Replies

Many people don't bother to think about such things until it's brought to their attention. Is it silly when foes of baby killing use photographs to demonstrate the reality of that atrocity?

As objectionable as the photos in some pro-life rallies are to people..there is a distinct reason for them being displayed.

It is to discredit the claims that a fetus is not a baby and that abortion is NOT taking a human life.

As shocking and repulsive these photos are, they very effectively serve the purpose of exposing exactly what abortion is about.

There is however no such public debate over what fisting is, or what drinking urine means etc etc.

"As objectionable as the photos in some pro-life rallies are to people..there is a distinct reason for them being displayed."

And that is the same reason for informing people about the practices of SSAD sufferers.

"It is to discredit the claims that a fetus is not a baby and that abortion is NOT taking a human life."

And in the case of SSAD, it is to discredit claims that their practices are normal, healthy, and equivalent in every way to normal heterosexual behavior.

"As shocking and repulsive these photos are, they very effectively serve the purpose of exposing exactly what abortion is about."

And as shocking as some descriptions are, they very effectively serve the purpose of exposing exactly what SSAD is about.

"There is however no such public debate over what fisting is, or what drinking urine means etc etc."

It's not a question of what it is, but a question of those practices occurring at all, and with what frequency. When I was younger, it would never have occurred to me--it never did occur to me--that people did those things, or many other things common among SSAD sufferers.

In college, I accepted the PC position on both baby-killing and SSAD without much thought, both because I had no information to fuel rigorous thought and because nobody was demanding that I think about the subjects.

The PC types like to discourage rigourous thought on these subjects. "Nothing to think about here, folks, just accept what we say and move on."

The purpose of the abortion photographs and the descriptions of SSAD alike is to say, "Woah. Don't 'move on.' There *is* something to think about here."

"I don't need your charity"

I don't do a very good job of trying to think the best of everyone, but I have realized the worth of trying.

"I am quite familiar, all the Christian objections to homosexuality from a Biblical point of view and I agree with them 100%."

That's good. We're in agreement there.

"I know the difference between genuine moral convictions vs personal hatred, bigotry and hypocrisy."

I have no idea how well you do with that on a general basis, but in this case you have made a mistake. Further, attributing "hatred" to others on such flimsy grounds seems to me lacking in the Christian virtue of charity. And that's something I'm familiar with, as I so often lack it myself.

I personally believe that, if Satan did not introduce homoseuxality to mankind, he at least uses the issue to the great detriment of our souls. When I look at a pervofascist activist, therefore, I do feel anger, and sometimes even hatred. But that is directed at their cause and the dark one behind it.

Being human, sometimes those feelings spill over onto the person agitating for that cause, but when I reflect and pray on it, I can see the separate issues of the man, whom God loves as much as he loves me, and the cause he so mistakenly espouses.

You are making far too many assumptions about those who oppose the legitimization of SSAD more strongly than you do.

"I have never once heard a truly committed Christian address the issue of homosexual sin (or any other sexual sin for that matter) by making repeated graphic descriptions of every vulgar and obscene act they imagine people engaging in."

Well, I consider myself to be a committed Christian--and pray that I'm not flattering myself--and I will use graphic descriptions in response to an argument that homosexual practices are normal and healthy. I regret that the people who hear these descriptions are often sickened by them, but reflect that they are sickened by the very thing they are arguing is normal and healthy. It has happened that such descriptions have prompted deeper, fuller reflection on the matter in (now former) supporters of the pervofascist agenda.

"IMHO those who do so are deeply disturbed individuals with no sense of perspective on issues of holiness or morality."

YHO is mistaken.