Originally Posted by Warren Zevon
Gender crossing is essentially creating a new gender. If you're a woman that identifies as a male, you're still a biological woman, which is why I said that putting labels on anything other than the big three is just nonsense.
I addressed the issue of abnormal sex practices, saying that urges can be satisfied in natural or immoral ways.
I'm quick to "demonize" homosexuality because I believe that it is wrong, gross and detrimental to the continuation of the human race.
The homosexual agenda is the idea that homosexuality is something that should be accepted, and that homosexuals are on the same moral and functional level as heterosexuals.
How can you label what they are doing as homosexual if the concept "homosexual" did not exist at that time? Allegedly abnormal/unnatural sexual practices can be satisfied through normal/natural means? That's quite contradictory. If they can be satisfied by normal/natural means could it not be possible that they are not inherently unnatural/abnormal?
Homosexuality thus far has not been detrimental to the continuation of the human race as we continue to experience exponential growth in our species, something that is proven
to be detrimental.
The homosexual agenda applies the concept of "homosexual", something that I have repeatedly stated as being relatively new. Why shouldn't homosexuality be accepted? Because of your own personal prejudices? Could I take the same stand on heterosexuality and expect people to buy into that ideal?