First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands
From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2005-09-26 23:08

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.
Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”
Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their peculiar relationship, Victor explained that there is no jealousy between them. “But this is because Mirjam and Bianca are bisexual. I think that with two heterosexual women it would be more difficult.” Victor stressed, however, that he is “a one hundred per cent heterosexual” and that a fourth person will not be allowed into the “marriage.” They want to take their marriage obligations seriously: “to be honest and open with each other and not philander.”
Update:
Dutch Minister Not to Prevent Polygamy 1 November 2005
The War against Marriage and Men 19 December 2005
Cancer insurance pays
Submitted by jackie on Wed, 2008-10-08 03:56.
Cancer insurance pays benefits when you are diagnosed with cancer. These benefits are paid in addition to benefits you may receive from other health insurance coverage and can be used to pay physician, hospital, prescription drug and other expenses associated with cancer treatment.
You may also be able to use benefits to cover indirect costs of cancer including transportation, childcare and living expenses. Cancer insurance quote is renewable for life and is available to individuals and families.
It is not Marriage
Submitted by aka1 on Wed, 2006-09-27 16:44.
Marriage is not an institution or a design of the State or of mankind for that matter. The Designer of marriage is the Creator of heaven and earth.
In Genesis 1 God brought all things into existance. In Genesis 2 we have a detailed view of the creation of mankind. Adam realizes, as he names the animalkind, that there is not one like him. Upon this realization, God creates for him Eve. Then God pronouces their union, and the pattern for mankind ever after, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his WIFE, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24).
God did not give Adam the choice to have a male OR female OR both OR other. God made a woman for the man. The apostle Paul also teaches, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that marriage is a picture of the unity Christians (the Church, also called the Bride of Christ) are to have with Christ.
We can believe all we want about making marriage any combination of people we want, but we deceive only ourselves if we think that anything other than God's design is going to please Him. Those who want other than God's will are pleasing only their flesh and carnal nature.
Homosexual marriage is not going to lower the rate of HIV/AIDS cases, adultery, abortion, or divorce. In America, the gay-marriage issue is not about being treated equal, or marrying the one you love, it is about trying destroy the family and rebel against God (like that ever ends well). I believe I have read that in those European countries where homosexual marriage is legal that the marriage rates for the country decline, while the rate of cohabitating couples increase. That seems to indicate that the homosexual marriage agenda isn't really about getting married after all.
God is not mocked, if we sow to the wind we will reap the whirlwind.
Marriage to animals
Submitted by David Levy on Sat, 2006-07-22 11:54.
I am writing a book that includes a chapter on human-animal relationships.
"phobaphill" has commented that:
"marriage to animals is illegal in spite of afro-caribbean religions"
Can anyone give me references to anything published on the subject, in books or learned journals, or even innewspaper/magazine articles, i.e. which Afro-Caribrran religions and what exactly to they allow or encourage in this respect?
Please respond directly to my e-mail address:
[email protected]
Many thanks,
David Levy
Important words here: Consenting adults
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2005-10-24 22:55.
This is NOT a slippery slope toward marrying your dog, daughter, or table. These people are adults. Maybe you should stop worrying about what they do in their bedroom and focus on your own?
May be it has already been
Submitted by Nickonomics (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-09 00:23.
May be it has already been said but we have to mention an important fact here that may take a little bit tension away. This not really a marriage (like the article says: 'only not in name') but a legal cohobation, that is more based on a financial fundament that on morality or love.
too many in one bed
Submitted by married 23 years.....one man one woman (not verified) on Mon, 2005-10-03 06:43.
I think that the issue of two women and one man getting married is so disgusting. In a real marriage...as this is not...one man and one woman get married and they become one. You can't be ONE with more than one woman. You can't go thru the sexual experience as two women and one man together and have everything 'fit' at the end of intercourse. It is not biologically possible. This is really profane.
Become one
Submitted by Bob Doney on Mon, 2005-10-03 09:23.
No, no, this won't do! "Becoming one" is just a figure of speech, just a verbal conceit. Two people can't become one. Really, they can't. They can become incredibly intimate, caring, sympathetic, loving and sharing (oooh, I've gone all poetical), but they are still two people.
And you seem to be implying that the sex is the most important part of marriage. For many happily and completely married couples, it isn't.
Bob Doney
Moral decadence in Netherlands
Submitted by Chris Gillibrand on Sun, 2005-10-02 17:23.
Since the publication of the Dutch Catechism, the Catholic Bishops can do nothing to resist.
Even if they wished to resist, the Catholic Church has been so reduced in the Netherlands as to have zero political influence.
It is tragic that the public will have to see the horrible consequences of such violations of the natural law before a reaction sets in.
Marriage
Submitted by Walter E. Wallis (not verified) on Mon, 2005-10-03 01:52.
It is not what people do in the privacy of their bedroom that bothers me, it is what they want to force me to do in the privacy of my mind and the public of my discourse.
I do, however offer a resolution - eliminate the tax free status of fringe benefits and then call it whatever you want.
Congratulations to the happy trio
Submitted by Libertine (not verified) on Sat, 2005-10-01 19:07.
As an avowed libertine...who is waaaaaaay more liberal than this trio, I offer my hearty congratulations to the happy trio.
Anyone interested can read my blog entry about it:
http://confessionsofalibertine.blog-city.com/polyamorous_civil_union_sol...
Through the roof
Submitted by Bob Doney on Fri, 2005-09-30 09:33.
There's been much serious and worthy political stuff on this site in the past few weeks - European constitution, history of Belgium, and so on and so on.
Now we've got a vigorous debate about the meaning of marriage, the numbers and proclivities of the participants and whether you should be able to marry your goldfish, and the site visitor stats have gone THROUGH THE ROOF!!!
Funny old world, ain't it.
Bob Doney
If Gender is Arbitrary So is the Number
Submitted by Garth (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 04:37.
Like others who have seen this coming, I wrote at www.BrokenMasterpieces.com on Sept 8 that gay marriage is simply a contradiction of terms and that if legalized, everything is game. Why stop at sex, why not age, number, or worse, genus? GT
The reason you stop is
Submitted by Emily (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 20:22.
The reason you stop is because we already have a legal definition of who can and cannot enter into a contract.
If you can't, because you're a dog or a rug or 12 years old, then you simply can't.
Otherwise, why is it anyone's business but the people involved?
12 is the age of consent in...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2005-10-01 08:42.
Canada, Mexico, Panama, The Philippines, Uraguay, and Zimbabwe. If they can bed, why can't they wed?
Simple...
Submitted by phobaphill (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-09 00:28.
You can bed because it is just your own body. (and your partner's)
Any law restricting that is a law upon your body (remember sodomy laws??)
Marriage, however, always implies property. Even if neither partner has properties in the moment they marry, marriage laws contain provisions regarding property. That's why marriage age is usually higher than sexual age. Because of the property part in all marriage contracts, not because of the sex.
Need to take that up with the people of Canada, Mexico, ...
Submitted by Bart Vanhauwaert on Tue, 2005-10-04 06:25.
But let my try an answer : because the implications of entering a legally binding contract can be much more serious than taking someone in one's bed.
I understand the normally 20
Submitted by Prof. James G. Havicus (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 01:34.
I understand the normally 20 minute ceremony took half an hour.
What a beautiful event! I'm so happy!
Submitted by Rachel Young (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 01:12.
What a beautiful event! I'm so glad this is happening in my lifetime!!!
Netherlands is paving the way for Polyamory!! Those who feel they can chain the human heart and dictate the rules of loving and beautiful diverse relationships have lost this one!
Yeah you guys....Fantastic!
Well, if God is love, then
Submitted by Jan (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-02 01:32.
Well, if God is love, then who are we to argue with God when he tells us to be with more than one.
Count me in the positive
Submitted by Kirsty (not verified) on Sat, 2005-10-01 18:20.
Count me in the positive camp. As long as it's all consensual then there's nothing wrong with poly. Just because something is unusual doesn't make it wrong or evil.
See, I'm with you here.
Submitted by Tinker (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 03:32.
See, I'm with you here. PO\olyamoury has been practised (and recodnised) since...well, since the beginning ot marraige, at least. And finally, a milti-partner union is being recognised....how neat!
Next up...
Submitted by Jinx McHue (not verified) on Thu, 2005-09-29 19:48.
Marriages between men and girls, men and boys, and people and animals. To not allow these types of marriages would be discriminatory, closed-minded and useless because the relationships are going to happen anyway.
Re: Next up
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-09 00:06.
Yes, I agree fully.
I am glad that there is people who see the injustice that current marriage laws create.
Hope more people realize this, soon.
This is sick and disgusting.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2005-09-29 23:33.
This is sick and disgusting. Western civilization is heading to the graveyard. If you do much research about the social effects of polygamy, you'll find that it causes poverty and instability because there are so many men out there without any women to marry. I'm sure that the wacko Muslims you've imported to finally kill off Europe will love this.
What a pathetic argument.
Submitted by Kirsty (not verified) on Sat, 2005-10-01 18:11.
What a pathetic argument.
If guys want to get female partners then I'd suggest they learn to appeal to women. The very fact that this fairly unattractive looking guy is in a partnership with two women proves that it's not just cute looks that we're looking for.
And incidentally, whining is a trait that really turns a lot of women off. So moaning that there won't be enough chicks to go around and you won't get your fair share isn't likely to get you very far.
looks
Submitted by Jan (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-02 01:30.
Not everyone finds him unattractive!
Except that it's not just
Submitted by Emily (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 20:20.
Except that it's not just one man with many women. There ARE relationships that involve one woman with more than one man.
Terms and Gender Balance
Submitted by Bernadette Bosky (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 18:41.
"Polygamy" just means marriage among more than two people. "Polygyny" means more than one wife, and "polyandry" means more than one husband. Hence, there is nothing inherently destabilizing about polygamy, since people do live both polygynously and polyandrously.
Because I'm sure that modern
Submitted by Brian P (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 00:24.
Because I'm sure that modern women, unlike ancient women who often didn't have much of a choice, will flock to this in droves, right? Polygamy is going to become everyone's new favorite marriage type, I'm sure.
Or, it could be confined to the people who act like that anyway, who are a very small proportion of the population.
This argument is, and always
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2005-09-29 23:31.
This argument is, and always has been, idiotic. Children do not have a legal right to consent, and animals don't even have the physical/mental ability to voice their consent, so your argument is irrelevant.
Define children
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2005-10-01 08:37.
Depends on what you mean by 'children.' Judge Ginsburg in the U.S. is on the record as wanting to move the age of consent to 12.
In the U.S. there are several states have an age of consent of 14, 15, or 16- in New Hampshire a female as young as 13 can marry with parental permission. most states allow 16 year olds to marry with parental permission. Some don't require parental permission if the female is pregnant. (http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm)
So should it be legal for this same man to wed two fifteen year olds if their parents approve (or if he impregnates them)? How about four fifteen year olds? Five? Six?
Or maybe he'd like to marry a 14 y.o. boy and a three 16 y.o. girls- the ages are legal ages for marriage in certain states. There is no argument for Same Sex Marriage that wouldn't also protect such unions.
Marriage has always and only been between man and woman- same sex marriage is like like calling a square a circle and thinking that makes it so. No culture anywhere, not even cultures that tolerated or even celebrated homosexuality have had same sex marriage.
Red Herring
Submitted by Jan (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-02 01:27.
If your concerned about young people being used, why not focus on that issue. You state yourself that these laws allowing such young people to wed already exist. If you have an issue with that, then you should focus on that, and not on what consenting adults are doing.
No. It's not a Red Herring
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-09 05:56.
It might be a red herring, but it's not *my* red herring. I didn't bring it up. Somebody else did- and then, as always happens, rather than actually address the argument, the pro-gay marriage side uses the brilliant reponse, "That can't happen."
Yes. It can. And since he (or she, I forget) is the one who said it can't happen, and I have shown it can, the ball is in the other court. He obviously thought it was a bad thing, or he would not have said that it couldn't happen. So he must now explain how his argument wouldn't apply to that situation.
Marriage has always been between man and woman, and in most places and times, one man and one woman. That's pretty much universal. So I think those who want to redefine the social norms have the responsibility to explain why this is better and why their arguments do not also apply to other situations they do not (currently, at least) approve of.
And that's not a red herring, but you are begging the questi
Why not just toss out every
Submitted by Rich (not verified) on Mon, 2005-10-03 12:22.
Why not just toss out every law since they all deal with consenting adults?
A few months ago...
Submitted by Jinx McHue (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 22:53.
...the polyamory argument was "idiotic," too. "Oh, that's not going to happen," the proponents of gay marriage assured us. Surprise, surprise. It did.
The difference...
Submitted by phobaphill (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-09 00:15.
The difference here is clear.
I can see homosexuals pushing for same sex marriage.
I can see polygamist unions fighting for multi-partner marriage.
I don't see any girls or boys pushing for marrying men.
I don't see any animals pushing for marrying humans.
When you show me those, then your argument will have creedence.
when "extra" rights infringe on "my" rights
Submitted by ellen (not verified) on Tue, 2005-09-27 23:28.
Victor's excluvisity is interesting. He draws the line somewhere--no 4th person will be admitted in this "union." There seems to be a threshold of endurance, a point beyond which they cannot and/or will not tolerate open admission. It's accelerating pragmatism, but it has an absolute brake pedal that someday, somehow comes down somewhere.
The legalization is interesting, as well. I wonder when will come the day that this government-citizen conglamerate's again-and-again-newly-revised "Definition of Marriage" will be called upon to INclude more into that "union?" What if I want to join an exclusive threesome union? Shouldn't the government be required to respond positively to my demand for my rights? Why should such a threesome have a right to exclude me from their happiness?
What if?
Submitted by Ming (not verified) on Wed, 2005-09-28 00:25.
Well what stops anyone from forcing their way into an TWOsome, I wonder? What is the point of this preposterous theory? Marriage in our day and age is a commitment between CONSENTING adults. It is a contract, nothing more and nothing less. No one can be coerced into a contract with others against their will. Such a contract would be void.
Initially I too was appalled
Submitted by Stephen (not verified) on Thu, 2005-09-29 19:10.
Initially I too was appalled by this "three-some" union. But then I stsrted thinking about it. What is the harm? Over the ages of mankind, men have had more than one wife. Even today, in some countries (like the middle east) a man can have up to 4 wives. Didn't that african king take his 13 or 14th wife who was only 17? Where was the outrage on that?
Or is this a racial thing: Black Africans and Middle Easterners don't count because they are not "white?"
As for the religious angle. Where is having more than one wife PROHIBITED? Didn't the men in the Old Testament routinely have more than one wife? Was Moses a "sinner?" What about King David or Mohammed?
While same sex relations are clearly listed as abominations in the Bible and Quran, having more than one wife is not. Native Americans also had multiple wives. Apparently, the greatest penalty of having more than one wife is having more than one mother in law. :)
Let us stop the prohibition against religion. Multiple wives would benefit society. Less consumerism, less divorce, etc.
As for same sex unions between men, that is clearly against nature! Stamp that out, but leave what is natural alone.
PS I am looking for someone (young attractive and female) to help me convince my wife that my views are correct.:)
Um, Stephen....
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 18:39.
::As for the religious angle. Where is having more than one wife PROHIBITED? Didn't the men in the Old Testament routinely have more than one wife? Was Moses a "sinner?" What about King David or Mohammed?::
Since you brought it up, having more than one wife is prohibited here:
Deuteronomy 17, verse 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn
not away...
And it is understood here:
Matt 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(Some people deal with the words in religious books very differently then they would treat those same words anywhere else. In case this is hard, think of it this way. See, if I tell my kids they can eat the cookies in the cookie jar, they understand this mean they cannot eat cookies in some place other than the cookie jar. If I tell them they may eat all the red candies, they understand that means I want them not to eat the others. If I ask my secretary to bring me all the correspondence from clients dated Sept. 13, it is understood that I do not want correspondence from other dates.)
Titus 1:6 (and others)
says church leaders must have only one wife
Some men in the OT had more than one wife, but I do not think you can say that they all 'routinely' did. And invariably, the OT indicates that this caused problems. Big problems.
And my goodness, yes, *of course* Moses and David were both sinners, according to both the Old Testament and the New. I cannot speak for Islam, but if you knew your Bible enough to make an argument from it, you would know that there is only one person within its pages who is said to be sinless.
David actually calls himself a sinner in the Old Testament writings. And could you please explain why you think Moses was polygamous? The only wife I know of that he had was Zipporah, the Ethiopian woman.
I don't mean to be snotty (well, not *really* snotty) but perhaps you should read your Bible before making arguments from it?
Religion
Submitted by jan (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-02 01:23.
The idea that marriage is a religious institution is ludicrous. It is a legal institution, and in the USA there is a separation of church and state. Therefore marriage is a secular institution.
Nevermind that most couples
Submitted by Rich (not verified) on Mon, 2005-10-03 12:15.
Nevermind that most couples get married in a church or at the very least by a Pastor, Minister or Priest.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with religion...riiiiight.
The actual ceremony might be
Submitted by phobaphill (not verified) on Sat, 2005-10-08 23:55.
The actual ceremony might be done before a minister, but the marriage license itself is granted by the state. That's what keeps polygamy illegal in the USA in spite of the non-LDS Church Mormons. That's what keeps marriage to animals illegal in spite of Afro-Caribbean religions. That's what keeps marriage to minors illegal even though it is never forbidden in the Bible, Torah or Quran. The State, not the Church.
Same word for two different things
Submitted by Bart Vanhauwaert on Tue, 2005-10-04 06:21.
Happens a lot and I agree it is sometimes confusing. But when we talk about allowing gays to marry we clearly mean the secular marriage and not the religious one.
To openminded Stephen: "I
Submitted by young attractive male (not verified) on Thu, 2005-09-29 20:07.
To openminded Stephen:
"I already convinced your wife!"
You're all missing the point
Submitted by Flemish American (not verified) on Tue, 2005-09-27 22:03.
Marriages are supposed to be a religious ceremony signifying a couples love for one another before God. Civil Unions were intended to be the legal back-door for couples who did not want to be married to still have a recognised partnership.
Suddenly, the homosexuals had a loophole they could use to force the issue of marriage. Now, in this case, the issue has been forced open even more. Wake up and smell the coffee, people. While gays make straight people feel guilty for "forcing thier values on others" they are, in fact, forcing their values on us.
I respect their right to live whatever life they want. They can answer to God for that one day. It is not my place to judge. They have every right to work their jobs, go to schools and have any kind of sex they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. But marriage is meant to be a union between one man and one woman and I wish they'd shut up and leave that institution alone.
marriage is meant to be a
Submitted by Arrow (not verified) on Thu, 2005-09-29 22:53.
marriage is meant to be a union between one man and one woman
Why?
Or rather...so what if it was, originally, back when marriage was invented? It can be "meant to be" something else now. Why shouldn't it?
Many people argued that blacks were "meant to be" slaves. That's changed. So can what marriage is "meant to be".
it is always interesting
Submitted by telder1 on Sun, 2005-10-02 03:34.
that those used to promote emotional opportunity arguments (in this case homosexuality/bi-sexuality being the equivalent of hereterosexual marriage on the purely emotional grounds of supposed equivalency of pleasure and love as emotional positives) never mention the disease of HIV or AIDS, and never mention the non-creating aspects of homosexuality or bisexuality. It is telling that the mere idea or the actual pleasure they supposedly derive protects them (or us as a society in the long run) from the physical realites of such activities.
As well, they never mention that others are being asked to fund their disease so that it spreads as a contagion.
Who in truth would advocate the spread of a horrific, contagious disease spread by sexual contact on the basis of the pleasure of those who engaged in it while those who do not engage in it pay for it in tax supported medical services? Who goes out and finds a disease to waste their money propigating among their own populace --for any reason?
No. It is plain those who want legal recognition of deviancy want it to pay for the physical effects they know in advance such deviancy will cost. So "privacy" arguments ( I do what I want and you do what you want) are no cover when deviants are asking non-deviants to pay for what they knew in advance would happen: not only will others get the disease if it hangs around long enough through simply trying to help those with the disease, but they want public, tax supported medical services guarenteed so that they can live as long as possible so as to do the most damage and cost the most money simply because it gives them pleasure to do so. And after all, according to their own arguments, if they 'love' to do so and that's their thing, why should anyone complain? After all, love is an emotional positive, pleasure is an emotional positve, what's the difference if pleasure kills?
Very plainly those who seek to kill their fellow man in lies of pleasure versus death know they cannot win the argument in truth, so they must appeal to lies of free will with such widgets as "if you deny me my pleasure, then you cut off part of your own free will / choice. And you said long ago choice was good. So I've got you in your own arguement. You've got to include me just to keep your own argument of free will intact."
And some had fallen for it.
Romans 9:18 So then, to whom He will He shews mercy, and whom He will He hardens.
In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Choices
Submitted by Bob Doney on Sun, 2005-10-02 14:25.
Are you talking about smoking, eating doughnuts, hang-gliding or what?
Bob Doney
death wrapped as emotional positives
Submitted by telder1 on Sun, 2005-10-02 19:24.
that actually end up as horror for all are the end game of the lie of free will.
True, homosexuality / bisexuality are but one small part of the overall lie and its effects. Which makes them still evil. But they particularly take an active voice in seeming that they are not dangerous at all.
We don't see an 'adulterer movement' as politics (except for the abortion issue) and we don't see a 'murderer movement' as a politcal agenda of any (except for the abortion issue).
The foundation from which homosexuality / bisexuality springs is non-creating speech: the native speech of of all men. Because their speech can create nothing, it gives all natural men a lens of non-creation and makes it seem scarcity is the rule of life as seeing the universe as a closed box (nothing created or destroyed, only changed). Homosexuality is just part of the overall agenda of non-creation the lie performs through them.
Homosexuals, hang gliders, over-eaters, smokers, etc, simply see emotion as the scarce commodity, and are always seeking emotional opportunity in whatever new venue they can find, no matter the end result.
But we see very plainly a public awareness that over-eating of anything, as well as donuts, is not the good but indeed, evil and the public on every level in a diet craze to at least attempt to avoid it (as if they had free will) as well as governmental programs to teach good eating habits (as if they had free will) and to put healthy food on the shelves as opposed to poisoned food.
We see very plainly smoking condemned as a public enemy and drain on the economy, with much more evil effects than good and less and less persons smoking these days, to which all but those who economic interest it is to get others smoking, universally know is good.
We also see the difficulty those who regularly engage in life-threating / thrill seeking adventures have in getting life insurance or medical insurance. The economics by in large effect themselves because they are so (somwhat) economically isolated.
Yet supposedly, homosexuality / bisexuality is not only to be ignored as an evil that brings in disease and effects far beyond one single person "just enjoying themselves" with another but which effects those not even involved and some years later.
If a hang glider gets killed, he gets buried and that is it. Hang gliders don't pass on that sudden stop at the bottom of the fall to others than themselves. If a smoker dies they get buried and that is it. They don't pass on that cancer to someone else. The danger is in the smoke, and the lie off ree will that enticed the smoker, not in the body of the dead. If a donut eater dies from an overdose of donuts, the donuts go with them to the grave and effect no one else. The danger is the lie of free will that enticed the eater and the substance of donuts, not the body of the dead.
If a homosexual / bisexual with AIDS dies, the disease can still kill even though the body is dead. It is contagious through blood and bodily fluids.
Every epidemic in the world with the exception of AIDS and HIV has quarentines, and mandatory standards to assure those with the disease do not spread it, even when those standards involve what would normally be seen as heinous emotional upset to those involved.
But suddenly, to those with an agenda of advancing homosexuality and bisexuality as emotional opportunities AIDS and HIV are not-deadly. Indeed, is a horror to them to be cut off from the opportunity of spreading their contagion as fast as possible only so they will not be seen as deviant and end their supposed spree of emotional drink.
True, the lie of free will, the non-creating speech is the culprit: anti-Christ. But that in no way exonerates those who love to speak and hear anti-Christ in any of their particulars such as homosexuality and bisexuality under the lie of "they sin too so mine doesn't count".
And in that homosexuals and bisexuals aren't getting any 'extra' condemnation that adulterers and murderers and all sinners don't already have. Niether do they get less.
For God to tell them of it in the Name of their Savior is no crime but indeed is the only Justice.
Proverbs 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.
In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen