"Australia’s leading homosexual activist made it perfectly clear what he thought of those old wasted bourgeois concepts such as faithfulness and fidelity. This is what he had to say:
“I am enormously proud of the fact that I am in a relationship that has been all the things you all want from relationships, with the exception of sexual fidelity which I think is crap for most people and doesn’t exist by and large.”
In case you missed that let me repeat it for you: he regards the idea of sexual fidelity as “crap”. Of course he has been saying this for years, so nothing new here. Way back in 1986 he was saying the same thing: “[W]e don’t find one partner sufficiently fulfilling. People who argue that there would be no problem if all gay men would just be monogamous are ignoring both medical and emotional realities; with an unknown number of people already exposed to ‘the virus’ and an unknown incubation period, such advice is just too restrictive.”
He was quite candid about all this. He went on to say, “it does seem clear that among gay men a long-lasting monogamous relationship is almost unknown. Indeed both gay women and gay men tend to be involved in what might be called multiple relationships, though of somewhat different kinds.”
Altman is not alone in thinking along these lines. Plenty of other Australian homosexuals have said much the same. Another activist is quite clear about rejecting what he considers the straitjacket of heterosexual marriage: “[F]ull recognition for same-sex marriages will encourage all those shallow promiscuous gay men to settle down in Box hill with Mr Right and breed shitzus. Speaking as a shallow promiscuous gay man, I remain sceptical about this.”....
It is always nice to get a bit of honesty like this from these leading homosexual activists. And as I said, I could produce plenty more such quotations. It is quite clear that when most homosexuals talk about marriage, they sure don’t have in mind what most people think of when discussing marriage.
Even though there are plenty of problems in heterosexual marriages, most begin with the assumption that it should be an exclusive, live-long union which involves commitment, faithfulness and fidelity. Very few couples enter into a marriage subscribing to the idea of an “open marriage” where anything goes.
And the statistical data confirms all this. Oppenheimer cites a study from the University of Chicago undertaken last year which showed that 86 per cent of women and 80 per cent of men remained faithful in their marriages. A major 1994 study also conducted by the same university found the same sorts of figures. So these patterns have been fairly consistent over the years.
The truth is, homosexuals want all the symbolism and benefits of traditional marriage, yet they want to retain their swinging, promiscuous, multi-partner lifestyle. There are plenty of other reasons why we must say no to the oxymoron of homosexual marriage, but clearly this is a sufficient reason in and of itself to withstand this push."
Here is an interesting discussion between Albert Mohler, Kevin DeYoung and Ligon Duncan on the emergence of new calvanism. Regardless of what stance one takes this provides for very interesting food for thought:
Ah Julia, that voice and that smile (and those beady eyes) could convince me of anything.
Yes, of course, you are being sincere when you say you are bringing in a carbon tax for the benefit of the environment and not dancing to Bob Brown's strings.
I do not doubt that you are also implementing compensation because you are concerned about the tight-budget family and would never dignify the idea that this was merely a poorly-veiled attempt at social engineering. After all, it is such a transparent possibility it would be foolishness for you to utilise this scheme to redistribute wealth.
I know that this tax is not an example of your lies and deceit but of your incredible and inflexible moral ideology. This is great to know because when you face the Labor masses in regards to same-sex marriage I know you will stand strong and will not compromise even if it requires you to give up the mantle you have fought so hard for.
In all, I know you will do what is best for this country.
"The Prime Minister leads a government that comprehensively buggered up the home insulation scheme. She leads a government that has managed to see $1.1 billion of the $16.2 billion schools stimulus spending under the Building the Education Revolution program wasted. Ms Gillard promises refugee deals that fail to materialise and big plans with big price tags and equally large potential for disaster like set top boxes for pensioners.
Laying pink batts and building school halls are everyday exercises. If a government can't manage them, can it really remake an economy?...."
Here is a recent article by Greg Koukl looking at whether the claim that "homosexuality is natural" actually stands up under scrutiny. I have only included the start of the article but it is well worth going to Stand To Reason and reading the full article because it is very likely that you will be faced with arguments like this.
"Recently a caller to the radio told me about a conversation he’d had about homosexuality. The caller made the teleological argument, that looking at what the natural functions of the male and female reproductive organs are for, we can draw certain conclusions about how they should properly be used. The person he was talking with challenged his argument that you can’t get an “ought” from an “is”. The challenger seemed to be saying that just because it is that way in nature doesn’t mean that we can derive a moral rule from it. The caller asked if the challenge was incorrect and how to respond to it.
On the principle the challenger is correct in describing the is-ought fallacy. But rather than working against the teleological argument, that principle works against a common argument in favor of homosexuality, which is, if homosexual interests are natural to someone, they are therefore morally acceptable. That is an example of an is-ought fallacy.
The is-ought fallacy, first articulated, by David Hume is put simply as you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’ The more precise way of characterizing it is this; You cannot have a syllogism that has a moral term in the conclusion if there is no moral term in the premises. To be a valid argument, the conclusion has to follow from the premises. You can’t have anything in the conclusion that isn’t already set up in the premises. Hume identified this particular fallacy in arguments that were based on mere descriptive elements but had a conclusion with moral terms in it. That is the is-ought fallacy.
People sometimes argue in favor of homosexuality by arguing that their inclination is natural, and if it’s natural, then we shouldn’t be making any moral objections about it. If that is their argument they are guilty of is-ought...."
Click here to go to the full article on Stand To Reason.