CSTEELE...see proxy's wise words please.(That's my answer)

AJP...

SUZ.. woooo.... you need some serious guidance here..

SUZ -1 Yes they do Proxy.
The undeniable fact is that it is 'LEGAL' to practice homosexuality, whether you like it or not.

COMMENT: It is only LEGAL because of a long campaign which began with Marcuse Essay, the counter culture, the rising to the top in Academia of filthy ideas (yes...filthy).. the ruthless campaign of "up yours mate".. "we're here...we're queer and we're not going away" along with a host of other unsavory acts and blackmail (the list goes on and on) by the gay rights lobby... and the shaming of politicians etc..that it became legal.

SUZ-2 Your rather silly argument about sisters marrying each other is truly laughable. The law states we cannot marry our immediate family members, and that's that.

(SOUND OF HEAD EXPLODING....*BOOOOM*) Suz... which part of "It's legal" don't you understand to be the result of a process of sleaze based activism and shameful cultural sedition and amoral degeneracy which calls 'evil' good and 'good' evil?

I've watched this 'process' and campaign of undermining of our culture and morality since the 60s. I didn't suddenly wake up one day and think "Ohh.. loook.... things are different today than yesterday, I must panic"

Nope...we stand precariously on the edge of the cliff of perdition... but thanks to the "Sleaze Inc", we've been walking the walk TO that cliff edge for decades.

If something can go from "Illegal" to "Legal" as a result of such activism... are you so naive to think it cannot go the other way because of similar (but with a higher moral foundation) activism?

AJP....

//I know of several gay people who view heterosexuality as a bit icky. One particular gay guy I know of is repulsed by the mere thought of female genitalia.//

But such people don't find the bodily orifice from which we defacate "icky" ? Therein lies the sickness of their minds...

I'm afraid you are on a losing argument there. The natural man is greatly attracted to the female 'pleasure central' ...so the man who is 'not'....must be, by logic...'un'-natural.

The use of 'exceptions' to try to prove a very very flimsy 'rule' (homosexuality in nature) is more laughable than your accusation to proxy.

There is clearly a malfunction or misconfiguration in the mind of a person who finds the natural normal path of human reproduction "repulsive".

That is a simple fact. HOW we treat such people depends on basically one thing....how they seek to influence the REST of the community.

If they are prepared to keep a low and non threatening profile and do what they wish...ok... but if they try to convince the REST of us that it's all "normal" and "must" be CELEBRATED (by use of Education and the law)...then it's war.

http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/ConservativeBlogs/a-bishop%E2%80%99s-gesture-of-kindness-to-gay-man-who-sued-over-discrimination/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marb45.htm

we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." (Churchill)

I joke not.

Dear Al,

You wrote,

"CSTEELE...see proxy's wise words please.(That's my answer)"

With respect these were hardly wise words just more homophobic ranting. I asked you specifically whether you supported the stance of Focus on the Family.

I await your reply.

"then it's war"

If it is a "war", then clearly it's people
like ALGOREisRICH, Proxy etc who are the "enemy".

Of tolerance, of peace, of a fair go, of equality,
of reason, of social justice.

Fortunately, it seems that they are losing.

Boaz,

Thanks for reminding me why I don’t usually enter the discussions on this topic.

<<But such people don't find the bodily orifice from which we defacate "icky" ? Therein lies the sickness of their minds...>>

And there are plenty of heterosexuals who don’t find that part of the body icky either - so long as it’s clean obviously.

[See what you’ve reduced me to?]

Having a brother-in-law who is gay, I know a lot of gay people and am very familiar with the scene; and believe it or not, there are some gay men who find the thought of anal sex off-putting and refuse to engage in it.

Besides, where does this leave lesbians and their ‘sickness of the mind’?

<<I'm afraid you are on a losing argument there. The natural man is greatly attracted to the female 'pleasure central' ...so the man who is 'not'....must be, by logic...'un'-natural.>>

This assumes that the “natural man” is exclusively heterosexual, but there is no strong evidence, either way, to suggest that this is the case. The best you’d be able to do would be to argue from a reproductive standpoint, but then you could brand sterile couples ‘unnatural’ too.

And what about people who swing to varying degrees either way? It could be argued that it’s more accurate to say that we’re all bisexual - just the degree to which we swing either way varies - and that homosexuality and heterosexuality are only theoretical positions at either end of the scale.

Things are not always as black and white as they seem.

<<The use of 'exceptions' to try to prove a very very flimsy 'rule' (homosexuality in nature) is more laughable than your accusation to proxy.>>

Why is it flimsy, and why is it laughable? Even if it is flimsy, it’s still infinitely more solid, objective and real-world-based than any religious-based “rule”.

And my accusation to Proxy? You mean the one about not really caring about the children? I fail to see how that’s laughable considering I provided adequate reasoning behind my accusation.

Continued...

...Continued

<<There is clearly a malfunction or misconfiguration in the mind of a person who finds the natural normal path of human reproduction "repulsive".>>

Really? “Clearly” you say? Studies haven’t come to anything “clear” at all, and what is known, actually suggests some evolutionary benefits to homosexuality.

<<HOW we treat such people depends on basically one thing....how they seek to influence the REST of the community.>>

Yes. A good reason why religion is finally receiving the battering that has been coming to it for so long; with its members trying to influence the rest of the community based on a supposed authority for which there is absolutely no evidence.

In regards to homosexuals though, I fail to see how their wishes would adversely effect society. Societies that have allowed gay marriage and adoption aren’t falling apart. Nor does with homosexuality or homosexual marriage seem to have a consistent correlation with a ton of social ills like religion does.

You and Proxy have provided some fallacious reasoning and demonstrably invalid comparisons, but that’s about it.

What are you so afraid of here, Boaz? Is your marriage going to be effected if gay people can do the same thing? Do you need the nuclear family legislated because you don’t know how to live unless someone else writes it down for you?