http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=331

The Old Morality Still Matters

Those of us who insisted the old morality provided the best guidance
for life have already been tagged as evil oppressors.

Either we toss out all references to sexual sin and accept everything,
or we run toward the old morality.

For to throw off the
restraint of the Seventh Commandment is to damn the other nine as well,
and then there is no restraint on humans, save brute force.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=331


The Old Morality Still Matters


Ask any homosexual activist whether it is any business of yours with
whom they choose to have sex, especially when that choice means someone
of the same gender. The answer will be unanimous: this is private,
consensual and none of your business! Of course, homosexual activist go
beyond even this.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=331


The Old Morality Still Matters

We need to reassert the absolute truth that God created all of us as
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Allen, or Eve and Evelyn. The old morality
still matters.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=331


The Old Morality Still Matters


Ask any homosexual activist whether it is any business of yours with
whom they choose to have sex, especially when that choice means someone
of the same gender. The answer will be unanimous: this is private,
consensual and none of your business! Of course, homosexual activist go
beyond even this.

The homosexual activist claims a right to openly live out their sexual
preference and we must accept it. They argue that what they do in the
privacy of their bedrooms is none of our business, and neither is it
our business if they hold hands in public.

The old morality, based on the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not
commit adultery," argues that at least to some extent, the privacy of
the bedroom is everyone's concern. Yet most of us would agree that if
homosexuals kept their sexuality in the bedroom, we would likely look
the other way - unless they took captive one of our children.

As a matter of public policy, the old morality relegated homosexuality
to the closet.

Kinsey, in his highly structured lie that passed as
research, told us that 10 percent of the male population was
homosexual. Leaping at these phony statistics, we have been told that
such large numbers - logically 28 million Americans - deserve
public recognition. But simply recognizing them soon failed to
accomplish their goal. They wanted more.

They wanted tolerance, and then acceptance. All the time, the
homosexual activists argued that they just wanted to be able to live
their lives the way God created them. Never mind that no serious
science has ever proven such a claim; Kinsey served their needs well
enough. So homosexual activists told America to shape up and accept
homosexuality just as we had other minority groups.

When we argued that being black is natural, not immoral, they argued
that governments should be neutral on issues dealing with moral
choices. One person's sense of morality differed with another, just
like some people liked beef and others, chicken. Whatever sexual
preference a person preferred is nothing more than that - sexual
preference. There would be no negative public ramifications from the
institution of such a government policy, they argued.

When we argued for limits on sexual activity, the homosexual activists
illogic offered them no real argument, save their own preference. We
see the mechanics used by homosexuals to gain sexual release as
immoral, sometimes animalistic and even barbaric, but only because,
they argued, we had a different sexual preference. Though when
confronted by some of the more extreme sexual preferences, the
homosexuals found themselves in a moral vacuum.

How could they oppose group sex when that was someone else's sexual
preference? How could they oppose cross dressing or transsexual surgery
when it would make someone else feel comfortable? (I still cannot
fathom having Debbie Davis, a male who dresses as a woman, serving as
my children's school librarian, as he does in a Minneapolis high
school.)

When they ran into strong opposition from public school children they
created new curriculum which they claimed had been perpetrated by the
old morality.

So an entire generation has been taught that being
homosexual is no different than having freckles, and no freckle-faced
kid deserves derision.

Generation X Christian in public schools were
fed this pabulum all through school. Whatever we call today's grade
schoolers are seeped in this putrifying sap of accepting all sexual
preferences as equal.

It's as if the founding fathers held hands and said, "God created
the unalienable right to unfettered sexual expression." They never
said it because they believed in the old morality. They built a nation
on those 10 Commandments, and they knew that a nation that snubbed God
held itself out for His judgment.

Why, then, should anyone have been surprised by the recent St. Paul
Pioneer Press article that explained how academia has now begun
championing pedophilia?

Just like Judith Levine's perverted logic in
Harmful to Minors, the newspaper claims that within a generation or so,
Americans will accept not only same sex groping, but intergenerational
groping. They tell us that having sex with a willing little boy or girl
will be the rage, and society be damned - it is the sexual preference
of the parties.

Say what they might, homosexuals have no moral footing upon which to
stand to deny willing children their right to fornicate with whomever
they choose. By pointing at others and condemning their sexual
promiscuity, they will be pointed three fingers back at themselves.

Those of us who insisted the old morality provided the best guidance
for life have already been tagged as evil oppressors. To what will
those accusers point as their reference for limitations on adult-child
sex?

How will they make the argument that what these perverted adults
do to children in the dark of a bedroom is wrong, while not
incriminating themselves?

Either we toss out all references to sexual sin and accept everything,
or we run toward the old morality. I think it is the difference between
life and death of millions of human beings. For to throw off the
restraint of the Seventh Commandment is to damn the other nine as well,
and then there is no restraint on humans, save brute force.

We need to reassert the absolute truth that God created all of us as
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Allen, or Eve and Evelyn. The old morality
still matters.

The Old Morality Still Matters

=20
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3D331
=20
=20
The Old Morality Still Matters
=20
=20
Ask any homosexual activist whether it is any business of yours with
whom they choose to have sex, especially when that choice means someone=
of the same gender. The answer will be unanimous: this is private,
consensual and none of your business! Of course, homosexual activist go=
beyond even this.

=20
The homosexual activist claims a right to openly live out their sexual
preference and we must accept it. They argue that what they do in the
privacy of their bedrooms is none of our business, and neither is it
our business if they hold hands in public.
=20

The old morality, based on the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not
commit adultery," argues that at least to some extent, the privacy of
the bedroom is everyone's concern. Yet most of us would agree that if
homosexuals kept their sexuality in the bedroom, we would likely look
the other way - unless they took captive one of our children.

The old morality still matters.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=331


The Old Morality Still Matters

Ask any homosexual activist whether it is any business of yours with
whom they choose to have sex, especially when that choice means som eone
of the same gender. The answer will be unanimous: this is private,
consensual and none of your business! Of course, homosexual activist go
beyond even this.

The homosexual activist claims a right to openly live out their sexual
preferenc e and we must accept it. They argue that what they do in the
privacy of their bedrooms is none of our business, and neither is it
our business if they hold hands in public.

The old morality, based on the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not
com mit adultery," argues that at least to some extent, the privacy of
the bedroom is everyone's concern. Yet most of us would agree that if
homosexuals kept their sexuality in the bedroom, we would likely look
the other way - unless they took captive o ne of our children.

As a matter of public policy, the old morality relegated homosexuality
to the closet. Kinsey, in his highly structured lie that passed as
research, told us that 10 percent of the male population was
homosexual. Leaping at th ese phony statistics, we have been told that
such large numbers - logically 28 million Americans - deserve
public recognition. But simply recognizing them soon failed to
accomplish their goal. They wanted more.

They wanted tolerance, and then a cceptance. All the time, the
homosexual activists argued that they just wanted to be able to live
their lives the way God created them. Never mind that no serious
science has ever proven such a claim; Kinsey served their needs well
enough. So homo sexual activists told America to shape up and accept
homosexuality just as we had other minority groups.

When we argued that being black is natural, not immoral, they argued
that governments should be neutral on issues dealing with moral
choice s. One person's sense of morality differed with another, just
like some people liked beef and others, chicken. Whatever sexual
preference a person preferred is nothing more than that - sexual
preference. There would be no negative public ramifications from the
institution of such a government policy, they argued.

When we argued for limits on sexual activity, the homosexual activists
illogic offered them no real argument, save their own preference. We
see the mechanics used by homosexuals to gain sexual release as
immoral, sometimes animalistic and even barbaric, but only because,
they argued, we had a different sexual preference. Though when
confronted by some of the more extreme sexual preferences, the
homosexuals found themselve s in a moral vacuum.

How could they oppose group sex when that was someone else's sexual
preference? How could they oppose cross dressing or transsexual surgery
when it would make someone else feel comfortable? (I still cannot
fathom having Deb bie Davis, a male who dresses as a woman, serving as
my children's school librarian, as he does in a Minneapolis high
school.)

When they ran into strong opposition from public school children they
created new curriculum which they claimed had b een perpetrated by the
old morality. So an entire generation has been taught that being
homosexual is no different than having freckles, and no freckle-faced
kid deserves derision. Generation X Christian in public schools were
fed this pabulum all through school. Whatever we call today's grade
schoolers are seeped in this putrifying sap of accepting all sexual
preferences as equal.

It's as if the founding fathers held hands and said, "God created
the unalienable right to unfettered sexu al expression." They never
said it because they believed in the old morality. They built a nation
on those 10 Commandments, and they knew that a nation that snubbed God
held itself out for His judgment.

Why, then, should anyone have been surprised by the recent St. Paul
Pioneer Press article that explained how academia has now begun
championing pedophilia? Just like Judith Levine's perverted logic in
Harmful to Minors, the newspaper claims that within a generation or so,
Americans will accept not only same sex groping, but intergenerational
groping. They tell us that having sex with a willing little boy or girl
will be the rage, and society be damned - it is the sexual preference
of the parties.

Say what they might, homosexua ls have no moral footing upon which to
stand to deny willing children their right to fornicate with whomever
they choose. By pointing at others and condemning their sexual
promiscuity, they will be pointed three fingers back at themselves.

Thos e of us who insisted the old morality provided the best guidance
for life have already been tagged as evil oppressors. To what will
those accusers point as their reference for limitations on adult-child
sex? How will they make the argument that what these perverted adults
do to children in the dark of a bedroom is wrong, while not
incriminating themselves?

Either we toss out all references to sexual sin and accept everything,
or we run toward the old morality. I think it is the difference between
life and death of millions of human beings. For to throw off the
restraint of the Seventh Commandment is to damn the other nine as well,
and then there is no restraint on humans, save brute force.

We need to reassert the absolute truth that God created all of us as
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Allen, or Eve and Evelyn. The old morality
still matters.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=331


The Old Morality Still Matters


Ask any homosexual activist whether it is any business of yours with
whom they choose to have sex, especially when that choice means someone
of the same gender. The answer will be unanimous: this is private,
consensual and none of your business! Of course, homosexual activist go
beyond even this.

The homosexual activist claims a right to openly live out their sexual
preference and we must accept it. They argue that what they do in the
privacy of their bedrooms is none of our business, and neither is it
our business if they hold hands in public.

The old morality, based on the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not
commit adultery," argues that at least to some extent, the privacy of
the bedroom is everyone's concern. Yet most of us would agree that if
homosexuals kept their sexuality in the bedroom, we would likely look
the other way - unless they took captive one of our children.

As a matter of public policy, the old morality relegated homosexuality
to the closet. Kinsey, in his highly structured lie that passed as
research, told us that 10 percent of the male population was
homosexual. Leaping at these phony statistics, we have been told that
such large numbers - logically 28 million Americans - deserve
public recognition. But simply recognizing them soon failed to
accomplish their goal. They wanted more.

They wanted tolerance, and then acceptance. All the time, the
homosexual activists argued that they just wanted to be able to live
their lives the way God created them. Never mind that no serious
science has ever proven such a claim; Kinsey served their needs well
enough. So homosexual activists told America to shape up and accept
homosexuality just as we had other minority groups.

When we argued that being black is natural, not immoral, they argued
that governments should be neutral on issues dealing with moral
choices. One person's sense of morality differed with another, just
like some people liked beef and others, chicken. Whatever sexual
preference a person preferred is nothing more than that - sexual
preference. There would be no negative public ramifications from the
institution of such a government policy, they argued.

When we argued for limits on sexual activity, the homosexual activists
illogic offered them no real argument, save their own preference. We
see the mechanics used by homosexuals to gain sexual release as
immoral, sometimes animalistic and even barbaric, but only because,
they argued, we had a different sexual preference. Though when
confronted by some of the more extreme sexual preferences, the
homosexuals found themselves in a moral vacuum.

How could they oppose group sex when that was someone else's sexual
preference? How could they oppose cross dressing or transsexual surgery
when it would make someone else feel comfortable? (I still cannot
fathom having Debbie Davis, a male who dresses as a woman, serving as
my children's school librarian, as he does in a Minneapolis high
school.)

When they ran into strong opposition from public school children they
created new curriculum which they claimed had been perpetrated by the
old morality. So an entire generation has been taught that being
homosexual is no different than having freckles, and no freckle-faced
kid deserves derision. Generation X Christian in public schools were
fed this pabulum all through school. Whatever we call today's grade
schoolers are seeped in this putrifying sap of accepting all sexual
preferences as equal.

It's as if the founding fathers held hands and said, "God created
the unalienable right to unfettered sexual expression." They never
said it because they believed in the old morality. They built a nation
on those 10 Commandments, and they knew that a nation that snubbed God
held itself out for His judgment.

Why, then, should anyone have been surprised by the recent St. Paul
Pioneer Press article that explained how academia has now begun
championing pedophilia? Just like Judith Levine's perverted logic in
Harmful to Minors, the newspaper claims that within a generation or so,
Americans will accept not only same sex groping, but intergenerational
groping. They tell us that having sex with a willing little boy or girl
will be the rage, and society be damned - it is the sexual preference
of the parties.

Say what they might, homosexuals have no moral footing upon which to
stand to deny willing children their right to fornicate with whomever
they choose. By pointing at others and condemning their sexual
promiscuity, they will be pointed three fingers back at themselves.

Those of us who insisted the old morality provided the best guidance
for life have already been tagged as evil oppressors. To what will
those accusers point as their reference for limitations on adult-child
sex? How will they make the argument that what these perverted adults
do to children in the dark of a bedroom is wrong, while not
incriminating themselves?

Either we toss out all references to sexual sin and accept everything,
or we run toward the old morality. I think it is the difference between
life and death of millions of human beings. For to throw off the
restraint of the Seventh Commandment is to damn the other nine as well,
and then there is no restraint on humans, save brute force.

We need to reassert the absolute truth that God created all of us as
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Allen, or Eve and Evelyn. The old morality
still matters.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=331

"The Old Morality Still Matters"

By Dave Racer, www.daveracer.com

June 26, 2002

Ask any homosexual activist...

...whether it is any business of yours with whom they choose to
have sex, especially when that choice means someone of the same
gender. The answer will be unanimous: this is private, consensual
and none of your business!

Of course, homosexual activist go beyond even this.

The homosexual activist claims a right to openly live out their
sexual [orientation] and we must accept it.

They argue that what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms is
none of our business, ...

...and neither is it our business if they hold hands in public.

The old morality, based on the Seventh Commandment, "Thou
shalt not commit adultery," argues that at least to some extent, the
privacy of the bedroom is everyone's concern.

Yet most of us would agree that if homosexuals kept their
sexuality in the bedroom, we would likely look the other way --
unless they took captive one of our children.

As a matter of public policy, the old morality...

...relegated homosexuality to the closet.

Kinsey, in his highly structured lie...

...told us that 10 percent of the male population was homosexual.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=331


The Old Morality Still Matters


Ask any homosexual activist whether it is any business of yours with
whom they choose to have sex, especially when that choice means someone
of the same gender. The answer will be unanimous: this is private,
consensual and none of your business! Of course, homosexual activist go
beyond even this.

The homosexual activist claims a right to openly live out their sexual
preference and we must accept it. They argue that what they do in the
privacy of their bedrooms is none of our business, and neither is it
our business if they hold hands in public.

The old morality, based on the Seventh Commandment,

"Thou shalt not
commit adultery," argues that at least to some extent, the privacy of
the bedroom is everyone's concern. Yet most of us would agree that if
homosexuals kept their sexuality in the bedroom, we would likely look
the other way - unless they took captive one of our children.

As a matter of public policy, the old morality relegated homosexuality
to the closet. Kinsey, in his highly structured lie that passed as
research, told us that 10 percent of the male population was
homosexual. Leaping at these phony statistics, we have been told that
such large numbers - logically 28 million Americans - deserve
public recognition. But simply recognizing them soon failed to
accomplish their goal. They wanted more.

They wanted tolerance, and then acceptance. All the time, the
homosexual activists argued that they just wanted to be able to live
their lives the way God

created them. Never mind that no serious
science has ever proven such a claim; Kinsey served their needs well
enough. So homosexual activists told America to shape up and accept
homosexuality just as we had other minority groups.

When we argued that being black is natural, not immoral, they argued
that governments should be neutral on issues dealing with moral
choices. One person's sense of morality differed with another, just
like some people liked beef and others, chicken. Whatever sexual
preference a person preferred is nothing more than that - sexual
preference. There would be no negative public ramifications from the
institution of such a government policy, they argued.

When we argued for limits on sexual activity, the homosexual activists
illogic offered them no real argument, save their own preference. We
see the mechanics used by homosexuals to gain sexual release as
immoral, sometimes animalistic and even barbaric, but only because,
they argued, we had a different sexual preference. Though when
confronted by some of the more extreme sexual preferences, the
homosexuals found themselves in a moral vacuum.

How could they oppose group sex when that was someone else's sexual
preference? How could they oppose cross dressing or transsexual surgery
when it would make someone else feel comfortable? (I still cannot
fathom having Debbie Davis, a male who dresses as a woman, serving as
my children's school librarian, as he does in a Minneapolis high
school.)

When they ran into strong opposition from public school children they
created new curriculum which they claimed had been perpetrated by the
old morality. So an entire generation has been taught that being
homosexual is no different than having freckles, and no freckle-faced
kid deserves derision. Generation X Christian

in public schools were
fed this pabulum all through school. Whatever we call today's grade
schoolers are seeped in this putrifying sap of accepting all sexual
preferences as equal.

It's as if the founding fathers held hands and said, "God created
the unalienable right to unfettered sexual expression." They never
said it because they believed in the old morality. They built a nation
on those 10 Commandments, and they knew that a nation that snubbed God
held itself out for His judgment.

Why, then, should anyone have been surprised by the recent St. Paul
Pioneer Press article that explained how academia has now begun
championing pedophilia? Just like Judith Levine's perverted logic in
Harmful to Minors, the newspaper claims that within a generation or so,
Americans will accept not only same sex groping, but intergenerational
groping. They tell us that having sex with a willing little boy or girl
will be the rage, and society be damned - it is the sexual preference
of the parties.

Say what they might, homosexuals have no moral footing upon which to
stand to deny willing children their right to fornicate with whomever
they choose. By pointing at others and condemning their sexual
promiscuity, they will be pointed three fingers back at themselves.

Those of us who insisted the old morality provided the best guidance
for life have already been tagged as evil oppressors.

To what will
those accusers point as their reference for limitations on adult-child
sex? How will they make the argument that what these perverted adults
do to children in the dark of a bedroom is wrong, while not
incriminating themselves?

Either we toss out all references to sexual sin

and accept everything,
or we run toward the old morality. I think it is the difference between
life and death of millions of human beings. For to throw off the
restraint of the Seventh Commandment is to damn the other nine as well,
and then there is no restraint on humans, save brute force.

We need to reassert the absolute truth that God

created all of us as
Adam and Eve,

not Adam and Allen, or Eve and Evelyn. The old morality
still matters.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=331

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=331


The Old Morality Still Matters


Ask any homosexual activist...

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=331
The Old Morality Still Matters
Ask any homosexual activist whether it is any business of yours with
whom they choose to have sex, especially when that choice means someone
of the same gender. The answer will be unanimous: this is private,
consensual and none of your business! Of course, homosexual activist go
beyond even this.

We need to reassert the absolute truth that God created all of us as
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Allen, or Eve and Evelyn. The old morality
still matters.