Hi OD,
First, "hugs" are reserved for those that care about each other honestly. It is not something people "just do" - at least not in my book.
I am sorry that you took offense at my common non-sexual expression of human warmth. The ???hug??? was meant to convey that we are all humans and have the need to embrace our common humanity and this is probably the single way of expressing that in a non-intimate way. The alternative is a handshake and that can be so impersonal and it usually connotes an agreement. I find it too impersonal and legal and of course you and I do not agree on this topic so we have no basis for a handshake due to those implications. John, I am truly sorry that you imply that you do not care about me. Honesty can be brutal can it not?
As for "society" - it is many times very very wrong.
As for "religion" (which IS MAN-made) - it is many times very very wrong - and bigoted and biased - and certainly they love power over others and love to collect money. There TRULY IS a VERY VAST SPACE between "religion" and God - "religion" PROVES that on a DAILY BASIS. I have absolutely no problem with God (The Great Spirit, or Whoever you wish to name Him) but I sure do with "religion"! And for DAMN GOOD AND HONEST AND ACCURATE REASONS.
Society has no doubt been wrong many many times but when the concept of ???right??? and ???wrong??? at the fundamental level is becoming so fuzzy anymore it seems like everyone is starting to develop their own individual opinions of what is normal. Which standard do we use and how do we recognize when we are wrong? There are now so many choices and it is starting to look like behavioral anarchy to me. I think the crux of it is you essentially are proposing your own standard or desiring to change an existing one. If you are entitled to this liberty then is not society or anyone else entitled to choose it's/their own standard? Why deny me my view? You seem to hate or disregard anything that does not agree with your own perspective John. After all John you are a ???man??? and suffer the same limitations and proclivities as do other men. You are just as capable of error, hatred and insincerity as the next man. In particular, judging by the bold capital letters in your post you have a loathing and hatred for religion. You seem hell bent on crucifying man for inventing it and that is insensitive to a lot of other people John. Logically I have little choice but to conclude that you hate a lot of men (people) since so many others believe in Religion. Then you claim or imply that anyone that hurts another is somehow not human. John, John, John, it hurts me to hear you talk like this but I do not consider you inhuman because of this hatred and rage and hate caused to me. We should be consistent to get the respect of equal consideration should we not? Clearly there is a notion of hierarchy in human behaviors though. For example I would assume you have a greater hate for a murderer than you would a mother that spanked her son for inappropriately touching the neighbor???s boy. In both cases harm was caused but clearly a greater harm was caused by the murderer. And everyone knows mothers over react to every sort of irrational fear about how they want their child to grow up. Can we agree on this? Now suppose that we find out that the murderer has killed a homosexual simply for holding hands with another man in the park. I am certain you really hate him even more so now. Is he any less a human that before or is he now a lower form of animal, say, dropping from a jackass to a worm? At some point we are going to have them all degraded to the form of demons and in that place you don???t believe in ??? Hell. For comfort, know also that I despise (not really the same thing as hate in my book) this individual and view him as less than an ideal human but I do not think that he is devoid of humanity do you? I want to ratify the notion of a hierarchy of humanity. So do you equally hate the murderer for the case of murdering any arbitrary person and a homosexual? Is the woman who spanked her young boy hated with less intensity? And finally are they both still considered humans to you? This is an important little exercise John since it will permit me to understand your values and to calibrate those with my own to see if we both consider ourselves even human and worthy of some basis of respect and dialog. Of course I suspect we all love animals too but naturally in a non-intimate way and in a less fulfilling way. The idea here is to explore if there is a hierarchy in humanity or resolve if it???s more binary in nature ??? like a simple matter of human and inhuman
As for my Sexuality I am a BiSexual MAN - if I were Homosexual - or Heterosexual - I would still be just as fine with that as each is a natural and proper part of life and living. Remember, or if you do not know - there IS VARIETY - VARIATION - in ALL things in life and living INCLUDING Sexuality. Ask God Himself because you apparently do not have any UNDERSTANDING of this aspect of life and living.
As for using and or abusing others - NO ONE has that option EVER!!!! And I might remind you that Heterosexual people are VASTLY GUILTY of abusing each other and their family members INCLUDING their children. This is NOT to say that ALL are certainly. I repeat though since you seem to have it ingrained in you that ONLY Homosexual people abuse others - NOTHING could be further from the truth! And certainly just because a person is Homosexual (or not Heterosexual) does not automatically mean they are going to abuse someone including children. I WOULD BE THE FIRST IN LINE TO FRY A PERSON THAT ABUSED ANYONE ELSE EXPECIALLY CHILDREN!!!! TRUST ME!!!!! I hold children to BE VERY SACRED AND INNOCENT AND PURE and NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT AT ANY TIME TO CAUSE THEM HARM IN ANY WAY EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO NOT EVER visit this aspect of this subject with me again please because your suggestion COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH as regards me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BELIEVE THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you were trying to upset me by making this inference YOU DID and I CAN CERTAINLY TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY VERY VERY WRONG and I HIGHLY DOUBT any HUMAN BEING would ever cause another harm in any way or fashion. I am a HUMAN BEING.
On other matters John I want to put you at peace with the notion that the only thing I have engrained in me are the core fundamental belief that only God can take or give life. Hopefully you have no problem with that since even if you do not believe in God (independent of any particular religion) I doubt anyone would dispute the fundamental right to life and the right to be permitted to exist independent of another person attempting to kill us. Again, please try to understand the reality that there are many incompetent in matters of love who do things out of love or good-intent that are ultimately found to be harmful to others or even self. Sometimes this is due to just ignorance and other times it is accidental. I assert that there is an exposure to physical and mental harm (as well as spiritual) in a homosexual relationship every single time. This is not to claim that there is not a risk for same in a heterosexual relationship. But I maintain that at least in that case there is a much less case for it. I also admit current divorce rates seems to suggest it is at best a 50-50 proposition these days in the secular and general case for those that do not marry according to religious principals since the religious divorce rates are much lower for committed religious couples. By the way do you think that given the current heterosexual divorce rate that homosexuals with all their documented emotional and psychological problems and societal loathing will fare better? But I digress. John, no matter how much you love someone if you do a thing that exposes you both or one of you to risk of harm or scorn or self loathing or is fundamental abusive in nature then I question the validity, the sincerity, the maturity, the worth and the wholesomeness of the relationship. This same principal can extend of course to heterosexuals and maybe it is time to evaluate the effectiveness and value to society of non-religious civil unions. Another think I would like for you to consider is a natural hierarchy to relationships. Clearly we have a relational gambit ranging from ???devils(?)???, ???mortal enemies???, ???enemies???, ???associates???, ???friends???, ???best friend???, ???family???, ???spouse(s)???, ???extramarital(?)???, ???soul-mates???(?), ???religious-intermediaries???(?). and ???Divine Being??? ( not necessarily in this order or all inclusive). Who is to say that all relationships much be at the spousal level? Only the religions seem to argue for that and it is for moral and religious reasons and the same arguments and validity that you find objectionable. Why on the one hand express loathing for religion while at the same time trying to be ???complete??? and attain religiously inspired ideals (that you will never effectively attain due to religious objections). The religions have always taught that good and evil have enmity against each other and that evil will attempt to artificially ???emulate??? the things that good produces. It would seem that what you are attempting is an emulation of what the religious fundamentally see as good only between man and women in a blessed relationship. Why try and bend religion, which you have no respect for in a way that emulates things you supposedly have no respect for? If you want the same legal rights ??? lobby for civil unions and fight that process. If you want the respect of society consider that much of society is religious and start respecting their values. Otherwise expect enmity all your life.
You thoughts as transcribed show me your lack of an open mind and any objectivity in your thinking. You "just accept" what is shoved down your throat. Just because "many believe" that does not make it SO or TRUE or ACCURATE or HONEST. You said it yourself - the book I recommended you read (FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS b Michael Rocke) as a way of UNDERSTANDING and KNOWLEDGE about an aspect of the most basic of Humanity you say you are afraid to even look at let alone read - you seem to suggest that you would then somehow become or "turn" Gay for having done so. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. You might examine yourself deeply and thoroughly and honestly.
John I can just as easily say the same thing about you. You are showing a lack of an open mind to truth. The problem is we both have a different take on what is truth and so do hundreds of millions of others on the planet. You offer up a simple book (written by men) that takes a very narrow population and presents some numbers showing that a large number of men engages in deviant behavior and try to present that as a majority and a justification for what most consider perverse behavior. This is you Bible. Why should I accept it over other teachings of mere men? How is it more enlightened than any other. What is it???s pedigree? It???s too narrow and myopic to have any relevance for general teaching. You are inventing your own Religion John. Well really just plagiarizing and re-spinning an old one and picking up the bits and pieces of deviant behavior all through history to make a case for calling yourself normal.
I was blessed with a brain which God chose to give me and I utilize that to the very best of my ability and keep trying - and OBJECTIVELY and OPENLY ALL SUBJECTS without bias or prejudice. To improve yourself honestly - I suggest sincerely that you learn to do the same. So far, while you have done some learning, you have a lot more to do but need to be much more honest and accurate and complete in that learning.
That is just a tad bit judgmental John. You can offer me no compelling reason to accept you as a reference standard for judgment. It all comes down to respect John and so far except for a common humanity I see little to stand up and take notice of. Sorry.
The honest, sincere and complete LOVING of another has NO bounds as long as each is of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely REGARDLESS OF the Gender of each involved. You would have some think that a person MUST BE ONLY HETEROSEXUAL to be able to LOVE TRUTHFULLY another Human Being. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH OR NOT ACCURATE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. And please, do NOT confuse the LOVING of another with murder, suicide, abuse, harm (mental or physical or emotional, etc.). Your suggestion that people who are BiSexual or Homosexual are the source of this and NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Sure SOME could be but that is also VERY TRUE OF SOME HETEROSEXUAL people as well. You really need to stop perpetuating hatred and bigotry. Something YOU LEARNED - not something you were born with.
This sounds like a religion for you John. There are not even too many religious cults who integrate sexuality so deeply into their teachings as you do. What is truthful love John. Do you think that a man can not love God completely (who is projected in literature as a male) without being intimate? I claim that you can love completely and truthfully without even being intimate John. I think you need to go back and reread my posts on the matters of what projects as deviant behaviors from homosexuals. I never said that only homosexuals can be murders etc. There are plenty of evil-doing people of all kinds in this world John that are in need of change. I strongly resent that you think I am perpetuating hatred and bigotry for participating in this discussion. I could make the same claim that you do by inflaming everyone for staring all these threads and then always projecting yourself as more enlightened because you are man-enough and agile enough to have intimate physical relations with anything that walks. We are all born with the capacity for common sense and self restraint and discipline. I would urge you John to spend some time exercising that aspect.
The above is not meant to slam you or anyone else - you do that to yourself really by closing your mind to reality
My above comments are not meant to slam you or anyone else either ??? just to provoke some thought and to help you get to a more open mind about these things. 
Take Care, John H.
if an enemy might fall lol). The point I make here is that these relationships were encouraged and a requirement for this military unit as a matter of national policy to get a tactical advantage. Certainly the state had no compelling interest in the legitimacy or even the sincerity of the relationship - it only wanted to kill enemies. In this manner their emotions were abusively used against them for the good of the state. In the case in Florence no doubt there was some kind of social or economic benefit to be had in offering one's butt to the service of the majority in the city. Funny that this practice did not stick around and survive long though? The reason is because it was a local anomaly in nature and nature has no purpose for it and let it perish. I also suspect the city found a way to tax the practice and disincentivize it.