGBT MARRIAGE REDEFINERS INTRODUCE THE THROUPLE, A 3 WOMAN ‘MARRIAGE’
2/18/15

WHEN STATE AFTER STATE LEGALIZED GAY MARRIAGE, IT WASN’T DIFFICULT TO DISCERN THAT THE “SLIPPERY SLOPE” SYNDROME WAS SOON TO HAPPEN. IT DID.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

What is the next marriage redefinition? It’s called a ‘throuple’, and in Massachusetts, a lesbian throuple is awaiting their first born child. Three married lesbians are the throuple who have made news with their newest ‘version of perversion’ of marriage.

They don’t have to announce their arrangement in a defiant way. Oh, heavens no…..when Biblical marriage was redefined from “between one man and one woman” to a union of two people (even of the same sex) that opened wide the door to most anything. Political correctness reigns in America. It seems that now it’s become an “in your face” to Bible believing Christians.

Like the gay rights movement, the Massachusetts throuple hopes to strike a blow for polyamorous “rights.” [1] – source

“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1: 25-27 (KJV)

I fully expect these people to begin to demand their rights and protections, likening them selves to the Civil Rights movement.  These sexual perversions are not even in the same ball park as the much needed reforms for American Blacks in the 1960s.

“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.” [1] – source

FROM BEYONDMARRIAGE.ORG:

Quote
We, the undersigned – lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers – seek to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families.  In so doing, we hope to move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics as they exist in the United States today.

We seek access to a flexible set of economic benefits and options regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender/gender identity, class, or citizenship status.

We reflect and honor the diverse ways in which people find and practice love, form relationships, create communities and networks of caring and support, establish households, bring families into being, and build innovative structures to support and sustain community.

In offering this vision, we declare ourselves to be part of an interdependent, global community. We stand with people of every racial, gender and sexual identity, in the United States and throughout the world, who are working day-to-day – often in harsh political and economic circumstances – to resist the structural violence of poverty, racism, misogyny, war, and repression, and to build an unshakable foundation of social and economic justice for all, from which authentic peace and recognition of global human rights can at long last emerge. source

I might add here that women like Gloria Steinem brought Feminism into our culture, and it seems that there has been an obvious correlation between Steinem’s Feminism and the eventually break up of the America family – one mom, one dad and children. Steinem felt that the “dad” part was piece of the family puzzle which was not just expendable, but undesirable. She and her movement brought such confusion to men – they didn’t even know how to act anymore. Yes, chivalry died in those years. Men were afraid to hold a door open for a woman, lest they be ridiculed.

What’s next? Pedophilia made legal, calling it “Child sexual love?” Or perhaps bestiality? Or better yet, maybe “Throuple/bestiality – of course they don’t want to discriminated against the family pet, right??

I never thought I’d live to see this day in America. It seems like a very bad dream, but the problem is that I wake up each day, and it’s still there.

WHY SHOULD GOD NOT DESTROY AMERICA?

I think that will happen. But I also think that those of us who are strong enough in the Lord will begin to be thrown in jail, because we refuse to condone these aberrant practices. We will be labeled as “haters” and will pay the price.

Will YOU stand against these most ungodly practices when the time comes? Ask God for His strength in the coming days and months.

MARANATHA!
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: February 19, 2015, 03:55:03 pm »

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=30457
PATRIOTS COACH BILL BELICHICK CELEBRATES SUPER BOWL WIN BY KISSING DAUGHTER PASSIONATELY ON MOUTH
2/2/15

WHEN ASKED BY A REPORTER HOW HE WAS GOING TO CELEBRATE THE BIG WIN WITH HIS FAMILY, HE REPLIED: “WE WILL CELEBRATE IT. WE WILL CELEBRATE IT HARD.”

“Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.” 1 Timothy 5:24 (KJV)

The intimate lip-locking photographed between Belichick and his adult daughter, Amanda, drew cries of ‘making out’ and comparisons to actor Woody Allen on Twitter after it was snapped following Sunday night’s victory. New York City etiquette expert Elaine Swann says it’s behavior better left at home.

While the smack now seen ‘round the world has been defended by some online users as a sweet, intimate moment between family, many others have branded it as “super weird,” “aggressive” and “making out.” source

Honestly people, this is just disgusting. No father should express affection between his children like this, it just looks wrong. The bible says to not just avoid evil, but to avoid all “appearance of evil” as well.

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil.”
1 Thessalonians 5:21,22 (KJV)
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #83 on: March 01, 2015, 08:59:11 am »

‘Love Not Limited?': Three Thailand Men ‘Marry’ Each Other, Photos Go Viral

Photos of three Thailand men who recently ‘married’ each other have gone viral, garnering societal support for the concept of same-sex “throuples” worldwide, but also generating remarks from Christians about the confirmation of the slippery slope that has long been predicted.

The men, who have only been identified as Joke, Belle and Art Thani, reportedly participated in a traditional water-pouring ceremony on Feb. 15 and had photographs taken of their union. However, the act was more of a symbolic gesture as neither homosexuality or polygamy are legal in Thailand.

“Love occurs unconditionally and is not limited to only two people,” Art wrote on Facebook. “Love brings peace to the world.”

The threesome has also been featured on Thailand television, and have posted affectionate photos online which include captions such as, “The three of us will forever hold hands and walk together.”

One Facebook post received over 50,000 likes regarding the three-way relationship.

As previously reported, last May, three women in Massachusetts exchanged vows as they claimed to be the world’s first lesbian “throuple.” Brynn, Doll, and Kitten stated that they view their relationship as a “romantic committee,” where the household responsibilities are allocated between the three of them, and wanted to each get pregnant using anonymous sperm donors.

“I had always dated girls, who—although they had boyfriends or girlfriends—were also allowed to date me,” Brynn told reporters. “I 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.”

But after this month’s report out of Thailand, some Christians are noting the inevitable slippery slope that they have stated would result if society deviated from God’s creation order.

“The events in Thailand simply confirm what we’ve been saying all this time: If marriage is no longer the union of one man and one woman, then it can be anything: Two men, two women, three men, three women, or an almost infinite number of other possibilities,” Dr. Michael Brown wrote for Charisma News.

He noted that the situation demonstrates how mankind has made up its own rules along the way in an attempt to legitimize and justify what a particular person wants. Since homosexuals have stated that marriage should be defined as the union of two people who have feelings for each other, regardless of gender, where does the rule about two people come from?

“If a gay activist says, ‘But marriage is the loving, long-term commitment of two people,’ the answer is simple: ‘Says who? That’s just your new definition. Where did you get the idea it was two people if not from its historic, natural meaning?'” Brown explained. “And so, if I’m ‘bigoted’ because I don’t recognize same-sex ‘marriage,’ then gay activists (and their allies) are just as ‘bigoted’ if they don’t recognize three men (or women) ‘marrying.’

He said that last year, he was asked to participated in a debate surrounding whether consensual adult incest should be legalized. Brown recalled that he was the only one on the panel that said that such relationships are never okay in the eyes of God.

“All the other participants, including a professor and a psychoanalyst, advocated for removing the laws against consensual adult incest,” he stated. “Are you surprised? But what’s the problem? Love is love [according to society], right? As long it’s consensual, who can say no to love?”

Brown stated that these developments are demonstrating the domino effect that results when the world rebels against God and His Master design for mankind.

“Those who have taken down the fence of marriage as God intended it have opened up a Pandora’s Box of possibilities,” he said, “none of them good.”

http://christiannews.net/2015/02/26/love-not-limited-three-thailand-men-marry-each-other-photos-go-viral/
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: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #84 on: April 29, 2015, 11:56:53 am »

Justice Alito: Why Not Let 4 Lawyers Marry One Another?

In the oral arguments presented yesterday in the Supreme Court on the question of whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees two people of the same sex the right to marry one another, Justice Samuel Alito asked whether—if two of the same sex have a right to marry—why not four people of opposite sexes.

“Would there be any ground for denying them a license?” Alito asked.

“Let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers,” he said.

Alito posed the question to Mary L. Bonauto, a lawyer who was presenting the court with arguments on behalf of clients seeking to establish a right to same-sex marriage.

Bonauto expressed the view that states cannot prohibit two people of the same-sex from marrying but can prohibit four people of different sexes from marrying.

Here is an excerpt from the argument:

    Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?

    Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.

    Alito: What would be the reason?

    Bonauto: There'd be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because—

    Justice Antonin Scalia: Well, I didn't understand your answer.

    Alito: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one –

    Bonauto: No, no.

    Alito: -- then you can come back to mine.

    Bonauto: Well, that's what -- I mean, that is -- I mean, the State –

    Alito: Well, what if there's no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not--it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers. What would be the ground under--under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?

    Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –

    Alito: But--well, I don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no -- why is that a greater break?

    Bonauto: The question is one of--again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that's my answer on that.

To read the entire transcript of yesterday's argument in the Supreme Court click here.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/justice-alito-why-not-let-4-lawyers-marry-one-another
Report Spam   Logged

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: May 27, 2015, 08:55:33 pm »

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/once-father-and-son-now-a-married-couple-120039861077.html
Once 'Father' and 'Son,' Now a Married Couple
5/27/15

A couple who were legally father and son for the last fifteen years had their adoption vacated and were married this week after 52 years together.

Norman MacArthur, 74, and Bill Novak, 76, were married in Pennsylvania on Sunday. The couple, who has been together since their 20s, registered as domestic partners in New York City in 1994, but in 2000 they moved to Erwinna, Penn., where domestic partnerships are not legally recognized. “When we moved to Pennsylvania, we had both retired and we were of the age where one begins to do estate planning,” MacArthur tells Yahoo Parenting. “We went to a lawyer who told us Pennsylvania was never going to allow same-sex marriage, so the only legal avenue we had in order to be afforded any rights was adoption.”

STORY: Gay Dads Speak Out About New Ad Campaign

MacArthur says he thought the suggestion was strange at first. “It struck me as fairly unusual, but we looked into it and discovered that other couples had done it. [Without the adoption] we would be legally strangers.” An adoption would grant the couple certain legal rights they felt compelled to secure. “Most importantly, it would allow us visitation rights in a hospital, and gaining of knowledge if one of us was in the hospital,” he says. “With new HIPAA privacy laws, hospitals are very constrained in what they can say to other people. If we were legally related, I would be allowed into the ER and entitled to know what Bill’s condition was if anything should happen.”

So in 2000, the two went through with a legal adoption. Since both men’s parents were dead, the adoption proceeding was fairly easy. “It wasn’t as though I was replacing one parent with another,” MacArthur says. “I was the son and Bill was the father. Bill is two years older than I am, so that was the only reason.”


Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director at Lambda Legal, says that while adoptions like these aren’t common, they aren’t unheard of, either. “It reflects people’s deep need to protect each other as family, and the attempt to use law that obviously isn’t a perfect fit to their situation to protect each other,” she tells Yahoo Parenting. “While we’ve had a patchwork nation and people have been desperate to take care of each other in some basic way legally, people have sometimes gotten creative to do what they need to do to protect each other as a family. It’s entirely understandable.”

READ MORE
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: June 11, 2015, 01:10:42 pm »

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=61015234701
Homosexuality is Occult Worship: Hitler, Crowley, and Secret Societies
6/10/15

Audio sermon inside link

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

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #87 on: July 02, 2015, 08:10:05 am »

After Same-Sex Marriage, is Polygamy Next?

 Before last Friday's Supreme Court ruling, many of us argued that same-sex marriage could or would lead to polygamy.  Gay marriage proponents were quick to dismiss our warning.  But consider Chief Justice Roberts's dissent to the court's decision:
 
"Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective 'two' in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not.  Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world.  If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.  It is striking how much of the majority's reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage."
 
Here's the argument I believe we'll see for polygamy.
 
One: as with gay marriage, society has shifted its opinion on plural marriage.  Supporters of polygamy have more than doubled since 2001.  Younger demographics are even more affirmative.
 
Two: if the courts have no right to legislate what gender you can marry, they have no right to regulate what number you can marry.  A Tylenol commercial recently claimed that "family isn't defined by who you love, but how."  To extend the company's logic, family isn't defined by how many you love, either.
 
Three: the law should not discriminate against minorities, including those whose belief systems incorporate polygamy.  As many as 50,000 to 100,000 Muslims in the United States already live in polygamous families.  (A man marries one wife in a legal ceremony, then two or three others in religious ceremonies.)  Do laws forbidding polygamy discriminate against them?
 
Slate author Jillian Keenan recently claimed that "legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice" and concluded: "The definition of marriage is plastic.  Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults."
 
And why would the sexual revolution stop with polygamy?  The next step will be "consensual marriage," the belief that anyone should be able to marry anyone, regardless of age or biological relationship.  If those in love are entitled to marriage, why not fathers and daughters (or sons)?  Why not adults and children?  If federal and state marriage benefits are owed to anyone who marries, why would a young man not marry his grandfather to secure medical care and inheritance rights? 
 
In fact, why have "marriage" at all?  According to lesbian activist Masha Gessen, "The institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we're 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.  The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change.  And again, I don't think it should exist."
 
Philosopher Auguste Comte noted that the only safe way to destroy something is to replace it.  Are we witnessing the destruction of marriage?

http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/denison-forum/after-same-sex-marriage-is-polygamy-next.html
Report Spam   Logged

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

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

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #88 on: July 02, 2015, 08:24:49 am »

Polygamous Montana Trio Applies for Wedding License
Nathan Collier and wives Victoria and Christine were featured on TLC reality show Sister Wives.


A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.

“It’s about marriage equality,” Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

County clerk officials initially denied Collier’s application, then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week.

“I think he deserves an answer,” Gillen said, but added his review is finding that “the law simply doesn’t provide for that yet.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

Collier, 46, said that dissent inspired him. He owns a refrigeration business in Billings and married Victoria, 40, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said.

Collier said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now belongs to no religious organization. He said he and his wives hid their relationship for years, but became tired of hiding and went public by appearing on the reality cable television show Sister Wives.

The three have seven children of their own and from previous relationships.

“My second wife Christine, who I’m not legally married to, she’s put up with my crap for a lot of years. She deserves legitimacy,” he said.

Collier said he sent an email asking the ACLU of Montana to represent him in a possible lawsuit. ACLU legal director Jim Taylor said he has not seen the request.

Taylor said he has no opinion on Collier’s claims, though the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage “is about something very different.”

Anne Wilde, a co-founder of the polygamy advocacy organization Principle Voices located in Utah, said Collier’s application is the first she’s heard of in the nation, and that most polygamous families in Utah are not seeking the right to have multiple marriage licenses.

“Ninety percent or more of the fundamentalist Mormons don’t want it legalized, they want it decriminalized,” Wilde said.

A federal judge struck down parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law two years ago, saying the law violated religious freedom by prohibiting cohabitation. Bigamy is still illegal.

The state has appealed the ruling, and the case is pending in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Wilde said most polygamous families are satisfied with the judge’s ruling and believe taking it further to include multiple marriage licenses would bring them under the unwanted jurisdiction of the government.

But she said the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage should strengthen their chance of winning the appeal.

“We hope the Supreme Court decision will show the direction the nation is going,” she said. “It’s more liberal, it’s more understanding about people forming the families the way they want.”

https://stream.org/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license/
Report Spam   Logged

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: July 03, 2015, 04:25:15 pm »

On average, sodomites have dozens of partners...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SAME_SEX_DIVORCE?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-07-03-14-04-43
7/3/15
Same-sex couple in Mississippi goes to court to seek divorce

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) -- Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has asked the state Supreme Court to allow a lesbian couple to seek a divorce.

Hood sided Thursday with a similar request filed by the attorney for Lauren Czekala-Chatham, who argued a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 26 requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other states.

That was key to Chatham's arguments as she seeks a divorce from Dana Ann Melancon. They were married in California in 2008.

"That's awesome," Czekala-Chatham told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "I can get my divorce? I've been waiting a long time for this. This means I can go on with my life."

Czekala-Chatham said she had expected the state to fight her divorce despite the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

"The way (Hood) was talking after the same-sex marriage decision, I was expecting to have to continue the fight," Chatham said.

Czekala-Chatham said she and her new partner can now make their wedding plans and buy a house together.

The Mississippi Supreme Court has not ruled on either motion but could do so as early as next week.

more
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