My opinion is it's not the crux that ideally children are raised by both genders, but that ideally they're raised by both gender roles. And as far as I can tell, homosexual couples typically contain a more feminized member and a more masculinized one.

And ideally children are raised by people who actually want children. In this case, the experience I'm "denying myself" is not like going for bungee jumping; it involves bringing a new life into the world and a long-term commitment. That's not something I'd jump into just to check it off the list of pieces of the overall human experience experienced.

I don't know what God has in store for me, but I'm 48 this year, and I'm not exactly Abraham. It seems plausible to me that children aren't necessarily for everyone. I can accept that I'm defective in this regard, if that's what it means. My soft spot as far as nurturing desire and ability for great tolerance is for dogs.

From your referenced article:

I completely disagree. Social/societal engineering is not a moral, legitimate role of government. Government is to keep a modicum of order, and otherwise not interfere or try to influence people in doing what they want. I'm not here to generate any particular kind of citizen for the next generation of this country, any more than I'm here to sustain the earth. The planet, this country, and abstract concepts don't have souls. I does. Everything will pass away except us. We exist for a larger purpose.

Besides, I don't believe in the powerlessness or apathy of God in working His will in this world any more than I believe in a fragile earth. Nothing can happen that He doesn't allow, and He has an overall plan, which I trust in (except in my moments of doubt and weakness). No matter how raised, God's law, and ergo knowledge of His existence, is written on our hearts: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034798/Children-born-know-right-wrong-new-research-shows.html et al.

I thought you were in favor of legislating (Catholic) morality, so I'm confused.

And I don't see how our systems encourage sin. "Encouraging" is not the same as "allowing", because it's fully one step further. God did not encourage Adam and Eve to sin by having the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden.

But I couldn't disagree with you any amount more on the following:

The chaos is the point, but the lesson is not in overcoming it (and hence becoming gods ourselves), but to figure out that we ultimately can't overcome it, and need God. That left to our own devices, only chaos will and can ensue. Satan does not exactly foster evil on this earth towards us learning from it to better ourselves.

Evidently this "replenishment" you speak of is having children? Gay couples can always adopt, if you're suggesting that when the initial passion has faded that a love relationship needs the pitter patter of little feet to keep it going. Or are you saying that a love relationship can only be replenished by the raising of blood offspring?

Maybe I'd believe differently if I was Married With Children[TM], but since I don't want kids, I cling to the idea that a relationship can be whatever the people involved decide to make of it. But I'm also unmarried, so I will concede there's a chance I could just be highly naive about this. I'd still like to find out, even though it looks like you're saying it's doomed to failure.

Here, let me Google that for you:

http://www.lp.org/platform:

Believing that abortion should be legal without restrictions is what is known as being "pro-choice" on the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion:

That even half of the people you know who are registered members of the Libertarian Party are pro-choice, is a galling absurdity of epic proportions. We scientifically know that a fertilized human egg is a genetically distinct individual. And that's not based on predictions from "computer models" or other horseshit that Lefties try to make us swallow as "science". To deny rights to a whole class of human individuals is akin to being pro-slavery in the American South in the 1800's. It renders Libertarianism a farce, and widespread denial of something so fundamental indicates that the majority of the party's support is from people who have latched onto it for just one or a few particular pet issues, like isolationism or drug legalization.

Well, okay, by "legislate morality" I meant "legislate one's side's morality". And not necessarily "the", or God's, morality.

Does God not understand the chaos He's unleashed by giving us Free Will? He could've created us like the rest of the animals, as just more NPC's in this game of life, incapable of reasoning and independent decision making and only led by the set of basic instincts genetically programmed. Like a RPG in a self-play mode. While that would not necessarily be for the common good (animals, depending on species, can work together for the couple or pack, but not for the whole system; instead they compete, and there's inequities in abilities and outcomes), it would by definition mean a sinless reality. But He didn't.

And you do make an interesting point about the Left-wing view of homosexuality, and how if you haven't thought about it much, it really is about giving up a natural right. Marriage is a vow of monogamy, sexually and in other ways, for life. Because childbearing is impossible in a homosexual relationship, to apply the qualities of marriage to homosexual relationships is to seek a vow, for life, of not having children of one's own.

Not something I'd thought about before. That and the now obvious facet of social pressure on homosexuals you mentioned, that implict in even just "coming out" is that you have only homosexual relationships from then on.

p.s. A question pertaining to the liberty of humanness thing: Why have children then? They can disobey you, ignore your wisdom and guidance, turn on you, totally mess up their lives and greatly affect those around them. Your bringing other human beings into the world is potentially just unleashing even more chaos in the world. More people in the world means more sin in the world, because we are all fallible and weak. Why did you contribute to the problem you speak of, instead of just having some pets instead?

Traditional morality, that is; e.g. the sanctity of (human) life, inalienable rights, the importance of marriage between a man and a woman/the family as a building block of healthy society, reverence for the Creator. All things the Left rejects or scorns, and replaces with their own morality; e.g. abortion/euthanasia is okay as we're just soulless animals that are a little more evolved, rights come from government, homosexual marriage and single parent child rearing is noble, and reverence for the creation.

And of course while I'm sure not all Lefties know who Saul Alinsky is, we know that at least Hillary Clinton, Chris Matthews, and the DOE do as they've mentioned the book by name, so the Leftie elites have at least ingested the Cliffs Notes version, and the rank-and-file Lefties follow the cue of the tactics of their religion's (independent of tactics to push it/force it, it's still a moral code) leaders.

Yes and no.

No in that, they could drop all of their charades like global warming and Conservatism=racism, and just be truthful about what they actually believe, and put that forth. Because it is a coherent belief system (just highly evil).

Yes in that, if you occasionally hear of the results of national political polls in America, you come to the estimation that about one third of us is solid Left (i.e. will approve of Obama and the Democrats no matter what they do/no matter how bad things get), about one third solid Right, and about one third completely mushy, politically. Given that's all they really have left to go after, and given that the mushy people could be talked into a truthful argument by the Left one minute, but then talked out of it by a countering truthful argument by the Right the next, lies can be much more potent, and especially the use of demonization, as far as taking and maintaining ground. I.e it's not that "confuse and distract" as I call it is the only tactic they can use, it's just that it's the only one they choose to use, and probably for good reason as explained (that is when you have no scruples about *how* you get people on your side). I.e. it's the only one they have left that's effective at this point, and for them effectiveness (in advancing Leftism) is like the almighty dollar to a cut-throat capitalist; nothing is so loathesome as to outweigh the pursuit of it.

And this is why DR and Fusta et al. will always only lie to you.

For things like mortgages and student loans, I thought government sticking its grubby paws into things made them too plentiful. Probably also what farm subsidies do.

I would just say that government intervention in the free market creates imbalances. (Which then creates bigger problems than just that.)

But isn't it also spin to call helping yourself to someone else's stuff "sharing"?

You should know better than to call out an instance of non-USian holier than thouness on Slashdot.

So on things in general that are technically not true, but effectively are, is your position that they're bullshit?

Pray do tell? (Expecting a govt. buying spree on HC supplies, like they're doing on bullets?)

I don't think government-run healthcare will cause a shortage of supplies in the country, just in that system. I.e. Sandra Fluke can still go down to the local Target or Walmart and get birth controls pills for $9/month (although I can't imagine her needing them), she just might not be able to always get them "free" from her "daddy" (big govt.).