Wednesday, June 13, 2007

More with the Cavemen

The Catholic Caveman defends himself from my post a couple of days ago, accusing him of "counterproductive homophobia (yes, there is such a thing)," which has the effect of being objective counterwitness and of making the Church's task more difficult.

He posted in my combox down below and on his own site. To the first instance:
Allow me to remind you that the pic was chosen at random, to signify "The *I Hate The Caveman* Fairy". The fact that the individual was a homosexual, and a marcher at a so-called "Gay Pride" parade are purely coincidental.
C'mon, Cavey. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. The term "fairy" is the ur-insult aimed at homosexual persons. There is no way that is a coincidence. Pointing out the fact the word "fairy" has other uses too is the worst form of sophistic casuistry in this context, with a gay-pride photo and a deliberately disgust-inducing male body. It's like pointing out that there really are "camel jockeys," or that swimming does give you a "wet back," or that all one's Asian photo-caption references to "chinks" or "nips" are about armor gaps or chilly air.

Nor is it relevant that the Caveman says the fairy is an icon for those who Hate the Cavemen. Indeed, that indeed is the point -- "those who hate us are fairies." With a gay-pride photo. And a reference a couple of days later "to all the Evil Fairies out there," followed by a description of anal sodomy.

His second point defends this usage ...
THIS CAVEMAN will always fight against the soft-headed notion that some guy sloshing his penis around in another man's feces filled colon is "normal."
... with ...
As far as my description of the anal sex act... I used 100% correct medical terms. If anyone happens to find my description disturbing/disgusting... good! That's exactly what I'm after. The homosexual act itself IS disturbing and disgusting.
Bovine scatology. On so many fronts, it's hard to know where to begin.
  1. Disgust is neither a legitimate point nor the basis for the Church's teaching against homosexual acts.
  2. I could up with just as disgusting language to describe the marital act -- references to menstrual blood and the right locker-room terms, etc.
  3. Is it more "normal" for some guy to slosh his penis around in a woman's feces-filled colon? If it's just as bad, then the complaint is with anal sex, not homosexuality. If it isn't, then what does "feces" have to do with it.
  4. Is it therefore "normal" for some guy to slosh his penis around in another man's colon if it's not feces-filled? In other words, is there some point here other than 'the bottom should have the good manners to have an enema done first'? (Ironically, this view merely reinforces the lie that gay groups tell about the Levitical condemnation of homosexual acts being about ritual purity and cleanliness.)
  5. Is it more "normal" for some guy to slosh his penis around in another man's non-feces-filled mouth or just whack each other off? If the feces is the point, it would seem so. And they are far more common acts than anal sodomy, at least in my experience.
  6. What is there wrong with lesbianism, then?
Yes, my points 2-6 are dumb arguments standing alone and do not legitimate homosexual acts or the gay lifestyle. But they make eminent sense as rebuttals at the same dumb level to the dumb argument being made in this instance.

As for the post at his site, I'm really not sure what the point is. Does he think I have anything but contempt for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? Does he think I believe people should tattoo the word "faggot" on their shoulder? Well ... I hope not, because Cavey would be sadly misreading me. Do many practicing homosexuals do disgusting things, including acts of public exhibitionism, that demean both the Church and themselves? Absolutely.

But what does, or could, any of that have to do, other than "tu quoque," with the rightness of one's own conduct, including the deliberate inflaming of disgust and the use of demeaning language? I didn't do a thorough search of the site, else I would have mentioned this:
Marine General Tells Truth - Queers Throw Hissy Fit
Panties in a wad... film at 11. ...
he knew darn good and well that he'd have to apologize. Why? Because of so damn many queers in congress. ...
The bottom line is that Gen Pace did get his point across, even if it did piss off the homos.
If there's a point here other than "arguing by disgusting photo," I'm at a loss to see what it could be. The nearest I can hypothesize would be that somehow there is no such thing as "homophobia" and/or that "homotaedet" is good. I would be the first to acknowledge that the former term in the hands of the homosex activists is a mere term of politically-based abuse, a meaningless devil-word, a scare-term without real content. (Believe me, Cavey, I am a homophobe by the standards of any of these people.)

But I used a very deliberate term: "counterproductive homophobia," which is a real thing, just as "unjust discrimination" doesn't lose its meaning because of all the mewling antics surrounding "discrimination" from the NAACP, NOW, HRC, La Raza, etc.

It's "an aversion to homosexuals that turns them away from God." Or perhaps more realistically in the current climate: "... and/or rationalizes and confirms them in their having turned against God." What many "on the right" of the Church do not seem to grasp or are proud of not grasping is that there is such a thing as dislike for homosexual persons that turns us off (yes, I use the first-person-plural here ... that was my whole initial point), that turns us off of Christians as haters and/or off of Church teachings as a mere rationalization.

I quoted two of my Courage brothers extensively and referred to my own gut revulsion to the Cavemen's personae, which I think is objective counter-witness. Keep in mind who we are. Now imagine how active homosexuals read the words of the Cavemen.

For example, yesterday on Andrew Sullivan's site, he repeats the following lie that he told Jebbie-run America magazine 14 years ago.
"(The Roman Catholic Church) defines Gay people by a sexual act in a way it never defines heterosexual people..."
Now, that is simply not true, but it is a common trope among homosex activists. In fact Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, that noted liberal squish, said exactly the opposite in 1986.
What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. ...

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.
Saying the Church reduces homosexual persons to a sex act is completely and totally false. In fact, the Church doesn't even consider any person defined by "sexual orientation," much less by a sexual act. But that is exactly what the Cavemen does in his leering descriptions. Talk about penises sloshing around in feces is enabling and validating Sullivan's misperception and giving public currency to his lie. Now, it is probably true that the particular case of Sullivan, the individual man, is a very far-gone case. But it nevertheless so, as David, Ron and myself point out from our own experience, that "homosexual person turned away from the Church by being demeaned by Christians" is not an empty set. This is exactly why the Church, in its wisdom, condemns demeaning homosexual persons. Again from the modernist heretic Cardinal Ratzinger:
It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
I see I've already written way more than I intended when I sat down to this post. Appearances aside, I really don't want either (1) a perpetual blog war with the Cavemen, whom I often do enjoy as very funny; or (2) to come across as a humorless PC scold. I just want he and others like him, those who think that "faggot," "fairy" and graphic descriptions of anal sex constitute some manly display of orthodoxy, that they think about how the Truth is not only what we say, but how we say it. Assuming no major escalation or position-shift from Cavey, this will constitute *my* last word on the subject, which he is welcome to have overall.


David Morrison said...

What is really pretty funny is that by not making the Church's distinction between the act and the person - defining people by their temptations - the allegedly "Catholic" Caveman:

1) Is not living in accord with the Church's teaching on same sex attraction and treating people living with same sex attraction. I suggest he re-read or read paragraphs 2357-59 of the Catechism.

2) Is liable to be rather shocked, should he make it that far, to find that there are men and women who spent their whole lives living with a degree of same sex attraction in heaven with him.

Jeron said...


Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

Actually, I typed "angry fairy" on an image search engine, and that came up. Time for you to wipe the rain off your leg.

If my accurate desription of anal sex is disturbing and disgusting to you... good. Just like describing an abortion, that's exactly what I'm after. But if you so desire to feign horror that I have the bad manners to correctly describe the core of active homosexuality, then fine... be shocked all you like.

As far a s the terms "fairy", "queer", "homo", etc, etc, ad nauseum are concerned, I'd like to remind you that these are phrases that the Sodomite Community uses to desribe themselves. Hey, if that's what they want to be called, then so be it. And as far as "faggot" is concerned, let me remind you that I'm not the one that had that particular word tattooed on my back. It was an ...... you guessed it, and active homosexual.

And as I've pointed out to you on more thanone ocassion, any fool who attempts to think that one man sloshing his penis around in another mans feces filled colon is "normal", then I'm not the one who has trouble defining "normal".

Have you considered going after the morally and common sense-challenged individuals who constantly find themselves grasping for a reason... any reason... to either defend or water down how truly and honestly filthy and disgusting active homosexuality is?

John Jansen said...


Thanks for including those excerpts from Ratzinger's 1986 document. They, along with your commentary, are a dose of sanity.

Jeron said...

Go ahead, caveman. Try and justify your hateful self. You're dismissed.

CourageMan said...

Have you considered going after the morally and common sense-challenged individuals who constantly find themselves grasping for a reason... any reason... to either defend or water down how truly and honestly filthy and disgusting active homosexuality is?


Caveman ... without even counting, I can assure you that the vast majority of the posts here in some way, shape or form are critical of the current gay movement. Indeed the blog's very premise is that I'm a homosexual person who has chosen Christ over his dick.

I don't revel in scatological descriptions to do it (primarily because I think they aren't relevant --six unanswered-by-you reasons above) nor do I engage in name-calling (because it's counterproductive) ... but to accuse me of failure to be sufficiently critical of either the sin of homosexuality or of the gay-rights movement is -- Just. Plain. Batty.

CourageMan said...

And one other thing ...

The mere fact that some people use a term to self-describe neither (1) makes it not objectively degrading, nor (2) approves its use for every outsider.

Loyolalaw98 said...

Catholics of the "ilk" of caveman are perhaps most disturbing because of their zealous focus on just one topic. To talk with these people one might think that lust was the ONLY deadly vice.

They should be reminded that PRIDE is the chief deadly vice, a vice that could even sway an angelic intellect as in the case of the fallen angels. The same pride which allows dolt's like caveman to use a machete where a surgeon's scalpel is needed.

Keep up the fight courageman!

Tony said...

I quoted two of my Courage brothers extensively and referred to my own gut revulsion to the Cavemen's personae, which I think is objective counter-witness. Keep in mind who we are. Now imagine how active homosexuals read the words of the Cavemen.

I'm still trying to figure out where "Cavey" is coming from. I know it appears to be profound anger.

I visited "the Cave" in response to some near orgasmic gushing with regards to the promised Moto Proprio, liberalizing the rite of Trent. I had seen his style and thought I'd have a little fun using the same sort of rhetoric.

He wasn't amused. He banned me, while calling me a sissy, a "lib" and making fun of the name of my blog.

He then went on the further slander me in comments while not allowing me to respond.

Ok, I'm a big boy. I'm secure in my manhood and I have dealt with enough playground bullies to not visit their particular sandbox any more.

"Cavey"'s Catholicism is focused on ritual. It's what language you use, what prayers you use, which way the priest is facing, what kind of adornments are on the altar. He takes communion on the tongue on his knees at the altar rail and then goes forth to bring Christ to his fellow man by talking about their "feces stained penises" and searching the internet for the most bizarre aspects of those who identify themselves as homosexual.

Once was a time when those who partook of the Tridentine rite burned people at the stake. Would "Cavey" like me to pull up some pictures of them and compare him to them?

I applaud those who are faithfully living with same sex attraction. You are not only on the path to sanctification, you are lights and salt giving illumination and flavor to those who have lost their way.

"Cavey" on the other hand has lost his way. He needs my prayers more than you do.

Anonymous said...

"modernist heretic"?

CourageMan said...

I was being deliberately ironic with that descriptor.

The point is exactly that Cardinal Ratzinger could not possibly be a "modernist heretic" (a little bit earlier, I also called him a "liberal squish," in exactly the same spirit). Yet he says the kind of things about malice in speech and language that Cavey seems to think brand one a Protestantized haters of the Traditional Latin Mass, an apologist for the homersexual lifestyle and excuse-makers for feces-stained penises, etc.

Winnipeg Catholic said...

Thanks for posting this. I tried convincing Kevin-the-Caveman to stop with the bigotry and schismatic tendencies, quoted him the relevant section of the catechism et cetera, only to be branded a 'fairy' and eventually 'excommunicated'.

I think you hit every proverbial nail on every proverbial head. And this really needs to be said. A lot of these Leviticus quoting fools actually think they are not bigots, think they are somehow hating the sin and not the sinner, and they truly need the scales removed from their eyes. They don't exactly head to the unclean place when they're supposed to if they really follow Leviticus, you know?

Posts like yours help with that, I'm sure.

CourageMan said...

Thanks for the compliments, WC.

But I don't think you'll feel that way toward me if you've read my comments at the site of Regular Guy Paul.

Winnipeg Catholic said...

Hi CM,

Nah I still think your post on the Cave people is pretty wonderful and I really don't fret about your comment on Paul's blog. I suspect you've thought far more deeply on the matter of outing than I have. So, if it turned out Hitler was gay and yet sending people to the concentration camps, and you had incriminating photos, would you out him? But that's a bit extreme. So easy to talk about extremes.

And we were talking about Paul. Paul is a bit overly supportive of the Caveman IMHO, with his little 'what people are saying about this blog' Caveman love fest, and then his 'Don't Call 'em Phobic' post. So I'd love to see him wake up and realize that sort of bigotry works against the work of Courage and a lot of what I assume he believes in from his other posts.

Winnipeg Catholic said...

BTW - Here's a quote from the Caveman:

"People like me who have struggled with alcohol and physical violence in the past realize that these are NEVER urges and inclinations that we can EVER act upon again. And we certainly don't "tsk, tsk" and look the other way to those who do."

One wonders if a tongue-in-cheek blog with lots of images of wife-beating-drunk-redneck-marines complete with slurs galore and horrible imagery, perhaps called the '' would even possibly get him to see the uncharity thing. Hold up a mirror as it were.

One notes that he seems to be happy to crusade against SSA but not against drunk, violent, redneck jar heads.

BTW - some of my loved ones are marines and I mean no disrespect to the Marines. I often wonder if Kevin is an actual or wanna-be marine though.

Arkanabar T'verrick Ilarsadin said...

I think your blog serves a good purpose: by demonstrating you can handle SSA in a virtuous manner, you help homosexuals gain awareness of how they can live chastely, and help humanize homosexuals for others, Cavey notwithstanding.

However, I'm going to avoid suggesting that Cavey is such a rules-bound Pharisee as he's made out to be, and he has things he takes issue with besides the gay activist community (which deserves both strenuous opposition and ridicule).

Neither, given this post, do I think he's merely a wannabe Marine; I'm pretty sure he's the real deal, as far as that goes.

Carlie said...


You have both enlightened little old Mennonite-background, raised in the backwoods, didn't know a thing me in the technical aspects of sodomy. (OH! You mean there isn't poop gross-factor involved?) And more importantly you've made me think about the idea of disgust vs. moral disagreement. I just found your blog and will continue reading.