The Libido and The Taxonomic Concepts.
Your assertions, regarding human sexuality, are extremely oversimplified, and polarized. These are the facts as I perceive them from the anatomical and physiological perspectives. The anatomical structures of the male and female genitalia, at the nuts and bolts level, clearly indicates the specific physiological functions; i.e., both the penis and vagina are totally ‘design perfect’, and totally ‘compliant and complimentary’ of the heterosexual mode. Alternatively, alternatively, one could say: ‘the anatomical structures dictate the physiological expressions of heterosexual sex’; these are, in part, the biological facts as I understand them. However, notwithstanding, these self-evident natural facts, statistical data (v.i.) demonstrate, a noticeable divergence from the propensity for the heterosexual mode. The taxonomic concept, at the pragmatic level, isn’t always in accord with the anatomical designs, particularly during the periods of the upper levels of excitation and intensity. Unfortunately, rhythmic sympathetic impulses – that generate spasmodic peristaltic contractions – abandon the conscience, and may not always culminate (ejaculari) in conforming to the physiological functions of the anatomical structures; in uniformity with the heterosexual model.
The Psyhological and other Perspectives.
Your booklet failed to acknowledge psychological, considerations of homosexuals that may have offset their sexual modes. Perhaps effects induced by early formative influences, e.g., dysfunctional relationships between parental figures. Alternatively, siblings, or hormonal imbalances or genetic anomalies, of which I’ll provide more details later (v.i.) with evidential supports from leading specialists in the scientific community. My responses, to the above, in toto, will be formulated from psychological, philosophical, theological, sociological perspectives. As well as the textual comparison of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ with your assertions regarding the Hindu doctrine of transmigration. And, of course, your insipid (or rather idée fixe) anti-Christian and anti-clerical compulsions, of whom you relentlessly refer to as “so-called Christians”.
Two Theoretical Modes.
Your writings suggest that you are wholly incognizant on the subject of homosexuality; a multifarious and complex subject. For example, nowhere in your article is there the slightest indication of the most fundamental difference between the ego conscious modes of sexuality. Firstly, the ego-syntonic mode, which is indicative of the bilateral symmetry, of the ‘libidinal’ [not to be confused with the’libidinous’ which is quite different] impulse, and the conscious ego state, and the impulses and drives, from the source of primal (or rudimentary) (q.v.) energy, q.e.the ‘id’. And secondly, the ego-dystonic mode, that suggests a rejection, by the individual, of the libidinal cerebral impulse correspondingly compelled, as the ego-syntonic by the impulses and drives from the ‘id’.