“I am simply seeking to inspire mankind to all that was intended… So you’re handed this precious gift, right, each one of you granted redemption from the creator. Murderers and rapists and molesters, all of you, you just have to repent, and God takes you into his bosom. Psch . In all the worlds in all the universe no other creature can make such a boast, save man. It’s not fair. So if the sweet, sweet God loves you so, I will make you worthy of his love.” – Gabriel
Right so as we know, I cannot abide by homophobia. In all its forms. I recently had an argument with a Catholic priest regarding the Church’s stance on homosexual relations. Via facebook I might add, but it was rather hilarious. I was talking to my religious friend about the general fucked upedness of the homophobia of the church, and Mr X, let’s call him Jarvis after the protagonist in Stephen Law’s What’s wrong with gay sex? [from The Philosophy Gym] then got involved. The conversation was sparked thus:
Religious friend: Sexual gratification is a gift from God. So why can’t gays enjoy their “equipment” and not be guilty of some kind of “sin against nature”? …
To which Jarvis replied, “[Well] because nature implies the act is open to procreation.”
To which I was like … Wait, what? Of course nature implies the act of sex is open to procreation. It does not enforce it however: “Oh so you’re saying the act of intercourse MUST be open to procreation. But sometimes that isn’t physically possible, for example with homosexuals, ancient and infirm people, and similarly those who are infertle. And that IS implied by nature, rather than nature implying that sex MUST allow openness for procreation.”
He then replied “[Oh] I’m not saying it the Church is.” [Cadbury flake anyone?]
Of course, for a Catholic Priest (and I had no idea he was at the time, only in further investigation today did I realise this) whether you [you being the catholic priest in question] or the Church says it is by-the-bye; they amount to the same thing. What Jarvis did however was proceed in the vein of the ‘intrinsically disordered’ nature of homosexual sex. Rolls eyes.
I am getting sick to fuck with this whole idea that sex is ‘intrinsically disordered’ and ‘unnatural’. “It can never be naturally procreative,” Jarvis said. What Jarvis is presuming, as he does in the Stephen Law chapter, is that he knows what ‘natural’ is and knows the intention of nature [if that even makes sense]. He thinks that homosexual sex is an aberration from the norm. Of course, there are millions of things that people do that others do not – wearing glasses for instance . Having red hair . Getting one’s tongue pierced . Drawing maps of Hogwarts . Cooking exceptionally bad spaghetti cheese . Are they sinful? Do they cause some great evil? [Well in the case of the spaghetti cheese, yes]. Would one say that they are intrinsically disordered? You might say that they are ‘imperfect’, and yet – who among us is perfect? Certainly not Jarvis, it appears. He’s a fucking Catholic Priest!
In a similar way, our natural inclinations, for instance jumping in muddy puddles, punching people who piss us off (as I probably would to Jarvis, were I to meet him), and eating delicious delicious fatty treats, are possibly the worst things for us! So does he wish us to act ‘naturally’ or ‘unnaturally’, because by that logic, basic hygeine, respect for others boundaries and beliefs, and eating healthily are all intrinsically disordered, and are all unnatural.
And especially when it comes to something as wonderful and enthralling as sex! I argued that homosexual love brings about a much more rounded understanding and appreciation for what it is to be human. Just because not everyone does it in no way means that it is wrong [loadsa gays DON’T do it, and loadsa straight people DO! Similarly, what about masturbation? Oral sex? Rolls eyes. So sexophobic.]
Whatever happened to good old: “I love sex. I love everything about it: the sensations, the smells. I especially love the feel of a man. All that muscle and sinew pressed against my body. And then when you add friction. MMmmm . The tactile sensation of running my tongue over a man’s nipple ever so gently. And then there’s the act itself; two bodies becoming one in that final eruption of pleasure. To be honest, the only thing I don’t like about sex is the scrotum. I mean obviously it has its practical applications but I’m just not a fan .” – Bree Van de Kamp [i tried finding the clip, but failed :(] [Have the following instead ;)]:
Unfortunately, jokes about Bree Van de Kamp aside, Jarvis continued: “It is 100% disordered as it can not add to the order of creation as it can not be procreative. The RC Church does not teach that sex is just about procreation, it also teaches the mutual benefits. It is all in the caatechism if you care to look it up.”
I am not a Roman Catholic. I could not care less about the catechism. [Or could I..? Am I just lulling you into a false sense of security..?] I may have already mentioned infertile couples, old couples, couples who are just plain unlucky. If they cannot have children, then what you might say, is the point of them having sex? If the end of sex for homosexuals is not children, then why do it? As for the other goods of marriage, we all know that gays can fulfill these.
WELL THAT’S JUST SILLY. A if you’re going to overlook that particular rule with infertile couples and old couples, then why not with homosexuals? It appears that there is a prejudice here. Thankfully not everyone is a homosexual, so there’s no worry about mankind disappearing, and what about priests who enter lives of celibacy? I’m sure many of you would agree that’s hardly an immoral venture of life.
So – we can’t have children naturally. But we can have children. And that’s a hell of a lot better considering the amount of HETEROSEXUALS who have children and really ought not to! [Yes, I am talking about the people on Jeremy Kyle..] Similarly, societies where homosexuals are allowed to adopt are much more thriving societies than those in which homophobia is rampant. Look at the number of African countries where they still receive the death penalty. Who is that for? God? Somehow I think not. No – it comes down to the bare bones of the argument: hoe-moe-phoe-…BYA .
I made the very very good point of: “Times change, as do understandings. Over 200 species of non-human animal have been recorded partaking in homosexual activity. Homophobia on the other hand is recorded in only one ..”
And dear Jarvis responded: “Oh John, I’m sure you could have done better than the ‘homophobic’ card. I do not have an irrational fear of homosexuals, we just disagree about how that should be lived out. If you have come to the point of using that card, I guess your debate has run out of steam.”
My dear, dear sweet Jarvis: my argument has done nothing of the sort. Instead, what you have done is merely confirm the absolute reality of the situation: Homophobia isn’t merely the irrational fear of homosexuals [I mean come on, who is ACTUALLY afraid of a big ol’ mincer?!] But it is something much darker, much more wicked, and the evil lies in that Jarvis is thoroughly convinced that it is a right way of thinking. I will leave it with the following, taken directly from the Law chapter on gay sex:
“In fact, it seems to me that your attitude towards homosexuals is driven less by reason and more by emotion: by feelings of disgust and revulsion…
Jarvis: I do have strong feelings about them, yes. They do revolt me. And shouldn’t society take into account the strong moral convictions of the great many who have such feelings?
[…]But it’s clear, isn’t it, that morality isn’t simply a matter of emotion? Just because most people feel that something is disgusting or abhorrent doesn’t make it wrong. After all, plenty of people feel strongly about the moral inferiority of Jews. Plenty feel similarly about blacks. Plenty feel sickened by foreigners. Yet all these feelings are without justification. That kind of “them and us” sentiment on which “they” are held to be dirty, nasty and immoral comes very naturally to… humans. Perhaps you should be more vigilant, more on your guard against letting such feelings get a grip. As Ronald Dworkin points out, you certainly shouldn’t mistake such feelings for moral conviction. Isn’t that right, Ronald?
Another shadowy figure started to take form next to Jarvis and began to speak.
Dworkin: If I base my view about homosexuals on a personal emotional reaction (‘they make me sick’) you would reject [it]. We distinguish moral positions from emotional reactions, not because moral positions are supposed to be unemotional or dispassionate – quite the reverse is true – but because the moral position is supposed to justify the emotional reaction, and not vice versa. If a man is unable to produce such reasons, we do not deny the fact of his emotional involvement, which may have important social or political consequences, but we do not take this involvement as demonstrating his moral conviction. Indeed, it is just this sort of position – a severe emotional reaction to a practice or a situation for which one cannot account – that we tend to describe, in lay terms, as phobias or an obsession.
Jarvis looked uncomfortable.” …
So do not give me that crap about you not being homophobic. Thank God we don’t have guns in Anglia.
So finally, the gays are sent to Hell, along with the shellfish-eaters and mixed-fabric-wearers. I used to work with someone who was very much of the opinion that if you were a homosexual, why would you want to be part of something that actively condemns your way of life, and yet professes to at the same time love and support you. It’s like some sort of abusive parent, hitting their child but saying it’s for their own ‘good’. I find it deeply objectionable, but understand that many people need God in their lives. It is just sad that the Church, and the people in it, don’t realise this themselves.
But in all seriousness. “I’ve been watching you for a long time. It is only in the face of horror that you truly find your nobler selves [and you can be so noble]. So – I’ll bring you pain, and I’ll bring you horror, but so that you may rise above it… The road to salvation begins tonight. Right now.” – Gabriel, again. Taking over the world.
Ok if you must, have thisun as well 🙂