My message fell on blind eyes yesterday so I am following up with my critical examination of the gay axiom. The gay axiom is basically the idea that the homosexual orientation is not true in the normative context of society but by virtue of containing its own proof. This simply isn't the case; all orientations not affirmed in the context of society have the burden of proof. Simply claiming that being gay is itself a true disposition in virtue of what it means (viz, loving a member of the same sex) makes it immediately ethically acceptable is a nonsensical proposition. Universally, all societies are founded on the biological principle of reproduction in same-sex unions, thus, being gay is aberrant from a naturalistic, evolutionary vantage point. The design in nature contains its own ends, ones which ought to be fulfilled for optimal psychological, spiritual, and physiological health. The anus was not designed to host another object for sexual stimulation. Same naturalistic principle applies to oral sex which has been linked recently to an exponential risk of cancer in the affected areas of the body. Thus, by looking scientifically at the design of the human body, it was made only for one type of union -- the sexual union of a sexually mature man and woman. From an exegetical vantage point, God says to man in his biogenesis, 'I am God Almighty; Be fruitful and multiply...' (Genesis 35:11) which implies it is a divine command that urges us to produce offspring in the one and only true sexual union. The non-existent proof of God which is so commonly defaulted by agnostics and atheists in debate is a pedantic protest. There is proof of God, in the Thomistic tradition which was even affirmed by the young Bertrand Russell and zealous atheist Anthony Flu before he died. Russell burst out one day and exclaimed (paraphrased) "My God, the argument is sound" meaning it's not only valid (logically true) it's also likely to be the case (see the biography "The Ghost of Madness"). The proof itself is modally relevant as it links physical events to physical causes. Each cause represents a series in a totality of causality that comprises the physical cosmos. This totality itself begs for a cause, qua God. If there is a world, then there was a cause. The first cause must be efficient (voluntary) to avoid an infinite regression of causes hence the big bang theory. Because time and the relating events and causes are perceived linearly, this must be the case. You have the burden of proof if and only if you argue that time is cyclical. Thus, God, as the creator of nature, is incontrovertible. If God creates nature, then, all ethical ends are contained in the design of natural objects. Fulfillment of nature is the fulfillment of ethics. Moreover, in the Aristotelian tradition, the state and future of a political system is inherent in the family. The family has in recent decades began to brake down into less traditional families such as single parents, gay partnerships, sambos, etc with the advent of liberal politics. This event is also correlated with a decline in general public health such increases in STDS and other communicable (and related) diseases. As a matter of fact, statics show that you are more likely to be infected with HIV if you have lived a homosexual lifestyle or shared drug paraphernalia. This is why they automatically defer blood donors who admit they have had homosexual contact. Also, homosexual males are more likely to commit suicide than straight males if there is alcohol involved. These aren't complicated corollaries, homosexuality isn't associated with good health. It may not directly cause these deleterious effects but it certainly mediates them through associated lifestyles such as promiscuity and drug use. The homosexual family is still developing in the fluctuating sociopolitical climate in the Western world. Until it is proven to create a salubrious union that is not tenuous then it can't be affirmed. We simply don't know the long term effects of the questionable union such as cancer risks and other psychological effects. Why not legalize marriage to find out? Because, marriage is a privilege, not a constitutional right. The constitution was founded by men who believed in the God of nature, the Nous if you may. As such, marriage is only granted to fulfill the natural union, and as a privilege not to be granted to men who want to marry donkeys, and to pedophiles, etc. If you can't prove the ethical-ontological truth of the gay identity you certainly can't move to the presupposition of affirming the "gaymer" identity Have I made it abundantly clear now?