GAY TRUTH

English: Category:Images of Salt Lake City (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) AUCKLAND , New Zealand ( LifeSiteNews.com ) - Just one week after the passage of gay ‘marriage’ legislation in New Zealand, it has been revealed that a group has been formed whose goal is to have group marriages recognised in law . The group, which has a Facebook page entitled “Support legalised Polyamory in NZ ”, says “We are supporters of the legal recognition of Polyamorous marriage in NZ. By ‘Polyamorous marriage’ we mean – responsible, adult, committed non-monogamy ( Plural marriage of any gender) marriage or union.” “We believe that ALL committed loving relationships between adults regardless of number should be respected and given legal acknowledgement” they go on to say. The group was highlighted recently in the popular New Zealand news site Stuff. Pro-family advocates have often argued that legalizaing gay ‘marriage’ will lead inevitably to the acceptance and recognition in law of polygamous, p

Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it  will invite future redefinitions . If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy , for example. In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last month in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8 , the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “wi

Now that gay marriage is legal in many jurisdictions and broadly accepted, activists are taking up the cause of polygamy. The liberal Washington Postreligion columnist Lisa Miller is sympathetic: This week, in one of his first public statements since this past summer’s anti-gay-marriage remarks, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy told an Atlanta television reporter that he supports “ Biblical families.” This comment immediately gave rise to jokes questioning his familiarity with the Old Testament , where, as any Mormon elder can tell you, patriarchs such as Abraham, Jacob and David all practiced polygamy. John Witte Jr., however, thinks it isn’t so funny. A scholar of religion and law at Emory University in Atlanta, Witte is working on a lengthy history of polygamy due out next year. He believes that polygamy is the next frontier in marriage and family law. If states are able to dismantle traditional or conventional views of marriage by allowing two men or two women to wed, then why s

August 29, 2012 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) - Two women and a man living together in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo have registered their relationship as a “stable union,” according to local media sources. The action follows a decision by the nation’s Supreme Tribunal to allow homosexuals to enter into such unions, despite the fact that they are defined in the Constitution as a union between a man and a woman. The decision led to a lower court decision extending the eligibility for homosexuals to marriage itself, although the verdict has not yet been recognized throughout Brazil . “Stable unions” exist in Brazil to regulate cohabiting couples who are unmarried. The homosexualist Brazilian Family Institute (IBDFAM), which openly favors polygamous unions as well as same-sex ones, welcomed the most recent decision. “We have to respect the private nature of relationships and learn to live in this pluralistic society recognizing different desires,” said the group’s vice-preside

When the moral standards regarding marriage are explained in more detail in other parts of the Old Testament , certain types of relationships are excluded from being accepted as valid marriages. Incest is prohibited in Leviticus 18:1–18; 20:11–20; Deuteronomy 22:30; and 1 Corinthians 5:1–2. And of course, adultery was regularly prohibited (Exod. 20:14), which would also prohibit marrying someone who was already married to someone else. More specific biblical teaching on the question of homosexuality is found in the following passages: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (Lev. 18:22). If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them (Lev. 20:13). For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature [Greek para physin]; and the men likewise gave up natural relations w

Image by anitakhart via Flickr If the natural sexual complementarity of male and female and the theoretical procreative capacity of an opposite-sex union are to be discarded as principles central to the definition of marriage, then what is left? According to the arguments of the homosexual “marriage” advocates, only love and companionship are truly necessary elements of marriage. But if that is the case, then why should other relationships that provide love, companionship, and a lifelong commitment not also be recognized as “marriages”—including relationships between adults and children, or between blood relatives, or between three or more adults? And if it violates the equal protection of the laws to deny homosexuals their first choice of marital partner, why would it not do the same to deny pedophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous the right to marry the person (or persons) of their choice? Of these, the road to polygamy seems the best-paved—and it is the most difficult for homo

Image via Wikipedia Marriage is a public institution (not purely a private relationship) because it serves two public purposes: bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race , and keeping together a man and woman to raise to maturity the children produced by their union. The existence of future generations of children is fundamental to the survival of any society . The quality of their nurture is directly related to the quality of life within that society. Bonding the man and woman whose sexual union produces a child to one another and to that child is by far the healthiest way of insuring that nurture. Opposite- sex relationships are the only type  capable  of producing children through natural intercourse, and the only ones  assured  of providing children with both a mother and a father. Affirming only opposite-sex relationships as "marriage" thus makes perfect sense. The common sense understanding that children should have both a mother and a

Image via Wikipedia VANCOUVER, British Columbia , November 29, 2011 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – While true marriage advocates are celebrating a recent decision upholding Canada ’s 121-year-old ban on polygamy , they are less thrilled by the fact that in his decision the judge in the case took a swipe at what he called the “alarmist view” that the legalization of homosexual ‘marriage’ would lead to the legitimization of polygamy. True-marriage advocates have long maintained that Canada’s 2005 redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples would pave the way for any kind of sexual union to be legally called marriage, including polygamy. Chief Justice Robert Bauman But Chief Justice Robert Bauman criticized this view for “miss[ing] the whole point.” “Committed same-sex relationships celebrate all of the values we seek to preserve and advance in monogamous marriage ,” he said, adding that the “doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those o