Duck Dynasty Dis

[KnightofChrist]

ok dude, you've convinced us you're straight and totally icked out by anyone talking, however indirectly, about gay sex (and I really didn't describe anything in detail... some of KofC's posts had some detail and I responded using some of those terms, saying that they amounted to that same kind of appeal-to-grossness and were inaccurate and misinformed, without even going into a detailed descriptive response myself...).  now just don't try to pass of your queasy feelings as some laudable aspect of opposition to homosexual sexual sins or some kind of credible argument against them, as opposition to those sins should be based on the affirmation of chastity and procreation and marriage.

 

I am not ignorant of your point of view, much as you would like to paint me otherwise, I am well aware of what you mean when you say sodomy can be made to be more hygienic. I just do not share your opinion that because it can be made more hygienic concludes we should condemn any argument against the act that is based on the uncleanness of the act.

 

There are steps, extraordinary steps compared to natural sex, that can be taken to make the act cleaner than the act would be if those steps were not taken.  But even after those steps are taken the act of sodomy still has a higher risk of causing disease and infection than natural sex. This is a reason why your zero-tolerance against warning people of the uncleanness of the act is troubling. It would give people a false sense of security if there was no way to warn them that even after they take steps to make the act hygienic that there is still a high risk of infection.  

 

There is also the problem that a percentage of persons, homosexual or heterosexual, who would commit the act without properly following the steps needed to make the otherwise physically unclean act more hygienic. This is another area where I believe your position of being completely against warning people about the uncleanness of the act is also dangerous. Not everyone that would commit the act will know how to take those steps or have the ability to take those steps. Poorer and/or less educated individuals for example or those in third world countries that do not easily have access to some of the things required to make the act more hygienic. These are the types of persons I worry about when you express your zero-tolerance against warning people of the uncleanness of the act. Because without taking the steps to make the act more hygienic it is indeed a very unclean and unsafe act. Those that do not for whatever reason have the abilty to make the act more hygienic than it would otherwise be would need to have some warning that the act is unclean. The next logical step then for some is to show these individuals how to make the otherwise unclean act more hygienic. Which very precarious and troublesome road for a Catholic to walk down. At which point does instruction on hygiene become a guide of how to commit the act of sodomy and misleading them to think that the practice is acceptable?

 

Also by your zero-tolerance argument against warning people of the uncleanness of the act, you seem to deny any correlation between the physical uncleanness of the act and the spiritual uncleanness of the act and the sin of the act. The physical uncleanness is part of the reason why it is sinful, not just because the act is a waste of the seeds of life.

 

While I'm sure this will cause more marginalizing and or mockery I would like to make an analogy. If today there existed a problem where some individuals used toilets, which have been used for at least 18 years to use the bathroom, as a place to consume food out of like a bowl or plate, and later go back and forth from using as a toilet and using it as a place to consume food, two individuals could both take similar arguments for or against it being a unclean action, as we have taken with sodomy. One could take a very similar position you have and argue that the toilet can be cleaned, and the action of eating from it would be hygienic and condemn any argument that would warn people it still may not be completely hygienic and may be still be unclean. Someone else could take a similar position I have and point out that not everyone will know or be able to clean the toilet properly enough to safely consume food from it, and that people should be warned that consuming food from the toilet is very likely unclean even if steps are made to make it hygienic. I doubt that in this regard people would so quickly and easily mock or insult the intelligence of the person or if you will their argument of warning people against consuming food in the same place they use the bathroom. I also doubt there would be much support for the person arguing that it can be hygienic, that no one should warn people that it could be unclean to consume food from a toilet, and anyone who does is tapping into ignorance and toiletphobia.
 

[Aloysius]

apparently I have a "zero tolerance policy" against "warning people of the uncleanness of the act".

 

 

while your logic about the hygiene of the practice might seem true from your armchair, it remains rather misinformed and inaccurate.  people simply need basic general hygiene available to them (bathing, showering, bathroom facilities), and there is no increased risk.  and if they don't have those basic hygienic practices, their risks of disease are crazily increased anyway, I doubt there's anything but a marginal increase in risk for people in those conditions if you factor in homosexual sex... it's just basic normal hygiene, not some extra complicated procedure.  doesn't mean it's not sin, just means we don't need to create inaccurate reasons for it to be so.  ultimately, I have no desire to be put in a position to defend homosexual sex, which I find morally objectionable, but your misinformed assertions, which basically any medical doctor would roll their eyes at and dismiss without bothering to respond (maybe they'd give you a pamphlet if they were feeling patient enough), can't really stand because they feed into a general attitude that rather than contributing to any kind of pursuit of holiness or purity (or improved health, for which your argument seems rather disingenuous but fine, take you at your word, you're concerned about people's health, but you are by no means an expert.  you've basically just made a whole bunch of assumptions and asserted them as fact, a couple steps away from saying you'll go blind and hair will grow on your palms), does nothing but fuel ignorant attitudes and help to further marginalize actual Catholic sexual moral teaching.

 

and again, I am much more concerned with arguing against arguments from an appeal-to-grossness (or "vileness") because of their connection to the motivations of those who bully and hate.  I cannot be okay with a line between myself and bullies that in any way affirms their illogical hatred as being in any way validated--I have a moral theology based upon Catholic ideals about chastity, marriage, and family... they have an emotional revulsion based upon some puritanical and homophobic cultural conditioning (which is not in any way natural as it only arises in particular cultural contexts)

 

it's good that you recognize that your toilet analogy would inspire mock and ridicule, I will attempt to restrain myself but it is certainly a further example of Poe's Law... you are satirizing yourself and Catholic morality with this analogy, and as such contributing to making Catholic sexual morality seem more non-credible to the average person, who is then inspired to mock Catholic sexual morality as if these kinds of arguments are really related to it.

 

unprotected anal sex does, however, have a higher risk of STD spreading according to the CDC, you are correct about that.   I cannot subscribe to any theory that views STDs as some kind of punishment for homosexuality or some such nonsense.... their existence does provide a good point for why people should be monogamous, though.

[add]

NORTH HAVEN, Conn. (CBS Connecticut/AP) — “Duck Dynasty” is getting into the gun business.
The Robertson family-owned Duck Commander has teamed up with firearms manufacturer Mossberg to release their own line of guns.
Mossberg is releasing 12 types of Duck Commander guns, including 9 shotguns, 2 semiautomatic weapons and a pistol.
Mossberg spokeswoman Linda Powell told CNN that they have begun shipping the guns to distributors.
“Duck Dynasty” stars Phil, Willie, Si and Jase Robertson starred in commercials released last month by Mossberg.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition

[KnightofChrist]

while your logic about the hygiene of the practice might seem true from your armchair, it remains rather misinformed and inaccurate.  people simply need basic general hygiene available to them (bathing, showering, bathroom facilities), and there is no increased risk.  and if they don't have those basic hygienic practices, their risks of disease are crazily increased anyway, I doubt there's anything but a marginal increase in risk for people in those conditions if you factor in homosexual sex... it's just basic normal hygiene, not some extra complicated procedure. doesn't mean it's not sin, just means we don't need to create inaccurate reasons for it to be so. ultimately, I have no desire to be put in a position to defend homosexual sex, which I find morally objectionable, but your misinformed assertions, which basically any medical doctor would roll their eyes at and dismiss without bothering to respond (maybe they'd give you a pamphlet if they were feeling patient enough), can't really stand because they feed into a general attitude that rather than contributing to any kind of pursuit of holiness or purity (or improved health, for which your argument seems rather disingenuous but fine, take you at your word, you're concerned about people's health, but you are by no means an expert. you've basically just made a whole bunch of assumptions and asserted them as fact, a couple steps away from saying you'll go blind and hair will grow on your palms)

Normal hygiene does not include the cleaning of the anal canal, and lubrication of the canal which is needed to help decrease the chance of bacterial infection, bruising and bleeding. If that is not cleaned sodomy, whether it be homosexual in nature or heterosexual in nature, cannot even begin to be considered hygienic. You are the one who is misinformed or you are misleading people into thinking it's just normal hygiene when it fact it's at least a bit more than that. Also the steps taken in the attempt to make it more hygienic can often types help create more problems with hygiene than help. For example the simple use of water to clean the canal can be the cause of bacterial infections. I have great doubts a medical professional would look down on and dismiss me as easily as you have and continue to do. I have not made assumptions, but attempted to state facts as best as humanly and morally as possible. You disagree me, I respect that, and you, but I am not the ignorant person you are painting me to be.
 

and again, I am much more concerned with arguing against arguments from an appeal-to-grossness (or "vileness") because of their connection to the motivations of those who bully and hate.  I cannot be okay with a line between myself and bullies that in any way affirms their illogical hatred as being in any way validated--I have a moral theology based upon Catholic ideals about chastity, marriage, and family... they have an emotional revulsion based upon some puritanical and homophobic cultural conditioning (which is not in any way natural as it only arises in particular cultural contexts)

I agree, I would be much more interested in using other appeals against sodomy than the appeal to its physical vileness. It shouldn't be used often, and it shouldn't be used as a form of bullying and hatred. But there is a time and place for the appeal, and the truth of its physical vileness shouldn't be hidden away because some may have a misunderstanding of or misrepresent the appeal as bullying and/or hatred.
 

unprotected anal sex does, however, have a higher risk of STD spreading according to the CDC, you are correct about that.   I cannot subscribe to any theory that views STDs as some kind of punishment for homosexuality or some such nonsense.... their existence does provide a good point for why people should be monogamous, though.

Another point of agreement we share, at least we agree on somethings, which is better than nothing. I don't believe STDs are punishments from God, but I do think they are one of the reasons are why God commands us not to engaged in immoral sexual behavior. I believe He does not forbid immoral sexual behavior simply because He says so, but for our own safety, health and welfare. Edited January 2, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

... this seems like it calls for a return to your suggested spoiler tags from before...

[spoiler]Oh dear.  Let's go back to spoiler tags, because you really seem to desire to go all out in describing anal sex practices.  I really need to get myself out of this thread.  I'm sorry, but you are misinformed, and I've really tried to avoid going into details but you just keep delving deeper and deeper... the type of cleaning out of the anal cavity you describe is actually not necessary for hygienic purposes, and in fact could clear out mucous linings that could help prevent infections.  I believe some people who engage in these practices do prefer to do that kind of thing, of course, for whatever reasons, actually for the same reasons women engage in vaginal douching--but just as in the case of vaginal douching, it is not necessary for hygiene and is sometimes counterproductive... but hey, people have all sorts of hangups and do these kinds of things because they prefer it.  simple ordinary practices of cleanliness is all that is really necessary for hygiene though.  And well, yeah, lubrication is definitely beneficial to hygiene, I can grant you that... it's also generally preferred and commonly practiced by people performing consensual sodomy.  all of this remains a rather moot point--there are basic simple hygienic practices involved, nothing extensive, and certainly nothing that makes this anywhere NEAR ever being a valid or appropriate line of thought when trying to talk about homosexual sex being sinful. [/spoiler]

[KnightofChrist]

[spoiler]

the type of cleaning out of the anal cavity you describe is actually not necessary for hygienic purposes, and in fact could clear out mucous linings that could help prevent infections.  I believe some people who engage in these practices do prefer to do that kind of thing, of course, for whatever reasons, actually for the same reasons women engage in vaginal douching--but just as in the case of vaginal douching, it is not necessary for hygiene and is sometimes counterproductive... but hey, people have all sorts of hangups and do these kinds of things because they prefer it.  simple ordinary practices of cleanliness is all that is really necessary for hygiene though.  And well, yeah, lubrication is definitely beneficial to hygiene, I can grant you that... it's also generally preferred and commonly practiced by people performing consensual sodomy.  all of this remains a rather moot point--there are basic simple hygienic practices involved, nothing extensive, and certainly nothing that makes this anywhere NEAR ever being a valid or appropriate line of thought when trying to talk about homosexual sex being sinful.

The reasons why some people (heterosexual or homosexual) try to clean the anus and anal canal is because they know the anus is unclean, and they know the anal canal is unclean or professionally stated "full of bacteria". It is natural to be "grossed out" by those things, and naturally some of those that would partake in sodomy would like to avoid such sights and odors. They are attempting to rid themselves of the uncleanness, be it the residue of fecal matter or the odor of fecal matter.

Most of the medical advice that I can find online from actual medical professionals, or sites that at least attempt to be medically professional all warn of the great risk that anal sex involves, and it all revolves around the cleanliness or the lack thereof when it comes to the anus and anal canal. They all suggest the use of condoms and water based lubricates (I'd still argue that poorer and uneducated persons, and those living in poorer nations wouldn't have easy access to these items). This is perhaps where you are getting your flawed idea that the act can be considered hygienic/clean and the idea it is not right to call it unclean, if these are used. But that idea doesn't seem to be support by their advice. Because after the penis has been inserted into the anus it too is covered and full of bacteria there after, which hardly sounds very hygienic to most people, even a condom is use. They all help to greatly validate my point that sodomy is always going lead to a high risk of disease and infection because the anal canal is "full of bacteria" or is unclean. People need to be warn of this, and it is probably a good idea to use it as a argument against sodomy.[/spoiler] Edited January 2, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[spoiler]The same medical professionals, and medical sites also seem to highly suggest to simply abstain from sodomy due to the great risks of contracting highly dangerous viri, disease, or bacteria infection which are in turn due to the uncleanness of the anus and anal canal which again are full of bacteria. This is just the type of warning or argument against sodomy based on the uncleaness of it that I've attempted to defend. I am glad I researched it further, and I am glad that that type of warning to abstain from sodomy can and is made by those in the medical field. Even if it's for validation and to show that I am not as ignorant as we have been led to believe. [/spoiler]

Edited January 2, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Clare Brigid]

[spoiler] :hehe2:[/spoiler]

[add]

[spoiler]The same medical professionals, and medical sites also seem to highly suggest to simply abstain from sodomy due to the great risks of contracting highly dangerous viri, disease, or bacteria infection which are in turn due to the uncleanness of the anus and anal canal which again are full of bacteria. This is just the type of warning or argument against sodomy based on the uncleaness of it that I've attempted to defend. I am glad I researched it further, and I am glad that that type of warning to abstain from sodomy can and is made by those in the medical field. Even if it's for validation and to show that I am not as ignorant as we have been led to believe. [/spoiler]

 

THANK GOODNESS WE HAVE OBAMACARE AND THAT  GOOD CATHOLICS ARE BEING FORCED AGAINST WILL TO PAY FOR EVERY-BODY'S B.C. AND SDS PRESCRIPTIONS...

[Isidore_of_Seville]

Hey, KINGOFCHRIST (holy crap what an obnoxious and debatably unchristian name),

[PhuturePriest]

I feel like I've been missing out on so much!

 

If I were a man with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, and a man was telling me how gross my inclinations were, I would feel bad and disgusted with myself, not convinced that I'm wrong. Besides, it wouldn't be my fault I had those inclinations, correct? I find haggis to be the most repulsive and disgusting thing people eat, but it's not your fault you like the taste. I would then also point out he puts his fun place where his wife pees.

Edited January 3, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[Semper Catholic]

I feel like I've been missing out on so much!

If I were a man with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, and a man was telling me how gross my inclinations were, I would feel bad and disgusted with myself, not convinced that I'm wrong. Besides, it wouldn't be my fault I had those inclinations, correct? I find haggis to be the most repulsive and disgusting thing people eat, but it's not your fault you like the taste. I would then also point out he puts his fun place where his wife pees.

Might need an anatomy class there tiger

[Semper Catholic]

THANK GOODNESS WE HAVE OBAMACARE AND THAT GOOD CATHOLICS ARE BEING FORCED AGAINST WILL TO PAY FOR EVERY-BODY'S B.C. AND SDS PRESCRIPTIONS...

Lol yeah because catholics don't have stds or use birth control.

[KnightofChrist]

We must love the sinner but we must also hate the sin. That is what I have done here. I have only condemned the action, the sin of sodomy as vile. I have not now or ever believed any person, made in the Image of God is vile or any like word. You will not find me anywhere in this thread condemning persons, only the act of sodomy whether commited by heterosexual or homosexual persons, which is a great sin either way. These are truths of the Chruch even though we may not like them or the way I have stated them. It is also true, medically speaking, that the act of sodomy is unclean, because the act greatly increases the risk of spreading dangerous bacteria and contracting serious forms of disease.

[CrossCuT]

You know I understand why people use that phrase but that doesnt make it any less dumb and insincere.