Posted on 07/29/2002 12:16:04 PM PDT by Polycarp
http://traditionalvalues.org The URL for this story is: http://traditionalvalues.org/article.php?sid=350 |
And how does one go about determining what is morally right and wrong? The conscience. Of course, those who choose to drown out their conscience in favor of personal perversions won't understand this concept. And then there are concrete moral truths that exist--unless of course you're a relativist who sees no right or wrong. And I always thought Feel-goodism was a liberal mantra.
I do believe the hypotheses was that men can be born with a female brain and vice versa.
I know this to be the case. I'm working with one now, trying to help him out of it. He was heterosexual till age 16, homosexual since, as a result of predatory homosexual abuse. Again, this is developmental/behavioral, not genetic.
Homosexuals recuit. They know it works.
That is why sex with minors is idealized, idolized, and put on such a pedestal in their literature.
Homosexuality is obsessed with pedophilia and ephebophilia because it is sterile. They cannot reproduce their own, its not genetic. They must recruit.
Don't have to read the Bible to be repulsed and to know what is sick and what is not. Gays always try to make this into a Bible thing thinking they can demonize people of faith and thereby get people to agree with them.
A very deluded belief. We don't have billions of people on earth because humans like homosexuality.
Between school, Boy Scouts, and my Church (Catholic), I know my kids are under attack. It is unacceptable.
Hypotheses are a step along the process we call the scientific method.
When a hypothesis is tested experimentally and found to be representative of physical reality, then a truth has been found.
At that point we can start talking about reformulating society to be reflective of the newly discovered truth.
Not before. Welcome to the Age of Reason.
Published by Centre Daily Times, Friday, June 2, 2000
Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDSby Brian J. Kopp, DPM Parental warning: The following "My View" contains graphic medical terminology about sexual activities that may not be suitable for younger readers. AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book "Sexual Preference" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992). To the present time, 75 to 85 percent of AIDS cases reported are related to homosexual activity, promiscuous heterosexual sex and IV drug abuse. AIDS stubbornly refuses to spread into the population in general, even 20 years after its discovery, despite dire warnings to the contrary. These diseases are acquired directly through the sexual behavior homosexual activists are asking Americans to legally endorse and protect. Yet, as professor Jerome Lejeune of Descartes University, Paris, says of AIDS: "Only God can truly pardon the one who violates His laws; man pardons at times; Nature never pardons at all: She is not a person." The brutal consequences of attempting to break the natural law are not bigoted or hateful, nor are those, like Dr. Laura, Cal Thomas or Gary Morella, who try to point out the dangers and simple truths. We are seeing the natural consequences of violating nature's laws now. They are also a warning to prevent the ultimate eternal consequences. How many will ignore that warning and continue to call the messenger a bigot and continue to shake their fist at God? How many will heed that warning of a loving Father, ready to forgive and reconcile His prodigal children? |
Having said that, I suppose the one area of "legitimate" inquiry for those who are past personal revulsion, biblical nostrums, etc, is that of public health matters.
The Natural Law ain't yur strong point, huh? Most reasonable folk know the basics of right and wrong, and that there are different degrees of evil.
That is simple, standard Christian moral theology 101.
What about women past menopause? People who are sterile? Is it immoral for them to have sex?
My 10 year old knows the difference between acts deliberately illicit and those for whom the acts carry no negative connotation whatsoever.
Only the simplest or those building straw men would pose that the Church fails to differentiate between acts deliberately made infecund and those acts that are infecund through no fault of those performing them.
its hard to believe you even ask such.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.