What's next after Homosexual Marriage? Let's be vigilant people

[frobert]

Same-sex marriage has not been achieved at the ballot-box, but is being achieved in the courts after gaining tolerance in public opinion. Plural marriage is headed that way. (See: Sister Wives.)

Sounds like a Catholic who’s been watering down the Gospel with the secular Kool-Aid!

Sounds like my previous posts were not clear. I have been consistent in my opposition to bestiality, incest and polygamy and in saying if you (anyone) believe that any of the aforementioned is a threat then use your passion as leverage to do something about them, i.e devote time, energy and money to organizations who are fighting them. I encourage it 100%. The only thing I discourage is for conflating homosexuality with other things it has little or nothing to do with.

I realize that the successful tactics used in the gay civil rights movement are being copied, but those same tactics where copied from previous successful civil right movements. Success breed imitation.

BTW KEP, I like cherry flavored Kool-Aid .

 

[edwest2]

Once again, the focus is not what LGBT people will or are doing but 'What’s next after homosexual marriage?"

I’ll get married to person A who thinks an “open” - sex with anybody else - marriage is OK, So, as long as that is settled, the marriage benefits roll in for both, and Jim, Bob and Steve can have sex with anybody as long as they are married to at least one person who thinks that’s OK.Eventually, those who have sex with animals, kids and others will demand their “rights.” It’s all about sex people - lots of it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[EasterJoy]

Once again, the focus is not what LGBT people will or are doing but 'What’s next after homosexual marriage?"

I’ll get married to person A who thinks an “open” - sex with anybody else - marriage is OK, So, as long as that is settled, the marriage benefits roll in for both, and Jim, Bob and Steve can have sex with anybody as long as they are married to at least one person who thinks that’s OK.Eventually, those who have sex with animals, kids and others will demand their “rights.” It’s all about sex people - lots of it.

Peace,
Ed

Perhaps the first step is to re-establish the idea that chastity is a real virtue, not something invented by priests and other religious people in order to control others and prevent them from enjoying life.

The idea that civil government has any interest whatsoever in promoting chastity is currently treated as an absurdity, as if “chastity” were such a thoroughly religious concept that it violates the separation of church and state to suggest that it is a good thing to encourage citizens to practice sexual continence. Maybe that is where we need to start?

IOW, maybe the slide does not need to proceed inexorably in the wrong direction. Maybe the foundations of true and natural marriage can be rebuilt, even in the secular mind.

 

[Kamaduck]

Perhaps the first step is to re-establish the idea that chastity is a real virtue, not something invented by priests and other religious people in order to control others and prevent them from enjoying life.

The idea that civil government has any interest whatsoever in promoting chastity is currently treated as an absurdity, as if “chastity” were such a thoroughly religious concept that it violates the separation of church and state to suggest that it is a good thing to encourage citizens to practice sexual continence. Maybe that is where we need to start?

IOW, maybe the slide does not need to proceed inexorably in the wrong direction. Maybe the foundations of true and natural marriage can be rebuilt, even in the secular mind.

I think this is a very important point. Many of the people these days who oppose same-sex marriage don’t do it because they believe that sex should be open to life, or even because they believe that sex outside of marriage is a bad thing. They just have a sense that same-sex sexual relationships are “unnatural”, but since they have already accepted contraception and in some cases fornication as normal and healthy, it’s difficult for them to explain what exactly is wrong with it, or how same-sex unions differ from valid marriages.

I don’t think we can make very much progress by trying to stop the process right here. We can’t just give ground and give ground and then draw an arbitrary line in the sand before whatever’s next. We have to return to the root of the problem, and I think that problem has more to do with a general rejection of chastity than with the specific problems of same-sex marriage, or plural marriage, or whatever comes after that. There’s too much momentum behind those things as long as the majority views sex as nothing more than a common recreational activity.

We can’t fight against same-sex marriage without fighting against the lack of chastity in general. It’s harder to actively disagree with the vast majority of people than it is to blame the minority. But the fact of the matter is that these things are symptoms of a more general problem. We need a general solution. We need to remind people of what it means to be chaste, and what the purpose of marriage really is. That will get us a lot further than focusing on whatever may or may not be coming after the legalization of same-sex civil marriage.

I realize that many Catholics have been trying to do just that for a long time, but I think it’s good to remind ourselves of it every now and then.

 

[otjm]

The intent of the post was 2 fold:

1. 
   *]Whatever a polygamist might say or think, polygamy is not an orientation but more importantly it is illegal in the US. SS marriage bans were and are being ruled unconstitutional across the US by conservative, libertarian and progressive judges.

1. 
   And you point of this is — exactly what? Whether polygamy or polyamory is or is not an orientation is totally irrelevant. SS marriage has broken the definition of marriage. Once that definition is broken, there is nothing to stop the courts from deciding that polygamy or polyamory comes within a definition of marriage. The courts are not deciding SS marriage based on orientation.
   

   *]If you perceive polygamy is the next big threat to life as you know it, use your passion as leverage to take an activist role and do something about it other that talk about it.

   Wow! How unique! Why, we should lobby our state legislators and have them pass statutes, and we should vote on changing state constitutions! That will stop it!
   
   Oh. ----- Wait.
   
   We did that with SS marriage.
   
   Wow. That really worked well, didn’t it.
   
   It didn’t?
   
   Oh.
   

   Conflating polygamy with homosexuality is little more than a distraction used by some groups to appeal to our worse nature.

   Hint: nobody is conflating anything.

 

[KEP1983]

And you point of this is — exactly what? Whether polygamy or polyamory is or is not an orientation is totally irrelevant. SS marriage has broken the definition of marriage. **Once that definition is broken, there is nothing to stop the courts from deciding that polygamy or polyamory comes within a definition of marriage. ** The courts are not deciding SS marriage based on orientation.

Exactly.

People seem to be unaware that polygamy’s legalization is already happening. It’s not a hypothetical.

A federal judge in Utah struck down Utah’s ban on polygamy as unconstitutional. sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-polygamy-waddoups-ruling.html.csp

A polygamous lesbian couple successfully had a 3-person marriage in Massachusetts. nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/

When you redefine marriage to simply mean the state’s recognition of people’s love, there’s no reason that it will be defined to only 2 people. There’s no rational reason why 3, 4, or 5 people can’t love each other. And again, this isn’t hypothetical. * It’s already happening* in Utah and Massachusetts. And it was by court order by Federal judges. And it’s going to spread from there.

People scoffed at warnings of gay marriage leading to polygamy as ridiculous. It only took a few years and it’s already happening, by the approval of Federal courts. Yet notice that the liberal media sources (and even the conservative ones) barely ever mention it. It doesn’t fit their narrative. They want people to still think gay marriage is a completely separate issue from polygamy, and thus ignore the fact that polygamy is already in the process of being legalized by the Federal government.

 

[KEP1983]

Oh, and from just a few days ago:

“Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know ‘Traditional’ Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?”

huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/gay-marriage-wisconsin-history_n_5462356.html

 

[esieffe]

What’s on the agenda?

Robots. Technology indeed.
Mail order husbands and wives expanded.
Legalization of prostitution. [Think Amsterdam]
A spinoff from Family Guy?

 

[Cackles]

The entire LGBT population was and is a small, but organized fringe group, yet here we are.

This is Gods way of saying that LGBT is not the enemy.

God gives man homosexuality (John 9:2-3). Gay men are brothers under Christ and children of God. Furthermore, like all men, they are gifted by God. (note: The notion of women being gay or bisexual does not exist and the idea should be disregarded in my opinion).

Homosexual men are among the greatest, most pious men in the history of the Church. They literally are gifted from God to take upon his greatest challenge:

"Do you wish to offer yourselves to God, to endure all the suffering that He may please to send you, as an act of reparation for the sins which He is offended, and to ask for the conversion of sinners?.. Then you will have much to suffer. But the grace of God will be your comfort. "Our Lady Fatima Message

Gay men show God’s truth. As early as a teen they try to hide it. They overwhelmingly prefer to stay in the closet regardless of country or culture. Regardless of persecution or not. The truth they reveal is extremely significant as it lets us straight people know that God exists by the fact gay men prefer to hid it. Why? Because God commands men to be fruitful and multiply. It’s the first commandment to men from God making it inter-religious.

Disciples: 10 If this is how it is, then it is better to avoid marrying in the first place.

Jesus: 11 Not everyone can hear this teaching, only those to whom it has been given. 12 Some people do not marry, of course. Some people are eunuchs because they are born that way, others have been made eunuchs by men, and others have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. -]Anyone/-] He who can embrace that call should do so. (correction made to revert meaning back to original text)

So we see Jesus say that only under rare circumstances are men not allowed to get married. He then follows that up by saying these men should join the church if they can embrace the calling. The original word is ‘gelding’ that the Wycliffe Bible uses meaning to take away vigor, give softness.

Gay men are like regular men. They also get possessed by daemons and also fall victim to Satan. But it’s MUCH worse for them. The suffering for them is so great they often fall victim to drugs, disease, etc. Unfortunately, Satan as a much easier time acting through women who then turn around and convince man (see Adam and Eve). Did you ever notice how it’s always a woman or some other sort of non gay person speaking up for Gays?

You see, the real force of evil is Satan. Gay men are good because it’s under God’s creation. Satan has blurred the lines with calling them the LBGT community. There is no gay/bi/lesbian woman. Just women without husband who are not meant to be married. Without guidance from Church and society, they go astray and into Satans arms.

The real issue is Satan. That’s really what’s at work. He acts through people. I invite those who are homosexual to live God’s truth and suppress their temptations. Once you eat that fruit it will be hard to come back. Non kosher porn is also off the table unfortunately. The test will be hard in life, but realize you also have other gifts God has given you to help you along. Don’t listen to the Gay pride stuff. Pride is a bad thing for anyone. Don’t thumb your nose to God. Either get married, or find vocation. If you can join the Church, then that is preferable as Jesus says. If you pass the test God has burdened you with, the rewards will be astounding not only to yourself but others as well. That’s just my opinion though.

 

[Seraphignatius]

:ehh: I. Do you mean that God gives them a heay cross and so, provided they live a chaste life, are all the more deserving of merit, or are you suggesting that homosexuality is good? As far as lesbianism goes, why don’t you think there are women sexually attracted to other women? Are those who claim to be so just liars?

 

[BillieJane]

It was in the works before the Sandusky incident, but, a “psychological condition” known as minor attraction is about to become the norm and then legitimized by the APA.

If anyone remembers just after Sandusky was caught with minors, people were wondering why there was less of a concern on campus and it became evident based on what they were being taught.

communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2011/aug/17/b4uact-seek-acceptance-minor-attracted-pedophiles/

Now, the political community would be trying to push this farther but they are trying to change “The Church” from the inside first by seeking acceptance for homosexual marriage and that is why they continue to push such agendas down our Pope’s throat for comment. As of this moment the conservative nature of The Church is that they are better off not trying to bring it to light …just yet. They like using the Church as a punching bag and especially if they were to legitimize it; they would have no reason to insult it on issues of priests who have violated children.

It’s a sad and insane world we are seeing form. I give it another 15 or so years though before it would be as widely accepted as homosexuality has become. It was, after all, 4 out of 7 psychologists that ended up ruling that homosexuality wasn’t a mental disorder in the early 70s (near the same time of Roe v Wade) thus creating what we have today. It is going to be truly, very similar to that.

 

[Cackles]

:ehh: I. Do you mean that God gives them a heay cross and so, provided they live a chaste life, are all the more deserving of merit,

Yes.

But there’s more secrets to these teachings. Remember the Bible isn’t a book that explains ‘how or why’. For instance, the Bible mentions souls, but doesn’t tell you how the ‘system’ works. This is because those teachings are not for everyone.

The early church fathers (who were the highest ranking Rabbi’s actually) understood these teachings and passed them to our earliest church fathers in Rome and Antioch.

While this is not a public teaching, or meant for public knowledge, and not an approved of doctrine, I’ll tell you why people are gay (in my small opinion). This comes from Jewish sources and is still believed upon by some in the Church. It’s not a terribly important belief though. So here it goes. God issues you out a soul… no I can’t do it hehe… I’m scared to reveal this stuff because it can change your whole outlook on life (not fundamental to your faith or anything important but still will change it).

or are you suggesting that homosexuality is good?

-If God gave you this soul, then for you it’s good. Consider yourself chosen by God like the children of Fatima. But for those of us men who are not, then we are thankful to God for giving us an easier path (which has serious pitfalls also but that’s another topic… the cross should never be too light or you’ll look and realize it isn’t there. God will let you enjoy the material world and current long, easy life, but afterwards you’ll won’t be allowed in because Jesus doesn’t know you. He doesn’t hate you, he just doesn’t know you to let you in. You’re a stranger to him.).

-If you are a parent of a gay son, then this is because you are a good parent and God knows you can handle raising this type of son. But your role is not to instill Gay pride and help them accept themselves just the way they are. Just like Mary helped carry the heavy cross for his son (I think?), you have to take on the weight of the cross also as a parent. If you couldn’t handle this, God wouldn’t give you this soul.

As far as lesbianism goes, why don’t you think there are women sexually attracted to other women? Are those who claim to be so just liars?

No I mean it in another way. Women aren’t gay or straight. Women are everything. They are uni-sexual - Men, women, and ‘everything else’. The woman can flex to any situation including living situation. Have you seen a dozen women in a room together or near a bed? The all of a sudden change. God made her like this. This is why lesbianism is allowed.

If a woman is a Lesbian with another woman and has a baby, she is to be recognized as a single mother with a female roommate. The child can get baptized fine as what happened in Mexico recently. Don’t get distracted and let that issue be the same as ‘Gay marriage’. They are two separate things completely… There is to be NO recognition from any woman of some sort of special sexual status. Our own experience in life and ex-gf’s lets us know women well and their sexual orientation.

It should be noted that Lesbianism is grounds for divorce if your Husband doesn’t know. That includes anything sexual with someone or something else that he doesn’t know about. He can grant a divorce. Regardless of her sexuality, if a woman has a husband her desire will be for him.* (Sometimes though, that desire is an evil desire which is another separate topic filled with secret teachings.)*

 

[Gordon_Sims]

You may have been saying it for decades, but there is no evidence of it. You point to Hay, but he did not advocate for pedophilia. His views on teen sex and age of consent were actually quite nuanced and stemmed from his own experiences as a young man.

I love Harry Hay! When I was in high school, we were given an assignment to pick an American historical figure and write a ‘Good, Bad, and Ugly’ paper about them. I chose Hay and it was fascinating. (Other popular choices were MLK, Rosa Parks, any number of the founding fathers, Reagan, Hoover, and FDR).

I’d like to know what some of the more positive nuances of his support of child rape were. He belonged to and supported NAMBLA, but you say he didn’t support pedophilia. That’s like saying he belongs to and supports the Beef Council, but he doesn’t advocate eating beef. As for other members of NAMBLA, Allen Ginsberg–another hero of the left and literary circles–was a member. And while I don’t believe he was a member of NAMBLA, Harvey Milk was a child rapist (which is what I’d be considered if I had sex with a 16 year old girl), but he’s so adored by the left that he has his own postage stamp.

To take things a bit more mainstream, though, I haven’t read it in about 15 years, but GQ used to have a jailbait watch. I forget if that was the actual name of the feature, and I’m sure some would argue that it wasn’t an official feature in the magazine, but it was a countdown to the 18th birthday of young female celebrities that would appear in their calendar toward the back. At least one issue said that the point of it was so their readers would know when it was legal to look up naked pictures of these very young girls and masturbate to them (they put it in less classy terms). But that’s not encouraging pedophilia. The last actress I saw mentioned in there was Natalie Portman, but I know another issue listed the Olsen twins who are quite a bit younger than her, and couldn’t have been older than 11 when I saw them mentioned. More recently I saw a fairly mainstream website doing something similar, this time with Chloë Grace Moretz. They started tracking her 18th birthday right after the movie Kick*** came out. She was 12 when she filmed that. But you’re right, there’s no evidence that the left supports pedophilia.

Speaking of 12 year olds, the movie Hounddog came out in 2007. Dakota Fanning was 12 when she filmed the movie’s rape scene. Although non-graphic, she spends a good number of scenes in the rest of the movie, according to Time, where she “gyrates to Elvis music in her underwear while older men and boys watch hungrily.” Since it was a flop, I’m guessing you’d say Hollywood wasn’t promoting pedophilia with that one or with the early “accidentally” leaked reports that her mother actually signed a consent form allowing her to be naked in the film.

These are just a couple examples off the top of my head. However, you stated that there’s no evidence of it. I didn’t feel like spending a bunch of time looking stuff up (like Abercrombie & Fitch’s kiddie porn catalog), but I don’t think it would have taken much effort. Our public schools are giving kids graphic instruction on how to perform all manner of sexual acts, then following it up by providing them contraception. At the same time, Hollywood is doing everything it can to blanket the nation in hyper-sexualized imagery, including of children in many instances. I’m sure there’s no relationship between the two, but when you put so much effort in promoting sex to children, and at least an equal amount of effort into promoting children as sexual commodities to adults, I’m not sure what you expect the outcome to be.

 

[frobert]

nobody is conflating anything.

Thank you. Mission accomplished!!!

 

[PTL]

Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty comments on Homosexuality somewhat crude but none the less an opinion.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/duck-dynasty-s-phil-robertson-there-satan-out-there-evil-one

**
“Well, if you started with young people,” said Robertson, “and you taught them, you rebuked them, you corrected them, you trained them, you instructed them to obey their father and mother, honor their father and mother, don’t murder, don’t lie, don’t steal from a young age – is anyone trying to tell me that we wouldn’t have a better society? ”**

Duck Dynasty is right!!

 

[Cackles]

**
“Well, if you started with young people,” said Robertson, “and you taught them, you rebuked them, you corrected them, you trained them, you instructed them to obey their father and mother, honor their father and mother, don’t murder, don’t lie, don’t steal from a young age – is anyone trying to tell me that we wouldn’t have a better society? ”**

Duck Dynasty is right!!

I disagree because his viewpoints borders too much on Secular Humanist ‘enlightenment’ via ‘training and education of young people’ to solve the worlds problems. Like people are animals. It sounds like liberal communist speak to me.

 

[frobert]

**
“Well, if you started with young people,” said Robertson, “and you taught them, you rebuked them, you corrected them, you trained them, you instructed them to obey their father and mother, honor their father and mother, don’t murder, don’t lie, don’t steal from a young age – is anyone trying to tell me that we wouldn’t have a better society? ”**

Duck Dynasty is right!!

Not to take away from what you posted, I believe effective parenting begins and ends with good example.

 

[WilT]

God created man and women so they can wed and create a loving family before God. *‘God made them male and female…and the two shall become one’ * Mk 10; 6-8 Jesus confirms that in the Gospel of Mark. It so because that is the way God created man to be in a social environment to love one another before God. All other (marital relationships) are disordered and cause confusion as sin does. To live in a healthy society we must protect the one man one women marriage. A Godless approach to marriage can only spawn disorder and chaos.

 

[WilT]

We must love and teach those who have disordered thoughts if we can. If they speak loudly of there disorder we too must speak loudly against them but with sensitivity, love, and certainty .

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’d like to know what some of the more positive nuances of his support of child rape were. He belonged to and supported NAMBLA, but you say he didn’t support pedophilia. That is factually incorrect. He was never a member of NAMBLA. He did not support their message either. What he supported was them having a voice at the table. Once again, this led to his rejection by the larger gay rights community. That’s like saying he belongs to and supports the Beef Council, but he doesn’t advocate eating beef He had consensual sexual relationships as a teenager. He didn’t want to see his older lovers criminalized for that. I’m actually also in favor of reforming the age of consent laws because of how many people end up with their lives ruined. But child rape is not a part of this… As for other members of NAMBLA, Allen Ginsberg–another hero of the left and literary circles–was a member Allen Ginsberg isn’t exactly a mainstream figure. And most people, of all political stripes, regard him as a fascinating historical figure who contributed a lot to many social justice causes. They do not support every facet of who he was. (Most liberals would reject more than just NAMBLA-they would also reject his Buddhism, Marxism, LSD use, etc.). And while I don’t believe he was a member of NAMBLA, Harvey Milk was a child rapist (which is what I’d be considered if I had sex with a 16 year old girl), but he’s so adored by the left that he has his own postage stamp. 16 is not child rape. It’s statutory, but it isn’t pedophilia. Pedophilia is pre-pubescent children, not sexually mature people who happen to be under the age of consent.

To take things a bit more mainstream, though, I haven’t read it in about 15 years, but GQ used to have a jailbait watch. I forget if that was the actual name of the feature, and I’m sure some would argue that it wasn’t an official feature in the magazine, but it was a countdown to the 18th birthday of young female celebrities that would appear in their calendar toward the back. At least one issue said that the point of it was so their readers would know when it was legal to look up naked pictures of these very young girls and masturbate to them (they put it in less classy terms). But that’s not encouraging pedophilia. It’s disgusting, and sad social commentary, but no. Pedophilia is unique. It is not a sex act with a minor, it is a sex act with a prepubescent child. The last actress I saw mentioned in there was Natalie Portman, but I know another issue listed the Olsen twins who are quite a bit younger than her, and couldn’t have been older than 11 when I saw them mentioned. More recently I saw a fairly mainstream website doing something similar, this time with Chloë Grace Moretz. They started tracking her 18th birthday right after the movie Kick*** came out. She was 12 when she filmed that. But you’re right, there’s no evidence that the left supports pedophilia.

Speaking of 12 year olds, the movie Hounddog came out in 2007. Dakota Fanning was 12 when she filmed the movie’s rape scene. Although non-graphic, she spends a good number of scenes in the rest of the movie, according to Time, where she “gyrates to Elvis music in her underwear while older men and boys watch hungrily.” Since it was a flop, I’m guessing you’d say Hollywood wasn’t promoting pedophilia with that one or with the early “accidentally” leaked reports that her mother actually signed a consent form allowing her to be naked in the film Moonrise Kingdom also had a creepy sexual undertone to it. It was widely beloved. But no, I do not think that this is any indication that gay people or liberals want to be allowed to rape children…

These are just a couple examples off the top of my head. However, you stated that there’s no evidence of it. I didn’t feel like spending a bunch of time looking stuff up (like Abercrombie & Fitch’s kiddie porn catalog), but I don’t think it would have taken much effort. Our public schools are giving kids graphic instruction on how to perform all manner of sexual acts, then following it up by providing them contraception. At the same time, Hollywood is doing everything it can to blanket the nation in hyper-sexualized imagery, including of children in many instances. I’m sure there’s no relationship between the two, but when you put so much effort in promoting sex to children, and at least an equal amount of effort into promoting children as sexual commodities to adults, I’m not sure what you expect the outcome to be.

There is a lot to be said for the sexualization of children and society in general. But these social problems are things that people on both sides of the political spectrum can work on. State statutory rape laws are tightened and loosened by politicians from both sides. Trying to frame this as though gay people or liberals want to be able to harm children is dishonest, and it does nothing to protect kids, only demonize people who haven’t done anything wrong.

I find it very interesting that you are so sure that it’s the gays who want to harm children, yet all of your examples are of heterosexual males who are excited for a female celebrity to turn 18.