"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Monday, April 27, 2015

THE TERM "HOMOSEXUAL" IS A MISNOMER

THE REASON IT IS A MISNOMER IS BECAUSE THE TERM "HOMOSEXUAL" IMPLIES THAT A MAN CAN HAVE SEX WITH ANOTHER MAN, AND THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.

IMPOSSIBLE?!

YES.

A SEX ACT HAS - FOR EONS IN THE WEST - BEEN DEFINED THUSLY:
sex act: (noun) - the act of sexual intercourse.
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE HAS LONG BEEN DEFINED THUSLY:
Sexual intercourse, also known as coitus or copulation, is principally the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis, usually when erect, into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction, or both.
Since two men cannot perform on each other any act that leads to reproduction, whatever they do is not "sex" - no matter if there is an orgasm, or not.

If one or both perform an act which leads to an orgasm, it is a form of mutual masturbation, and not sex.

They may have oral or anal intercourse, but that is not "sexual intercourse".

They may rub their genitals against anything they want to achieve orgasm - perform any fetishistic act and achieve an orgasm, but whatever they do.... It is not a sex act.

Masturbating is not having sex.

Men who have orgasms with other men - and women who have orgasms with other women - are thus truly "homoerotics", and not "homosexuals".

Here's more proof that what gay people do with each other to achieve orgasm is not sex:

Since legalizing "same-sex marriage", British parliamentarians have recognized that they must also change the definition of non-consummation laws since same-sex couples cannot consummate their relationship.

They cannot consummate it because what they do is not sex.

Bottom-line:

Homosexual is a misnomer, one meant to conflate their status and their erotic acts with men and women who have sex, and meant to conflate their deviant behavior with normative behavior.

The fact that, over the past few years, supporting same sex marriage has become compulsory within the democrat party reveals how far left our culture has become.

I oppose discrimination against homoerotics.

I just feel - as Obama and Hillary did until recently - that civil unions, and not marriage, is the way to afford them legal status as couples.

I agree with Ted Cruz that as a legal matter, it should be left up to the states.

And I would prefer if this experiment proceeded slowly so we could measure the effects on children in these homes.

THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE IT MIGHT NOT BE GREAT.


2 comments:

Chuck said...

The word mate seems to fit. English gets in the way, though.

Punditarian said...

"It will have profound effects on the ability of individuals to have a marriage annulled," he said. "This is important to Catholics for whom annulment is permitted by the church but divorce is not."

Under existing law, marriages can be annulled on the grounds that a couple have never consummated their union. The standard definition of consummation has developed through case law; the accepted precedent goes back to a 1967 hearing.

In that case, known to lawyers as W (otherwise K) v W, it was declared that consummation must include erection and penetration by the man of the woman with "emission of seed" – a definition that would not work for same-sex marriages.

When the government put the proposals out for consultation earlier this year, it said: "Non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law, not civil partnership law.

"However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/10/legal-definition-consummation-gay-marriage