Not so queer, after all…

Homosexuality is, by definition, love of one’s sameness-in-sex. It is, in other words, love of one’s self-in-sex. Homosexuality is, therefore, onanism by a longer name. It is the quintessence of the contraceptive (i.e. sterile) mentality. As such, it is not simply immoral; it is an aesthetic outrage, and therefore it is the pageant of our grotesque age.

Heterosexual pairs may naturally conform to each other over time, but the “love of same” inherent in homosexuality tries to vault that entire process and go for the gratification of inherently sterile love. Trapped in a phenomenological echo chamber. The “stereoscopic” effect of homosexuality is yet another sign of its artificiality (i.e. contra-naturality).

With credit, I owe the seed of these ideas to Douglas Wilson, that stalwart Midwestern Calvinist. A key point in his essay is that “gay love” is the least queer thing there is. What’s really queer (odd) is two individuals crossing the sexual divide to love each other and raise children.

“At its root, homosexuality is a love of sameness rather than difference. Jehovah teaches us to love difference, and in this fallen world obsessed with finding ways to deface God, homosexuality rejects difference in order to spite God. … Homosexuals say they are “queer” as a point of pride, while outsiders use it as a taunt or insult. But they both agree that homosexuality is in fact queer. But our charge against those who promote this sin is that they promote a dull and monotonous love of sameness, and the last thing we may call this is queer.… A resentment of true difference and dogmatic insistence upon sameness is the sine qua non of homosexuality. However desperate the attempts, this tenacious loyalty to sameness cannot be obscured or hidden by odd mannerisms, paper hats, grease paint, outlandish outfits, and Mardi Gras style parties. Under all the odd and outlandish clothing, when the couple have disrobed, everything is the same and not queer at all. What God did at the beginning is truly queer—male and female created He them. So just as we avoid calling them gay when they are miserable, so we avoid calling them queer when queer is precisely what they are refusing to be. 

Along similar lines, here is what Germain Grisez has to say on the subject:

“[A]lthough it is true that partners in sodomy also could conceivably share in a committed relationship with sincere mutual affection and express their feelings in ways that would be appropriate in any friendship, the coupling of two bodies of the same sex cannot form one complete organism and so cannot contribute to a bodily communion of persons. Hence, the experience of intimacy of the partners in sodomy cannot be the experience of any real unity between them. Rather, each one’s experience of intimacy is private and incommunicable, and is no more a common good than is the mere experience of sexual arousal and orgasm. Therefore, the choice to engage in sodomy for the sake of that experience of intimacy in no way contributes to the partners’ real common good as committed friends.

Someone who admits that sodomy necessarily lacks the unitive significance of heterosexual intercourse which makes a couple a single reproductive principle might nevertheless suggest that a couple can choose such sodomitic intercourse as a way of communicating good will and affection. However, just as with fornicators, sexual intercourse is not chosen by sodomites in preference to conversation and mutually beneficial acts because it is the more expressive means of communicating good will and affection. Rather, it is chosen because it provides subjective satisfactions otherwise unavailable. Consequently, while sodomites may not choose, as fornicators do, an illusory good instead of a real one, they do choose to use their own and each other’s bodies to provide subjective satisfactions, and thus they choose self-disintegrity as masturbators do. Of course, while masturbators can be interested exclusively in the experience of sexual arousal and orgasm, sodomites also are interested in the illusion of intimacy.” (From The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. 2)

“thus they choose self-disintegrity as masturbators do” + “the illusion of intimacy”

As messed up as the film Brokeback Mountain was, one thing it got totally right is the destructive blindness of gay-ety. That scene where the one guy turns his wife around to take her from behind, and eo ipso not have to FACE her (face), really captured it all, even if unwillingly. The sodomitic posture is literally one in which one’s OWN body-self is projected one plane forward, faceless and a sheer sensual device.

About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Not so queer, after all…

  1. L. Wayne Camp says:

    Just stupid.

    Sent by L. Wayne Camp through my iPhone


  2. Tamsin says:

    “the least queer thing there is” yup

    Getting along with someone of the opposite sex, sexually or otherwise, is hard work over time. But it has to be made to work over long periods of time, for the sake of new humans. Who keep showing up. 🙂 And so we are the cult of the Holy Family… [Latin cultus, cultivation, a laboring, worship, from the past participle of colere, to CULTIVATE, improvepreparegrowtendpromotenurturefosterformrefine].

    What do gays cultivate? The use of their own and each other’s bodies to provide subjective satisfactions.

    I surely wish we could demote sodomy to the deadly sin of Lust, or Gluttony? and cure it as such, but it never stays there; it always promotes itself to Pride, and must be cured as such.

  3. Pingback: Understanding the cold sterility of perverse, “same-sex” relations | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s