What mystery? I've never been reticent about my opinions or their influences? If there is any mystery about me in this community, it is the result of poor reading comprehension or irrationality. This explains a lot about your perception of a mystery, but sadly, I am far too familiar with that particular subject to have the pleasure of solving one on my part.
I know enough about sex ed to know that it is highly unlikely to be taught by anything resembling a scientist. From what I have heard or observed, it is almost entirely taught by clergy, administrators and phys ed teachers.
It's called a joke, playing on the sexual reference for an innuendo. Clearly someone here is lacking a normal male brain.
Because I am citing the tendency of people to use that term rather than "nigger", highlighting the extremes people will go to avoid one form of offense in contradistinction to their indifference to other forms of offense.
This is exactly the sort of bullshit double-standards endemic to the left. Traditionalists and liberals are subjected to criticism based on whatever implications a progressive's twisted brain can torture out of their words, but the left demands that everything they be say be held to the most favorable meaning, and context or implications be ignored. You know damn well that homophobic speech and other violations of political correctness are being used as excuses to deplatform, silence, tone police and otherwise suppress political or other speech unfavorable to the left, and what is more, is generally being included in so-called hate crimes.
This is EXACTLY what I am talking about! You are referring to laws on the books, placed there by secular governments, enforced by secular law enforcement, but you claim the absolute right to determine the particular motivations of people long dead.

In a time and place when accusations of homophobia and similarly unfashionable attitudes are being used with consequences for the accused, you disingenuously claim that the article is doing no such thing, and yet, the accusation that someone, somewhere might read criticism or condemnation of such beliefs and act violently on it, is used to justify the egregious violation of free speech in banning so-called "hate speech". You pretend that such a logical progression does not exist, but then extrapolate that Christians and Christianity are entirely and solely responsible, on the basis of no non-anecdotal evidence whatsoever!

For the record, if you weren't a complete idiot, you'd know that for almost the entire time those laws to which you refer were on the books, homosexuality was formally classified as a medical & psychiatric disorder! There was, on the record, a secular rationale for their passage and enforcement, but that's all on Christianity, no other reason to be considered. And never mind that the uniquely Christian New Testament is completely opposed to the temporal enforcement of morality, and other religions and belief systems besides Christianity are just as "homophobic" or worse. Furthermore, the visceral revulsion of almost all human beings for sexual acts outside their inclinations or comfort zone is much more probable a personal motive than any fervent religious zeal.

Don't ask, don't tell, eh?

But they do originate in prehistory, and were passed down to historical times when the books were written.

On the basis that societies following it have been remarkably successful, that Western Civilization has blown everything else in the history of the world so far out of the water that there is no society worth consideration on the planet that is not heavily influenced by Western Civilization and its practices and ideas.
Yes, it does.
But he's pretending it's a thing that matters.

You are have the worst reading comprehension of almost anyone on this site. You may disagree with the teachings, but the Church has maintained its sexual teachings for two millennia. The point of specifying "Holy Mother Church" is to separate the spiritual entity & its teachings from the practices of individuals in the debased modern organization, all of which are in direct violation of said teachings.
Uh huh. And I'm pretty sure you'd be singing the exact opposite tune if one were to use that same sentence, except substituting "Dar al Islam" for "the Church", which would be a lot more factually accurate. When did the Church import large amounts of slaves from Africa to be death marched across the Sahara, and upon arrival in Christendom, be castrated or raped, depending on their gender? When has the Church approved or encouraged harems or pedophilia in its teachings? Which prophet of the Church is known to have had a sexual relationship with an 8 year old? Which legitimate organs of the Church or its congregation keep large numbers of captive sex slaves, impose capital punishment for sexual crimes or "circumcise" women?

Still doesn't make him right.