[A_perfect_lady]

We must both do as we see fit. I looked at Shakespeare's earlier sonnets and what came to mind is that he wrote plays for the theatre, at a time when women didn't act, and all women's roles were played by pretty young men. So if he developed a passion for an effeminate youth here or there, it can't be surprising. People are fairly malleable.

The fact remains that homosexual sex cannot reproduce the species, so it must be at best secondary in importance to heterosexual sex in nature's scheme of things.

I think the objection by many conservatives is that we have seen the progression of an agenda that first called for tolerance, then demanded acceptance, now pushes for celebration, and will soon expect preference. This is simply human nature, this desire to attain pre-eminence, but here it is in service of a lifestyle that seems to lead, at best, nowhere.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Also, Shakespeare might pen verses intended for an actor portraying a woman to speak, as well as those intended to be spoken to a man by way of advice. Just because they address a man does not necessarily imply hanky panky.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Also, Shakespeare might pen verses intended for an actor portraying a woman to speak, as well as those intended to be spoken by a man to another man by way of advice. (Hey buddy, here’s how to win the chick.) Just because they address a man does not necessarily imply hanky panky.