Gay marriage : who cares?

[larkin31]

If Christopher West is publishing heresy, then say so. My guess is that his books are sold here at CA. Are they?

CA sells two of his books and one audio CD, all three on sexuality and the modern Christian.

 

[davidv]

CA sells two of his books and one audio CD, all three on sexuality and the modern Christian.

Relevance?

 

[davidv]

Passibng Thru and I have responded to those points a billion times.

Repeating errors will not suddenly make them correct.

All John claims is that “sodomy is wrong”–all kinds.

According to Church teaching, he is correct.

Yet Abu (and a few others) posted Catholic links to the contrary.

This is a clear misrepresentation of their posts and is only possible if you redefine the term sodomy.

It’s not my fault that you guys can’t get consistent on this. If you also wish to claim straight out here that NO ORAL STIMULATION OF ANY KIND IS MORALLY PERMITTED BETWEEN CATHOLIC MARRIED PARTNERS, then say so here and show us where this dogma is printed. Your own catholic fellows have posted printed passages, used in Catholic adult ed classes, that state the oral sex acts of a certain kind are permissible.

Any inconsistency is due to the variation among the individuals involved and does not impune Church teaching. The Catholic Catechism is silent on this specific topic.

If Christopher West is publishing heresy, then say so. My guess is that his books are sold here at CA. Are they?

No heresy. Just your misinterpretation of his writing. Regardless, what bearing does this have on the OP?

 

[larkin31]

Relevance?

You’re just becoming, now, in fewer and fewer words (which is kind of funny), another Catholic poster who won’t answer the question about oral and anal stimulation during sex. A few of your colleagues in faith actually did exchange in a respectful way and tried to be helpful and answer the questions. You, now, are reduced to one-word rejoinders when you know full well that I was responding to the question of the legitimacy of the West material and that other Catholics have stated that he is widely accepted. So, I have asked you twice if you wish to say that his views are wrong, but you do not reply. But when I check to see if his books are sold here, and find that they are, you just want to question the relevance of my checking that (and you already know the reason I did).

So it is late here, and no more answers on the Catholic discrimination between various erotic forms of pleasure between married couples seem to be coming, so I am signing off.

 

[davidv]

You’re just becoming, now, in fewer and fewer words (which is kind of funny), another Catholic poster who won’t answer the question about oral and anal stimulation during sex. A few of your colleagues in faith actually did exchange in a respectful way and tried to be helpful and answer the questions. You, now, are reduced to one-word rejoinders when you know full well that I was responding to the question of the legitimacy of the West material and that other Catholics have stated that he is widely accepted. So, I have asked you twice if you wish to say that his views are wrong, but you do not reply. But when I check to see if his books are sold here, and find that they are, you just want to question the relevance of my checking that (and you already know the reason I did).

So it is late here, and no more answers on the Catholic discrimination between various erotic forms of pleasure between married couples seem to be coming, so I am signing off.

From the CCC:

Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.
The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

To the extent “errotic” disrupts the integration described above it is sinful and is not becoming of man or woman, married or not.

 

[larkin31]

No heresy. Just your misinterpretation of his writing. Regardless, what bearing does this have on the OP?

I actually don’t think you read it. It SPECIFICALLY accepts oral stimulation (sexual contact and manipulation) as long as it ends in vaginal ejaculation. He even states that the two partners do not have to orgasm at the same time.

That is all PassingThru and I have been talking about all along. The same dispensation is NOT made for any form of anal stimulation. And we just keep asking WHY NOT? ON WHAT GROUNDS? Only one poster here attempted an answer in all these pages and the reasons had to do with the assumption that one was ejaculatory and the other not–which is a false assumption by definition.

So, you either must reject West as heretical or explain the discrimination morally. All this vague shifting and non-answering just looks like evasion.

 

[larkin31]

From the CCC:
To the extent “errotic” disrupts the integration described above it is sinful and is not becoming of man or woman, married or not.

No one is questioning this. It’s not on the specific topic.

 

[larkin31]

good night

back tomorrow

 

[CradleCath]

HAHA

Wait.

When do you claim that oral sex was first “entertained”? I am going to say two things, both conjectural:

1. You have never had sex.
2. You have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the history of human sexuality, nor its outlook toward various forms of erotic pleasure. You are just ********ting here in an attempt to assert some moral superiority over a behavior you do not engage in yourself.

No decent man would ask his wife to endure the pain of anal sex for his own enjoyment. “Various forms of erotic pleasure”? You speak of sadism as a “form of erotic pleasure”? For whom? Why the man , of course. You sir are a sexist bent on proclaiming sodomy good in an inane attempt to justify sex between two men. You are on a Catholic forum & it ain’t gonna’ work.

 

[BlueShadow123]

No decent man would ask his wife to endure the pain of anal sex for his own enjoyment. “Various forms of erotic pleasure”? You speak of sadism as a “form of erotic pleasure”? For whom? Why the man , of course. You sir are a sexist bent on proclaiming sodomy good in an inane attempt to justify sex between two men. You are on a Catholic forum & it ain’t gonna’ work.

Anal sex is UNHEALTHY. Its quite sad that people even my age are doing this.

Its disgusting and its not safe or good for your body. And anybody who dares to refute this needs to research it properly.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Catholics should care about gay marriage!

What’s true for Rhode Island is true for the rest of the U.S.

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island (LifeSiteNews.com) - If same-sex “marriage” takes hold of Rhode Island, **it will be because of the “abysmal apathy” of Catholics who did not stand up for true marriage, says Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence. **

Bishop Tobin penned an April 23, 2009 column for the Rhode Island Catholic, discussing the growing pressure in New England to overthrow marriage, and the negative consequences in store.

"And what’s the typical response of Catholics in Rhode Island?" he wrote. **"‘As long as it doesn’t affect me, I really don’t care what other people do,’ you say. ‘We shouldn’t judge other people,’ you demur. ‘The Church is losing its influence. I don’t think there’s anything we can do,’ you rationalize.

“Well, my friends, gay marriage will affect you and you should be concerned,” said the bishop, who then pointed out the impact that the normalization of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” would have on the free speech rights of religious authorities and individuals.**

**“Proponents of gay marriage say that the Church won’t be forced to witness such marriages. Don’t believe it,” he warned.

"And other related problems will inevitably arise. Will the Church be required to admit gay couples as sponsors for baptisms; to rent its facilities for gay wedding receptions; to hire employees despite their immoral gay lifestyles; to grant family benefits to gay couples?

“For simply maintaining its teachings in these and many other possible scenarios, the Church will be accused of bigotry and unlawful discrimination,” wrote Bishop Tobin. “The threat to our religious freedom is real, and imminent.”
**
The Rhode Island bishop praised Governor Donald Carcieri, as well as House Speaker William Murphy and Senate President Joseph Montalbano. “They - along with a number of other legislative leaders - have been consistent and courageous in deflecting the onslaught of gay activists and in upholding the traditional definition of marriage,” he said. “We hope and pray they’ll continue to do so.”

The bishop continued: "‘The Church is losing its influence,’ you say, ‘and there’s nothing we can do.’

"‘Bull feathers,’ I reply.

“I don’t know if we have 600,000 Catholics in the state or 500,000 or 400,000. But if even ten percent of our Catholic population got actively involved in this issue - even five percent - we could have an enormous impact and help Rhode Island maintain its moral sanity,” affirmed the bishop.

Bishop Tobin encouraged Catholics to contact state legislators to insist that they uphold marriage and family values, and pursue other public venues such as letters to the editor and call-in radio talk shows.

**“The Church teaches us that it’s the responsibility of the laity to get involved in public life, to transform the secular order into the Kingdom of God,” urged Tobin. **"Therefore, if someday a headline reads, ‘Rhode Island, Most Catholic State, Welcomes Gay Marriage,’ people across the nation will ask, ‘How did that happen?’

“And it’ll be our fault, fellow Catholics - not necessarily because we approved of gay marriage - but simply because our abysmal apathy allowed it to happen.”

Emphasis mine in response to the OP.

. . . . . .

 

[larkin31]

No decent man would ask his wife to endure the pain of anal sex for his own enjoyment. “Various forms of erotic pleasure”? You speak of sadism as a “form of erotic pleasure”? For whom? Why the man , of course. You sir are a sexist bent on proclaiming sodomy good in an inane attempt to justify sex between two men. You are on a Catholic forum & it ain’t gonna’ work.

Why are you assuming that only men would force this on their women? There are women here who have reminded us (on another thread) that some women enjoy it. And 40% of hetero couples now try it (according to the CDC). It might be fair not to project your own erogenous understandings onto other persons.

And you seem to be assuming that I have tried this and that I have enjoyed it and am trying to force the practice on others. On the contrary, I have never argued what another couple should or should not enjoy. You are assuming falsely and are misrepresenting my intentions.

 

[mcmitton]

I don’t know if it’s ok to call people “queer.” I’ve never heard that term being used in a good way. Enlighten me if I’m wrong. If I’m right, this should be removed immediately.

Somewhat off topic … As I am a *very old *girl, let me say that in my youth “queer” meant [and still does to me] “odd” and “gay” meant “happy”.

Name-calling in never nice.

But I still might say “What a queer thing to say”! And I mean “odd”.

 

[karoleck]

I care! So do a lot of others.

You simply wont answer any of the questions directed towards you regarding the objective moral basis of Catholic doctrine, will you Larkin. You can’t. Your own arguments to the contrary were shattered by you!

Yet you attempt to bypass the very foundations of why certain acts are deemed to be wrong according to Church moral teaching and you still attempt to deny the wrongness of those certain actions. Homosexual sodomy is objectively wong. Sodomy is wrong. It is disordered, unnatural and against the moral basis for human right living. Sodomy is sodomy, regardless of whether it is betwen male, or female. Are you capable of grasping that fact? Karoleck wote that such an act defiles a woman, as it does a man and you have the gall to challenge that by questioning his marital status. Normal men, who respect themselves and their wives think as Karoleck does. Sodomy is against the Natural Law as Swizzlestick wrote. Davidv writes in a similar vein. You will attempt a discourse with them, but all the while you avoid the very foundations of why sodomy is wrong. You are again being disengenuous when you try to paint the church as expressing a double standard with regard to oral sex and anal sex. Anal sex is sodomy is wrong. Oral sex is not condoned by the Church, despite certain theologians attempting to portray it as a licit part of sexual stimulation. You misrepresent the thoughts of certain theologians as Church doctrine. Those writings are not.

You should also have it pointed out to you that sodomy between man and woman is not dealt with explicitly because no right thinking man would entertain such a misuse of human sexuality. Until people like you and others came along with a sick variation on sodomy, normally functioning men would seek nothing more than vaginal intercourse with their women. Now, we have a perversion that was historically associated with disordered men now entering the sexaul relations between man and woman. That is nothing more than an extension of a moral perversion which the Church states is morally wrong. End of story.

You are correct on all points John

I am not certain why a person who is promoting buggery and seems a **sodomite **;is asking
if I am married!! Does Larkin think this Thread is some sort of a “gay” hook-up site I wonder?
Do you see how he twists every fact around that has been presented to him.He now seems to be attacking a well respected person, Chrisphopher West and accusing him of supporting immoral sexual acts–wonders never cease.I wonder if he will ever buy these wonderful books that -------------------------------------------------------------------he is misrepresenting
and attacking!
I remember a Priest who taught Moral Theology and a very kind and gentle confessor telling me that Oral Sex causes people a lot of complications.The right tools for the right job aways works-a good tradesperson never uses his tool for the wrong job!!

That Larkin is rather confused(deliberatly ,I suspect) he is like a footballer or sportsman who thinks that the warming up exercises is The Game!! He ignores the Rules when he finally stumbles onto the field,plays it his way and finally gets upset when he is sent off the field and looses the match!!
Some one should tell Larkin --the warming up exercises(between a married man and a woman) is called foreplay–it is a prelude to the main game(called sexual intercourse) ,the rule is to follow God’s commandments on how He intended this game to be played and the end result is that they should score goals;which means giving new life to a human person–the better and generous the players-the greater will their score of children be.(and even if they cannot always get a score,they are always open to this final end of the game–that way they enjoy each other and find the game very satisfying all life long-until they are too old and tired.)

In the way Larkin wants to play-- but no matter how often he comes on the field(I for one do not wish to play on his side !!)and despite who he seeks passing through; he will never ever even get a score on the board–I wonder why he wants to play the game–his way.

Perhaps Larkin should stop playing and learn the rules and if he cannot play it Gods’ Way; then in humility accept his cross and just be a specator–that way he will never be frustrated in not scoring and wanting to convince other players that his way is a better game-even when you never can score-a stale- mate.

I am serious about offering my rosaries for his conversion to seek the truth;and also for those who SUFFER the cross of same sex attraction.
May God Bless you.

St.Michael The Archangel ,protect us from the malice and deceit of the evil one.Amen.

 

[John21652]

HAHA

Wait.

When do you claim that oral sex was first “entertained”? I am going to say two things, both conjectural:

1. You have never had sex.
2. You have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the history of human sexuality, nor its outlook toward various forms of erotic pleasure. You are just ********ting here in an attempt to assert some moral superiority over a behavior you do not engage in yourself.

Larkin, your idiocy is now becomeing obvious and for all to see. I assume it is becuase you are so desperate in your search for legitimacy, yet you are actually destroying any claims to legitimacy you thought you may have had.

Let me demonstrate -

Again, as is your habit, you ignore the substance of my response to you and you go completely off on a tangent based with your response based on conjecture. Firstly, I am a father to five kids. Unless they were all virgin births, which your conjecturing would suggest, your point 1. is demolished. You may now apologise at this point.

With regard to Point 2. It just so happens that many years ago, one of my sisters travelled to India and bought me back a beautifully bound old book. It was Sir Richard Burton’s translation of the Kama Sutra. A very early print, because it doesn’t have the luridly explicit drawings later versions included. So you see, I am well versed in the ancient records of eroticism. You may apologise once again at this point.

Now, further to demolish your second point, the Kama Sutra does not mention sodomy as a legitimate sexual practice. Legitimate sexual erocticism is between a man and a woman. It does however, mention anal and oral sex (Auparishtaka) with regard to it being the work of a dog and not a man. I quote, "The Auparishtaka is practised also by unchaste and wanton women, female attendants and serving maids…because it is a low practice, and opposed to the orders of the Holy Writ, and because the man himself suffers by bringing his lingam into contact with the mouths of eunuchs and women*". *In other words, the lower, debased classes are those who practised such acts. Now remember this Larkin, the Kama Sutra was written eight centuries before the birth of Christ. There’s some ‘history’ for you. Of course, we can add to this ancient history of human sexuality the Bible, also written a long time ago. Therein sodomy is defined as an “abomination”. You may, again and with some humility please, apologise for your ‘conjecture’ in point two.

As for your conjectural assertion that I am trying to "…assert some moral superiority over a behavior you do not engage in yourself", the point is Larkin, I do not have to assert any moral superiority, because you are asserting that practices that have been frowned upon for centuries, in many different cultures, is somehow morally equivalent. In the process, you ignore the objective reasons as to why what you assert is morally disordered. Hence, your own arguments collapse in on themselves and when you resort to conjecture to make a point, you make yourself look very, very silly indeed.

You, furthermore, make yourself look even sillier when you accuse others (davidv in post #986) of not ‘ponying up’ in response to your posts yet you continually ignore the substance of other’s posts and even refuse to acknowledge their arguments. As I’ve asked of you before this, where is your response to our discussion wherein you denied the existence of objectively discernable laws, then suddenly ‘discovered’ gravity as objectively knowable and universal. Objectivity and universality are the foundations of the Natural Law morality that homosexuality and sodomy is disordered and unnatural.

Then, to make yourself look sillier yet again, in post #992 you quote me and respond with *“Should we tell him what many very “normal” and loving and good Christian women actually want from their spouses from time to time?” *Larkin, we all know what normal and loving and good Christian women actually want from their spouses. It is to be loved and respected, to be treated with dignity, and that means not being asked to do things which are unnatural, harmful and practiced by the lower and debased classes whom even the ancients recognised as debased.

 

[PassingThru]

No decent man would ask his wife to endure the pain of anal sex for his own enjoyment. “Various forms of erotic pleasure”? You speak of sadism as a “form of erotic pleasure”? For whom? Why the man , of course. You sir are a sexist bent on proclaiming sodomy good in an inane attempt to justify sex between two men. You are on a Catholic forum & it ain’t gonna’ work.

Uh-oh, now we are back to defining pleasure for everyone else.

Really? You are making this assertion for who knows how many millions of practitioners? Did we not “lay this one to rest” so to speak?

(Disclaimers again before people get frothy: It does not mean I would like it, or you would, or it is right or it is wrong. It simply means it is, well, completely untenable to decree what someone else does or does not enjoy. Honestly, its about the worst logic on this thread, and I don’t know how it keeps coming up, from so many people. Its lazy.)

BTW, even if someone “is bent on proclaiming sodomy good”, it does not prevent you from addressing the issue at hand.

What I mean is that, lets say we were having a discussion on, for example, prayer to Mary, and I disagreed with it, and you agreed with it. If all I did was protest that you were trying to convert me to the Church, and brought up other objections related to it, that would not help answer our discussion. Look back at how many long winded posts there are on here about the horrors of gay marriage. No matter how much anyone tries to talk about a specific question, someone jumps in with “the sky is falling” and blasts all gays across the globe. Those of us asking questions arent saying it, but if you only looked at responses, you would think we asserted it every time we spoke. Its like a paranoia or something.

 

[PassingThru]

Do you see how he twists every fact around that has been presented to him.He now seems to be attacking a well respected person, Chrisphopher West and accusing him of supporting immoral sexual acts–wonders never cease.I wonder if he will ever buy these wonderful books that -------------------------------------------------------------------he is misrepresenting
and attacking!
I remember a Priest who taught Moral Theology and a very kind and gentle confessor telling me that Oral Sex causes people a lot of complications.The right tools for the right job aways works-a good tradesperson never uses his tool for the wrong job!!

Ehhh, what planet are you on? Christopher West SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY lays out that oral sex is acceptable in marital sex. Ill repeat that. Christopher West SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY lays out that oral sex is acceptable in marital sex.

Now, the whole point is that this book is handed out BY THE CHURCH to the Catholic Faithful. Literally, money that you and others give to the Church was used to purchase this book, which was stored in the walls of the Catholic church, and handed to me and my wife, while standing on church grounds, by the deacon of the Church.

Your priest said oral sex was wrong (that is what I get from your vague remarks) Well, guess what? They don’t teach that anymore. Not my priest, not the visiting priest, not in the official materials, and not in the official classes.

If you have a problem with this, talk to the Church. People are plugging their ears and going “la-la-la-la” to avoid this uncomfortable fact. Well, tough. That is the reality.

I am sure in the past it was probably forbidden in almost all circles. I am not contesting that. There are tons of people in the Church who still forbid the activity. Absolutely true. I am fully aware of this. The sad part is those who ignore the fact that, apparently, most in the Church have changed their tune. All the deniers need to be aware of this fact, just as I and others are aware that not all agree, and historically most did not. Whew.

Now, Ill leave the rest of your rant alone.

 

[larkin31]

You are correct on all points John

I am not certain why a person who is promoting buggery and seems a **sodomite **;is asking
if I am married!! Does Larkin think this Thread is some sort of a “gay” hook-up site I wonder?
Do you see how he twists every fact around that has been presented to him.He now seems to be attacking a well respected person, Chrisphopher West and accusing him of supporting immoral sexual acts–wonders never cease.I wonder if he will ever buy these wonderful books that -------------------------------------------------------------------he is misrepresenting
and attacking!
I remember a Priest who taught Moral Theology and a very kind and gentle confessor telling me that Oral Sex causes people a lot of complications.The right tools for the right job aways works-a good tradesperson never uses his tool for the wrong job!!

That Larkin is rather confused(deliberatly ,I suspect) he is like a footballer or sportsman who thinks that the warming up exercises is The Game!! He ignores the Rules when he finally stumbles onto the field,plays it his way and finally gets upset when he is sent off the field and looses the match!!
Some one should tell Larkin --the warming up exercises(between a married man and a woman) is called foreplay–it is a prelude to the main game(called sexual intercourse) ,the rule is to follow God’s commandments on how He intended this game to be played and the end result is that they should score goals;which means giving new life to a human person–the better and generous the players-the greater will their score of children be.(and even if they cannot always get a score,they are always open to this final end of the game–that way they enjoy each other and find the game very satisfying all life long-until they are too old and tired.)

In the way Larkin wants to play-- but no matter how often he comes on the field(I for one do not wish to play on his side !!)and despite who he seeks passing through; he will never ever even get a score on the board–I wonder why he wants to play the game–his way.

Perhaps Larkin should stop playing and learn the rules and if he cannot play it Gods’ Way; then in humility accept his cross and just be a specator–that way he will never be frustrated in not scoring and wanting to convince other players that his way is a better game-even when you never can score-a stale- mate.

I am serious about offering my rosaries for his conversion to seek the truth;and also for those who SUFFER the cross of same sex attraction.
May God Bless you.

St.Michael The Archangel ,protect us from the malice and deceit of the evil one.Amen.

Hey, would you mind addressing me? All this seems to do here–couched in this long ranting diatribe–is call me evil for not agreeing with you. Oh, yes. This also smears me as a likely “sodomite.”

You AREN’T married. I can see that now. So, you TELL me to get on board with catholicism in order to discuss it, but I can’t tell you to get on board with marriage before claiming to know how “normal” husbands and wives address each other intimately?

 

[Adam1986]

No decent man would ask his wife to endure the pain of anal sex for his own enjoyment. “Various forms of erotic pleasure”? You speak of sadism as a “form of erotic pleasure”? For whom? Why the man , of course. You sir are a sexist bent on proclaiming sodomy good in an inane attempt to justify sex between two men. You are on a Catholic forum & it ain’t gonna’ work.

I’m just quickly going to duck in here and add my two cents on something you said real quick.

Anal sex DOES NOT HURT if done correctly. Even the first time it does not hurt as long as precautions are taken. A woman does not need to endure the pain of anal sex. A woman who has anal sex the first time is sometimes less likely to experience pain and/or discomfort then she did the first time she had vaginal sex. Again that is only if it is done the right way.

SOURCE : I’m gay lol.

 

[larkin31]

Larkin, your idiocy is now becomeing obvious and for all to see. I assume it is becuase you are so desperate in your search for legitimacy, yet you are actually destroying any claims to legitimacy you thought you may have had.

Let me demonstrate -

Again, as is your habit, you ignore the substance of my response to you and you go completely off on a tangent based with your response based on conjecture. Firstly, I am a father to five kids. Unless they were all virgin births, which your conjecturing would suggest, your point 1. is demolished. You may now apologise at this point.

Apologize for the “conjecture” that I admitted I was making? Hardly. I am actually glad to hear that you have a family. I also hope that it is happy and healthy. But I seem to have really hit a nerve with you. Notice how saying that you were a virgin angered you so (it was a silly remark of mine, and I wonder why you did not just chuckle at it), but how you have in return called me an “idiot” but I am not angered by this because it is such a silly and vindictive thing to say.

With regard to Point 2. It just so happens that many years ago, one of my sisters travelled to India and bought me back a beautifully bound old book. It was Sir Richard Burton’s translation of the Kama Sutra. A very early print, because it doesn’t have the luridly explicit drawings later versions included. So you see, I am well versed in the ancient records of eroticism. You may apologise once again at this point.

HAHAHA. I love this response. It is a keeper! the Kama Sutra from the wife as research into the history of moral sexual history! I don’t think that she meant the gift as a research document, do you? You are “well-versed” indeed, as you say so yourself, even!

Now, further to demolish your second point, the Kama Sutra does not mention sodomy as a legitimate sexual practice. Legitimate sexual erocticism is between a man and a woman. It does however, mention anal and oral sex (Auparishtaka) with regard to it being the work of a dog and not a man. I quote, "The Auparishtaka is practised also by unchaste and wanton women, female attendants and serving maids…because it is a low practice, and opposed to the orders of the Holy Writ, and because the man himself suffers by bringing his lingam into contact with the mouths of eunuchs and women*". *In other words, the lower, debased classes are those who practised such acts. Now remember this Larkin, the Kama Sutra was written eight centuries before the birth of Christ. There’s some ‘history’ for you. Of course, we can add to this ancient history of human sexuality the Bible, also written a long time ago. Therein sodomy is defined as an “abomination”. You may, again and with some humility please, apologise for your ‘conjecture’ in point two.

I never claimed that societies did not frown on this. You have totally changed the terms of the discussion. Your disengenuiness is rather common for a righteous defender of sexual purity. Defend “sexual honor” at all costs! Even to honesty!

As for your conjectural assertion that I am trying to "…assert some moral superiority over a behavior you do not engage in yourself", the point is Larkin, I do not have to assert any moral superiority, because you are asserting that practices that have been frowned upon for centuries, in many different cultures, is somehow morally equivalent

NO. Not at all here. I was making a very different point. But you are angry now, and trying to hit me for other reasons. Calm down, and be honest.

. In the process, you ignore the objective reasons as to why what you assert is morally disordered. Hence, your own arguments collapse in on themselves and when you resort to conjecture to make a point, you make yourself look very, very silly indeed.

As I’ve asked of you before this, where is your response to our discussion wherein you denied the existence of objectively discernable laws, then suddenly ‘discovered’ gravity as objectively knowable and universal. Objectivity and universality are the foundations of the Natural Law morality that homosexuality and sodomy is disordered and unnatural.

I have answered this fully and explicitly. You are exhibiting a weird obsessive fixation over this. Why don’t you let it go already? You are not going to convince me of your point of view. Not ever. And now you are just calling me names. Which really won’t work, either.

Then, to make yourself look sillier yet again, in post #992 you quote me and respond with *“Should we tell him what many very “normal” and loving and good Christian women actually want from their spouses from time to time?” *Larkin, we all know what normal and loving and good Christian women actually want from their spouses. It is to be loved and respected, to be treated with dignity, and that means not being asked to do things which are unnatural, harmful and practiced by the lower and debased classes whom even the ancients recognised as debased.

I’ll take that as a yes, we do have to tell you. Consult that present from your wife, again.