The following comes from a May 27 posting on Catholic World Report.
“Compassion does not trump truth,” says Robert R. Reilly, “And the truth is becoming harder to tell.”
Reilly’s new book, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything, was published recently by Ignatius Press. It has been praised as “magnificent, a real achievement” (Austin Ruse, President, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute) and described as “rare tour de force on a defining question of our time” (Dr. Robert Royal, President, Faith & Reason Institute). Reilly recently corresponded with Carl E. Olson, editor of Catholic World Report, about his new book and its approach and arguments.
CWR: Right at the start, you make the connection between contraception and same-sex marriage, writing in the Introduction that the “progression from the one to the other was logically inescapable.” What are the main points of that progression? How unique is the “capstone” of same-sex marriage; that is, how uncharted are the waters that have now flooded society?
Reilly: The key is separating sex from diapers. Once you consciously subvert the procreative power of sex with contraception, there is a very slippery slope—more like a cliff, actually—down to the moral pigpen where sex is simply a form of degraded entertainment. You try to grab the pleasure from the act, while denying the thing toward which the act is essentially ordered.
So it is perfectly logical to go from contraception to abortion (so those whose contraception has failed are not “penalized”) to the celebration of sodomy as the basis of marriage. Homosexuals can easily pose the question, “if you endorse contracepted heterosexual acts, what could possibly be wrong with our acts which don’t even have to be contracepted?”
The logic of the situation makes it very easy to see where this is going next—polygamy and polyandry. In fact, a Federal District Court has already taken a step in this direction in respect to Utah’s laws against polygamy. When we allow homosexual acts to serve as the basis for “marriage,” anything goes.
CWR: Your thesis, as you noted, “is very simple: There are two fundamental views of reality.” What are those two views of reality? And if the thesis is simple, why is it so difficult for people to either comprehend it or to explain it themselves?
Reilly: One view of reality—the Aristotelian one—holds that things have a Nature that is teleologically ordered to ends that inhere in their essences and make them what they are. In other words, things have inbuilt purposes. We don’t get to make them up; it is what makes them what they are in reality. They are a given. Reality exists without our permission. When we discover what something is for according to its Nature, our job is to conform ourselves to its purposes—including to the purposes we have according to our human Nature. According to Aristotle, this is how we achieve happiness—through virtuous actions. A virtuous action is one in conformity with our natural ends. This requires the rule of reason—because we are, above all, rational creatures—over our passions.
The other view is that things do not have a Nature with ends: things are nothing in themselves, but only what we make them to be according to our wills and desires. We no longer have to conform ourselves to reality, but can conform reality to ourselves. It is no longer our reason that rules our passions, but our passions that rule reason in the sense that reason is demoted to a servant of the passions. Its job becomes finding the most efficient way of satisfying the passions. Therefore, we can make everything, including ourselves, anything that we wish and that we have the power to do. This is the modern project. However, the modern project can only be attempted if we accept as real only those things that we can change, and ignore the reality of those things that we cannot change. In the 20th century, John Dewey said, “Man’s nature is to have no nature.” If there is no Nature, then there are no “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and the field of action is clear. The only limits that really exist are the limits of our power. Right becomes the rule of the stronger.
This is what is behind the deliberate denial of reality. It is not based upon ignorance; it is a deliberate, dogmatic denial. For instance, if the Aristotelian conception is correct, then sodomitical marriage cannot possibly be right, because it goes against the inherent unitive and procreative ends of our sexual powers. It is against human flourishing. But if John Dewey is right, there cannot possibly be anything wrong with sodomy or homosexual marriage. So what is really being contested here is the nature of reality. That is what is at stake in the debate over same-sex “marriage”.
CWR: There is, obviously, a deeply moral aspect of the debate over homosexuality. But, closely related—intertwined, really—are a number of essential philosophical distinctions and arguments. What are the really key philosophical issues? And would it be fair to say that much of the support shown for same-sex marriage betrays a failure to think clearly, deeply, and logically?
Reilly: Once you get rid of Nature, there really are no standards against which to judge moral behavior or anything else. Nature is replaced by History. In other words, man does not have an immutable Nature; therefore, he can be essentially changed. He is a product of his times. His times make him. This is how U.S. District Judge John E. Jones reached his silly May 20, 2014, decision invalidating Pennsylvania’s laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman. Like a good historicist, he said, “It is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.” Judge Jones is probably unaware of the origin of the “ash heap of history” phrase, used ironically by President Ronald Reagan in his famous Westminster speech. It was first used by Leon Trotsky against the Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution. What we are experiencing today is a kind of sexual Marxism. Instead of a classless society, we have a genderless society.
If you think that is an exaggeration, consider U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Michael McShane’s May 19, 2014, ruling against Oregon’s constitutional restriction of marriage to a man and woman. He said, “I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these (same-sex) plaintiffs, nothing more or less than our own families, families who we would expect our constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure.” Of course, we cannot look past gender and sexuality and see our own families, because our own families were generated heterosexually by people of two different genders. Had they not been, our families would not be there. This is an illustration of how great a part of reality must be denied for the modern project to proceed.
As far as logic is concerned, these people are perfectly logical based upon their premise in the same way that a paranoid schizophrenic is logical based upon his premise. The problem is that the premises are false. They both deny reality. I think Professor Robert George’s remarks at the national Catholic prayer breakfast on May 13, 2014, are particularly apt here. Despite assertions that Catholics are “on the wrong side of history,” he said, “history, is not God. God is God. History is not our judge. God is our judge.”
CWR: How has homosexuality been rationalized among homosexuals themselves? And how is homosexuality and same-sex marriage being rationalized within the culture and the courtrooms?
Reilly: Active homosexuals rationalize their misbehavior in the same way as anyone else rationalizes their immoral acts. We all have disordered desires of one sort or another. If we choose to act upon them, as Aristotle taught in The Ethics, we must present the bad act to ourselves as a good act. Otherwise, we would be incapable of choosing it. In other words, when we lie, we are not really lying or, when we steal, we are not really taking someone else’s property. As J. Budziszewski puts it, we aim “not to become just, but to justify ourselves.” Most often, after the act, our rationalization is penetrated by the rebuke of conscience and we admit to ourselves that we have done something wrong. Contrition follows and moral reality is restored.
However, if we choose to be professional thieves—if we base our life on an immoral act—we then have to construct a more permanent rationalization that can survive the rebukes of conscience. We have to construct an alternate reality, an ideology, in the perspective of which our immoral act becomes a moral act. Think, for example, of the Communist who asserts that private property is the root of all evil, and therefore justifies himself in confiscating it. Likewise, if one should choose to center one’s life on the act of sodomy, one will have to build an imaginary world for its validation. Listen to this cri de coeur from a homosexual character in Larry Kramer’s 1985, play, now an HBO special, titled” The Normal Heart”: “I’ve spent 15 years of my life fighting for the right to be free and to make love wherever, whenever. We have been so oppressed … can’t you see how important it is for us to love openly without guilt?” There is the nub of it—“without guilt.” The purpose of the rationalization is to remove guilt. This is its psychological dynamo. This is what drives it. If sodomy is right, why can’t it be sacramentalized in a homosexual marriage? It will then be impervious to any rebukes. It will become holy. This is the final step in the rationalization—the sanctification of sodomy.
To see the rationalization—the absolute denial of reality—in action, here is a recent online dialogue with the homosexual (my remarks in italics):
Homosexuals cannot physically consummate a marriage — which means and has always meant coital sex. Isn’t that obvious? How could you possibly deny it?
You ask how anyone could possibly deny that homosexuals are unable to consummate a marriage. It’s easy. The word “consummate” flexes a little just as the word “marriage” has done. Consummation means something slightly different for a gay couple than for a straight one. Does it matter? Do we even need the word “consummation” in a gay marriage?
Simply call a giraffe a donkey and, voila, it becomes one! Magic! Just like homosexual marriage.
Yep. That’s more or less the way it works, except that there has to be widespread acceptance of the word’s new or expanded meaning.
Do you really think your redefinition of reality actually changes reality? If so, you are living in a magical world—and I don’t mean Disneyland. Welcome to the world of Gnosticism and all its attendant spiritual pathologies.
By the way, one should mention that an essential ingredient in the success of the homosexual rationalization is the backing it is getting from those who have rationalized their heterosexual misbehavior. The arrangement goes something like this: if you will rationalize my sexual misbehavior, I’ll rationalize your sexual misbehavior. This expands the sources of support.
However, for a permanent rationalization to become effective, it has to be universalized. Everyone must agree, or be made to agree, that a particular wrong is actually a right. This was the mission of the Communist Comintern—to universalize the Marxist-Leninist rationalization. This is also what we have seen happening in the homosexual movement. It has had to universalize this right by engaging in a culture war that has silenced its opponents at just about every level of our society—it’s business leadership, civic organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, the psychiatric profession, many churches, and, finally, the institutions of government. Now, the courts and the institutions of government are being used to enforce the recognition of this right against those—including the members of every major religion, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—who might otherwise raise an objection and therefore disturb the rationalization.
Again, this is not an exaggeration. At the professional level even in the private sector, openly supporting marriage as between one man and one woman has become a career killer. In US government at the cabinet secretary level, no one can now serve who is unwilling to participate in, and issue a declaration on, the celebration of Gay Pride Day. Sodomy has also become part of our foreign policy. If you think this is over the top, please see this May 17th story in El Mundo, with a photograph of the Gay Pride flag flying over the US Embassy in Madrid. This is how our country is now officially represented.
CWR: What are the most misleading statements being made today either in support of same-sex marriage or in opposition to those who uphold marriage as a lifelong union of a man and woman? How can those be countered?
Reilly: The celebration of homosexual behavior is terribly misleading in its neglect of the medical facts regarding the lethality of this behavior. Not only is there no natural right to an unnatural act, but Nature itself rebels. The body becomes confused by the misuse of the sexual organs and the result is the rampant spread of disease. The rationalization for homosexual behavior even includes the denial of death or, in some cases, its actual pursuit—as in the “bug chasers” who actively seek to be infected by HIV because of the additional thrill the risk of catching it purportedly provides.
Today, those who uphold real marriage are stigmatized as “haters.” This is because people who are ruled by their passions cannot imagine any opposition to the exercise of their passions as coming from anything other than another passion—in this case, hatred. It no longer occurs to them that the objections to homosexual behavior are made on the basis of reason from an apprehension of what truly contributes to human flourishing.
I often use the analogy of an alcoholic. If one truly loves or respects a person who is an alcoholic, one would not suggest to him that we celebrate together his alcoholism in an Alcoholic Pride Day and then invite him to a bar for some drinks. That would be a form of condescension to an alcoholic. It would be a sign of disrespect. Likewise, colluding in the Gay Pride movement is ultimately a sign of disrespect for people with homosexual orientation. They certainly deserve our compassion, as many of them have this inclination through no fault of their own—usually from some childhood trauma. But the first thing they deserve as human beings is the truth. Compassion does not trump truth. And the truth is becoming harder to tell. As George Orwell wrote, “the more a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” Nonetheless, our obligation is to tell the truth and not participate in the lie.
As far as the best way to counter the most misleading statements, I would suggest buying my book and using the arguments in it. That may sound self-serving, but I was at great pains in writing this book to give not the religious reasons against homosexual behavior and marriage, but the rational ones. Quoting Scripture in the public square does not work anymore. The only chance we have of being heard is to make our arguments from reason. That is what I try to do.
CWR: There is an increasing insistence by those in the pro-homosexual camp, as mouthed even by the Attorney General, that “science” has demonstrated the normality and goodness of homosexuality. On what basis are such claims being made? And why did the American Psychiatric Association never address any of the “science” when it suddenly changed its definition of homosexuality in the 1970s?
Reilly: Homosexuality was defined as a mental illness or a “sociopathic personality disturbance” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. Homosexual activists, like Franklin Kameny, realized that this definition had to be changed if the homosexual rationalization was to succeed. He said, “I feel the entire homophile movement… is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it.” This demand was obviously not inspired by scientific inquiry, nor was the change made in 1973 the result of any new scientific research. It was the political product of the sheer muscle of the homosexual lobby. Even some homosexual psychiatrists were appalled at the abandonment of scientific standards as a result of this change.
In Attorney General Eric Holder’s 2011 letter to Congress, he explained why the Obama administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, in court. A group can be defined as a “class,” explained Mr. Holder, if individuals “exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group.” Therefore, everything hinges upon whether homosexuality is an unchangeable characteristic. Mr. Holder announced that, “a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable.” So great is this consensus that claims to the contrary “we do not believe can be reconciled with more recent social scientific understandings.”
This is complete nonsense. There is no such science. There has been no discovery of a “gay” gene, though there may possibly be genetic characteristics contributing to the orientation. It has become forbidden to mention, or in certain places even practice, therapy that has successfully changed the homosexual orientation of individuals who wanted to change. It is against the law in California for therapists to help young teenagers who wish to change their homosexual orientation. This is the price the rationalization for homosexual behavior is willing to exact. Like the Communist Party, you can enter the “gay community,” but you can’t leave it. Traitors will be dealt with. Look what happened to Dr. Robert Spitzer, who had been such a help to homosexuals within the psychiatric profession. When he did a study demonstrating that homosexuals can change their orientation, he was mercilessly pilloried.
CWR: It appears inevitable that most or all states will soon accept same-sex marriage. What next? What other legal measures are likely to follow?
Reilly: One year ago, in his dissent to the United States v. Windsor decision, which overthrew the federal Defense of Marriage Act in favor of homosexual marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted that all of the state laws and constitutions, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, would be overthrown as well. As he so often is, he was right. This is what we are now witnessing on an almost weekly basis. As I already mentioned, polygamy and polyandry are next.
We should not get too discouraged. Illusions always lead to disillusion. In the end, reality wins. However, the price for that victory is going to be great, and we are all going to have to pay it.
Carl E. Olson is editor of Catholic World Report and Ignatius Insight.
To read original story, click here.
Teleologically speaking, we are all doomed in the end.
Not if you adhere to the Bible and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
Jesus will judge with Justice, and with Mercy (those who repent).
CCC: ” 2092 There are two kinds of presumption.
Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high),
or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit). ”
CCC: ” 2733 Another temptation, to which presumption opens the gate, is acedia. The spiritual writers understand by this a form of depression due to lax ascetical practice, decreasing vigilance, carelessness of heart.
The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. The greater the height, the harder the fall.
Painful as discouragement is, it is the reverse of presumption.
The humble are not surprised by their distress; it leads them to trust more, to hold fast in constancy. “
“we are all doomed in the end”
Not all. Only mortal sinners, viz., unrepentant sodomites, abortionists, et al.
“Compassion does not trump truth,” says Robert R. Reilly, “And the truth is becoming harder to tell.”
This is why it is critical for Catholics to read a “Bible” and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” at home.
Stop watching so much TV, or playing computer and Ipad games.
Know the truth without error and without anyone injecting their personal politics.
Stop being lazy and read.
The Soul you save may be your own, and those of your loved ones.
For info on the CCC see:
“What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of ETERNAL FIRE.” Jude 1:7.
It’s not OK because of the danger they pose to our children. See Myth No. 8 below.
Oh, the hate group FRC.
The Family Research Council is a “hate group” only to the sodomite, abortionist, demonic “Southern Poverty Law Center” and its minions.
juergensen…I don’t pose a threat to your, or anyone’s children. had my girlfriend survived, I’d likely now be a lesbian mother. Indeed I may become one in the future. Without the civil rights legislation and the social attitude change you object to, my children could face all kinds of emotional, financial educational and even physical threats.
Talk about rationalizating! This morning 6/3 at 9a.m., the San Mateo County Board of Supervisiors will establish a LGBTQ Commission to recommend policies and legislation to foster the well-being of LGBTQ individuals, with particular emphasis on vulnerable populations, such as transgender individuals, seniors, and youth……..along with communities of color, non-English speakers, and immigrants. How is a SSA person in need of special treatment? They deserve special treatment because they have homosexual sex? They are a “protected and Underserved” class of people like say people of color? or the Aged? Really?? Is this just not insane? Hey, here’s a really unprotected “class of humans”–babies in the womb–where’s the special Commission for them?
“The LGBTQ Commission would promote programs and policies that would bring greater recognition and visibility to the LGBTQ community in San Mateo County by supporting the County’s Gay Pride celebration.” Oh, sure…..this Commission will weed-out, find, & “re-educate” those of us who don’t agree that gay is OK……The Commmission will also take “positions pertaining to federal, state and local policies, programs, and procedures, and any legislation affecting LGBTQ individuals”. Let’s just keep rationalizing folks…..if you do it long enough and have everyone “buy in” you can even turn a human baby into a “glob of tissue”.
Actually – and this fact will surprise many of you, no doubt – most homosexuals DO live to be older than 40; so yes, the elderly.
Oh dear … since 40 is a year and a month away for me, I sure hope your’e right :-)
People must pay attention to those they VOTE for.
Lunes and immorals run for office the majority of the time.
Talk about special treatment to the disordered. And they plan on imposing this on to the public? Wow…well its already happening throughout the USA. Those immoral bastards! I do truly believe we need to have priests perform exorcisms throughout the world. Priests with experience on the matter. We are facing some real deep spiritual battles! Ave Maria Purissima sin pecado concebido
Ok it’s hard to figure out where the press release leaves off and where SandraD takes it up. Seriously there are questions of authorship and authenticity here.
Well, now you’ve done it, Mr. Reilly! The USA must destroy reality for the homosexual sexual movement to succeed. To this end, the homosexuals seem to be succeeding. Of course, successes of this sort does not end the debate, or the awful outcome that awaits America by caving in intellectually, as well as morally. Of course, the USCCB is likely to attack the book as only an academic rant and that the Catholic Church is called to be “pastoral” to homosexuals, regardless of their demands. Further, given what Reilly says, it is likely that the Church will change its views on homosexual marriage, in that the Church simply refuses to confront homosexual acts as morally evil and homosexual marriage as impossible. (Yes, Virginia, the Church does say these things on paper, but, as we all know, its clergy, religious, and laity, do not practice what the Church officially preaches.) Nice job, Reilly. Now what? Or better asked of us all, how big a jump are we going to take off of the cliff?
When we defend the natural law we are really trying to warn foolish souls of the consequences of defying that law. We give the best witness we can and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. Nature herself needs no defense, because Nature never loses. Fools rushing off a cliff pose no danger to the cliff.
LOL! naturally, St. Chris, because homosexual acts are not intrinsically evil and homosexual marriage is possible! Sounds like a good new reality TV show: When Reality Strikes!
“pastoral” you say, Please provide examples of a pastoral approach to us homosexual sexuals that destroyed your reality. One? Even one? Bueller? Bueller?
Everyone should read this book…..then, let’s have a sane and reasonable dialogue about why “gay is not OK”.
Teleologically speaking, life is like Microsoft Word. All it takes is the click of a button to justify the ends.
Linking abortion to contraception holds a little bit of water, but saying homosexuality is a natural progression from contraception, no, I don’t think so.
Not all contraception is evil. No one wants to go back to the days of the 1950s Church threatening the laity with Hell if they use birth control, which created the Catholic Baby Boom of excess babies the parents neither wanted or needed, with consequent financial, emotional, and marital aftereffects that taught the children that indiscriminate breeding is evil.
I think you are a little bit wrong good cause. Some people DO want to go back to those dark days.
Contraception is one type of Mortal Sin;
Homosexual Acts are another type of Mortal Sin.
CCC: 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.”
CCC: ” 2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”
” Christian love bears evil, – but it does not tolerate it.
It does penance for the sins of others, – but it is not broadminded about sin.
The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth.
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; – it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body; – but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.
Real love involves real hatred: – whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.
Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God, which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly. ” – Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.
Well Spoken! Mr. Reilly makes numerous valid observations, many of which have been actively Removed from the ‘debate’ by the Gaystapo and those who Fear Them (Govt., Media, Academentia) simply because they are such effective rational reasonable logically fact based arguments – and thus too Un-Good to discuss.
“However, for a permanent rationalization to become effective, it has to be universalized. Everyone must agree, or be made to agree…
– obviously not inspired by scientific inquiry, nor was the change made in 1973 the result of any new scientific research. It was the political product of the sheer muscle of the homosexual lobby. Even some homosexual psychiatrists were appalled at the abandonment of scientific standards as a result of this change.”
I think that the Scam of saying that Learned / Chosen Behaviors are “Immutable” – which is behind laws denying therapy to those who want it, was spot on:
“This is the price the rationalization for homosexual behavior is willing to exact. Like the Communist Party, you can enter the “gay community,” but you can’t leave it.”
Reilly made a good point about the Physically Harmful & Pathological Disease Spreading nature of Homo-Anal Coprophile Behaviors when he said:
“The body becomes confused by the misuse of the sexual organs and the result is the rampant spread of disease.
The rationalization for homosexual behavior even includes the denial of death or, in some cases, its actual pursuit…
—as in the “bug chasers” who actively seek to be infected by HIV because of the additional thrill the risk of catching it purportedly provides.”
But I think that he failed to do justice to the ‘Bug Chaser” phenomenon by limiting its adherents to ‘thrill’ seekers excited only by the “Risk of Catching It”.
Although places like Frisco have seen most expensively ‘Education programs’ about Aids on the planet, the continued direct link between Homo-Anal Transmission and the spread of ever newer treatment resistant strains of STDs is undeniable – and not just as a one time Thrill.
Rather it is the deep pathological desire for full Coprophile Contact with human excrement via the Anal Tract that leads so many to embrace Acquiring Aids – so that they don’t need to fool around with rubberized attempts at sanitary contact (often a failure anyway) and fully immerse themselves in the “Frothy Mixer” lifestyle….
This is more like a ‘devil may care’ approach to participation in the “Conga Line of Buggery” that says Once You Acquire Aids – You Don’t Need to Concern Yourself with Prevention anymore, and can join the “Frothy Mixers” in all their excremental glory.
I know that such facts bring up a great ‘Yuck Factor’ in certain readers – and even greater anger in the Gaystapo Trolls here – who want to verbally sanitize that excremental reality which is at the very center of their ‘happy’ focus…
In large measure because the ‘sympathy’ factor for those who just want to ‘love differently” – pretty much disappears when the Direct Anal-Coprophile Contact aspect of this ‘love’ is brought in to the open.
There is no polite way to discuss such Pathological Coprophile Behaviors – but to discount their allure to that segment of the population and put the ever growing incidence of Aids / treatment resistant STD spread to a one time Thrill Ride….
Fails to account for the fact that Bug Chasing means a Free year round Pass to the whole Coprophile Circus – without the need for impediment from full exposure to the types of excremental ‘fun’ that most people find nauseating at the very least.
For those who object to even this carefully worded explanation – I submit that
Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, and does nothing to protect society from the ravages of treatment resistant STDs.
Sodomites are minions of Satan, used by Satan to infiltrate and destroy the Body of Christ, the Church, from within, and lead souls to hell.
LOL! Right . . .