Author Topic: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda  (Read 10323 times)

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19355
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2012, 03:22:33 PM »
Lou, I think you're missing the point of "normal." Sure, some people have only one eye while others have two, but that doesn't mean the one is as normal as the other. The norm for human beings-- the way our Creator designed us-- is to have two eyes, not one or three. People born with one eye (or three, I guess) are no less human, no more sinful or less redeemed, but they are not normal. Medical attention would consists of trying to restore them to a two-eyed state. Attempts to make a two-eyed person into a three-eyed or one-eyed person, on the other hand, would be quackery. Similarly, human beings were designed to desire and to be able to procreate. Like anything else in a fallen world, sometimes that desire is off, wrong, perverted, messed up, misdirected, whatever you want to call it. It may or may not be repairable, but what constitutes repaired ought not be in question. By the design of humanity, to be "heterosexual" is like being two-eyed; it is the normal state of how human beings are supposed to be. Homosexuality is a perversion, abnormality, problem, again, you fill in the word. Whether or not it is possible to do anything about it, the desire to do something about it is good and right-- parents should want normal procreative lives for their children just as they want healthy eyes and lungs for their children and will seek medical help if their children are abnormal in some way.

The gay agenda includes fighting the "heteronormative" worldview that I have just outlined. To them, homosexuality is no different that red hair or some other relatively uncommon but otherwise entirely neutral state of being. The California law is to declare my view of the matter illegal (at least in the sense that I can't raise my own children according to my beliefs) and to enforce thne gay agenda with the power of the state.

Team Hesse

  • Guest
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2012, 05:41:06 PM »
No one is "normal". We all fall short...

Lou

There is a big difference between "normal", in this context, and falling short. We all fall short in our attempts to follow God's Law as we should. That's not to say that some of us are tempted to engage in acts of sin that involve performing acts that are only sinful if conducted in the wrong context while others are tempted to engage in acts of sins that are always sinful, regardless of the context.
 
Heterosexual activities are only sinful in the wrong context, specifically with a partner other than one's spouse. There's a huge range of contexts where heterosexual activities are wrong, such as with multiple partners, with underage partners, or with partners who are not one's spouse. But there are no contexts in which homoerotic activities are ever not acts of sin. Homoerotic activities are never, ever "normal".
 
Some people seem to like to pretend that just because they claim they are "born that way", with urges to engage in that sort of activity, that makes it normal. The same could be said for being born autistic, or with any other sort of development disorder. Perhaps we should pass laws against providing eyeglasses or orthodontics to children, because if they are nearsighted or have crooked teeth, that's "normal" because they were born that way.

"All of our works are filthy rags." (Numerous other citations possible)

Lou

Which could be interpretted as, "Go ahead and do anything you want, since all our works are 'filthy rags', we might as well just wallow in the filth and never, ever even attempt anything else". Is that what you're saying? Should we just give up and never even put forth the slightest effort to try? Should we all just become antinomians?

Three questions, three answers, No, No, No...

But I am saying, "be careful, lest you succumb to the leaven of the Pharisees". We really have no idea how much anyone else wrestles against the powers of this world. For all I know, my neighbor is fighting and making more progress against his bondages than I will ever make against mine. Our call is to bear each others burdens and be there (real Presence) for our neighbor as they wrestle. Now If I have a neighbor that refuses to recognize his bondage, well he stands condemned already and that is the only word he needs from me. But let's not slam the door too quickly....

Lou

RogerMartim

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
  • Vede que grande amor nos tem concedido o Pai...
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2012, 05:49:38 PM »
I don't expect to find a friendly audience here, but I am surprised that I am considered abnormal, perverted, messed up, mis-directed, and oh yes, three-eyed. The fact of the matter is that I feel quite normal; my mother, my siblings, most all my relatives and all my friends consider me normal. I find that the Roman Catholic Church's definition of homosexuality of homosexuality being an "intrinsic disorder" almost acceptable than to the three-eye analogy.

The fact of the matter is that there are times when the state must step in parents' shoes to stop their misguided approaches to what they think are in their child's best interest but really are oftentimes only in their best interests and not the child's. The state steps in when a child of Jehovah's Witnesses' parents refuse to provide their child a necessary blood transfusion. To be sure, it might be based on ignorance, but again, homosexuality is not curable. Reparative therapy, again, is bogus and it screws a person up even further and some to take extreme measures of taking their own lives. The APA rejects all forms of it. Parents are not always the best arbiters.

Mention has been made of sexuality being on a continuum: heterosexuality on one end and homosexuality on the opposite. The see-saw is permanently moored to the ground on the heterosexual side and that's the way it is. There is along the continuum degrees of bisexuality. Some can handle it and be faihtful to their wives or husbands, but many fall off the see-saw at some point in their lives. Even reparative therapy does not work for those folks. The temptation is always there. A case in point is Senator Larry Craig from Idaho. What hell he must have put his family through! Society demanded that he conform to something that is against his nature and along the way he has hurt so many people. How much easier Senator Craig's life would have been if he could have expressed who he is without all the judgment calls before he got married and had children. And I don't mean that he should be able to go to airport bathroom stalls to do the tap dance.

I've been on this board for quite a while now more as an lurker but occasionally butting in. I don't recall much of anything, if at all, any outrage and umbrage at the sexual sins perpetrated by straight men and women: prostitution, adultery, fornication, Internet pornography, etc. Why is the homosexual singled out and put on top of the pyramid that brings out the Old Testament God at his angriest with the most offensive subset of people of all? I don't recall reading in the Gospels that Jesus ever mentioned it. He sat with the sinners and broke bread with them.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19355
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2012, 06:02:53 PM »
I don't recall much of anything, if at all, any outrage and umbrage at the sexual sins perpetrated by straight men and women: prostitution, adultery, fornication, Internet pornography, etc. Why is the homosexual singled out and put on top of the pyramid that brings out the Old Testament God at his angriest with the most offensive subset of people of all? I don't recall reading in the Gospels that Jesus ever mentioned it. He sat with the sinners and broke bread with them.
Roger, I think you'll find this forum friendly as a place of discussion, though not necessarily inclined to agree with you on some things. But you can bet that the minute people who cheat on their wives or view internet pornography seek to justify that behavior as just how they were hardwired, and claim that any attempt to get them to quit viewing pornagraphy or cheating on their wives is a misguided and harmful effort to get them to deny their nature, then there will be outrage, umbrage, etc. Nothing puts homosexuality on the to of any pyramid of sins except the attempts of some to claim it isn't sin.

The goal of the three-eyed analogy was not to be insulting but to make a point. Chesterton makes almost the same point (though dealing with economic policies rather than sexual sins) in What Is Wrong With the World when he says that our problem has gone from disagreeing on how to make the sick man healthy to disagreeing on what constitutes a healthy man. Again, you offer nothing but assertion and your own experience to debunk therapy, but there are people out there who claim to be former homosexuals. Are they evil liars? Buffoons? Or do they simply have a different experience than you? Why should I, were I a parent struggling with this issue, listen to you and not them?

If you are struggling against same-sex attraction because you know such behavior to be sinful, then indeed you are no different than the single person trying to remain chaste or the married person trying to remain faithful. There is no piling on as though your sins are worse, only a denial of any assertion that your sins are not really sins. 

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2012, 06:08:30 PM »
But I am saying, "be careful, lest you succumb to the leaven of the Pharisees". We really have no idea how much anyone else wrestles against the powers of this world. For all I know, my neighbor is fighting and making more progress against his bondages than I will ever make against mine. Our call is to bear each others burdens and be there (real Presence) for our neighbor as they wrestle. Now If I have a neighbor that refuses to recognize his bondage, well he stands condemned already and that is the only word he needs from me. But let's not slam the door too quickly....

Lou

I'm not addressing any issue of quantifying how much or how little anyone wrestles against the powers of the world or their inner demons. Some appear to have an easier time, others appear to have a more difficult time. I'm only addressing the point (which Peter also addressed above) that there is such a thing as normal and such a thing as abnormal. It is not right to pretend that anything which is abnormal is, in fact, normal.
 
Normal is not a state that is defined by a majority vote. It was defined for us by The Creator. And, in the context of this discussion, it's not so much about inner urges as it is about what one does about them. The Apostle Paul mentioned the thorn in his flesh. I suspect we all have such thorns. It does us no good to compare thorns with each other to measure their comparative thorniness. But it also does no one any good to pretend that we can just ignore our personal thorns and pretend they don't exist.
 
We're all tempted to commit overt acts of sin. We are not all tempted to commit the same overt acts of sin. The fact that at this time in history one particular set of overt acts of sin are gaining popular support and enthusiasm doesn't change anything.
 
Being different from how God defined what is "normal" from us is not a matter of group consideration. Back in the 1970's, I was being trained to be a quality control inspector in a machine shop. It was my job to compare machined pieces of steel with measuring devices. If a cylinder was supposed to be 1.825 .005 inches in diameter, I measured it with a micrometer. If it was within the acceptable dimensional range, it was "normal". If it was not within that range, it was not. Whether or not I "considered" it normal or not was irrelevant and immaterial. I compared it to a standard and it either conformed or it did not.

Team Hesse

  • Guest
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2012, 06:11:31 PM »
Lou, I think you're missing the point of "normal." Sure, some people have only one eye while others have two, but that doesn't mean the one is as normal as the other. The norm for human beings-- the way our Creator designed us-- is to have two eyes, not one or three. People born with one eye (or three, I guess) are no less human, no more sinful or less redeemed, but they are not normal. Medical attention would consists of trying to restore them to a two-eyed state. Attempts to make a two-eyed person into a three-eyed or one-eyed person, on the other hand, would be quackery. Similarly, human beings were designed to desire and to be able to procreate. Like anything else in a fallen world, sometimes that desire is off, wrong, perverted, messed up, misdirected, whatever you want to call it. It may or may not be repairable, but what constitutes repaired ought not be in question. By the design of humanity, to be "heterosexual" is like being two-eyed; it is the normal state of how human beings are supposed to be. Homosexuality is a perversion, abnormality, problem, again, you fill in the word. Whether or not it is possible to do anything about it, the desire to do something about it is good and right-- parents should want normal procreative lives for their children just as they want healthy eyes and lungs for their children and will seek medical help if their children are abnormal in some way.

The gay agenda includes fighting the "heteronormative" worldview that I have just outlined. To them, homosexuality is no different that red hair or some other relatively uncommon but otherwise entirely neutral state of being. The California law is to declare my view of the matter illegal (at least in the sense that I can't raise my own children according to my beliefs) and to enforce thne gay agenda with the power of the state.

You will get no argument from me, Peter, about the wickedness of the California law.

But I am also not quite ready to go as far as you with "normal".

Matt. 19:12--
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

These are Jesus words. Heterosexual married life may not be "normative" for all. It wasn't for my uncle, a lifelong bachelor. He was not gay, but I also have my doubts that he would have been capable of a life-long "normal" relationship. There is a set of people in my family who should never marry. I have come to the conclusion we are genetically prone to problems with Aspberger's syndrome. Abnormal? by most standards, yes. And how we, who are considered normal, interact with those who are what we consider "less functional" says quite a great deal. My uncle was teased, bullied, and functioned on the fringes. That is the way it is with those who are different, particularly among children and among swine (the four-legged kind). But children should be taught empathy and swine need to be separated. Part of the reason we must deal with the extremists on these gay issues is because we have not dealt with it well in the past. You know that. I do not need to provide examples. I believe Lutherans, better than anyone else, have the theological resources to properly deal with sinners who wrestle with these strong bondages. But we must stay true to our moorings that "we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves". Jesus frees us in His time and in His way.

Lou

Team Hesse

  • Guest
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2012, 06:20:41 PM »
If a cylinder was supposed to be 1.825 .005 inches in diameter, I measured it with a micrometer. If it was within the acceptable dimensional range, it was "normal". If it was not within that range, it was not. Whether or not I "considered" it normal or not was irrelevant and immaterial. I compared it to a standard and it either conformed or it did not.

And right here, George, you have proved my point. God's standard is perfect. No one makes it to "normal" on that standard. Whether you, Peter or I consider something more normal than not is irrelevant and immaterial as you said. What counts is the standard set by the one who sets the standard. By the standard God sets, well, I hope you get the picture.

Lou

RogerMartim

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
  • Vede que grande amor nos tem concedido o Pai...
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2012, 08:21:33 PM »
Pastor Speckhard,

I guess on some level I do appreciate the exchange of ideas on this Forum. I have learned a lot from this Board. As I have mentioned before, I do not contribute much to the discussion of many of the topics. I am a layman and some of the theological nuances of some discussions are quite beyond me. I do jump in occasionally when I consider that there are generalizations that are wrong and I need to put my two-cents in.

In this case, it is reparative therapy. I suppose I could list a hundred or so links right below this line as proof, but most minds are made up from the onset and so it would be fruitless. A person could Google "reparative therapy" and do their own homework, but I don't think that many would bother. Again, minds are made up.

I am 64 now. In reality, I am atypical of the Gay man that you might see at the Gay Pride Day parades; I have never gone to the three B's: The Baths or the Bushes or the Bathroom stalls where some Gay folks go because there are no other recourses for them to express intimacy with another person with society's judgment. I have led a quiet life, but I have had in my social circle many Gay men and women, a group that I have felt most comfortable with. There is a fourth B which is the Gay Bar. I have gone there many a Friday night for a beer and socialization.

I lived in Washington, DC for 35 years, 19 of which I spent as an administrative assistant in a Lutheran church office. Because of deteriorating hearing in which I could no longer handle the telephones, I had to go on disability. Washington is an expensive market to live in and so relocated back to Minnesota where my family lives. It was quite a culture shock for me to relocate as mindsets are quite different here than in DC. There are no Gay people here. To be sure, there are, but they lead secret lives and it is not easy to meet any of them. Thanks to all the homophobic folks who keep us under the wire.

In my early years in first coming out openly as a Gay man in my 20s, I did go to a psychiatrist to see where I stood with the whole hostile world out there. I may have even sought out a raison d'etre and if there was something that I could do to change. I don't think that I was too terribly committed to changing as I just knew from the bottom of my soul that this is what God wanted me to be. "I am wonderfully and fearfully made" as the Psalmist said and who was I to thwart God's will for my life? After six months of therapy, the psychiatrist finally told me, "What in the hell are you here for? I can't change you because you are what you are."

Not satisfied with his answer, I went to another. It was the same old, same old. And a phenomenal waste of money. No amount of reparative therapy would work on this young man. I was as hard wired as hard wired can be. It wasn't that I was stubborn or anything, it just wasn't me to be anything other than I am.

Gay liberation was at its height during the early 70s following the Stonewall Riots in NYC. It was also a time that a lot of witch hunting was going on. It was also a time when a lot of White House Folks and in Congress were caught in flagrante to sexual indiscretions. Most all were married and had families, most all repented and went for reparative therapy and six months later I'd see them at the bars again. Some had even gone on to catch AIDS and die. I knew one White House Aide personally, married, had kids, practiced unsafe sex, caught AIDS and his wife buried him.

Don't know how many kids you have, Pastor Speckhard, but if one of them might be Gay (and most likely they are not statistically), wouldn't it be best to try to steer them to lead a life as to live as responsibly as a Gay person can. I can't emphasize enough that intervention just doesn't work. It's even harder than making a left hander and right hander. It is messing with the mind and it leads to far too many tragic results.

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2012, 09:26:34 PM »
 Peter writes:
But you can bet that the minute people who cheat on their wives or view internet pornography seek to justify that behavior as just how they were hardwired, and claim that any attempt to get them to quit viewing pornagraphy or cheating on their wives is a misguided and harmful effort to get them to deny their nature, then there will be outrage, umbrage, etc.
I comment:
Another failed analogy.
There is no research to claim that certain people are "hard-wired" for certain things which you consider sex-related sins. And no one in the churches is trying to say the serial adulterer or the pornography addict has science to prove that he or she is o.k.

Peter writes:
Nothing puts homosexuality on the to of any pyramid of sins except the attempts of some to claim it isn't sin.
I comment:
Dead end again. Where is the outrage about the greedy, acquisitive, gonna-make-my-millions, commercialized, gimme-gimme spirit that pervades our society? It is perhaps more dangerous than any perceived sexual sin because getting rich, having things, exercising power because one is rich and has things is considered honorable and respectable and has even become the platform of one of our political parties.
No one sees anything wrong with the super-rich doing what they do, even if it has the potential of screwing the rest of the society while they get what they way.
But let two people of the same sex seek a small amount of benefit and civil recognition of their relationship and the timbers shake. I just don't get it.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19355
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2012, 10:38:38 PM »

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2012, 11:10:14 PM »
If a cylinder was supposed to be 1.825 .005 inches in diameter, I measured it with a micrometer. If it was within the acceptable dimensional range, it was "normal". If it was not within that range, it was not. Whether or not I "considered" it normal or not was irrelevant and immaterial. I compared it to a standard and it either conformed or it did not.

And right here, George, you have proved my point. God's standard is perfect. No one makes it to "normal" on that standard. Whether you, Peter or I consider something more normal than not is irrelevant and immaterial as you said. What counts is the standard set by the one who sets the standard. By the standard God sets, well, I hope you get the picture.

Lou

Actually, I pointed out that there was a tolerance range of " .005 inches" that was acceptable. It didn't have to be perfect, it only had to be within the acceptable range.
 
And, that portion of my post was about the issue of it being God who sets the standards, not popular opinion. When I was measuring metal cylinders, it wasn't up to me to set standards. They were set by the engineer who designed the machine the part fit into. He wrote it down on a blueprint. My job was to compare it to the blueprint and indicate if it conformed to the standard or didn't. It wasn't a matter open to "consideration". It was clearly written down.
 
Just as God has clearly written down in the Bible what his standards are for human conduct. We do not "judge" in the Biblical sense like they did back when a judge not only determined guilt or innocence but also prescribed and carried out the punishments. We Christians should not hesitate to bear witness that if God says "Thou shalt not ...", then people who violate that statement should repent and stop doing it. It's not our place to discipline or punish someone for such a violation, but that doesn't mean to ignore it, or to pretend it doesn't exist, or worst of all, agree that it wasn't a very good law in the first place, and since God clearly didn't know what He was doing when He wrote it because all our friends and family think we're OK, we can just pretend it doesn't exist.
 
Don't know how many kids you have, Pastor Speckhard, but if one of them might be Gay (and most likely they are not statistically), wouldn't it be best to try to steer them to lead a life as to live as responsibly as a Gay person can. I can't emphasize enough that intervention just doesn't work. It's even harder than making a left hander and right hander. It is messing with the mind and it leads to far too many tragic results.

 
Your statement would be easier to agree with if you could replace "live as responsibly as a Gay person can" with some other form of besetting sin. Would you tell a kleptomaniac it's OK to give in to their urge to steal so long as they "live as responsibly as a thief can" by always taking care to not get caught?

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #26 on: September 03, 2012, 09:12:53 AM »
I wrote a rather long concern wondering why sexual "stuff" gets so much attention over against some other "stuff" about which scripture speaks - such as greed, egotism, etc. - and then I said "I don't get it."

Peter wrote:
True.

I comment:
Must be nice to be a moderator.
So does anyone else have anything other than a put-down word about why Christians so concerned about "sin" pounce like hungry leopards on sins related to sex, and remain silent about these others. Greed and commercialism and the encouragement to "get more," and to "get yours" is, in my not so humble opinion, a bigger threat to the faith and society than the desire of same sex couples to marry. For these are exactly the kind of sins that cause us to leave the widows and orphans without care.

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4997
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #27 on: September 03, 2012, 09:37:13 AM »
There is no research to claim that certain people are "hard-wired" for certain things which you consider sex-related sins. And no one in the churches is trying to say the serial adulterer or the pornography addict has science to prove that he or she is o.k.

Yet, the mental health field will note that compulsive sexuality may very well be an imbalance of natural brain chemicals or sex hormone levels.  Some will even claim that over time the brain rewires itself toward this kind of behavior.  See: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/compulsive-sexual-behavior/DS00144/DSECTION=causes

Perhaps it's not a completely failed analogy after all. 
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13369
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #28 on: September 03, 2012, 10:04:48 AM »
I wrote a rather long concern wondering why sexual "stuff" gets so much attention over against some other "stuff" about which scripture speaks - such as greed, egotism, etc. - and then I said "I don't get it."

Peter wrote:
True.

I comment:
Must be nice to be a moderator.
So does anyone else have anything other than a put-down word about why Christians so concerned about "sin" pounce like hungry leopards on sins related to sex, and remain silent about these others. Greed and commercialism and the encouragement to "get more," and to "get yours" is, in my not so humble opinion, a bigger threat to the faith and society than the desire of same sex couples to marry. For these are exactly the kind of sins that cause us to leave the widows and orphans without care.
Perhaps I''ve misunderstood the nature of this forum.  I thought that it was to discuss church issues and contested points of Lutheran teaching and practice.  Apparently it was supposed to be a forum for listing and deploring various kinds of sin with an eye to developing a comprehensive list of the major sins of contemporary society.

If the latter is our purpose, then a  lack of discussion of greed, exploitation and oppression is a serious defect.  Can we get a good discussion going on whether greed is good or not?  Who wants to defend greed as really OK in God's eyes?  Perhaps someone who is concerned that we have ignored greed can start a thread to discuss it.

Dan
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19355
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2012, 10:15:15 AM »
I wrote a rather long concern wondering why sexual "stuff" gets so much attention over against some other "stuff" about which scripture speaks - such as greed, egotism, etc. - and then I said "I don't get it."

Peter wrote:
True.

I comment:
Must be nice to be a moderator.
So does anyone else have anything other than a put-down word about why Christians so concerned about "sin" pounce like hungry leopards on sins related to sex, and remain silent about these others. Greed and commercialism and the encouragement to "get more," and to "get yours" is, in my not so humble opinion, a bigger threat to the faith and society than the desire of same sex couples to marry. For these are exactly the kind of sins that cause us to leave the widows and orphans without care.
What on earth makes you think Christians who take the traditional Christian positions on sexual matters are silent about greed and materialism? This topic thread is about a California law that has nothing to do with those topics. One difference is that many sexual sins have actual advocates seeking to redefine sin.  Another difference is that being rich is not a sin, and when it comes to greed, it is hard to tell who is the more greedy, those with a lot of money or those who keep grubbing after it and whining that the rich don't give them some of it. Another difference is that taxing the wealthy does nothing about the spiritual sin of greed; it merely feeds the greed and resentment of another set of people. Anoter difference is that there is no single act (there are sex acts) that defines greed. Buying a yacht is not a sin the same way having sex with a prostitute is a sin. Well, I could go on and on but your little anti-Republican rant to which I previously offered a one word response was simply embarrassing to you and the less said about it the better. But if I really want to know, I will offer a rough guess that I preach ballpark three times as often against materialism and a wordly focus on possessions and social climbing as I do on anything related to sex. You wouldn't know that, of course, never having heard me preach. The threads here go back to sex again and again because the largest Lutheran church body is wholesale confused about it and this a Lutheran discussion forum.