Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
2128

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Ah, right: people become fags because something went wrong.

So, let’s assume it is a choice.

Answer this question: when did you choose to be a heterosexual?

(Assuming you are one.)
[/quote]

Hey…good for you, you are trying to actually come up with an answer. But you failed miserably and here’s why.

Not one of the studies above claim that it’s a conscious “choice.”

Did you get that?

However, something happened in their childhood that helped determine their sexual attraction.

For example, many men who currently prefer sex with other men were molested as boys. That does NOT mean that they are currently “choosing” to be homosexual.

Did you read this?

“Homosexually-assaulted males identified themselves as subsequently becoming practicing homosexuals almost 7 times as often as bisexuals and almost 6 times as often as the non-assaulted control group. 58% of adolescents reporting sexual abuse by a man prior to puberty revealed either homosexual or bisexual orientation (control group 90% heterosexual). Age of molestation was 4-14 years. Nearly half of men who have reported a childhood experience with an older man were currently involved in homosexual activity.? A disproportionately high number of male homosexuals were incestuously molested by a homosexual parent. Conclusion was that the experience led the boy to perceive himself as homosexual based on his having been found sexually attractive by an older man.”

That is also why there are many who have left the homosexual lifestyle and have become happily married heterosexuals. Apparently what can be learned can be “unlearned.”

Do you have an answer for the potential for homosexuality to occur because of something which happens in childhood?

Would you like me to post all of the statistics which demonstrate that homosexuals are capable of becoming heterosexuals?

And while we are at it answer this question for me:

If there are 5000…(even 50 for that matter) former homosexuals walking around who are today happily married to someone of the opposite sex, how can it be genetic?

I’ll be waiting…

2129

[quote]forlife wrote:

Have fun riding on that slippery slope of yours.[/quote]

LOL…you just keep posting and losing…posting and losing…over and over again…

forlife,

You obviously don’t pay attention to the news. Not only are you unaware that homosexual marriage is losing ground, you are also unaware that the slippery slope which steve has stated has already occurred!

Slippery slope, is not so silly after all.

Exactly four years after homosexuals were granted the right to marry, polygamist were also granted the right to form a legal union under the law in the Netherlands!

If we stray from the traditional one man, one woman marriage couple anything goes.

After all why would a polygamists rights be worth less than the rights of homosexuals when it comes to the state sanctioning their relationships?

The same people that brought us our first gay marriage also brought us our first polygamist civil union.

Where does it end?

forlife…once again you have been proven yourself to be full of shit!

"First Trio “Married” in The Netherlands

From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2005-09-26 23:08

"The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam?s divorce the threesome decided to marry.

Victor: "A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage."

Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their peculiar relationship, Victor explained that there is no jealousy between them. “But this is because Mirjam and Bianca are bisexual. I think that with two heterosexual women it would be more difficult.” Victor stressed, however, that he is “a one hundred per cent heterosexual”" They want to take their marriage obligations seriously: “to be honest and open with each other and not philander.”

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

Fortunately Americans have the capacity to see into this pandoras box.

As for you posting forlife, you might better give it up…you are now losing as much ground on this thread as your gay comrades are in the real world.

Add your slippery slope defeat to all of the others which I already listed.

You have yet to win even ONE single point!

2130

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Ridiculous stats – if the American people were for all these “sodomite rights,” then the courts wouldn’t be making these decisions. No state legislature has allowed for sodomite marriage (period).

Calling the stats ridiculous doesn’t invalidate them. Are you accusing the Pew research group of fudging the data? Did you read the reams of other poll stats provided by the major polling organizations, all of which have shown a similar trend of increasing acceptance for gay rights over time?[/quote]

Have you read the state data relative to gay rights being denied now in 20 states?

Are you aware that 6 more states will be voting on gay rights this year?

Are you also aware that those who predict trends are stating that all 6 states will join the current 20 states which ban gay marriage?"

Finally, are you aware that the folks turned out in record numbers in those 20 states voting between 65% and 86% to ban gay marriage in their state?

We are not talking about 20 somethings answering a poll question on the phone at their convenience. We are talking about responsible men and women turning out in record numbers to ban gay marriage!

It’s happening all around you forlife.

Now why do you ignore these facts? Do you think they will go away if you keep ignoring them?

2131

[quote]forlife wrote:
That’s right, Lorisco…it is just an enormous “coincidence” that every single one of the homophobes in this thread is a fundamentalist Christian. You’re all here because of the objective evidence…your faith has no bearing whatsoever on your beliefs about homosexuality.

LOL.
[/quote]

Don’t think so. Faith has nothing to do with the fact that even the most uneducated non-medical person knows that your butt-hole was not designed to have another man’s penis stuck in it. Your lifestyle and the things that you do to each other clearly are contrary to biology and survival of the fittest evolutionary model.

So keeping religion totally out of this, your lifestyle is clearly contrary to biological function and evolution.

2132

Zeb, while I’m sure you find it comforting to rationalize your bigotry, nobody with an objective and fair-minded perspective will see your tripe as anything other than what it really is. Spamming statistics from NARTH, quoting the CDC out of context, and blatantly ignoring data that don’t agree with your religious agenda doesn’t win you any points in an objective debate.

I have shown that EVERY MAJOR MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD has concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness, and that people don’t choose their sexual orientation. These scientific organizations have evaluated the evidence, and concluded that people CANNOT generally change their orientation, and that studies claiming to show otherwise are scientifically flawed. Every major medical and mental health organization in the world has evaluated reparative therapy and concluded that it is DAMAGING and is NOT RECOMMENDED.

You don’t like it, you wish it weren’t true, but those are the FACTS.

I have shown that numerous studies have provided proof for a GENETIC component in determining a person’s sexual orientation. Controlling for possible environmental influences (which may play a partial role, but are not the only factor by a long shot), there is overwhelming objective evidence for a genetic factor in sexual orientation.

You don’t like it, you wish it weren’t true, but those are the FACTS.

I have shown that what you call the “primary homosexual act” is not practiced by 40% of the gay population, and that statistically MORE heterosexuals have anal sex compared to homosexuals.

You don’t like it, you wish it weren’t true, but those are the FACTS.

I have provided a long list of major religious organizations (many of whom are Christian) which do not discriminate against gays and fully welcome them into their congregations.

You don’t like it, you wish it weren’t true, but those are the FACTS.

I have shown how the slippery slope argument fails when applied to gay marriage, because it is impossible for you to logically prove that B would inevitably result from A. It is nothing but sophistry and fear mongering. Each case (gay marriage, polygamy, etc.) must be evaluated independently, based on objective evidence for the potential harm and benefits resulting if that particular case were legally sanctioned.

You don’t like it, you wish it weren’t true, but those are the FACTS.

I have shown that government sanctioned gay unions produce numerous positive benefits to society, INCLUDING A SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED RISK OF SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES.

You don’t like it, you wish it weren’t true, but those are the FACTS.

I have shown that marriage between one man and one woman is not a pristine unchallenged 5,000 year-old institution, but that in fact many people in the old testament and other cultures adopted alternate definitions for marriage, including polygamy.

You don’t like it, you wish it weren’t true, but those are the FACTS.

I have shown that across a wide range of respected scientific polling organizations, there has been a general trend toward INCREASING ACCEPTANCE for gay rights, when it comes to military service, adopting children, and gay marriage.

You don’t like it, you wish it weren’t true, but those are the FACTS.

I have shown that bigots never recognize themselves as such. Before the civil war, slave owners genuinely believed that blacks were inferior and pointed to the bible to defend their perspective. At the turn of the 20th century, misogynists genuinely believed that men should make the decisions and women should not have the right to vote. They too pointed to the bible to justify their perspective. Today, the same bigotry is being applied to gays. The gay haters in this thread are no different than the racial bigots and misogynists of the past. They genuinely believe that they are in the right, they use the bible to justify their perspective, and nobody can tell them otherwise. Bigots never recognize themselves as such.

You don’t like it, you wish it weren’t true, but those are the FACTS.

This is my final response to you. I’m not going to waste my breath on a blowhard bigot that is more interested in pushing what is ultimately a religious agenda, than in acknowledging the conclusions of EVERY MAJOR MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD.

2133

Let’s break down this short and almost meaningless response from [quote] tme.[/quote] We can get a good look at how the politically correct left attempts to intimidate those of us who take a stand against gay marraige.

Here we see that facts are meaningless to our politically correct friends. They won’t even read them much less debate them.

Funny stuff…

And why won’t they read the various facts from state referendums to the governments own CDC take on the unhealthy aspects of homosexual relationships?

Because they are meaningless to anyone except sycohpants.

But what about the folks who live in those 20 states who turned out in record numbers to say NO to gay marriage?

Are they “sycophants” too?

He answers page after page of studies, polls, referendums and government health statistics with name calling. The politically correct are clueless folks. All you have to do is stand up to them and their argument blows away like cracker crumbs in the wind. And all they are left with is name calling.

And here is the politicially correct pay off line!

“You hate fags.”

All you have to do is not accept gay marriage and you automatically hate gays.

There cannot be a difference of opinion…noooo that would not get them what they want.

They have to paint you as someone who HATES people in order to make their point. Because in reality they have no good argument for gay marriage. It’s all about them getting what they want. And if you dare disagree…you are hatefull. They have nothing else when all is said and done.

Odd, how would he even know that since in the above he stated that he did not read any of the stats that I posted. If he actually read my posts he would understand fully why I am not for civil unions.

[quote]Are you just scared you’ll catch the gay?
[/quote]

More insults to round out the meaningless post.

If the politically correct like tme can intimidate you enough with insults over facts he is hoping that you will shut up and go away.

tme, you have once again proven yourself to be insufficient when it comes to debating your side of the argument.

Then again if I had to debate that side of the argument I might just be doing what these folks are doing.

Calling people names and ignoring the facts.

2134

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
forlife wrote:
Your constant spamming of selective statistics and blatant ignoring of points that don’t agree with your agenda win you nothing but a reputation for being a close-minded, loud-mouthed bigot.

tme wrote:
You pretty much summed zeb up in one concise sentence, good work.

Those who speak the truth unwaveringly are often criticized for it. Just because ZEB has annihilated every one of forlife’s posts, and you fail to refute them yourself, you perceive that ZEB’s a bigot?

If this didn’t turn into a debate on homosexuality, I’d say ZEB keeps tearing forlife a brand new @sshole with each and every post.[/quote]

And based on forlife’s stated lifestyle he probably needs a new one anyway! Ouch!

2135

[quote]tme wrote:
ZEB wrote:

You are as worthless on this thread as you are on most you grace.

Refute even ONE of the statistics that I have posted…

Can’t huh?

:slight_smile:

Thanks, zeb. I’m not going to read any of the statistics that you posted because they are meaningless to anyone but you (and maybe your little sycophant tit-mouse ivan). You, God and that preacher in Kansas hate fags. Good for you. Nothing you’ve posted explains why you are so deathly afraid of civil unions. Are you just scared you’ll catch the gay?

[/quote]

I’m sure that the facts are meaningless to people like you who follow the PC crowd and do what ever you are told. But to those who have some substance and rationale behind their beliefs, Zeb’s facts are very enlightening.

2136

forlife once again takes the low road. Name calling and outright lying.

Watch and see…

[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb, while I’m sure you find it comforting to rationalize your bigotry,[/quote]

Name calling because you have no argument…same old same old.

Refresher course for you:

Bigotry is not “tolerating” another. I am not a bigot. And furthermore no one who does not “accept” gay marraige is a bigot!

You want acceptance not tolerance.

the volumes of studies, facts, figures, stastics etc. is all “tripe” to the politically correct homosexual who simply wants what he wants and that’s that.

This is a bold faced lie. Here is the CDC site where I gathered many statistics. I want everyone to review it.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm

When you are finished reading the dismal statistics on your brothers you can apologize for claiming that I took the CDC out of conext.

I have stated many times that those against gay marriage do so for many reasons. Religion is only one reason there are many many more. Do you really think that the 81% of the people in Alabama who banned gay marriage all had a religious agenda?

Do you think that hundreds of thousands of folks who signed a petition to over turn gay marriage in Massachusetts had a religous agenda?

Do you think the 20 states who voted between 65% to 86% to ban gay marriage had a religious agenda?

You have aleady lied on this very thread. I would hope that you not add paranoia to your other (cough) problems.

Further, I have given you volumes of data that you could try to refute any time you like. But instead you have chosen to engage in the typical politically correct game of name calling.

Now get busy and refute the volumes of data, statistics, polls, referendums and other solid evidence which shows your side coming up short not only from a health and tradition stand point. But in country wide popularity as well.

Or, you could just stick to calling others names who disagree with your point of view.

2137

I just brought in some new information regarding gay marriage’s overwhelming defeat (81% against) in Alabama. I also brought up the fact that 20 states now have laws on the books forbidding gay marriage, and that 6 more states are likely to join them by years end.

That was all new…

Oh…you mean I have nothing YOU want to hear.

LOL

Your constant spamming of selective statistics and blatant ignoring of points that don’t agree with your agenda win you nothing but a reputation for being a close-minded, loud-mouthed bigot.

Article II section 4 page 12 of the gay lobby hate book:

“When you cannot find even one ray of hope in any argument supporting gay marriage begin name calling.”

By the way, you cannot refute even one of my statistics, if you could you would do it!

You don’t like the facts so you name call…We get it.

I know you don’t see yourself as such, but true bigots never do.

The definition of a bigot is “one who is intolerant of others.” I am very tolerant of others. What you want is “acceptance” not toleration.

You have called me and others bigots because we will not “embrace” gay marriage or your aberrant lifestyle. 81% of Alabama residents would not “accept” gay marriage. Are they bigots? The residents of Massachusetts signed a petition with tens of thousands of names on it to over turn (some liberal judges idea) gay marriage in that state, are they bigots too? What about the many other states that voted between 65% and 86% to NOT allow gay marriage in their states. Are they all bigots?

Or, are they simply protecting what they feel is proper?

Lack of acceptance is not bigotry!

Bigotry is simply one more name, not unlike “homophobic” which the politically correct use to lable anyone who opposes the gay agenda.

That won’t work anymore Bub! The silent majority is not so silent when it comes to voting against gay marriage. And I suspect that when it is all said and done almost every state in the country will have some sort of law prohibiting gay marriage.

Don’t bother addressing me in the future, as you’ve shown your true colors too many times for me to believe you were ever truly interested in objective facts.

You are the one who has turned your back on the facts. And you are also the one who has the personal agenda to promote, not me.

You refuse to even acknowledge government health statistics, poll numbers, referendums and the like.

For those who tuned in late, here’s what really happened:

I produced quality statistics from the governments own CDC web site regarding both the physical and emotional dangers of the primary homosexual sex act and the gay lifestyle.

You hated it.

I produced some of the latest polls and state laws. And pointed out that there will be about 26 states with laws on the books forbidding gay marriage by the end of this year.

You hated it.

I produced facts regarding the Bible and how not only the Old Testament but the New Testament as well speaks against homosexuality. And I also pointed out that not ONE major religion in the world promotes homosexuality.

You hated it.

I pointed out how ridiculous it would be to change a 5000+ year old tradition for about 1% of the population. And if we did where would it stop? How many other minor groups would want the right to marry? Polygamists, those who practice incest?

You hated it.

I gave you study after study which offered up solid evidence that homosexuals could in fact change to heterosexual. But because you tried to change and gave up.

You hated it.

You have nothing left to say in this debate other than to throw out a few of your hate words.

You and one or two of your comrades on this thread have few facts to back up all of your rhetoric, so you name call.

I understand and I accept it as being the logical end of your argument. And I predict that your cause will probably fold in the same fashion nationwide.

“If you can’t answer a man’s arguments all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”

Elbert Hubbard

2138

forlife,

We are closing in on 100…don’t quit now because the heats on!

2139

SLIPPERY SLOPE THEORY GETS A BOOST.

Here Come the Brides
Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.
by Stanley Kurtz

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they’d met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or “cohabitation contract,” the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while Mirjam and her husband divorced. Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as “100 percent heterosexual,” attributes the trio’s success to his wives’ bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy.

The De Bruijns’ triple union caused a sensation in the Netherlands, drawing coverage from television, radio, and the press. With TV cameras and reporters crowding in, the wedding celebration turned into something of a media circus. Halfway through the festivities, the trio had to appoint one of their guests as a press liaison. The local paper ran several stories on the triple marriage, one devoted entirely to the
media madhouse.

News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of “I told you so’s” from bloggers who’d long warned of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire. M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, “This [Brussels Journal] article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled–Dutch law does not allow polygamy.” Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for “cohabitation contract” as “civil union,” or even “marriage,” so as to leave the false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered partnerships.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America’s mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it’s bigger than even those chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns’ triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage."

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

This occurred only four years after gay marriage was legalized.

2140

forlife,

People didn’t know whether or not they are infertile back then. If a couple knew, I doubt they’d ever marry each other. Marriage did NOT make sense for an infertile couple. Why was there no gay marriage in Greece?

Infertility levels rising is not the main point. The point is that in the past procreation, not love, was the main basis for marriage. And that was the reason special legal rights were granted. In the past marriage was a special right for those who can procreate; now it’s viewed as a basic right…
Things have changed.

[quote]forlife wrote:
skor wrote:
Yes, there were infertile couple back then, but their proportion was so small and they were viewed as very unfortunate. They also didn’t have kids to help around the house. At that time gay marriage didn’t make sense.

If marriage made sense for an infertile couple back then, it made sense for a gay couple as well. Just because infertile couples were a minority (just like gay couples) doesn’t mean marriage made any less “sense” for them than it does today.[/quote]

2141

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Gay marriage defeated overwhelmingly!

Hey forlife, while you and your buddy harris have been playing pretend on the Internet grown up people who are fed up with your nonsense have decided act.

On June 6th while we were right here on this site making believe that things were going your way., 81% of Alabama residents voted to ban gay marriage.

81%

WOW.

"Only Mississippi – which passed an amendment in 2004 with 86 percent of the vote – surpassed Alabama’s tally.

86% of the vote! If you are not going to concede until you see 100% that might not happen. As I stated on another post there will always be the fringe left, homosexuals and 18 year olds pretty much ready to accept anything. But when the adults start voting…

"The amendment prevents Alabama courts from forcing the state to recognize “gay marriages,” civil unions or domestic partnerships from other states. It also prevents Alabama courts from legalizing those unions in the state.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23414

But Alabama isn’t alone. Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin also are scheduled to vote on similar amendments this year."

When you total up the 6 states that will be banning gay marriage this year that will be a total of 26 states that have said NO to gay marriage.

Wow. Alabama and Mississippi. Paragons of intelligence and progressive thinking.

That’s more like it!

You’re back to your drive by hate postings.

This time you show your brand of ignorance by the practice of stereotyping.

Tell me why is it wrong to stereotype homosexuals but not wrong to stereotype southern folks?

Southern folks are not quite as intelligent as you and your politically correct northern brothers huh?

Do you believe this?

Funny how the politically correct liberals stereotype…and think it’s okay.

By the way, are they also behind the times in Massachusetts where the people rose up in droves and signed a petition to turn back gay marriage?

“Petition vs. gay marriage advances
Number of signers breaks state record”.

"The people have not just spoken, they have shouted to let the people vote on the definition of marriage…

The petition drew the signatures of Governor Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann; former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, now the president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council; and former Boston mayor Raymond L. Flynn. If the petition receives the support of at least 25 percent of the Legislature in two successive sessions, it would appear on the ballot in November 2008."

Governor Mitt Romney signed the petition. And former DEMOCRATIC mayor Ray Flynn also signed the petition.

Are they also closed minded bigots?

harris everytime you post you make yourself out to be a bigger joke.

And while I have you here how come you have not gotten back to me regarding the other two issues that I addressed to you?

You have no answers huh?

One was on gay domestic violence (gay on gay violence).

And the other was on the incredible amount of evidence which points to homosexuals becoming that way because of events that happened in childhood. As opposed to the politically correct who want badly for everyone to believe that “they are born that way” and then offer zero proof to back up their propaganda.

Would you like me to repost these for the third time? Or do you want to just scroll back and answer?

No…probably neither. You’re better off just sticking to your drive by hate postings. Because as soon as you debate the facts you lose!

[/quote]

You’re absolutely right, Zeb! After all, it was New Jersey that, until barely 40 years ago, didn’t allow blacks into their universities and turned fire hoses and police dogs on women and children when they had the unmitigated audacity to complain.

And, oh yeah: the whole “drive-by” thing? Stop stealing Rush Limbaugh’s bits.

2142

[quote]ZEB wrote:
SLIPPERY SLOPE THEORY GETS A BOOST.

Here Come the Brides
Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.
by Stanley Kurtz

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they’d met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or “cohabitation contract,” the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while Mirjam and her husband divorced. Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as “100 percent heterosexual,” attributes the trio’s success to his wives’ bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy.

The De Bruijns’ triple union caused a sensation in the Netherlands, drawing coverage from television, radio, and the press. With TV cameras and reporters crowding in, the wedding celebration turned into something of a media circus. Halfway through the festivities, the trio had to appoint one of their guests as a press liaison. The local paper ran several stories on the triple marriage, one devoted entirely to the
media madhouse.

News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of “I told you so’s” from bloggers who’d long warned of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire. M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, “This [Brussels Journal] article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled–Dutch law does not allow polygamy.” Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for “cohabitation contract” as “civil union,” or even “marriage,” so as to leave the false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered partnerships.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America’s mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it’s bigger than even those chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns’ triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage."

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

This occurred only four years after gay marriage was legalized.
[/quote]

So what?

2143

[quote]harris447 wrote:

You’re absolutely right, Zeb! After all, it was New Jersey that, until barely 40 years ago, didn’t allow blacks into their universities and turned fire hoses and police dogs on women and children when they had the unmitigated audacity to complain.[/quote]

You and forlife are desperately trying to make that comparison between blacks and homosexuals.

I’ll just keep giving the readers of this thread the facts so that they are not misled by the gay propaganda machine created by the powerful gay lobby. I will post more on the exact statements from the leaders of these powerful gay organizations on another post.

For now I’ll give you a quick lesson on the differences:

Black = genetic

Woman = genetic

Homosexual = An action

(No proof that it is genetic after many years of looking.)

Therefore, any who make such a silly comparision need to be reminded that no such comparison exists.

If we are to place homosexuals on the same level of those who were actually discriminated against because of their genetics then we must keep expanding that role. There is no logical end to any sort of wacko group who wants to compare themselves to blacks or women.

Actually harris, I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.

That you only seem to post a few lines to a paragraph or so on a topic that you say means so much to you sort of led me to the conclusion that you would rather just call me (and others) names than actually defend your point.

2144

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
SLIPPERY SLOPE THEORY GETS A BOOST.

Here Come the Brides
Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.
by Stanley Kurtz

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they’d met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or “cohabitation contract,” the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while Mirjam and her husband divorced. Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as “100 percent heterosexual,” attributes the trio’s success to his wives’ bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy.

The De Bruijns’ triple union caused a sensation in the Netherlands, drawing coverage from television, radio, and the press. With TV cameras and reporters crowding in, the wedding celebration turned into something of a media circus. Halfway through the festivities, the trio had to appoint one of their guests as a press liaison. The local paper ran several stories on the triple marriage, one devoted entirely to the
media madhouse.

News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of “I told you so’s” from bloggers who’d long warned of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire. M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, “This [Brussels Journal] article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled–Dutch law does not allow polygamy.” Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for “cohabitation contract” as “civil union,” or even “marriage,” so as to leave the false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered partnerships.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America’s mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it’s bigger than even those chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns’ triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage."

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

This occurred only four years after gay marriage was legalized.

So what?

[/quote]

harris says “so what” to three polygamists getting married.

This should tip off the readers of this thread as to the direction that those who want gay marriage would take this country.

Very good harris, thanks for your honestly.

Actually, that is much more than forlife has given us regarding the topic of polygamy.

It’s nice to see your true colors.

2145

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
So you quote from the Law of Moses which was given to the Jewish people in a theocracy. These are the laws of Kashrut (Kosher) and do not apply to Christians living today. I know this because these commands are NOT CARRIED OVER into the New Testament!

Where in the new testament does it say that you are now allowed to eat lobster? Or are you just assuming that unless something is specifically repeated in the new testament, it no longer has any bearing? For example, the fifth commandment is to “Honor thy father and thy mother.” Unless this is specifically repeated in the new testament, does that mean the commandment was just part of the law of moses and no longer applies? Your logic is inconsistent and flawed.[/quote]

Really? Did you know that 9 of The Ten Commandments are repeated in the N.T.? The Sabbath Day is the only one not there. The N.T. directly bears upon what God expects from New Testament Christians today. While the timeless truths of the entire Bible are God’s Word, this saying might help you understand Biblical Theology a bit more:

“While the entire Bible is for us [i.e. Christians], the Bible is not entirely about us.” Author unknown

There are passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that we can apply to our lives, but they were written to Israel. Have you studied theology? Have you read through the Bible?

Unfortunately, when it comes to this discussion on the Bible, it is YOUR position, sir, that is seriously flawed.[quote]

More to the point, I have shown you how “traditional marriage” is not the 10,000 year old sacred institution that you claim, since numerous prophets and commoners in the old testament practiced polygamy. [/quote]

And I have shown you, Biblically, where God and Jesus Christ has called this “hardness of heart,” and “sin.” Are you saying just because people sinned and the Bible recorded that, we are then to ignore the clear commands of Scripture? Is that what you are saying?

With that in mind, remember the story of David and Bathsheba? David lusted after Bathsheba and had her husband Uriah killed so he could have her? Does that mean we are to pass laws legalizing murder if someone wants your wife?

Bad theology leads to bad doctrine and bad doctrine leads to sin.

I think you really need to reconsider and rethink your position here…[quote]

Even if you buy the line that all of that went away with Jesus, you are now talking about a 2,000 year old sacred institution. Get your facts straight.

[/quote]

Again, Jesus said it was not so “from the beginning…” Jesus was harkening back to the beginning which was Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve!).

I have my facts straight – do you?

2146

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Ridiculous stats – if the American people were for all these “sodomite rights,” then the courts wouldn’t be making these decisions. No state legislature has allowed for sodomite marriage (period).

Calling the stats ridiculous doesn’t invalidate them. Are you accusing the Pew research group of fudging the data? Did you read the reams of other poll stats provided by the major polling organizations, all of which have shown a similar trend of increasing acceptance for gay rights over time?[/quote]

Are you gay?

Is that why you have this position – there is something in it for you, right?

2147

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Really? Did you know that 9 of The Ten Commandments are repeated in the N.T.? The Sabbath Day is the only one not there. The N.T. directly bears upon what God expects from New Testament Christians today.[/quote]

Does that mean Christians today are not expected to keep the Sabbath day holy? I’m curious how you know what from the bible actually applies today and what doesn’t.

I was a full time Christian proselyting missionary for two years. I’ve read the bible through numerous times. How about you?

Where is your scriptural support for Abraham’s polygamy being declaimed as “hardness of heart” or “sin”? I’m looking for a specific scriptural reference.

You may recall that David’s sin against Uriah was specifically condemned by the prophet Nathan. He lusted after another man’s wife and killed the man in order to have her. That is very different from Abraham’s case, where his first wife, Sarah, granted explicit permission for him to take another wife.