The horror of seeing people you find unattractive in public changed your view? As I asked in the post that spawned this one, you have said you are against government sanction against homosexuals or people taking the matter into their own hands so what exactly do you want? What did your view change to after seeing the horror of that mans behind?
Up until then, it was just words. Just words.
Now, there it was, in the flesh. The man's nasty butt, for all the world to see, as he danced along with the other men, making his obscene pelvic thrusts and jiggling his...umm...well jiggling...I still shudder to think about it. Up until then, all I had was, as I said, words. Now, here was the ugly visual. And it shocked some sense into me.
Gay pride parades are almost like inviting the public into the bedroom. I mean, the visual there was overwhelming.
I could almost imagine the poop dripping from the men around this guy, from their hands and from their...uh...well, from their bodies...because, you know, sodomy involves playing in poop, which is what the anus does...and, let's face it, poop is not a great substance for playing in. There are some very nasty critters living in poop. Not to mention that unlike the vagina, the anus is not made to accommodate the male at full mast. The tissue is tender, and easily broken, and those nasty critters I mentioned can infiltrate the body. Staph infection is not a pretty way to die...I've stood at the bedside, but that is another horror story. I understand AIDS isn't terribly pleasant either. And while I do understand that these infections can and are spread in other ways, still, sodomy is not a terribly good idea, as medical science has shown.
Which are what? You keep hinting at something but not being able to read your mind I have no idea what it is.
There is a reason why gay sex is an abomination. And I think it might have something to do with disease. You know, like AIDS, and Staph, which is becoming more resistant to medications...people dying.
Not to mention the attack on the family. Of course, that began with "no-fault divorce", so you really can't blame it all on gays.
Kids need two parents...a male Daddy and a female Mommy. Why? Because there are fundamental differences between the sexes, and I'm not just talking about genitals, although that, too, is a problem. Two Mommies are going to find it rather difficult to potty train a baby boy, and I don't even want to think about a young teenaged girl learning "the facts of life" from two Dads.
Our kids are being taught that gay sex is "natural" when there is nothing natural about it.
People are actually trying to choose "genderless" names for their kids, as if naming a boy "David" or "John" would pre-dispose him toward heterosexuality. I always think of that ridiculous song about "A Boy Named Sue"...do you remember it? The "Sue" in that song was definitely NOT gay...
And they are learning that the phrase "Mom and Dad" is a no-no...because, of course, it might offend another kid whose parents are two men or two women.
It's a crazy world right now...maybe it'll calm down in a few years, and people will be more accepting...seeing as we have no choice. After all, we learn to accept, don't we? Sometimes it is right that a we should...but do you think it is always a good thing to accept what feels wrong to you? I'm not so sure any more...
And maybe the closet we opened will divulge even more perversion...like that group in Minnesota that want to be joined in a polygamous marriage. I don't see how they can be refused, can you? And I have already heard NAMBLA rumbling about lowering the age of consent...and why not? Isn't already legal for a man in his fifties to marry a girl just out of her teens? Why not a man in his fifties with a younger man? Does the idea of a guy in his forties or fifties sodomizing a boy in his teens disgust you? It should. Of course the idea of a man in his forties or fifties having sex with a girl in her teens is also disgusting, I'll give you that...but it is legal, and now it is legal both ways.
What's to keep the "fuzzies" from lobbying for their "rights"? After all, if someone who is severely retarded can sign with an "X", why can't Fluffy sign with a paw print?
"Slippery slope", you say? Perhaps. But here we are...
