And here’s Nick Cohen not understanding the point being made:
It is not true that all we ever “think about is sex”, protested the Catholic journalist Melanie McDonagh in the Spectator. Without a blush, she then went on to demonstrate that she could think of little else. Society should tolerate men and women whose attraction to their own sex is not expressed in sexual relations, she explained, as she began her discussion of vicars’ todgers. If a vicar uses his penis for sex “without a procreative purpose”, however, then out of the church he must go.
For a start, if it’s the sex life ov vicars which is under discussion, as it is, it seems fairly reasonable to discuss the sex lives of vicars: what they do with their todgers.
And as I’ve pointed out before it helps greatly to understand the underlying theology. You most certainly don’t have to agree with it. But as long as you accept the basic presumption then it does indeed make logical sense.
Sex, to be moral, must be inside marraige and open to the possibility of conception. And that’s about it really. From that comes the verboeten nature of gay sex: not open to the possibility of conception. And do note that doing entirely the same things with todgers inside a marriage are also verboeten. Anal, oral, frotting (not, in detail, quite possible in a heterosexual sense) handjobs: all just absolutely fine as horses douvers but not as the main course leading to ejaculation.
As I say, you most certainly don’t have to agree with this or even the starting assumption. But it would behove you to take the time to actually understand what is being said and the logic being used to get there. Only sex open to the possibility of conception is moral.
And I do find this abnout Montgomery to be most amusing, most funny.
Many homophobes, who make a great show of their disgust at “unnatural practices”, imitate the old man. In 1965, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein tried to stop the repeal of criminal penalties on homosexuals by bellowing that “one may just as well condone the devil and all his works” as allow gay sex. True to form, Nigel Hamilton, his biographer, revealed that Monty had passionate, if unconsummated, relationships with young men.
What, you mean that man who lived by his own expressed moral code is doing something wrong? Is a hypocrite in some manner?
Man who quite clearly understood the attractions of same sex relationships, but thought that to make them physical was immoral, did not make his own same sex relationships, however passionate, into physical relationships?
Blimey. That’s like attacking a man who says that stealing is wrong for not stealing.