2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
We are the answer. We have the power to have our land healed. But we need to repent and call on God. Before we do anyting else (and all those other things are needed) we need to pray
Askel5. You bring up lots of good points but they miss the point.
I had a similar discussion with Luis Gonzalez (Hope I spelled that right) the other day. Look at the defense of marriage like the defense of our borders.
Just because we can't stop every last illegal from getting in should we let all of them in? No, we should defend as best we can.
My point is that there is absolutely no use in decrying homosexuality
It is always useful to fight against evil
while at the same time reserving for heterosexuality the perks of non-procreative sex and marriages not premised on the formation of Family as reserved strictly for those who can have children on their own without the assistance of artificial reproduction.
I find nothing wrong with non-procreative sex within the bounds of marrriage as long as an abortifacient is not used. (As I understand it every form of birth control pill is actually abortifacient). I can find nothing in the bible to support banning barrier methods or coitus interuptus.
I also find nothing wrong with medical assistance for reproduction. (There is no such thing as artificial reproduction, Either the sperm joins the egg or it doesn't) Some people need assistance to conceive. Just as God gave us medical knowledge to cure cancers and other diseases God gave us the knowledge to help the infertile to fulfill the command to go forth and multiply. Of course I do not agree with surrogate mothers etc. If we cannot use the knowledge God gave us to cure infertility then we are equally wrong to use medical knowledge to cure cancer. Again I find nothing in the bible that bans use of medical knowlegde.
the return of a right to obligate one's self for Life which has been deconstructed by 'no-fault' divorce.
Agree entirely. Marriage should only end due to adultery or criminal activity (abuse) and the at-fault party should lose everything.
Another important move would be the rescinding of all assistance for single mothers by which the State hedges its bets that unPlanned pregnancies will end in abortion.
One assistance that should exist is prenatal care and adoption assistance. All of this should be in services not in cash. Otherwise I agree. Sex is for married people only.
Performing an abortion should be treated as capital murder. It is always premeditated, the victim is always innocent and defenseless. Legally execute a few of these 'doctors' and the whole problem goes away. (Until we get to that point however we still need to keep fighting)
That all said, refusing to fight the 'homosexual' assault until we have these issues fixed is exactly the same as saying "OK sodomize me and my children legally". Just because we can't stop every fist fight is no reason to make murder legal.
Interesting you mention this and direct it to LJ even if Saint Teresa was hitting me hard on the subject en route to work today. (I'm reading her "Interior Castles" at the moment.)
Fighting the evil of homosexuality is not going to be accomplished by sweeping legislation to outlaw a behavior you have no hope in hell (literally) of stopping. That's something better left to the "each one save one" approach whereby we leave no family member left behind (as best we can).
Understand that I'm opposed to homosexual marriage but I see no possible foundation for arguing that it is illegitimate given the state of affairs of heterosexual marriage right now.
I also don't see the point in pretending we are preserving solely for heterosexuals a privilege of recognition from a "moral" or just state when our government is anything but moral. I think that this flawed debate serves one very insidious purpose that is the pretense of the U.S. Government as some kind of stronghold against evil when -- to the contary -- the U.S. Govenment is a leading proponent of the Culture of Death as couched by its judiciary and exported worldwide under the guise of various US-AIDs.
=== I find nothing wrong with non-procreative sex within the bounds of marrriage as long as an abortifacient is not used.
Most sex is non-procreative. That is only natural.
=== (As I understand it every form of birth control pill is actually abortifacient).
Many more effective means of jacking with the female body are used but the rendering of the womb from natural home to hostile environment is the failsafe operation by which any human life which is conceived is doomed.
=== I can find nothing in the bible to support banning barrier methods or coitus interuptus.
I find it astounding that Christians so devout as to uphold the Bible as the be-all, end-all of human affairs can -- in the same breath -- evidence their refusal to allow the Creator a hand in making their every union fruitful if He so desired.
What gives you the right to shut God out of the one truly potent and world-changing act of the Co-Creator man that is reproduction? Where do you find that in the Bible?
==== I also find nothing wrong with medical assistance for reproduction. (There is no such thing as artificial reproduction, Either the sperm joins the egg or it doesn't) Some people need assistance to conceive.
Where is the acceptance of God's will in this equation?
There are indeed moral means of assisting humans to conceive. But there also are patently immoral means ... including the manufacture of the Excess human life our "pro-life" President used as he legitimized the use of human beings as a cash crop.
Here are some cogent points I hope you will consider as each comports perfectly with the body of Scripture as well as the objective truth of the matter (courtesy of reason) which safeguards from the rationalizations and "personal interpretations" by which each feels entitled to his own comfort level with whatever technology is proferred under whatever guise of "humanitarian" assist.
And, most importantly in my view, they carefully include ALWAYS the third party to the sexual relationship that is the child who -- if God has a hand in the conjugal union -- may be conceived therefrom.
2376. "Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral.
These techniques (heterologous ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage.
They betray the spouses' 'right to become a father and a mother only through each other.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 1.]">
2377. "Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable.
They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that 'entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.
Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 5.]
'Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union .... Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 4.]"
(To view the context, please visit Article 2376, 2377)
Actually the pill, and the hormones therein, fools the woman's body into thinking she is already pregnant. When she reaches the week that they have the placebo pills the hormone level then drops off and there is what they call withdrawal bleeding similar to the menstrual bleeding.
After this the cycle starts over but the hormone that would usually be released (LH I think) to cause ovulation does not occur so no egg even matures in the ovaries to be ovulated.