Replies

Your points are not in opposition to the opposition to the normalization of homosexuality. Sexual libertinism is a continuum, with man+woman sex divorced from lifelong marriage, fidelity, and children as the norm. IOW, you seem to be saying the why worry about homosexual marriage when promiscuity and sexual libertinism among heterosexuals is so much more grievous?

The answer is that they are different manifestations of the same problem. But one point is that as screwed up as relations between men and women are (generally speaking, as evidenced in your posts) at least there is the potential, between a man and a woman, for having a lifelong commited marriage. Between a man and a man, there is only the potential for sexual aberration. Nothing else. So when one accepts same sex acts, one crosses a line in the sand. It is not just more of the same, it is stepping off the cliff.

Homosexuality has always been forbidden in civilized societies, barring some Greeks here and there. But the norm for accepted sexual behavior has always been marriage. Add to that every monotheistic religion has forbidden same sex acts, and for a good reason. Acceptance of homosexuality opens the floodgates to "anything goes".

I am not denying that the slippery slope has already been slid down in the form of birth control, pre-marital and post-marital sex, abortion, and so on. But I think your focus is a little off. Rather than complaining that people shouldn't single out homosexuality for criticism, I think all forms of degrading and destructive sexual behavior should be condemned. And at the very least, should not be forced on everyone, especially kids in school.

My point is that there is absolutely no use in decrying homosexuality while at the same time reserving for heterosexuality the perks of non-procreative sex and marriages not premised on the formation of Family as reserved strictly for those who can have children on their own without the assistance of artificial reproduction.

People that live in glass houses are not well-positioned to throw stones.

And the notion that we need or even want the imprimatur on marriage from a State which sanctions and even promotes birth control and abortion and which interprets for-profit pornography (to include "faked" images of childsex geared solely to elicit real ejaculations from heteros with a classic homosexual youth fixation) is ludicrous.

The real battle begins when we reclaim a rational and natural respect for human sexuality and Family. Founding one's arguments re: the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage fails absolutely absent the rescinding of artifical contraception and reproduction as "rights" and the return of a right to obligate one's self for Life which has been deconstructed by 'no-fault' divorce.

Another important move would be the rescinding of all assistance for single mothers by which the State hedges its bets that unPlanned pregnancies will end in abortion.

Anything less and we're nothing but hypocrites for pretending that homosexuals are not entitled to the same Artificial Realities heterosexuals enjoy.

=== I am not denying that the slippery slope has already been slid down in the form of birth control, pre-marital and post-marital sex, abortion, and so on. But I think your focus is a little off.

My focus is on the root of the problem. Were it not for that "slippery slope," there would be no foundation for the claiming of "equal rights" by homosexuals in the first place.

You don't fix a math problem by tacking on what calculations you think will bring you back in line. You UNDO the calculations to the point where first you went awry and start again.

Those of a mind that we cannot possibly put the genie back in the bottle might as well resign themselves to the fact that homosexual marriage is not going to be the end, by far, of the State's purposed deconstruction of marriage and family.

Homosexuality has always been forbidden in civilized societies.

And why is that? Because it is abnormal and against nature.
Think about it, why were male AND female created in the first place? Or if you must, why did we "evolve" that way? Because that is the way it is supposed to be according to NATURE. Forgive me if I am mistaken but I don't believe there is any animals that are homosexual, are there?
This is what happens when there is no moral right and wrong. History shows again and again when man starts doing well he starts to believe that he alone is truly in control and is self sufficient, so there really isn't a God. After this he then just refuses to acknowledge that there are moral absolutes he will talk himself into believing whatever he says is OK surely is.
This break down of moral absolute led to almost all of mankind being wiped out by the flood in Noah's day, Sodom and Gomorrah in later times, and will again lead to their destruction in the future. /RANT OFF...

Heres a retort:

Why worry about AIDS when more die from heart disease?

Homosexuality has always been forbidden in civilized societies, barring some Greeks here and there.

Hmmmm... Not quite. The Greeks were at the pinnacle of their civilization, and incorporation of homosexuality was a big part of that. The way I see it, the queer coup is the milestone that says, "this society has hit its prime, and now it's on the way down." When a society becomes rich and fat enough, self-destructive behavior sets in...

I guess that's what depresses me about the whole fruit salad inundation. It almost seems inevitable. What's a conservative to do? Somehow I don't think that bumper stickers about entries and exits is going to strike any major chords...

I've been thinking about our societal decline lately, and it seems to me that if there is any way out, it lies in democracy. I don't give much credence to polls but if their trends are to be believed, more folks than not in this country don't approve of the gay lifestyle or agenda. Where are their voices being heard? Where is the moral vote?