I don't know why this is "news." Cynthia Nixon is just famous, I guess. I'd never heard of her until now; then again, I think I saw about 5 minutes of "Sex in the City" before coming to the conclusion that it was very immature, at least for me at the time. My tastes haven't become less mature, so I don't need to tell you that I'd be even less interested now. Really, the name should have been "Sin in the City."
Anyway, the reason I don't think this should be news is because everyone knows that the number of people who feel strongly compelled to engage in homosexuality is not large and that most of them have simply been conditioned into it as a result of a multitude of things, not the least of which is abuse, neglect, peer pressure, a hyper-sexualized culture, and/or a host of other bad aspects. What homosexuality is not is genetically determined in the way eye color is determined. I have not doubted that genetics plays a role, but it's not the determinant unless in cases where it is so rare that the exceptions would make the rule, so to speak.
What I've noticed over the last few weeks is that the homosexuals are coming to realize that their previous claims are coming undone (being exposed as falsehoods, etc.) and are quickly changing tactics to saying, "so what?" What they appear to be doing is encouraging the whole of society and humankind in general quickly to surrender to hedonism regardless of the very negative consequences. There have always been such types, but they appear to have become much larger in number over my lifetime, sad to say.
Supposedly, you are to come to understand who you really are according to whatever has or does tempt you. So, Jesus was tempted by the devil; and therefore, by the illogic of certain, many, homosexuals (though many would lie about it), he was/is the devil and should have surrendered to being Satan's number one. They don't realize whether or not it was a struggle for Jesus though. I for one am very glad he didn't cave in.
Today, the homosexuals say to cave in -- just cave in. Even to people who aren't homosexuals and don't want to be, there are Internet trolls jumping at everything they can to encourage as much homosexual behavior as possible. It's called proselytizing. They are frantic about it.
I keep running into people who continue claiming falsely that if one is saying homosexual anal intercourse is wrong because penises do not belong in anuses, then the one saying it has to be a homosexual. It makes no sense at all. A person can say that anal intercourse is wrong a thousand times, a million times, and that doesn't do anything to show that the person is a homosexual. It's completely irrelevant in that regard.
You might be interested in this that I wrote on the subject because the State of Washington is about to sanction homosexual buggery on a par with vaginal intercourse as healthy and natural, etc., and perfectly valid for "marriage," which it most certainly is not.
If you read the article (linked below) by Chuck Colson, I want you to know that I don't agree with the closing paragraph. A Christian does not have to respect anyone's choice to be a homosexual. Love is one thing, compassion is one thing, but respect is something else. The term "respect" is contextual of course. I'm simply pointing out that it is not to be applied in a blanket fashion as if there is no place for disrespecting others for their choices.
I would expect decent people to disrespect me were I to murder innocent children for instance, were I to fly a predator drone armed with Hellfire Missiles to an Afghani wedding or funeral and fire off a few to "get" a Taliban leader, even though his little grandchildren are there with him and he has only been fighting foreign invaders and occupiers and in no way intends or has ever intended to attack the US. I'm not saying I would agree with his religion or governmental policies or practices, but not agreeing with him doesn't license me to murder him. He could be a very "honorable" person, loving of his family, etc., and not out to harm anyone but just not be swept up by the homosexual, globalist agenda or other Westernisms.
Some people have more problems with someone saying that anal intercourse is wrong than they do with others murdering innocent children. Saying one is against anal intercourse supposedly makes one a homosexual. Saying one is against the CIA using missiles on babies does not make one a rabid militarist/imperialist. It's not very consistent, is it? Well, since when have homosexuals and their most activist promoters and supporters been consistent?
I'm just passing through. When Heaven and Earth conflate, that will be different. I do know that one doesn't get there by lying that anal sex is fine, not harmful, natural, not sick, etc.