[ArGee]

Gentlemen,

I see the usual "I said" "you did not, but I said" "oh, no you didn't, but I said."

But you're doing it regarding issues that dance around the central questions regarding homosexuality and its place in our society. I will not pick a "winner" because it is probably well known that I generally agree with Clint in such arguments, but you are both being pulled down a rabbit trail that has no meaning. If they found a "cannibalism gene" that would not acquit Jeffry Dahlmer (sp?) so who cares?

These are the issues as I understand them:

• Biologically, sexuality applies to a reproductive method. Homosexuality is an oxymoron. Homoerotic behavior makes more sense. This isn't about reproduction, it's about gratification.
• Human beings are regularly required to subordinate their immediate personal gratification for the good of their long term goals and society in general. This is true of college students who forego a roll in the hay to study for an exam, and is true of troops on bivouac in service to their nation. There are countless other examples, but these two demonstrate the men must control their appetites to be men.
• Contrarily, animals are slaves to their appetites. With rare exceptions, animals do what they please when they please. In those rare exceptions when they don't do what they please, they are generally coerced by others with whom they interact. One of the things that makes men unique among the creatures of this world is our ability to rule our apetites.
• The concept of "orientation" is a straw man. It signifies a preference, nothing more. A man's penis will respond to proper stimulation regardless of the sex of the provider of the stimulus - even if it is the man himself. The same is true of a woman's clitorus. When I was a young man I was oriented toward large breasts. As I became older I fell in love with and married a "nearly A." Did my orientation change, or did I just grow up? I would suggest the latter. Any man who says, "I just can't love a woman" (or vice versa) is a man who is stuck in an adolescent stage of development, as would be a man who said, "I just can't love a woman with small breasts."
• Our culture is a heterosexual culture. Any other erotic approach is mal-adaptive at the best and destructive at the worst. The author gives only anecdotal evidence of that fact, but the realithy is clear to any observer. Our society is borne up by families, as are the individuals within it. A man who will not make a decision to channel his sexual impulse into a family is either a dullard or an animal, but is not deserving of being called a man.
• Above all else, the author's primary assertion is that homoerotic behavior is immoral. This is a fact that has been recnized for over 6,000 years. Nothing has changed that fact. All that has changed is that people have decided that morality no longer exists. They are wrong, and the results of that wrong decision will cost dearly over time.

Even if the person is born with the preference, even if the person can demonstrate he is personally happier with homoerotic activity than with heterosexual sex, even if the activity hurts no one but the two involved, homoerotic behavior is wrong and should be discouraged if not outright outlawed. And homosexuals have no place trying to influence adolescents at the height of their sexual confusion.

Shalom.

[Clint N. Suhks]

but you are both being pulled down a rabbit trail that has no meaning.

I see you're familiar with tdadams too. ["I said" "you did not, but I said" "oh, no you didn't, but I said."] is his best retort.

Good post BTW, right on the money.

[tdadams]

If they found a "cannibalism gene" that would not acquit Jeffry Dahlmer (sp?) so who cares?

True enough, but let's not make any false (and slanderous) comparisons. Consensual homosexuality is not cannabalism and would seem you have a fondness for hyperbole just to make such a comparison.

even if the activity hurts no one but the two involved, homoerotic behavior is wrong and should be discouraged if not outright outlawed.

You better hope that mentality never takes hold politically. There may come a day when those in power (can you say President Hillary Clinton) decide your particular opinion or behavior should be "discouraged if not outright outlawed."

[Clint N. Suhks]

All that has changed is that people have decided that morality no longer exists. They are wrong, and the results of that wrong decision will cost dearly over time.

Moral relativist Liberaltarians like tdadams think they live in a bubble. My guess until he has kids he'll remain thinking that until an epiphany that some, very few, parts of society should be regulated.

[First Amendment]

Above all else, the author's primary assertion is that homoerotic behavior is immoral. This is a fact that has been recnized for over 6,000 years. Nothing has changed that fact. All that has changed is that people have decided that morality no longer exists. They are wrong, and the results of that wrong decision will cost dearly over time.

Love your statements. Thanks for the insights. Loud applause. Bringing it all back home.

[Hank Kerchief]

Even if the person is born with the preference ...

Exactly. We are all born with predispositions to something which we regard as temptations that we must resist and learn to control. What distinguishes human beings from all other creatures is that our behavior is chosen, no matter what predispostions or desires we have. Choosing right makes it moral, giving in to our desires, when it is obvious they are self-destructive, is immoral.

Excellent post.

Hank