It’s like spiders in jar

The problem is, I’m the jar:

In this cornah I am diagnosed as a Taliban Christianist for my failure to get on board with unquestioning enthusiasm for homosex:

OK I give up. What’s ‘unnatural’ about gay sex? We straights have many of the same practices gays do. There’s nothing ‘unnatural’ about it, except your preoccupation with others’ sex lives, which is perverse.

This is merely Taliban Christianist theology that thinks people have no rights in a theocracy.

In this cornah, the Pharisees for Truly True Catholic Faith are sure that I am a huge supporter of homosex.

I wish these guys would just talk to each other and stop projecting their fantasies on me.

"Imago Dei Politics does not support white supremacy. Check us out and actually see what ..."

I had Lillian Vogl, the Chairwoman ..."
""Lewis is just another apologist for hierarchy as divinely ordained." Lewis would reply, "You say ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"C.S. Lewis wrote:Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"If he were really like Beria, we wouldn't have the Trump movement much longer."

Australian Conservatives are Catching the American ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Kelley

    Their opinions of you are not really a concern for me, but your frequent use of the word “homosex” is unsettling to me every time I read it. I’m wondering if you are aware of how derogatory that word is. My intent in writing this comment isn’t to be critical really… it’s just that when I’m reading your posts and see that term used it distracts me from the message you are trying to present.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Wait, wha? Derogatory? Is that what we’re calling “descriptive” these days?

    • Mark Shea

      Homosex means “Homosexual intercourse”.

      • Kelley

        I understand what you mean when you use that word, but just because that is you intent in using it doesn’t mean that’s how it’s received by others. It’s a slang word that is derogatory. I’m not debating the teaching, I’m just saying that language has an impact on communicating ones message. When I’m reading a post and come across that word you lose me and that’s not because I necessarily disagree with what you are saying. Do you get what I’m trying to say?

        • Mark Shea

          No. I don’t. Because it’s not a slang word. It’s a descriptor.

          • Kelley
            • Ted Seeber

              What stupid teenagers decide to use as slang terms should NOT ban adults from using the same term- and I notice on that page definition #2 is EXACTLY what Mark Shea meant.

              • Kelley

                Ted… thank you for pointing out #2 is exactly what he meant. Being that the slang term “homo” is currently viewed as derogatory, “homosex” would be considered derogatory as well.

                • Andy, Bad Person

                  Don’t call people Homo Sapiens. It’s derogatory.

  • Kirt Higdon

    “Homosex” appears to be an abbreviation for homos**ual s** as Mark uses it That’s derogatory only if homos**ual s** is wrong, which as a matter of fact it is. (I have to use the ** to get past the accursed spam filter.)

    • SDG

      Has Patheos increased spam filter sensitivity recently? I’ve tried three times to reply to this thread, using different wordings and different comment lengths, and I keep getting a message that my comment “seems spammy.” I’m not using dodgy language or anything. Odd.

      • SDG

        Let me try it again, sentence by sentence.

        Actually, I think Mark uses “homosex” to mean “homosexual acts,” i.e., “sexual acts between individuals whose sex is the same (i.e., homo).”

        • SDG

          (Of course opposite sex couples can engage in acts like this too, and it’s just as unnatural when they do it. So it’s helpful to have a catch-all word, like sod­omy, for such acts regardless of the complementarity or lack thereof of the partner’s bodies. But it’s still helpful to have a word that means “sexual acts between individuals of the same sex,” and “homo­sex” seems to me a reasonable term for that.)

          • Ted Seeber

            Despite the fact that we have absolutely NO proof whatsoever that the residents of Sodom in Ur ever engaged in such behavior? I think we need to be more descriptive, but being autistic and having no idea what appropriateness is other than when I’m accused of being inappropriate, I have no ideas on how to do that.

        • SDG

          Well, there you have it. AFAICT, you just can’t use the word “sex” more than a certain number of times (four seems to be the limit) in a single comment, or the spam filters kick in.

          • Adolfo

            Well, my plan to replace the word ‘Spam’ with ‘sex’ in the Monty Python ‘Spam’ song just went out the window. It appears the terrorists have won…

        • Mark Shea


      • SDG

        I think it is useful to have a words that means this, since homo­sexual acts are qualitatively different from the natural union of a man and a woman, i.e., coitus or reproductive joining, the joining of reproductive systems to form a single, shared reproductive super-system.

      • SDG

        Two individuals of the same sex cannot join reproductive systems in this way. They can only join reproductive system to digestive system at one end or the other.

        • Ted Seeber

          If this was slashdot, and I had mod points more than once in a blue moon, I’d mod it up.

  • Goshua

    Kelley, you might find the alternatives to “homosex” much more unsettling.

  • Ed Pie

    I thought half the reason for this tolerance business was that we were supposed to be preoccupied with others’ sex lives. I can hardly approve of something I know little about, can I?

    Maybe that’s not fair; the Church has been accused of trying to be the bedroom police before. But even then it was to make the Church stop teaching on morality, not to offer a relevant and substantial counterargument.

  • But DON’T you think that “people have no rights in a theocracy”? Doesn’t that oppose you to all those people who think that people DO have rights in a theocracy, and therefore there is nothing wrong with Saudi Arabia and Iran?

  • I have never understood the “homosex is natural” argument. It is clearly not natural given that the natural function of the anus to pass waste from the body, not to be an entry point for sexual activity. When it is used in such a way, bad things tend to happen.

    • ds

      Gay people do a lot of other stuff besides anal sex, and many don’t do it at all.

      • SDG

        ds: Whatever-all they may do, they can’t do coitus, one the natural end for which arousal and climax exists. They can’t unite their sexual powers, can’t become one flesh.

        • SDG

          Typo: s/b “the one natural end.”

  • Chris M

    “Natural in what way?” would be my question.

    “Unnatural, mummy? You tell me, what’s nature’s way? If poison mushrooms grow and babies come with crooked backs, if goiters thrive and dogs go mad and wives kill husbands, what’s unnatural?”
    Richard, The Lion in Winter

    • Jeff

      Chris M:
      You are analogizing these harmful realities with homosex, and consequently your view of homosex has become something harmful in nature. Shoving a poison mushroom into your anus in order to get some sort of good/nutrition would be unnatural. Nature would say “you are doing that the wrong way, it should go into your mouth. And by the way, don’t eat things that are poisonous to your body!”

  • john

    Mark, you are obviously some sort of double or even triple or qudruple agent whose mission is to sew confusion or dissent or something…you have obviously been sent by folks from the differing tribes to condemn those of the opposing tribes and to prove that the tribes that have sent you are the only ones worthy of heaven and that the other tribes are only worthy of hell. Quite clearly your opinions on any given day or in any given moment are influenced by the tribe who’s paycheck arrives first on that given day regarding that particular issue. This is the only reasonable conclusion that one can draw from your obviously inconsistent ribal alliegence…Or could it be that there is something over and above tribal alliegences that motivates you…Nah that can’t be it…everybody knows that we must all belong to one tribe or another…there is nothing greater than the tribe…and there is no tribe greater than my tribe.

    • B.E. Ward

      Hmm.. I’m pretty sure Mark’s in the Jesus Christ and His One, Holy, and Apostolic Church tribe……

      • john

        I soulful consider the Church to be a family rather than a tribe

        • john


    • Mark Shea

      Everything in the Tribe. Nothing outside the Tribe. Nothing against the Tribe.

  • john

    Spider tribe spider tribe does whatever a spider…sorry I’ll stop

  • Ed the Roman

    There are practices sufficiently common among gay men and uncommon among straight men that anonymous surveys asked about them in the military during the 80s to get a more accurate idea of what percentage of the force was really gay, since it was expected that the survey anonymity would not be trusted.

    And when I say “uncommon” I mean “almost unheard of.”

  • bob

    Mark is making people angry for modifying that *s* word (to fly under the spam radar). It makes bugs people in the same way that the term “homo*s* marriage” does. It makes it sound like it isn’t REAL marriage, which of course it isn’t, in exactly the same way that “homo*s*” is not actual sex. In each case the idea they distantly resemble the real thing. But you’re a bad, rotten evil person if you point that out. Drawing attention to reality really pisses off some groups.