You are so right. When I see a couple who to all appearances are of good genetic material choose to go childless so they can avoid responsibility and spend more time amusing themselves with stupid and insignificant activities, I regard them as pathetic, shallow creatures leading meaningless lives.

RE: All the “Christians” (ought to) tell us that there is nothing more Holy despicable than adopting third world children. I do not believe in hell but these are some of the most deserving people I know of.

P.S. The anonymous comment wasn’t.

It is much easier to discuss where Falwell, Robertson et al go right. See my comprehensive analysis below.

——————————————————–
begin comprehensive analysis
end comprehensive analysis
——————————————————–

I used to miss my dad — a lot. He worked hard all day, and often went to the office on weekends. When I heard on the radio the words “women’s lib,” I asked her what that meant. She said something to the effect that it meant that both parents could work now. Of course I was wondering why that was a good thing. I knew how tired out my dad was whenever he came home. I asked my mom more questions, and she told me that both parent could work forty hours a week. I thought this meant that my mom would work half and my dad would work half. That meant my dad would be home more often and we could go out and hunt or whatever it was that fathers were supposed to teach their sons.

Wrong. The next thing I knew, my mom had my dad pack his bags and out the door he went. I never saw him from the age I was eight until I was sixteen. He continued to work hard for us in the office, though, and sent child support. My mom, then went to work. Her life fell apart. She became abjectly miserable all the time. The house became a mess, symbolic of the chaos that society had become.

Yes, maybe I used to be bitter. It doesn’t matter anymore. But ask me how I define “women’s liberation” and I will tell you “mother stealers,” and if you get my trust, I’ll add on “home-breakers,” “child abusers,” — and yes, “women-slavers.”

I still have trouble dating women with short hair.

Where Falwell, Robertson, et al go wrong is that even if homosexuality were inherited, and in some cases the tendency might be, it would still be a sin. They spend so much time insisting it’s not inherited, but out of the other corner of their mouth they say we are born with a sin nature, which is true. Everyone has a weakness. Everyone has a sin nature. I believe some people could even have a higher tendency to murder. Does this mean they will inevitably murder someone? Perhaps they have a hot temper and have a hard time controlling themselves. This doesn’t excuse them for murder… they would still go to jail. Not all hot-tempered people kill.

Why are so many priests child molesters? Could it be that many homos who want to repress their nature join the priesthood because of Catholicism’s arcane rules against priest marriage and, since they wouldn’t marry anyway, want to try and serve God that way? Some would naturally stray and, like many homos, their true nature would come out in the form of child molestation? Some might stay true and repress it all their lives, staying celebate, and good for them if they do! But either way, there is no excuse for homosexuality. They should still go to jail.

Scott