[Vision2020] Crazy Train

Michael metzler at moscow.com
Sat Apr 22 19:23:14 PDT 2006



Thank you, that is helpful; I wonder if we could get more confirmation on
the truth of this analysis.  If what you say is true, then it seems the
debate can, and least for a time, be drawn into questions of traditional
categories: fidelity, faithfulness, emotional protection within a sexual
relationship, modesty, chastity, purity, covenant etc.  Shoot, there is even
a book right in front of me written by a secular naturalist arguing for the
importance of the virtue of temperance with respect to sexuality.  It would
seem that you are just granting the fact that the homosexual culture, for
whatever reason, is largely conducted in a way that would be considered
unwholesome or even wrong on all our traditional notions of 'morality and
the bedroom' quite independent of the issue of homosexuality.  In other
words, common morality could think men with men in principle is just fine
while also strongly condemning the intemperate nature of the current
homosexual culture (again, if your analysis is correct).  Now, you might be
fine biting that argumentative bullet, but I suspect that homosexuals that
want the practice to gain the status of traditional marriage are not going
to want to argue this way.  Right?  I've posted too much today already, so
see ya all Monday or Tuesday.


Michael Metzler



On 4/22/06, Michael <metzler at moscow.com> wrote:


> To clarify, I'm currently interested in two things:  what the actual 

> difference in cultural/behavioral expression really is (statistically) 

> between current homosexual and heterosexual practice


I think that I can answer this question.  Briefly, there *is* a difference
between homosexual and heterosexual practice, and that difference is largely
one of promiscuity.  I'm not saying that all homosexuals are promiscuous,
but it is certainly true that the majority of homosexual men are more
promiscuous that heterosexual men.


They are because they can be; how many young men are constitutionally
capable of saying no to sex?  Generally, the only reason that a heterosexual
male is not having sex is that a female partner is not available.  Take two
gay males and you can see where this leads.


I rate sex as a good thing, frequent or infrequent, if that is what both
partners want, and if appropriate precautions are taken.  I would rate it a
bad thing if both of those provisos are not met.  The genitalia of those
doing the coupling is irrelevant.


I don't care what the Bible says, or the Qur'an.  I don't care what
homophobic insecurities, inadequacies, or superstitions a person has, unless
they are emotionally crippling, or have evidentially obliterated reason.
Then I feel sorry for them.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060422/d0f2a19c/attachment.htm

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list