THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM -- AND ITS PATHOLOGY

In recent weeks we have seen and heard, on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, the physical presence of the homosexual activist movement. Our beloved and proud state, last in many things, is now witnessing the lobbying effects of the homosexual focus group, Human Rights Campaign, and their $8.2 million project to invade, according to their website, the “church pews and workplace” in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama, with the goal of “establishing an infrastructure” that will create a “lasting LGBT presence”.

Two city councils, Bay St. Louis and Waveland, have passed measures acclaiming the “dignity and worth” of homosexuals and by inference the dignity and worth of their sexual behavior, sodomy, or anal intercourse. I surmise that other councils are fawning over each other to make similar declarations, presumably the result of combined factors of the homosexual lobbying arm and the presumed indifference of the city's citizens.

But in every media report of anything relating to their social or political goals nothing of course is ever mentioned about that particular act to which homosexuals are oriented and in which they engage -- namely anal intercourse. Rather the media and public discourse in general eschew any mention of this sexual act but instead present homosexuality with the more appealing non-sexual traits like kindness, social compatibility, and so forth.

If homosexual proponents want us to be tolerant, nay totally agree and accept their lifestyle, including what comes with it, then it does not seem unreasonable to speak to those things that concern doubters and unbelievers of what the homosexual movement and lifestyle represent -- assuming of course we are still permitted to doubt and disbelieve. Similarly, it would seem odd and obtuse to discuss the alcoholic lifestyle but not talk about alcohol; or to talk about lung cancer but omit the mention of long-term cigarette smoking?

It’s difficult to write about the exigencies and health issues surrounding sodomitical acts without sounding uncharitable. Besides, homosexuals want approval for a behavior that most people would rather not think about or talk about. Not indifferent to the welfare of others and their situation, I have much compassion for anyone suffering from any affliction, mental or physical, and that includes men having sex with other men since it is this particular demographic that does not come without dangerous health risks – health risks not shared by other demographic groups, and about which the media, social media, and others are mute.

But it is the sexual relationship, not just the attraction, which makes sodomy the “set apart” trait that defines them by their own admission. So, why does sodomy hold such a privileged position in the national discourse over same-sex attraction, and “marriage”, discussions, compared to other non-sexual, same-sex relationships? What is it about it that makes it so special to be considered the determinant element in same-sex “marriage”? Or yet, to ask it another way here in my home state, what, about anal intercourse, do the fine upstanding Bay St. Louis and Waveland city councils find about it to infer and publicly declare it to be dignified and worthy? It’s not unreasonable to ask, is it?

During anal intercourse there are anatomical and physiologically-determined events that occur that are unavoidable, nature-provided, and gender-determined differences that dictate the harm, in spite of the pleasure or pain, that attends the act.

The large intestines is comprised of only one layer of tissue, columnar epithelium, that during the homosexual act it is frequently subject to micro-abrasions and tears. The vagina, on the other hand, is comprised of extra muscle layers, collagen-rich tissue, elastic-imbued layers, and is designed to accommodate the actions of intercourse, along with the natural lubricating actions of natural hormones that facilitate the physical motions of the act. In the same way, the ear canal and nostrils were not designed to store objects. If one were to do so they would soon discover, regardless of their desires to the contrary, that they had an unwanted problem.

For decades now it’s been known that sperm has an immunosuppressive effect, regardless of where it is deposited -- the large intestine or vagina. But there is a stark and stunning difference as to what happens to the host’s receiving organs depending on where it’s deposited. When sperm is deposited into the vagina, being a foreign substance from a different human, its immunosuppressive effect carries an evolutionary advantage in disarming the female immune system so that it, the sperm, can achieve its natural and evolutionary intended purpose in impregnating the egg.

On the other hand the presence of sperm in the large intestinal tract produces a totally different and harmful effect. The immunosuppressive effect of sperm in the large intestinal tract blocks the recipient’s natural protective effects and allows the sperm to enter into small microabrasions and tears, carrying whatever is present in the sperm and seminal fluid, including any number of viruses and bacteria, into the recipient’s tissue and circulation. Even in the instance of disease-free semen, the immunosuppressive effects can result in the inflammatory/infectious bowel syndrome once referred to as the “gay bowel syndrome”. This term has been determined to be pejorative by the homosexual lobbying groups so it is now described, according to the National Institute of Health, as a “clustering of diseases in certain high-risk groups, especially those in urban areas with multiple sexual partners, recreational drug use, and possible concomitant HIV infection”. This is what some Mississippi city councils are fawning over each other to publicly declare as dignified and worthy.

Vaginal and anal intercourse, notwithstanding their obvious differences, are not equal on a functional or microbiological level – regardless of one’s desire to call it so. Calling something what it ain’t doesn’t make it something other than what it is. To do so invites adversity – for the person and/or for the community.

Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control, as well as the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, have declared the adverse health consequences of men who have sex with men (MSM) as follows:

1. Increased risk of HIV infection

2. Increased risk of hepatitis (than the general population)

3. Increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases

4. Increased risk of alcoholism and substance abuse

5. Increased risk of depression, anxiety, and suicide

6. Increased risk of prostate, testicular, and anal cancer

7. Increased issues with body image issues

8. Increased risk of anal papillomas

MSM also have greater prevalence of violence, antisocial behavior, promiscuity, paraphilias, prostitution, sexual addiction, personality disorders, and psychopathology. All of these have physical, health, and behavioral consequences for those who do not hold to this behavior, as well as to those who may feel indifferent. This is what the Bay St. Louis, Waveland city councils, and others are declaring to be dignified and worthy of public acclaim.

What the homosexual community seeks is the normalization of sodomy. Their cause has moved from that of tolerance to cultural conquest because the rationalization upon which it is based requires the assent of the community, the rest of us, to the normative nature of the act of sodomy.

Genetic engineering and encoding is closely coming to the point at which parents can determine the traits of their child – if it’s not already here. If, as a potential parent, you had the power and the money to determine all of the traits of your child, would you have him or her encoded to become homosexual -- and publicly announce and encourage it?