Now that the homosexual activists have done such a terrific job of destroying the institutions of marriage and family, the other deconstructionists can readily come along and complete the job. And just as we have warned for decades now, when you allow the homosexual militants to redefine marriage and family out of existence, then anything goes.
We warned repeatedly that “group marriage” and the like will be next. And it sure is. Every day now this is being promoted, even in reputable quarters. There is nothing fringe about the push for polyamory – it has gone mainstream, all thanks to the homosexual social engineers.
To keep up with the steady flow of pro-polyamory activities is now a fulltime job. It has become flavour of the month, and I cannot keep up with it all. But let me offer you some recent examples of this. Of course I realise that as soon as this article gets posted, it will already be out of date, with plenty of new examples appearing.
But I must begin somewhere, so let me give you a few new cases, starting in Australia. Already there are lobby groups pushing for this, such as the Polyamory Action Lobby (PAL). Don’t believe me? See for yourself. This is what they say on their homepage:
“PAL is about LOVE (and lot’s [sic] of it). We exist to campaign for the rights and cultural recognition of polyamorous and non-monogamous relationships in Australia. Poly love is equal love, and deserves the same legal rights and cultural recognition as monogamous love. We believe all Australians in loving, consenting relationships deserve the right to be married (regardless of the number of partners involved). We also challenge negative community stereotypes of poly relationships – and seek to build cultural recognition and understanding of our lifestyles.
“Over the last year we have seen politicians on the right compare the lifestyles of Australian’s [sic] who practice poly-love and non-monogamy to those of pedophiles and beastialists. We have seen politicians on the left buckle to this pressure, sidelining the rights of the polyamorous community in their campaign for marriage equality. Polyamory is not a niche phenomenon – it is a lifestyle and sexual identity that exists throughout mainstream society and the LGBTIQ community. We will not allow our elected representatives to ignore us any longer.”
One write-up about them says this: “The Polyamory Action Lobby’s key operatives and founders are Greensparty up-and-comers Brigitte Garozzo/McFadden (the convenor of the Sydney Uni Greensparty), Timothy Scriven, an ‘anarcho-revolutionary libertarian socialist’ who describes himself on Facebook as ‘an active member of the Greens on Campus’ and Kieran Adair who wrote on New Matilda that he is ‘a Green’.”
And there you thought the greenies were just about trees. They are far kinkier than that. ‘But this is just a fringe group’ you say. OK, so is Scientific American just a fringe group periodical? Check out their recent article: “New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You”.
No I am not making this up folks. The article says, “Two-by-two isn’t the only way to go through life. In fact, an estimated 4 to 5 percent of Americans are looking outside their relationship for love and sex — with their partner’s full permission.
“These consensually nonmonogamous relationships, as they’re called, don’t conform to the cultural norm of a handholding couple in love for life. They come in a dizzying array of forms, from occasional ‘swinging’ and open relationships to long-term commitments among multiple people. Now, social scientists embarking on brand-new research into these types of relationships are finding that they may challenge the ways we think of jealousy, commitment and love. They may even change monogamy for the better.”
Yep, there you have it: our eggheads are now telling us group love is neat, and even good for us. But wait, there’s more. A recent piece in the Huffington Post entitled “‘Monogamish’: Two Is Company, but Is Three Really a Crowd?” continues the drum-beating for group sex and group love.
At least the author nicely spills the beans about homosexual ‘faithfulness’: “When I think about dating and relationships, especially when talking with friends, I tend to come to the same conclusion: Monogamy isn’t possible. I feel that in the gay world, no matter how committed a couple appears to be, or how beautiful their life together looks, or even how perfect they seem, there always seems to be the threat of infidelity lurking in the background. Countless dinner parties, nights at bars, Pride events and everything in between suggest one thing to me, over and over again: Most men don’t really seem interested in sticking with just one person.”
After offering “arguments” and “research” as to why monogamy is just not a goer, he says this: “All this can be, and probably is, worrisome to marriage equality advocates as they fight for access to the traditional options that heterosexual folks enjoy. But should we see ‘monogamish’ relationships as a threat to marriage? I think not. If people are actually happier when they’re able to openly and frankly discuss their desires, their passions and what they need from each other, even if that means another partner a few nights a month, wouldn’t that help marriages remain strong?
“It’s often said that half of all marriages end in divorce, so the sanctity of marriage is being threatened even without help from the gays. I would argue that marriage is in great need of an intervention or, at the very least, a slight readjustment of what we expect from it, because clearly the way society approaches it now is not working. By expanding our understanding of how a couple can operate together, and maybe throwing away that old saying, ‘two’s company, but three’s a crowd,’ maybe we can actually make ourselves happier and have longer, healthier relationships, even if they are ‘monogamish’.”
Of course, when our side says that homosexuals are not exactly known for their love of monogamy, we are shouted down as “homophobes” and “bigots”. So just what exactly does that make this homosexual writer? Is he a bigot as well, and mired in homophobia?
Finally, this article looking at the scene in the US: “Los Angeles, California: ABC News recently aired a segment about a woman involved in what is called a polyamorous relationship — living with multiple boyfriends or girlfriends under one roof. The woman, identified as Jaiya, began by living with her boyfriend Jon. However, because Jaiya wanted to have children and Jon didn’t, he suggested that she bring someone else into the picture that would conceive with her.
“Therefore, Jaiya brought home Ian, and the two had a little boy together. Both Ian and Jon are raising the child, and Jon quit his job to stay home with him. ‘I’m looking for what helps me to be the best human that I can possibly be,’ Jaiya told reporters. ‘I stopped searching for “the one.” I can have the one, and I can also have the one, and the one and the one.’
“Jaiya works as a professional sexologist, giving sexual advice to others. She admits to having sexual relations with both men, and states that while Jon now wants other children, she does not. ‘There’s a part of me that wants to go back to “That was MY girlfriend”,’ Jon said.
“However, according to the ABC report, Jon is now looking for a second girlfriend, and Ian already has another relationship on the side. Jaiya said that the family structure has taken a lot of new forms in recent years, so she does not see a problem with living with two boyfriends. ‘What is the modern family today?’ she asked. ‘We’ve got step-moms and step-dads; we’ve got gay parents raising children… The family today is a different thing than what it was years ago’.”
Umm, what was that we said years ago about the slippery slope? What was that we said about how the homosexual assault on marriage and family would not end there, but would open the door to any and every weird sexual combo – more options available than at Baskin-Robbins?
They only offer 31 flavours of ice cream, but it seems the sky is the limit with the new sexual wrecking crews on the prowl now. The sexual liberationists want complete open slather on all things sexual. Never mind if they destroy society in the process.
Hey, at least they will be “free” – or so they think. Yeah right, they will be as free as the prodigal son, who had the whole pigsty to himself.