Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘polygamy’

An African proverb says, “Don’t tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.” In other words, don’t discard a tradition or a practice until you understand why it was established and followed.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not moral equivalents. Civilizations have erected a metaphorical fence limiting sexual activity to men and women constrained in marriage. Throughout history, people scaled the fence to engage in premarital, extramarital, and homosexual sex, but the fence remained and the limits were visible and known to everyone. Climbing over the fence has always been recognized as a breach of those limits, even by the climbers themselves.

But now homosexual rights advocates are saying that there should be no fence, and that to tear it down is an act of liberation. Once the fence is torn down, adultery, polygamy, and pedophilia will become socially acceptable. Because no visible boundary to sexual expression will exist, civilization will ultimately collapse and disappear

Homosexual author Gabriel Rotello writes of the changes in homosexual behavior in the last century:

“Most accounts of male-on-male sex from the early decades of this century [20th] cite oral sex, and less often masturbation, as the predominant forms of activity, with the acknowledged homosexual fellating or masturbating his partner. Comparatively fewer accounts refer to anal sex. My own informal survey of older gay men who were sexually active prior to World War II gives credence to the idea that anal sex, especially anal sex with multiple partners, was considerably less common than it later became.”

According to a 2001 New York Times story, the practice of anal sex increased, condom use has declined 20 percent and multi-partner sex has doubled in the last seven years, despite billions of dollars spent on HIV prevention campaigns. “In many cases, the prevention slogans that galvanized gay men in the early years of the epidemic now fall on deaf ears.”

As societal approval of homosexual behavior increases, so does the behavior. A 1993 Newsweek story reported that the increased social acceptance of homosexual behavior led teenagers to engage in homosexual sex, viewing it as chic. The Associated Press reported, “the way gays and lesbians appear in the media may make some people more comfortable acting on homosexual impulses.”

Studies show that some people change their sexual behavior, which makes it impossible to define that person as homosexual. For example:

Does a man who has homosexual sex in prison count as a homosexual? Does a man who left his wife of twenty years for a gay lover count as a homosexual or heterosexual? Do you count the number of years he spent with his wife as compared to his lover? Does the married woman who had sex with her college roommate a decade ago count? Do you assume that one homosexual experience defines someone as gay for all time?”

Despite the difficulty in defining homosexuality, what is clear is that those who engage in same-sex practices or identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual constitute a very small percentage of the population. The most reliable studies indicate that 1-3 percent of people consider themselves to be homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual, or currently engage in homosexual sex.

Homosexual rights advocates are doing great damage to America’s social fabric and the American people. In promoting homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality, they are killing Americans, killing society, and destroying the nation’s identity.

Nearly 11 million people in America are directly affected by cancer, while slightly more than three-quarters of a million are affected by AIDS, yet AIDS spending per patient is more than seven times that for cancer. And the inequity for diabetes and heart disease is even more striking. Consequently, the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS detracts from research into cures for diseases that affect more people.

In denouncing and marginalizing anyone who opposes and criticizes the gaystapo agenda as homophobic, homosexual rights advocates are destroying people’s humanity, physical being, and soul, and robbing researchers of funds that could help them develop treatments and cures for diseases that afflict tens of millions of people.


This 7:15 youtube video was taken from The Millstone Report web cast, a two-hour show that aired Tuesday, March 4, 2014.

The TMR was broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am – noon on channel 2 on the Resistance Radio Network.

For more clips from The Millstone Report web cast visit I.M. Kane 2012 on youtube.

Read Full Post »

For at least a thousand years, western civilization has recognized marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and for over two hundred years the United States has defined marriage as the union of two people of opposite sex who are not close blood relatives.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would allow for the definition to expand beyond recognition. If marriage is redefined as the union of consenting adults who profess to love each other, there is no principled reason to exclude others who want legal recognition and social acceptance of their unions.

How could you justify excluding a person from marrying a close blood relative or more than one person when exclusion would mean the denial of that person’s civil rights or sexuality? How could you exclude close blood relatives from marrying each other, or bisexuals who want to marry more than one person?

If two men can marry, why does it matter if they are close blood relatives, or why limit the number to just two? After all, there’s no risk of genetic deformity in the case of homosexual incest.

If homosexual marriage is permitted, why not permit incestuous and polygamous marriages? The only reason not to permit them is that people find them morally repugnant.

Western societies have forbidden incest and polygamy on the grounds of public morality. Homosexuals who want to marry are not being denied their civil rights. They can get married; they just can’t marry someone of the same sex, a close blood relative, or more than one person.

What Same-sex marriage proponents want to do is move the moral line that has been fixed in western culture for over a millennium. They call me a bigot because I am unwilling to move the line, but what they want to do is re-draw the line based their sense of morality and limit marriage to only heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Same-sex marriage proponents claim homosexuals are being denied their civil rights when they are denied the right to marry, but if that’s true, aren’t close blood relatives and bisexuals also being denied their civil rights to marry? So why isn’t it bigotry to deny close blood relatives and bisexuals who profess love for each other their right to get married?

Obviously same-sex marriage proponents don’t recognize the love that close blood relatives and bisexuals profess to have for each other as legitimate, which is why they aren’t demanding that such marriages be sanctioned by the state.

When the only basis for marriage is love or the desire of the parties to get married, it logically follows that close blood relatives and bisexuals will soon demand the right to marry, also.

Same-sex marriage proponents are extraordinarily naïve to believe that redefining marriage will have no serious repercussions or lasting effects on the social fabric. Depravity knows no bounds, and the depraved are waiting in line to prove the point.


This 9:06 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The two-hour show aired Friday, Nov. 8, 2013. TMR was broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am – noon on channel 2.

For more clips from The Millstone Report web cast visit I.M. Kane 2012 on youtube. To see a rebroadcast of the last show, visit the Ought to be Headlines web page

Read Full Post »