I agree but the assertion of a gay identity was a needed counter-reaction to social and legal prohibitions which had been shaming and oppressive. But as with other social liberation movements, such transitional, confrontive attitudes served an important purpose, but are not helpful as ongoing, permanent attitudes because they're obnoxious and disruptive by nature. Many gay people have never identified at all with the "gay movement", "gay lifestyle" or "gay culture", or at least they've ceased to after settling into their true identity and mature relationships. Judging all gays based on stereotypical media images/sound bites is equivalent to judging all heterosexuals based on stereotypical teenage antics and excesses. The perpetuation of the victimhood aspect of legitimate movements (i.e. gays, blacks, women) is likely what the CIA efforts have focused on to promote social divisions and prevent productive integration of those movements into a healthier society.
This was a point I made in my previous post: the reason gay pride is a thing at all is that straight people treated gays like second class citizens for most of the 20th century. In some cases, gay men were attacked and brutalized, beaten to death. Gay men in NYC threw a riot outside of Stonewall in 1969 when police raided a gay bar and attempted to arrest them for being gay in a gay space. That's what is celebrated by Pride every June. As I said, it's gone too far now but without understanding it we can't move past it as a culture. We are here to understand stuff, especially the weird stuff, right?
I think that the objective point is that the anus is designed/made/functions as a means of expelling waste from the body; it was never designed/intended to be used sexually.
That's the biological fact.
That makes it unnatural and, for most human beings, repellent. Using a body part in a way that was never intended by Nature can be considered brutal as well no matter how much soap you use.
What is truly bizarre is that men who reject women, seek to emulate heterosexual intercourse utilizing a facsimile.
And, while I'm willing to sugar that over with "to each his own" and "there's no accounting for taste" and "what people do in private is their own business," perhaps you can understand why that fact is repellent to most people and being constantly reminded of it by overtly gay/homosexual/queer behavior is not the way to gain acceptance.
If you are gay/homosexual/queer and you want to be accepted, just freaking act like a normal human being who keeps his private life PRIVATE.
Non-procreative sex is a useful bonding tool. Simply because the anus is primarily used to eliminate waste doesn't make sodomy unnatural. I think it's weird you think gay men are 'emulating heterosexual intercourse' at all. Gay men don't procreate via sex, and engage in sex for a variety of reasons. Just like straight people, they can do it to express their love for each other or as a lustful good time.
You seem a little homophobic. Specifically referring to gay men as "men who reject women?" Why use that particular wording? I never thought myself rejecting women, more preferring men sexually, on average. I also have plenty of healthy relationships with women and have collaborated with them in the past and will again in the future, so I only reject them the same way I reject any other individual whom I am not attracted to. That's not a rejection, it's a lack of attraction - and there is a subtle difference there.
...which, btw, goes for posting here about sexual practice as well. Cyre2067, this is precisely the problem: you call it "prudish" to "dance around the topic". Have you ever considered that people don't want to hear about such things, and don't want to see them spelled out like that as if it was nothing?? If gays have that careless attitude, confronting everyone with graphic language (which is along the same lines as having gay prides), is there any wonder people react badly? Prudish? I call it normal. And don't count on political correctness to save the day forever. It's your responsibility to practice external consideration and not shove all that gay stuff into everyone's faces, regardless of how "offended" you feel.
I have considered people do not want to hear about such things. You know what else they do not want to hear about? Predators. Corruption. Evil. Never stopped me from talking if I thought I could learn something from it.
When you have a group of people discussing a phenomenon in an attempt to understand it from every angle you have to be aware that some information may offend members of the conversation. If folks are serious, they'll tolerate a little discomfort in order to gain a better understanding. What 'graphic language' did I use? This is precisely what I mean by prudish. Your normal is quite conservative when it comes to willingness to discuss sexuality in the 21st century.
I'm not shoving anything in anyone's face, this is a very specific discussion in a very specific corner of the internet. If you're going to talk about homophobia as 'homoaversion' and try to rationalize your biases with flimsy science don't be surprised when someone,
in this place of all places, points it out.
Well, there is the fairly well known fact that non-consensual sodomy is used against men as part of torture, with the specific understanding that it will humiliate and degrade them. You might say that the rape of a woman by a man is humiliating and degrading, but it is generally not done with that specific intention. So there's that.
Natural in this context means what nature intended for a creative end result.
Then natural sex is only sex that results in a baby? That would disqualify non-reproductive vaginal sex, or even oral sex as 'unnatural.' Look, I'm not going to quibble over definitions anymore than I already have. When two gay men in a loving relationship engage in sexual relations they aren't degrading one another or humiliating one another. They're celebrating the passion they have and there's generally a lot of laughing - is that too much info? Because psychopaths can engage in homosexual acts or even weaponize them in the case of a predator against a victim, that doesn't speak for the entirety of homosexuality and I would HOPE that is obvious. Similarly, serial rapists do not represent the majority of heterosexual activity.
Yes, that's exatly what I meant. To be clear, there was no judgement or condemnation in my post, and calling me a prude who's dancing around the issue is a lazy argument. The fact is that sodomy (whether practiced in a homosexual or heterosexual context) is an unnatural practice, stricto sensu it's a perversion. Perversion: the act of diverting something from its true nature. If you really want to stretch it to its most extreme, some may even say that any sexual act that deviates from the primary purpose of sex (reproduction) is - again stricto senso - a perversion. Again, no judgement or condemnation here, no "oh my God, this is evil!". These are just the biological facts.
Calling you a prude dancing around the issue wasn't an argument, it was an observation. You're also presuming the primary function is the only function of the anus, when it's pretty clear the human body has redundant systems with multiple ways to accomplish needed ends. In homosexual pairings, one of those ends is bonding between mates and sodomy is a large component of that. Seems like a biological fact, at least from my observations as a gay man living in NYC for 10+ years in a long-term monogamous relationship for the last four.
Plus, Cyre2067 managed to give more details about anal sex than anyone else has done on this forum even about normal sex. Do you see us talking about that overtly? No. Why? You can call it prudish, but I think it's common sense. What two consenting adults do in private is their business. We aren't a sex therapy forum either... If an issue comes up, fine, but to try and "educate" others of how normal this or that practice is, and use narratives, is another story.
You can call it common sense, but it's pretty prudish if, in the context of a discussion of homophobia, homosexuality, and the possibility of a pathogen causing it - we can't talk about the basics without more of that same aversion that the author of the original post is trying so hard to rationalize with scientific language.
My language wasn't graphic, nor did I say anything wildly outside the context of the thread. The entire point of discussing heterosexual characterization of homosexual sodomy and revulsion it triggers was to make a point: straight folk don't grok gay sex is because they aren't gay. The fact that some of you are still maintain gay sexual activity (sodomy in this case) is 'brutal, repellant, and unnatural' proves it, osit.
If this was a thread which focused on social attitudes toward heterosexual sexual activity, I'd probably want to hear what the straight people think about those attitudes. I wouldn't characterize heterosexual behavior with negative connotation simply because it's something I'd prefer to not participate in. Heck, if you want an example childbirth is brutal and the idea of bringing a child into this world voluntarily is rather repellent but I would never characterize my biases and attitudes as objective for obvious reasons.
Excuse me being a bit thick, maybe throw in an emoji to help a girl out next time 
