Replies

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 share your views about sexual immorality and degradation. Yet, I am reminded of people - conservatives, who don't want to vote for Bush because he isn't conservative enough. A vote for a third party candidate, or sitting out the election, only harms the conservative cause, increasing the possibility of Kerry or which jackass the Democraps pick, will win. At least with Bush, the behemoth may start turning around.

In a similar way, if people in general - who obviously don't have their morality as fine tuned as you do (or me, I basically agree with everything you say) can at least draw the line at same sex sodomy, there's a chance maybe their view of what is moral and what is not may become more and more enlightened. I don't think it useful to want all or nothing. The Queen Mary can't turn on a dime. Several generations of people accepting immorality as benign can't change overnight. At least if people wake up to the fact that two men ( or two women) commiting sodomy isn't and can't be "marriage", it's a start.

Also, there is something particularly vile about the ramming and cramming of homosexuality down kids' throats especially in school. It must be stopped.

LJ. One thing you didn't mention is prayer.

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

We are the answer. We have the power to have our land healed. But we need to repent and call on God. Before we do anyting else (and all those other things are needed) we need to pray

Askel5. You bring up lots of good points but they miss the point.

I had a similar discussion with Luis Gonzalez (Hope I spelled that right) the other day. Look at the defense of marriage like the defense of our borders.

Just because we can't stop every last illegal from getting in should we let all of them in? No, we should defend as best we can.

My point is that there is absolutely no use in decrying homosexuality

It is always useful to fight against evil

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.

I find nothing wrong with non-procreative sex within the bounds of marrriage as long as an abortifacient is not used. (As I understand it every form of birth control pill is actually abortifacient). I can find nothing in the bible to support banning barrier methods or coitus interuptus.

I also find nothing wrong with medical assistance for reproduction. (There is no such thing as artificial reproduction, Either the sperm joins the egg or it doesn't) Some people need assistance to conceive. Just as God gave us medical knowledge to cure cancers and other diseases God gave us the knowledge to help the infertile to fulfill the command to go forth and multiply. Of course I do not agree with surrogate mothers etc. If we cannot use the knowledge God gave us to cure infertility then we are equally wrong to use medical knowledge to cure cancer. Again I find nothing in the bible that bans use of medical knowlegde.

the return of a right to obligate one's self for Life which has been deconstructed by 'no-fault' divorce.

Agree entirely. Marriage should only end due to adultery or criminal activity (abuse) and the at-fault party should lose everything.

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.

One assistance that should exist is prenatal care and adoption assistance. All of this should be in services not in cash. Otherwise I agree. Sex is for married people only.

Performing an abortion should be treated as capital murder. It is always premeditated, the victim is always innocent and defenseless. Legally execute a few of these 'doctors' and the whole problem goes away. (Until we get to that point however we still need to keep fighting)

That all said, refusing to fight the 'homosexual' assault until we have these issues fixed is exactly the same as saying "OK sodomize me and my children legally". Just because we can't stop every fist fight is no reason to make murder legal.