The Way Pat Robertson Has Sex Which Happens to be the Opposite of Ugly
The religious right fascination with gay sex is just kinda gets me excited. There we have a man that is over 3/4 of a century old. A televangelist who makes his living by sitting on a chair by a desk on a video tape room making the same observations over and over about a book called the bible. How many observation his made repeating the same passages over and over and giving it his twang, which i think it happens to be a great gig. I am talking of no other than Pat Robertson.
I am not going to go into all the outrageous stuff he has said over the years that have made the main media not because of any astounding truth but because some crazy observation about any minority. Be blacks, Mexicans or how many of his neighbors he expect to be lifted together to be the bride of Jesus Christ the coming back again to take his church to heaven and live for ever chanting his name in heaven. Pretty boring job if you ask me but that is their heaven and I most say he-they deserves it.
It’s been years since I stop quoting or repeating what this senile man says. Things he says sometimes can get so outrageous that you figure this guy is just trying to make it to the 6 o’clock news and what ever he says has no impact on my life or anybody I know. This time I wanted to make an observation that applies not just only to him but to the crazy Russians in charge of the Russians anti gay laws and others in between like the space cadets in government and both catholic and pentecostal churches in Uganda.
Pat Robertson makes the observation that gay sex is not very pretty. From Russia with love came the observation that having gay sex is like having sex with a table. These bunch of guys are supposed to be straight and thus not expert on gay sex but they seem to know it very well. Still what Im wondering now is how Pat Robertson knows why he thinks gay sex is so ugly. To what is he comparing it to assume that position?
Now let see, what we can liberally assume of Pat Robertson Sex life. I can take the liberty to assume what he calls sex based on what he is said during the years but more important on what I know of their description of sex according to the bible. Couples before getting married most attend marriage counseling before getting married. There they are explain, particularly to the man the road to follow to the ‘bulls eye'. Im reminding my readers that his sex most be based on the bible, sex is not there to be fun but to procreate only. If you think Pat Robertson’s sex is not exciting, you don’t know of the Orthodox way of having sex, which involves a white sheet and a whole in the middle. Fresh not allowing to touch h and making the sex dirty. Now you know why right after I got my three year Diploma in the seminary I ran out and became gay. I figure it might be dirty and ugly, but fun.
First, Pat Robertson sex can not be fun because you can not allow lust to enter your heart while performing your duty. To have lust would be to open the doors for Satan to come in and seed your heart with the bad seed. Let me just number the items involved here so we wont get lost in the mix:
What sex cannot be :
1. Fun : Because it will invite lust
2. Public : It’s a very private wholly job to be accomplish in a solitary environment on a bed.
3. Oral: Because you have to use the instrument given to you to use for sex/A tongue and a mouth are
not instruments to dirty sex because even though sex is biblical it is inherently dirty because
that’s how Eve tempted Adam in the holly Garden.
4. Anus: That was not made for that. Never mind that the penis was also made for urinating, but that
is one of those things you have to ignore because you are not allow to know all god’s
mysteries (write that one down because you will have to use that excuse over and over).
5.Hands: You may not use your hands because that will be masturbating.
Sex can be:
1, Dutiful: The reason for having sex is to multiply and that is a wholly and serious job god has
entrusted on the woman to make babies for god.
2. Bare-back: Meaning no condoms or any other form of interfering with the job of creating a baby.
3. Quick: No sense prolonging a duty that could bring about bad thoughts about bad thought
on some other woman, one might have seen at church with a sexy dress or her legs too
spread apart while one was preaching or may be the semi naked bill board by the bus stop.
Conclusion: Sex can be maintain pure and wholly by following those rules. You will be noting that ugly parts of sex like the cletoris will not be seen.
Now based on how Pat Robertson has concluded that gay sex is ugly, What I don’t understand is base on the way he should been trying to procreate ( by the way he should not be having sex now because he might be too old to make his wife conceive). Im still wondering what type of sex he saw being performed to conclude it was ugly. Did he witness it in person or at a porno movie? Was he told how it was and in that case how did that person know and doesn’t that makes it second hand information and not admissible.
So Mr. Pat Robertson if you could help me out and tell me what did you see that was ugly. But I will leave it there until I hear from Mr. Pat Robertson. I will also would be very interested on what particular part of the gay sex is the ugliest because I will like to try it with a willing partner, that is not a donkey a cow a dog a minor or a Russian table.
Comments