Good point.
1. The vast majority of homosexuals practice all of the above disgusting and unnatural sexual acts (plus more too horrible to even contemplate).
2. Most normal men and women do not practice such acts. Most figures purporting to show that many normal couples practice anal sex, for instance, are not accurate.
3. Homosexuals should not marry because two men or two women "marrying" is against the laws of nature, common sense, history, every religion in the world, and they should not be raising children. If a small percentage of man+woman couples choose to engage in sick sex acts, what does that have to do with anything?
What queer or straight adults do privately is none of my business as long as they both consent. I have yet to hear of a straight group alliance teaching the practice of fisting to persons who have not reached the age of majority though.
Actually, I disagree. I think the best argument against the homosexual lobby is a processual one: they are mugging popular consensus using propagandistic techniques which they cheerfully admit, among themselves, were lifted from Josef Goebbels. (This in "Overhauling Straight America", the prepublication serialization of After the Ball in the Washington, DC Guide.)
Society has the right to set its sexual and familial mores in legal stone: statutory rape, age of consent, gender of married couples, adultery and abandonment, and so on.
Against that just power, and against the 98% who aren't gay, the homosexuals are making behind-the-scenes, Byzantine power plays and shopping the courts for friendly judges, and all the while lying about it in media. Just the other evening, ABC's Rich Furey tossed softballs to a homosexual advocate from the HRC, and the woman lied about the consequences of the Massachusetts liberal justices' power play against the People of Massachusetts. Rich Furey must have known, but didn't ask her about, the practical consequences for severely dissenting populations in e.g. Utah and Texas, of the Massachusetts' justices' threatened creation by decree of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. This is exactly what Evan Wolfson labored for all those years at Lambda Legal, as he describes here:
EW: You’ve raised a lot of important questions. These anti-marriage laws that the right wing has been pushing in their state-by-state campaign will be challenged once we win marriage somewhere. You can’t go into court and say, “My marriage is being discriminated against under this discriminatory anti-marriage law,” until you have one somewhere. Civil union is a marital status but not marriage, and therefore those laws ought not to be a barrier to the basic respect that every couple is entitled to for their legal commitment, and that every state owes to one another. We should fight to protect and build on civil unions as well as other family protections. Still, full marriage is the only gateway to a vast array of protections throughout our country. There is no easy way to replicate what comes with marriage. What’s more, marriage is an indispensable part of people’s vocabulary in talking about love, family, and commitment, and we ought to claim that vocabulary. It is a mistake to try to avoid talking about our lives in language that other people can understand. We need to seize and shape the discussion about our lives in the terms that people can relate to...... Let me sum up one more thing. Lambda’s vision of how we’re going to move this civil rights movement forward is that the work we do has to have three elements, and these all have to happen together. The first is that we really need to seize and shape the terms of the debate. We need to speak to nongay people and tell our stories in powerful, resonant terms. We need to talk about marriage, we need to talk about the Boy Scouts. Second, we need to engage nongay people. We really need to be out there asking for support, not just talking to ourselves. And third, we need to undertake careful legal and political action within the climate of receptivity that we are creating. GLR: Meanwhile, many states have passed laws that expressly pre-empt the recognition of gay marriages consecrated in other states. Isn’t this a violation of the “full faith and credit” clause in the Constitution, not to mention a law that pre-empts a purely hypothetical situation?
-- From Gay and Lesbian Review, Jan./Feb. 2001, "Why the Boy Scouts Case Went Down", interview with Evan Wolfson, Director, Marriage Project, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (emphasis added)
http://www.glreview.com/issues/2001janfeb/features/feature15-1.html#article
Maybe they should be strongly dissuaded from performing certain acts listed among the sexual esoterica. After all, they can't legally produce homemade $20 bills in the sanctity of the bedroom; why can't they be forbidden to spread fecal coliform and STD's around? If someone finds a gerbil up someone's colon, maybe that someone needs to give his colon a rest in jail for a while. To allow him to reflect on his folly, et cetera.
Comments?