SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: E who wrote (10344)4/23/2002 8:26:01 AM
From: J. C. Dithers  Read Replies (1) of 21057
 
It may have been just the "or" part ....

Is this it -- Do you mean would it be better for a gay man to have sex with a woman (who repels him); as opposed to another man (who attracts him)? i.e., which would be more "natural" to the gay man?

I'll assume that's it. The problem for me here is not the attraction or repulsion. The problem is that there does not exist a ""natural" way for two men to have sex. The way the gays have chosen to do it (in most cases) is the "abomination" that I see. Try this: If a man is attracted not to humans but to animals (beastiality), isn't it more natural for him to have sex with his dog than another human? I say no, I am not going to accept that as a natural act. And I say that "S.O." ought to come down hard on beastiality.

Why can't two gay men enjoy their affection, love, companionship, without rectal sex? Just because it "feels good" will not do it for me.

I am not trying to stop men from doing this (as if I could). I am wanting society to disapprove of it. That is pretty much the way it was when gays kept their sex lives to themselves. It was the gays who insisted that they go public with this, and that society give them its blessing.

And it is the latter that I stand opposed to.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext