Will the Real Sodomy Party Please Stand Up?
--by David A. Noebel
One has to shake the head violently to see if the neurons are still connected to believe that all of a sudden the Republican Party is the party of Sodom and Gomorrah. Can the pro-homosexual mass media make this stick? We'll see in a few weeks!
Everyone with an ounce of grey matter knows that the Democratic Party is the Sodomy Party in America. There hasn't been a homosexual issue that the Democrats haven't either backed or initiated since the ACLU determined that homosexuality would make a great stick to poke in the eyes of conservatives, traditionalists, and all natural law advocates. There hasn't been a gay pride parade which hasn't been led by a Democratic politician! There hasn't been a gay pride book for first graders not endorsed by Democrats.
Why not openly admit that only the morally-challenged can seriously come to the conclusion that homosexual practices (sodomy, et. al.) are normal, healthy and moral! And while we are at it why not also openly admit that homosexual practices also strike at the heart of God's creative order of male and female. Using the male arse as female practice is a direct insult to the Creator!
The Democrats gave away their innocence on this matter when their Massachusetts congressman (Gerry Studds) was found with child (a 16 year old Congressional page) and censored by the House for his pedophilia acts. However, once he was re-elected by the morally-challenged of Massachusetts the Democrats looked upon this as the up and coming issue to win elections. And so for at least 25 years the Democratic Party has paved the way for the homosexual agenda-- an agenda to place homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality and hence gay marriage, gay adoption, gay rights, gay everything! As Don Feder says, "Gay rights has become as much a part of Democratic orthodoxy as abortion-on-demand." Both are part and parcel of the culture of death. Gay marriage, even on Kant's categorical imperative standard of ethical behavior, is a dead end.
There is much more. Follow the link above for the rest. I'll offer my personal thoughts in comments.
from the mind of... Eric | 9:14 AM
6 Comments:
I'm sorry EL, you're wrong. 100% wrong. Gay sex is natural. Homosexuality has been observed in more that 1500 animal species. There are two male penguins in the Washington DC Zoo that have been mates for years, even though females in heat were available. There are cases of same-sex whales that have been mated for years. In lions and wolves lower ranking animals offers themselves for sex in order to bond with the pack and move up in hierarchy. In field mice as the population density increases there are observable increases in homsexual sex. Animals, including people, are built to enjoy all kinds of sex. Saying that homosexuality is unnatural is untrue.
You're also 100% wrong when you link pedophilia and homosexuality. There is no more evidence for this idea than you and Mr. Noebel's distaste for two the idea of women porking each other. (In all these condemnations of gay sex you never see anyone criticizing lesbianism. Perhaps because its been a large male fantasy for several decades now.) Once you accept the idea that all homosexual men are looking for young flesh, doesn't it automatically follow that all lesbians just want the little girls. For an idea like this to be true, you almost have to posit that homosexuals are an entirely different species, with an entirely different set of animal drives. But that would instead validate homosexuality as part of the natural order...if it were true, which it is not.
Lesbianism IS homosexuality, BenT. When I condemn homosexuality I condemn it from both the male and female perspective.
And your myriad examples within the animal kingdom are irrelevant since they will not be judged by God for sin.
"Why not openly admit that only the morally-challenged can seriously come to the conclusion that homosexual practices are normal, healthy and moral!"
[With apologies to Ben for engaging in some in-house discussion with a fellow church-goer - honestly, I know this stuff is a drag.]
Why not? Because it is a wrong assumption. How am I morally challenged? This Christian, Bible-reading and believing, husband, father, church-going relatively-decent fella has heard your position on homosexuality and society and the bible and reject it as not true.
What about that makes me morally-challenged?
And, I'll ask my earlier question in a new way: You have said that you accept that I'm a Christian (thank you, kindly) as I accept that you're a Christian.
I believe this Iraq Invasion is morally wrong. You believe it is morally correct.
It seems to me that only one of us can possibly be correct.
If that is the case, then at least one of us is WRONG about this particular sin (or "not sin"). Does the fact that one of us is wrong about this sin mean that that believer is not saved? Not going to heaven?
Or, can it be possible to be incorrect about a sin and still be a Christian?
I thought your precept was that homosexuality is unnatural. I was addressing that issue. If you want to debate the issue from a moral standpoint, which moral system do you want to use? The legal moral system, the christian moral system, the asian moral system.
In a post on another thread I gave my opion of your dependence on an ancient text for a moral compass. Why should your moral opinions guide my life and country?
"Homosexuality has been observed in more that 1500 animal species."
Gawd!
By who? A bunch of fags looking for affirmation?
Or a group of atheists who need to be their own God?
Have mercy!
its sad that such people as you exist but then we as humans have the crazy choice of creating beliefs which some people such as yourself delude themselves are fact.
Im still waiting on the God evidence myself . Meanwhile I will remain gay and happy, and hope George Bushs god judges his sins against humanity
Post a Comment
<< Home