In a Graduate Level class it was made clear to me that the design of the southern end of the alimentary canal was not for entry, where as the more ventral aperture of the female
pelvis appears to be more amenable to entry or exit.

Draw your own conclusions. I am not here for argument.

I am divorced celibate male by both choice and religious
belief. Celibacy is not an impossible choice. It is the choice
of society to make that appear so and, in my opinion, is a deliberate and dishonest choice.

I firmly believe that a choice can “teach” that a behavior is more pleasant. With repetition I certainly can see learning a different perspective. I reject that learning to enjoy different behaviors and preferences is impossible or harmful inherently.

For me marriage is for procreation and spousal support, which limits it to couples of the opposite sex. Only the disingenouos want to argue around the margins.

All of this “stuff” is about undoing the family and allowing
the government to control our children. That is how I see it and I do see the destruction of society in the future with a coming bloodletting persecution of unbelievable proportions push by those who are “tolerant” of only those
who obey them.

Bye.

My point was that, unless a gay person is deeply religious in a religion that says gay sex is a terrible sin, why would—or should—a gay person refrain from sex? It doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems like a personal decision that’s no one else’s business.

Does this mean that you choose to be straight; but, with enough wine and dine you could be turned gay? Yea, that’s what I thought.

My problem with gay marriage advocates is that they seeem to have no appreciation of the child factor. Gay sex simply doesn’t create a child for which one has responsibilities. Gays simply don’t have to worry about whether they forgot to take the pill or whether unplanned pregnancy might cause you to marry this sexual partner so your offspring will have both a mother and a father.

It’s true that heterosexual marriage and families have been eroded in the last 50 years, partly by the pill and partly by the sexual revolution and feminism. But we aren’t finished with the topic yet; we are in the middle of trying to establish new norms. Everyone now knows that fatherless families are not great for kids. most recognize that patchwork is better for quilts than for raising children.

My problem with gay marriage is that it will give an equal voice in this discussion to people who don’t have an equal stake in the outcome. Some of the most vocal advocates are not people who should have a say in an institution centered on children. These sickies are not like gays I know, but still they claim to speak for all gays in the same way that Nancy Pelosi presumes to speak for me.

I really wish that gays would accept the idea of civil unions (and perhaps give them a better name) so that these partnerships would have some time to establish their own norms and to sideline those who don’t really care about society at large. And while this is happening, heteros can work on the problems they have caused for children. We all have to work on making the next big book on the topic of families have the title Coming Together.

A society might become more tolerant of homosexuality, but it cannot be a foundation of society. For those who honor traditional gods, the gay act is a crime against nature. It is this view which the homosexual activists attempt to refute by defining gay as something quite common and mainstream.

For those who deny traditional gods, the gay act is an evolutionary dead-end. In the coldest view, it isn’t different from most other biological defects. If the nature part can be identified, homosexual babies will rarely be allowed to live to birth.

The same factions that demand gay justice also demand unfettered abortion. However much homosexuals suffered in the shadows, they will suffer more in the spotlight.

And heaven help those who are gay and Muslim.

There are irreconcilable conflicts within the factions that wish to destroy Christian moral tradition. Their common enemy keeps them from being at each others’ throats. Should they succeed in defeating Christian order, the ensuing brutality will be cataclysmic.

I see marriage as a religious institution. It is not a ‘birth right’ that anyone can claim. However, outside of the parameters of religion I hope we can agree that consenting adults have the birth right to engage in sexual activities of their choice and enter into civil contracts as they may choose. Freedom is a delicate thing. It is bruised and abused whenever one decides to sanction others based upon religious or ideological doctrine.