Just read a news blurb re a restaurant’s denial of service to a Christian group.  Said the restaurant was committed to inclusivity and the waitstaff would feel uncomfortable, based on the group’s views.

Is not that not what that is?

Hmmm …

Heard a radio confession where a woman thought she and her husband had three sons … after the eldest did a DNA test for a school project she found out her husband was NOT the father, and her one-night stand had long-term consequences … for her, for her husband, and for her firstborn child. 

Hmmm … that’s what you call an “oops.  My bad.”

Also recently read an advice column that recommended the removal of faithful folks from the … shall we say, alternative lifestyles the aforementioned faithful folks disagreed with.  Apparently, a woman legally partnered to another woman had a pastor-cousin who declined to attend the official ceremony of their … partnering, but now, with the heathen holidays upon us, expected the child of the woman-partners to play with the child of the pastor-cousin. 

Rather than let grown-folks business be that, the advice columnist suggested keeping the kids apart so as to not make the child of the woman-partners feel some type of way based on possible comments of the child of the pastor-cousin based on the aforesaid alternative lifestyle.

Hmmm … maybe living alternatively is the problem, rather than the opinions related thereto.

Here’s another screamer … apparently, a traditionally-married couple wasn’t so traditional and decided to “open up” their … partnership.  The OP had no clue but the older siblings were fully aware.  Anyhoo, the husband/father of the partnership had a girlfriend (while the wife/mother had a boyfriend, of course) and the girlfriend got pregnant, decided to keep the child, and the husband/father incorporated the non-marital child into the lives of his legitimate children.

However, and here’s the rub (heh) … wife/mother was a bit resentful of the situation, and while not exactly mean, she has behaved in a very exclusionary manner towards her husband’s bastard, makes plans to be elsewhere when the child visits, declined a vacation that included the child, does not engage in any activities with the child, etc.  Predictably so, methinks. 

Wife/mother did not want to invite husband’s bastard on an overseas family trip, OP and siblings disagreed and declined the gift of travel costs while electing to take their dad’s bastard with at their cost and disregard the feelings of their mom.

Hmmm …

I see wife/mother’s point, but she should have divorced her husband if they wanted to have sex with other people.  That’s kinda the whole point … ‘forsaking all others,” y’know, actually means that.

Co-parenting is a thing, unfortunately but yes.

Although the advice columnist believes the OP should stay out his/her parents’ business regarding daddy’s bastard, methinks wife/mom really has no right to any feelings sorrynotsorry.  She agreed to it, has another man of her own, so … that’s yours, sweetheart.

Now somewheres around these parts mentioned (multiple, several, many, many, many times) that GOD said these times were coming, that sexual immorality would become a norm, and that people would strive after their own lusts and disregard sound doctrine because it conflicts with the tickling of the nether bits.  {2 Timothy 4:3}

Which is fine, I s’pose, because everybody has choices … free will is all that.

But … methinks it seems Satan/Lucifer/that ol’ devil is putting in some serious overtime to get folks to devalue the vows and malign the marital … basically, dispense with the entire notion/purpose/ideal of marriage itself … I have a solution. 

Get the state out of the marriage business.

Call it a “decree of civil partnership,” with a ceremony performed by a court official and filing with the county registrar, and it’s the only personal relationship recognized by the state.

A biological man and a biological woman could still get married, but only by a church, in a church setting, by a church official — pastor, priest, minister.

Everyone else … quickie in Vegas = decree of civil partnership … atheists = decree of civil partnership … homosexual unions = decree of civil partnership … polyamorous relationships = decree of civil partnership … bonded with an animal or an animatronic = decree of civil partnership … see how that works?

Same state/federal rights as marriage, but provides a societal recognition of traditional religious doctrine … for the faithful, respected by the faithless. 

Husband + wife = marriage.

Everyone/thing else = decree of civil partnership.

Because the only human relationship that truly needs social recognition is marriage between a man and a woman … gotta keep track of who owns the kids. 

Men should not spend resources unknowingly on children that are not theirs. 
Women should not breed indiscriminately as random sperm receptacles. 

Every other thing is just a social construct for friends who fornicate … roommates who screw, and maybe invest.

Do we owe a debt of sexual discipline to our Creator? 
Based on current events, it certainly seems we are in the days of Noe.  Or maybe Lot.