Homosexuality

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.”

So, there is a legal battle in California about the details of gay marriage. I contend that in this battle the gays are either evil or stupid.

Those against gay marriage perceive, rightly in my view, that gays want the same dignity to their marriage, dignity allotted to it by tradition, utility, and religion, that normal marriage has. But in attempting to measure up to normal marriage gays do not pull themselves up but instead drag marriage down. It’s no wonder people say that gays want to undermine morals and working social institutions and basically demean something holy.

If that is indeed the case, then gays stand condemned. But suppose that they have no such nefarious plans. Surely, the gays recognize the inferiority of their “marriage.” Then why rattle the good folks? The issue, it seems to me, turns entirely on a word. Gays should say: it’s fine if you don’t let us marry, but we’d like to be able to… shmarry! Shmarriage would be actuated by a different ritual (civil or religious — in some Satanic cult or something — or whatever — perhaps instead of rings, gays would exchange pens) and be governed by a different set of laws. Or not: perhaps the legislators would simply copy the normal marriage laws into a new book called “Shmarriage Laws” without any alterations. Or maybe with a few alterations, big deal. Really, no one would be the wiser.

This way, it seems to me, the dispute could be resolved peacefully.

The homos who want to shut down discussion by claiming that they are offended can take a hike. They are using people’s misplaced guilt and solicitude for their own selfish ends.

The point of comparison is that gayness is like drug addiction, because people are often dissatisfied with both of these desires and seek to change them. One tries to conform himself to an ideal of being the kind of person who does not want to use drugs or is not attracted to men.

Now notice what I am saying: not “who does not use drugs” but “who does not want to use drugs”; not “who is chaste” but “who is not attracted to men.” I am talking about personality not behavior.

An important comment on that thread says:

‘Being a “homosexual” and being a man who has sex with other men are two different things. A man can have sex with other men for money or drugs or some other type of compensation, but not be gay. Alternatively, a man can be gay but have sex with women (perhaps a man who knew he was gay but married a woman for fear of religious persecution, etc.). These are two different concepts and should be treated as such.’

So, being chaste is difficult but probably vastly easier than changing one’s sexuality. A lifestyle is a means to soul-making, but it is not the soul.

The objection is that homosexual attraction cannot be cured, though drug addiction can be. This is a valid point: it seems that Pierpont has failed to cure himself; what makes him think that he can cure others? Thus, it is futile to combat homosexual urges, and one has to accept what he cannot change all the way up to building an identity based on this thing. Perhaps, or perhaps not. But given this distinction, the comparison stands.

… in art, sex, personal appearance is probably best thought of as folly (opposite to wisdom) regarding beauty. The fool who said there was no God may well have been homosexual.

A homosexual can never refer to another unrelated man, “brother.” ‘Cause you don’t fuck your brothers in the ass!

Both marital and brotherly love are denied to gays, then.

They must be very lonely people, in general. What an awful condition!

Homosexuality is not a threat to marriage (Lewis Black makes it hilariously clear), though it is a threat to the homosexual’s own marriage to a woman, ha ha.

But the ideology of homosexualism, so to speak, is a threat. This ideology argues that sodomy and promiscuity are physically healthy, that sexual attraction to same sex is spiritually healthy, that gay effeminacy does not turn men into contemptible weaklings, that crazed lust substitutes for love, as well as that two gays can adopt children with happy consequences for all concerned. Society will be harmed if this ideology is taken seriously.

Ass-fucking is a choice. Sexual attraction to same sex, if it is a choice, is vicious; if it is inborn, then it is, though not wrongful, a chronic spiritual illness. There are many mentally ill persons who refuse even to acknowledge that they are ill. This makes their condition so much worse. Same for the gays. The more resolutely they believe that they are perfectly OK, the more corrupt they become. It is true that no definitive cure for homosexuality has been found. Well, neither has a cure been found for alcoholism. So what? That does not mean drunkards are either holy or happy. Besides, that only makes the Catholic solution of “chaste friendships” for gays more relevant.

So, I’m looking at the headlines of The New York Times (no, I am not subscribed, though I should be… know your enemy), and there is a cornucopia of articles about gay people. We have:

• Same-Sex Couple Say, “I Do” as Italy Sticks to “I Don’t”
• Immigrant Measure Still Backed by Gays
• Milestone for Gay Athletes as Rogers Plays for Galaxy
• The Music Behind Liberace’s Capes, Jewels and Candelabra

Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think there is a conspiracy among the power elites, especially the Hollywood celebrities, to homosexualize the culture, the glamour culture in particular.

I hope the public will respond to this development with the right attitude: healthy straight disgust.

I don’t understand what any gay marriage ban has to do with the 5th Amendment.

Anyway, this is yet another attempt to equalize things by their nature unequal. The standard result is that the better thing (normal marriage) gets debased, not that the worse thing (homo-marriage) gets uplifted.

“The Government Accountability Office has identified more than 1,100 areas of federal law in which marriage matters, ranging from tax and welfare benefits to employment and immigration,” says the NYT.

A libertarian might agree that the feds should not base any policies based on one’s marital status. However, it’s not that the homo-married should obtain access to federal goodies, but that the normally married should lose all such access.

To stress that gay sex and even gay attraction are bad for the soul and bring about unhappiness and sorrow is as much a task of ethics, whether natural or grace-enhanced, as it is a task of medicine to point out that lack of exercise is bad for the body.

Or we might say:

To stress that gay sex, etc. are bad for the soul is as much a task of ethics as it is a task of economics to point out that inflationary credit expansion gives rise to business cycles.

Neither ideas are “popular” today, but they are true nonetheless.

If a “gay gene” is ever found, then it’ll spell the end of homosexuality, as pregnant women will undoubtedly be testing for this gene and aborting children who have it.

In addition, if “designer children” ever become a mass market item, then no sane couple will ever permit a gay child to be conceived in the first place.

Left-liberals should be applauding this, in particular. If it is an imperative to abort defective fetuses of every kind, say, those with Down syndrome, why not abort homosexuals also?

So, convenience demands that inconvenient kids be aborted. But perhaps I fancy being a grandfather, and gay children (again, supposing for the sake of argument that there is a gay gene) will fail to please me. I’d prefer to abort them, too.

Which left-liberal will throw the first stone?