A sexual act in marriage between a man and a woman consists of three “levels.”

The first is sensual pleasure, aesthetic pleasure.

The second level is the intellectual love and friendship between the husband and wife.

The third level are children and familial bliss. The Catholic Church describes the second level as the “unitive” function of sex, and the third level as its “procreative” function.

Now the most obvious point in homosexual sex is the lack of the procreative third level. I contend moreover that there can be no genuine friendship and love between two homosexuals as between spouses. Thus, the only first level of sensual delight exists in a homosexual act. In this it is similar to straight promiscuity.

A man and a woman engaging in “casual sex” are with regard to the second and third levels really not that different from two gay men sucking each other’s dicks. In a sense they are actually worse, because the gay men feel no interest in loving each other, while the straight couple will want to bond beyond mere sensual pleasure and actually reject the beginnings of love in them. There will be heartbreak for them which there would not be for the homosexuals. In addition, there is always the specter of conceiving a child and choosing to abort it or be forced to marry because of it or not marrying and dealing with a bastard child, all of which are admittedly pretty awful. At least gay sex is “safer” for the souls, if not the bodies, of all involved than straight promiscuous sex.

So, for the gays there’s nothing in the “relationship” but lust. Unfortunately, the homosexual 1st-level sensuality is corrupted, as well. It is a debased sensuality. Homosexual sex is really ugly, filthy. Most straight men who imagine two men banging each other in the ass are nauseated, disgusted. It’s genuine perversion of aesthetic sensibilities. A man ought to find women beautiful and be attracted to them. And he ought to find no interest in anal sex, say. Such things are ennobling, while gay attraction is demeaning. And then there is the effeminacy of gay men. It’s like “Deliverance” or “Pulp Fiction” in which we are shown scenes of homosexual rape. Men ought to be holy warriors; they cannot submit to being sodomized without losing all dignity. Of course, there can be a number of types of loving relationships between men which are great-making, such as between master and student, father and son, or colleagues, or fellow fighters.

In short, homosexual sex is absurd.

P.S. Oh yes, there is certainty the “zeroth” level, which is biological and relevant to physical health. AIDS was not in vain referred to as “gay disease.”

Categories: Homosexuality

2 Comments

Sid Kirichenko · July 14, 2010 at 11:57 am

With the number of humans populating the world, its no wonder that there’s a wide gamut of what consists of “sensual/aesthetic pleasure”. Early experiences and the way one was raised play a large role in the shaping of sexuality in general and kinks in particular. The sheer existence of the term “deviant sexuality” is proof of how little we actually know about the subject. Those masters and students you mention as being ok to hang out together often engaged in the depraved acts you shun, throughout history, in several different civilizations/societies. There are many gay men who do in fact achieve domestic bliss with a partner. As far as the third level of procreation…. its a nice comforting theory, but I think that divorce/child abandonment and abuse/ “broken home” statistics and on the other hand all the happily married childless couples who choose to concentrate on one another instead of something extraneous are proof that such self-delusion is not only wrong but dangerous indeed. Ask the millions of single mothers who thought getting pregnant/having kids would bring their mate closer… or the kids whose parents act like anything but. Some people should not be put in charge of another human life, and that’s pretty apparent in today’s society. Right and wrong only exist relative to the particular situation… *shrug*

Dmitry Chernikov · July 14, 2010 at 3:55 pm

Sid, I am describing an ideal of marriage. You argue that there exist numerous kinds of deviations from (my) ideal. I am in full agreement with you. How does that impinge on the ideal itself? “One ought not to kill” cannot be refuted by pointing out that there are murderers out there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *