Fractelle

You are either spiritually blind or willfully ignorant when it comes to throwing aspersions over God's character. Your inference is that you are the good moral one while God is the evil virgin hating one.

You might think that your own delusion justifies perverse behaviour but you are wrong. You are a good example of God's long suffering in wishing for none to perish but all to come to life. Your isolated twisting of Scriptures is typical of those who have issues in their lives that they won't address.

Dear Fractelle....

welcome back..

On the "Lot" issue you might like to revisit that, the basic problem with understanding such passages is that they are simply reporting events, not making value judgements on them.

A classic example is the incident where Lot's daughters got him drunk, had sexual relations with him and became pregnant by him.
If it happened like that.. it is reported like that..

None of these reports suggests such behavior is either good or beneficial. For 'value' judgements we must look at the 'commandments' and specific teaching on 'yes/no'...'good/bad'...'right/wrong'.. and the Law is the usual place to find that.

Just because the Daily Terrorgraph reports Richard Pratt doing bad things, does not mean they hold him up as any kind of example.. right?

For all those writing in favor of the normality of homosexual behavior, I'm sorry.. ur plain wrong.

The normality of human reproduction, and its associated sexual activity is purely heterosexual.

The only way that 'homo'sexual activity can be considered 'normal' is if you say "Deriving pleasure from other peoples bodies" is normal... but then.. that could lead us down many untoward paths with unknown (?) or emotionally unacceptable destinations.. the 'Highway to Hell' from AC/DC comes to mind there.

Pleasure is normal... wanting it.. is normal.. how we get it, is something we all should consider very carefully in my view.
All actions have consequences, some temporal, others eternal.

Ozbiz writes:

"John, capitalism can't see anything. so how is your comment to be interpreted? Some capitalists are gay, and others accept homosexual law reform, so it can't be that you mean that capitalists see the family unit as the best model. Nor can you mean that capitalist ideology encourages people to see women and the family in this light, since that plainly false. It may assist the survival of the capitalist system to have traditional families. But where is the connection to how people think? And where is your evidence as to Rudd's motivation?"

Yes I should have referred to the bourgeoisie or bosses or capitalist class.

It is true that some capitalists are gay. That was the case when such normal human activity was ciminalised. That criminalisation was not aimed at the ruling class but the working class. There were the occasional show trials (eg of Oscar Wilde) to show the working class the consequences of "bad" behavious, just as we have show trials today.

A member of the ruling class and their individual preferences (sexual, drug or otherwise) can contradict their class's needs. Their individual actions don't threaten the position of the bourgeoisie, unlike such activity among workers. If all workers discovered drugs and sex and rock and roll to the exclusion of work, profit would fall markedly.

The pink dollar doesn't help here; it only reinforces the idea that homosexual behaviour is different and needs to be quarantined away from the rest of society. It reinforces the concept of difference; it does not challenge it.

What is the basis of the Intergenerational report; the baby bonus? What drives the political expression of the ruling class to push the idea that the more babies the better? What pushes Rudd to adopt this and to proclaim with Howard that the family is the bedrock institution in our sciety? (If he hasn't yet done so, he soon will.) What drives Rudd to oppose gay marriage?

Only radically changing the relations of production can liberate humanity from the straight jacket of wage slavery and sexual and other oppressions.

Polycarp. Do you know the meaning of love, for what ever form it comes in is beautiful.
Its not all about tonights the night! As your posting appears to be saying!

Classic stuff this “The nature of capitalism is such that it still sees the family unit as the best model for cheaply producing the next generation of workers.”

Modern capitalists think of the “family unit” not so much as its workers but as consumers/customers.

A “gay family unit” is as valid as a “heterosexual family unit”

both are consumers and therefore both are potential customers of the products and services which the innovative capitalists risk all to bring to market.

Of course, as commercially motivated innovators, a capitalist will do nothing to diminish a market opportunity,

The capitalist is more likely to respond to a homosexual union by seeking to market to the particular needs of the “gay family unit” (like making beds with rubber teeth grips on the head board).

Of course, the anti-capitalist movement (as far as it still exists) was formed on the values that

Marx may well have ‘accommodated’ homosexuality but Engels far less so.

Lenin de-criminalised it, Stalin and his successors re-criminalised it.

Gorky is quoted in Proletarian Humanism” (1934):
“Exterminate homosexuals and Fascism will disappear”

Sad really, so desperate for an angle, this drivel is designed as wedge politics between a seemingly successful and legal homosexual social group and a seemingly successful legal capitalist social group by a group of failed economic and social theorists whose reality was mass starvation, imprisonment and walls to stop people from migrating to freedom.

I always have difficulty believing arguments that a certain 'class' or economic framework somehow conspired to cause a particular social agenda.

Shady backroom deals to benefit a ruling elite can't occur on such a broad scale. To benefit a single company, sure, but extending this to a grand plan to benefit all companies through enforced heterosexuality is just a leap too far in my view.

Sure, economic systems can cause social change, but it's the 'intent' part I have issue with. Who are these mysterious backroom people who made shady deals with the churches? When did these agreements happen? How could they be put into place?

Seems more like good ole' fashioned discrimination to me.