By using the term, we are buying into the argument of the enemy that it actually exists in some meaningful sense when it does no such thing. In using the term, we give weight to the (mistaken) idea that it is real or meaningful in any sense. The following explains the substance of why I say this......
There is no such thing as homosexuality.
There is no such thing as heterosexuality either.
There is Procreation, for which the Sexes are paramount, and there is Sensuality, for which the Sexes are entirely inconsequential and irrelevant; as the Sexes are simply and by definition the two intrinsically complementary roles in sexual reproduction – provider of sperm and egg – outside of which role they have no meaning.
The creation of the artificial and contrived categories of “heterosexual” and “homosexual” allowed for a notion of 'normal' (ie: “heterosexual”
that was not intrinsically connected with procreation. However, in a society where contraception, masturbation, male-female oral sex, and male-female anal sex are considered 'normal', there are no grounds for excluding same-sex couples who partake of the very same practices and who are equally uninvolved in procreation. Consequently, “homosexuality” now has to be included under the label of 'normal' as well, because in divorcing 'normal' from 'procreation', making the discussion purely about sensuality, we have no legitimate cause to keep “homosexuality” out.
Hence it is a false distinction to divide the two. Separating non-procreative sexual acts into “homosexual” and “heterosexual” is meaningless because whilst the appearance of each partner may matter to the other, the substance of the Sexes is entirely inconsequential. All non-procreative sex is part of one category in which the sexes are inconsequential; namely, Sensuality. Hence, the categories and divisions of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are artificial and contrived, and thus valueless. One is no more or less 'normal' than the other.
In a society that accepts such non-procreative sex-acts between men and women there is no reason to exclude the same acts between men and men, women and women, groups of such, or, for that matter, between either men or women and animals. Yes, you heard that right. Now you might be saying “but what about consent?”. Well, do we require the consent of an animal in order to kill it and eat its flesh? No. So why baulk at the lack of consent to use it in other ways? No, if you allow these acts you must also allow all forms of them that involve anything for which consent is either genuinely acquired or for which it is irrelevant....and given that the age of criminal responsibility is 10 in this country, this will probably soon include children as well (on the grounds that if you can be held responsible for crimes you can also consent to sex).
The problem of course is that what is healthy and right for civilised wholesome human beings, as opposed to the bestial barbarians who turn their backs on humanity, is not and never was in any way defined by the label of “heterosexual”. It (along with “homosexual” was only ever a contrived and meaningless sub-category of “Sensuality”. Sensuality though is itself intrinsically unhealthy because it is categorically a thing of Idolatry-of-Self – which is a form of narcissism where we make an idol of, and believe that right and wrong answer to and are defined by, our feelings, desires and appetites – placing the subjective over objective truth and reality.
Instead, that which is healthy and right for civilised wholesome human beings is actually defined not by the label of “heterosexuality” but by the concept of “Chastity” (sex only in marriage, and only for moderate amounts of procreation); because only chastity is not a thing of Sensuality and thus also not a thing of Idolatry-of-Self. In chastity, the sexual drive instead answers to reason, rather than being largely a law unto itself. It is tamed and restrained in a manner completely at odds with the nature of Idolatry-of-Self – answering instead to objective truth.Consequently, it is far better to discard all three empty and meaningless labels of “normal”, “heterosexual” and “homosexual”, taking up instead only the two labels: chaste, and unchaste. Chaste being sex only in marriage, and only for moderate amounts of procreation. Unchaste being everything else.
Unfortunately, the confused and contrived situation where Sensuality has been normalised under the false labels of “heterosexuality” and “homosexuality” is why we see an increasingly sensualised, eroticised, society where:
* inappropriate contentographic images are increasingly common in mainstream media,
* there is increasing acceptance of promiscuity and provocative dress,
* prostitution is increasingly presented as normal (“sex workers”, and
* symbols of chastity (like the unicorn) are twisted into symbols of debauchery.
The agenda at work is not then the oft-claimed “homosexual agenda”, but rather is an unchaste agenda; where literally anything goes, so long as consent is either genuinely acquired or where it was never relevant to begin with. And what a wonderful vision for society that is.....
Therefore, notions of “heterosexual” or “homosexual” are meaningless, or worse they are actually harmful because they are misleading, and so we need to stop using them. What matters is simply whether you are chaste, or not, as the opposite of chastity is debauchery. It is not “heterosexuality” that is good and “homosexuality” that is bad, nor is it that both of these are good, but rather it is that both of these labels are meaningless and that the distinction between good and bad for civilised wholesome human beings is simply one of Chaste (sex only in marriage, and only for moderate amounts of procreation) or Unchaste...
There is no such thing as homosexuality.
There is no such thing as heterosexuality either.
There is Procreation, for which the Sexes are paramount, and there is Sensuality, for which the Sexes are entirely inconsequential and irrelevant; as the Sexes are simply and by definition the two intrinsically complementary roles in sexual reproduction – provider of sperm and egg – outside of which role they have no meaning.
The creation of the artificial and contrived categories of “heterosexual” and “homosexual” allowed for a notion of 'normal' (ie: “heterosexual”
that was not intrinsically connected with procreation. However, in a society where contraception, masturbation, male-female oral sex, and male-female anal sex are considered 'normal', there are no grounds for excluding same-sex couples who partake of the very same practices and who are equally uninvolved in procreation. Consequently, “homosexuality” now has to be included under the label of 'normal' as well, because in divorcing 'normal' from 'procreation', making the discussion purely about sensuality, we have no legitimate cause to keep “homosexuality” out.Hence it is a false distinction to divide the two. Separating non-procreative sexual acts into “homosexual” and “heterosexual” is meaningless because whilst the appearance of each partner may matter to the other, the substance of the Sexes is entirely inconsequential. All non-procreative sex is part of one category in which the sexes are inconsequential; namely, Sensuality. Hence, the categories and divisions of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are artificial and contrived, and thus valueless. One is no more or less 'normal' than the other.
In a society that accepts such non-procreative sex-acts between men and women there is no reason to exclude the same acts between men and men, women and women, groups of such, or, for that matter, between either men or women and animals. Yes, you heard that right. Now you might be saying “but what about consent?”. Well, do we require the consent of an animal in order to kill it and eat its flesh? No. So why baulk at the lack of consent to use it in other ways? No, if you allow these acts you must also allow all forms of them that involve anything for which consent is either genuinely acquired or for which it is irrelevant....and given that the age of criminal responsibility is 10 in this country, this will probably soon include children as well (on the grounds that if you can be held responsible for crimes you can also consent to sex).
The problem of course is that what is healthy and right for civilised wholesome human beings, as opposed to the bestial barbarians who turn their backs on humanity, is not and never was in any way defined by the label of “heterosexual”. It (along with “homosexual”
was only ever a contrived and meaningless sub-category of “Sensuality”. Sensuality though is itself intrinsically unhealthy because it is categorically a thing of Idolatry-of-Self – which is a form of narcissism where we make an idol of, and believe that right and wrong answer to and are defined by, our feelings, desires and appetites – placing the subjective over objective truth and reality.Instead, that which is healthy and right for civilised wholesome human beings is actually defined not by the label of “heterosexuality” but by the concept of “Chastity” (sex only in marriage, and only for moderate amounts of procreation); because only chastity is not a thing of Sensuality and thus also not a thing of Idolatry-of-Self. In chastity, the sexual drive instead answers to reason, rather than being largely a law unto itself. It is tamed and restrained in a manner completely at odds with the nature of Idolatry-of-Self – answering instead to objective truth.Consequently, it is far better to discard all three empty and meaningless labels of “normal”, “heterosexual” and “homosexual”, taking up instead only the two labels: chaste, and unchaste. Chaste being sex only in marriage, and only for moderate amounts of procreation. Unchaste being everything else.
Unfortunately, the confused and contrived situation where Sensuality has been normalised under the false labels of “heterosexuality” and “homosexuality” is why we see an increasingly sensualised, eroticised, society where:
* inappropriate contentographic images are increasingly common in mainstream media,
* there is increasing acceptance of promiscuity and provocative dress,
* prostitution is increasingly presented as normal (“sex workers”
, and * symbols of chastity (like the unicorn) are twisted into symbols of debauchery.
The agenda at work is not then the oft-claimed “homosexual agenda”, but rather is an unchaste agenda; where literally anything goes, so long as consent is either genuinely acquired or where it was never relevant to begin with. And what a wonderful vision for society that is.....
Therefore, notions of “heterosexual” or “homosexual” are meaningless, or worse they are actually harmful because they are misleading, and so we need to stop using them. What matters is simply whether you are chaste, or not, as the opposite of chastity is debauchery. It is not “heterosexuality” that is good and “homosexuality” that is bad, nor is it that both of these are good, but rather it is that both of these labels are meaningless and that the distinction between good and bad for civilised wholesome human beings is simply one of Chaste (sex only in marriage, and only for moderate amounts of procreation) or Unchaste...
