Many years ago, our great nation had a “horn-dog” President who had a propensity to stray from strict adherence to his marriage vows, and was particularly fond of a certain form of sexual gratification. A certain White House intern managed occasionally to find the said horn-dog president in private circumstances, and at times would provide this sexual gratification, much to their mutual shame.
When the public disclosure of this sordid business was nigh, the President made what will probably be the defining public statement of his Presidency: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
The irony of the statement was its truthiness; William Jefferson Clinton wasn’t lying. Being the recipient of a BJ – or giving a BJ - has never been considered “having sexual relations.” Nor is being either the bugger or the buggee in an act of anal sodomy.
But the Gay Mafia has decreed that these acts are indeed “sexual relations” or “sexual intercourse,” or “having sex,” and YOU are a bigot if you deny it.
But consider the fundamental difference between heterosexual acts and homosexual acts (and ignoring the biological absurdity of homosexual acts). In NORMAL sexual intercourse one single act is physically gratifying throughout to both participants, ending ideally in a simultaneous orgasm. In the two defining “homosexual acts,” (fisting doesn’t count), one person gives gratification unilaterally while the other one unilaterally receives it (then they “switch,” I suppose). It is no more “sexual intercourse” than masturbation – which is what it is, in fact: masturbation with a helper. But God help YOU if you dispute a homosexual who talks about “having sex” with his or her partner.
Several years ago, some semantic pervert coined the words, “homophobe,” and “homophobia.” Neither makes any logical sense. A phobia is a neurotic and irrational fear of something that is in itself harmless. Claustrophobia is fear of being confined in a small space (e.g., the backseat of a 2-door car, an elevator). What, exactly, is the “homophobe” supposed to be afraid of? Homosexuals? Homosexuality? Ironically, the word was coined at a time when the AIDS pandemic seemed to be at its peak, so “fear” of people who regularly engaged in anal sodomy might have been appropriate and not neurotic at all. Anyone who tried to give blood during this period can attest that blood banks were almost neurotically fearful of anyone even hinting of a homosexual relationship in the past year. Are blood banks “homophobic”?
And use of the word persists; it refers basically to anyone who does not toe the line on the gay agenda, whatever it demands at any given moment.
Next and most profoundly, the Gay Mafia decreed that we must re-define “marriage” to include couples of the same gender, who (1) cannot have sexual intercourse, (2) cannot have children, and who (3) for the males at least – have little intention of leading a monogamous life while married. And Oh by the way, if you disagree with this semantic perversion (of “marriage”), you are a bigot.
Today’s development is that we must re-define “illegal discrimination” to include: refusing to participate in the celebration of a life of rampant and emphatic immorality.
And consider how contrived this whole discussion is. Compare it to the “colored person” who was refused a seat at a lunch counter in Alabama in 1955. One CANNOT use the same example, because the person running the lunch counter would have no way of knowing that the potential patron is homosexual, even if s/he WANTED to discriminate. The public debate centers on a mythical gay newlywed couple who cannot find a willing photographer, baker, or event planner to help them celebrate their marriage. The example is mythical because no such couple can be produced anywhere in the United States, let alone in Indiana. No other examples are offered because THERE ARE NO OTHER EXAMPLES. Because it is an absurdly contrived set of circumstances. To make it work you must posit a fundamentalist business owner being asked to provide a service under circumstances where s/he KNOWS that the potential customer is homosexual. It is equivalent to a kosher deli owner being asked to cater a political rally for a card-carrying, uniform-wearing Nazi.
And even if it were a real case, the mind strains at even conceiving of a situation where such a couple would even be INCONVENIENCED! And yet the Gay Mafia, all of our Leftist Politicos, and our supposedly “neutral” Mainstream Media are collectively having a case of the vapors over the plight of this fictitious gay couple!
The only reliable survey I’ve seen in the past ten years indicates that between one and 1-1/2% of the American adult population self-identifies as “gay,” and most of them are lesbians (for whom the category often means, “too repugnant to have any hope of ever finding a man”). So all of this gut-wrenching nonsense is for the theoretical benefit of a miniscule number of people.
Amazing.
And don’t forget: ALL of the arguments supporting this perverse and unprecedented version of “Constitutional law,” will ALSO support polygamy, incest, and bestiality (as long as you own the animal). Just sayin’.
When the public disclosure of this sordid business was nigh, the President made what will probably be the defining public statement of his Presidency: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
The irony of the statement was its truthiness; William Jefferson Clinton wasn’t lying. Being the recipient of a BJ – or giving a BJ - has never been considered “having sexual relations.” Nor is being either the bugger or the buggee in an act of anal sodomy.
But the Gay Mafia has decreed that these acts are indeed “sexual relations” or “sexual intercourse,” or “having sex,” and YOU are a bigot if you deny it.
But consider the fundamental difference between heterosexual acts and homosexual acts (and ignoring the biological absurdity of homosexual acts). In NORMAL sexual intercourse one single act is physically gratifying throughout to both participants, ending ideally in a simultaneous orgasm. In the two defining “homosexual acts,” (fisting doesn’t count), one person gives gratification unilaterally while the other one unilaterally receives it (then they “switch,” I suppose). It is no more “sexual intercourse” than masturbation – which is what it is, in fact: masturbation with a helper. But God help YOU if you dispute a homosexual who talks about “having sex” with his or her partner.
Several years ago, some semantic pervert coined the words, “homophobe,” and “homophobia.” Neither makes any logical sense. A phobia is a neurotic and irrational fear of something that is in itself harmless. Claustrophobia is fear of being confined in a small space (e.g., the backseat of a 2-door car, an elevator). What, exactly, is the “homophobe” supposed to be afraid of? Homosexuals? Homosexuality? Ironically, the word was coined at a time when the AIDS pandemic seemed to be at its peak, so “fear” of people who regularly engaged in anal sodomy might have been appropriate and not neurotic at all. Anyone who tried to give blood during this period can attest that blood banks were almost neurotically fearful of anyone even hinting of a homosexual relationship in the past year. Are blood banks “homophobic”?
And use of the word persists; it refers basically to anyone who does not toe the line on the gay agenda, whatever it demands at any given moment.
Next and most profoundly, the Gay Mafia decreed that we must re-define “marriage” to include couples of the same gender, who (1) cannot have sexual intercourse, (2) cannot have children, and who (3) for the males at least – have little intention of leading a monogamous life while married. And Oh by the way, if you disagree with this semantic perversion (of “marriage”), you are a bigot.
Today’s development is that we must re-define “illegal discrimination” to include: refusing to participate in the celebration of a life of rampant and emphatic immorality.
And consider how contrived this whole discussion is. Compare it to the “colored person” who was refused a seat at a lunch counter in Alabama in 1955. One CANNOT use the same example, because the person running the lunch counter would have no way of knowing that the potential patron is homosexual, even if s/he WANTED to discriminate. The public debate centers on a mythical gay newlywed couple who cannot find a willing photographer, baker, or event planner to help them celebrate their marriage. The example is mythical because no such couple can be produced anywhere in the United States, let alone in Indiana. No other examples are offered because THERE ARE NO OTHER EXAMPLES. Because it is an absurdly contrived set of circumstances. To make it work you must posit a fundamentalist business owner being asked to provide a service under circumstances where s/he KNOWS that the potential customer is homosexual. It is equivalent to a kosher deli owner being asked to cater a political rally for a card-carrying, uniform-wearing Nazi.
And even if it were a real case, the mind strains at even conceiving of a situation where such a couple would even be INCONVENIENCED! And yet the Gay Mafia, all of our Leftist Politicos, and our supposedly “neutral” Mainstream Media are collectively having a case of the vapors over the plight of this fictitious gay couple!
The only reliable survey I’ve seen in the past ten years indicates that between one and 1-1/2% of the American adult population self-identifies as “gay,” and most of them are lesbians (for whom the category often means, “too repugnant to have any hope of ever finding a man”). So all of this gut-wrenching nonsense is for the theoretical benefit of a miniscule number of people.
Amazing.
And don’t forget: ALL of the arguments supporting this perverse and unprecedented version of “Constitutional law,” will ALSO support polygamy, incest, and bestiality (as long as you own the animal). Just sayin’.
