Posted on 09/07/2016 5:10:29 AM PDT by Petrosius
September 6, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Some of the phrases that I can’t stand writing as a pro-family reporter are “men having sex with men (MSM)” or “gay sexual relationship" or “gay sex.” And I’ll tell you why.
It’s obvious on a purely biological level that two males or two females are utterly incompatible with one another when it comes to sex. The parts simply don’t fit together. Nuts and bolts go together. Radio waves and antennas go together. Heat and light go together. But two males or two females … nope, it ain’t happening. Ever. Any high school kid taking a biology course can tell you this. And I can’t stand writing phrases that suggest, even a little bit, that somehow the parts of same-sex couples do go together, because it’s a total lie. And reporters hate lies.
Well, the other day I was listening to Cardinal Raymond Burke give a presentation in which he showed how acceptance of contraception led to people justifying all kinds of sexual activity as supposedly an expression of love.
Then he mentioned how “genital activity between two persons of the same sex” is an example of where the road leads if sex is emptied of its procreative potential.
Bingo, I thought, here’s just the expression to describe what goes on between two people of the same sex when they engage in their activities.
They do not have sex together (biologically impossible); no, they engage in “genital activity,” which is really mutual masturbation more than anything else since the organs are frustrated in achieving the purpose for which they were designed (creation of a new life) in lacking complementarity.
Kudos to the cardinal for giving me a better way of accurately describing activity between two persons of the same sex.
The fundamental point is that the conjugal act is by its very nature procreative. It doesn’t mean that every time the conjugal act takes place that there’s a conception of a child; no, of course, only if it happens to be during the time when the woman is ready to conceive. But it does mean that in every conjugal act there is this openness to human life and a desire for it, and great love for the crown of marriage, which is procreation.
Now, if you posit otherwise — which the contraceptive mentality does, they say, well, the conjugal act can be an act of love between a man and a woman while at the same time artificially, through some device or through some chemical, eliminating this essential aspect of it which is the potential of procreation — well then, the conjugal act is not integral and it’s not fully an act of love because one or both of the parties is withholding the total gift of himself or herself, and so the conjugal act becomes manipulated in some way contrary to its nature.
And then what happens in people’s thinking is they begin to justify all kinds of sexual activity as supposedly an expression of love even though it can’t be life-giving. For instance, genital activity between two persons of the same sex, or solitary acts. Now people begin to argue that these are all things that are good. Well, the sexual act belongs in marriage by its very nature, its whole. All we have to do is study the act itself to see that it’s meant to make a man and a woman who are joined in marriage as one flesh. And so we certainly do need to teach much more effectively and much more consistently the truth about the conjugal union, and the truth about contraception, especially in a society which in terms of sexual morals has gone completely insane.
Now, when you think about this whole gender theory and even the loss of fundamental modesty with regard to use of restrooms, the encouragement of young people to experiment with all kinds of sordid sexual activity, this is ultimately completely destructive. So we have to help people once again to respect themselves as a man or as a woman and respect themselves therefore in their sexual identity and where it finds its fullest expression, that is in the conjugal union, or for those who are called to renounce the good of marriage and to live a celibate or virginal life, that nevertheless is done with the fullest respect for the nature of the conjugal union.
Of course I also like the old word “sodomy.”
Had to stop reading right there. This person obviously lives in a different word from the one I find myself stuck in...
“Buggery” was the term used once.
Liberals play word games.
I LIKE it.
Thanx, Cardinal Burke.
I also never understood the word “gay” or gay sex either. From my experience they aren’t gay, they are usually mad as hell about something. Poop chuting is not what the word word means at all.
:: the conjugal act is not integral and it’s not fully an act of love because one or both of the parties is withholding the total gift of himself or herself ::
Exactly! We (USA) have devised so many ways to cover “sodomy” or “buggery” as a non-issue.
It really is focused on the self-gratification of one’s own genitals such that [trigger warning] “any ^warm hole^ will make me feel better about MYSELF.”
You might consider the term “arsenekoits”?
Arse being the European term for the gluteus-maximus.
Koit being the Greek term for, well, genital penetration [which includes sodomy].
I use this term interchangeably with what others call “gay sex”.
We should reference the McCullough tome regarding John Adams (one of my ancestors).
JA made profit from prosecuting cases of “buggery” in the colonial jurisdictions.
Do not use the word “gay” to describe homosexuality. That word was invented for the purpose by queers who use it to hide the reality. There is a catalog of pejoratives you can use, or the more clinical (but perfectly accurate) “homosexual.” But avoid the use of the lie that is “gay.”
EXACTLY. Stolen concept.
I would also avoid the use of the term “homosexual.” This purposely confuses those who merely have a same-sex attraction with those who engage in buggery (I like that term). The former deserve our sympathy and support while the latter deserve our condemnation. This distinction should also be applied to all calls to avoid discrimination; for the former yes, for the latter no.
HOMOSEXUALITY IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There is NOTHING I've encountered with the homosexual community in the last two weeks that can be identified with;
a more perfect union,
establishment of justice,
domestic tranquility,
common defense,
general welfare,
and most importantly
to
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Homosexuals cannot reproduce so they cannot be a perticipant in securing blessings because they produce no posterity
Because they cannot reproduce,
They are a culture of death, no different than islam.
They are selfish so they cannot be part of a general welfare,
They endeavor to disengage themselves so they cannot be a participant in domestic tranquility,
They seek no justice but rather special entreaty.
Homosexuality is unConstitutional and not American
They are aliens unwilling to assimulate to a pre-existing, well operating culture
They seek discord amongst the peaceful
Homosexuality is a death cult
WHAT did he say ?
Yep.
Homosexuality is partner-assisted masturbation.
The gay right people have gone full monty trying to make us forget about gay sex.
Remember, gay people are clever, snarky interior decorators, with great taste in clothes.
The whole anal sex, multiple sex partners, chasing young boys thing, uh, forget about that. Don’t even THINK about it.
ummmm, wrong post-response?
If only it were true.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.