Matthew 1:18-25

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew 2:1-11

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

John 3:16,17

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

What's on the menu at the Diabetes Diner?

The usual: The Diabetic "Prix fixe" Dinner!

The cost: If you have to ask how much you can't afford it.

Select one of the following in each category:

• Appetizers: Calluses or Foot Ulcers or Poor Circulation.

• Side orders: Glaucoma or Cataracts.

• Entrees: Kidney Disease or Heart Disease or Stroke (Brain Attack) or Nerve Damage or     Amputation or Blindness.

• Desserts: Erectile Dysfunction or Depression.

• Second helpings of the same selections are included!

Gee, what an odd assortment of food. What's that all about? It's the effects of Diabetes, silly!

If you don't have Diabetes like most of us you can bet your jiggling rolls of flab and your extra long loaf of Wonder ® Bread, you'll get it soon!

Don't worry, there's no cause for alarm in the initial stages of Diabetes when you're fat and happy and still able to lumber around. You can always count on your friends of girth and greed to tell you how "great" you look, or to not say anything at all. What good friends we have!

No need for concern later when the heart disease riddles you or better yet, when blindness sets in or the doctor amputates! Who needs that old leg anyway? Wal-mart has the Rascal ® Scooter cart to get around in. That looks pretty fun!

Doctors have pills for many of these maladies like heart disease, and transplants are commonplace! Why, with someone else's heart you can go back to square one and gorge and couch-sit to your heart's content!

There are plenty of Diabetes help groups to assist you in your suffering. Diabetes creates jobs! After all, where would the Hospitals, Junk Food Companies, and Help Groups be without you?

Sure, your Health Insurance will cover all this. There's plenty of people paying into the insurance pool!

Really?

What an absolute masquerade: the Doctors, the Hospitals, the Drug Companies, the Junk Food Companies, the Health Insurance Companies, the Help Groups, your "Friends," and You.

Be released from your burden. Ease your mind and know simplicity…

Watch the trailer below for Raw for 30 Days, a film about live food and the intention of healing. 

A bit of storytelling from our ancient Roman friend Apuleius:

…Part 3

I rely, Maximus, on your sense of justice and on my own innocence, but I hope that in this trial also we shall hear the voice of Lollius raised impulsively in my defence; for Aemilianus is deliberately accusing a man whom he knows to be innocent, a course which comes the more easy to him, since, as I have told you, he has already been convicted of lying in a most important case, heard before the Prefect of the city. Just as a good man studiously avoids the repetition of a sin once committed, so men of depraved character repeat their past offence with increased confidence, and, I may add, the more often they do so, the more openly they display their impudence. For honour is like a garment; the older it gets, the more carelessly it is worn. I think it my duty, therefore, in the interest of my own honour, to refute all my opponent's slanders before I come to the actual indictment itself.

For I am pleading not merely my own cause, but that of philosophy as well, philosophy, whose grandeur is such that she resents even the slightest slur cast upon her perfection as though it were the most serious accusation. Knowing this, Aemilianus' advocates, only a short time ago, poured forth with all their usual loquacity a flood of drivelling accusations, many of which were specially invented for the purpose of blackening my character, while the remainder were such general charges as the uninstructed are in the habit of levelling at philosophers. It is true that we may regard these accusations as mere interested vapourings, bought at a price and uttered to prove their shamelessness worthy of its hire.

It is a recognized practice on the part of professional accusers to let out the venom of their tongues to another's hurt; nevertheless, if only in my own interest, I must briefly refute these slanders, lest I, whose most earnest endeavour it is to avoid incurring the slightest spot or blemish to my fair fame, should seem, by passing over some of their more ridiculous charges, to have tacitly admitted their truth, rather than to have treated them with silent contempt. For a man who has any sense of honour or self-respect must needs — such at least is my opinion — feel annoyed when he is thus abused, however falsely. Even those whose conscience reproaches them with some crime, are strongly moved to anger, when men speak ill of them, although they have been accustomed to such ill report ever since they became evildoers. And even though others say naught of their crimes, they are conscious enough that such charges may at any time deservedly be brought against them. It is therefore doubly vexatious to the good and innocent man when charges are undeservedly brought against him which he might with justice bring against others. For his ears are unused and strange to ill report, and he is so accustomed to hear himself praised that insult is more than he can bear.

If, however, I seem to be anxious to rebut charges which are merely frivolous and foolish, the blame must be laid at the door of those, to whom such accusations, in spite of their triviality, can only bring disgrace. I am not to blame. Ridiculous as these charges may be, their refutation cannot but do me honour.

Part 4

To begin then, only a short while ago, at the commencement of the indictment, you heard them say, `He, whom we accuse in your court, is a philosopher of the most elegant appearance and a master of eloquence not merely in Latin but also in Greek!' What a damning insinuation! Unless I am mistaken, those were the very words with which Tannonius Pudens, whom no one could accuse of being a master of eloquence, began the indictment.

I wish that these serious reproaches of beauty and eloquence had been true. It would have been easy to answer in the words, with which Homer makes Paris reply to Hector which I may interpret thus: `The most glorious gifts of the gods are in no wise to be despised; but the things which they are wont to give are withheld from many that would gladly possess them.' Such would have been my reply.

I should have added that philosophers are not forbidden to possess a handsome face. Pythagoras, the first to take the name of `philosopher', was the handsomest man of his day. Zeno also, the ancient philosopher of Velia, who was the first to discover that most ingenious device of refuting hypotheses by the method of self-inconsistency, that same Zeno was — so Plato asserts — by far the most striking in appearance of all the men of his generation. It is further recorded of many other philosophers that they were comely of countenance and added fresh charm to their personal beauty by their beauty of character.

But such a defence is, as I have already said, far from me. Not only has nature given me but a commonplace appearance, but continued literary labour has swept away such charm as my person ever possessed, has reduced me to a lean habit of body, sucked away all the freshness of life, destroyed my complexion and impaired my vigour. As to my hair, which they with unblushing mendacity declare I have allowed to grow long as an enhancement to my personal attractions, you can judge of its elegance and beauty. As you see, it is tangled, twisted and unkempt like a lump of tow, shaggy and irregular in length, so knotted and matted that the tangle is past the art of man to unravel. This is due not to mere carelessness in the tiring of my hair, but to the fact that I never so much as comb or part it. I think this is a sufficient refutation of the accusations concerning my hair which they hurl against me as though it were a capital charge…. (Apuleius : Apology - Section I)

—Apuleius (123-180)

Friends! Countrymen! The solutions are legibly here for one and all on issues generally considered important. Posted individually and subject to future improving modification, they will be brought together in a new category named The Final Solution. Let us make haste, for diversion and Sophists have ruled the day—until now. Let the superciliousness begin!

Energy and Transportation: The Final Solution 

1. U.S. Government policies and priorities concerning Energy and Transportation will be based on the following: a family or individual having the option to walk or use public transportation for most of their daily activities between their common places of home, work, and shopping; and the reduction of unnecessary and excessive energy use and local, cleaner, forms of energy. Many corrections towards this policy shift, which follow below, will be implemented together at the same time in order to be successful.
    
2. Public transportation based on efficient and clean fuel technologies will be massively developed: heavy and light rail transportation, and shuttle and bus service. Especially invested in will be rail, due to its efficiency and pleasantness. Incentives and creative ideas will be exhaustively tested and implemented to make public transportation more palatable: vouchers for car rentals or public buses at the end of long rail distances traveled, making rail cars fun for kids and family friendly, etc.
    
3. The U.S. government will invest specially in transportation research and development to further the high quality, longevity, passenger needs and comfort, and financial and travel efficiency of transportation methods and devices, to be shared with local and state governments. Large towns and all cities will be required to produce a detailed plan and implementation of adequate public transportation infrastructure, and housing developments of more than 10 houses will be required to tie in with an active public transportation hub. Large public places attracting large numbers of people will have the same requirement.
    
4. Significantly higher taxes will be placed on petroleum based fuels for cars and trucks (to be spent directly on public transportation budgets). Higher luxury taxes will be placed on large passenger vehicles such as SUV's. By taxing fuels generally, people still preserve their ability to choose among a wide variety of vehicles, particularly among more fuel efficient vehicles.
    
5. U.S. produced biodiesel and ethanol will be immediately utilized within government vehicle fleets and promoted for commercial trucks, passenger vehicles, and home heating oil. Wind, solar, ocean power, geothermal, and other alternative energies will be constructed and further developed as part of this 4 year plan.
    
6. Dependence on foreign energy will be reduced to 25% or less of U.S. energy needs in 4 years. Middle Eastern, and other objectionable countries, sourced oil will be more quickly phased out. Car manufacturers, power plants, and large and small sea vessel manufacturers will be required to implement more fuel-efficient technologies on their products.
    
7. All commercial nuclear power plants will be phased out in 4 years and dismantled in favor of the production of cleaner and safer electrical generation. The cataclysmic consequences of an accident and long term waste hazards outweigh the benefits achieved. Furthermore, the nuclear industry has not shown consistent responsible management of such an incredibly dangerous technology.

The Green Party's more detailed Transportation and Energy Policies are reasonable and will be implemented.

On the bleak and lonely windswept plains of Salisbury, Maryland in the vale of County Wicomico, Seejay Gupta, or rather Charles Jannace, an illegal immigrant from India set his foot down followed by a strong aroma of Cumin and Turmeric spices.

Owning a Quicky-Mart was first on Seejay's mind as he gazed about the Wicomico wasteland of little community value, but there were other and greater things on his mind. With wife and son at his side he decided to make a stand—learn English and make the community a better place through proper governance.

Against insurmountable odds, namely that of a two political party only system of government, the little illegal immigrant from India decided to run as an Independent and as a "write-in" candidate for the newly established Wicomico County Executive position of year 2006.

Despite knowing very little English and harassed and denounced by newspapers and politicians for his subversive ideas, Seejay pieced together an intelligent workable plan of governance, the 6 Plank Platform, where his political opponents had no plan of any workability.

Shunned from speaking at soapbox venues boasting of democratic equality, his greatest embarrassment from the community's hypocrisy came during the PACE debates, an aggrandized forum for democratic political debate sponsored by Salisbury University.

It was here that PACE co-founder, political philosophy professor and democratic idealist Dr. Francis Kane evicted Seejay from the premises with a brass knuckled hay-maker punch, tatooing Seejay's forehead with the bloody imprint "Justice for All," followed by a resounding thwack on the back with Aristotle's Politics.

Then, while Seejay was herded together outside with the rest of the riff-raff and minorities excluded from the PACE debates, he was struck full force in the face with the Papers of Thomas Jefferson and The Entire Collected Works of the Stoics, impairing Seejay in one eye and splitting his lip. Before lapsing into unconsciousness his last clear observation was seeing the good doctor of democracy Dr. Francis Kane at the end of a throwing motion. 

Though setbacks abounded for the little illegal immigrant from India, it is a calm and resourceful mind that must deliberate on politics for the public good, and delinquent children would gather in front of Seejay's Quicky-Mart storefront window on Main Street, Salisbury in the early morning to see him cogitate, meditate, mull, and ruminate on greater political things.

Especially delightful for the children was to see him methodically stroke his handlebar mustache while pondering, the pointed ends of which he would wax at precisely 7:30 A.M. each weekday.

It was not enough. A fat man from Fruitland, MD, Rick Pollitt, who cared little for fruit and more for powdered doughnuts, bulled his way into the political arena with empty promises and heavy puffs of subsidized confectioner's sugar. The simple Wicomicountian folk, being themselves morbidly obese and fond of diabetes, had much in common with Pollitt's hyperglycemic girth.

Thus, the 20 percent of Wicomicountians who dared raise their lips from their morning Froot Loops and their eyes from the evening Ball Game to make it to the voting booth voted in majority for Pollitt, their likeness.

It was a lowbrow powdered doughnut and Scrapple eating contest instead of a voting opportunity, plain and simple. When the subsidized confectioner's sugar dust settled and the all you can eat Scrapple trough ran low, the people gazed up at a lone figure, Seejay, with a Dry Erase Board in one hand and a Dry Erase Marker in the other. The furious scribbling of intelligent governing principles seen on the Dry Erase Board in the form of a 6 Plank Platform did not sway the Wicomicountians at the trough.

There Seejay stood, proudly and slightly astonished, with handlebar mustache sharply tipped and neatly waxed.

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

A hush grew over the crowd. Seejay went on, "I, uh, I h-have things to do."

He fumbled a bit with his hands, dropped the Dry Erase Board and Marker and reached into his pocket whispering to himself, "I’ve put this off for far too long."

Seejay addressed the crowd, "I regret to announce this is the end. I am going now. I bid you all a very fond farewell. Goodbye."

Within his pocket he grasped and put on a rare ring, a Ring of Invisibility, and Whoosh! Seejay disappeared from existence.

"Oooh!" the crowd gasped.

Seejay Gupta was never seen or heard from again.

*Author's note: Seejay Gupta's 6 Plank Platform is preserved here for posterior's sake.

A sampling of reasoning from our Stoic wise man Epictetus:

…If a man possesses any superiority, or thinks that he does when he does not, such a man, if he is uninstructed, will of necessity be puffed up through it. For instance, the tyrant says, I am master of all! And what can you do for me? Can you give me desire which shall have no hindrance? How can you? Have you the infallible power of avoiding what you would avoid? Have you the power of moving towards an object without error? And how do you possess this power? Come, when you are in a ship, do you trust to yourself or to the helmsman? And when you are in a chariot, to whom do you trust but to the driver? And how is it in all other arts? Just the same. In what, then, lies your power? All men pay respect to me. Well, I also pay respect to my platter, and I wash it and wipe it; and for the sake of my oil-flask, I drive a peg into the wall. Well, then, are these things superior to me? No, but they supply some of my wants, and for this reason I take care of them. Well, do I not attend to my ass? Do I not wash his feet? Do I not clean him? Do you not know that every man has regard to himself, and to you just the same as he has regard to his ass? For who has regard to you as a man? Show me. Who wishes to become like you? Who imitates you, as he imitates Socrates? But I can cut off your head. You say right. I had forgotten that I must have regard to you, as I would to a fever and the bile, and raise an altar to you, as there is at Rome an altar to fever.

What is it then that disturbs and terrifies the multitude? Is it the tyrant and his guards? (By no means.) I hope that it is not so. It is not possible that what is by nature free can be disturbed by anything else, or hindered by any other thing than by itself. But it is a man's own opinions which disturb him. For when the tyrant says to a man, I will chain your leg, he who values his leg says, Do not; have pity. But he who values his own will says, If it appears more advantageous to you, chain it. Do you not care? I do not care. I will show you that I am master. You cannot do that. Zeus has set me free; do you think that he intended to allow his own son to be enslaved? But you are master of my carcase; take it. So when you approach me, you have no regard to me? No, but I have regard to myself; and if you wish me to say that I have regard to you also, I tell you that I have the same regard to you that I have to my pipkin.

What then? When absurd notions about things independent of our will, as if they were good and (or) bad, lie at the bottom of our opinions, we must of necessity pay regard to tyrants: for I wish that men would pay regard to tyrants only, and not also to the bedchamber men. How is it that the man becomes all at once wise, when Cæsar has made him superintendent of the close stool? How is it that we say immediately, Felicion spoke sensibly to me? I wish he were ejected from the bedchamber, that he might again appear to you to be a fool.

Has a man been exalted to the tribuneship? All who meet him offer their congratulations; one kisses his eyes, another the neck, and the slaves kiss his hands. He goes to his house, he finds torches lighted. He ascends the Capitol; he offers a sacrifice on the occasion. Now who ever sacrificed for having had good desires? for having acted conformably to nature? For in fact we thank the gods for those things in which we place our good.

A person was talking to me to-day about the priesthood of Augustus. I say to him: Man, let the thing alone; you will spend much for no purpose. But he replies, Those who draw up agreements will write my name. Do you then stand by those who read them, and say to such persons, It is I whose name is written there? And if you can now be present on all such occasions, what will you do when you are dead? My name will remain. Write it on a stone, and it will remain. But come, what remembrance of you will there be beyond Nicopolis? But I shall wear a crown of gold. If you desire a crown at all, take a crown of roses and put it on, for it will be more elegant in appearance…. (A Selection from the Discourses of Epictetus With the Encheiridion)

—Epictetus (55-135) 

Incredibly, some people think that if you constantly resist a good idea or principle through personal feelings or bad arguments, somehow the principle is rendered obsolete. Bad arguments are a mainstay today in justifying all manner of nonsense and because many people severely lack the most basic skills of determining what makes sense, no one is any wiser as a result and we all suffer. The amount of time wasted on disagreements through bad arguing is so enormous that we never get on to living our lives according to better principles, and this has been going on for thousands of years.

*Note: The word "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" and other references to their practice is taken to mean the highest and best form of each respective practice.

"Homosexuality is right because some people hate homosexuals or because some people are homophobic." This is a major argument used to support homosexuality that makes absolutely no sense. Your way of life is not right because someone else disagrees with or is fearful of it. The rightness of your belief has to stand on its own merits.

If a homosexual person is assaulted because of his homosexuality, the assault does not make homosexual behavior right. Yet that is the premise for this very common argument, that a person's "lifestyle" can be justified by another person's disagreement with that "lifestyle" (often found in early schooling through college).

We all know that it is wrong to violently assault people, and we should know that it is wrong to hate people. Many people hated Hitler for what he did to the Jews and minorities, but does that make what he did to them right?

"Most people oppose same-sex marriages or most people oppose homosexuality, therefore homosexuality is wrong." This is a poorly formed argument because what a majority of people think does not make it right. For example, if a majority of people think it is right to murder or rape does that then make the practice right?

"People of the same sex may love each other and therefore homosexuality is good because love is good." Friends, sisters, or brothers may love each other but there is no sexual aspect within their love. The distinguishing mark of a homosexual relationship implies sexuality of one form or another as the defining characteristic of the relationship which isn't true love. True and proper love, good love, does not recognize mere sexuality, or lust, as its defining factor and does not stall out on lower self-serving needs.

Proponents of this argument define the meaning of "love" however they wish. This is a very common and immature belief system which changes meaning to match belief, in this case equating love with lust.

"Some homosexuals don't have actual sex and their relationship may be based in love, therefore homosexuality is right." Not exactly, the implications of sexuality persist as a predominant influence in a homosexual's thoughts, intentions, words, or other deeds. Homosexuality is precisely distinguished on a sexual level which has no higher purpose than itself.

Heterosexuality, on the other hand, is distinguished on a sexual level occurring within the higher context and principle of having children and community. If persons of the same sex were non-sexual in their relationship, they may be good friends. If you argue that friends can be sexual, then that is not the meaning of a good friendship. Same sex friends that realize the proper ordering of their sexuality would be guided towards the opposite sex where their sexual union points towards greater meaning.

"Homosexuality and sexual orientation is genetic and predetermined and because a homosexual is who a person really is, therefore homosexuality is right." This is a very pervasive argument today which justifies human behavior according to your unique genetic blueprint. One assumption, however, is that there is no higher ordering level of humanity than acting out genetic predispositions towards certain things. Therefore, if a person happens to have a sexual orientation towards an infant, pair of shoes, or a monkey, then these orientations should be justified and validated as well.

Even if these odd orientations could be traced genetically, your higher moral reasoning capabilities still guide you to understand how attractions to infants, monkeys, other oddities and sexually based relationships is wrong. If you argue that you are inherently "gay" or "straight" and attempts to change that go against who you really are, then that begs the question: what does being "gay" or "straight" mean and is that really who you are? As has been argued here, sexuality should be understood and practiced within the greater good of having children.

A supposedly "gay" person can understand past genetic instinct, or pure conditioning, and choose to develop towards the higher and greater goods of children and community. However, the short answer is that self-reflecting with reason and using higher moral guidelines acts as a formative authority for the otherwise predispositioned lower levels of genetic, instinctual, and behavioral patterns.

It is also certain, more so than sex, that we have a genetic requirement to eat food, but we can eat in different ways: like a pig at the trough, or slowly and appreciatively; we can choose to eat certain foods and not others as in vegetarianism; we can even choose to fast and not eat for a period of time as Ghandi of India had done.

"Some people who are heterosexual can't have kids, making their relationship the same or similar to a homosexual relationship—therefore homosexuality is right." Firstly, an exception does not ruin the greater rule or principle. Secondly, the problem with this argument is that you are trying to equate an infertile heterosexual couple with a fertile heterosexual couple, as if one is no better than the other.

The fertile couple is the natural intended way of human life and the infertile couple, though physically unable to have children, still look up to the greater principle of having children and participating in community. In other words, an infertile couple does not want to be infertile. They realize they are inherently gifted with creating life though accidentally prevented to fruition.

Same sex sexual movements have an inherent impossibility of anything greater than the physical movements themselves.

Heterosexual couples prevented from having children can still make love to one another as a commitment to that greater child creating principle, and as a natural joining that is very beneficial on many levels. If they choose to adopt a child then these higher values would be passed along to someone who likely will have children to be taught these same principles, and so on. They can also remember that faith in the most impossible circumstances can yield the most impossible of things hoped for.

"Some heterosexuals don't want to have kids and some homosexuals don't want to have kids, therefore homosexuality is right." What matters most in this case is the reasoning behind why a married couple would not want to have children. Insufficient income, inability to parent properly, and distrust in the marriage: these all are valid reasons to not have children and especially to not have been married in the first place, but the light of reason demands them to correct these difficulties.

The union of a man and woman is fundamentally based in loving commitment towards one another and in the creation of life through that union. Sexuality, then, has a greater and higher purpose.

Additionally, comparing fact B of a set of facts to fact A of a set of facts does not justify the equating of fact B and its set of facts to fact A and its set of facts.

"Guys and girls are hopping into different beds together with alarming speed and regularity, and men and women are getting divorced, bickering, and abusing their children, therefore relationships such as homosexuality are right if the previous kind of negative qualities are not found." The perverters of what is good and reasonable to hold dear in our hearts do not ruin the greater rule that man and woman respectfully together with child is the correction to our rebellious natures. The problem with this argument is that it attempts to equate the behavior of promiscuous and immature "guys and girls" with the behavior of a man and woman together in committed respect. The two are completely different. The factual circumstances of what a man and woman do together does not take away the greater principles they are held accountable to.

This argument and many like it are basically saying that because people can violate a principle that the principle is somehow diminished as a result. People can choose to violate good principles but they are still accountable to those same good principles and their irreducibility.

"The Bible says homosexuality is wrong or sinful, therefore homosexuality is wrong." This argument still begs the question: Why is homosexuality wrong? Just because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong does not make it wrong. To realize a behavior is wrong or right, you have to understand the reasons why it is wrong or right. Before the time of the Bible a person would still be able to reason the arguments against homosexuality and reasons in favor of only a man and woman being sexually together.

"Homosexuality is not natural, therefore homosexuality is wrong." This would be shown to be true if the argument was expanded on. Many things in human life are not natural, like nylon toothbrushes and automobiles, so the argument cannot go anywhere in that vein of thinking.

You can say that a man and woman are naturally made for each other. This is an extremely important and valid argument because it shows a fundamental connection between our biological, psychological, and moral levels. On a biological level, you can affirm that a man's penis fits into a woman's vagina for the purpose of fertilization and through this an offspring will be produced.

But because we are subject to higher moral levels we do not impregnate just anyone and everybody. We should firmly commit ourselves to one person, with whom our sexuality has a higher context, otherwise we are being disingenuous. Human beings operating on a higher moral level take into account biological and psychological conditions such that the higher levels of humanity are dependent on but not reduceable to the lower.

In other words, a man and woman fit naturally together biologically and on other levels, and higher moral reflection clarifies and justifies their relationship.

"Monkeys or other animals exhibit homosexual behavior, therefore homosexuality is right." But monkeys are not human beings and do not have the reasoning and moral decision making higher levels of humans. Justifying human behavior based on animal behaviors exhibited in the animal world must first establish no significant differences between humans and animals.

Animals, however, operate according to pure psychological conditioning, which is apparently their highest level. Human beings have the ability to self-reflect, to reason, and mold their lower psychological and behavioral levels according to a higher moral framework.

"Gay parents will raise gay children, therefore homosexuality is wrong" You are still begging the question of why homosexuality is wrong. If gay children are wrong because their parents are gay, why is it wrong for the parents to be gay?

"Homosexuality is a harmful practice, therefore homosexuality is wrong." On a biological level it may be that homosexuality is more risky then heterosexuality in terms of contracting diseases, but many activities have risks associated with them. What shows heterosexual activity as less risky perhaps is that on a biological level the vagina is designed more sturdily for sexual intercourse than the anus, but lesbian sexual activity is different from male homosexual activity, etc.

The true harm done is not only on a sexual biological level, but involves the intention and meaning behind sexual involvement with another person. Again, we do not exist only on a sexual or biological level. Grave psychological and moral damage is surely caused by the practice of homosexuality and its acceptance. Homosexuality, by its definition, is sociopathic or at least some sort of mental disease.

Without recognizing a higher good past mere sexuality, human beings cease to be fully human. The proper ordering of our sexuality only occurs within a higher moral context.