I’ve been doing some show prep for an episode of Knight and Rose on same-sex marriage. When I talk to atheists about same-sex marriage, they just say stupid things like how proud they are of legalizing it. No atheist understands what marriage is, what the state’s interest is in marriage, or what happens after marriage is redefined to eliminate the requirement for complementary genders.
Before same-sex marriage was legalized by Supreme Court decision, social conservatives like me were warning about what would happen after. But secular leftists didn’t listen, because thinking is hard. Especially for immoral people.
But here we are a few years after same-sex marriage, and we get this story from the New York Post:
An opinion from New York City’s eviction court has come down on the side of polyamorous unions.
In the case of West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill, New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan reportedly concluded that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same sort of legal protection given to two-person relationships.
West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill involved three individuals: Scott Anderson and Markyus O’Neill, who lived together in a New York City apartment, and Anderson’s husband Robert Romano, who resided elsewhere.
So, the reason why social conservatives were opposed to redefining marriage, is because we knew that a core aspect of marriage is the complementary genders. The male-female standard is related to many aspects of marriage and child-raising. A male-female union is necessary to conceive children. Male-female marriages (particularly those with virgins who attend church weekly) are the most stable form of relationship. Male-female marriages don’t have the high rates of infidelity of male-male relationships. Male-female marriages also don’t have the high rates of domestic violence and instability of female-female relationships.
But another thing that’s important about the male-female aspect of procreation is that you get a number out of it. That number is the number TWO. One man and one woman go into the bedroom, and then 9 months later, a child is born that shares DNA from both of them. That’s why the number 2 is central to natural marriage.
But if you drop the norm of complementary sexes from marriage, and just say that marriage is between two people who have a strong emotional commitment to each other, then there is no more number 2. After all, strong emotional commitments can be shared by groups of people. And that’s why we are seeing this ruling.
Secular leftists don’t accept an objective moral law, and they are terrible at understanding the consequences of tearing down moral boundaries. When it comes to morality, they have zero ability to reason or predict consequences. These are the same people who destroy their own oil and gas industries to stop “global warming”, then are forced to buy dirty oil and gas from Russia. Then they complain when Russia takes their money to buys tanks and planes that they use to invade Ukraine. They deny responsibility for the results that directly follow from their own foolish choices.
Here’s another consequence of same-sex marriage, this time reported by The Post Millennial.
A gay New York City couple is fighting for the right to get in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy covered by the city’s “discriminatory” insurance policy that does not fund fertility treatments for homosexual male couples.
Corey Briskin and Nicholas Maggipinto filed a class-action lawsuit against the city back in April, after learning in 2017 that Briskin’s insurance policy from his government job did not provide IVF benefits for gay men, reported NBC.
“What the city has done is robbed me of the right to determine when I get to have the family that I want to have,” Maggipinto said.
The couple had made a two-part plan to become parents: First, they would get IVF, a process in which an egg is fertilized with sperm in a lab. Then, they planned to hire a woman to be a surrogate, to use her womb to carry the zygote to term.
They want to get IVF, and they they want to get a surrogate mother to do the pregnancy. But they don’t want to pay for it – they want YOU to pay for it, because… marriage equality. Their same-sex marriage is the same as your heterosexual marriage, and that’s why the money earned from your marriage has to transferred to their marriage to pay for the production of children for their marriage.
Why do they want children?
“We got married and then we wanted all the trappings: house, children, 401K, etc,” Maggipinto, 37, said to the Guardian on Saturday.
I would really like to see what happens to supporters of same-sex marriage on judgement day when they meet the children who were treated like commodities. I would like the children to explain to them what they lost when they lost their biological mother and father, and the stability of an opposite-sex married home. Right now, they don’t seem to care. But I hope that one day, they are made to care. Children are not objects. They have needs. Adults need to stop being so reckless, irresponsible and selfish.
6 thoughts on “Same-sex marriage: polyamory is now “marriage” and surrogacy is now a “fertility treatment””
401k is a trapping of marriage?
Same-sex marriages are fragile. I know of only one couple who stayed together till one died, and they were friends since in school. Both had been married to women; one was a widower and the other forced to leave his wife and child behind when we left Vietnam. A lot of gay marriages are so filled with violence, someone dies. Lesbians can be even worse. All this is a major embarrassment to liberals who like the Weimar Republic (Germany, 1920) want to normalize homosexuality. That led to nazism and the Gestapo, most of whom were gays and bis out of the Vogel Jungen which founded the Jungen. Yes, hitler slaughtered gays, but only fems and those who fought him. Not the 20,000+ registered with the WR.
Transgendering children is the Luke 17:2 offense that I never predicted following Obergefell. Just like child sacrifice never entered God’s Mind (Jeremiah 32:35), transgendering children never entered my mind.
Polygamy, grooming children, etc – those were obvious slippery slope effects. But, child mutilation for sex change purposes??? What kind of sick person thinks of that???
There’s going to be Hell to pay for these kinds of sick and demented abominations, and there won’t be many in the West, including inside of the “churches,” who escape it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We just have to pass a law allowing civil lawsuits retroactively. Clean out the bank accounts of some of the worst people in America.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Bible is very against men wearing women’s clothing and vice-versa. Hebrews were not even allowed to castrate food animals, but used bullocks, let alone male humans.