Straight thoughts 123

October 21, 2004

The McGuinty government has managed to avoid the limelight in the past weeks.

With the November election in the US approaching, only a few issues can compete for media attention.

Homosexual "marriage" is one of these. Innumerable articles have been written, in Canada and in the United States, and many television and cable shows have been produced on the issue.

Rather than repeating what many good writers have already stated, I will try a different approach.

Anti-family activists have "written the book" on winning strategies. We can also learn from them. They have invented new terms and re-defined, and attributed new meaning to old terms. We are essentially speaking their language. We should instead speak our own.

I never particularly liked to be defined as a "heterosexual" for the purpose of moral conduct.

For example, I would not want to be associated with people who assault on little girls. Heterosexual perverts do that.

Homosexuals have "solved" their own problem by saying that crimes against boys are committed by the (bad) poedophiles and not by the (good) responsible, loving homosexuals. They purport that poedophiles are not homosexuals, and homosexuals are not poedophiles.

Thus their statistics, duly reported by the Canadian press, show that most sexual crimes against boys are NOT committed by homosexuals. See how powerful a simple word game can be?

But, more importantly, if these crimes are not committed by homosexuals, then they must, by exclusion, be committed by heterosexuals. Thus, me and you, who live a chaste life, or have a normal monogamous relation with one spouse, are associated to the rapists and, by default, to the poedophiles as well.

We allow ourselves to be defined by the sexual behaviour of a decadent section of our society. Many heterosexuals have done irreparable damage to the family when they are pornographers, adulterers, sex addicts, when they divorce and change partners as easily as changing suits.

How can a battle be won when some of our own are worse than the enemy?

I would like to call ourselves "monosexuals". We believe in a monogamous relationship within marriage and in chastity before marriage.

If this term catches up, and the sex-obsessed media continues to define people by their sexual behaviour, they may start saying that humanity is divided among homosexuals, heterosexuals and monosexuals.

If homosexuals need a special law to defend them from hate crimes, why should not monosexuals, who are often discriminated for their religion, or large number of children and their unwillingness to use condoms? And if not, then why should the homosexuals?

If the homosexual lobby says that AIDS is not a homosexual disease any more, they certainly could not say that it is a monosexual disease!

If the homosexual activists say that they are "born that way" (they always felt attracted to people of the same sex), would then monosexual be also born that way (attracted to only one person of the opposite gender)? And if not, then why should the homosexuals?

If a monosexual can become heterosexual and a heterosexual can become monosexual or homosexual, so why homosexuals cannot also change?

If the courts "read in" our constitution homosexual "rights", then should they not "read in" monosexual rights? And if not, then why should homosexuals have special rights?

We know that no study has proven the "homosexual gene" theory, but today's society, from the uninformed to the Prime Minister, from the media to the courts, seems to be "confused" by what homosexuality is.

The term "monosexual" can probably help to show that homosexuality is ultimately an invented term defining a behaviour, or a psychological state and it is not a gender.