[k2blader]

Not all the selfish hedonists in our culture are homosexuals or lesbians, according the Keyes clear definition. That definition would also fit heterosexuals who selfishly avoid procreation or whose selfishness leads to divorce.

Firstly, thank you for posting this! Finally, a seemingly complete, unedited version.

Just wanted to note that the above in italics are Mostert's words, not Keyes'.

What Keyes said was:

"By definition, a homosexual engages in the exchange of mutual pleasure. I actually object to the notion that we call it sexual relations because it's nothing of the kind. It is the mutual pursuit of pleasure through the stimulation of the organs intended for procreation, but it has nothing to do with sexuality because they are of the same sex. And with respect to them, the sexual difference does not exist. They are therefore not having sexual relations."

While I can see how some people (such as Mostert) would like to draw conclusions here about Keyes' beliefs about birth control between married couples, that's just not the point.

The point is that marriage as intended by God is between one man and one woman who together share the responsibility of having and nurturing children, again as God intended.

Homosexual relationships are contrary to that; they are contrary to God's will.

If Keyes has ever publically said anything specific about the use of birth control between married couples, I am unaware of it.

However, one can't make a credible argument solely against Keyes because of one's perceptions about his view of birth control. *If* the perception is correct that he'd be against the use of birth control between married couples, one in opposition to the idea would take issue not only with Keyes but with *all* people who are anti-birth control.

So to single out Keyes on the birth control issue is irrelevant. The issue is homosexuality and why it and marriage can never go hand in hand.

[TigersEye]

You might not like this, because your love for God is obvious and the expression of your thoughts flows from that, but I would like to take your argument and rephrase it slightly so that athiests and other religiophobes who can't handle the word God might see the sense of it. I expect your objections and accept that.

The point is that the institution of the marriage relationship, as it has arisen from the physical nature of human beings, is between one man and one woman who together share the responsibility of having and nurturing children, again as they were naturally designed to do.

Homosexual relationships are contrary to that; they are contrary to natural design and as such stand apart from that unique relationship that is the basis of the concept of marriage.

Does that still carry your point even though it was refashioned in secular terms?