Saturday, January 5, 2008

GOP "CROTCH POLITICS" --Mudrake's term, as it pertains to homosexual unions

A fellow blogger wrote elsewhere:

They [gays] aren’t going to change their lifestyles simply because we disapprove of it. That’s a fact, so some sort of accommodation must be made.


First statement is probably true–though there are many ex-gays today who say they found they were able to enjoy heterosex after all. Second statement is NOT a necessary conclusion. We don’t legally accomodate statutory rape (girls being too young for older men) –pedophiles –adulterers –bigamists, polygamists –etc. All of these have sexual proclivities that society prosecutes or frowns upon –rather than accommodating. Gays are looking for legitimacy for inclinations that should have been rejected in the mind at the first thought –and rejected at the first opportunity for intimacy. They want (and are gaining) societal legitimacy and approval for their activities, some of which are very dangerous and harmful and disease-prone –and addictive and promiscuous. They want approval for same-sex relationships and activities which most parents dread for their children.

As parents, we’d be furious at any older (or even same age) homosexual that lured a young son into that life and contributed to a gay self-image and gave him AIDS –and we probably wouldn’t want the old gink admitted to his hospital room where he lay dying of AIDS –and we’d probably want him buried in a plot of our choice instead of Chester the Molester’s. However, by current law, if he is 18 or older he could make his own living will and determine who visits and who buries him –he can keep the will in the medical chart and discuss it with his doctor. Granted, if he hadn’t gotten his “crotch” alligned with some gay guy’s posterior, he wouldn’t be dying of or spreading AIDS or putting the health care team at risk from his body fluids. I think homosexuality is at least a public health risk. (This was hypothetical, BTW, as I don't have any gay children.)

I’m more willing to accommodate illegals –accommodation to people who sneaked in here to work and make a better life than they had in Mexico–than accommodating people’s illicit sexual proclivities.

Call it “crotch politics” as the blogger Mudraker does. Sex is a powerful drive, responsible for much good in the world (including the proliferation of the miraculous human race and the pleasure factor) –and it has also been a powerful force to control with the discipline, bliss, and societal benefits and restrictions of solid hetero marriages which may or may not be blessed with children.

Children are for society’s benefit; when raised to be respectful of their parents, they grow up to care for the elderly parents, bring joys that help to dispell depression and loneliness, provide the social security for the aged and others in need, provide national defense, and they provide a safe haven for THEIR offspring growing up in a sometimes lonely, cruel world. A functional home is the best mental health center for its members and friends–along with good church community. Functional hetero marriage with kids is the gift to oneself that keeps on giving, generation after generation. That's the one that deserves the perks for the sacrifice of raising a family --or for at least following God's bio-design by marrying the opposite sex.

Yes, there is misery in human families, but much less so when all are seeking to be disciples of Christ and students of the Word of God--when they love and parent wisely. And yes, there is poverty with indiscriminate baby-making–especially when fathers abandon the mothers. The Protestant church typically does NOT oppose some kinds of birth control. They have a different view of God’s sovereignty usually –believing we are stewards of our own fertility, to some extent. They don't have a negative anti-pleasure view of marriage --as is sometimes said of their Catholic monastic brethren.

The gay couples can provide their own accommodations through all the legal means available to them –namely WILLS, joint ownership by names on deeds, naming each other as beneficiaries, etc. They don’t NEED our accommodations same as hetero couples get, they WANT them! No one would say they can’t have all the benefits of best friends who share housing and expenses because they never found hetero spouses –But we don’t want to hear about their sexual activities, implicitly or otherwise. They want to be viewed as “normal” having sex when the sexual aspect of that lifestyle is neither normal or necessary or productive nor, in most cases, are they even “financially needy for family perks” –since, being childless, both can work full time without the additional constraints, requirements and huge expenses and complications of child-bearing and child-rearing.

As for equal rights, gays have the same rights as other people --to marry someone of the opposite sex and pro-create or adopt children into a family with a Mom and a Dad.

There is no societal obligation to re-arrange itself so gay couples can adopt, since there are plenty of hetero couples wanting to do so. However, even if they do, those children will be provided for on insurance policies of at least one parent –or by the real father if adoption is not recognized. There is no evidence to date that adoption by a gay couple is advantageous to children compared to adoption by a mom and dad.

And gay couples don’t, by definition of their union alone, NECESSARILY QUALIFY for family and marriage benefits which are designed to protect children and mothers, who either need help with child care or have to stay home with their children. They are not just LIKE a man and woman who are designed to go together biologically since the dawn of time –whose unions have been recognized as the basis of the FAMILY –and SOCIETIES are made of FAMILIES with providing fathers and nurturing mothers (and vice versa) who confine their “crotch access” to each other, sanctioned by most cultures’ marital laws, traditions and religions.

There isn’t any reason for one of them to be dependent on the other –whereas in normal marriages, many couples still choose the traditional at-home role for MOm, helping to guide, nurture the children and grand-children, and run the house –if the husband can afford it. Some find it is more expensive to have mother work outside the home. Transporting kids to schools and school events, lessons and sports, becomes a big part of a mother’s fulltime job –and running the car to repair –taking care of family business and mail –volunteer work –keeping up the kitchen, laundry, house– Stay at home MOms find plenty to do –and many are home-schooling, following the school schedule and providing excellent education –in great part because they don’t want their childrens’ faith and Christian values undermined by educators like Mudly who have agnostic atheism and moral relativity as part of their teaching agenda., who bear hostility toward people of faith and their moral convictions which they have a right to pass on to their children without interference by liberal educators wanting to liberalize other people’s children. An available grandmother is a real blessing to a young family for counsel, problem solving, baby sitting, emotional uplift for all –and in turn, we are blessed and feel purposeful to a whole lot of people.

I’ve heard women insulted on blogs for the luxury of “sitting on their fat A’s” –because their husbands can afford them to be home. If I would take a fulltime job, I would take that job from someone who needs it. We don’t really need it at this stage of our lives. I have plenty to do and my husband can afford the luxury that is ME! LOL! Besides, after bearing and raising four nice, law-abiding citizens all the way through and beyond college and helping with grandchildren, now, I deserve "early retirement." I'll be 62 this year --and may finally have an empty nest this year. Thanks to grandchildren, I don't think I'll get depressed! or lonely!



"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

15 comments:

Christian Apologist said...

Barb you said:

"As parents, we’d be furious at any older (or even same age) homosexual that lured a young son into that life and contributed to a gay self-image and gave him AIDS –and we probably wouldn’t want the old gink admitted to his hospital room where he lay dying of AIDS –and we’d probably want him buried in a plot of our choice instead of Chester the Molester’s. However, by current law, if he is 18 or older he could make his own living will and determine who visits and who buries him –he can keep the will in the medical chart and discuss it with his doctor. Granted, if he hadn’t gotten his “crotch” alligned with some gay guy’s posterior, he wouldn’t be dying of or spreading AIDS or putting the health care team at risk from his body fluids. I think homosexuality is at least a public health risk. (This was hypothetical, BTW, as I don't have any gay children.)"

I must say that I do not approve of the way you are trying to get your point across here. Surely there are better ways to say the things you wish to say than the crude language you actually do use. Christs' love should penetrate every aspect of our daily lives.
They shall know us by our fruit. And the fruit of the spirit is; Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and faith. I see none of these demonstrated here.
I hope you can take this as the constructive critisim it is meant to be and please feel free to delete this comment after you've read it.

Barb said...

I don't mind your comment at all, C.A. Your point is well taken. thanks for writing.

However the "crotch" phrase was coined by a blogger who thinks any political view in favor of traditional definition of marriage is "crotch politics." Same for people who disapprove of abortion. I had him in mind in referencing the term to describe the "crux" of the matter, the defining behaviors that make one qualify as "homosexual."

I don't have a lot of compassion for adult predators who start with boys or younger men --or even their same age peers --and seduce and lure them into perverse, addictive, orgasmic activities. I understand the position of a young man's parents toward the older gay seducer --just like Terry Schiavo's life should not have been terminated by a husband who had moved on to another woman -- leaving her parents helpless to make any determinations about her life, burial, etc.

Let a gay man write his living will if he wants his gay boyfriend to be in charge of him as he lay dying of the AIDS he got from his seducer. We don't need to normalize, convenience, or celebrate the abnormal fixation with legal recognition and condonement, legal status on a par with hetero marriage.

Yes, I know God loves and can save "the old gink," "chester the Molester, " also --although the Bible says, "whoever harms one of the little ones --it were better a millstone were hung about his neck and he were cast into the sea."
Jesus said it. But it is God's call, His judgment and penalty, not mine.

How would I actually deal one on one with a homosexual person, older or younger? with the fruits of the spirit -- but if it were my son who was taken in during a vulnerable life stage, and given a death sentence because of it --I would not appreciate the molester nor a gov't that would give him any rights over my son --which rights he had already usurped by luring him in to the snare that is called homosexuality.

Barb said...

Say, Christian apologist, are you by any chance the FOB, Baldspot?

Feel free to challenge and correct me any time.

Christian Apologist said...

actually this is Aaron from church. Rob was talking about your blog and I thought I'd come take a look.

You have 4 seperate topics here that you are treating as one in the same.

1. Gay rights- As human beings a homosexual has just as many rights as a normal person. The problem really is that the government gives special recognition to married people. Maybe this should not be. Perhaps it is not the governments job to play favorites and promote any lifestyle above another. i.e. more privelages for married vs. single.
2. Pedophiles. I dont think anyone likes pedophiles whether they are after little boys or little girls. The Law is quite clear on this topic and there are penalties for these actions.
3. You seem to be of the opinion that STD's are a homosexual problem. The STD problem comes from promiscuity not sexual orientation.
4. You imply that more guilt lays on the sin of homosexuality for the seducer and not the seducee. The guilt ways equally on both partners of a sinful act.

Barb said...

Welcome, Aaron. Here are my opinions relative to what you wrote:

1. Gay rights. Gays have the same rights as straights --to marry someone of the opposite sex and start a family with them. They have a legal right to private consensual activities between adults behind their closed doors--however, that doesn't make all behind-the-door sex activity right in God's eyes, of course --and doesn't make it GOOD or moral by western society's traditional standards of morality --which standards really exist because the consequences of violating them adversely affect society as a whole --which violations have proven to be adverse since the fall of man or the beginning of sin. Right now, AIDS is one of the most expensive (to society) and severe adverse consequences of gay sex.

Traditional restriction of sexual activity to hetero marriage gives individuals, families (children) and communities the best chance for OPTIMAL emotional, physical and economic health.

The editor of U.S. News and World Report wrote in October, 07, that the traditional family with a mother and father produced the best results in children's well-being, academically, socially, economically, etc. -- by every study to date. (not a quote)

So I think it IS in gov't's best interest to cultivate traditional hetero marriage and family life as the best anti-poverty and anti-crime/delinquency program --the best educational program --the best mental health program --and a real boon to national health overall.

Moreover, we need couples who will procreate kids to sustain social security and national defense and our other social programs --with their labor and taxes. In Europe, some nations are paying women to bear children because of their negative birth rate. Europeans have the most libertine ideas of sex, yet the least marriage, fewest children ---and the most singleness.

2. Pedophiles -- In talking about an older person or peer who is the seducer, the one who lures people into their first homosexual experience,I'm not necessarily talking about the seducee being under-age. He may be 18 --and yes, he is morally guilty for letting himself be drawn into homosexual or any other pre-marital activities --but I am simply speaking to the issue of who has the rights to be the family and claim the body of their son whose boyfriend gave him AIDS. The son can draw up his living will easily to guarantee that his seducer/lover can visit him in the hospital, and bury him, if he wants to pay for it. (I'm sure the boyfriend is willing to have the parents pay for the casket and the grave site.)

I'm just saying that the reason given for gay marriage, is that they want gay couples to have the same rights as married couples when they are ill and dying --and the gay lovers want to claim any property and insurance that the partner has. Without a will, the deceased's stuff would go to his next of kin instead of to the gay lover. SO HE SIMPLY HAS TO PREPARE A WILL. And if he dies suddenly in a car crash and has no will, too bad if his parents get his stuff instead of his boyfriend of 6 mnths. I see no compelling reason here to recognize the gay couples' sexual relationship same as a hetero married couple's in order to get these marital benefits for transient (or any other) boyfriends. Since wills can accomplish the same thing.

3. Aaron, homosexuals brought AIDS to America. It's in the med. lit. In America, it is still epidemic among gays and not among straights. It is also affecting black women --because black men are "on the downlow" --meaning heteros who have gay sex recreationally --not for the relationships but for the quickies. AIDS went from the gays to their wives, infants, prostitutes and IV drug users.

And yes, it's in the general population, now.

And yes, promiscuity of either gays or heteros is a high risk factor for all STD's--but it's still a higher risk for gays because of the nature of their activities --anal sex being a ready route for the virus into the bloodstream.

4.While the guilt lies on both partners in a sinful act --a seducer, a temptor, temptress bears the guilt of the one who is the stumbling block, the one who initiates harm to others --and if the seducee is weak-willed and younger --he is like "one of these little ones" harmed by someone whom Christ says will be severely punished.

However, we know that Jesus died for ALL our sins and there is no one righteous. His blood covers all who truly repent.

Barb said...

Just heard on the radio, that San Francisco is where a new strain of staph, resistant to antibiotics, is spreading throughout the gay community and into the hospitals. The promiscuous lifestyle and the nature of the activities of the gay community are such that entering into that lifestyle --and proliferating it in a nation by encouraging and condoning and legalizing it --is dangerous for all concerned. It IS a public health hazard.

It is no more healthy to a culture than adultery, divorce, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, bigamy, polyandry, bestiality and prostitution. We don't put people in jail for the first 2 --but we all know that adultery and divorce take a toll upon our nation. the others are all prosecuted as crimes. We are trying to call homosexuality an inevitable, immutable, inborn orientation, like a race --or at worst, a disability/handicap -- deserving of the same respect as heterosexuality or a disability or race.

When in fact, homosexuality bears more in common with incest and pedophilia and serial adultery --sexual addictions/fixations for which we ought to seek prevention and remedies for--and not celebrate with parades.

For one thing, we are giving the children a very bad message --to think that they have an option or should experiment to see which way they want to go --it's called "exploring one's sexuality." NO good parents wants their kids doing this.

Christian Apologist said...

I dont have any real disagreement with you about homesexuality and its effects. However, we should not be trying to legislate morality. Every time this is attempted it fails. Usually with very bad unintended consequences. Constitutionaly the only purpose of federal govt. is to provide for defense. Uphold our inallianable rights and to act as arbiter between states when dispute arises. the perversity and depravity of U.S. culture is not due to any lack of legislation but due to the christians in this country disengaging from the 'world'.

Barb said...

I'm a lot older than you, A --so I know that lots of our legislation is the legislation of morality and nothing new --and it is accepted except for atheists and any who think these laws are bogus.

E.G. We legislate against bigamy, polygamy, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, and pedophilia. That is legislating morality. And yes, we have good social and health reasons for doing so --just as there are good health reasons to discourage, by law, homosexual alliances --saying they don't qualify as marriages by the civic laws.

Actually, to say that murder and theft are punishable offenses --instead of justifiable if you have a good reason to murder --or justifiable if you had a need for the things you stole --or justifiable if the person left his stuff-- saying these acts are punishable is also legislating morality --making a determination about what is right and what is wrong --which happens to also be consistent with Judeo-Christian moral code.

Not so with other religious groups coming in --who think polygamy is ok, e.g. --and female mutilation. In the African past, it was polite to share your wife with a guest. And if you leave your pie on a window or your bike unsecured, expect it to be stolen by somebody who thinks that's fair.

Judeo-Christian standards happen to also be supportable by research and common sense --and so we do legislate morality --with or without a religious basis.

do you still disagree?

Don't forget the party --7 pm. Are you coming? We'll see if we have leftovers for Tuesday neighbors' gathering! And a Sunday gathering. I have to call austin about the fatted calf.

Christian Apologist said...

I'll agree that certain things should be legislated against. i.e. against the law. Those things which bring harm to others such as murder, rape, pedophilia, theft. etc. ad nauseum. However there is a difference between legislating against something and having the government sanction things by giving benefits for it. If there were no benefits to being married granted by the state the gays would have nothing to complain about. That is what I meant about legislating morality.
The government should not be spending money to encourage certain modes of behavior. If one behavior has certain natural benefits over another the first will be practiced more often. That is what happens in a Free Market government. However when government steps in it artificially changes the scales. Look what happened to christianity once Constantine made it the religion of the Empire. The world slid into a dark age. Christian values do not apply well to governments, but for individual application they are fantastic.
You mean 7p.m. on Saturday right?

Barb said...

Actually, there has been a marriage PENALTY in the tax code at times --so singles got more benefit, as I recall. The benefits they want aren't from gov't, though, as much as from business --and they are getting it --but it isn't right because marriage and family perks are a recognition of the financial sacrifices that parents make to procreate, raise, civilize, educate, house, clothe and feed children. Single gays have only themselves to worry about and give the future NO ONE --by any natural means. So that's why marital and family perks belong to the hetero marrieds.

What they are really seeking is sanction for their sexual orientation and sexual coupling. They want kids to grow up feeling they have a choice to explore sexuality with a man or a woman --instead of the taboo it used to be and still should be.

We can't have it both ways --legislate against something and also give benefits for it. The states have defined marriage as it has always been defined, as it shouldn't have to be defined but taken for granted --the union of a man and wife --who may or may not become parents/a family-- sacrificing time and money to bear, raise, and educate responsible citizens for the future --for the nation.

If gay relationships are NOT sanctioned by law --then there should also be no recognition, no benefits/perks for those relationships. they don't need them, for one thing, since they can both work, having no kids. If they did have kids, they would have done better to stay with their hetero spouses than to leave the kids or put them into new arrangements with 2 moms, e.g.

Single moms have the fringe benefit of the child support, insurance, and other helps from the father. Don't need their girlfriend to jump in bed with them in hopes of doubling those benefits.

Homosexuals give us no children and no workers --no one to work and support Social Security and other social programs --no one for national defense. They cost us all more in disease misery because of the nature of their activities --which diseases affect the general population. So they have no right to gripe if normal relationships are more advantaged by gov't. or business, etc.

Child-rearing is such an enormous task, when done well and responsbily --and couples usually sacrifice some income from the wife in order to have more time for the children --especially when they are small. The money paid out for kids puts hetero parents behind the gay couples in terms of how they each use their earnings.

I hope you will reevaluate your statement that Christian values don't translate well to gov't.
Those values include: honesty, respect for life, equality of persons (in gov't as with God), fairness in opportunity (because of our inherent, God-given inalienable rights), the value of education for all ("get wisdom" "study"), diligence (give an honest day's work for the pay, doing one's work as unto the Lord) --and yes, the law enforcement of our nation's moral code --against theft, murder, sex crimes, fraud, etc.

Our western view of human rights is really from our biblical faith. Other systems which don't observe those rights could be challenged on Biblical grounds --except that they don't believe in the Bible! (Or don't know what's in it --as Hitler's Germans apparently did not.)

Yes, 7 Saturday.

Barb said...

Another thought, A, you said gov't shouldn't encourage a certain behavior?

The government should not be spending money to encourage certain modes of behavior. If one behavior has certain natural benefits over another the first will be practiced more often

Your conclusion would suggest that if gov't stays out of the smoking and sex ed issues, people are more apt to choose the best behaviors?

I don't think so. Gov't has financial and societal incentives to promote abstinence from smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, to promote designated driver use, to disallow underage alcohol use, to do abstinence/marriage first sex ed in schools --and to restrict and discourage porn prevalence and prostitution with laws and enfocement. And likewise to discourage homosexual conduct as a public and personal, addictive health hazard.

christian apologist said...

You said:

"I don't think so. Gov't has financial and societal incentives to promote abstinence from smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, to promote designated driver use, to disallow underage alcohol use, to do abstinence/marriage first sex ed in schools --and to restrict and discourage porn prevalence and prostitution with laws and enfocement. And likewise to discourage homosexual conduct as a public and personal, addictive health hazard."

These are all examples of the government discouraging certain behaviors.

Examples of the government encouraging behaviors would be; tax incentives for married couples, and Child tax credits

Nor do I particularly think the government should be spending money on discouragement activities. For one thing the government is terribly inefficient and too often corrupt. Most of these programs are innefective. Some are just plain old bad ideas. For example why do we let 16 year olds get behind the wheel of a car? Wouldnt it be wiser to wait till the hormones coursing through their system settle down a bit?

Barb said...

ENCOURAGING abstinence and responsibility would be the same as DISCOURAGING addiction and irresponsibility. Agreed? IT's the same agenda.

I would say that I do NOT think additional funding should be necessary for these thrusts --except maybe for some video materials, hand outs --but corporations for ladies' supplies provided those in my day free to the schools.

I think all local districts should involve parents in deciding how to teach sex ed and life skills courses (drug abuse prevention) --I think it should be through the health curriculum with the teachers that are already paid to promote good health and discourage health risk-taking. We shouldn't need extra federal funding or special curriculums/programs at great expense. Volunteer groups like the local police and pregnancy centers also can promote sex and drug abstinence -- encouraging sexual abstinence until marriage as the best way --with some knowledge of condoms as a 2nd line of defense against STD's (after abstinence) and birth control available from physicians. They ought not be "value-neutral" and nonjudgmental suggesting to my kids that it's OK to go behind your parents' back to the dr. to start being sexually active. They have no business telling kids that this decision is OK for them to make any way they wish. they need to be clear that it's in the best interest of all for kids to wait for marriage. If their parents want to be more liberal about it, let them do it at their homes. The best advice should be given to all --the value of abstinence until marriage.

The AIDS epidemic in one African nation was slowed down immensely when they stressed abstinence and marriage instead of the UN-style condom program. They could stop AIDS in one generation if they'd all be abstinate and marry only people who share their HIV status --or at least be faithful to one faithful spouse/partner.

I agree that I think the driving age should be raised. Many parents want the mother to work and this causes a transportation issue for all the kids who are in after-school activities, and so they can't wait to get them driving. My kids didn't get their licenses until they were seniors, at least, but i could drive them. I guess most of them survive but there sure are some tragedies with the 16 year old drivers.

And tax breaks for parents for each child --that's been done since I was born --My parents were tickled I was born before January (in Dec.) so they could get a tax deduction for that year.

And tax breaks for the married respected the homemaker's role --but with women working --now the tax breaks are for child care. And there was that marriage penalty in the tax code; I don't know what that was about. I thought they corrected it.

Tax breaks for families are encouraging and helping parents --a good thing to do --because those who give society children for the future deserve the financial break --it is very expensive as I said before --and a sacrifice, in a way, to raise children. Most parents want to do it; but there are those who choose not to be inconvenienced and see it that way--as inconvenience. I think it's just fine to give tax breaks to those who choose to marry and be inconvenienced --benefitting the nation in several ways --by raising children and making their marriages work.

Christian Apologist said...

ENCOURAGING abstinence and responsibility would be the same as DISCOURAGING addiction and irresponsibility. Agreed? IT's the same agenda.

No I don't agree that they are the same thing. If I did I wouldnt have pointed it out. I dont think discouraging is as powerful a tool as Encouraging. You raised kids, which worked better on them.

I think the false notion here is that the government can actually be effective in legislating morality. Take drugs for instance. They are completely illegal. Despite all the money the U.S. Govt. spends fighting against them they continue to flood the streets. Why then do we continue to try and fund it? The reason is that people maintain the completely irrational view that if the government is spending money on a problem it will go away.

Barb said...

It's the difference between a liberal view and a conservative view on the drug issue. I think law and law enforcement really are both deterrent and teacher. Others think that because we can't eliminate the crime, we should just decriminalize the crime.

But in fact, There WILL be MORE drug use if it is legal --just as the per capita consumption of liquor was much less during the Prohibition era --and all our crime revolved around the alcohol, illegal stills, speakeasies, gangsters, etc. Now alcohol trafficking isn't the crime --just everything else that alcohol contributes to --thousands of highway deaths, molesters of children, alcoholism, rehab programs, violence and abuse, adulteries, fighting and brawls, binge drinking in colleges with all sorts of attending problems, including poor school achievement, cirrhosis, premature death, waking up and not knowing what you did the night before, date rapes, birth defects, etc.

Truly, when I encouraged my kids to wait for marriage --I also discouraged NOT waiting --or discouraged casual sex outside of marriage --taught in favor of marriage adn waiting for marriage --taught against not waiting --and used negative examples --of people who made babies and got married --but probably wouldn't have chosen that person if a baby had not been made. Couples that started out in love but grew very unhappy with each other and thus probably married too young. Short circuiting education because of early sex activity and the necessity of marriage. Of course, teaching about STD's and untimely pregnancy is helpful in detering or at least delaying pre marital sex.

Should we never mention Hell --but only Heaven?

If I don't know why NOT to do something, I am more apt to do it.