The Fall Of Civilization

It seems it is news that swingers are allowed to operate in Singapore even though they have to be discrete about it. My suspicions of this article are stirred up by a ruling last year in the Supreme Court of Canada that made swinging legal despite the rule of law. There is a movement that is going on world wide which may or may not be organized to encourage libertine behavior. It often works through the legal system of various countries such as the ruling that is attempting to force homosexual marriage on the people of Israel or the ruling that has already forced it on the people of Massachusetts.

The question is whether such behavior is harmful to society shows a lack of knowledge or an intentional incompetence on the part of the part of the judges in question since sexual transmitted diseases are passed from person to person in such casual encounters. There is also children conceived through these actions that should be considered. There are other harmful effects butt these are the most obvious.

The question that these two articles bring up is what we Americans are going to do about what is coming because it will come. There are individuals who strive to encourage the hedonistic lifestyle. They have already damaged our society significantly and they do not care as their goal is to obtain personal pleasure at any cost.

Source 1 is Swingers in Singapore

Source 2 is The aliance between activist courts and swingers in Canada

Source 3 is a Glossary of swinger verbiage which shows the depravity of swingers.

Will Rhode Island Choose To Encourage This Violation Of The Right To Life And Health?

A lesbian couple who are citizens of Rhode Island have filed for divorce in that state after being “married” in Massachusetts. They were allowed to “marry” because a .Massachusetts judge exceeded in jurisdiction by acting as a legislator for Rhode Island.

The solution to this supposed conundrum is quite simple in that all Judge Jeremiah Jeremiah Jr. has to do is correctly interpret Rhode Island Law as Rhode Island law does not recognize homosexual “marriage” and if there is not marriage there is no need for a divorce.

This is because the only marriage Rhode Island law recognizes is between a man and a woman. The Massachusetts judge said the Rhode Island law did not latterly forbid the marriage of two individuals of the same sex which is correct as far as it goes but then it does not forbid a woman from marrying a dog or man from marrying a car. On the other hand it does not recognize any of these “marriages” which ends up forbidding them though not in actual words. This means the couple is only legally “married” in Massachusetts and must return there to get a divorce just like any other homosexual couple “married” in that far left state that encourages the violation of natural human rights.

The situation is that too many activist judges exist and Judge Jeremiah Jr. may well me one in which case his personal politics is more important than the law. There seems to be a lot of hoopla for such an open and shut case so I am concerned that he is an activist. Instead It may be he is just being careful to construct his argument considering the controversial nature of the case.

I wonder if this is one of the same couples whose “marriage” was legalized by that extremist Massachusetts judge just a few months ago.

Source 1 is about lesbian couple filing for “divorce”

The Disaster To Families Caused By The Federal Courts

37% of American babies are born out of wedlock but I am not complaining even though such children face a rough and dangerous childhood as both cohabitating and single parent relationships and more disruptive than married families. The reason I am not complaining is a large number of children conceived out of wedlock are deliberately and intentionally killed at the behest of their mothers before there are born.

This high number of children conceived out of wedlock is a natural result of the Supreme Courts decision to violate the separation of powers restriction in the U.S. Constitution. They either incompetently or intentionally ruled that the freedom of speech covered pornography. It is common sense that no one has the right to use their own rights to harm or injure others. Science has also presented enough evidence to show that pornography brings harm to other even if it is just in normalizing deviant behavior such as having sex out of wedlock. Even if there are competing theories which is questionable it is up to the legislation and not the judicial branch to choose which theory they favor.

The no fault divorce laws and the removal of laws against cohabitation and adultery or the refusal to enforce them have most likely contributed to this state of being. The courts have a job and that is to judge according to the law. It is not to make or remove laws that they object to for one or another arbitrary reasons.

Source 1 is about number of U.S. births that are out of wedlock.