Sex necessarily involves children; sex must be about both the unitive and the procreative. Any media report that leaves out the children is necessarily flawed by a too limited view of what sex is about.

I realize that I’m implying that “gay sex” is not in fact sex, so the whole media reporting and theological discussion about the issue is about, well, nothing/something. But, it is not up to me to redefine “sex” as something that has nothing to do with reproduction. That is the problem of the gay lobby/birth control lobby in both the media and theological circles.

Anyway, leaving children out of the reporting is certainly a big problem since they are after all is said and done, the point.

If anyone is affronted by my claim that anything but lifelong, exclusive, opposite-sex relationships are inherently abusive of children, I am sorry you are affronted. But, again, it is up to the proponents of these changes in theology to justify the claim that the child has no right to the traditional definition of monogamy.

A theology that claims that a three-old running into the parent’s bedroom on a Sunday morning and saying brightly “Mum, Mum, it’s time to get up! Which Dad is that?” or “Dad, Dad, it’s time to get up! Which other Dad is that?” or any other variation is “good” is just really just juvenile.

Kids really do have a claim on the right-behavior of adults in their lives.

Like or Dislike: 0  0