Children's Rights Must Be Protected

As a Roman Catholic, I was taught that all forms of birth control were against our religion. Today as a Good Samaritan, I disagree with that teaching. I believe any form of birth control that doesn't involve changing God's work is acceptable. So I'm against the pill and any surgical procedure that changes the body. I bet man has been using divices similar to condoms for 100s of years. It's a natural way to stop the creation of a baby. So I bet they used things like sheeps intestings, pieces of cloth and only God knows what else. In many cases they helped to make the sexual act more enjoyable for the couple in addition to reducing the chances of having a baby. In addition to the condom, I believe anything the couple chooses to use to stop the sperm from getting to the egg that can be inserted and/or removed by the couple is a natural form of birth control. Things that change nature are not acceptable. The pill for instance changes the body and has side effects. Why take that risk when a condom used properly has no side effects plus it reduces the mess; adds pleasure for the female; can prolong the male's erection; and delays his ejaculation.

NOTE: As pointed out by several catholic church leaders a comdom is not completely safe against AIDS and various forms of VD if used incorrectly. One of the BIGGEST mistakes, I believe is not removing the penis before the erection is over. By keeping the penis inserted, you allow it to slip out of the comdom and expose both parties to each others fluids. END OF NOTE

As I said in an earlier message, I don't beleive in throwing stones. So I don't condem people that decide to violate any religious teaching. Who am I to condem anyone when Christ himself wouldn't condem Mary Magdelene for having several men.

Since I don't throw stones I won't complain about two women or two men that want to be a couple. On the other hand, I have a problem with them having children. God intended children to have a male father and a female mother. God didn't make it possible for two women or two men to have a baby. So I'm saying unborn babies have a right to be the son or daughter of a male father and a female mother. If we allow two females or two males to have a baby we are violating the baby's right to have a male father and a female mother. So I beleive there needs to be a law requiring all babies to have a male father and a female mother. It's the baby's right and it overrules the rights of two females and/or two males.

If we allow a baby to be cloned; externally fertialized; or created by some other means for two women and/or two men to have a child, we are creating an unacceptable world for that child. How many parents are going to let their child play and/or visit the home of a child that has two male or two female parents. Do you want your child learning to accept two males or two females hugging and kissing. I don't think so. In fact, that child will be marked as funny from the start.

In today's world gay people don't know they're gay till they're in their teens. These children will be considered gay almost from birth even if they aren't. They'll have to live through HELL their whole lives. God doesn't allow that to happen. Who are we to override His authority?

So I say CHILDREN HAVE RIGHT TOO. All babies have the right to be born with a male father and a female mother. No gay couple has the right to steal that right from any unborn baby. Isn't BAD ENOUGH that we allow unborn babies to be aborted. Who will stand up for their rights? Whom will God Send?

Even though I don't understand same sex relationships, it's their right to in a FREE/RELIGIOUS WORLD to live the way they choose. I believe it's IMPORTANT to defend our freedom and anyone's rights including unborn babies. If we allow anyone to lose any of their rights, we all lose our right to freedom. In Perth, there's a monument with the following quote, "First the Nazis came for the Jews, I didn't care because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the communists, I didn't care because I wan't a communist. Then they came for the ministers, I didn't care because I wan't a minister. Then they came for me and no one was left to help me." So for the same reasons that I defend same sex relationships, I also defend an unborn or young child's right to have a male father and a female mother.

Any same sex partnership/relationship that insists on having a child is admitting they are not good parents. They care more about themselves than the problems they're creating for the child they want to raise. King Salomon would tell them the same thing. He knew a GOOD MOHTER and/or a GOOD FATHER will care more about their children than themselves.

King Salomon was told to hear a case invovling two women both that claimed to be the mother of the same child, he said, I'll cut the baby in half and each of you can have half. One of the would be mothers said I'm not the mother give her the baby. He knew she was the real mother. The real mother would give up her child to protect it. Same sex couples that want children don't seem to care about the problems, hardships and prejudices their children will have to live with their whole life. Do they want gay relationships to be the norm? Do we want children to grow up thinking thinking mixed couples are odd because everyone they know has two mothers or two fathers. Will their children have friends that have a male father and a female mother? We all know the problems that a single parent has raising happy, healthy children. DO we want to find out how many problems society has to endure because same sex relationship are raising children.

So I'm against same sex couples having children because every child has the right to have a male father and a female mother. That's the natural way and that's what God intended. Any same sex couple that insists on having a child doesn't really care about that child. They're selfish and care more about themselves and their happiness than the life they're giving the child they want.

One more point to consider. Can the child later sue the parents and/or the government for letting a same sex couple have a child? Does the child have the right to sue for damages because they didn't have a male father and a female mother and that caused hardships on them?

I guess the same points can be made for clones. The point is NATURE made it possible for a man and a women to have a child. Nature did not make it possible for two women or two men to have a child. So if the government allows medicine and/or cloning to violate NATURE then I'd say the government is liable for the consequences. The children that suffer from any mistakes, problems and/or society prejudices that result from cloning, or other non-natural pregancy have a right to be compensated. They did not chose to be created by a non-natural man-made child birth method. So someone is going to be liable. As a taxpayer, I vote against all non-natural froms of child creation. So I refuse to be liable for any of those problems. I vote we outlaw all non-natural forms of child creation unless someone wants to pay the insurance and be held liable for all the consiquences. I don't want to have to tell my son and/or daughter, I'm sorry we had you. We wouldn't have done it if we knew you were going to have all these problems at school, with friends, birth defects and who know what else.

If you don't think same sex couples' children won't have any more problems than other children, think about how many more problems single parent families have with their children. Who wants to be responsible for taking that risk? I never believe in taking a risk I don't need to take. Especially when its that important and/or if it can't be undone, corrected or started over. Unnatural child creations is risking everything that child has or will have for the rest of his or her life. How can we allow ourselves to risk a babies' future? That baby has rights and if we don't protect those rights we're liable but I hope we don't make that mistake.

One last thought, if God had wanted same sex partners to have children, He would have made it physically possible. Since it's not physically possible, God must not have wanted same sex partners to have children.