[Y]ou all could not be more dishonest tahn [sic] to suggest that there doesn't exist an agenda by the homosexual community. It's found in a book, the title of which begins "After the Ball" I believe. It's visible to anyone with eyes with every little whine that emanates from their mouths. And people like yourselves have bought into it and are happy to put kids at risk by your easy-going attitudes regarding sexuality.
I might be wrong, but he might be referring to the book . . . And The Band Played On, which is about the AIDS pandemic. If anyone thinks differently, please let me know.
First, I want to know what this agenda I have bought in to is. Second, I would like to know what exactly are my easy-going attitudes towards sex. Other than it is a wonderful expression of my love for my wife, and the fact that my children are taught there is nothing wrong with a person having romantic interest in persons of the same gender, I don't think I have too much of a radical agenda.
Marshall also writes:
[I]f you think lust is necessary for a healthy relationship, yours is not healthy. Go ahead and test it. If you truly love your wife, sex is unnecessary. I dare ya.
My relationship, with a nice healthy dose of lust, with my wife is really none of your concern. The idea that a sexual relationship between two consenting adults could possibly exist without the simple physical cravings is just odd. No, I do not think I'll try it, thank you very much. Lust is useful for our marital life in the same way plum juice works for digestion - it helps ease the passage.
Any thought from anyone else? As I have declined Marshall's generous offer to attempt marriage without sex, or sex without lust for that matter, I wonder if there are any takers out there.
