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.
Real reporters don’t lie. Reporters report. We don’t have reporters these days. What we have are journalists. Journalists as nothing but little 12 year old girls who write flowery fictitious entries in their diaries.
HOMOSEXUAL, because there’s nothing GAY about it.
THANK YOU! What is the Liberal obsession with bastardizing language? They either try to redefine existing words (sex) to come up with new terms to describe something that’s already defined otherwise (sodomy).
Actually, “gay” is a lot more descriptive than you might think. If you look up the dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster), one of the definitions of “gay” is “licentious.” “Licentious” means “lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints.” That dictionary definition describes them pretty accurately.
They use “gay” as a double entendre, so people misunderstand and think they mean the usual definition of “happy and excited; cheerful and lively.” They’re none of those things.
Under that definition, when Slick Willy said “I did not have sex with that woman” he was telling the truth.
Very well put.
The best that homos can claim to achieve is mutual masturbation.
thanx
This makes no sense. If it did BJ Clinton really did not have sex with that woman.
“Genital Abuse” ?
They even “sneak” the concept in children’s books. Worm vs Worm is one that featured tow homo worms getting married. There was another about a back pack where one of the kids had two moms.
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.