If gays, lesbians and transsexuals are really "our brothers and sisters," why aren't polygamists and polyandrists also our brothers and sisters?
And if so, why did Obama fail to mention "our brothers and sisters" who are dedicated to multiple marriages?
Is there any medical evidence in existence that indicates polygamists and polyandrists have anything at all resembling the HIV/AIDS and syphilis rates of our nation's promiscuous homosexuals – so many of whom have died of AIDS and syphilis?
Moreover, if the president believes that gays, lesbians and transsexuals are "our brothers and sisters," why does he not also believe that "our brothers and sisters" include not only polygamists, but exhibitionists, the incestuous, coprophiliacs, necrophiliacs, urophiliacs and zoophiliacs (those who have sex with animals who are unable – or unwilling – to run away)?
None of these additional sexual orientations has the huge rate of HIV/AIDS and syphilis, which deadly diseases are distributed so widely by the nation's large number of sexually profligate homosexuals.
Their continued deadly-disease spreading was surely aided and abetted by Mr. Obama's announcement that they (with no distinction between the sexually profligate and other homosexuals) are "our brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our co-workers."
Such presidential pandering to deadly-disease spreaders is surely a despicable means of trying to attract votes by an incumbent who will apparently do anything to try to win re-election.
I don't happen to think that homosexuals are bad people, although I do wish they hadn't managed to confiscate a perfectly fine word, gay, which strikes me as an inappropriate moniker for a group that includes so many drama queens. I've never suggested they're evil. Feeling as I do about having an appointment with a proctologist – trepidation bordering on stupefaction – I confess that I find their sex lives extremely bizarre. But, I hasten to add, I know that some people, including my wife, regard my love of baseball as a sure sign of derangement.
What I do find annoying about a great many homosexuals is their insistence on identifying themselves solely on the basis of their sexual activities. To be fair, I have an equal intolerance with heterosexual men whose identity seems to be totally wrapped up in their sexual activities and whose conversation consists of bragging about their conquests. It just strikes me as adolescent.
As you may have noticed, I have made several references to sexual activity – which is something that all the propagandists gloss over. Although gays populate movies and TV shows to such a degree that you would think that they represent 25 percent of the population, rather than their actual 2.5 percent, they are nearly always depicted as asexual human beings. They are cute, they are cuddly, they're amusing neighbors and loyal chums, but they're not sexual human beings. Their mascot is Nathan Lane. What Hollywood and the media would have us believe is that they are nothing more or less than teddy bears who have somehow mastered speech.
As for gay-pride parades, I can hardly imagine anything goofier. What is it exactly that they're so proud of? That their sexual activity will never lead to the birth of a baby, but only, tragically on occasion, to a dreadful disease?
-- Burt Prelutsky, July 6 WorldNetDaily column