Oh dear. I trust DN 31 says the family being the bedrock of society. DN 16 literally says not removing girls/women from the "protection" of their families it is the bedrock of society:
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
I agree that family is the bedrock of society. Nothing I have said so far has said otherwise. I also agree that abducting women and raping them is bad.
It is literally about sexual promiscuity; as gay men often engage in in nightclubs.
Yes, and incest. Still, its not about family being the bedrock of society.
I agree that gay culture is a hook up culture and too hedonistic. This is partly due to social reasons, where historical oppression made it difficult to form long lasting relationships and so gay relationships tended to be brief and discreet. It is also due to the lack of women within our relationships, as they can act as a break upon a man's sexual desire. Still, these are problems that can be overcome. Not all gay men are sexual hedonists. By removing the social stigma and legalising gay marriage more gay men can leave the filth of sexual hedonism and enter into more stable and Dhammic relationships with each other. Even more so if they are Buddhists. Apart from human rights this is also why I support gay marriage, for every nation and tribe.
Again, as with Cultural Marxism, you appear to be shifting the moral goal posts so to make sexual promiscuity acceptable under the Dhamma and only make extremes such as incest as evil.
No where have I advocated for sexual promiscuity. I oppose it. Throughout this discussion I have talked about long term and committed monogamous relationships, either with formal marriage or without, gay or straight. None of that entails sexual hedonism. The sexual standards Buddha promoted for heterosexuals I also promote for homosexuals.
The impression is you are definitely engaged in "virtue signalling" by saying the sutta is about incest. The sutta literally says:
As with cultural marxism I don't think you know what virtue signalling is. Best not to use phrases you don't understand.
Not at all. It appears, similar to the smashed crab in MN 35, the Buddha is smashing you in debate, here.
The Buddha is not here, you are and you are not "smashing" anything.
I don't really care about the labels. Narada's translation of DN 31 says any "libertine" is a false-friend to be avoided, as follows:
Classical liberalism/Libertarianism do not make someone a "libertine". Do explain how it does?
It is quite clear your ideas are of a classic Cultural Marxist nature to subvert society. You, in classical Cultural Marxist manner:
1. Extol marriage as a virtue for gay people.
2. Disparage marriage as a virtue for heterosexual people.
Libertarianism do not seek to change society via cultural means towards socialist ends, thus it is not "cultural marxism". Do at least know your foe before you attack him, otherwise you will make a fool of yourself (which you are currently doing).
Taking a libertarian approach to gay marriage does not mean someone agrees with it. I do, but that is incidental. For example, as a classical liberal I would legalise every drug and allow them to be sold on a regulated market, yet I would personally oppose the taking of drugs on Dhammic grounds. As for the rest, I never disparaged marriage for anyone. Please quote me where I trashed marriage?
As a gay attempting to change Dhamma into a doctrine of a Gay Buddha, imo, you are contributing to a backlash against gay people (who the Dhamma has always treated with non-violence & loving-kindness). My gay friends cringe when they see the George Soros Weaponized Gay Agendas on the TV news.
The backlash against gay rights has come from the excess of trans rights in the form of social justice warrior acts, which we get lumped with because of LGBT organisations. I oppose that excess because of its authoritarianism, as much as I oppose the authoritrarian backlash from the right which would see gay rights and, with increasing frequency, other rights abolished too. I cringe at the weaponisation of LGBT rights by authoritarian left wingers as much as i cringe at the authoritarian right wing backlash. To me both are just awful and are as bad as each other.