FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Christianity and homosexuality
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I know, I said I was gone, and I still am I think, but I just saw these and thought some here would find them helpful.  They are PURE GOLD.







I guarantee you that no one who disagrees with Church teaching on homosexuality will look at these, even if they were less than two minutes long.
(11-12-2012, 12:16 AM)dark lancer Wrote: [ -> ]I guarantee you that no one who disagrees with Church teaching on homosexuality will look at these, even if they were less than two minutes long.

Two minutes into the first vid....and I switched off....eww (not watching anymore).
I couldn't watch this more than 15 minutes, and that was generous.

He starts out basically saying he isn't going to be able to answer anything or provide solid evidence, and then goes on to posit things which are plain (where he doesn't err in Scholastic approach) to show homosexuality is disordered-- whilst seeking the confirmation of normality and acceptance. He even posits that many are varying degrees of bisexual, which is untrue except in a truly disordered society given over to propaganda and sexual immorality. His reference of Kinsey is ridiculous as Kinsey's "studies" were as scientific as my left foot kicking a kitten. Kinsey PAID men to molest their children, etc. Kinsey was nothing more than a pervert in a lab coat and I rank him on the level of George Tiller-- I'm glad both are dead lest they continue to pollute the world with their brand of sin.

His stumbling manner of speech is distracting to a high degree.

Here's the bottom line: If one is homosexual or not, a disordered desire is disordered. If, as he states, many people are bisexual in varying degrees, any homosexual so-called can get married and have kids. It ain't like homosexuality is an STD or genetic, so no worries of little flames coming out in the delivery room. Or, the man or woman can be single, celibate and chaste like every unmarried heterosexual. Just as priests do not lose their natural sexual desires, nor do we breeders, no matter our vocation, find ourselves asexual and free of desires. We make due. The bottom line is this line of argumentation, as posited in his foundational argument of presupposition, leads to the desire of being accepted in the context of disordered desires and not as a person who must struggle with their own particular cross and thorn. If the homosexual is pricked, does he not bleed? Of course. He's a person. Jesus loves him or her. But just as we breeders can't fornicate, homosexuals cannot marry each other-- any sexual contact outside of marriage is fornication. Ergo, they can get married to a person of opposite gender (apparently the Jews are doing a thing where gays and lesbians are being matched up for procreation, oddly enough) and help each other fight their disordered desires. I bet that such matches would find themselves loving each other despite an inclination to another or many others-- no matter the type. And really, that ain't exactly apples and oranges for heterosexuals either.


Wow, thanks for posting this, Melkite. A great talk. He covered a LOT of ground -- everything from dualism to the need for community -- and I agreed with him on every point. We have a sick culture which develops sick people and I think he's right to target the Middle Ages as a time when our culture was at its greatest. That sort of way of living is the thing to shoot for (not in every detail, not in a Luddite way, but in terms of social interaction, a common focus on the True, Good, and Beautiful, etc.).

He didn't come out and say this, but I think he sort of jumped around it, and it's an important thing:  what to do with people who don't fit tightly into "gender-norms." He mentioned, for ex., the sensitive sort of child who, if male, will likely become more prone to homosexual inclinations, often because of what he is told about himself and how he is made to feel being himself but not fitting perfectly into the stereotypes set out for him. I've said and will say again that gender norms are just that:  norms. They're natural. If the gender feminist-freaks on the on the one side would shut up, and the "she's a girl; she MUST wear pink and not study math!" types would do likewise, MOST girls and MOST boys would naturally fall into their bell curves -- while the outliers can live their lives in peace, using the gifts God gave them as individuals. Identity politics either way has just got to stop.  The family -- not individuals, and not groups based on sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. -- is the keystone of civilization. Whether a girl studies math, or a boy becomes a nurse should be between them, their families, their priests, and God, not them and some lobbying group that is pushing them in either direction. The rigid, overly conformist 1950s exploded into the nauseating 1960s for a reason: individual gifts and yearnings need to be nurtured, not stifled. People shouldn't be stuffed too tightly into boxes. And a society that's had a common vision of the True, Good, and Beautiful replaced with banal slogans will end up with warped spirituality while people seek "something more," "something deeper."

Who is that speaker? How would one get a hold of him, do you know?

Thanks for these vids, I appreciate them.
(11-12-2012, 12:16 AM)dark lancer Wrote: [ -> ]I guarantee you that no one who disagrees with Church teaching on homosexuality will look at these, even if they were less than two minutes long.

Fairly sure the "target audience" for these are Catholics with homosexual inclinations. Though anybody with a desire for knowledge would benefit from them too.
Melkite,

Thank you for posting these videos.  I will watch them during the coming week.

Those of us who struggle with same sex attraction need to support each other in living the faith.  Some of us are here on Fish Eaters.  We don't need to read expressions of disgust or dismissal.  Vox, thank you for watching these videos and for your helpful comments.

My own view is that the plurality, if not the majority, of instances of same sex attraction are explained by the "Exotic Becomes Erotic" model proposed by Daryl Bem.  He says that same sex attraction is not directly genetic.  Rather, it results from temperament.  Sensitive boys who shy away from athletics feel different from other boys.  When they hit puberty, that feeling of difference is eroticized -- which, ironically, is a normal process.  (Boys who insist that "girls are icky," an autonomic response, will eroticize that response at puberty.)  So Vox has a point in this regard.  Sensitive boys (that is, those with a melancholic temperament -- and this temperament is vastly overrepresented among same sex attracted men) should be guided toward activities that suit their temperament so that they do not feel so alienated from other boys.  Pushing a sensitive, melancholic kid into Little League won't do it, dads.  It will have the opposite effect!

[Image: 243px-Ebe_figure.gif.png]
SMKMI - I decided to watch them and I didn't get the same impression that you did.  Quite the opposite, actually.  And he certainly wasn't supporting Kinsey's theories.
(11-12-2012, 07:00 PM)Pheo Wrote: [ -> ]SMKMI - I decided to watch them and I didn't get the same impression that you did.  Quite the opposite, actually.  And he certainly wasn't supporting Kinsey's theories.

That's the impression I got from the first 15 minutes. I couldn't handle the lack of self-confidence and stuttering and had no idea, even after 15 minutes, what I was supposed to take from the presentation: bad presenters suck and I won't waste my time.