No such love as gay love

Our civilization has developed through the natural process of reproduction, through human male and female copulation. The beasts of the waters, air and forests follow the urge to procreate, to further their species. This urge is so strong it is independent of them, a source nonexistent to influence. Man is different from the beasts when he needs to procreate. Because we are a society, our dignity will not allow us to behave like animals. The Gods have chosen us above all other creatures. They save us from procreating indiscriminately with females which would lead to conflict and disorder.
The Gods gave us the gift of love to discipline our desires, for love not only forcefully directs the affected to the cause of their craving, but also suppresses attraction to other females. The love between man and woman is the richest love. There is also maternal love, paternal, fraternal and sacred love. The evolution of social life substantiates the categories. Man loves his wife, brother, sister, niece, nephew, son, daughter, mother and father. All of these are uncomplicated within the whole definition of love. Love either physical or non-sexual. It does not involve assessment.
As it is generally accepted that, like the beasts, our instinctive urge to procreate is independent of us, a source nonexistent to influence, we must assume that any deviation from this instinct is both unnatural and detrimental. Therefore, we must also judge any such deviation as a conscious and deliberate act, an artificial desire invented for personal gratification. Man loves Woman not because she is female, but because he is helpless. Her sex is not considered a necessity, it is something taken for granted. Yet men who claim to love men can only fall into their love by acknowledgement of a sex. To them it is a necessity, a prerequisite for the union. They do not fall in love and then concern themselves with the matter of compatibility, but fall into their love because they are sexually compatible. Yet how can man be in love with man when his sexual disposition dictates the very direction of that love? If man loves man it is proof that love serves the sexual preference. But how can love follow anything? The place that is nonexistent to influence is part of the content of love; it is the egg of the life that is love, and therefore inseparable. It is the origin of itself and love cannot follow where it leads.
Every man has the potential to show adoration, yet if it is to another man then he has only created an artificial source for his own benefit and no man can create what is not of him, what does not consciously exist. This evolution of perversion does not progress but only recycles familiar emotions until the lack of natural love devalues the deed to nothing more than the result of a search for compatibility. This love can have no fruition. It has no purpose and is injurious to the health of society.