Homo-What? - Continued

In my previous post, I discussed the masked demagoguery and the ad-homonym design of the term "Homophobic". Instead of engaging sincere reasons for rejecting homosexuality as a viable "lifestyle", the "enlightened", stamp the person with a magic label that reduces reasonable doubt to a phobia. There is rational debate as to the "compos mentis" of the gay/lesbian libido, and the theological, moral, and sociological discussions on the topic should not be reduced to "playground" semantics.

Sex is a powerful, passionate force in the universe. It gives one of the ultimate physical pleasures a human being will experience, and at the same time, can produce unimaginable agony, regret, and social breakdown. The world cannot take lightly the implications of any sexual behavior, whether for the better or for the worse of humanity. Men and women are free to engage their sexual desires in the privacy of their own homes, this is between them and their maker, but restructuring the concepts of biological and social normalcy leads to changing the very ideal that fuses stability into society, the Family.

There are biological reasons for there being male and female (dah), and this biology affects the way children are nurtured and raised. The male and female differences have played a role in every single individuals upbringing, and in a healthy, committed male and female marriage, a child receives a complete balance that the differences were meant to bring. Our sons, do not obtain the category of affection from their mother that they receive from me; I do not have boobs and a uterus. They come to me for completely different reasons. My wife and I bring a healthy equilibrium to our children's needs. This perception is not a moral, theological, or a homophobic construct; it is just biology 101. TOTT