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.