Homosexual Men ‘Divorce’ to Become Threesome, Now Plan to Use Sisters as Surrogates

By Heather Clark on October 18, 2015112 Comments

NOVA SCOTIA — Two homosexual men recently “divorced” under Canadian law so that they could include a third man in their relationship, and now plan to have their sisters serve as surrogates to bear their children.

“We just want to say that love is love. It should be multiplied not divided,” Adam Grant told the Daily Mail. “It shouldn’t matter if you’re in a three-way or a four-way relationship.”

Grant and his partner Shayne Curran met Sebastian Tran at a nightclub in 2012, after “tying the knot” the year prior. A year later, they agreed to be open to seeing others.

“Adam and I wanted to have a little more fun so we decided to experiment with multiple partners,” Curran stated. “We never intended it to be anything serious, we certainly never planning on taking on a full-time third partner by any means. It was just bit of sexual experimentation.”

When they met Tran, they both had feelings for him, so in discussing how they could include the man in their relationship, they decided to divorce in order to become a threesome.

While polygamy is not legal in Canada, the men state that they have attorneys that can work up paperwork declaring that the three are bound to each other “in the eyes of the law.”

“If anything, Sebastian only enhanced our relationship,” Curran said.

Now, in order to have children, the men state that their sisters have agreed to become surrogates. Some have also offered to donate their eggs.

“I have two sisters who have both offered to carry our children for us as surrogates and are willing to donate their eggs as well. My sisters actually argue over which one them will carry our baby first,” Curran stated. “Sebastian’s sister will probably donate her eggs too so we can keep it in the family. We want to mix our genes enough so that our kids are as genetically close to us as possible.”

As previously reported, earlier this year, photos of three Thailand men who symbolically “married” each other went viral, garnering societal support for the concept of same-sex “throuples” worldwide, but also generating remarks from Christians about the confirmation of the slippery slope that has long been predicted.

“Love occurs unconditionally and is not limited to only two people,” one of the men, only identified as Art, wrote on Facebook. “Love brings peace to the world.”

Following the report, Dr. Michael Brown noted that the situation demonstrates how mankind has made up its own rules along the way in an attempt to legitimize and justify what a particular person wants. Since homosexuals have stated that marriage should be defined as the union of two people who have feelings for each other, regardless of gender, where does the rule about two people come from?

“If a gay activist says, ‘But marriage is the loving, long-term commitment of two people,’ the answer is simple: ‘Says who? That’s just your new definition. Where did you get the idea it was two people if not from its historic, natural meaning?’” Brown explained. “And so, if I’m ‘bigoted’ because I don’t recognize same-sex ‘marriage,’ then gay activists (and their allies) are just as ‘bigoted’ if they don’t recognize three men (or women) ‘marrying.’

He stated that these developments are demonstrating the domino effect that results when the world rebels against God and His Master design for mankind.

“Those who have taken down the fence of marriage as God intended it have opened up a Pandora’s Box of possibilities,” Brown said, “none of them good.”

The shattering of Jars of Clay

A question for Dan Haseltine with Jars of Clay: Do you think that God’s order for marriage and family, established plainly in the Word and recognized by virtually all societies in history, can be thrown aside without consequences?

 

Tweet to @DrMichaelLBrown
Beginning on Tuesday, Dan Haseltine, front-man for the popular Christian band Jars of Clay, took to Twitter to announce his apparent support for same-sex “marriage.” And for the life of him, he can’t figure out a single good reason to oppose it.
It is for reasons like this that we have been sounding the alarm these last ten years.
In a series of tweets posted over a three-day period, and prompted by a movie he watched while in flight, he wrote: “The treatment of people as less than human based on the color of skin is crazy … Or gender, or sexual orientation for that matter.”
Of course, to compare skin color with “sexual orientation” is to compare apples with oranges, as has been demonstrated many times before.
But that was only the beginning. He added, “Not meaning to stir things up BUT … Is there a non-speculative or non ‘slippery slope’ reason why gays shouldn’t marry? I don’t hear one.”
This really boggles the mind.
When you’re sliding down a dangerous slippery slope, you don’t say, “Give me one good reason we’re in danger, other than the fact that we’re careening down this deadly slope.”
No. You grab hold of something to stop your fall and then figure out how to climb back to solid ground.
Does this gifted artist not realize that the only reason we’re talking about redefining marriage today is because we are well down that slope already?
This is the day of full-blown incestuous relationships on popular TV shows like Game of Thrones; of other shows glorifying polyamory (married and dating!), polygamy (from Big Love to Sister Wives to My Five Wives), and teen pregnancy; of news reports about the “wedding” of three lesbians. It is the day of almost half of all first-time American mothers having their babies out of wedlock, with cohabitation rates up more than 700 percent since 1960, and it is against this backdrop that talk of same-sex “marriage” has become prominent.
Do we really want to accelerate the destruction of marriage?
Dan also tweeted: “I’m trying to make sense of the conservative argument. But it doesn’t hold up to basic scrutiny. Feels akin to women’s suffrage. Is the argument born of isolated application of scripture or is it combined with the knowledge born of friendship with someone who is gay? I just don’t see a negative effect to allowing gay marriage.  No societal breakdown, no war on traditional marriage. ?? Anyone?”
Assuming Dan’s sincerity, let me reply to his questions.
First, for years now, Christian leaders have been articulating many good reasons why it is not good for society to redefine marriage, quite apart from the (very valid) slippery slope argument, and some of them have not even used the Bible to prove their points. Important books on the subject include those of Frank Turek, Matthew D. Staver, Erwin Lutzer, and, most recently, Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Andersen, among others.
My YouTube debate on the subject is readily available, and there are fine books outlining the biblical definition of marriage and sexuality, including studies by Andreas Kostenberger and Richard M. Davison. Second, while there is strong biblical support for gender distinction, there is no support for the oppression of women, which is why the spread of Christianity around the world has had a liberating effect on women over the centuries. In stark contrast, the Bible condemns all forms of homoeroticism (as is recognized by many gay scholars as well), while every single example of God-blessed marriage or romance takes place between a man and a woman.
I have an online lecture that addresses this issue, and I tackle the subject at length in my new book as well (Can You Be Gay and Christian?). There is simply no comparison between women’s rights and sanctioning homosexual practice.
Third, the argument against same-sex “marriage” is based on the consistent testimony of Scripture, affirmed by Moses, Jesus, and Paul, and it is never contradicted a single time from Genesis to Revelation. Again, I demonstrate this in my new book, and other scholars, most notably Robert A. Gagnon, have argued this persuasively in depth. (Despite many attacks on his work, his arguments stand strong.)
Fourth, many of us have gay friends or relatives, and our positions are motivated by love. But what does having a gay friend or relative have to do with understanding God and His Word? I have dear friends who are very religious Jews, and they are some of the finest people I know, yet I still believe they are lost without Jesus. (And they, of course, see me as gravely deceived.)
Do we rewrite the Bible to accommodate our sentiments towards others, just because they are nice people?
Fifth, as articulated in the books cited in the first point, above, there are many negative consequences to redefining marriage, including: the assault on the freedoms of conscience, speech, and religion of those who do not accept this redefinition; the establishing of households that guarantee that a child will have either no father or no mother; the transformation of children’s education to include the validation of all forms of “marriage”; the continued deconstruction of gender distinctions, leading to all kinds of societal confusion; and much, much more.
It is for good reason that gay activists have long declared that if they can redefine marriage, the rest of their goals will inevitably be realized.
In short, yes, redefining marriage declares a massive war on “traditional marriage” (better framed as “true marriage” or “natural marriage”) and yes, it leads to all kinds of societal breakdown.
Put another way (and this is a question for you, Dan): Do you think that God’s order for marriage and family, established plainly in the Word and recognized by virtually all societies in history, can be thrown aside without consequences?
Dan, you wrote: “Never liked the phrase: ‘Scripture clearly says…(blank) about… Because most people read and interpret scripture wrong.”
Perhaps this is the root of your problem? Is the Bible not clear about anything? Sin? Salvation? Forgiveness? Jesus being the only Savior and Lord? Adultery being bad? Fidelity being good? Shall I list 100 more items that are abundantly clear in Scripture?
But it appears you’re not really certain about many moral issues, based on your tweet that said, “I don’t think scripture ‘clearly’ states much of anything regarding morality,” and, “I don’t particularly care about Scriptures stance on what is ‘wrong.’ I care more about how it says we should treat people.”
Did you really mean to write this? Is it possible to spend five minutes reading God’s precious Word without recognizing that Scripture clearly states a tremendous amount regarding morality and that, without His moral standards, we will never treat others rightly?
You also asked: “Just curious what ‘condoning a persons [sic] homosexuality’ does. Does it change you? Does it hurt someone? What is behind the conviction?”
Do you not realize that couples involved in consensual adult incest (and other relationships) are asking this exact same question? What do you say to them?
Perhaps it is a Jesus-based, Spirit-led, scripturally-grounded morality that is behind our convictions? And if we condone something God opposes – which means that it is not good for the people involved – how are we showing them love? To the contrary, we are actually hurting them.
My brother, as an influential Christian leader, you have a tremendous responsibility before the Lord to those who follow you, especially to impressionable, young believers, and you have not acted wisely by opening up a volatile discussion like this on Twitter.
Were there no godly leaders you could counsel with privately? Was it good stewardship of your popularity and influence to announce your views on Twitter and then expect a substantive dialogue delimited by 140-character tweets? Are subjects like the meaning of marriage and the authority of God’s Word in the life of a Christian now decided by who can come up with the catchier sound bite?
You probably don’t know me from Adam, but I’ll be glad to spend time with you to help you address these issues from the position of grace and truth. My door is open to you, and as one who greatly appreciates the culture-impacting power of music and song, it would be my privilege to meet with you.
That being said, if these tweets expose the soft, scripturally weak underbelly of the contemporary Christian music scene, then let’s put on our seatbelts and expect the worst.
The good news is that this will separate the wheat from the chaff – and in the end, the light will outshine the darkness.

Dr. Michael Brown, a Jewish believer in Jesus, is a biblical scholar, apologist, worldwide speaker, and activist. He is the host of the nationally syndicated, talk radio program “Line of Fire,” and he serves as president of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, NC, as well as adjunct professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 21 books, most recently “The Real Kosher Jesus.”

If gay marriage is legalized, polygamy is next, briefs warn

Polygamy

WASHINGTON (BP) — Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would jettison the rationale and logic behind prohibitions on polygamous marriages, according to several friend-of-the court briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

“Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,” reads one of the briefs, filed by the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.”

Over the next three days, Baptist Press will preview some of the legal arguments made by supporters of traditional marriage ahead of Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s oral arguments. On those days the court will consider the constitutionality of two laws: California’s Proposition 8 and a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Prop 8 is a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in California, while the DOMA section in question defines marriage in federal law in the traditional sense. If both are overturned, then gay marriage likely would be legalized in all 50 states.

A friend-of-the-court brief signed by 18 state attorneys general also briefly warns about the potential legalization of polygamy if gay marriage is legalized. The brief — which supports Prop 8 — says the traditional definition of marriage is tied to the fact that only a man and woman can reproduce, thus continuing society’s very existence. The state has an interest, the brief says, to see that children are raised, ideally, by the mother and father who beget them. A mother and father in each home is “optimal for children and society at large.”

“Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” the attorneys general brief states, arguing that marriage no longer would be about the needs of children but about the desires of adults.

A friend-of-the-court brief supporting Prop 8 by three academians, including Harvard’s Robert P. George, says there is a movement in the United States to see group relations recognized by the government.

“Nor are such relationships unheard of: Newsweek reports that there are more than five hundred thousand in the United States alone,” the brief signed by George reads.

Liberty Counsel’s brief quotes 19th century Supreme Court cases that upheld the federal government’s ban on polygamy in Utah. Among them were Reynolds v. United States (1878) and Murphy v. Ramsey (1885). In the 1885 case, the justices affirmed the traditional definition of marriage, writing that laws are “wholesome and necessary” when they are established on the basis of the idea of the family as “consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.” The court called traditional marriage “the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.”

Liberty Counsel asserted that “when the traditional definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman is reversed to include other marriages, the state is left with little, if any, justification for other laws restricting marriage.”

“For example,” the Liberty Counsel brief warns, “some might argue that larger family groups (of 3 or more adults) would provide an even stronger private support network than the two-adult model. Or, marriage between certain close relatives would minimize the number of legal heirs, potentially minimizing disputes over property distribution upon death. At a minimum, there is nothing inherent in polygamous or certain incestuous relationships (e.g., consenting adults who are related, but not by blood) that makes those unions less worthy of state recognition under such criteria.”

In passing Prop 8, the state of California could have rationally concluded that marriage is “society’s way of recognizing that the sexual union of one man and one woman is unique, and that government needs to regulate and support this union for the benefit of society and its children,” Liberty Counsel said. California also could have concluded that despite “the personal fulfillment of intimate adult relationships, marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for approbation and support, but about the well-being of children and society.”

“This court,” the brief says, “has long understood the importance of the marriage union as between one man and one woman.”
–30–
Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress ) and in your email ( baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp)

 

The truth about children with ‘gay’ parents

A group of professors has debunked the research of a sociologist, finding that children with heterosexual parents do better in school than those raised by homosexuals.
Dr. Douglas Allen, Burnaby Mountain professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, tells OneNewsNow that he, Dr. Catherine Pakaluk of Ave Marie University, and Dr. Joseph Price of Brigham Young University took a look at a large study conducted by Stanford sociologist Dr. Michael Rosenfeld that found no difference between children who are reared by heterosexual parents and those raised by homosexual couples. The three found a mistake in the research that completely alters the outcome.
“It turns out the children from these homes don’t do as well. They’re about 35 percent more likely to fail a grade,” Allen reports about youngsters raised by homosexuals.
But homosexual households, adds Allen, are not the only ones that prove problematic for children’s educational success.
“If you grow up with your parents cohabitating, but they’re heterosexual, you’re about 15 percent more likely than [those with] same-sex parents to make normal progress through schools,” the professor explains. “If you have a never-marriedsingle mom, you’re about 23 percent more likely to make normal progress through school compared to growing up in a same-sex household.”
According to Allen, every time a study that claims no harm to children raised by same-gender couples is released, it has been successfully disputed when put under a microscope.
“The gold standard is to have married, heterosexual parents,” Allen concludes. “I mean, every study pretty well finds that. It doesn’t matter what dimension you’re looking at; there’s no question — the gold standard is having two parents, married, opposite sex.”
The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Demography. Since it is available by subscription only, Allen suggests finding a library that subscribes.
Allen is an award-winning teacher and a member of the Ruth Institute Circle of Experts.

MY 2 DADS: CHILDHOOD NOT SO ‘HAPPY AND GAY’

By Mike McManus
It is massively wrong according to a new, very large, thorough study published this week by the journal Social Science Research. It was written by Mark Regnerus, a scholar at the University of Texas. The New Family Structures Study, or NFSS, is a breakthrough report.
Regnerus compares how young adult children, aged 18-39, of a parent who has had a same-sex relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional and relational outcomes when compared with traditional and other families.
The biggest differences were between children of women who have had a lesbian relationship – and those raised by still-married biological parents.
Fully 69 percent of those with lesbian mothers were on welfare as children – four times the 17 percent in intact families ever had that experience. In fact, 38 percent of the adult children of lesbian mothers are currently on welfare versus only 10 percent of those with married parents. That’s the same 4-1 ratio.
Only 8 percent of adult children from intact homes were unemployed when interviewed in 2011 versus 28 percent with a lesbian parent.
What’s most shocking is that only two people of those with married parents were ever touched sexually by a parent or an adult – while 23 percent of those with a lesbian mother had that experience! Golly, they are 11 times more apt to be molested!
The design of the NFSS research was brilliant.
Most research on the impact of homosexual parenting has relied on interviews with same-sex parents who are from convenience samples.  For example, the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study conducted last year “recruited entirely from self-selection from announcements posted at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores and in lesbian newspapers in Boston, Washington and San Francisco.”
Such a sample is biased toward including better-educated, wealthier people who visit bookstores. What about the less educated or less likely to be employed? They aren’t interviewed. Of course, the children of these more affluent parents are more apt to do well.
By comparison, NFSS asked 3,000 young adults if either of their parents had a same-sex relationship while they were growing up. Result: 175 reported their mother was in a homosexual relationship, and 73 said the same about their father. That’s about 1.7 percent, a figure comparable to other studies. The sampling was so carefully done that it included both those with listed phone numbers and those who only use cell phones (about half the total).
Only 23 percent said they had spent at least three years in the same household with a romantic partner of their mother; an additional 57 percent did so for at least four months.
Among those with a father in a homosexual relationship, fewer than 2 percent said they had spent at least three years in that household. These relationships are much more volatile and short lived, but neither compares with the stability of married heterosexual parents.
Also, by interviewing young adults of homosexual parents, we can see how the experience shaped their adult lives. This is vastly more useful information than asking volunteer same-sex parents if their kids are doing well.  Of course, they say yes.
More results: Three times as many young adults of lesbians were currently cohabiting as those with married parents (24 percent versus 9 percent). Even more young adults (31 percent) of divorced parents were living together. Twice as many from intact homes were employed full time as those with lesbian mothers.
Only 5 percent of those with married parents had considered suicide in the past year versus 12 percent of those with lesbian parents and 24 percent with homosexual fathers. That’s five times those from intact homes. Similarly, a young adult of married parents is less than half as likely to be in therapy “for a problem connected with anxiety, depression, or relationships” – as those with homosexual parents (8 percent versus 19 percent).
Only 12 percent of young adults with married parents had ever cheated while married or cohabiting, but a big 40 percent of adult children of lesbians had done so.
Just 8 percent of those from intact homes had ever been forced to have sex against their will versus 31 percent with lesbian parents and 25 percent of “gay” parents.
These are huge differences.
They should be cited by those opposed to same-sex marriages.
In the last two weeks, I helped gather signatures for a statewide referendum on whether to reverse a vote by the Maryland Legislature legalizing same-sex marriage.
I hope this information will give fresh ammunition to those trying to protect traditional marriage – and children.

Michael J. McManus is president of Marriage Savers and a syndicated columnist.