Calling Sodomy and Promiscuity By Name

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

There is a lot to be said about sodomy and promiscuity, from many angles.  I am not an expert in these sexual practices, but I want to say:  these admittedly icky topics are long overdue for mature consideration.  The mounting evidence against promiscuous sodomy recommends a reconsideration of Lawrence v. Texas (privacy right protects consensual sodomy) just as the "visibility of the fetus" has strained the reasoning of Roe v. Wade (privacy right protects abortion). 

First, I weary of attack articles and opinion pieces about the "500-pound homosexual activist gorilla and his yappy, apple polishing lapdogs" and "certain segments of the homosexual community" and "practicing homosexuals" - as if every man admitting to homosexual orientation engages in sodomy with abandon and is now personally and purposefully accountable for some pretty scary illnesses (the drug resistant MRSA/staph and neurosyphillis on which I posted in 2007).  These attacks, particularly from Catholic quarters which should know better (See "Always Our Children"), verge on mean-spirited and threaten stereotypes about the gay community.  Just as we are on the verge of responsibly considering the full incorporation into society of people with "disordered" sexual interests, why slam the entire community (again) with rejection and disapproval? 

Second, if you browse the Internet, you will find helpful tips on "safe sodomy" and "safer sex" for having multiple partners ("safe sex", note, has been abandoned).  I won't  link because I find the topics personally  gross and, more important, brimming with false promises and omitted consequences.  But this Internet wasteland of sex exploration only extends the Big Lie of the Culture of Adult Desire - that if we can think of it, and want it, it's an attainable good to be had.  And, yes, I know there is an active, aggressive gay contingent deeply invested in justifying and normalizing behaviors of sodomy and promiscuity,  just as my generation produced radical feminists who will go their grave insisting that abortion decisions should be fully entrusted to women.  But, they are wrong and Truth will prevail . . . and, by no measure, are these die-hard radical feminists representative of the "all women" group they ludicrously claim to represent. 

Finally, when you target "the gays" as the source of impending destruction by disease, you fail to hold accountable the government subsidized sex lies of Planned Parenthood (okay, I am linking PP's categorizing "anal sex play" as "outercourse" that prevents pregnancy ... ) and the promotion of multiple sex partners and anal sex among women.  Trust me, there is a thriving heterosexual culture that supports, promotes and celebrates sodomy and promiscuity.

Why not call the "problems" that worry us by name?  It's not gay men  To the contrary, many gay men have made, and continue to make, an unique, often loving and gentle, always cultural and polished, contribution to our communities.  Don't we all know chaste gay men in the clergy?  Sodomy and promiscuity, on the other hand, represent dangerous behaviors - no matter who is practicing them.

So, I urge particularly Catholic media to raise the bar.  Call the conduct what it is - and let the chips fall where they will. 

Comments

[dymphna]

"Don't we all know chaste gay men in the clergy?"

Umm. No. If a priest is bragging about his sexual chasity I'd say he's not being too chaste. People who talk about sex all the time usually have an obsession with it.

[Jeff Miller]

Good caveats on the subject.

Though I wonder about "Don't we all know chaste gay men in the clergy?"

Unless a priest is going around saying he has same-sex attraction how are we suppose to know that they do? It seems to me like a real bad idea for a priest to reveal this or for heterosexual priests to talk about their own temptations towards the opposite sex outside of confession. The Church says that those who have same-sex attraction much reach a level of must reach affective maturity and that those who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies can not be accepted at the seminary. While people who have this trial should not be treated with unjust discrimination you can not say that those how have objectively disordered tendencies are on the same playing field with priests that are heterosexual.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

Another of my own caveats would be referring to "gay men" in the first place. This is a term that identifies a person primarily as to their sexual attraction as if it is the main component of their personhood. They are persons first and foremost and casting sexual identity as a main identifier is mistaken. David Morrison who wrote the book "Beyond Gay" (and now wishes he choose a different title) thinks that it is a bad idea to use the terms developed by the homosexual community and thinks it it is much better to speak for example of men with same-sex attraction or having some level of same-sex attraction. This is the approach the Courage uses which David is part of.