Posted on 06/21/2017 8:50:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
In 2016, same-sex “marriage” was legalized in Colombia. One year later, the courts have now recognized a polyamorous “family” of three men. And there is no slippery slope.
As reported by the Daily Mail, “Actor Victor Hugo Prada and his two partners, sports instructor John Alejandro Rodriguez and journalist Manuel Jose Bermudez, have signed legal papers with a solicitor in the city of Medellin, establishing them as a family unit with inheritance rights.
“‘We wanted to validate our household... and our rights, because we had no solid legal basis establishing us as a family,’ said one of the men, Prada, in a video published by Colombian media on Monday.”
Here in the States, the Associated Press notes that, “More courts [are] allowing 3 parents of 1 child.” An example would be when a lesbian couple has a child with the help of another man, all three of whom become parents.
And there is no slippery slope.
When then-candidate Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he knew that he could not reveal his true sentiments about gay “marriage” – this according to David Axelrod – because it would hurt his election chances. And so, he clearly and decisively declared that marriage was the union of a man and a woman. And he said this was his Christian conviction.
Today, a Republican congressman is shot in cold blood and liberal news commentators suggest that we can’t forget his record at a time like this. After all, he wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
And there is no slippery slope.
It wasn’t that long ago that the Human Rights Campaign felt the need to remove “transgender” from its campaign to pass ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Today, in New York City, you can be fined up to $250,000 for failing to accept the stated identity of a trans employee. And Canada has just passed Bill C-16, which requires it citizens to use whatever gender pronouns a person chooses, as in, “Refer to me as ze and zir rather than he or her.”
As the National Post explains, “In other words, failure to use a person’s pronoun of choice — ‘ze,’ ‘zir,’ ‘they’ or any one of a multitude of other potential non-words — will land you in hot water with the commission. That, in turn, can lead to orders for correction, apology, Soviet-like “re-education,” fines and, in cases of continued non-compliance, incarceration for contempt of court.”
And there is no slippery slope.
In recent years, the media has pushed polygamy, polyamory, and even consensual adult incest, with public opinion gradually shifting towards more acceptance of these lifestyles and acts. (For documentation, see here.)
And there is no slippery slope. Or perhaps the slippery slope isn’t so bad after all?
That was actually the conclusion of a number of liberal students who challenged a talk I gave at a local, secular university: the slippery slope isn’t so bad after all!
I was asked to speak on the subject of God and Sex, addressing the question, “Are biblical standards of sexual purity destructive or constructive, helpful or harmful, binding or liberating?” In the lecture, I explained how everything reproduces after its kind. I also explained that we have to look at the trajectory of an idea or action or behavior. Where will it ultimately lead?
When it was time for Q & A, several students began to challenge my talk, claiming that there was no such thing as a slippery slope.
I asked them if they believed in the concepts of “love is love” and “I have the right to marry the one I love.” They all said yes, no matter how far it went. Three people? Four? Two adult brothers? And should the government be obligated to recognize all these relationships?
They answered in the affirmative to all my questions, concluding, “Well, I guess there is a slippery slope, but it’s not wrong.”
And that is where our society is heading. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny the reality of the slippery slope. The logical next step is to affirm it.
.
I was hoping for a worldwide revival. We’ll just have to wait upon the LORD and see.
In case anyone was, ummm, interested.
Next up...a three-way divorce...
who gets the children ???
The on e who was playing “Mother” at Tea Time that week or the father ???
but which father ???
And remember how we were assured that Hispanics were natural social conservatives and couldn’t wait to start voting Republican once they were amnestied? Guess what, this legal threesome is in Colombia, and a number of Latin American countries now have same-sex marriage.
The virus is spreading...
Change the definition of marriage once and it can be changed in multiple ways. God is definitely not pleased and beware the rebellion against Him. Hell is soooooooo overrated but many are clamoring for the express train to it.
The Lord is not happy about this. Payment will be painful.
The inane conversation with the mindless drone students at the end of the article tells us what we’re dealing with - utter insanity.
I don't think we deserve, or want one.
Sorry, but marriag is between a man and I woman and nothing can and should change it.
If two men, or two women want to be good friends, I have nothing against it
Excellent point.
Once marriage was allowed to be redefined, pandora's box was opened.
What's to stop 5 people from getting married? How about cousins? Crazy? So too was gay marriage not too long ago.
It’s all about standards and the results that are born from them.
Some countries allow polygamy. Some allow gay marriage. Some allow one or the other but not both.
The question is, what metrics should be used to measure the effectiveness or benefit to society for the different forms of marriage?
For me, there’s four:
- How well children do
- How rampant is disease
- How well people age
- We have enough children to continue the society
With this criteria evidence supports that the “best” standard is the one defined by Judeo-Christian ethics. Ideally, no sex before marriage, a faithful marriage between a man and a woman, and not divorcing. In thinking about it, if we were all willing to live this way we could eradicate every single STD, there would be no way for them to spread.
The gay community may not like it but all the CDC data points to rampant disease. Even “married” men, almost universally, continue to have additional partners outside of the marriage. As they make up ~1% of the population and have a lot more partners than heterosexuals any virus that makes its way into that sub-group will spread like wildfire. You could write a mathematical formula to represent it. A small group having lots of unprotected sex with many others within the same small group will spread disease unlike any other group, it only stands to reason.
Polygamy is not good for women. It’s a male desire. It just dilutes their worth as individuals, leading to being treated that way. The only “benefit” is that you can have a LOT of children very quickly. It’s no coincidence Islam allows it.
To believe all these different forms bring “equality” is absurd. It does no such thing, it just waters down the standard to the point of being meaningless. In the process, the four metrics I state get much worse. Liberals believe they can conjure up any reality they think “should be” and also think they won’t introduce consequences, they’re fools that think they’re enlightened. You cannot escape truth, they don’t think there’s such a thing.
The divorce lawyers will be the only ones to benefit once these ‘marriages’ go south.
God only does things to show all how great and loving He truly is. Of course, there was the flood with only Noah as prophet.
No doubt about it.
Was talking to my dentist how gay marriage would lead to dog-man, horse-man unions and he was disgusted by that comparison. He said that would not happen and that this is only about people that love each other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
