Get past the raw language that Phil Robertson, the Patriarch of the Duck Dynasty, used to criticize homosexual acts in his recent interview, and you see some sound logic behind it. First a look at the Patriarch’s comments:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” he said. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying?
“But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Let the shock wear off and then ask yourself this: “Is the anal canal really a sexual organ? Was it really created for penetration? Is semen meant to be mixed with feces?” Yes, not pleasant to think about but the answer is clearly no. It’s elementary biology after all. It’s also natural law.
Natural law is the idea that the workings of the physical creation reveal that the universe has a moral character. The material functioning of things (say the biological complementarity of male and female working together to create new life) implies that a moral dimension exists regarding how they should function.
Moral theology cannot negate the natural law because then it speaks to something other than the creation as it exists. Today there are plenty of “theologians” who teach all sorts of things contrary to what nature itself testifies, thereby buttressing the grave confusion we see exhibited in the outcry against Phil Robertson. Their reaction to the Patriarch’s traditional ideas would be inconceivable a mere decade or so ago. Call them the legion of the unkowning.
The Patriarch is right — the anus is not a vagina. In fact, if you look at the biology of the anus it was not designed for penetration at all. Sodomy does violence to the body although this fact is often hidden with euphemisms like “homosexual intercourse” and other locutions that hide the true function of natural things.
The Patriarch’s moral reasoning doesn’t end there. He also said:
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he said. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”
What’s wrong with that? Not much by my reading. Once the sexual divide has been crossed, it will be a lot easier to cross the specie divide for this reason: throw out nature and all you have left is emotionalized sentimentality. If “love” becomes the justification for homosexuality, why shouldn’t love become the rationale for relations with animals? It won’t happen overnight of course. The moral culture need more desensitization first.
It will start with polyamory, then agitation to lower the age of consent for pederasts, then the last taboo to be conquered will be bestiality. “We will go where no man has gone before!” the activists triumphantly proclaim. “Think of the freedom!”
But there’s nothing new here (sympathizers with the homosexual agenda can leave their faux outrage at the door). The decline of civilization follows a predictable track.
Orthodox Lavenders wont like this but maybe they will be receptive to a Bishop of another communion since they won’t conform to the teachings of their own. Roman Catholic Bishop Chaput said this:
Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it. So it always has been. So it always will be. And America has no special immunity to becoming an enemy of its own founding beliefs about human freedom, human dignity, the limited power of the state, and the sovereignty of God.
Robertson and Chaput. Not a bad team. Kind of Orthodox too.