Politically Correct Sexual Orientation

I recently received a copy of my latest medical report and was pleased to note that, for my age, I am in reasonable health. But I was dumbfounded to see in my report that I have been assigned a ‘sexual orientation.’ Silly old me. As a human being, I have always believed that being heterosexual is normal and natural, not a ‘sexual orientation.’

I am beginning to wonder where our politically correct masters and their judicial lackeys are taking western society with all this sexual manipulation.

Human beings are a heterosexual species born with the natural instinct to bond, mate and copulate with a member of the opposite sex to produce young. Therefore, a man, woman and child are a normal and natural family, bonded by the heterosexual instincts they were born with. This long-term bonding is part of being human and is what separates us from the beasts of the field. We have been this way since we first stood up on our feet, left the rain forests and formed our earliest human settlements. This is our nature. And, this has nothing to do with religion, tradition or politics.

As far as I am aware, homosexuals are fully functional males and lesbians are fully functioning females, so there is no physical impediment preventing them from marrying a member of the opposite sex and having children the way nature intended. However, they choose to form an unnatural sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex. Simply put, they voluntarily relinquish all things heterosexual.

My view is a simplistic one. As stated in an earlier post on this issue, homosexuals and lesbians are suffering with a sexual dis-function centered in the brain to the extent that they don’t know whether they are male or female. In other words, without meaning to be unkind, they are natures genetic sexual misfits.

Given the advances being made in our knowledge of the brain through deep brain research and neurology, it is only a matter of time before the area of the brain that triggers sexual arousal will be located. These types of non-physical sexual dis-functions can then be treated and corrected. Surely this will be a better outcome for western society than embracing unnatural same-sex relationships. Let us hope that this happens sooner rather than later.

So what is really happening here? Why has a minority group of sexually dis-functional people become such a hot political issue? Should it not be a medical issue? Has any political party been given a mandate to enact same-sex marriage legislation? Are our politically correct masters supporting same-sex marriage to secure the votes of a minority group in the hope of retaining power? Are homosexual and lesbian politicians simply trying to get their partners onto the public purse gravy train? Why are the people being denied the democratic right to vote on this contentious issue? Questions, questions, questions.

In pursuing same-sex marriage, our politically correct masters are not giving any thought to the possible long-term effects on western society. In effect, same-sex marriage legislation will divide human beings into three separate sexual groups.

Human beings have always tended to gravitate to that which is familiar and where they feel safe. Therefore, three sexual groups will form separate enclaves within our cities. In time these enclaves will develop into separate sexual communities each with their own subcultures, councils, by laws and services. In other words, sexual apartheid will develop.  Demarcation lines and no-go areas will then appear across our cities.We already live in a volatile and violent society and sexual segregation will increase street violence and thrill killings to a point where authorities will not be able to maintain control.

The biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah may be just that, a story. But the biblical message from the past is crystal clear. If we continue with the madness that is same-sex marriage, we will be sowing the seeds of our own destruction. Because some western jurisdictions have already embraced same-sex marriage, the storm clouds are already gathering on the horizon. This will eventually cause a societal upheaval not experienced since World War 2 in Europe. What then?

I am not an extremist. I do not suffer with the mythical mental illness of homophobia. I am a heterosexual male born into a heterosexual species and wish to see it stay that way.

aquarianmist

Advertisements

About aquarianmist

I am a retired admin officer. My interests include supernatural phenomena, tarot cards, movies, social activities and more.
This entry was posted in Political. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Politically Correct Sexual Orientation

  1. snowylocks says:

    You seem to have deleted my comments on your two previous posts on this subject.

    This is no longer simply confusing. This is completely dishonest.

    Look, no matter how ill-informed and dishonest you feel like being, you still have the right to plaster your opinion all over the internet, that is not my problem here.

    What IS rubbing me the wrong way is that you claim to invite discussion, but when you get the desired feedback, you first ignore it, and then you simply delete it, wrongly creating the impression that your opinion holds even a grain of truth.

    All I’m asking of you here is to be honest. You just want a soapbox to shout from ? Fine. You don’t want to deal with people dismantling your arguments in a calm and polite manner ? Also fine. THEN JUST DISABLE COMMENTS. DON’T PRETEND YOU’RE LOOKING TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES ! THAT. IS. DISHONEST.

    You’re probably going to delete this too, but just in case, let me just mention that I took screencaps of my previous comments here, so if you’re thinking about lying about their contents or existence, don’t bother.

    I could comment on your new post, but what’s the point ?
    Seriously, you just want to talk to yourself, don’t you ?

  2. snowylocks says:

    While I was reposting the comments you just deleted, it was brought to my attention that this might be a parody site.
    If this is the case, congratulations, you really had me going.

    Still, I’m not entirely sure just yet. Granted, claims that accepting gay marriage will lead to a conflict that would rival WW2 , followed by “I’m not an extremist”, does seem like an obvious parody of extremist religious views. And it’s quite funny too.

    On the other hand, your habit of deleting comments does suggest that you might actually be serious.
    If that’s how it is, that’s fine too. But let me just remind you again that I’m here, commenting on your blog, because you INVITED me to do so.

    For you to now simply ignore me, repeat arguments I already debunked, and then finally just delete my comments altogether, is downright rude and dishonest. If nothing else, we can agree on that at least.

    So it’s up to you. Do you want to talk about this, or do you just want to plug your ears and shout ?
    At least tell me that much.

    • aquarianmist says:

      snowylocks

      First of all, I am very serious about this issue because it has the potential to bring down western society as we know it.

      I have read all your comments and yes, you have debunked and ridiculed my point of view and the reasons I put forward against same sex marriage, but so far, you have not been able to rebut or prove them to be incorrect. Yes I invited comment and debate on this issue but I did not invite abuse.

      You must be aware that most countries and most of the World’s population do not support same sex marriage. Therefore, we are in the minority. In some countries homosexuals are tolerated as long as they keep a low profile. In some other countries they are still persecuted and in some cases put to death as happened in WW 11 Europe. Do your really believe that this could not happen again?

      You must also be aware that homosexuality is being taught in our schools and touted as an alternative lifestyle. This subverts and indoctrinates innocent young minds into accepting the unacceptable and, in my view, is criminal abuse of power and authority.

      I am sure that you are also aware that homosexual enclaves already exist in some of our major cities and have their own bars, clubs and brothels. Do you believe that they will disappear if same sex marriage becomes the norm. Far from it. If homosexuality is legalized and enshrined in marriage,these enclaves will grow and eventually become a law unto themselves.

      So snowylocks, prove to me that homosexuality is not a sexual dis-function but a natural and acceptable expression of human love. I do not think you can do this.

      I may well be a lone voice shouting out in the wilderness but someone has to stand in opposition to this decedent madness before it is too late.

      aquarianmist

      • snowylocks says:

        Phew, finally.

        Okay, first of all, show me where in my posts did I use any abusive terms. This is not a rhetorical question, btw. You quite often use words without worrying about what they actually mean. This creates confusion about what you’re trying to say.
        Example : Look up the verb “to debunk”, and now please explain how, if you agree that I already debunked your arguments, how is it possible that you’re also of the opinion that I haven’t “proven them to be incorrect” ???
        Look, if I wanted to ridicule you, I wouldn’t have even have bothered to repost my responses, but when your arguments don’t make any sense, all I can do is tell you and explain why. This is not ridicule. This is how a discussion works.
        We can niggle until we’re blue in the face about that last one, but you can NOT seriously accuse me of having “abused” you. That one you’re going to have to take back, or at the very least explain yourself.
        (And btw, you have some nerve accusing other people of “ridicule” and “abuse”. Shall I list all the unfounded and unsavory accusations you’ve been throwing at gay people in all these posts , hoping in vain that some of it would stick ?)

        Anyway, thanks for the response.
        You’re not telling me anything I didn’t know already, but I’m glad you’re aware of the violent repression of gay people in some countries around the world. It’s actually a lot worse than you think. Extremely aggressive anti-gay campaigns, led and sponsored, quite openly, by American “christian” groups, have influenced Ugandan politics to such an extent that it might soon be legal there to simply murder gay people on sight.
        (I didn’t believe a word of that when I first heard it, so I did the research. It’s true)

        So yeah, I do believe that could “happen again”. It’s already starting. It would seem no world-shattering conflict is needed. Go figure. But could you please explain how this helps your case ? I take it you’re a decent human being. I have no reason yet to think otherwise. But here’s the thing : Those American “christian” groups I just mentioned ? You’re using the exact same nonsensical arguments as they do. You’re doing it right here in this post !

        Like this one : “Homosexuality is being taught”..NO, IT ISN’T ! You can’t “teach” anyone their sexual orientation ! You yourself are a prime example and ultimate proof of that. And you know very well that all that’s being taught is that it EXISTS, and that it’s not a valid reason to kill or even disdain somebody for. You know this, and yet you still say “homosexuality is being taught”.
        And these words you keep using…”subverts”, “indoctrinates”, “the unacceptable”, “criminal abuse”, “enclaves”…You just keep piling on the pejoratives without first having presented proof that you’re even dealing with anything even remotely negative ! This is why I called you dishonest in the first place !

        And then there are the paragraphs where you simply don’t make any sense. Would gay bars and clubs vanish if gay marriage became legal ? Hey, are there still straight bars and clubs ? Do I really have to drive this one home ?
        Why not simply study the countries who have legalized it already, and see if any of your dire predictions came true. I can save you some time and tell you that they didn’t, along with the millions of other doomsday hopes people where screaming from the roofs for years, but you can always check for yourself.

        You seem to have conveniently forgotten that I have already provided you with proof that it’s natural, in the only sense of the word that has any factual meaning. As for “acceptable”, well, that’s all going to depend on your, and everybody else’s, personal measuring tools when it comes to defining “acceptable” : Fear, lies and half-truths, or facts, honesty and humanity. You pick.

        And let me end by reassuring you once again : You are not a “lone voice shouting out in the wilderness”, as romantic and appealing that may sound.
        The people who share your opinions are quite vocal and powerful. They will speak for you, no worries. I can send you some Ugandan political speeches on the subject if you like. Or have a listen to the anti-gay rhetoric in the coming American elections. I think you will approve of the arguments they use. Look at the cheering crowds and tell me again how alone you feel.

        Thanks for finally joining the discussion you asked for. Appreciated.

  3. snowylocks says:

    …and another thing : Let me explain the difference between name-calling and presenting an argument :

    Calling gay marriage “decadent”, gay relationships “the unacceptable”, teaching people the facts about same-sex relationships “criminal abuse”, etc…and then somehow forgetting to mention a relevant and fact-based reason as to why you chose to use those words….THAT is name-calling. It would seem you only object to that when other people are doing it. For you, apparently, it’s all fine and proper.

    On the other hand, calling somebody “dishonest”, and then following that up with example after example of said dishonesty, and even explaining, no matter how bloody obvious it already is, exactly why those examples qualify as such…THAT is presenting an argument. (Heck, in this case, it’s pretty much just stating a fact)

    Are we clear on that ?

  4. snowylocks says:

    And when you’re done with all that (I’d count all the questions you ignored and refuted arguments you recycled, but I don’t really have the time today), here’s one of many simple arguments in favor :

    • aquarianmist says:

      snowylocks

      First of all I do not click on email links that I am not familiar with; even more so at present because someone out there changed my blog gravatar into a grumpy old cartoon character, so I must have ruffled someone’s feathers. This does not bother me.

      Secondly, as an Englishman, I always thought my English comprehension was reasonably good. Some of the words I use in my posts are used as defined in the Times English Dictionary.

      It is my view that you used ridicule to debunk the reasons I put forward against same sex marriage. This is not the same as using a contrary contention or argument to rebut my views. Your comments are similar to the reasons put forward in support of same sex marriage: in other words, they are emotive rather than factual and therefore have no substance.

      Taught is the past tense of teach. It is also my view that teaching school children that homosexuality and lesbianism are legitimate alternative lifestyles, is nothing more than the brainwashing (indoctrination and subversion) of innocent and receptive minds to systematically accept homosexual and lesbian doctrines. I see this as a form of child abuse. Children are entitled to their age of innocence. When they reach maturity and become sexually active, they will have the ability to make up their own minds. The dangers of brainwashing children was clearly evident in NAZI Germany in the 1930’s.

      The religious and traditional arguments put forward in support of same sex marriages are nonsensical. Christianity has been around for less than 2000 years and is just a minute dot in the history, growth and development of human beings. In my opinion, Christianity has done more damage within human society in that short space of time than the so called pagan religions ever did. For hundreds of thousands of years human beings have been forming long term bonds with members of the opposite sex and have happily cohabited as husband and wife and reared their children without any form of legal or religious recognition. This had nothing to do with organized religion or tradition. Along came the Christian religion who declared that the innate urge to form these normal and natural long term bonds was, in fact, to be living in sin and their children bastards. Nice people. It follows then that wedding ceremonies, religious traditional or otherwise are just feel good window dressing and not a legal requirement.

      aquarianmist

      • snowylocks says:

        If you don’t click on links you’re unfamiliar with, then don’t say “I shall respond when I have followed your link.”
        As for your “gravatar”, I have not seen it change since I first clicked on your link. It appears to be the picture of an elder gentleman, not a cartoon character, so I have no idea what you are talking about. You do, however, seem enamored with the idea of “ruffling people’s feathers”, and spouting opinions that might inspire abuse, as if that would somehow prove anything. It would not.

        And there is definitely something wrong with your reading comprehension. It seems to be curiously selective. I asked you to provide an example of the “abuse” you claimed to have suffered in my posts, or else take back this particular accusation. You chose to ignore my request, so the accusation of abuse still stands.
        So I will ask you AGAIN : Please provide an example of the abuse you suffered in my posts, or apologize for making that false claim.

        It may be your view that I used ridicule and nothing else to debunk your arguments, but unless you can provide even one example, this remains an opinion based on nothing, and can therefore be ignored. This leaves you with not a single argument to your name, which again raises the question where all those pejoratives keep coming from. You’re not going to answer that question either, I’m guessing. I’ll add it to the list.
        (And btw, didn’t I just make a post explaining the difference between name-calling and presenting an argument ? Was that not clear enough then ?)

        And yes, I know that “taught” is the past tense of “teach”. Adding a random non sequitur to your already confusing diatribe isn’t going to help matters.

        And then you repeat an argument I clearly debunked in the post you’re responding to. AGAIN ! Okay, then I’ll just cut and paste the question you didn’t answer :
        And these words you keep using…”subverts”, “indoctrinates”, “the unacceptable”, “criminal abuse”, “enclaves”…You just keep piling on the pejoratives without first having presented proof that you’re even dealing with anything even remotely negative ! This is why I called you dishonest in the first place !
        (Just replace the pejoratives here with the new ones you came up with)
        (And in case you still don’t get it : IF YOU HAVE NO PROOF TO JUSTIFY THE USE OF PEJORATIVES, IT’S NOTHING BUT NAME-CALLING ! Are we finally clear on that ?)

        And now we get to the confusing part again. If you disapprove of christianity so much, then why do you use the exact same nonsensical anti-gay “arguments” as they do ? And why are now using pro gay marriage arguments ? You didn’t realize you were doing that ? Would you like an example of a pagan religion that revered same-sex relationships as sacred ?
        Seriously, again, at times I have no idea what side of this argument you’re arguing for.

  5. snowylocks says:

    Let me correct my own wonky reading comprehension in the reply I just posted : The paragraph I cut and pasted is of course not a question. What it is, is a clear explanation of the problem with your line of reasoning.
    I’m sorry for using caps to drive that message home, as I’m always irritated when people do that to me, but I also get irritated when I’m forced to repeat an important point that could easily have been addressed by you already.
    So I would really appreciate if you wouldn’t ignore this again (the same goes for the unjust “abuse” accusation).

    Once again, thanks for your time and the opportunity to discuss this.

  6. snowylocks says:

    ..oh, and when you’re done with all that, could you maybe also give me one example of an argument I used that is “emotive rather than factual” ? And if you are unable to do that, please take back that false claim as well.

    (If you’re referring to the argument put forward in the video, it’s not because there are strong emotions involved, that the argument itself isn’t factual. I’m sorry for stating the obvious, but I think that might save us some time)

    • aquarianmist says:

      snowylocks

      First of all, I did not accuse you of tampering with my gravatar. Also, by your own admission, you debunked the arguments I put forward opposing same sex marriage. Debunked is defined in the Times English Dictionary as; to expose the pretensions or falseness of by ridicule. I do not believe that my arguments fall into that category and whether or not ridicule is a form of abuse depends who is on the receiving end. Certainly, I have no intention of apologizing to anyone who chooses to ridicule me. Further, whether or not my view that homosexual sex is unnatural invokes unpleasant or disparaging (pejorative) connotations also depends on the views of those reading my statement.

      For your benefit, I will put my views as clearly as possible.

      I support any person, group or organization that opposes same sex marriage.
      I do not support any person, group or organization that promotes or supports same sex marriage.
      I do not believe that homosexual politicians or homosexual members of the judiciary should be allowed to make decisions or rulings on same sex marriage because of the direct conflict of interest involved and their emotional attachment to this issue.
      Love is an emotional feeling. Put simply, human beings have a built in urge to mate, copulate and have children with members of the opposite sex. This is what marriage has always been based on and always will be. This normal and natural arrangement has nothing to do with politics, religion or social tradition.
      I bear no ill will towards homosexuals but rather feel sad because nature seems to have ‘short changed’ them because of their inability to form a sexual relationship with members of the opposite sex. I have also stressed the point that I believe this to be a form of sexual dis-function. It is sad that, as yet, we do not have the knowledge to be able to correct this type of sexual dis-function but, sooner or later, we will be able to do this. I also believe that the political solution of allowing same sex marriage is a band aid solution and is being used to capture the vote of a disgruntled minority group.

      Because this debate seems to be going round and round the Mulberry bush, I feel we should continue this debate using a question and answer format. Here are my questions to you and any other supporter of same sex marriage.

      Q1. Homosexual lobby groups keep telling us that most people are in favor of same sex marriage but, at the same time, they are doing everything possible to avoid resolving this issue by popular vote. Why is this?
      Q2. Clause (1) of Article 16 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in part, that men and women have the right to marry. Clause (3) states in part, that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. Have homosexual lobby groups sought an interpretation of Clause 16 as it relates to same sex marriage and if not why not?
      Q4. Have homosexual lobby groups put their case/claim of discrimination to the United Nation for resolution and if not why not?
      Q5. Is homophobia a recognized medical condition and do you know of anyone who has been medically diagnosed as suffering with such a condition?
      Q6. List the benefits that homosexuals will gain from same sex marriage?

      Over to you snowylocks.

      aquarainmist

      • snowylocks says:

        Your views were clear from the start. Simply repeating them is a waste of time and does nothing to shed light on the confusing parts.
        And I’m not surprised you’re turning your false accusation into a semantic argument.
        According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, “debunk” is defined as 1. Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). Only the second definition includes mention of “ridicule” and there is none in my posts, as you very well know.
        But sure, lets use the definition you prefer. Now show me the ridicule. Give me an example. If you are unable to do this, then kindly apologize for your false accusation.

        And no, btw, ridicule and abuse are NOT the same thing. It doesn’t matter who’s at the receiving end. You can’t just switch definitions around when it suits you. That would make language itself completely useless.

        Now please read this sentence you typed : “Further, whether or not my view that homosexual sex is unnatural invokes unpleasant or disparaging (pejorative) connotations also depends on the views of those reading my statement.”
        No. Pejoratives are pejoratives. Nobody’s views, be they yours or mine, can change the definition of a word. If they did, we would all carry our personal dictionaries, and communication would be impossible.
        If you use pejoratives, and you do not provide a relevant and fact-based reason for your use of those words, then you are simply name-calling. Do you understand this, or do I have to repeat it a fourth time ? (Again, this is not a rhetorical question) If you don’t, then I think I have pinpointed the problem here.

        As for the list of who you “support”, are you aware of the long list of dilemmas this presents you with ? Unless you wish to support, for example, legalized murder, you may want to rephrase that just a little.
        And I’m not sure why I actually have to explain this, but if you really believe that sexual orientation constitutes a conflict of interest, then what exactly are heterosexual politicians and judiciary members qualified for ? Not much, according to your views. Or is hypocrisy allowed ?
        And no, the institution of marriage isn’t based on love. It’s a social construct. Always has been. And I’m sorry, but you don’t get to define what “human beings” are. Nature does. Some of them are attracted to members of the opposite sex. This is a simple fact. You can ignore facts, if you wish, but facts they remain.

        You bear no ill will towards gay people ? Fine. Then stop using pejoratives to describe anything even vaguely related to them. In other words, stop name-calling. That includes calling homosexuality a “sexual dis-function”, since there is no proof that this is the case. All you are qualified to say here is : “they are not like me”. Which is noted.
        And btw, you do realize that even if you had the means to “correct” (ooo, dangerous word) these gay people, then you would be going directly against the same mother nature you were so full of admiration for a few posts ago ? I guess “nature” is only “natural” when you say it is ?

        I’m glad you starting to notice the circular and self-defeating nature of your argumentation. If you had simply answered all my questions when I first asked them, this would be over already. In that light, you once again have some nerve to present me with a list of questions instead.
        But sure, I’ll swallow all my sighs and will oblige.

        But only if you answer all my questions this time. All of them. Yes, that includes the ones you somehow missed and forced me to repeat. Read my posts. Look for the question marks.

        A1 : I am not a “homosexual lobby group”, whatever that is, but I assume you’re asking for my personal opinion on a hypothetical situation here ? Sorry, there aren’t enough facts here to base an opinion on, I’m afraid. An honest and informed opinion, that is. But if you want me to just guess, sure, I’ll do that : Because they think they might lose ?
        A2 : Once again, I am not a “homosexual lobby group”. Why ask anyone to guess at this organization’s actions when you can just ask them yourself ? I’ll just make an uninformed guess then, shall I ? You seem to like those, as they leave plenty of room for endless misinterpretation. Anyway, here’s my guess : No, because they don’t need to make endless semantic arguments to make their fact-based arguments. Unlike yourself.
        A4 : For the third time….oh, for pete’s sake…No, because that isn’t even necessary.
        A5 : It’s a recognized psychological condition, like all phobias, but it’s as much a disease as arachnophobia is, namely, not at all. And yes, I do know of people who were diagnosed as such. Heck, I know some who proudly diagnosed themselves. I’d give you a link to a medical report on the possible causes of this condition, but I have to ask, would you even click on it ?
        A6 : All the benefits straight people get from the institution of marriage.

        Anything else ? Feel free to add more questions. Asking questions is so much better than making assumptions, isn’t it ?

        Which is why I asked you questions.

        Still waiting for the answers, btw….

  7. snowylocks says:

    Let me help you with one of the questions you somehow missed, as opposed to the ones you just made me repeat : I’ll cut and paste it for you :

    and when you’re done with all that, could you maybe also give me one example of an argument I used that is “emotive rather than factual” ? And if you are unable to do that, please take back that false claim as well.

    You’re welcome.

  8. snowylocks says:

    And let me re-phrase another one, to make it as inescapable as possible :

    Do you, or do you not agree that using pejoratives (or even implying their use) to describe or talk about a certain group, without any relevant and fact-based reason to justify using those words, is the same as name-calling ?

    Whichever way you choose to answer, the implications will be crystal clear.

    …and if they’re somehow not, I will happily clarify.

  9. snowylocks says:

    To make replying even easier, and to avoid long, irrelevant, off-topic distractions, I’ll summarize these three replies into a few clear and easily accomplished tasks :

    You will provide, from the two posts you deleted :
    1. An example of “abuse”
    2. An example of “ridicule”
    3. An example of an “emotive rather than factual” argument.

    If you are unable to do this, you will retract all these false accusations. An apology, however, will no longer be required. At this point, it wouldn’t be sincere.
    And of course, in each case, you will stick to the dictionary definition of these words.

    And finally, you will answer this question, which is an even simpler rephrasing of the question in the post above :

    Does an argument that is completely unsupported by facts hold any weight at all ? Yes, or no.
    Consider the implications for your own arguments before you answer.

    Once again, thank you for your time.

    • aquarianmist says:

      snowylocks

      Once again we are going round and round the Mulberry bush.

      First of all, please use wordpress to post your comments not my email address; that way everyone with an interest in this issue can view your comments in total.

      Your question answered in one. To debunk is to ridicule which is to mock humiliate and insult which in turn is a form of abuse.

      In my view Article 16 of the UN Charter says it all. Men and women have the right to marry and raise a family. The family is the NATURAL and FUNDAMENTAL group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. I believe that same sex marriage will erode this protection and devalue the whole meaning of marriage. That is my opinion and I have the right to express it. My view that human beings are heterosexual by nature and design is an irrefutable fact of life and no amount of debate will change that simple truth. Therefore, to state that homosexuality is not normal and natural is also true and no amount of debate will changer that either. My comment that homosexuals are sexual misfits is also valid because they do not fit in to the societal norm of heterosexuality. If you can see any name calling or unpleasant disparaging connotations in these statements that is your prerogative but it does not mean that you are correct. But thus far, you have been unable to prove that human beings are not heterosexual by nature and design or prove that homosexuality is not a form of sexual dis-function.

      Your comment about an archaic homosexual religious cult is, in my opinion ‘clutching at straws’ to validate your point of view. Sexually focused pseudo religious cults have come and gone forever and do not last long in terms of human history and how one can reach spiritual enlightenment through sexual rituals of any kind is questionable.

      I have asked you several questions that are relevant to this issue so If you wish you may post your answers when you see fit to do so.

      aquarianmist

      • snowylocks says:

        Unless you answer my questions, we’ll keep going round this bush, whatever type it may be.

        Look, you can keep redefining “debunk” , “ridicule” and “abuse” as many times as you like, that will not make their correct dictionary definitions go away. And it certainly doesn’t answer the question “please give an example of these things in the two posts you deleted”.

        So I will ask AGAIN, and if anyone’s keeping score, this is about the 4th time :
        You will provide, from the two posts you deleted :
        1. An example of “abuse”
        2. An example of “ridicule”
        3. An example of an “emotive rather than factual” argument.

        If you are unable to do this, you will retract all these false accusations. An apology, however, will no longer be required. At this point, it wouldn’t be sincere.
        And of course, in each case, you will stick to the dictionary definition of these words.

        And finally, you will answer this question, which is an even simpler rephrasing of the question in the post above :

        Does an argument that is completely unsupported by facts hold any weight at all ? Yes, or no.
        Consider the implications for your own arguments before you answer.

        Here endeth the by now traditional cut-and-paste of the unanswered questions.

        As for the new stuff, I need only remind you that assertions need facts to support them, or they carry no weight, and that I asked you that question to avoid the wall of text that now follows. *sigh* :

        “Men and women have the right to marry and raise a family”

        Yes, they do. So ?

        “The family is the NATURAL and FUNDAMENTAL group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

        Sounds reasonable.

        “I believe that same sex marriage will erode this protection and devalue the whole meaning of marriage. That is my opinion and I have the right to express it”

        I’m not trying to stop you. I’m asking for the facts that support your opinion. You just keep repeating your opinion.

        “My view that human beings are heterosexual by nature and design is an irrefutable fact of life and no amount of debate will change that simple truth.”

        Your view is a fact ? No, that’s not the way reality works. If your views were all facts, you’d be god. You’re not. I don’t even need to debate you to prove you’re wrong there.

        “Therefore, to state that homosexuality is not normal and natural is also true and no amount of debate will changer that either.”

        You can’t arrive at factual conclusions by simply taking your own opinions for facts. Again, if that were possible, you could declare ANYTHING, and it would magically become true.

        “My comment that homosexuals are sexual misfits is also valid because they do not fit in to the societal norm of heterosexuality.”

        Do societal norms change ? Yes, they do, and we’re all very lucky that that is the case.

        “If you can see any name calling or unpleasant disparaging connotations in these statements that is your prerogative but it does not mean that you are correct.”

        Actually, I simply cut and pasted those words from your posts, so yes, I am correct. Are you going so far as to deny you used those words, or that there’s no negative connotation to, for example, the term “criminal abuse” ? Seriously ? (Yet again, not a rhetorical question, but yeah, answer the other ones first)

        “But thus far, you have been unable to prove that human beings are not heterosexual by nature and design or prove that homosexuality is not a form of sexual dis-function.”

        The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. If it weren’t, I’d have to take unicorns seriously.
        In other words, if you don’t have proof of your many assertions, they’re just insults. Nothing more.
        I simply notice the lack of proof on the side of people attacking gays, so I am disinclined to take them seriously.
        On the other side, however, I notice gay people successfully raising families, countries that made gay marriage legal not suffering from a single misfortune that the nay-sayers threatened them with, and countries that violently attack even the right of gay people to be alive, being misled by the most amoral and dishonest people imaginable, etc…
        So it’s not really me who’s proving you wrong. It’s reality.

        “Your comment about an archaic homosexual religious cult is, in my opinion ‘clutching at straws’ to validate your point of view. Sexually focused pseudo religious cults have come and gone forever and do not last long in terms of human history and how one can reach spiritual enlightenment through sexual rituals of any kind is questionable.”

        This is, once again, all coming out of your imagination. As you well know, I used the term “pagan religion” because of this comment you made : “In my opinion, Christianity has done more damage within human society in that short space of time than the so called pagan religions ever did”, and I asked you if you might like an example of a pagan religion that revered same-sex relationships as sacred.
        I made no comment about an “archaic homosexual religious cult”, “Sexually focused pseudo religious cults”, or “reach spiritual enlightenment through sexual rituals”.
        I mean, really, why would you even try something like that ?

        “I have asked you several questions that are relevant to this issue so If you wish you may post your answers when you see fit to do so.”

        I already posted the answers to those quite irrelevant questions in a post you seem to have ignored, as it was posted earlier than the one you mostly ignored just now.

        I really hope you will have noticed that before I post this reply, otherwise we’ll have yet another example of you ignoring the very things you keep asking for.

        Phew, well, that’s done. I have once AGAIN dealt with all your issues and answered all your questions while you ignored mine. I hope this doesn’t happen again. Just to make sure, I’ll post them again in a few secs.

        Cheers,

        ps : As for your request, there’s no reason for me to get a wordpress account. My posts show up just fine. As long as you don’t delete them again. But sure, I’ll ask a few people to check if they can read them.

  10. snowylocks says:

    (yet another cut-and-paste repost, please answer the questions this time. Thank you)

    Unless you answer my questions, we’ll keep going round this bush, whatever type it may be.

    Look, you can keep redefining “debunk” , “ridicule” and “abuse” as many times as you like, that will not make their correct dictionary definitions go away. And it certainly doesn’t answer the question “please give an example of these things in the two posts you deleted”.

    So I will ask AGAIN, and if anyone’s keeping score, this is about the 5th time :
    You will provide, from the two posts you deleted :
    1. An example of “abuse”
    2. An example of “ridicule”
    3. An example of an “emotive rather than factual” argument.

    If you are unable to do this, you will retract all these false accusations. An apology, however, will no longer be required. At this point, it wouldn’t be sincere.
    And of course, in each case, you will stick to the dictionary definition of these words.

    And finally, you will answer this question, which is an even simpler rephrasing of the question in the post above :

    Does an argument that is completely unsupported by facts hold any weight at all ? Yes, or no.
    Consider the implications for your own arguments before you answer.

    (…and just in case you’re only reading the bottom comment again, LOOK ABOVE THIS ONE)

    • aquarianmist says:

      snowylocks

      I have been reviewing your comments and have reached the conclusion that for you, this is a personal issue not political. I also sense a degree of anger in your comments. Therefore, I believe that further dialogue between us will be pointless. May I suggest that you write a post detailing your arguments in favor of same sex marriage so that it can be debated in a non-personal manner. Good luck with that.

      aquarianmist

      • snowylocks says:

        You have been reviewing my comments, and yet you have managed to not answer my simple and straightforward questions, while I have answered all of yours. Okay, no problem, I’ll repeat them :

        Kindly provide, from the two posts you deleted :
        1. An example of “abuse”
        2. An example of “ridicule”
        3. An example of an “emotive rather than factual” argument.

        If you are unable to do this, you will retract all these false accusations. An apology, however, will no longer be required. At this point, it wouldn’t be sincere.
        And of course, in each case, you will stick to the dictionary definition of these words.

        And finally, you will answer this question, which is an even simpler rephrasing of the question in the post above :

        Does an argument that is completely unsupported by facts hold any weight at all ? Yes, or no.
        Consider the implications for your own arguments before you answer.

        To reference your latest post, I’ll remind you that “sensing a degree of anger”, and “so that it can be debated in a non-personal manner”, is just repeating the “emotive rather than factual” accusation you made earlier. I asked you for an example (see above). You were unable to provide one, so you simple repeated the same accusation, using different words.
        Do you really think it’s so unreasonable and “angry” and “emotive” of me to ask for an example, when somebody accuses me of something I clearly didn’t do ?

        My arguments in favor are in my posts you just ignored and the first two you deleted, and they were also present in that other blog were you first showed up. You’re basically asking me to repeat something you’ve already been told numerous times. I don’t understand why you keep doing that.

        My biggest argument for gay marriage is that there are no arguments against it. They have all been shown to be false, or nothing more than insults. You disagree ? Then please provide an argument that I haven’t already shown to be false or nothing more than an insult.
        If you choose to repeat an argument I already invalidated, I will simply cut-and-paste my earlier answer until you finally read it. Not ideal, sure, but if you keep ignoring my posts, and accusing me of things I didn’t do and you can’t even provide examples of, then what choice do you leave me ?

        In closing, I will repeat that you can’t just accuse people of things they clearly didn’t do, repeatedly fail to provide an example of said accusations when they politely ask you for it, and then present that as an argument.

        Please answer the questions, so we can continue. Thank you.

  11. snowylocks says:

    While we wait, patiently, for you to answer the question in the post above, I might as well tackle your latest blog-post as well.

    “I recently received a copy of my latest medical report and was pleased to note that, for my age, I am in reasonable health. But I was dumbfounded to see in my report that I have been assigned a ‘sexual orientation.’ Silly old me. As a human being, I have always believed that being heterosexual is normal and natural, not a ‘sexual orientation.’

    It just so happens that not all human beings are carbon copies of you, therefore “normal” and “natural” become purely subjective terms. This seems to displease you for some reason. The way you phrase your displeasure wrongly creates the impression that someone is claiming that you being heterosexual is somehow not “normal” or “natural”. This is simply not true. You are quite aware of this, and therefore your argumentation is inherently dishonest.

    “I am beginning to wonder where our politically correct masters and their judicial lackeys are taking western society with all this sexual manipulation.”

    It’s your right to make disparaging remarks about your democratically elected officials. Still, I once more note that have not included any actual proof with your insinuations. This seems to be a habit of yours.
    As for “sexual manipulation”, I once more doubt that you have taken into account the actual meaning of both those words. However, if it’s the sexual orientation designation you are referring to, see above.

    “Human beings are a heterosexual species”

    No, sexuality is not a factor in determining species. “Species” is a biological term. You really need to understand what a word means before you use it.

    “born with the natural instinct to bond, mate and copulate with a member of the opposite sex to produce young. Therefore, a man, woman and child are a normal and natural family, bonded by the heterosexual instincts they were born with. This long-term bonding is part of being human and is what separates us from the beasts of the field.”

    You are putting yourself in the place of nature. Nature doesn’t need your input (or mine) to do it’s job. If you want to know what’s “natural”, you need to study nature. Not only yourself. To put it another way : You, by yourself, or the group you identify with, do not constitute nature in it’s entirety. This is a simple truth, hard to deny.
    (oh, and btw, “long term bonding” is not a human exclusive)

    “We have been this way since we first stood up on our feet, left the rain forests and formed our earliest human settlements. This is our nature.”

    See above.

    “And, this has nothing to do with religion, tradition or politics.”

    Okay.

    “As far as I am aware, homosexuals are fully functional males and lesbians are fully functioning females, so there is no physical impediment preventing them from marrying a member of the opposite sex and having children the way nature intended. However, they choose to form an unnatural sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex. ”

    Again, see above. Most of your arguments seem to boil down to a very narrow and personal definition of the word “nature”.
    Once again, there are people out there who are different from you. I still have no idea why this displeases you so. You have yet to come up with a single relevant reason that’s not simply an unfounded assertion or baseless accusation. (Still waiting for those examples, btw)

    “Simply put, they voluntarily relinquish all things heterosexual.”

    Oh, you think it’s a choice. The veracity of that assertion can very easily be tested, and it has.

    “My view is a simplistic one. As stated in an earlier post on this issue, homosexuals and lesbians are suffering with a sexual dis-function centered in the brain to the extent that they don’t know whether they are male or female. In other words, without meaning to be unkind, they are natures genetic sexual misfits.”

    As stated before, simply making an assertion does not make it true. You are not qualified to diagnose a “sexual dis-function”, or even speak knowledgeably about genetics or any sexuality other than your own, and the people who are disagree with you.
    In other words, your view is not simplistic, it is factually untrue.

    “Given the advances being made in our knowledge of the brain through deep brain research and neurology, it is only a matter of time before the area of the brain that triggers sexual arousal will be located.”

    Actually, that part of the brain has already been located.

    “These types of non-physical sexual dis-functions can then be treated and corrected.”

    See above.

    ” Surely this will be a better outcome for western society than embracing unnatural same-sex relationships. Let us hope that this happens sooner rather than later.”

    Re: “unnatural”, see above.
    Btw, I find it rather sinister that you express the desire for individuals you judge to be “unnatural” to be “corrected”.
    Also, what “bad” outcome could there possibly be for “western society” if they embraced these relationships ?

    “So what is really happening here? Why has a minority group of sexually dis-functional people become such a hot political issue?”

    Re :”sexually dis-functional”, see above.
    Why ? Because politics should be about addressing social injustice, and we’re only now entering an age where in some countries, murdering gay people for religious reasons is frowned upon.

    ” Should it not be a medical issue?”

    Nope. See above.
    Btw, that route has been traveled to it’s very end, many, many times these past few decades.

    “Has any political party been given a mandate to enact same-sex marriage legislation?”

    Yes.

    “Are our politically correct masters supporting same-sex marriage to secure the votes of a minority group in the hope of retaining power?”

    I’ll have to give you that one. It would be naive to assume that ALL politicians who chose a side in this debate, do so for purely idealistic reasons.
    Still, there are many countries where a pro-vote, or even a sympathetic appearance would get them killed.

    “Are homosexual and lesbian politicians simply trying to get their partners onto the public purse gravy train?”

    Are some gay politicians as corrupt as straight ones ? I guess they’re suddenly human after all then.

    “Why are the people being denied the democratic right to vote on this contentious issue? ”

    They’re not. You voted your elected officials into office. That’s how it works.

    “Questions, questions, questions.”

    Answers ignored. Answers ignored. Answers ignored.

    “In pursuing same-sex marriage, our politically correct masters”

    That’s three times now. You seem to really like this phrase for some reason.

    “are not giving any thought to the possible long-term effects on western society.”

    They’re not ? Because they reach different conclusions than you do ?

    ” In effect, same-sex marriage legislation will divide human beings into three separate sexual groups.
    Human beings have always tended to gravitate to that which is familiar and where they feel safe. Therefore, three sexual groups will form separate enclaves within our cities. In time these enclaves will develop into separate sexual communities each with their own subcultures, councils, by laws and services. In other words, sexual apartheid will develop. Demarcation lines and no-go areas will then appear across our cities.We already live in a volatile and violent society and sexual segregation will increase street violence and thrill killings to a point where authorities will not be able to maintain control.”

    And yet, funnily enough, this has not happened in countries where gay marriage has been legal for years.

    Go figure.

    “The biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah may be just that, a story. But the biblical message from the past is crystal clear. If we continue with the madness that is same-sex marriage, we will be sowing the seeds of our own destruction.”

    I’m sorry, but you really need to actually read that story. Here, let me give you a quote from it :
    “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” (Genesis 19:7)
    Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear. Not such a good source for morality after all, it seems.

    “Because some western jurisdictions have already embraced same-sex marriage, the storm clouds are already gathering on the horizon. This will eventually cause a societal upheaval not experienced since World War 2 in Europe. What then?”

    That’s quite the doomsday prophecy. Unfortunately, you are not only missing the facts to support it, it has also been rendered obsolete by reality quite a few years ago.
    We always keep coming back to the same problem, namely that there are no facts to support your position.

    “I am not an extremist. I do not suffer with the mythical mental illness of homophobia.”

    I have already explained this, but I’ll do it again : Homophobia is not a mental illness, it’s a phobia. Considering the myriad of exotic phobias already recognized, it’s rather baffling that you would pick this one to be incredulous about.

    “I am a heterosexual male born into a heterosexual species and wish to see it stay that way.”

    Why do you keep suggesting that anyone is trying to stop you from being heterosexual ? You know this is not true, and yet you keep suggesting it. This is very strange.

    Oh well…

    Anyway, this response took me about 9 minutes. If I can spare that much time for someone who’s been first deleting, then ignoring my responses, and keeps accusing me of things I didn’t do, and refuses to give examples of said accusations, no matter how many times I ask him, then you can easily spare the time to answer a single yes-or-no question for me. You will find it in the post above this one (unless you’ve posted a reply by now, then it will be above that).

    Thanks again.

  12. snowylocks says:

    A rather strange thing has happened here, yet again.

    Three comments of mine that were posted here for a while have suddenly been relegated to “awaiting moderation”, thus making it seem that your last request has rendered me quite speechless.

    I feel it’s once again necessary to remind you that I have taken screencaps of every single comment I made on your blog, so making vague claims about “anger” is simply not going to fly.

    Seriously, what’s going on here ? If you are this afraid of having an actual discussion with people, then don’t come asking for one.

  13. snowylocks says:

    Okay then.
    Just on the off chance that this post won’t get deleted/ blocked/ ignored/ mysteriously get switched to “awaiting moderation” after a few weeks of being posted, let’s re-cap, shall we ?

    _First, you showed up on the “Life without a net” blog, inviting the posters there to visit your blog and asked for some “constructive comments rather than name-calling”. (A privilege you demanded for yourself, but didn’t extend to the gay community, btw)

    _I did what you requested, leaving a comment each on both your blog-posts on the subject, in which I refuted your arguments without the aid of “name-calling” or “abuse”, but with good, old-fashioned facts. Months passed without an answer from you.

    _ Then a third blog-post appeared on your blog, also addressing the gay marriage issue. And Lo an behold, my comments on the two previous blog-posts were deleted, without warning or explanation.

    _I strongly objected to this, informing you that deleting my comments, or attempting to lie about their contents, would be utterly useless, as I have acquired the habit of taking screencaps of my comments, having encountered situations like this before.

    _After I reposted my comments, you finally reacted, accusing me of “ridicule” and “abuse”, adding a slew of new accusations and opinions, yet again without the facts to back them up, or show relevance to the subject under discussion.

    _Thus followed a predictable back-and-forth, where I asked you repeatedly for even one little example of “abuse”, “ridicule”, “emotive rather than factual arguments” and all the other accusations you piled up, from the two posts you deleted. It is worth stressing that you failed completely to come up with even one. Instead, you gave me more questions (all of which I answered), more arguments (all of which I addressed and refuted), and an unending, unpleasant list of pejoratives aimed at the gay community, none of which you could back up with facts.

    So now here we are. Three more of my posts lost in Limbo, and this one might end up there as well.
    Look, it’s quite obvious here that you may have bitten off more than you can chew, and you’re looking for a face-saving way out of this debate.

    I have no problem with that. After all, I have no way of knowing what type of circumstances might be preventing you from replying (sickness, a death in the family, computer troubles, etc ), and deleting my comments might even have been an accident.

    So here’s what I propose we do : If you can make one more post, where you simply request we end this debate for now, WITHOUT adding any more unfounded accusations, implications, or even vague hints of things I obviously did not do, then I will happily consider this chapter closed.

    Considering the circumstances, that’s a pretty sweet deal.

    Take it or leave. All the same to me.

  14. snowylocks says:

    (Getting a little tired of waiting for you to “moderate” my posts, or even explain why they were moved to the moderation queue in the first place, so I’m re-posting them myself)

    While we wait, patiently, for you to answer the question in the post above, I might as well tackle your latest blog-post as well.

    “I recently received a copy of my latest medical report and was pleased to note that, for my age, I am in reasonable health. But I was dumbfounded to see in my report that I have been assigned a ‘sexual orientation.’ Silly old me. As a human being, I have always believed that being heterosexual is normal and natural, not a ‘sexual orientation.’

    It just so happens that not all human beings are carbon copies of you, therefore “normal” and “natural” become purely subjective terms. This seems to displease you for some reason. The way you phrase your displeasure wrongly creates the impression that someone is claiming that you being heterosexual is somehow not “normal” or “natural”. This is simply not true. You are quite aware of this, and therefore your argumentation is inherently dishonest.

    “I am beginning to wonder where our politically correct masters and their judicial lackeys are taking western society with all this sexual manipulation.”

    It’s your right to make disparaging remarks about your democratically elected officials. Still, I once more note that have not included any actual proof with your insinuations. This seems to be a habit of yours.
    As for “sexual manipulation”, I once more doubt that you have taken into account the actual meaning of both those words. However, if it’s the sexual orientation designation you are referring to, see above.

    “Human beings are a heterosexual species”

    No, sexuality is not a factor in determining species. “Species” is a biological term. You really need to understand what a word means before you use it.

    “born with the natural instinct to bond, mate and copulate with a member of the opposite sex to produce young. Therefore, a man, woman and child are a normal and natural family, bonded by the heterosexual instincts they were born with. This long-term bonding is part of being human and is what separates us from the beasts of the field.”

    You are putting yourself in the place of nature. Nature doesn’t need your input (or mine) to do it’s job. If you want to know what’s “natural”, you need to study nature. Not only yourself. To put it another way : You, by yourself, or the group you identify with, do not constitute nature in it’s entirety. This is a simple truth, hard to deny.
    (oh, and btw, “long term bonding” is not a human exclusive)

    “We have been this way since we first stood up on our feet, left the rain forests and formed our earliest human settlements. This is our nature.”

    See above.

    “And, this has nothing to do with religion, tradition or politics.”

    Okay.

    “As far as I am aware, homosexuals are fully functional males and lesbians are fully functioning females, so there is no physical impediment preventing them from marrying a member of the opposite sex and having children the way nature intended. However, they choose to form an unnatural sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex. ”

    Again, see above. Most of your arguments seem to boil down to a very narrow and personal definition of the word “nature”.
    Once again, there are people out there who are different from you. I still have no idea why this displeases you so. You have yet to come up with a single relevant reason that’s not simply an unfounded assertion or baseless accusation. (Still waiting for those examples, btw)

    “Simply put, they voluntarily relinquish all things heterosexual.”

    Oh, you think it’s a choice. The veracity of that assertion can very easily be tested, and it has.

    “My view is a simplistic one. As stated in an earlier post on this issue, homosexuals and lesbians are suffering with a sexual dis-function centered in the brain to the extent that they don’t know whether they are male or female. In other words, without meaning to be unkind, they are natures genetic sexual misfits.”

    As stated before, simply making an assertion does not make it true. You are not qualified to diagnose a “sexual dis-function”, or even speak knowledgeably about genetics or any sexuality other than your own, and the people who are disagree with you.
    In other words, your view is not simplistic, it is factually untrue.

    “Given the advances being made in our knowledge of the brain through deep brain research and neurology, it is only a matter of time before the area of the brain that triggers sexual arousal will be located.”

    Actually, that part of the brain has already been located.

    “These types of non-physical sexual dis-functions can then be treated and corrected.”

    See above.

    ” Surely this will be a better outcome for western society than embracing unnatural same-sex relationships. Let us hope that this happens sooner rather than later.”

    Re: “unnatural”, see above.
    Btw, I find it rather sinister that you express the desire for individuals you judge to be “unnatural” to be “corrected”.
    Also, what “bad” outcome could there possibly be for “western society” if they embraced these relationships ?

    “So what is really happening here? Why has a minority group of sexually dis-functional people become such a hot political issue?”

    Re :”sexually dis-functional”, see above.
    Why ? Because politics should be about addressing social injustice, and we’re only now entering an age where in some countries, murdering gay people for religious reasons is frowned upon.

    ” Should it not be a medical issue?”

    Nope. See above.
    Btw, that route has been traveled to it’s very end, many, many times these past few decades.

    “Has any political party been given a mandate to enact same-sex marriage legislation?”

    Yes.

    “Are our politically correct masters supporting same-sex marriage to secure the votes of a minority group in the hope of retaining power?”

    I’ll have to give you that one. It would be naive to assume that ALL politicians who chose a side in this debate, do so for purely idealistic reasons.
    Still, there are many countries where a pro-vote, or even a sympathetic appearance would get them killed.

    “Are homosexual and lesbian politicians simply trying to get their partners onto the public purse gravy train?”

    Are some gay politicians as corrupt as straight ones ? I guess they’re suddenly human after all then.

    “Why are the people being denied the democratic right to vote on this contentious issue? ”

    They’re not. You voted your elected officials into office. That’s how it works.

    “Questions, questions, questions.”

    Answers ignored. Answers ignored. Answers ignored.

    “In pursuing same-sex marriage, our politically correct masters”

    That’s three times now. You seem to really like this phrase for some reason.

    “are not giving any thought to the possible long-term effects on western society.”

    They’re not ? Because they reach different conclusions than you do ?

    ” In effect, same-sex marriage legislation will divide human beings into three separate sexual groups.
    Human beings have always tended to gravitate to that which is familiar and where they feel safe. Therefore, three sexual groups will form separate enclaves within our cities. In time these enclaves will develop into separate sexual communities each with their own subcultures, councils, by laws and services. In other words, sexual apartheid will develop. Demarcation lines and no-go areas will then appear across our cities.We already live in a volatile and violent society and sexual segregation will increase street violence and thrill killings to a point where authorities will not be able to maintain control.”

    And yet, funnily enough, this has not happened in countries where gay marriage has been legal for years.

    Go figure.

    “The biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah may be just that, a story. But the biblical message from the past is crystal clear. If we continue with the madness that is same-sex marriage, we will be sowing the seeds of our own destruction.”

    I’m sorry, but you really need to actually read that story. Here, let me give you a quote from it :
    “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” (Genesis 19:7)
    Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear. Not such a good source for morality after all, it seems.

    “Because some western jurisdictions have already embraced same-sex marriage, the storm clouds are already gathering on the horizon. This will eventually cause a societal upheaval not experienced since World War 2 in Europe. What then?”

    That’s quite the doomsday prophecy. Unfortunately, you are not only missing the facts to support it, it has also been rendered obsolete by reality quite a few years ago.
    We always keep coming back to the same problem, namely that there are no facts to support your position.

    “I am not an extremist. I do not suffer with the mythical mental illness of homophobia.”

    I have already explained this, but I’ll do it again : Homophobia is not a mental illness, it’s a phobia. Considering the myriad of exotic phobias already recognized, it’s rather baffling that you would pick this one to be incredulous about.

    “I am a heterosexual male born into a heterosexual species and wish to see it stay that way.”

    Why do you keep suggesting that anyone is trying to stop you from being heterosexual ? You know this is not true, and yet you keep suggesting it. This is very strange.

    Oh well…

    Anyway, this response took me about 9 minutes. If I can spare that much time for someone who’s been first deleting, then ignoring my responses, and keeps accusing me of things I didn’t do, and refuses to give examples of said accusations, no matter how many times I ask him, then you can easily spare the time to answer a single yes-or-no question for me..

    Thanks again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s