One of my spiders in the jar

…demanded, in high dudgeon, to know why I consider homosex “unnatural”. Another was greatly upset that I use a term like “homosex” to describe the unnatural act performed by active homosexuals (apparently being unaware that other, more descriptive language is even less pleasant). Still others insist, of course, that if you offer anything less than enthusiastic approval for, well, acts that no normal person wants to describe or visualize, then the problem is with you, not with the act.

To all of these people, I offer this (not for the weak of stomach). As with perpetual makers of fine distinctions in the matter of torture, homosex advocates who remain eternally puzzled about what O what “unnatural” means are, I submit, sophists full of crap. Indeed, as Dan Savage’s cruel and self-hating coinage of the term “santorum” makes clear they are often literally full of crap.

There’s a reason St. Paul said of wilful advocates of sin that “their glory is their shame”.

  • ds

    If you don’t support gay marriage, Obama will allow gay dudes to come to your house and pee on you.

    • Mark Shea

      If I had said anything about gay “marriage” you’d have made a devastating point instead of a stupid irrelevancy.

      • ds

        Devastating point: “santorum” was a funny takedown of a pompous baffoon.
        Stupid irrelevancy: Mark Shea ok with gay men coming to his house to pee on him.

        • Mark Shea

          No. Naming what you do after his worst enemy was a curiously telling admission by Savage that what homosexual men do is disgusting. It’s not the first self-hating thing Savage has done, like calling kids he bullies “pansy-assed”.

          Your attempt to laugh off these behaviors is not working. Sorry to break it to you.

          • ds

            It was a way to humiliate a man who said disgusting things about gays. And it wasn’t a telling admission that something gays do is disgusting, point was that Santorum would find santorum disgusting.

            • Mark Shea

              Riiiiiight. It was also, by the way, a way to humiliate all his children and everybody else who happens to have that name. But nooooooo, it’s not an unwitting confession that homosex results in anything disgusting or anything.

              Yeah. sure.

              • ds

                And nothing ever, ever the least bit objectionable comes out of married heterosexual’s bodies when they have intercourse. Riiiiiight.

                • Mark Shea

                  And so we come to the place where the “all sexual expression is beautiful” rhetoric gives way to the scorched earth “all sex is disgusting” fallback position. No. Coital Sex within heterosexual marriage is deeply beautiful and not disgusting at all. Anal sex (whether masturbatory between man and wife or between man and man) is disgusting.

                  It would really just be easier if you acknowledged that Savage’s rhetoric is amazingly hypocritical.

                  • ds

                    Savage is often wrong. So are you. Savage is also right a lot of the time, and has done a lot to try to help people. Same with you. You just don’t like gays unless they view their own sexuality as something they have to keep tucked away, not celebrated and enjoyed. Beyond that you two are way more alike than you think, including the black humor and snarky comments.

                    Savage is largely invulnerable to criticism because if you take exception you’re just a homophobe. You are largely invulnerable to criticism because everything that isn’t completely in line with the catholic church (oh and you, coincidentally!) is just STOOPID. Neither of you has ever directly said that, but you both sure write that way.

                    Go read Savage’s book about adopting his son (I think it’s called “The Kid”). It’s a quick read, it’s funny, it’s touching. It helped me come to terms with adoption after infertility (within my completely catholic non-contracepting-sex marriage). Seriously, read it. I know it won’t change any of your views on sexual morality, but it will help you see that Savage has a good heart and is maybe more like you than you’d like to believe.

                    Your continuous portrayal of one bad speech as Savage’s entire character is dishonest and uncharitable.

                    And the Santorum thing was some funny shit man. Think all you want that it’s some admission that gays can be disgusting, but it would really just be easier if you acknowledged that it was a clever takedown of a blowhard.

                    • Ted Seeber

                      Everything gays say in their own defense, just makes me more disgusted with the entire subculture.

                    • Meredith

                      “And the Santorum thing was some funny shit man.”

                      Shit, yeah, funny, no. Saying, “Santorum means poo!” is not exactly cutting satire, even if you get the rest of your internet tribe on board with it.

            • Ted Seeber

              Gays say disgusting things about themselves all the time.

  • http://www.chesterton.org Sean P. Dailey

    Yeah, gay pride parades and other events, like the aptly named Black Party (Thanks. Rod Dreher, for doin’ the recon on that, so the rest of us don’t have to): and folks still have the temerity to insist that gay “marriage” poses no threat to actual marriage.

    • ds

      YOU want to be gay married….to CHESTERTON! HAW HAW!!

  • Kelley

    I wouldn’t say I was “greatly upset” by your use of the term because I’m pretty used to you using it, rather I was saying it’s a derogatory slang term and distracts from your message. I’m extremely aware of descriptive language you could use that is “worse”, but does that make your use of this word appropriate? This has nothing to do with the belief of it being natural or not.
    So in response you post a link to an article about gay pride? How is that relevant to the discussion since I wasn’t even debating the act or the teaching? It seems to me that it was just an attempt to demonize and shame gay people even more. Maybe that helps to justify using derogatory terms… I don’t know.
    A little while ago you asked Catholics that are queer/gay/whatever term you prefer, to share their experience with you. I appreciated you doing that because it was creating an opportunity for a productive dialogue. This was not to debate the teaching, rather to share what their experience is like. My intent in commenting on your use of the term “homosex” is that since it is viewed as derogatory it is distracting from your message and limiting the opportunity for productive dialogue. I’m sure it works just fine for ‘preaching to the choir’, but is that your only goal for writing about this stuff? I guess I would be considered part of the ‘choir’ since I’m a devout Catholic that accepts the teachings, and yet I still find your use of that term off putting.

  • Scott W.

    Simply declaring “homosex” to be derogatory, doesn’t make it so. All this establishes is that you don’t like it. Well, sorry, but complaining about it is as non-conducive to dialog is red herring–it’s about controlling the language. And since homosex is direct, people aren’t going to like it in the same way pro-abortionists don’t like accurate descriptions of what actually goes on. As John C. Wright noted, Politcal Correctness is worse than lying because it is an attempt to cajole people into lying to themselves.

  • bob

    The term is very reasonable, here’s why. Actual reproductive behavior takes place between a male and a female organism. Same species and everything. When something *vaguely resembles* it but is not in fact it needs specific terminology for clarification. Two men or two women do not “have sex”. Neither, incidentally is it when my female dog romances my leg. Homosex is a subspecies of “sexual behavior”. And by the way, all sex on earth is fallen. The real kind as well as the pretend kind. There isn’t a way to redeem the pretend kind.

  • Laura Kazlas

    I read somewhere that homosexual acts are not found in the animal world. Is that true? I’m totally ignorant about this type of thing.

    • Mark Shea

      Not true.

    • Scott W.

      Read this: http://narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

      Long and short of it: Natural law doesn’t mean that if we can find an example of a certain behavior in the animal kingdom, then it is natural. Otherwise, lopping the head of your partner after mating and eating it would be morally acceptable.