[Mrs. Don-o]

Yeah, you do kinda wonder why gay activists are so het up about contraception and abortion-related measures which do not apply to their sterile (or, in another sense, septic) penetrations. This article is correct, I think, in pointing to the religious liberties ("free exercise") angle: if Christians can be upheld in refusing to cooperate with, or cater to, abortion and contraception, they're that much more likely to be upheld when they refuse to be accessories to homosexual pseudo-marriage.

There's another, underlying philosophical reason as well. They both are about coercing public acceptance of "My right to do what I want to with my body, no matter how destructive." The view of the body as a big Mister Potato Head, the features of which can be added, scrambled around, or discarded at will.

And peeling back yet another layer of the onion, you have their rejection of life, the continuation of life to another generation, and of the natural sources of life.

You'll notice that any movement that calls itself "sex-positive" is "positive" about any kind of sexual jigger-pokery --- any kink, any fetish, any time, with anyone, anything --- EXCEPT for procreative, marital, conjugal intercourse.

That last one is considered an Earth-Threatening Social Problem Urgently Requiring a Solution.

[Tax-chick]

I knew it was you because of the combination of rustic dialect and the Unabridged Dictionary.