We will discuss here in a private way, with little or no comment, subjects which we do not want the world to abuse. And they do. As a gross "for instance" to illustrate the point, consider the subject of family. Seems simple enough. However, asking: "How and by whom are families created?" opens a Pandora's Box of the world's confusing and contradictory explanations; some of which fly in the face of natural and scriptural understanding, and what used to be known as "common sense" but is now called "politically incorrect". Adam and Steve never made a family. They may have bought one, or brought one from a divorce, or had the government confer one upon them, but they never made one. Naturally, they can't. All the courts and laws and movements in the world can't change that simple, natural, fact. And it isn't discrimination to say so any more than saying 1+1=2 discriminates against 3.

A mutual discussion about this most basic marital activity--procreation--can't be had in the world's context. This most sacred, sanctifying, bonding, tender, private union of a husband and wife has been turned into nothing more than a crass plaything by the world's standards. The various circus-style acts shown in the humanly degrading, almost cartoon-like commodity of pornography are thought, by the world, even to be therapeutic. How many wives robbed of their husband's love and passion would agree? And how many men, hopelessly enslaved by their artificially intensified passions and ever-increasing desire for more aggressive lusty sensations would agree?

On a related note: How many babies have we murdered so our people can be freely promiscuous without the slightest consideration of the procreative consequences? Our society is guilty of the hideous and premeditated murder of an entire generation. The incomprehensibility of such a massacre makes pale the slaughters of a Stalin, Mao, or Hitler. Much of the world, however, thinks nothing of it and blindly continues on its frivolous way looking for the next encounter.

The thought that promiscuity is therapeutic is but a terrible deception. Rather it is a weak, dishonest attempt at mimicking only a facet of true love. Such short-sighted activities provide fleeing, temporary physical satisfaction but leave only misery and empty counterfeit feelings. The true chains of addiction, of any kind, require frequent repetition of the behavior thus wasting valuable time and personal effort. The true diamond of traditional marital love is deep and satisfying in the most fundamental human way possible. Its many facets require a lifetime of the companionship of female yin to male yang to comprehend and absorb.

True love's end result is not to be "in love" but to become more loving. As we do, others, despite their faults, look better to us and we, look better to them. Real love is calm and forgiving. It provides a solid platform on which a relationship can be built with confidence, together. The attempt to shoehorn unnatural behavior and roles into the template of traditional marriage is a fool's errand and can only provide a counterfeit satisfaction during mortal life but can never exist beyond. That said, we are certainly aware of the difficulty many face as the arguments of the Adversary of mankind are powerful and related feelings run deep. I do not suggest for a moment that escape is easy or quick. In another post, I will relate a story about a dear friend who died of AIDS which will shed more light on this tender subject.

Regarding the foolishness of the world's sexually permissive perspective, two recent news stories come to mind:

1) Female Georgetown Law students plead poverty and demand that taxpayers cover the costs of their desired birth control. (What are they studying up there? Marx? Margaret Sanger? I doubt it's Blackstone or Bastiat. And these are the future defenders of our Constitutional rule of law?), and

2) Reuters ran a story in late January reporting that, between 1998 and 2005, about one woman in 11,000 childbirths died compared to one woman in 167,000 who died from a legal abortion. The conclusion was that having an abortion is safer than childbirth. I guess the logic bomb missed the Reuters building: The question surely is, safer for whom? It sounds to me like for every woman who died from legal abortions during that period, 167,000 other people died too. Doesn't sound at all safe to me if you happen to be a new baby in the womb fighting to enter mortality but denied that privilage by selfish self-centered destruction.

In like manner there are many subjects dear to us which, if presented to the world in general, would be mercilessly trampled in the superficial playground of public opinion. Such trampling would cause great pain to us and so we keep them to ourselves rather than discuss them in the open. And yet, we are accused, for that behavior, of being secrative.