Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

[Sair]

As luck would have it Sair, I ran a commercial farm for many years. I have a certificate as an A.I technician and I have had plenty of practice. If shoving a catheter into a cows vagina is bestiality, then all vets are into bestiality! I would have thought that most primary school children would be able to percieve the difference.

Yet the activities are objectively the same - sexual penetration of a non-human animal by a human. Aren’t you into objective facts? I mean, why not let natural instincts take their course, instead of interfering for economic motives? Or maybe it’s just that you think the human benefits justify the indignity imposed on the animals involved. At least vets consider the interests of the animal. Hey, I’ve even poked a thermometer up my dog’s rectum on several occasions, but only to make sure he wasn’t developing a fever.

Kinsey has long been discredited. Notwithstanding, frustration over a lack of sex partners has, in most instances, caused one human population to wage a raid on another human population. In other words, that frustration leads normal people to try harder. Trying harder does not mean shagging the neighbours cow.

Oh, okay - so, in your view, violent raiding and assault of other humans is morally better than bestiality? Interesting. Most Catholics consider abuse of humans to be worse than abuse of other animals. I think you’ll find that amongst the respondents to Kinsey’s research were those who were isolated from most other human communities - and certainly lacking in the resources to mount a forceful attack on anyone!

What you call child abuse is labelled as child love by those who think your moral stance on this issue is wrong.

Sure it is. I think they are misguided, probably because they have let their desires override their intellect and judgement. Children cannot give informed consent to sexual intimacy with an adult. Neither can nonhuman animals. Thus far, the situations are the same.

Bestiality is wrong not because of what you, personally think, but because it is objectively wrong.

On what grounds do you regard it as ‘objectively’ wrong? Isn’t that just because you, personally, feel a subjective disgust for sexual intimacy with a ‘lower’ animal? I have given my explanation for why I believe bestiality to be wrong - it just so happens that my reasons don’t countenance your equally subjective disgust for homosexuality, so you simply decide, arbitrarily, that both are ‘objectively’ wrong.

After all, if you stick to your morally relativistic logic, your opinion about the wrongness of bestiality is worth no more than the opinion of the man who loves to have it off with his dog.

In my ‘relativistic’ view, the man who loves to have it off with his dog is no better than the man who loves to have it off with his five-year-old niece.

Your moral reasoning is not consistent. The above paragraph shows that. You espouse one form of behaviour that is clearly outside the norm of human behaviour, yet you condemn another just because you don’t like it. Yet, the two are linked because they are both outside the norm of human behaviour and are thus properly described as disordered and dysfunctional. You wont allow yourself to see the link because to do so would shoot down in flames your moral reasoning. Even Singer has the intellectual courage to see and accept the absurdity of his moral reasoning. Why don’t you?

In what respect is homosexuality outside “the” norm of human behaviour? What are the parameters of this alleged norm? I think you’ll find that any absurdity Peter Singer finds is in the attempted moral reasoning of others who ascribe arbitrary boundaries - like your ‘norms’ - to their judgements. I don’t see a link between homosexuality and bestiality because there simply isn’t one. You have to force a link through your blinkered moralising.

 

[Sair]

I am reminded of a story about the trapper is caught after shooting his partner. Why did you do it, he is asked by the Mountie? I caught him making out with my board. The relationship between a man and an ewe, for instance, is not much different from that between between a man and his sex toy. One must respect sentient beings, but unlikely that the ewe “thinks” she has been raped.

So it’s the consciousness of violation that makes it violation? Do you think raping comatose humans is okay now? Interesting.

 

[Sair]

Hi, Sair,

You certainly have managed to balance gratitutious assumptins with tragic one-liners. From everything I have read on your posts, you have yet to post one reference or link to where it is you get your opinions. I would have thought by now that fatigue would have set in … but … let’s see what we have here…

Given that your references are well out of copyright, aren’t you the one who should be fatigued? I have posted links on other threads, but since you ask, I’ll be accommodating here as well.

Now, would you like to give a reference for this ‘fact’ you just stated? No scholars I am aware of contrast ancient civilizations with modern western civilizations with the idea that the former is under developed.

Firstly, you’ll find sources for my comments here and here. Secondly, you missed the point that ancient civilisations are not the basis of such questioning of human behavioural ‘norms’ - we’re talking about the comparison of civilised and pre-civilised human societies.

And, yes, a reference would be appreciated for this ‘fact’, too. I am willing to bet that they did not take someone else’s tools as part of a burial rite. They may have been like heirs today!

Where’s your reference with regard to personal property, then? Isn’t this just an assumption based on your own social conditioning?

Actually, you are quite wrong about that. Christ was quite clear and distinguishing the sin from the sinner when He told the woman caught in adultery to “I do not condemn you. Go and sin no more.” Christ gave us the Catholic Church to provide error-free teaching - and Christ’s Church teaches that homosexual behavior is disordered. Now, if you see this as an agenda, so be it. Since you are posting on CAF, you must also have a goal. Who is sponsoring your agenda?

Why does anyone need to be sponsoring my agenda? I don’t subscribe to any church. You are assuming the value of Biblical sources without analysing them in reference to their historical situation. Where’s your reference and justification for the universal application of biblical scripture?

Again, you are in error. I can objectively claim that murder is disordered and not acceptable. This is just not my opinion or the opinion of the guy down the street - and, it is more than just a law. Condemning murder has a long and established history throughout history - actually, begining the children of our First Parents. There really is an objective morality, and people commenting in support of it does not now make it subjective morality.

Sure, we can agree that murder is wrong, by virtue of the definition of murder - what we can’t seem to agree on is what constitutes murder and what constitutes lawful killing. Was the burning of witches objectively good, in your view?

Again, you are in error - and have now set up a straw-man argument. No one has argued this. What has been said is that human nature is universal and has not changed. That would mean that it existed before ‘Christianised Western culture’!

Yet you assume the universality of the norms of Christianised Western culture! You might not explicitly state it in those terms, but it’s painfully clear that this is your base assumption. You take no account of alternative approaches.

By the way, plagerism is really frowned on by the mods … this pirated quote you gave is from D. P. Moynihan.

My apologies - it seemed so appropriate to your position, I couldn’t resist. Having said that, it’s rather interesting that you choose to focus on my lack of source material when you’ve provided none other yourself than the Bible and your subjective opinion. Clearly I need lessons from you in point evasion!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

“Bestiality and homosexuality are both dysfunctional and disordered.”

Just out of curiosity - in what light do you consider the artificial insemination of livestock, such as cows, horses, pigs and poultry, by those who breed them? I mean, by a purely mechanical description, this counts as bestiality - it’s sexual penetration of another animal by a human, albeit with an inanimate object. Is this okay by you because it’s for the purpose of (commercial) reproduction? Do you consider this “objectively ordered”? It’s certainly not illegal, after all. Maybe you consider it an ‘acceptable use’ of other animals for human purposes. Personally I find it distasteful, just one of the many indignities to which domesticated animals are routinely subjected by humans. But then, I guess it passes muster for the moralizers because it doesn’t involve any ‘illicit’ pleasure for either party…

Be that as it may, have you also considered the very likely possibility that most acts of bestiality, such as the ones documented by Kinsey, were probably the result of severe frustration in the face of a lack of available human partners? It should be obvious to you that moral issues are not to be over-simplified, yet that is what I have repeatedly seen happening on this thread - “just accept that we’re right and get on with it!”

To address the accusations of inconsistency in my reasoning, here is a different way of looking at it. I consider any abusive or coercive sexual act to be wrong, because not only do I believe other humans worthy of respect, but I believe all of nature is worthy of respect. I file bestiality under the heading of abusive, simply because I cannot conceive of any pairing of human and non-human animal that would be a meeting of equals, where each party had an equal share and understanding in the proceedings and could give informed consent. Find me an example of such a situation, and I would classify it as morally acceptable - but I don’t think that’s likely. Bestiality is therefore wrong for the same reason that child abuse is wrong - it is a betrayal of a relationship of protection and caring; in our relationships with domesticated animals, we are the ones with power, and therefore the responsibility to uphold the welfare and interests of the animals in our care.

I believe my moral reasoning is consistent. But you would class consensual, loving sexual acts between two adults of the same sex in the same category as abusive, violent and coercive acts. That is not consistent - that is simplistic, arrogant and incorrect, in my view.

reminds me of the classical view that women are simply for making babies whereas men are for everything else which transformed into women are for sex and babies, whereas men are for meaningful relationships because women simply weren’t capable of being an equal of a man in their view. The reason why celibacy was so much more common amongst people is because while sex is not necessary they could have their fill of meaningful relationships which sates the heart and mind. When man is devoid of joy he tries to fill it with vice, he wants to feel alive. Take a guess what happens when the only thing available is boys… So you see in the process of trying to get rid of friendships in seminary to reduce the chance of homosexual relationships they created something worse (we can agree that the molestation of children is far worse right?).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, John21652,

Excelllent post

God bless

As luck would have it Sair, I ran a commercial farm for many years. I have a certificate as an A.I technician and I have had plenty of practice. If shoving a catheter into a cows vagina is bestiality, then all vets are into bestiality! The difference between A.I. and veterinarians and those who practice bestiality is that only the latter are sexually aroused at the time and only they seem to think swapping bodily fluids with an animal is OK. The rest of us wear gloves from finger tip to shoulder! When A.I is carried out, same species semen is introduced into the animal. Now compare that with bestiality. I would have thought that most primary school children would be able to percieve the difference.

Kinsey has long been discredited. Notwithstanding, frustration over a lack of sex partners has, in most instances, caused one human population to wage a raid on another human population. In other words, that frustration leads normal people to try harder. Trying harder does not mean shagging the neighbours cow.

What you call child abuse is labelled as child love by those who think your moral stance on this issue is wrong.
Bestiality is wrong not because of what you, personally think, but because it is objectively wrong. After all, if you stick to your morally relativistic logic, your opinion about the wrongness of bestiality is worth no more than the opinion of the man who loves to have it off with his dog.

Your moral reasoning is not consistent. The above paragraph shows that. You espouse one form of behaviour that is clearly outside the norm of human behaviour, yet you condemn another just because you don’t like it. Yet, the two are linked because they are both outside the norm of human behaviour and are thus properly described as disordered and dysfunctional. You wont allow yourself to see the link because to do so would shoot down in flames your moral reasoning. Even Singer has the intellectual courage to see and accept the absurdity of his moral reasoning. Why don’t you?

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

It occurred to me in reading the above posts that a pantheist is a truly slippery opponent when arguing morality. One of the joys of Catholicism is that we are able to clearly distinguish between creation and the Creator, which enables us (down the road a bit) to distinguish between things that are immoral, moral, and ammoral. It is this last category that the pantheist can play free and loose with, for if God IS nature then everything is a moral issue. Taken to the nth degree this would eventually drive a person insane, so we cut the pantheist slack and let him treat some things as ammoral. Like John I also worked on a farm where we inseminated our cows. They didn’t seem to mind, and since we bought the best sperm and did not use hormones we had a number of prize winners. I almost busted a gut to hear this called bestiality!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sair,

Old Nick Copernicus’ heliocentric work would qualify as ‘…well out of copyright…’ (1543) but, it is not the less accurate and valuable. Notice, it has not been replaced… the sun is still the center of our universe.

Now, your first ‘reference’ peacefulsocieties.org/ had nothing to do with minimizing the accomplishment of pre-literate societies… and your second 'reference’http://www.sexatdawn.com/ … is a book review. While the comments of the review look like you may have some support to your position endorsing sodomy - you should at least read it and not simply go by the reviewer’s opinion. Truly, this is sad if you had hoped to actually advance your position. But, let’s not stop at this … we can go on…

here is a link that essentially refutes every statement you have previously made about human nature: emotionalcompetency.com/human%20nature.htm I suggest you spend some time reading it.

Now, concerning the Bible as a legitimate reference, its historical accuracy has been proven on many (ah, but not all) points. This does not mean that they have been DIS-proven, merely not YET proven. And, at the risk of sounding obvious, my guess is that if the Word of God had not condemned sodomy from Genesis on - you probably could care less as to what else it said … but, that is just a guess based on my reading of your posts.

We know what murder is by applying the definition to a specific act. Your apparent confusion on this is curious. For example, here is a straight forward definition: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder - and most people can apply it to a particular case.

Burning of witches … as murder… oh, we do thrash around for astounding questions…?
To be honest, I had not given it any thought prior to your question - and, the only series of cases that have any real documentation (that I know of ) are the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 ( law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SALEM.HTM)

After reviewing this and a couple of other links, I would classify this as a miscariage of justice - but, not murder. There was a trial, there was an apparent honest attempt on the part of the judges to arrive at a just verdict based on the evidence presented. The people who were executed were not killed with malice aforethought. Now, if you have another view - based on references (you can follow my example if you like) then I will be happy to consider your view.

Now, if you present that I am biased towards, “…Christianized Western Civilization…” you will need present your unbiased view on non-Christianized, non-Western Civilization - and yes, references are needed here, too. Since you selected ‘murder’ as something to work with, why not see how this act is treated in other societies. For example, in ancient China (dating to at least 200 BC) most crimes were punished harshly and capital punishment was the most severe (torture and then execution) here is a link: duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-367/Crime-and-Punishment-in-Ancient-China.aspx

Actually, if you really want lessons from me, then go back and you will find other links as references. Study this one as still another example. There is no evasion here. Now, try and follow suit.

God bless

Given that your references are well out of copyright, aren’t you the one who should be fatigued? I have posted links on other threads, but since you ask, I’ll be accommodating here as well.

Firstly, you’ll find sources for my comments here and here. Secondly, you missed the point that ancient civilisations are not the basis of such questioning of human behavioural ‘norms’ - we’re talking about the comparison of civilised and pre-civilised human societies.

Where’s your reference with regard to personal property, then? Isn’t this just an assumption based on your own social conditioning?

Why does anyone need to be sponsoring my agenda? I don’t subscribe to any church. You are assuming the value of Biblical sources without analysing them in reference to their historical situation. Where’s your reference and justification for the universal application of biblical scripture?

Sure, we can agree that murder is wrong, by virtue of the definition of murder - what we can’t seem to agree on is what constitutes murder and what constitutes lawful killing. Was the burning of witches objectively good, in your view?

Yet you assume the universality of the norms of Christianised Western culture! You might not explicitly state it in those terms, but it’s painfully clear that this is your base assumption. You take no account of alternative approaches.

My apologies - it seemed so appropriate to your position, I couldn’t resist. Having said that, it’s rather interesting that you choose to focus on my lack of source material when you’ve provided none other yourself than the Bible and your subjective opinion. Clearly I need lessons from you in point evasion!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moontown-Rabbit,

Maybe.

But, I would not characterize all pantheists by the arguments presented by our current poster. Seriously, his lack of references, obvious over-generalizations, lack of a consistent position (except that sodomy is acceptable as another form of human expression) appear to me as a simply lack the discipline to present a reasoned argument. When confronted, he simply throws out meaningless questions to derail the process of demonstrating his errors.

Now, I certainly agree with your other statements.

God bless

It occurred to me in reading the above posts that a pantheist is a truly slippery opponent when arguing morality. One of the joys of Catholicism is that we are able to clearly distinguish between creation and the Creator, which enables us (down the road a bit) to distinguish between things that are immoral, moral, and ammoral. It is this last category that the pantheist can play free and loose with, for if God IS nature then everything is a moral issue. Taken to the nth degree this would eventually drive a person insane, so we cut the pantheist slack and let him treat some things as ammoral. Like John I also worked on a farm where we inseminated our cows. They didn’t seem to mind, and since we bought the best sperm and did not use hormones we had a number of prize winners. I almost busted a gut to hear this called bestiality!

 

[tonyrey]

It occurred to me in reading the above posts that a pantheist is a truly slippery opponent when arguing morality. One of the joys of Catholicism is that we are able to clearly distinguish between creation and the Creator, which enables us (down the road a bit) to distinguish between things that are immoral, moral, and amoral.** It is this last category that the pantheist can play free and loose with, for if God IS nature then everything is a moral issue.** Taken to the nth degree this would eventually drive a person insane, so we cut the pantheist slack and let him treat some things as ammoral. Like John I also worked on a farm where we inseminated our cows. They didn’t seem to mind, and since we bought the best sperm and did not use hormones we had a number of prize winners. I almost busted a gut to hear this called bestiality!

That is the logical interpretation but it seems that the naturalistic pantheist can have it both ways!

 

[John21652]

It occurred to me in reading the above posts that a pantheist is a truly slippery opponent when arguing morality. One of the joys of Catholicism is that we are able to clearly distinguish between creation and the Creator, which enables us (down the road a bit) to distinguish between things that are immoral, moral, and ammoral. It is this last category that the pantheist can play free and loose with, for if God IS nature then everything is a moral issue. Taken to the nth degree this would eventually drive a person insane, so we cut the pantheist slack and let him treat some things as ammoral. Like John I also worked on a farm where we inseminated our cows. They didn’t seem to mind, and since we bought the best sperm and did not use hormones we had a number of prize winners.** I almost busted a gut to hear this called bestiality!**

And I bet, that like me, you have also had to shove your arm deep into a cow’s vaginal passage to reposition a calf so it could be born naturally, the whole time the cow’s contractions almost breaking your arm and now we hear that penetrating a cow for economic reasons is a part of bestiality!! I don’t know whether to :banghead:, or to

 

[tonyrey]

t occurred to me in reading the above posts that a pantheist is a truly slippery opponent when arguing morality. One of the joys of Catholicism is that we are able to clearly distinguish between creation and the Creator, which enables us (down the road a bit) to distinguish between things that are immoral, moral, and ammoral. It is this last category that the pantheist can play free and loose with, for if God IS nature then everything is a moral issue. Taken to the nth degree this would eventually drive a person insane, so we cut the pantheist slack and let him treat some things as ammoral. Like John I also worked on a farm where we inseminated our cows. They didn’t seem to mind, and since we bought the best sperm and did not use hormones we had a number of prize winners.** I almost busted a gut to hear this called bestiality!**

It’s fascinating and illuminating to hear the facts straight from the horse’s mouth! Or should I say the cow’s aperture?

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

And I bet, that like me, you have also had to shove your arm deep into a cow’s vaginal passage to reposition a calf so it could be born naturally

I never went that far, but I have to say there is nothing like seeing a newborn calf jumping around in the hay on a winter’s night!

 

[John21652]

Yet the activities are objectively the same - sexual penetration of a non-human animal by a human. Aren’t you into objective facts? I mean, why not let natural instincts take their course, instead of interfering for economic motives? Or maybe it’s just that you think the human benefits justify the indignity imposed on the animals involved. At least vets consider the interests of the animal. Hey, I’ve even poked a thermometer up my dog’s rectum on several occasions, but only to make sure he wasn’t developing a fever.

Your retorts are now bordering on the rediculous. You seem to be able to equate an animal husbandry practice with bestiality, but rest assured, the equation probably only makes sense in your own head.

Oh, okay - so, in your view, violent raiding and assault of other humans is morally better than bestiality?

Sair, just to refresh your memory, you wrote "…have you also considered the very likely possibility that most acts of bestiality, such as the ones documented by Kinsey, were probably the result of severe frustration in the face of a lack of available human partners?.." My response indicated to to that humans generally do not resort to abnormal things like bestiality and homosexuality to solve the problem of a lack orf sexual partners. Most individuals and tribes and nations go forth to seek breeding partners and not simply accept they might have to resort to using the dog, the cat, or the nearest available human anus. For you to stretch my response to suggest that I think raiding and assaulting other humans is morally better than bestiality is to falsify a conclusion. However, human history would suggest that anything is morally better than bestiality, which is a disordered human action, is outside the noramative behaviour associated with procreation and nothing better than a very disordered hedonism.

Interesting. Most Catholics consider abuse of humans to be worse than abuse of other animals.

If you were any student of history, you’d know that those tribes, nations and empires that went on raids to obtain the sexual partners you made the subject of your post, were not Catholic. Catholics also do not refer to humans as “…other animals…” It is utilitarians like Singer who give human status to animals. Catholics think humans have muchgreater dignity. They generally do, until, that is, they begin to behave like animals.

Sure it is. I think they are misguided, probably because they have let their desires override their intellect and judgement. Children cannot give informed consent to sexual intimacy with an adult. Neither can nonhuman animals. Thus far, the situations are the same.

Consent does not make an action normal. It only makes both parties guilty of engaging in a disordered act.

On what grounds do you regard it as ‘objectively’ wrong? Isn’t that just because you, personally, feel a subjective disgust for sexual intimacy with a ‘lower’ animal? I have given my explanation for why I believe bestiality to be wrong - it just so happens that my reasons don’t countenance your equally subjective disgust for homosexuality, so you simply decide, arbitrarily, that both are ‘objectively’ wrong.

I still think you have missed the meaning of “objective”. You need to go back a few posts and read what others have posted on the subject. Begin with gravity as an objective thing and maybe, just maybe, you will eventually get it. In the meantime, stop re-writing that the objective analysis of homosexuality is the subjective beleif of another. You are beginning to make yourself look rather foolish. Your explanation for why bestailaity is nothing more than that - your own beleif. Yet when the objective analysis for disordered sex acts demonstrates that bestiality and homosexuality are both wrong, your intellectual cowardice wont allow you to make the common connection.

In my ‘relativistic’ view, the man who loves to have it off with his dog is no better than the man who loves to have it off with his five-year-old niece.

And when you eventually find the courage to admit it, you will need to add in that the man who likes to shove his penis up another man’s rectum is also no better. When you do, without a shadow of doubt, the objectivity of that moral judgement will click with you.

In what respect is homosexuality outside “the” norm of human behaviour? What are the parameters of this alleged norm?

Those parameters were discussed clearly in previous posts. Aren’t you following?

I think you’ll find that any absurdity Peter Singer finds is in the attempted moral reasoning of others who ascribe arbitrary boundaries - like your ‘norms’ - to their judgements.

I never said Singer “saw” any absurdity. I said Singer had the intellectual courage to follow his thinking to the very end, even when it resulted in an absurdity, which is, sex with animals is OK.

I don’t see a link between homosexuality and bestiality because there simply isn’t one. You have to force a link through your blinkered moralising.

You can’t see the link because you are blinkered. Even Singer acknowledged the logical link. He had to, despite the obvious and odious conclusions, to retain his intellectual and philosophical consistency.

The link is that both homosexuality and bestiality, as well as paedophilia, are disordered use of the human sex drive, which is normatively directed towards procreation and the perpetuation of the species.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I still think you have missed the meaning of “objective”. You need to go back a few posts and read what others have posted on the subject. Begin with gravity as an objective thing and maybe, just maybe, you will eventually get it. In the meantime, stop re-writing that the objective analysis of homosexuality is the subjective beleif of another. You are beginning to make yourself look rather foolish. Your explanation for why bestailaity is nothing more than that - your own beleif. Yet when the objective analysis for disordered sex acts demonstrates that bestiality and homosexuality are both wrong, your intellectual cowardice wont allow you to make the common connection.

The link is that both homosexuality and bestiality, as well as paedophilia, are disordered use of the human sex drive, which is normatively directed towards procreation and the perpetuation of the species.

While the above is true, I will argue that these connections are apprehended at an even more basic, more elemental, more nonverbal level than the intellectual classifications resulting in logical analysis. They all relate back to the instincts and gut reactions of the essentially heatlhy human being, even one not yet completely formed intellectually.

Long before the tragically necessary (and often elaborate) instruction many adults feel necessary to give children today, regarding “inappropriate touching” of them by adults, children of even recent eras have always been made uneasy by any sexual invasion of their persons – by siblings, by adults. Ditto for other inappropriate categories of intimacy, such as eroticism between members of the same sex. Long before people received any direct information about homosexuality (had any prior awarness of it), or incest, there was an immediate revulsion when encountering the prospect of a violation of natural boundaries. There are boundaries which are simply primordial, and that’s why the Church translates the human person’s instinctive apprehension of boundaries as relating to ordered vs. disordered behavior. The Church does not create those elemental categories, but acknowledges and explains what the ensouled body “knows.”

Honoring healthy, natural boundaries transcends intellect and culture. When man dishonors radical biological bonds and biological separations, morbid dangers, psychologically and spiritually, ensue. Homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, fratricide, patricide may appear to be different categories, with different clinical causations, but what they all have in common is the disintegration of biological order and the invitation to spiritual morbidity.

 

[RobbyS]

So it’s the consciousness of violation that makes it violation? Do you think raping comatose humans is okay now? Interesting.

Th ewe is quite conscious of the action, but probably does care much beyond disliking the sensation. That is quite a segue to the comotose human. The act is despicable even if done to a corpse.

 

[RobbyS]

While the above is true, I will argue that these connections are apprehended at an even more basic, more elemental, more nonverbal level than the intellectual classifications resulting in logical analysis. They all relate back to the instincts and gut reactions of the essentially heatlhy human being, even one not yet completely formed intellectually.

Long before the tragically necessary (and often elaborate) instruction many adults feel necessary to give children today, regarding “inappropriate touching” of them by adults, children of even recent eras have always been made uneasy by any sexual invasion of their persons – by siblings, by adults. Ditto for other inappropriate categories of intimacy, such as eroticism between members of the same sex. Long before people received any direct information about homosexuality (had any prior awarness of it), or incest, there was an immediate revulsion when encountering the prospect of a violation of natural boundaries. There are boundaries which are simply primordial, and that’s why the Church translates the human person’s instinctive apprehension of boundaries as relating to ordered vs. disordered behavior. The Church does not create those elemental categories, but acknowledges and explains what the ensouled body “knows.”

Honoring healthy, natural boundaries transcends intellect and culture. When man dishonors radical biological bonds and biological separations, morbid dangers, psychologically and spiritually, ensue. Homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, fratricide, patricide may appear to be different categories, with different clinical causations, but what they all have in common is the disintegration of biological order and the invitation to spiritual morbidity.

Boils down to a difference of anthropologies, doesn’t it?

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

…what they all have in common is the disintegration of biological order and the invitation to spiritual morbidity.

Excellent post. What I find alarming about recent developments in the West is that the biological order of which you speak can be so easily perverted by ideology; in other words, the pen often seems stronger than nature. The most obvious example is abortion. Here and there in history we find cultures that kill their own children but it is safe to say that in the West such behaviour was always criminal. In less than 100 years we have gone from near global adherence to abortion law to near global abandonment of it. The only Western country that still has a total ban on abortion is Malta. I could mention other things such as women participating in front line combat but I don’t want to open too many worm cans. Recently in my province the government tried to introduce homosexuality “education” to grade one students (i.e. teaching six year olds that two daddies is normal). They had to back off when the public outcry became too strident, but they are just biding their time. The people in power have no respect for the biological order you so ably defended, and as Robby mentioned all they have to do is change the anthropology and behaviour will follow.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

snip
And when you eventually find the courage to admit it, you will need to add in that the man who likes to shove his penis up another man’s rectum is also no better. When you do, without a shadow of doubt, the objectivity of that moral judgement will click with you.
snip

And you will need to admit that the man who likes to shove his penis up his wife’s rectum is also better

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moontown-Rabbit,

Yes, the pen can do wonderous things - and convincing others of the validity of certain behaviors is one of them.

I think what we have is a need for more well written Catholoic Apologetics that directly confront the sin of homosexual behavior. There are simply too many people who have fallen for the trap laid by the Devil claiming that hating the disordered behavior is the same as discrimination against the person. This is just pure deceit.

God bless

Excellent post. What I find alarming about recent developments in the West is that the biological order of which you speak can be so easily perverted by ideology; in other words, the pen often seems stronger than nature. The most obvious example is abortion. Here and there in history we find cultures that kill their own children but it is safe to say that in the West such behaviour was always criminal. In less than 100 years we have gone from near global adherence to abortion law to near global abandonment of it. The only Western country that still has a total ban on abortion is Malta. I could mention other things such as women participating in front line combat but I don’t want to open too many worm cans. Recently in my province the government tried to introduce homosexuality “education” to grade one students (i.e. teaching six year olds that two daddies is normal). They had to back off when the public outcry became too strident, but they are just biding their time. The people in power have no respect for the biological order you so ably defended, and as Robby mentioned all they have to do is change the anthropology and behaviour will follow.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dakota,

Please stop rationalizing!

The behavior you have just described is also objectively disordered - because it can not lead to procreation. And, that is why it is also wrong.

God bless

And you will need to admit that the man who likes to shove his penis up his wife’s rectum is also better