Replies

Unfortunately, I do think a great deal more about this topic than I would prefer. Sadly, advocates of homosexual behavior will not allow it to be otherwise.

Consider the following: Homosexual advocates initiate lawsuits against the Boy Scouts demanding that the organization change to accommodate homosexuals despite nearly a century of that organization’s service to this nation in providing outstandingly responsible and productive citizens through the program that belongs solely to that private organization. They demand society change the definition of marriage that is millennia old, purely on the basis of “they want it” regardless of any potential negative impacts or what a majority of their fellow citizens may want. They demand to be treated with respect despite the fact that, as a group, huge percentages of that group haven’t earned respect with honorable and principled actions. In fact, if there is evidence of any justifiable opinions about homosexuals as a group on the basis of the empirical evidence, it is not respect that a huge percentage of this group has earned, it is just the opposite, contempt. They hold ludicrously lewd celebrations at a family oriented place like Disney World in front of families with small children and assert that if any one is be offended they are “homophobes” and “hate mongers,” etc. They organize parades through public streets in states of dress (or lack thereof) and actions that are indecent in anyone’s definition. They refuse to condemn an organization such as NAMBLA which dedicated to pedophilia.

Do you think that normal citizenry should not be thinking about this topic and formulating principled responses to counter it?

..definition of marriage that is millennia old,,

Jesus said (in Hebrews 8 I believe) that he was replacing some of the old Hebrew laws with new laws. He was doing this because the hearts of men in Jesus' time were less hard than they were in the previous millenium. For example, live sacrifices would no longer be required.

Jesus recognized that as people grow more civilized they can live under less restrictive laws. Just because something was required a thousand years ago does not mean that it is correct now.

In Genesis 16, Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar. Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command. Do you believe that in 2003 your wife can give you permission to rape your maid?

Numbers 5:11-31 describes a magical ritual that pregnant women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly and have a miscarriage (forced abortion). Do you advocate men treating their wives this way in 2003?

This is an interesting debate but you still have not addressed the issue of my original statement: homosexuality serves the useful purpose of exposing bigots.