Immorality is the cause of 100% of all STD transmission

Think about it.

To get an STD, you have to have sex with an infected person. If you aren't married, your sexual act itself is immoral. If you are married, then you can't get an STD unless one of you has sex with someone else. The person had sex with someone other than their spouse. Even if the spouse was okay with the extra-marital sexual encounter, the sex act was immoral. If you only just got married, and one of you has an STD, they must have gotten the STD from pre-marital sex, an immoral act.

Even a doctor or nurse who contracts the disease from an infected person, or a nun who gets the disease from an infected blood transfusion, or a lifeguard gets it by giving mouth to mouth resuscitation, all of these cases the moral person gets the disease from an immoral person. The individual transmitting the disease first must get the disease. And they had to have got it from immoral activity, sexual activity. Sex within marriage is not immoral. But if they are married, they got the STD from their spouse. And where did the spouse get the disease? By having sex with someone ELSE? Well that's cheating, which is definitely immoral. If the spouse got it before they got married, well, the spouse had to have had sex before marriage. And pre-marital sex is immoral.

Even single people who have monogamous sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend... uh... premarital sex is immoral. No matter how you slice it, all STD transmission involves at least one immoral person, and most often two people doing an immoral sexual act.

So if you are worried about STDs, avoid immoral people.

An Evolutionary Reason to Oppose Same Sex Marriage.

At this moment, I'm defending marriage against some people who are advocating for the legalization of same sex marriage. First off, I'm a Christian, obviously. Furthermore, I believe that the Bible is the inerrent Word of God. The Bible on many occasions condemns homosexual activity. Same sex marriage is the celebration of homosexual activity. So on a Christian level, of course I oppose it.

But my beliefs extend further. I am a logical person and my aims are to reason out why God has set certain rules for us. God too must be logical and "because I told you so" isn't very satisfactory. We are commanded to be obediant but these rules have purpose. So what is the purpose? Why should Christians be against homosexuality? And why should Christians be against same sex marriage.

Well, I'm debating with a lot of atheists so Christian logic won't do for them. So for their sake I have to tackle this debate from their perpective. So I have for you an evolutionary reason to oppose same sex marriage.

---

So ask yourself why you want to get married. What is it that makes you want to unite your life with another person's life? Why is there an evolutionary imperative to pair up? Why do you see couples everywhere? Is it cultural? Is it learned? No. It's everywhere! In every single human society! It's genetic. It's instinct. It's born within us, by evolution.

So why do we have an evolutionary desire to pair up? How did the pairing up happen?

Well. It's called pair bonding. And pair bonding occurs in nature to protect and provide for the young. But let's not stop at the development of pair bonding. Let's go further back in time, before pair bonding. In fact, let's go back in time before sexual reproduction was all the rage. Millions of years ago. Perhaps billions of years ago. Every species on Earth reproduced asexually. It was a completely "every man for himself" kind of life. Of course there was no such thing as man back then. All of the species were very simple in design. And there was no gender. Every animal had the same gender.

Why it must have been paradise to the people who today are trying to kill the idea of gender roles, those people who portray man and woman as "precisely the same" instead of "equal in value."

I can't imagine a more hellish life though. It was hardly paradise. There was no such thing as cooperation. You had but one "person" you could trust, yourself. And every other "person" wanted to eat you. You are always hungry. You are worried that you are about to get eaten. You can't sleep. You have no friends. And the very idea of a mate is completely obsurd. And children? What's that? Horrible life.

So let's get back and see what happens next.

Now you see, because genetic diversity was so low, and because the diversity that was there didn't mix and combine, evolution moved EXTREMELY slowly.

But one day something amazing happened. Two of these things, whatever they were, somehow evolved to mate. To reproduce sexually. Male and female were born. And life on this planet was never the same. An EXPLOSION in evolution occurred. Brand new extremely complex species were created in a very short period of time.

But it was still an "every man for himself" type world. The babies would get eaten up almost as soon as they were born or hatched. An early tactic was to have sex more often!! So as to have even more babies. Or for the more sexually repressed species, they would after one mating have many young, sometimes hundreds. But neither tactic was very efficient.

So eventually some species figured out if the mother would stick around a bit longer, long enough for the babies to grow up and defend themselves, their line would be more likely to continue. Nurturing developed alongside giving birth, and femininity developed and evolved. But that meant the female became more vulnerable. She abandoned her selfish nature to care for her young. She fed it. The watch out for enemies. And she even educated. But all of that endangered her.

And then the father decided to stick around too. And pair bonding developed. They eventually came to have a specific relationship. Since nurturing was already a part of femininity, it was natural for the father to take up the role of protecting and providing. Since the mother stayed home and the father went out, it was natural for the father to become the leader of the family. Not because he was stronger and could beat up the mother. It was because he had more information. Fatherhood, indeed masculinity itself became associated with protecting against enemies and also with providing food, and eventually shelter too. He became the leader of the family.

This of course happened looong before humans or even perhaps before mammals came onto the scene. But when humans came, we too adopted this superior strategy.

By the time we were created, a pattern of pair bonding had long ago been established and coded into our genetic structure. And we went further, searching for genetic traits that would give our offspring an advantage. Women were attracted to particularly strong men because these men could surely protect and provide better than the scrawny males. Men desired nurturing and caring women because that meant the children would be taken care of better. The roles that nature gave to each gender had a specific purpose. To care for the young.

Why. What we find desireable in a mate has a DIRECT correlation towards the health of the child that comes as a result of sexual activity. EVERYTHING related to romance and sex has children at the heart. A caring loving man will be caring and loving to the child and protect and provide better. An attractive woman has more estrogen and that makes her healthier so she can give birth to more babies. It's ENTIRELY related to children.

But back to animals.

As animals became more and more complex, their brains developed more and more. We learned to communicate in better and better ways and shortly we began to join families together. The herd, the flock, the school were born. The tribe was born. But a tribe isn't like a herd or a flock. It's not built up of individuals. It's built up of families. These tribes were very suspicious of individuals. Why weren't they with a tribe? Were they cast out? Was their tribe all killed? Well, they must have been weak. Why should we include this weak suspicious person into our tribe?

So at the heart of a tribe is the mother-father unit. If you weren't a part of a mother father unit, or the child of one, you weren't welcome.

Of course times and people weren't as civil as we are today. Another example of this: a particularly strong male might "collect" desirable females. But this practice largely went out of fashion when smart tribes began to unite and form communities. And shortly communities grew so large that confusion over relationships developed. People wanted to protect their pair bonding so they could tell the community, "we are bonded. Lay off." And marriage was born. And because children were at the heart of pair-bonding, children were also at the heart of this new invention called marriage.

So at the heart of marriage is an imperative to mate and to protect the young.

Society has changed much in the past 6,000 years, after the agricultural revolution allowed us to build villages, cities, and nations. It has changed even further in the past 200 with the industrial revolution. And it's almost become a completely different sort of society in the past 50, because of the sexual revolution and feminism.

But evolution happens very very very slowly. So people at their very core are largely the same people we were 6,000 years ago. We still pair bond with children in mind. Men still have an instinct to protect and provide. Women still have a desire to nurture and to follow a strong man.

But some people want to pretend that this isn't so. They want to play God and tell evolution what to do. "Gender roles are outdated." "I am just as nurturing as any woman." "I can provide as well as any man." In this society, where we depend upon technology, this might be true to some extent. But if history has taught us anything, this society will come crumbling down some day. And we'll be living in small towns again.

And even if society doesn't end. Our complex nature recognizes more differences between the genders than nurturing and protecting. Women are women. Men are men. Women like beautifying the home. Men like constructing the home. Men lead. Women follow. There's a balance. A mutually beneficial balance. Men might get to lead, but they must lead for the benefit of the woman. Women choose to follow a strong man who cares for her and who won't abuse his power, even today in this "enlightened" world. Take a dance class and you'll see. Women say it time and again. "I'm glad I don't have to lead." And that attitude extends past the borders of the dance floor. Leading requires responsibility. More than following. The husband taking the lead, recognizing that something needs to get done, lets the wife focus on other important matters. It allows her to plan.

What does this have to do with same sex marriage? Isn't it obvious? I am talking about the importance of each gender. This is a fact that is encoded into our DNA. Evolution moves far slower than technology and sociology. No matter how far we progress, the importance of the genders will remain with us for thousands of years, probably far longer. And today we see a sociological movement away from this truth. It's popular now to deny your own nature. Women are encouraged to abandon their nurturing nature and to take up careers.

But these women are forgetting something. At the heart of a man's career lies his desire to protect and to provide for his family. He chooses a career to provide for his family. But since a man is an inferior nurturer, if a woman chooses a career, then the children suffer if the man takes the role of nurturer. Or more likely, the task of nurturing will be given to a stranger, a woman who has made it her career to nurture. Might sound like the best situation. But studies have shown that children raised in day care suffer with poor behavior, aggressiveness, and disobedience, even going so far as to result in poorer grades. There is clear evidence to support the idea that a woman's choice of career over family negatively affects the family.

I'm sorry. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just stating fact.

This is just one example of how society is trying to change and blur the lines between the roles of men and women.

Same sex marriage takes this to the extreme, eliminating one gender entirely from the child's at home life. Studies show that fathers living at home are important to child development. And of course it's obvious that having a female mother living at home is important to the child.

But something that isn't discussed much goes further than the immediate child. It's the child's children. A child given to same sex marriage parents will grow up denying the importance of gender. They grew up fine, right? They are polite. They are tolerant, getting along well with any number of different sorts of people of all races, creeds, religions and sexual orientations. They aren't in jail. They aren't addicted to drugs. They have a career and they keep a clean tidy home. What wonderful people these kids turned out to be! Right?

Except they think their gender doesn't matter. And it does. It really really does.

Same sex marriage isn't just an attack on marriage. It's an all our war on gender.

Remember millions of years ago, when there was no such thing as gender? Do you want to go back to that time when it was every man for himself? When selfishness reigned supreme and you had to kill and eat your neighbor to survive? No, of course not. Now I'm not saying same sex marriage will lead to cannibalism. But denying gender importance will surely lead to selfish chaos.

And same sex marriage does just that. In fact it requires you to deny the importance of your gender. And if you in a same sex marriage choose to have children, then you must by way of your own relationship teach these children that gender doesn't matter. And we will have confusion.

Same sex marriage isn't the only perpetrator. Militant feminism. Divorce. Cohabitation. Other practices outside the norm like polygamy and swinging all contribute to the decay of the marriage institution, and the importance of the gender roles. All should be discouraged. But today we see society encouraging these things.

Divorce is encouraged. "Don't worry, you can always get divorced." Rampant sexual activity is encouraged. "Have sex with anyone you want then if you get pregnant, kill the baby." Since divorce is at an all time high, people think they have to test the waters. "Live together first!" Studies show that cohabitation is a recipe for failure, not for success.

It goes on and on. All of these new strategies fail more often than they succeed. The only one that succeeds time and again is the man and woman falling in love, courting for years getting to know one another, then uniting their lives together for life, and finally cherishing and protecting the marriage. The traditional marriage is the only one that works across the board. It is the only one that lays the foundation for the healthy development of children's minds and bodies. It is the only one that we should be encouraging.

Long live the traditional family unit.

Does this mean that I oppose adoptions? Of course not. But husbands and wifes who adopt know that they aren't the child's natural parent, and they accept that they aren't going to be quite as good as if they were. So they take steps. Same sex marriage parents think they are every bit as normal as a traditional family. In many ways they think they are even superior. They won't try to raise the child with tradition in mind. In fact they will do the opposite! They will raise the child to OPPOSE traditional marriage!

Do I oppose sterile men and women getting married? Of course not. They don't deny that children are still important. They don't deny the importance of gender roles in society. They still celebrate their gender.

Same sex marriage does two things. It opposes the importance between biological parents and their young, and it opposes the importance of the genders. But marriage and adoption for husbands and wives who can not have their own children do still accept that gender is important. They don't oppose their gender roles. They embrace them.

Again, same sex marriage is not just attacking the marriage institution. It's participating in the war against gender.

Gender is far too important to lose this war. So we will fight this battle against same sex marriage until we die. And when we do die we will turn the battle over to our children and encourage them to do the same until humanity learns the important lesson that gender roles are vital to society.

Actual Contraceptive Use and the Pregnancies that Result

Take a good look at this chart. It illustrates exactly how NOT effective birth control is and how our almost religious belief in contraceptive affects pregnancy rates.

(For a copy of the excel spreadsheet, send me an email.)

If you don't believe the numbers, take a gander at this website:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

What does the chart mean? What can we conclude?

43,000,000 women are said to be engaging in regular sex. 38,000,000 are said to be using some form of contraceptive. Of those 38,000,000 women who do use contraception, they collectively engage in so much sex that almost 2 and a half million of them will become pregnant within a year.

That is 6.55% or 1 out of every 15 women.

Think it's that bad because I lumped all of the contraceptives together? Want to consider a single contraceptive? Okay, how about the number one contraceptive. 1 in 11.49 women will get pregnant each year. Yikes. That's even worse than the general contraceptives. That means that the pill actually brings the average down!

Okay. How about the condom? 1 in 5.75 women will get pregnant. Twice as bad as the pill.

Ah, but what if we combined them. What if she is on the pill and he still wears a condom. SURELY that will virtually eliminate the possibility of pregnancy. Hardly. Out of every 66 women who regularly engage in sexual activity (probably less than the population you'll find in every night club on a Friday night), one will get pregnant within a year.

Also, take a look at the difference in effectiveness between condoms and withdrawal. Wow. I would wager a guess that you consider withdrawal to be the epitome of unsafe sex. And when you think of safe sex, you think of a condom. But they aren't that much different. Condoms are only 1% more effective.

Well, obviously this chart illustrates the necessity of education, right? Well, you might think so because if 43,000,000 women are engaging in sex and only 38,000,000 them are using contraceptives, that leaves 5,000,000 women who don't use contraceptives*.  And because of this, 4 and a quarter million of them will become pregnant. This is more than twice the number of pregnancies by the 38 million women who have sex with contraceptives. But if these women did all use a contraceptive in the same percentages, almost 300 thousand of them would still get pregnant. That's not an insignificant number.

And it doesn't negate the fact that there are still almost 2 and a half million women each year getting pregnant from so-called protected sex.  It is a strawman argument to bring up the 4 and a quarter million women who get pregnant from unprotected sex because the important point is that contraceptives are causing more pregnancies because they cause us to have more sex than we would have without them.

One more thing about education. 89.4% of the population of sexually active women are using contraceptives! I don't think education is going to increase that number by very much. Clearly, sex ed has done its job. People are convinced that contraceptives work.

They are in fact BRAINWASHED into thinking that contraceptives work. Oh, we all know that contraceptives aren't 100% effective, but that doesn't stop people from acting as if the contraceptives are.

So what's the conclusion?

SAFE SEX IS A MYTH! If anything the belief in safe sex CAUSES us to act recklessly and to have sex much more than the contraceptives are designed to handle. The result is MORE pregnancies than before the pill changed our attitudes about sex.


*Because withdrawal is considered to be a means of contraceptive, this means that "no method" is the male ejaculating inside the female every single time he has sex with her throughout the year. I don't think 11.6% of all men ejaculate inside the woman every single time.

Pre-marital sex leads to specialization and that leads to incompatibility

The most common excuse people give for pre-marital sex is "we should find out if we are sexually compatible." Two problems with this.

#1 It's widely accepted that the longer you are married, the better sex becomes. The first time you have sex with someone is usually not the best.
#2 If you don't have any experience, then you haven't developed any tastes.

If you both wait until you are married, you are both virgins when you are married. You have NO experience so you aren't likely to have developed certain tastes about sex. You might be intrigued with different positions, role-play, oral sex, anal sex, toys, handcuffs, candles, feathers, ice, bondage, and maybe even kinkier things. But you don't know what you like and don't like yet. You will discover your tastes TOGETHER. You aren't likely to love kink if you haven't ever experienced it. And if you try it with your spouse and he or she doesn't like it, then you aren't likely to get kinky enough for it to become important to you. You won't even know how important it could be to you.

The lovely thing about discovering sex together is it truly enhances the bond. The sexual bond isn't just about pleasure, hormones, and vulnerability. It's also about discovery. And I think the importance of this discovery is undervalued today.

The problem with incompatibility isn't that people have too little sexual experience before they marry. The problem is that they have too much. Each person who has experience with sex before marriage has become a specialist. Then the task of choosing a mate includes finding another specialist who fits you. But if you don't specialize before you marry, then you and your mate will specialize together, and you will have harmony in the bedroom.

Most of the people saying "you need to find out if you are compatible" are coming at the question with their own experience in mind. They are assuming that one of the individuals will have had experience. But that's not always the case. And if it is, then you should be open if the person you want to marry is a virgin and recognize that some of your specialization might have to change. But it doesn't have to be bad or even boring. Rediscover your love of sex with your new spouse, especially if they are a virgin. And if both of you have experience, then forget it. Try to find common ground. Marriage is all about compromise. If you can't compromise in bed, then it's probably going to manifest elsewhere first.

One final thought. If you are one of the people who says "you need to test drive the car before you buy it," fine. Are you willing to wait until you are ready to "buy" the car before you test drive it? Are you willing to wait to get engaged to this person before you have sex? No? Then this argument is nothing but a red herring. You are having pre-marital sex because you are immoral and can't control your urges. Stop trying to act responsible because you aren't.

Respect is NOT earned. It is DIS-respect that should be earned.

There's a lot of confusion over the word "respect." It can mean two things: courtesy and honor. What is honor? How does it differ from courtesy? Well, let me tell you.

I realized some time ago that there are 3 levels of respect.

• Courtesy - How you treat everyone, stranger or best friend. You are polite to them. You don't insult them. You don't talk badly about them behind their back. You don't argue with them in public. You don't try to make them look bad. It's mostly about what you don't do. You don't disrespect them.
• Disrespect - There are two kinds:
• Feeling of disrespect - How you think about people who prove that they are not worthy of courtesy.
• Action of disrespect - You might also sometimes "disrespect" someone, by doing the negative things listed under courtesy, even if you respect them. When you do this, you are likely to change their opinion of you and they are likely to start to disrespect you, both in feeling and in action.
• Honor - How you think about someone who is wise. It's deeper than just treating them with courtesy. Your thoughts about them have grown. How you treat them is related to how you feel about them. You are much more likely to be obedient towards someone you honor than someone you are just courteous towards. You think higher of someone you honor than you think of yourself. But you might still disrespect them (action) from time to time.

You know, you hear this a lot:

"Respect must be earned."

And in the same paragraph the same person will say:

"I treat everyone with respect."

Here is where the confusion between courtesy and honor really surfaces. If, when you say "respect must be earned," you describe courtesy, you have it backwards. We must by default treat everyone respectfully... with courtesy... until they have demonstrated that they don't deserve it. It's only until you think about respect in terms of honor that you are right to say "respect must be earned."

I see a lot of people do this. They are clearly thinking one thing: courtesy. But they are describing honor.

Is this important? You BETCHA!!! If you are thinking and describing courtesy when you say "respect must be earned" then you are advocating treating every stranger you meet with disrespect until they have proven that they are worthy of courtesy. Maybe this is why people treat each other so badly. They buy into the "respect must be earned" philosophy and treat each other with dis-respect until that person proves they deserve respect. It's backwards. How is someone going to earn this courtesy if you are treating them with disrespect? Are YOU going to treat someone courteously if they are treating you disrespectfully? If they don't treat you courteously, are you going to start to respect them? No. So you must understand how important this issue is.

Of course in general we do often "treat everyone with respect." But the effect of "respect must be earned" still manifests itself quite a lot too. Far too often I feel.

So I think it's time we recognize the difference between courtesy and honor and we start to treat EVERYONE with courtesy, irrespective of our beliefs on the phrase "respect must be earned."

Indeed. We really must treat everyone with respect.

Seriously? No Dad Christmas cards.

I ran into a new phenomenon today. I'm looking for a Christmas card for my Dad. I'm finding it especially difficult. It's not that they have run out. It's that they just don't have any. I went to Walmart. There were 4 spaces for Dad cards. But 6 types of cards were to be crammed in those 4 spaces. 3 of the cards were out of stock. Only one was not "funny" and it was a To Dad from Daughter card. And they were out of stock.

I went to a dollar store next. Not one Dad card.

Everywhere I went, there was an abundance of friend and mother cards but few Dad cards. What is going on?

Is this what you meant by equality, feminists?

Has our society become so out of whack that it undervalues the importance of fathers?

Clearly it has. I just didn't expect it to be so obvious.

Happiness comes from... within?

"Happiness comes from within."

You hear that a lot. It's so popular today, we just buy it. But how true is it really? Seriously! I mean, hasn't science progressed far enough for us to test this notion? Don't we have clinical evidence proving that positive circumstances and events put us in a positive mood? Don't we have proof by now that the wrong hormones or chemicals in our bodies can put us into a foul mood? Hasn't it been demonstrated conclusively that just looking at the photo of someone you love affects the pleasure centers of our brains? Why then do we continue to disregard mother nature and insist on following this pop-psychological nonsense talk?

The fact is, our environment affecting our emotions has a very good purpose. It reinforces good behavior and it discourages bad behavior. Now I am generally a proponent of "fake it till you feel it," but when we continuously put on a happy face when we are not truly happy, we generate a sort of numbness that just becomes habit. We put on a happy costume that just isn't real. We go about our daily lives accepting our fate and we just pretend that we are happy. I am reminded of 1984. It's no wonder that the pop-psychologists today advocate that we fake being happy. They are in bed with the globalists who want our masses to be brain-dead, sitting in front of the idiot box.

This "happiness from within" notion placates us. It encourages us to stay the course and not rock the boat. But if we accept our unhappiness, maybe we'll do something about it. Maybe we'll quit our job and find a vocation that suits us. Maybe we'll get out of the house and actually meet new people. Maybe we'll take up a hobby and make something of our lives. Maybe we'll get closer to God.

See? Don't just assume that you are happy because someone told you that happiness comes from within. If you aren't happy, and aren't capable of generating happiness yourself, don't think that you are broken. Those other people who get their happiness from within... they're lying. Not so much to you but to themselves.

If you are one of those people who thinks that your happiness comes from within, examine yourself. Examine your life. Imagine removing the positive things that affect your mood. Your job. Your home. Your possessions. Your family. Your children. Your spouse. Your health. Remove those things. Now put on a life of failure and ridicule. Imagine if you failed at everything you did. Try to remove yourself from the question. Put on the identity of someone who hasn't been blessed with your life, your upbringing, your personality. And most of all, examine your relationship with God. How is that relationship? Is it thriving? Now, imagine if you can, removing that relationship. Now, can you honestly say that you would still be just as happy as you are now?

You're lying, or you just lack an imagination. Even Jesus wept.

Want to know where true happiness comes from? I'll tell you. Satisfaction. Satisfaction after a period of starving or fasting followed by your favorite meal. Satisfaction in struggle followed by triumph. Satisfaction in a job well done. Satisfaction knowing that no matter what happens your family is there for you. Satisfaction in God's love for you.

Ah, that last one. Job (you know, the guy Satan persecuted?) is of course the stereotypical victim. But he doesn't have a victim mentality does he? No. But does he try to generate his happiness from within? Nope. Does he fight tooth and nail and determine that he will get his life back on track no matter what? No! He cries out to God! He praises God and trusts in Him. And God gives him strength. Job has the satisfaction of knowing that no matter what, nothing can take away God's love.

What can we learn from Job? That happiness comes from within? Absolutely not! Happiness definitely comes from without.