After “Gay” Pride comes… Adulterer’s Pride!

Click on this link,   http://f2a.org/   to see a short video about an “adulterer” seeking acceptance of, and tolerance for, and finally celebration of, his sin of adultery with an “Adulterer’s Pride” parade!

Can you think of another group of people who have, in reality, demanded, first of all, acceptance of, and then tolerance for, culminating in celebration of, their lifestyle?  Does anything come to mind?

25 thoughts on “After “Gay” Pride comes… Adulterer’s Pride!

  1. Susan,

    That video was made by a right wing christian evengelical group in order to oppose equal marriage.

    They were trying to compare being gay with being an adulterer. It was not made by an adulterer trying to gain affirmation and comparing apples with oranges will not work. There is no comparison between adultery and being gay. Adultery is a concious decision to betray your partner being gay is not.

    They have simply made fools of themselves and it was incredibly badly acted too. Have you read the comments section on YouTube.

    If that is the best you can come up with then we will be home and dry sooner than we thought.

  2. Golfieni,

    While being “gay” (i.e., having sexual desires for a member of the same sex) may not be a choice, to act on such desire IS a choice. Adulterers don’t always plan to have desires for other than their partners, but it happens – they end up lusting for someone else. However, they still don’t have to act on their desires – they can actually control themselves and choose to not have sexual relations. Can you imagine that – the idea that you don’t have to act on sexual desires? Yet homosexuals and their homosexualist supporters act as if not being able to have sex is the same as not being able to eat or drink!

    • Glenn,

      Are you suggesting that being attracted to members of the population you are not married to is a sexual orientation ? That some people can only be attracted to people other than their spouse? That on the day they marry their attraction for their now spouse ceases and they suddenly become solely attracted to everyone else? I hope you have written this up because any adultery I have ever heard is is not because they suddenly become incapable of being attracted to a person on the day they marry. You seem to have made a psychological breakthrough here – or it could just be a load of crap.

      The comparison being made by the Whites is between homosexuals (a sexual orientation) and an adulterer (a cheater). As has been pointed out adultery is not connected to orientation as it can occur regardless of orientation. The comparison seems to be simply that you regard both as a sin therefore they are equally to be avoided. That is fine for you – don’t cheat on your wife and don’t have sex with a man. Your rules, your values – your choices.

      Me I do not regard either as a sin. I simply see adultery as wrong as it harms someone you have made commitments to and betrays them and can cause harm to the children if any. Does not matter if the couple are straight or gay. Homosexuality harms no-one and therefore is fine by me. My rules, my values – my choices.

      The question you have to answer is why should homosexuals decide not to ever have sex with the person they are attracted to, love, want to be with for the rest of their lives and heterosexuals not have to make that choice regardless of whether the relationship is before, during or after marriage and regardless of any infidelity involved,.

      The simple fact is that you are against homosexuals ever having sex but for heterosexuals having the option (ie get married and have sex) but are opposed to allowing homosexuals to get married in order for them to attain the criteria you have set for heterosexuals. Even in your bizzarro world you are against equality.

      You also seem to be suggesting that homosexuals should deny themselves the love of another person and the sexual fulfilment of that love (for life) when heterosexuals do not need to because they can marry. Why would that be ?

      “Yet homosexuals and their homosexualist supporters act as if not being able to have sex is the same as not being able to eat or drink!”

      Whilst I think that is simply an over the top rhetoric – it underlines the point I have made. It is not that I or anyone else act as if I have to have sex or die – I do not see any reason to deny myself a sex life just because people like you do not approve. Your approval is neither sought nor required.

      • Golfieni,
        
You totally missed the point. We can all have sexual desires for that which is forbidden. People have sexual desires for members of the same sex, for children, for animals, for dead people, etc. The point is, a desire does not have to be acted on.

        Homosexuals do NOT have to act on their desire. No one is forced to have sex (except in rape, but that is not the context here), nor will people die without having sex.

        As to your claim that homosexual behavior harms no one, that has been refuted time and time again. It is harmful to those participating in the behavior – medically, psychologically, and spiritually. It is harmful to children who live with homosexuals in that their understanding of human sexuality is skewed. It is harmful to society at large because it degenerates humanity. But homosexuals and their supporters deny this because they have one agenda – destroy marriage as an institution, and force everyone to either affirm them and sanction their behavior or else be severely punished.

        Your question:
        why should homosexuals decide not to ever have sex with the person they are attracted to, love, want to be with for the rest of their lives and heterosexuals not have to make that choice regardless of whether the relationship is before, during or after marriage and regardless of any infidelity involved,

        We could replace the word “homosexuals” with pedophiles, necrophiliacs, or zoophiles. The “why” is because homosexual behavior is perverse, unnatural, and an abuse of human sexuality. And that doesn’t even bring God into the picture.

        No, I am not against homosexuals having sex. I am against homosexuals forcing me to affirm it and sanction it or be punished for not doing so. I am against homosexuals pretending their relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships and demanding I accept the lie or be punished for it.

        You claim our approval is neither sought nor required, but that is the biggest lie ever. That is precisely what same-sex fake marriage is about. That is precisely what all the laws forcing approval of homosexual behavior is about. That is precisely why homosexuals sue those who refuse to provide services for fake weddings, etc.

        • Glenn is right. homosexuals DO want our approval of their lifestyle and they ARE seeking and demanding public celebration of them and their lifestyle.

          For golfieni to say otherwise is nonsense.

      • Glenn,

        Your equating homosexuality with “pedophiles, necrophiliacs, or zoophiles” just shows what a low life you are.

        “No, I am not against homosexuals having sex” then why have you suggested on this blog that it should be criminalised. You are tripping over your own lies now.

        “… homosexual behavior is perverse, unnatural, and an abuse of human sexuality” is just your opinion – it has no basis in fact.

        • Golfieni,

          I am only equating those other sexual perversion with homosexuality in that the same excuses you use to sanction homosexuality and same-sex fake marriage can be used to sanction these other perversions and permit them to marry. This does not make me “a low life,” rather it is hoisting you on your own petard.

          I have NEVER suggested homosexual behavior be criminalized. To say that I have is a bald faced lie.

          And it is NOT just my opinion that homosexual behavior is perverse, unnatural and an abuse of human sexuality – it is a fact that you choose to deny because then you’d have to acknowledge the truth that you are supporting what is degenerate.

          The point is not whether sex is a choice but why you think a heterosexuals should have the potential to fulfil their natural instinct and a homosexual should not.

          The point is that homosexuality is NOT a “natural” instinct. And that has nothing to do with religion – it has everything to do with biology 101.

          As far as enemies vs adversaries, our “enemy” is the ideology that says homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Your enemy is any individual who is against your ideology.

      • Golfieni, I have noticed that whenever Glenn makes a comment such as this:

        “You claim our approval is neither sought nor required, but that is the biggest lie ever. That is precisely what same-sex fake marriage is about. That is precisely what all the laws forcing approval of homosexual behavior is about. That is precisely why homosexuals sue those who refuse to provide services for fake weddings, etc.”

        you always ignore it. So which will it be, sir? Is your sexuality truly your own private business and no one else’s, as you repeatedly claim? If so, then why the prosecution of those who view it as sin? Why the shouting down and silencing and public slander of those who believe it to be sin? Will you now take a stand and condemn those who are using the law force others’ tacit acceptance of behaviors with which they disapprove? Or will you admit that privacy is not enough, and that approval is, indeed, sought and required?

        Which will it be, sir?

      • David Malbuff .

        I neither seek nor require Glenns approval for anything I do in my life. He is the one who continues to denigrate me. I require the government to treat me as an equal and to ensure that I have access to all the civil institutions, rights and responsibility of every other member of society. That includes not being discriminated against and being able to marry the person I wish to.

        I certainly do not persecute people who view it as a sin, but I will robustly defend myself against those who are outspoken against me and campaign (The Mrs White does) against my equality.

        D you really expect me to sit by and take the nasty comments and bare faced lies from the likes of Glenn and say nothing. I have said he is entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to express it – but not free from criticism and correction. That is not trying to silence anyone.

        • golfieni,

          you are not permitted to falsely accuse anyone on this blog. This you have done in your comment. Neither Glenn nor us (the Whites) have told any lies, but you, a man who cannot endure the truth, must believe that the truth is a “lie,” therefore, to you, truth is lies and evil is good and Christianity is a “myth.”

        • Nobody has the mythical “right to marry the person (they) wish to.” Civil marriage is regulated by society, in accordance with that society’s consensual heritage and tradition, and primarily in order to preserve the security and custodial rights of children. Otherwise– if its purpose was to promote the fulfillment of love between two people, which it emphatically is not– civil marriage would not be necessary. (Yes, we all know people who are legally married but do not have children. I’m conceding that you are intelligent enough to know this is irrelevant to the present context.)

          You have the same marriage rights that I do. The law makes no distinction between us, nor does it care about whom, or what, or how, we love, nor does it care about orientation, attraction, or fulfillment. The law ignores intentions and outcomes. The law sees you and I as fully equal, and it treats us exactly the same. Hence the specious nature of the “marriage equality” claim, when what is sought is the precise opposite of equality.

      • Mrs White you are seriously messed up. Now you are telling me whatever you and Glenn say is truth just because you say so. If I disagree with you and provide evidence that what you or Glenn say is false then you simply do not publish it and instead accuse me of false accusations and not knowing your truth is always truth because you say so.

        I assume this blog is like your contributions to radio programmes, simply you wanting to preach and not listen. How many times have you used the same ploy there when asked a question – you simply refuse to acknowledge the question, say you did not come on air to talk about that, say it is untrue without any evidence or simply hang up when it get too difficult for you.

        You have told lies and so has Glenn. The point is that you don’t recognise them as lies because you believe everything you say is the truth. The problem with your thinking is that just because you believe something is true does not make it true. You have forgotten how to question and you have forgotten that just because you are a religious god botherer does not make you or your beliefs immune to criticism and mockery when they deserve it.

        • Provide evidence of ANY lies from Glenn and us on this blog. Also, provide evidence of occasions when I (Mrs.White) have refused to acknowledge a question when I phoned in to radio programmes, AND, provide evidence of occasions when I avoided questions, AND when I hung up the phone because I found a verbal exchange too difficult for me. I have NEVER hung up the phone “on air.”

  3. Pure ignorance to compare infidelity – which could apply to gay or straight relationships – to sexuality – which could be gay or straight. Those who call same-gender relationships a “lifestyle” think sexuality – gay or straight – is a choice. They are wrong. The Video is a desperate attempt to discredit same-gender relationships. We all have a choice to be faithful or not in our relationships, whether gay or straight.

    • You are missing the point, Melanie.

      The video is not primarily about adultery, it is demonstrating that if adulterers (or any other sexual sinners,) decided that their sexual behaviour was something to flaunt and celebrate, they could use the same strategy which was employed by homosexuals in order to force acceptance of their lifestyle on society. Madsen and Kirk suggested three steps to bring about public acceptance of homosexuality, 1. Desensitise, 2. Jamming, 3. Conversion. They did not seek acceptance and tolerance only but celebration as well, AND, the silencing of all opposition.

      Unlike homosexuals, most adulterers would not want to flaunt their sin, because they engage in lies and deceit to cover up their sinful treachery. However, the video was making the point that, if adulterers wanted to have an adulterers Pride march, they would do what the homosexuals did i.e they would first seek acceptance of adultery, then tolerance, then celebration.

      • You miss the point MrandMrsWhite – adultery is the betrayal of another person and the commitments made to another person – homosexuality is not. The fact that you regard them both as a sexual sin is your hangup and is irrelevant as it is just your opinion.

      • The point is not whether sex is a choice but why you think a heterosexuals should have the potential to fulfil their natural instinct and a homosexual should not. The fact is that you set the bar for heterosexuals as marriage but deny that potentiality to homosexuals. As I said even in your bizzarro world you create inequality to pursue your religiously based prejudices.

    • Melanie, all behavior is always a choice. You may not choose your orientation in the conventional sense of the verb, but how you act on it is indeed a choice. That’s the ballpark we’re playing in. Behavior is not being.

      The Bible plainly states adultery and homosexual behavior both are sin. That’s the source of the “comparison.” Of course, you may call God “ignorant” if you wish. That is your choice, too.

      • The bible has nothing to do with civil marriage. What it says is irrelevant, Why would anyone call a mythical being ignorant? It si some christians who are saying these things – what they use for justification is irrelevant they are responsible for what they say and do.

        The “I was just following orders” defence does not wash.

  4. The MrandMrsWhite display Float for gay pride Belfast is coming together beautifully! your blog is our inspiration Susie and Frankie. We will make you proud on the day, you will be celebrities 🙂 cannot wait!

      • It is called having a sense of humour – it’s another human trait. Very useful one as it brings out the pomposity of the opposing side.

        Interesting that you regard us as adversaries and MrandMrsWhite regard us as enemies. I wonder who actually are the antagonists and warmongers amongst us?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s