Friday, December 22, 2006
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
2:03 PM
In a Christmas message to the Rome based clergy Pope Benedict has not tip-toed but rather plunged directly into the debate over the morality of immoral sexual unions.
Finally someone speaking sense on the issue...
"I cannot hide my concern about legislation on de facto couples," the Pope said in a Christmas address to the Rome clergy, weighing into a raging debate in Italy over what legal rights should be given to unmarried and gay couples.
"If they say the Church shouldn't interfere in these matters, then we can only reply: should mankind perhaps not interest us?" he said.
And then he added:
"This tacitly accredits those dismal theories that strip all relevance from the masculinity and femininity of the human being as though it were a purely biological issue," the Pope said.
Theories "according to which man should be able to decide autonomously what he is and what he isn't," end up with mankind destroying its own identity, he said.
My admiration for this Pope continues to grow. Particularly because he is so unwilling to play the political correctness game which is laced with lies - and helps no one understand the truth.
Follow up reading that I highly recommend.
Why Gays Can Not Be Pro-Choice
Why Gays Hate Marriage
Why Would Gays Want Children
Right, it is incredibly important that the pope speak up on this issue, as innocent people and children are dying because of gay marriage. Or is that the war in Iraq I'm thinking of? Oh yeah. But you support that... Interesting "morality" you have.
It's a shame that the pope decided to speak about something negatively at this time of year! Even at Christmastime, it's doom and gloom... |
|
Your article explaining why homosexuals hate the institution of marriage is right on the mark. That's the same conclusion I arrived at while trying to befriend and help a homosexual in California. You are also right to say that homosexuals know that they are wrong and are attempting to feel better about themselves by convincing others that their "sexuality" is good, moral, and acceptable.
Even if they managed to do that, they would suffer the same inner pain - because deep inside they know.
Thanks for your honest articulation of this critical subject. |
|
I'm new to Townhall.com and am excited to have access to ideas that are generally not talked about in the University where I work. Thomas Sowell and John Stossel have both impressed me. But I'm sorry to say Kevin has just reached my "don't bother his mind is sloppy" list.
As a libertarian I am persuaded by the intelligent convervative arguments on economics and the free market. Sowell's concern for actual data impresses me as well. It's too bad Kevin can't learn how to apply that to issues on which his religious fervor are involved.
First, all the talk of "sin" and "God's Law" should make you all very uncomfortable. The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination - which you all seem to know. What you haven't said, and probably don't know because as far as I can tell I'm the only person on the freakin' planet that actually bothered to read the Bible, is that the punishment for homosexual behavior is death. Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
So for those of you who claim, I'll say it - wrongly, that you get your morality from the Bible please stop. If you accept God's morality because it's in the Bible you have to advocate the wholesale slaughter of practicing homosexuals - well, male homosexuals. Until you do that, you'll have to justify your arguments with something other than the Bible. Which is good, because a lot of conservative principles do not stem from the Bible: democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion (which, if anyone bothered to read them, is outlawed under the 10 commandments), limited government, inalienable rights and equality under the law.
Secondly, if for only practical reasons, conservatives should be courting the gay vote not telling them they want to destroy marriage. They don't want to destroy marriage - they want to be able to get married. They want people to accept that they have the same feelings and emotional attachments to their partners that heterosexuals have for each other. I don't actually know if that's true, and I don't care that much about gay marriage, but they certainly aren't asking to destroy it so they can urinate on straight people's dreams while smoking crack and tongue-kissing Satan. Your paranoia has gotten the best of you.
Thirdly, the obsession with "choosing to be gay" is about as silly as you can get. A previous poster hit it right when he said preferences aren't choosen. A simple thought experiment shows it: if monitor the heart rate of a gay and straight man as they look at gay pornography you'll see the gay man's heartrate increase. That isn't chosen, obviously, there's something different about the brain of the gay man. We don't know exactly what, but it certainly isn't the spleen or liver that's different. Kevin said there's nothing different about homosexuals in the first article he links. That's ridiculous. They're gay, that's what's different.
Finally, the one redeeming point Kevin made was that the costs of homosexual sex are not widely known, and we can't rely on a liberal media to spread them. Unfortunately we can't rely on people like Kevin either as he's so thoroughly disgusted with homosexuality that he can't think straight about choice, biology or the role of government. A calm, reasonable voice that doesn't feel the need to wag his finger at gays and tell them they're wrong should inform the public that gay men are at increased risk of STDs, murder, suicide and other problems. That's important information and if we could all try to think of solutions that don't involve lording our moral superiority over those who are different we might make some progress.
|
|
|