In fact, as I am sure I said, the reason I posted in response to your homosexual posts is that I got a PM with a link to them from a gay SI friend who was deeply upset but didn't feel up to posting personally. I did my best. So unhysterical was I that I didn't even remember the exchange.
I think forgetting exchanges is quite to be expected in cases of hysteria.
I wonder if you've ever had a homosexual family member.
Nope.
I had a lesbian aunt. I try not to think of Aunt Jean's tormented, unnecessarily tragic and painful life. She engaged, in her lonely life, in very little of what you call "perverse behavior," because she 'bought' your characterization of her nature and desires.
Well, I earnestly pity the memory of your aunt, and wished she had had more success in life. But there is a reason she so easily “bought” my characterization of her life. I am right, and she knew I was right, just as all homosexuals innately know I am right. She did not have to live a life of loneliness and hopelessness.
She tried to love men. Sometimes a best effort is futile, futile, futile. Could you, with effort, love a man?
Of course you don’t really mean here “love.” I love quite a few men and with a deep sacrificial love. You mean here to ask whether I could with effort have sex with a man. I cannot, and not merely because the thought repulses me, but more importantly because nature itself objectively reveals to me and to you that it is a corruption of our physical construction. Wherever one sees a human, one in a very real sense also sees two other humans, always exactly one male and one female. My sexually joining myself to a man is a monstrous perversion of this objective biological identity. It is therefore a monstrous perversion of myself. I love myself and want not that I be perverted.
My Aunt Jean [couldn't love a man[ either.
She couldn’t because she unfortunately suffered a psychological defect wherein she wished to negate her objective biological identity. She wanted to negate the truth of her self. Help was available to her had she guts enough to ignore the defeatist homosexuals who desperately shriek that help is illusive or unnecessary.
Your poor aunt Jean had a life. It was hers. Her life. She had a responsibility to herself and ultimately to you and me to live it to the best of her ability as nature informs us a human should. Perhaps somewhere in her upbringing she failed to understand this, thinking herself a helpless vessel on the vain sea of her perverted wishes. I do pity her most sincerely, and wish I could have comforted her. But I nevertheless think it absurd to discard reason merely to accommodate what is patently against our mutual identity.
I don’t mean to sound harsh here. What your Aunt Jean suffered was no doubt deeply painful, but it is suffered by all humans to some degree or other. We all have some sort of monkey on our backs, and those who do not know it or who try to deny it (as do many homosexuals) give their monkeys handles so that they may hold tighter.
My grandmother (Aunt Jean's mother) and her sisters (my mother and other aunt) felt as you do, and succeeded in ending, through a mixture of shaming and intimidation, her pitifully few efforts to bring warmth and love and sexual bliss into her life.
It seems here you imply your grandmother’s (and my) beliefs were the causes of your aunt’s sorrow. If so, you make an unfortunate error. I note you do not mention a grandfather, his feelings and opinions on the matter. Perhaps he died early in your aunt’s life, or perhaps he was essentially ineffective as a father. Perhaps the problem has more to do with your grandmother as a person and less with her beliefs.
Children aren't allowed to enter into contracts of any sort in our society.
And why not, madam? Very many children are capable of understanding and signing contracts. Dogs are not allowed to enter contracts either, but they are capable of making their wishes known. We do not allow them to make contracts and yet we neuter them without compunction, even teaching that neutering them is a good thing. So then if we can do this, why not have sex with them and then force society to accept such unions by law? If we can remove an animal’s testicles via painful surgery, why not do what would no doubt bring it pleasure and then force society to accept such acts by law? On what basis can we condemn it? On none if we accept that which perverts our biological definition.
Pedophiles harm children deeply.
This is certainly no absolute truth, especially in light of the fact that in some cultures adults marrying “children” occurs with quite a bit of frequency. Indeed, in England the practice had quite a nice run and threatens to make a comeback. Some “children” are certainly capable of having and enjoying sex with adults, and historically they have done it without complication. So then on what basis can we cast a blanket condemnation against pedophilia? On none, if we accept that which perverts our biological definition. You see, it is an objective biological fact that no human who exists or who ever has existed, was made by the sexual joining of a physical adult to a physical child.
I don't understand "integrity with objective biological fact." Does it imply that if objective biological findings can show something along the lines of a "gay gene" or "gay brain chemistry," you'd then accept it as "objective biological fact"?
Nope. It is an objective biological fact that all humans are comprised of physical material contributed by exactly one man and exactly one woman. Where there exists a human, there in a very real sense exists two other humans, a male and female. Sexual unions between two men or two women fail to reflect this objective biological fact of humanity. They lack integrity with the objectively apparent human nature.
You know what an example of an objective biological fact is? An erection. There are males who don't get them for women.
We ultimately are not constructed of erections, my dear. An erection is merely a vehicle facilitating sexual union, as is a bed. The point fails.
Is heterosexual oral sex "perverse behavior," and out of sync with "objective biological fact"? -- and if it is, is it immoral or unethical, to you?
It is sexual play that, because it is heterosexual, reflects the male/female nature of humanity.
How about naughty toys?
Perhaps you mean something like an inflatable doll? (hehehe) I think folks should be free to have sex with whomever and whatever they wish. But they do not have a natural right to force me to support it via the courts. I personally do not wish to accept and be forced by law to acknowledge this sort of sexual union because, like homosexuality, it does not in any way reflect the human construct. There is no logic extant to compel me to accept it. There is no logic extant to compel me to accept or ignore homosexuality.
Masturbation?
I hardly think masturbation is a sexual union.
How about masturbation, if a person's erotic nature goes there, while fantasizing a member of the same sex, as long as they don't 'go there' for real?
We are getting a little off the beaten path here. Do you wish to discuss the moral quality of homosexual fantasies, or do you wish me to tell you why I don’t think it naturally acceptable to force me to support such fantasies with my danged business interests and tax dollars!
Johannes: I confess my suspicion, now that i've encountered your intelligence and sense of humor, that you are, for some reason possibly writerly, possibly only because it amuses you, pretending to a position you don't truly hold.
I indeed sincerely hold the position because it is correct, and objectively apparent.
I would keep that suspicion to myself and only address your points except that i'm taking your last line as hint to me that this suspicion is correct.
Well no. I didn’t mean it as a hint. But I will tell you I don’t sit here feeling myself an ogre who wishes all children of Sodom would die of painful disease. Of course I am wonderfully perturbed when homosexuals force me to spend time and resources to defend against their hair-brained assaults of the Scouts (I have several Eagles in that fine organization, and I am not about to sit idle while homosexuals destroy it). And I do not take kindly to their attempted corruption of marriage (fortunately nature is on my side here). Nevertheless I am willing to form (and have formed) friendships with homosexual individuals.
Don't stop saying dang all the time, for heaven's sake. It's funny!
Well DANG! I’m gonna do it then. Shooot maaan. I’ll just sorta kinda eeeeze off it a bit because I think maybe I was leaning on it too much. But maaaan shooot, when I get decent opportunities, I’m gonna let out a couplathree dangs! |
