Comments on: On the Futility of Certain Arguments in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:09:02 +0000

I let this go on about as long as I could bear, especially considering that I (intentionally) didn’t write anything about the same-sex marriage debate as such. I was more interested in discussing how people who believe that marriage is a necessarily two-gender institution conduct themselves in a culture that sees this position as morally equivalent to racism, i.e. intrinsically evil.
There were many sideshows and personal attacks, but what put me over the edge, if you are interested, was the description of certain sexual acts in a way that was so obviously intended to shock and offend that if THE sex act itself were described in parallel terms it would, itself, seem a most unholy and degrading procedure. God gave us all of our anatomy and when God finished, God saw that it was good. I think people on both sides of this debate can acknowledge that, at least.

By: Michael Iafrate

Michael Iafrate — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:40:00 +0000

This thread is becoming sinful. Get a hold of yourselves.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:34:03 +0000

Gabriel makes an “engorged penis” sound quite monstrous — but I thought most men are quite happy to have such vigorous organs? A retreat director once spoke to seminarians about “the dreaded morning stiffness” — and was greeted with some hilarity!

As to which orifice the monstrous organ enters, I would suggest that this need not undercut the attestation of gays who say their sex lives are unitive.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:41:50 +0000

“Gays want the right to get married” – “But…but…but…they’re fags!” That’s the argument in a nutshell. Gerald, Yes! That's also the argument against newspaper articles about gay people in the Chicago Tribune.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:35:31 +0000

Putting an engorged penis into an anus; having an engorged penis sucked; liking an anus; licking a clitoris… All this you find unitive?

The Catholic Church has no moral teachings against such activities (between married partners, of course). As one of my high school friends said, in awe, after covering sex in religion class, “Catholics can touch anywhere and kiss anywhere, as long as you end up right.”

By: Gerald A. Naus

Gerald A. Naus — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:14:33 +0000

It’s only necessary to call it Gay Pride because gays have been treated shamefully for so long. It’s exactly the self-flagellating attitude and guilt that presented the Catholic church with a bill for billions. An unhealthy approach to sexuality necessarily perverts and stunts, thus the emotional maturity level of many priests that found its match in teenagers.

Not to mention that morality based on an ‘ick’ factor is downright hilarious. This is why lesbians are never paraded as objects of derision and contempt – even the ‘faithful’ find it difficult to be outraged by them.

It is rather telling that the good Christian folk get outraged over gays in such disproportionate manner. In the end, it’s not about ‘natural law’ but plain ressentiment on elementary school niveau.

“Gays want the right to get married” – “But…but…but…they’re fags!” That’s the argument in a nutshell.

By: Gabriel Austin

Gabriel Austin — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:22:04 +0000

Joseph Says June 26, 2009 at 12:32 am
“Contraception is sinful and degrading to both partners???? Is this the wisdom of Catholicism? No wonder millions are fleeing the Church!”

No. It is the wisdom of the world. It is the making of a woman a sex toy, as also of the man. Contraception is a device of the whore house.

Te president of a Society of Providers of Sexual Services complained bitterly: “Nowadays you can get it from any college girl without having to pay”.

[Note: college girl].

By: Gabriel Austin

Gabriel Austin — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:17:10 +0000

Joseph Says June 26, 2009 at 12:30 am
GA: “The equipment in homosexuality doesn’t jibe” —

“this is your bottom line, Gabriel??? This is the wisdom you have learnt from Catholicism???”.

No, they are the simple facts I have learned from biology [and experience]. Littel to do with Catholicism.

“Consult the experience of gays who have found unitive significance in their sexual lives and you’ll find that the level of functionality/disfunctionality is much the same as for heterosexual relations; consult bisexuals who have operated on both sides of the fence — some of them say there is no real difference at all!”

Putting an engorged penis into an anus; having an engorged penis sucked; liking an anus; licking a clitoris… All this you find unitive? Certainly these occur among heterosexual activities. So also does bestiality; incest; pederasty.
Are they unitive? Or are they merely heightening of sexual ecstasy?

By: Gabriel Austin

Gabriel Austin — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:10:38 +0000

Joseph Says June 26, 2009 at 12:27 am
“It is very objectionable to call gay pride parades vice parades. They are events of great political importance, securing recognition for gay people. It takes great courage to take part in such event in Moscow, Peking or other homophobic cities”.

Perhaps in Moscow and Peking. But have you seen the parades in NYC and San Francisco and other places in the U.S. They have much deliberately provocative sexual behavior: bondage, whipping, leather shows. Many gay people are offended by them.

By: Gabriel Austin

Gabriel Austin — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:07:09 +0000

Joseph Says June 26, 2009 at 12:24 am
“Gabriel, being discreet (sic) [thank you. a lapsus pennae] suits most gay men, who have not desire to flaunt their sexual or private lives. But the problem is that it leaves young and vulnerable gays in the lurch. Parents are liable to think their gay children are diseased or need to be exorcized (!) because there are not enough ‘out’ adults to create a more rational attitude to homosexuality in society”.

Generalities again. “Parents are liable to think…”. This was the purpose of the bishops’ statement about gays “Always our children”.

By: Mark DeFrancisis

Mark DeFrancisis — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:15:41 +0000

I suggest “the copulative fallacy”.

By: Mark DeFrancisis

Mark DeFrancisis — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:10:42 +0000

HA’s usage of Arendt’s sexual relationship with Heidegger as a means of discounting her thought may require that he christen a new category of logical fallacies.

Any takers as to what we could name this new species?