Gay \u2018Marriage\u2019 is Just the Beginning<\/strong><\/h3>\n![\"Threesome\"](\"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/Threesome.jpg\")
<\/a>After legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’, the Netherlands began giving legal recognition to ‘threesomes.’ The women Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) are both bisexual and have a sexual relationship with each other in addition to having a sexual relationship with their joint ‘husband’, the heterosexual Victor de Bruijn (46).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nBy surveying what has been happening in those nations that have already legalized gay \u2018marriage\u2019, we begin to get a picture of the slippery-slope the world has already started descending down. Consider only a few examples which might be easily multiplied:<\/p>\n
\n- On 1 April 2001, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019<\/a><\/strong>. Four years later, the country began giving legal recognition to \u2018threesomes\u2019<\/strong><\/a>.<\/li>\n
- On 3 July 2005, Spain legalized same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019<\/strong><\/a>. The following year, heterosexual marriages were \u2018modernized\u2019 so that birth certificates could no longer have the names Mother and Faith, but \u2018Progenitor A\u2019 and \u2018Progenitor B<\/strong><\/a>\u2019.<\/li>\n
- Mexico City legalized same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 on 21 December 2009<\/strong><\/a>.\u00a0 Two years later proposals were introduced to allow for fixed-term temporary marriages<\/strong><\/a>.<\/li>\n
- Canada introduced gay \u2018marriage\u2019 on 20, July 20, 2005<\/strong><\/a>. Two years later the Attorney General of British Columbia considered legalizing polygamy<\/strong><\/a>. This has been followed by schools in Toronto promoting polygamy<\/strong><\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
As more nations jump on the gay ‘marriage’ bandwagon, we should expect to see many other perversions introduced. Gay \u2018marriage\u2019 is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards sexual anarchy. (This does not even include the slippery slope towards totalitarianism, as gay ‘marriage’ leads to more and more freedoms being eroded. That is a different topic and one which I have addressed in my article ‘Will the Real Enemies of Liberty Please Stand up’ <\/strong><\/a>and ‘Gay Marriage Threatens Civil Liberties<\/strong><\/a>.’)<\/p>\nBut why is this? Why does same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 lead to these other perversions almost as night follows day? In order to properly answer this question, we must consider the logic behind same-sex \u2018marriage.\u2019<\/p>\n
The Logic of Same-Sex \u2018Marriage\u2019<\/strong><\/h3>\nThe campaign to change the definition of marriage revolves around certain principles which, once accepted, have wide ramifications in a host of other areas.<\/p>\n
This became evident last year when the Coalition Government released its consultation paper on same-sex \u2018marriage.\u2019\u00a0 They continually presented the issue in terms of \u2018equal access.\u2019 In their simplistic and philosophically unsophisticated way, the issue was a straightforward question of fairness.<\/p>\n
However, if we accept that the principle of equality means that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same rights as married couples (including the right to call their union a \u2018marriage\u2019), then in order to be logically consistent we would also have to say that a definition of marriage which includes both heterosexual and same-sex unions, yet excludes unions with animals or multiple partners, is also failing to provide equal protection under the law to someone or other. Indeed, if someone is bisexual, then in order for their sexuality to be fully expressed, their \u2018marriage\u2019 must include a minimum of at least one person from each sex. Thus, the argument that we should not discriminate based on sexual orientation, if carried to its logical conclusion, necessitates \u2018threesomes\u2019 at least.<\/p>\n
The point is that any new definition of marriage Government may wish to impose on the public necessarily opens the door to an endless series of redefinitions in years to come. Unless the term \u2018marriage\u2019 is allowed to collapse into complete vacuity, it must include certain types of unions and exclude others. This is a point that most people accept, for most advocates of gay \u2018marriage\u2019 are still opposed to broadening the definition of marriage to include perversions such as polygamous unions, threesomes, bestiality or incestuous relationships. Nevertheless, it will become increasingly hard to argue against such exclusions once the logic behind calls for gay \u2018marriage\u2019 is accepted.<\/p>\n
Remember, the main argument being used by the homosexual lobby is that of equal access. They are asserting that it is wrong in principle to exclude any two people from the institution of marriage if the two people love each other and desire to be married. As Maria Miller MP said in her forward to the Government response to their consultation on same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019:<\/p>\n
\u201cMarriage is also an institution which has a history of continuous evolution\u2026. So marriage in the 21st century is an inclusive, not exclusive, institution. It is available to all those over 16 who are prepared to make vows of life-long fidelity and commitment. Except, that is, if you happen to love someone of the same sex. This simply cannot be right.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If Miss Miller\u2019s logic isn\u2019t an invitation to start down the slippery slope, then it\u2019s hard to know what is. If marriage is to be a truly \u201cinclusive\u201d institution, then why choose 16 as an arbitrary age? Or again, if marriage is to be truly inclusive rather than exclusive, then is it really fair to limit marriage to a minimum of two people? If \u201clove has no gender<\/strong><\/a>\u201d, then why should it have a number? Or again, if the goal is to make marriage inclusive rather than exclusive, why are we not being consistent and calling for a removal of the \u2018ban\u2019 on brothers and sisters getting married?<\/p>\nSuch questions, once dismissed as conservative scare-mongering, will soon be as much a part of the public debate as gay \u2018marriage\u2019 is now, for once you start down the slippery slope, it is hard to stop.<\/p>\n
Doing the Family Thing<\/strong><\/h3>\nAnother principle which is fundamental to advocates of same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 is that love creates the sufficient conditions for a marriage and a family, irrespective of gender. Essentially, it is the ethic of the Sesame Street song \u2018Doing the Family Thing\u2019:<\/p>\n
Any group of people
\nLiving together
\nAnd loving each other
\nAre doing the family thing\u2026<\/p>\n
It doesn’t really matter
\nJust who you’re living with
\nIf there’s love you’re a family too\u2026<\/p>\n
A family can be
\nWhat it wants to be
\n‘Cause there’s all different leaves
\nOn the family tree
\nAnd there’s all different types
\nOf families
\nWho are living together
\nAnd loving each other
\nAre doing the family thing
\nDoing the family thing
\nDoing the family
\nDoing the family thing<\/p>\n
If love is all that makes a family, then where do you draw the line? Marcia Segelstein raised some disconcerting questions about this in her recent Salvo article, \u2018Family Skewed: When the Needs of Children Are Secondary to the Desires of Adults, Guess Who Keeps Losing?<\/a><\/strong>\u2019<\/p>\nBut why stop at two? In 2007, a state superior court panel in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, ruled that a child can have three legal parents. The case involved two lesbians, both legal parents of two children who were conceived using a friend’s sperm. The panel determined that all three were liable for child support. All three were the child’s legal parents. There have been similar rulings in Canada, and this year the California legislature approved a bill allowing judges to declare more than two parents for some children there. While Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, asking for time to consider all of its implications, activists have already promised to try again.<\/p>\n
Speaking of more than two, the question of polygamy also looms. As the push for same-sex marriage continues, some legal analysts and other experts see polygamy as the next marriage battlefront. In a 2006 Newsweek article called Polygamists Unite!, one activist called polygamy “the next civil rights battle. . . . If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.”<\/p>\n
From a legal point of view, it may be difficult to defend current laws against polygamy, given the success of the gay marriage movement\u2026.<\/p>\n
Dr. Michelle Cretella, vice president of the American College of Pediatricians\u2026describes yet another variation in the brave new world of family and parenting: the “bothies” movement. Similar to co-parenting, this configuration specifically involves a lesbian mom and a gay dad having a child together. The case of Bevan Dufty, a well-known gay rights activist, and lesbian Rebecca Goldfader made big news in San Francisco a few years ago when they decided to have a child together and share parental responsibilities. According to a story in the Bay Area Reporter, “both envision[ed] that their long-term partners would have parental roles and rights as well.” The piece went on to say that, according to the executive director of Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE), the group “has several member kids known as ‘bothies,’ meaning they have two gay dads and two gay moms. Some of those families began as four-way agreements.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Further Reading<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n- \u00a0\u2018Gay Marriage\u2019 Becomes a Joke
\n<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n- \u00a0 MP\u2019s Oppose Gay \u2018Marriage\u2019
\n<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n- \u00a0 The Quadruple Lock Won\u2019t Work
\n<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n- \u00a0 ‘Gay Marriage’ Threatens Civil Liberties<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n
- \u00a0 Will the Real Enemies of Liberty Please Stand Up<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/p>\n
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/08\/Join_donate_Logo2.jpg\" "\\"Join")
<\/a><\/p>\nPlease note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
If there is anything defenders of gay \u2018marriage\u2019 hate, it is \u2018slippery slope\u2019 arguments. The notion that gay \u2018marriage\u2019 is objectionable because of where it could lead is an argument automatically presumed to be invalid and unworthy of serious consideration. Not too long ago a friend and I were having a friendly debate about gay […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-homosexuality-trans"],"aioseo_notices":[],"rttpg_featured_image_url":null,"rttpg_author":{"display_name":"Robin","author_link":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/author\/robin\/"},"rttpg_comment":6,"rttpg_category":"Homosexuality & Trans<\/a>","rttpg_excerpt":"If there is anything defenders of gay \u2018marriage\u2019 hate, it is \u2018slippery slope\u2019 arguments. The notion that gay \u2018marriage\u2019 is objectionable because of where it could lead is an argument automatically presumed to be invalid and unworthy of serious consideration. Not too long ago a friend and I were having a friendly debate about gay…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<\/a>By surveying what has been happening in those nations that have already legalized gay \u2018marriage\u2019, we begin to get a picture of the slippery-slope the world has already started descending down. Consider only a few examples which might be easily multiplied:<\/p>\n
- \n
- On 1 April 2001, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019<\/a><\/strong>. Four years later, the country began giving legal recognition to \u2018threesomes\u2019<\/strong><\/a>.<\/li>\n
- On 3 July 2005, Spain legalized same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019<\/strong><\/a>. The following year, heterosexual marriages were \u2018modernized\u2019 so that birth certificates could no longer have the names Mother and Faith, but \u2018Progenitor A\u2019 and \u2018Progenitor B<\/strong><\/a>\u2019.<\/li>\n
- Mexico City legalized same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 on 21 December 2009<\/strong><\/a>.\u00a0 Two years later proposals were introduced to allow for fixed-term temporary marriages<\/strong><\/a>.<\/li>\n
- Canada introduced gay \u2018marriage\u2019 on 20, July 20, 2005<\/strong><\/a>. Two years later the Attorney General of British Columbia considered legalizing polygamy<\/strong><\/a>. This has been followed by schools in Toronto promoting polygamy<\/strong><\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
As more nations jump on the gay ‘marriage’ bandwagon, we should expect to see many other perversions introduced. Gay \u2018marriage\u2019 is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards sexual anarchy. (This does not even include the slippery slope towards totalitarianism, as gay ‘marriage’ leads to more and more freedoms being eroded. That is a different topic and one which I have addressed in my article ‘Will the Real Enemies of Liberty Please Stand up’ <\/strong><\/a>and ‘Gay Marriage Threatens Civil Liberties<\/strong><\/a>.’)<\/p>\n
But why is this? Why does same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 lead to these other perversions almost as night follows day? In order to properly answer this question, we must consider the logic behind same-sex \u2018marriage.\u2019<\/p>\n
The Logic of Same-Sex \u2018Marriage\u2019<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The campaign to change the definition of marriage revolves around certain principles which, once accepted, have wide ramifications in a host of other areas.<\/p>\n
This became evident last year when the Coalition Government released its consultation paper on same-sex \u2018marriage.\u2019\u00a0 They continually presented the issue in terms of \u2018equal access.\u2019 In their simplistic and philosophically unsophisticated way, the issue was a straightforward question of fairness.<\/p>\n
However, if we accept that the principle of equality means that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same rights as married couples (including the right to call their union a \u2018marriage\u2019), then in order to be logically consistent we would also have to say that a definition of marriage which includes both heterosexual and same-sex unions, yet excludes unions with animals or multiple partners, is also failing to provide equal protection under the law to someone or other. Indeed, if someone is bisexual, then in order for their sexuality to be fully expressed, their \u2018marriage\u2019 must include a minimum of at least one person from each sex. Thus, the argument that we should not discriminate based on sexual orientation, if carried to its logical conclusion, necessitates \u2018threesomes\u2019 at least.<\/p>\n
The point is that any new definition of marriage Government may wish to impose on the public necessarily opens the door to an endless series of redefinitions in years to come. Unless the term \u2018marriage\u2019 is allowed to collapse into complete vacuity, it must include certain types of unions and exclude others. This is a point that most people accept, for most advocates of gay \u2018marriage\u2019 are still opposed to broadening the definition of marriage to include perversions such as polygamous unions, threesomes, bestiality or incestuous relationships. Nevertheless, it will become increasingly hard to argue against such exclusions once the logic behind calls for gay \u2018marriage\u2019 is accepted.<\/p>\n
Remember, the main argument being used by the homosexual lobby is that of equal access. They are asserting that it is wrong in principle to exclude any two people from the institution of marriage if the two people love each other and desire to be married. As Maria Miller MP said in her forward to the Government response to their consultation on same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019:<\/p>\n
\u201cMarriage is also an institution which has a history of continuous evolution\u2026. So marriage in the 21st century is an inclusive, not exclusive, institution. It is available to all those over 16 who are prepared to make vows of life-long fidelity and commitment. Except, that is, if you happen to love someone of the same sex. This simply cannot be right.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If Miss Miller\u2019s logic isn\u2019t an invitation to start down the slippery slope, then it\u2019s hard to know what is. If marriage is to be a truly \u201cinclusive\u201d institution, then why choose 16 as an arbitrary age? Or again, if marriage is to be truly inclusive rather than exclusive, then is it really fair to limit marriage to a minimum of two people? If \u201clove has no gender<\/strong><\/a>\u201d, then why should it have a number? Or again, if the goal is to make marriage inclusive rather than exclusive, why are we not being consistent and calling for a removal of the \u2018ban\u2019 on brothers and sisters getting married?<\/p>\n
Such questions, once dismissed as conservative scare-mongering, will soon be as much a part of the public debate as gay \u2018marriage\u2019 is now, for once you start down the slippery slope, it is hard to stop.<\/p>\n
Doing the Family Thing<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Another principle which is fundamental to advocates of same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 is that love creates the sufficient conditions for a marriage and a family, irrespective of gender. Essentially, it is the ethic of the Sesame Street song \u2018Doing the Family Thing\u2019:<\/p>\n
Any group of people
\nLiving together
\nAnd loving each other
\nAre doing the family thing\u2026<\/p>\nIt doesn’t really matter
\nJust who you’re living with
\nIf there’s love you’re a family too\u2026<\/p>\nA family can be
\nWhat it wants to be
\n‘Cause there’s all different leaves
\nOn the family tree
\nAnd there’s all different types
\nOf families
\nWho are living together
\nAnd loving each other
\nAre doing the family thing
\nDoing the family thing
\nDoing the family
\nDoing the family thing<\/p>\nIf love is all that makes a family, then where do you draw the line? Marcia Segelstein raised some disconcerting questions about this in her recent Salvo article, \u2018Family Skewed: When the Needs of Children Are Secondary to the Desires of Adults, Guess Who Keeps Losing?<\/a><\/strong>\u2019<\/p>\n
But why stop at two? In 2007, a state superior court panel in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, ruled that a child can have three legal parents. The case involved two lesbians, both legal parents of two children who were conceived using a friend’s sperm. The panel determined that all three were liable for child support. All three were the child’s legal parents. There have been similar rulings in Canada, and this year the California legislature approved a bill allowing judges to declare more than two parents for some children there. While Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, asking for time to consider all of its implications, activists have already promised to try again.<\/p>\n
Speaking of more than two, the question of polygamy also looms. As the push for same-sex marriage continues, some legal analysts and other experts see polygamy as the next marriage battlefront. In a 2006 Newsweek article called Polygamists Unite!, one activist called polygamy “the next civil rights battle. . . . If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.”<\/p>\n
From a legal point of view, it may be difficult to defend current laws against polygamy, given the success of the gay marriage movement\u2026.<\/p>\n
Dr. Michelle Cretella, vice president of the American College of Pediatricians\u2026describes yet another variation in the brave new world of family and parenting: the “bothies” movement. Similar to co-parenting, this configuration specifically involves a lesbian mom and a gay dad having a child together. The case of Bevan Dufty, a well-known gay rights activist, and lesbian Rebecca Goldfader made big news in San Francisco a few years ago when they decided to have a child together and share parental responsibilities. According to a story in the Bay Area Reporter, “both envision[ed] that their long-term partners would have parental roles and rights as well.” The piece went on to say that, according to the executive director of Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE), the group “has several member kids known as ‘bothies,’ meaning they have two gay dads and two gay moms. Some of those families began as four-way agreements.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Further Reading<\/strong><\/h3>\n
- \n
- \u00a0\u2018Gay Marriage\u2019 Becomes a Joke
\n<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n- \u00a0 MP\u2019s Oppose Gay \u2018Marriage\u2019
\n<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n- \u00a0 The Quadruple Lock Won\u2019t Work
\n<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n- \u00a0 ‘Gay Marriage’ Threatens Civil Liberties<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n
- \u00a0 Will the Real Enemies of Liberty Please Stand Up<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/p>\n
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)<\/strong><\/p>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nPlease note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.<\/em><\/p>\n
<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
If there is anything defenders of gay \u2018marriage\u2019 hate, it is \u2018slippery slope\u2019 arguments. The notion that gay \u2018marriage\u2019 is objectionable because of where it could lead is an argument automatically presumed to be invalid and unworthy of serious consideration. Not too long ago a friend and I were having a friendly debate about gay […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-homosexuality-trans"],"aioseo_notices":[],"rttpg_featured_image_url":null,"rttpg_author":{"display_name":"Robin","author_link":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/author\/robin\/"},"rttpg_comment":6,"rttpg_category":"Homosexuality & Trans<\/a>","rttpg_excerpt":"If there is anything defenders of gay \u2018marriage\u2019 hate, it is \u2018slippery slope\u2019 arguments. The notion that gay \u2018marriage\u2019 is objectionable because of where it could lead is an argument automatically presumed to be invalid and unworthy of serious consideration. Not too long ago a friend and I were having a friendly debate about gay…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
- \u00a0 MP\u2019s Oppose Gay \u2018Marriage\u2019
- On 3 July 2005, Spain legalized same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019<\/strong><\/a>. The following year, heterosexual marriages were \u2018modernized\u2019 so that birth certificates could no longer have the names Mother and Faith, but \u2018Progenitor A\u2019 and \u2018Progenitor B<\/strong><\/a>\u2019.<\/li>\n