Search Results
7/5/2025, 8:49:07 AM
>>24522582
I don't think you're quite getting my narrative, and I apologize if I've made it unclear. You're absolutely right in what you've said; I agree with all of it. Gay sex is, indeed, a perversion. And so is homosexuality, by extension. I'm not denying that. Nor would I ever deny the divinely created sexual union of man and woman.
What you're incorrectly homing in on is the innate "unlovingness" of the act of gay sex. The act is, indeed, when isolated as an act without anything further than carnal intent, an unloving act. That's why nearly all homosexuals are definitively promiscuous. They engage in sodomy because it feels good to them. My difference in perspective, which I previously expressed, is that the act itself, I believe, should proceed *from* an already-existent love between two men. Real love, not mere lust which I hope to distinguish from. I understand how such a concept can seem so laughably far away from reality, both physically and spiritually. But, seeing as I am capable of expressing the existence of such a thing, then clearly there is some basis in reality for the existence of loving, monogamous, homosexual relationship wherein sex is a gratifying utility of that love.
Such a utility will never be sanctified. I won't deny that. But, you've failed to properly express that heterosexual relations are not innately sanctified either. It is the marital bed between man and woman that is sanctified. Holy Tradition, which I am guessing to be the basis of your argument, makes this quite clear. That's why you can't go out and have normative sex with a hooker and call it sanctified.
I should like to reiterate one last time: Sex, in the case of a monogamous homosexual relationship should proceed from an already-existent, purer love, between two men, that supersedes carnality. This is my view on the matter.
I don't think you're quite getting my narrative, and I apologize if I've made it unclear. You're absolutely right in what you've said; I agree with all of it. Gay sex is, indeed, a perversion. And so is homosexuality, by extension. I'm not denying that. Nor would I ever deny the divinely created sexual union of man and woman.
What you're incorrectly homing in on is the innate "unlovingness" of the act of gay sex. The act is, indeed, when isolated as an act without anything further than carnal intent, an unloving act. That's why nearly all homosexuals are definitively promiscuous. They engage in sodomy because it feels good to them. My difference in perspective, which I previously expressed, is that the act itself, I believe, should proceed *from* an already-existent love between two men. Real love, not mere lust which I hope to distinguish from. I understand how such a concept can seem so laughably far away from reality, both physically and spiritually. But, seeing as I am capable of expressing the existence of such a thing, then clearly there is some basis in reality for the existence of loving, monogamous, homosexual relationship wherein sex is a gratifying utility of that love.
Such a utility will never be sanctified. I won't deny that. But, you've failed to properly express that heterosexual relations are not innately sanctified either. It is the marital bed between man and woman that is sanctified. Holy Tradition, which I am guessing to be the basis of your argument, makes this quite clear. That's why you can't go out and have normative sex with a hooker and call it sanctified.
I should like to reiterate one last time: Sex, in the case of a monogamous homosexual relationship should proceed from an already-existent, purer love, between two men, that supersedes carnality. This is my view on the matter.
Page 1