Oh my… ha!

I am in great sympathy with the educators of the State of Nebraska, regarding the obvious gender discrimination which results from following old fashioned notions of proper syntax, pronoun usage and health science practices.

I propose a simple factual science-based solution for minors attending Nebraska public schools: administrators, teachers and staff should address minors as Penises or Vaginas, allowing the physician performing the annual school physical to certify which one each is; and for the “trans-sexual” children, who must number in the millions, if we are to believe the Left and the Mainstream Media, call them, depending on their trending appearance, Vagenises or Penginas.

Now, let’s discuss the public health dilemma of “Legal” male homosexual “Marriage” and the potential health risks of the recurrent unsanitary practice of “Anal Sodomy”…. not to mention what men did in Gomorrah.

COMMENTS FOLLOW- PRESS COMMENTS TAB BELOW

This entry was posted in Human Interest, National Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Oh my… ha!

  1. Bull Sullivan says:

    From a friend:

    Bull, my man, between you and me: You have capitalization issues that undermine your rant about grammar. There is no reason to capitalize any of these:

    Educators Syntax Health Science Public Schools Administrators, Teachers and Staff Doctor Annual School Physical Left Mainstream Press Public Health Dilemma Legal Marriage Sodomy

    • In Response to my friend, there is far more to discuss than capitalization issues, how about the “rant” itself. A few paragraphs of expository thought on “what lies beneath” the prose.

      OED1 Volume Q-R,
      Page 146:

      Rant:
      (v) to talk foolishly, to rave

      Webster’s new International Dictionary, Second Edition,
      Page 2061:

      Rant:
      (v) To declaim, or talk noisily, excitedly, and extravagantly,; to discourse in a bombastic, turgid fashion; as, a ranting preacher.

      These are my two cherished lexicographical resources.

      I find that nothing I penned in the comment to which you refer could in any fashion be defined as a “rant.”

      The title of the article, Oh my…ha! is a word play on both the name of Nebraska’s largest city, Omaha, and the novelty phrase now associated with George Takei, an accomplished Nisei actor and LGBT activist, Oh my! I attempted humor, alas, failed again.

      I next offered advice to educators in Nebraska as to a method that describes children by a significant biological difference, in fact, the only external, integumentary difference, thus allowing scientifically neutral nomenclature to replace numerous gender specific descriptives which are often laden with pejorative connotations. The term Penis and the term Vagina are proper nouns, and those educators should to be able to enunciate the biologically specific terms without the childish titter normal to most post pubescent adults who of course comprise almost all American adults.

      I then attempted a humorous link between the problem as the educators found it, and the concomitant problem of “special interest groups” attempting to change the definitions of words in such a manner as to diminish their perversity.

      Here, let me be perfectly clear, I support the notion that every dyad should be contracted to each other through a legal process best described as a “Civil Union.” Every couple, in fact I would not limit the participants to just two individuals, but would allow for shared legal responsibility for any group of persons living together with the intention of shared legal responsibilities, mutual affection, and physical congress which might include sexual union.

      Marriage, however, is a term that should represent a spiritual union, far removed from the purview of government. Marriage for Christians is a Sacrament, wherein a man and a woman come together, with Christ as their bride, to worship and praise God together, to create a strong and loving family, and to remain faithful to each other for life. That’s what Christian Marriage is, and always should have been.

      Now I have been legally “married” more than once, and frankly have never initially viewed my relationships as anything other that the satisfaction of my flesh, the legitimizing of my children, and the indenturing of my spouse. .

      Still, somewhat hypocritically as an ordained minister I have never failed to counsel and require that those whose marriage I have witnessed consider carefully the obligations of Sacramental Marriage or as I like to call it, a “lifetime sentence of monogamy.” It is a most serious commitment, and were I a better man, I would have been honored to have attempted it.

      As to the notion that grown men love each other, I am perplexed. I assume that all women are capable of loving either a man or woman, and thus capable of loving and nourishing their children regardless of gender, but the sole role of the male is to propagate the species and support the offspring. I could speculate as to why women love men, but simply said, they are, by means of adaptive evolution, meant to love men, it’s an biogenetic thing.

      I have had men profess love of me to me, and not a few have desired me sexually. I consider such lust as unnatural, flattering, but unnatural and perverted. However, I do not view such perversions as dangerous to society, except when they lead to effeminazation and physical weakness. I quite correctly view male homosexuals as a distinct aberration from the normal gene pool. I find woman, as I stated, to normally love either sex and to normally seek sexual gratification from either sex. The fact that a majority of women do not exhibit such behavior is a result of societal pressure, not biological adaptation

      As to sodomy, anal sex poses great liability upon the health of either party; and oral sex equally allows the direct transfer of STD’s. I have never understood, nor will I, what pleasure can be found in sex between men, or in all the other psychobabble, posturing and behavior of men who love other men. They seem forever locked in pre-pubescent fantasy and are, to use an old APA clinical term, grossly neurotic, and biologically genetically regressive.

      The Sacred Scriptures actually quote God as calling such sexual relationships between males as an abomination. In view of the fact that no child may be conceived by two men, and that such relationships interfere with the necessary structure of the family unit, and the promulgation of protective and supportive activities required of the male progenitor, I understand the Biblical prescription against such relationships. I find it quite sad that such men do not enjoy the pleasures that women may give men, or in fact, that men may take from women.

      Oh, I agree with your concerns as to rampant capitalization, the device on which I originally composed the comment would not allow italics or underlining, or any method of creating focus other than Capitals! My tiredness allowed me to ignore what was to you obvious. Thank you for your response directly to me, please feel free to respond through bullsullivan.com.

      One final thought, I have been witness to rants by great men, and by those men who would be great, and my opinions, always rational and logical in design, often exclamatory in nature, fail to meet the definitions of OED1 or WNID2, as cited above for your benefit, and really, quite actually, are meant to stimulate thought and to entertain, myself first, and then my readers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *