Posted on 09/12/2022 7:42:58 AM PDT by fwdude
Dr. Iskander wrote this article for ADvindicate in 2013, when same-sex marriage was being hotly debated, before the Obergefell decision invented a “constitutional right” of same-sex marriage and short-circuited the national debate. Kevin Paulson removed it from ADvindicate, but it is well written and argued, and deserves to be re-published, especially given that the conservative SCOTUS may overturn Obergefell (which was based upon the same nebulous concept of “substantive due process” that underlay Planned Parenthood v. Casey) and return the debate to the democratic process, just as it has done with abortion.
For most of history, sexual attraction was not the basis of marriage. Marriage and children were a duty and an expectation arising from religion and culture. People married someone of the opposite sex, and usually had children, regardless of their own sexual orientation. Patriarchal social norms were too strong to be flouted, and the taboos and sanctions against homosexual activity too severe and too strictly enforced. (Female homosexuality is virtually unknown to history.)
Today, however, marriage is viewed not as a religious, cultural or social duty, but as an avenue of self-fulfillment and self-actualization. There is an expectation of finding and marrying someone with shared values, interests, and tastes, and to whom one is sexually attracted.
(Excerpt) Read more at fulcrum7.com ...
These disgusting perverts will drive up every dirt road they come across. God sent them aids, then monkeypox. Maybe the next one won’t be so gentle.
See 4.
Male sexuality, whether oriented toward females or other males, craves variety….
- - - - - -
Wrong! They crave sin! Humans first attraction is and always, until the return of the Lord, will be is sin!
The only reason why some heterosexual males settle down with one woman is because the wife would not tolerate his sinful existence! Homos are already sinning so there are no more boundaries to cross.
“There is an expectation of finding and marrying someone with shared values, interests, and tastes, and to whom one is sexually attracted.”
And why does the author think that is bad? Those are the cornerstones of a good marriage and a fulfilling life.
Sodomites have been "exercising" these pathogens for decades now, and with their lax adherence and worldwide "networking," they've just created a massive Petri dish for the superbug to flourish in.
They'll have no one to blame, not even long-dead Pres. Reagan.
No, it’s not a good article because it basically defends male sinfulness but hides it under a layer of garbage. Sinners are never faithful. A man who lusts is committing sin, and if he’s sinning, it’s ridiculous to say there is a standard that he’s keeping to. Sin leads to hell, not just for gays but heterosexual males who lust after women and defile their marriage vows.
From the standpoint of biology/evolution this makes perfect sense. If you ran the "risk" of getting pregnant, carrying a baby for 9 months, the vulnerability and health-risk of giving birth, caring for a baby who needs constant attention for several years - you would be very selective and look for a male partner who is generous, strong, and absolutely committed.
Thus, we can conclude that feminism is anti-biology and anti-science.
This is a lie from hell because it makes out that God created man's lust which is not true. Satan causes dissatisfaction and lust, not God.
It's going to take admissions like this, and many more, to move the needle back. Stating the obvious, that homosexuality is sinful, in itself isn't going to fly in most courts and debate forums. Proving that they are NOTHING like the rest of us will.
The average # of homosexual male partners is in the 1000s and 10s of thousands. The average # of homosexual female partners is in the hundreds. Monogamy is not on the radar…
This is so freaking sick and twisted…
In re: “(Female homosexuality is virtually unknown to history.” It would be more accurate to say that female homosexuality was far far less commnented on in history, but to say it was unkonwn is an error.
The article is blasphemous towards God by saying males are “created to sin.” Spreading this type of message only serves Satan. Saying homos are different while defending other males sins is ridiculous. Sin is sin. Both will go to hell unless they repent!
“I think the point was that male pederasty far eclipsed female sexual relationships throughout history.”
To say male homosexuality historically “eclipsed” female homosexuality is not what the article said. It said the latter was “unknown”. A different term altogether.
All active homosexual men are groomers.
They know that without grooming, their perversion would die out quickly and they would be left with ugly, twisted old men to bugger.
I've related this before on FR about a high school band teacher. Long before I new about his homosexual perversion, the band instructor commented on my developing facial hair (mustache) during my freshman year. He touched and stroke it briefly when he commented. I didn't find out until well after high school that after he retired from teaching, he co-owned and operated a local "gay" bar in the city, and was somewhat an activist. It felt awkward and uncomfortable when he first made this contact, but it made me feel physically ill and violated to find this out much later.
Incidentally, he was murdered after an attack on him at the bar that was motivated by robbery.
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.