October 31, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

March 25, 2013


Many Unitarians Would Prefer That Their Polyamory Activists Keep Quiet

Please note that in the coming fights for equality, it’s not going to be called “bestiality” but “polyspecies.” And it won’t called “pedophilia” but “polygenerational.”


But keep it under your hat for now if you don’t mind.

UUA headquarters says it has no official position on polyamory. “Official positions are established at general assembly and never has this issue been brought to general assembly,” a spokeswoman says.

But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage. The UUA has officially supported same-sex marriage, the spokeswoman says, “since 1979, with tons of resolutions from the general assembly.”

Conservative opponents of same-sex marriage have long used the slippery-slope argument: If states are permitted to let two men or two women marry, then what’s to stop them from giving the same privilege to two men and one woman, or two women and one man? Or six? Or 12? Once you legitimize same-sex marriage, sociologist Peter Berger wrote on his blog in 2011, “you open the door to any number of other alternatives to marriage as a union of one man and one woman: polygamous (an interesting question for Muslims in Germany and dissident Mormons in Arizona), polyandrous, polygenerational – perhaps polyspecies?”


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

8 comments

One of the most hypocritical aspects of the gay activists’ work has been their vociferous demands that we affirm their currently faddish, minority sexual activities, but complete avoidance of all the other, less popular minority sexual activities.

We must affirm and celebrate *their* minority sexual interests—indeed, we must pretend to redefine marriage—but not anybody else’s minority sexual interests.

[1] Posted by Sarah on 3-25-2013 at 09:00 AM · [top]

No wonder they’d like to keep it quiet.  The logical line from same-sex marriage to plural marriage is simple to follow, and polygamy is, in societies where it is practiced, devastating to women and to family cohesiveness.  Just read the Old Testament or sociological studies of Muslim societies to see the pathologies which emerge from polygamy.  “Feminists” should vehemently oppose polygamy, but they’re stuck with being wildly illogical because they favor “gay marriage.”

[2] Posted by Katherine on 3-25-2013 at 09:47 AM · [top]

Don’t look for any help from the science or legal world.  They have all drunk the sex cult propaganda kool-aid.

The APA groups have decided there is no such thing as gender disorientation and have normalized the ‘transgender’ orientation:  http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/psychiatrys-new-normal-transgendered-persons/  The new DSM-5 will no longer consider much of anything a sexual disorder, except abstinence, and any religious belief that does not conform to the PC agenda.  (Political Correct really means Punitive Conformity.) 

Many so-called churches and faux-Christians have embraced pansexualism and are muddying the water and enabling the advance of darkness and chaos.

The American Pediatric society has said same-sex marriage is AOK.

No doubt the same SCOTUS that approved Obamacare will approve ‘same-sex marriage’ this week.

All this foolishness will only open the door to polygamy, intra-familial (incest), inter-species (bestiality) and intra-generational (pedophilia/ephebophilia) marriage on the same basis - rights, justice, etc.  Lobby groups for these ‘orientations’ are already badgering the APA groups, federal and state and legislatures and the media with propaganda on behalf of their particular sexual proclivities.

[3] Posted by St. Nikao on 3-25-2013 at 10:10 AM · [top]

It is just a matter of time before studies are published showing that children of poly families do just as well or better in school, and are just as well or better in terms of any measurable emotional, psychological, or socioeconomic indicator than their hetero counterparts. What other argument can there be against the affirmation of poly relationships? Forget the religious arguments. No body listens to those. People want to hear emotional arguments, ones based on feelings.

“Sister Wives” as well paves the way for this progression.

[4] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 3-25-2013 at 11:18 AM · [top]

But, but what does it matter to anyone as long as the tri-ple or quadru-ple etc really love one another?  Who are we to say who they can love?  Its just cruel to exclude them from the definition of normal and wholesome martial life.  Its heartless and bigoted to say that their relationships aren’t exactly the same as traditional marriage.


/sar

[5] Posted by StayinAnglican on 3-25-2013 at 11:50 AM · [top]

#5: Its just cruel to exclude them from the definition of normal and wholesome martial life.

So you not only want to endorse these perversions, but also let the perverts into the army?

Hmmm. . . . I suppose an army of soldiers with polygenerational proclivities might strike fear into our country’s enemies.

[6] Posted by Roland on 3-25-2013 at 01:53 PM · [top]

From the Washington Post article, ” “Unitarian Universalism is so broad-minded that it has become flat-headed,” Michael Durall, then an editor of a UUA magazine (he no longer works with UUA groups), wrote in 2004”

That is unless one is the PB with mitre on head, if under the arm Mr. Durall is correct.

[7] Posted by Carpe DCN on 3-25-2013 at 02:29 PM · [top]

From the daily office for today: Psalm 12:8.

[8] Posted by tired on 3-26-2013 at 09:31 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.