When Phil Robertson was being interviewed for GQ he said, “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Anyone who disagrees with Phil about a vagina being more desirable than an anus is either gay, a woman, or a liar for political correctness. Ninety-nine percent of men grow up on the hunt for a vagina. If we’re sensitive, we want the whole woman that goes along with the vagina. After all, a woman is part of her vagina. She is a spiritual ambiance that heterosexuals appreciate. And Phil acknowledges the humanity of a woman by saying, “There’s more there. She’s got more to offer.”
Do any of those philosophically attached to the gays really believe that a man’s anus is more desirable than a vagina? Are they kidding? Or are they gay? Time they discovered who they really were and stopped letting ideology interfere with their natural instincts.
I also agree with Phil’s intelligent exasperation, “There’s more there. She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes!” Homosexuals don’t recognize the kinetic explosion of passion between the sexes.
They don’t understand heterosexuality so they duck into the restrictive, anal retentive cavity of homosexuality. They diminish the beauty of opposite sex attraction.
If homophiles can’t admit that they are disgusted by the possibility of gay sex than they are too dishonest to engage in discussion. What is, is. What we want it to be is apocryphal.
Phil also went on to say, ““Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says.
Maybe, maybe not. The morphing is possible because having broken the humongous instinct of heterosexuality, there is no telling where the pursuit of pleasure will lead them. It is not mandatory, but it is possible.
Then Phil goes on to some religious stuff, “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
This is where I lose company with Phil. I don’t disagree with his evaluations, but I am not religious. I am not arguing with gays on religious grounds. Gays wouldn’t respect religious indictments. I am arguing with homosexuals on the grounds that, as a heterosexual, I am somewhat repulsed by their behavior. If they are repulsed by mine, so be it.
I just want them to show some respect for marriage and heterosexuality, rather than to be proud of a fringe anomaly and a way of behavior that is ugly. It doesn’t mean that they are ugly, but when they bring their idiosyncrasies out of the closet in some vain attempt to win our approval, they just alienate us. If only they didn’t need our approval so much.
Why can’t the gays have the courage to face that their behavior is not attractive. Keep it inside. Then they can enjoy their lives as much as they can.
I am bipolar. I don’t go around telling everyone my crazy thoughts. In the age of media everyone wants to be a star and parade their silliness in front of the world. I keep my obsessions in the closet. I suggest the gays do what I do—act modestly in the mainstream, rather than advertising awkward proclivities.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com