Why Sexual Morality May be Far More Important than You Ever Thought
(www.kirkdurston.com)
Comments (42)
sorted by:
I will not dwell on this longer...
but I would not be very happy if supporting and spreading this patriot movement, which is counter culture and nothing short of revolutionary only resulted in a theocracy run by ideagogues
Please be aware that the cabal runs very deep and used both puritanism and hedonism equally to control and subjugate the population. Even something as "innocent" as the idea of punctuality was a tool implemented to maximize the efficiency of workers.
Case in point, someone in this very thread just said orgasming is a sin. I am convinced the left really will trick conservatives into implementing Sharia under the guise of morality
For the moment let's suppose that conservatives are "tricked" into adopting Sharia. (Also, say that out loud and see how ludicrous that sounds.) If, if, it happened, conservatives would need to mass convert to Islam (again, say this out loud) and if so are in immediate ideological alignment with a cohort; pick your flavor, Sunni, Shia or other. Then what, how soon does the LGBTQ$ purge begin? With global homos running most of the reset, how exactly does it benefit their agenda? Unless it's fulfilled by them being thrown off buildings this never happens.
Related -
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=muslims+michigan+lgbtq&ia=web
You're right in general, but I have met several conservative men who have been shafted by the family court system, especially were children are concerned, who would opt for Sharia in a heartbeat.
To the orgasm is sin point. We have strayed so fall since the fall of man. We do not know what it is to be sinless nor what is creation vs corruption.
I agree. You echo some thoughts from the Toronto Protocols - detailing globalists’ plan to use the sexual revolution to destroy the family.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZXQmpVO4/not-news-to-anons-but-interestin/
Theocracy or no, there's no denying that everything that's gone wrong in this country over the past 100 years wouldn't have happened without women voters. All they do is shift the candidates and the elections to the left.
Furthermore, there's no denying the fact that women's liberation directly results in the birthrate falling below replacement levels.
Personally I wouldn't go to some islamic shariah law. But I would go back to how America was before all this women's lib destroyed the country. And I wouldn't say we were a theocracy then. We were a free country -- more free than we are now.
The consequences have now played out long enough for it to be apparent to all that women's lib was a mistake and will lead to our destruction.
There was an an article on here a while back which said that sperm DNA becomes imprinted in women's brains. Thought I archived it but can't seem to find it. The Bible says that the two become one flesh, seemed to bear that out.
I think that is the reason why so many people fail to keep stable relationships: they have too many ghosts in their system.
Think this is it:
Find out how women keep DNA from men she has had sex with
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/sex-and-relationship/270617/find-out-how-women-keep-dna-from-men-she-has-had-sex-with.html
Can't understand why "The implications for women are great." according to the article, disinformation as far as I can see.
Two become one = baby
That as well, unless its twins :)
It's easy to explain. Having meaningful sex when a couple is in love is a gift. Having meaningless sex is a curse.
I would venture a guess that those who saved themselves for marriage have more successful marriages.
Those who fuck everything that moves are degrading themselves and others and it takes a toll on the spirit.
And I am by no means saying this from atop an ivory tower, trust me.
This part of the article I find particularly interesting.
I think this is objectively true. Sexual freedom as it's named is not freedom, its anarchy. Society crumbles when people "do as thou wilt". Sexual anarchy makes people easy to control. Look at the Left. AntifaBLM is full of degenerates and perverts. The entire motive of the Cabal appears to be sexually motivated.
You take what you want whenever you want. You can't go wherever you want whenever you want. You can't hurt whoever you want whenever you want. It makes sense that you can't f#ck whoever you want whenever you want.
Human beings are social animals. Society has to have rules and boundaries. The balance is important. The problem people seem to have in this thread is that they only see the extremes on both ends. If you eat what you please when you please, you become obese. If you refuse to eat, you eventually starve. I think its the same with sex but it effects the spirit as well. It's a spiritual act more than it is a physical act. Materialism has infected the zeitgeist so fully that people en mass forget or even refuse to acknowledge this point.
Sexual degeneracy is the herald of the end of a civilization. I can see it.
Study what happens when society embraces the one true God. The Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ THE Son of God.
We aren't even close.
I read this same article in a Book that is over 3000 years old!
Three Cultures God Destroyed Because of Homosexual Sex
Transgenderism is the traditional sign of a dying society. Its an inevitable symptom of the decay.
I'd bet the collapse of every society at every time in recorded history was preceded by the decline of morals. The normalizing of what were once considered perversions. If I look back into the recent past, the concept moral relativism ("Hey, don't judge!") has slowly ramped up to where we are now -
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=california+assembly+pedophile&ia=web
Would further bet that the instigators of these acts all have a (((common root))).
/noticing
Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin discovered that when a highly developed culture undergoes an increase in sexual freedom, a collapse of that culture follows within three generations. The historical data reveals this pattern with “monotonous” regularity.
Some of our best leaders ever were womanizers and slept around with plenty of women. Even Trump. Y’all need to settle down with this. It’s a battle you’ll never win and one that’s not important enough for you to lose sleep over.
But what a way to go.
Well of course. Memetic natural selection ensures that only those cultural values which promote the long-term resilience of their cultures survive long enough to become recognized as "moral laws"; cultures which fail don't transmit their values to the next generation. So when we're looking at any traditional value, we should be doing so with conscious awareness that that value was an element of a culture which survived long enough to become traditional, and we should be very hesitant to replace it with a novel and untested alternative. The vast majority of mutations are either trivial or fatal, and this is just as true culturally as it is genetically.
Also, the anthropologist is not taking into account technology or social fragmentation.
By his logic, western culture will collapse by 2070. Sorry, but people sleeping around isn't going to hinder the plan or launch us into dystopian times
Thing is people live isolated compared to previous centuries, status quo can be maintaned in spite of multiple moral or religous views. As long as the extremes such as transgenderism and pedophilia are contained, we will be fine in spite of people's horniness
My wife and I want to have a threesome. Don't care about the morals anymore. We decided that we make our own morals. Life sucks and we need something fun to look forward to.
Then you have no grounds to hold Pedophiles in contempt.
A very slippery slope you are on...
Where else does morality come from but within? We've been talking about this concept for years. If the two of us both decide we want to sleep with someone else together what is the harm? We have learned a lot about each other just talking about it.
I get what you're saying though because I've had the same thought. If everyone sets there own morals then some people would say children are ok to have sex with.
At the same time most people on "our" side seem to think being gay is a sin and I just disagree with that. Adults minding their own business and being weird just doesn't seem anywhere close to pedophile to me.
I hear what you're saying. But I was responding more to the principle that "morals come from within."
Once this conclusion has been arrived at, then there are no objective moral grounds to judge Pedophilia as morally wrong, because, subjectively, the "Pedophile makes his own morals."
Ultimately, if there are objective moral laws which society's everywhere follow, then there is an Objective Moral Law Giver (God). There appears to be objective moral laws (even a serial killer would feel "wronged" if his mother were to be brutally murdered). This sense of morality appears to transcend individuality and societal constructs. Therefore, there are objective moral laws - which leads us to a transcendent moral law Giver - God.
Mans heart is deceitfully wicked, who can know it? There is none righteous, no not one.
While we are moral creatures, Morality comes from a transcendent God. Otherwise we have no objective grounds to say another individual's choice of morals are "wrong" - even if their choice of morality says it's okay to have sex with kids.
That little Atheist drivle you posted is just that, drivle. Doesn't even understand the nature of OS.
OS doesn't say Man cannot do Good. OS says Man has disobeyed God.
Using your own (imperfect) standard of Morality will lead you to Moral Relativism. An unsustainable, self referential ideology.
What if those two adults decide to have sex with children?
That sounds like the kind of argument anti-gun people use.
“But, but, but, what if they decide to shoot up a school?!!!!”
The question was asked in order to show the unsustainable, self referential nature of moral relativism. Even the most liberal moral relativist shows he is not consistent in his moral relativism when he says someone "ought" not to do X, Y and Z. It's just a matter of finding the scenario that brings him out of his moral relativism.
No one is a true Moral Relativist.
An Absolute Moralist, however, would agree that it is always wrong for someone to shoot up a school. If shooting up a school full of innocent children is wrong for everyone everywhere and for all times, then Moral Relativism is false.
One simple question disables the Moral Relativist and their foolish ideology:
Is Moral Relativism absolutely true for everyone everywhere?
But, haven't you heard? Everything is relative.
You sound triggered.
This should be self evident at this point in the awakening.
Please tell me you forgot the /s