Gay activists aim to shut down Oregon health food store over owner’s support for
#11
(04-09-2014, 07:03 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(04-09-2014, 06:28 PM)Heorot Wrote: My goodness, can't a thread about the actions of the Gay Agenda (a group of proud sodomites, in the fullest sense of the term) focus on the political and moral aspects of this revolution in society without delving into what gets stuck where by whom?

No offense Vox,, loggats, or Northern Trad, but this topic is about the radical homosexuals who try to bully companies. It has nothing to do with sex.

My point exactly, which is why I object to the use of the term "sodomites" to refer to homosexuals, many of whom don't engage in sodomy even as many heterosexuals do.  I get sick of hearing myself saying it, but I apparently have to until it sinks in.

Come on Vox, seriously?  How come I don't see you get sick of people trying to continously defend homosexual relationships by erroneously comparing them to disordered heterosexual unions?  Apparently some of us have to keep reminding others of that fact until that sinks in.
Reply
#12
(04-09-2014, 09:18 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Sorry, Vox, but 'sodomite' is a whole lot easier to type than 'evil, sick perverts, whose sin cries out to Heaven for vengeance'.

Bingo. 
Reply
#13
(04-09-2014, 09:18 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote:
(04-09-2014, 07:03 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: My point exactly, which is why I object to the use of the term "sodomites" to refer to homosexuals, many of whom don't engage in sodomy even as many heterosexuals do.  I get sick of hearing myself saying it, but I apparently have to until it sinks in.

Come on Vox, seriously?  How come I don't see you get sick of people trying to continously defend homosexual relationships by erroneously comparing them to disordered heterosexual unions?  Apparently some of us have to keep reminding others of that fact until that sinks in.

Because talking about the evils of homosexual sex is a given in the Catholic world. What isn't a given is people differentiating between "homosexual" and "sodomite." There is a difference. A big one. One suffers from a disorder, an inclination; the other commits a sin, and lumping the two together as if they're the same is simply wrong, incorrect, factually in error, in addition to causing suffering to innocent people.  And heterosexuals can also be sodomites but no one calls the lot of us "sodomites" because some engage in that (where "some" means 1/3 of British couples, with 10% preferring it to vaginal sex). I find that sort of hypocrisy a form of scapegoating.

(04-09-2014, 09:18 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote:
Quote from: jovan66102 Wrote:Sorry, Vox, but 'sodomite' is a whole lot easier to type than 'evil, sick perverts, whose sin cries out to Heaven for vengeance'.

Bingo. 

Sodomites are committing sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. But that still doesn't make all homosexuals sodomites or "evil, sick perverts", and no heterosexuals sodomites or "evil sick perverts." When referring to homosexuals, the word "homosexual" should suffice.

Reply
#14
Vox, your distinction between homosexual and sodomite is reasonable as far as it goes, as is your classification of the former as a disorder rather than a sin.  Homosexuality (which has always been with us) isn't the problem.  The problem is that there is clearly a cultural agenda to normalise homosexuality, to insist that it is not a disorder but a healthy mode of being -- to the extent of making any public expression of dissent a de facto criminal act.  And this agenda is served by a powerful campaign of propaganda.

This would be bad enough but what makes it particularly dangerous is that the surrounding culture assigns an exaggerated priority to sex, so that sodomy is seen as the natural, healthy end towards which homosexuality tends.  If it doesn't culminate in sodomy, it is 'repressed', not following its proper trajectory.  In traditional Christian societies -- where the act of sodomy was a crime -- 'homosexuality' didn't exist as a concept and the surrounding culture provided sanctioned outlets for what we would call homosexual inclinations.  If, say, two men enjoyed a friendship so intense that it could be called love, or if a man expressed a disinterested aesthetic appreciation of male beauty, nobody batted an eyelid; and the individuals in question would doubtless have been genuinely horrified to be told they were repressed sodomites.  Nowadays the cultural pressure is all in the other direction and everything is 'homoerotic'.  That can't be good, particularly when you're talking about unformed adolescents being exposed to this propaganda.
Reply
#15
(04-12-2014, 04:36 PM)Cambrensis Wrote: Vox, your distinction between homosexual and sodomite is reasonable as far as it goes, as is your classification of the former as a disorder rather than a sin.  Homosexuality (which has always been with us) isn't the problem.  The problem is that there is clearly a cultural agenda to normalise homosexuality, to insist that it is not a disorder but a healthy mode of being -- to the extent of making any public expression of dissent a de facto criminal act.  And this agenda is served by a powerful campaign of propaganda.

I know about the cultural agenda and post about it all the time. The problem is that, when I do, these sorts of conversations always have to come up because people aren't careful with language.

(04-12-2014, 04:36 PM)Cambrensis Wrote: This would be bad enough but what makes it particularly dangerous is that the surrounding culture assigns an exaggerated priority to sex, so that sodomy is seen as the natural, healthy end towards which homosexuality tends.  If it doesn't culminate in sodomy, it is 'repressed', not following its proper trajectory.  In traditional Christian societies -- where the act of sodomy was a crime -- 'homosexuality' didn't exist as a concept and the surrounding culture provided sanctioned outlets for what we would call homosexual inclinations.  If, say, two men enjoyed a friendship so intense that it could be called love, or if a man expressed a disinterested aesthetic appreciation of male beauty, nobody batted an eyelid; and the individuals in question would doubtless have been genuinely horrified to be told they were repressed sodomites.  Nowadays the cultural pressure is all in the other direction and everything is 'homoerotic'.  That can't be good, particularly when you're talking about unformed adolescents being exposed to this propaganda.

That's the problem:  normalizing homosexuality has nothing in se to do with sodomy given that there are lots of active homosexuals who have nothing to do with sodomy (I feel as if I've typed that sentence a thousand time. It's getting so old). That is an error in fact is what I am trying to get people to realize. There are other means to orgasm besides sodomy -- and in a homosexual pair among the subset of homosexuals that do engage in sodomy, it's usually only ONE who is the active partner in that and who, therefore, is likely to have an orgasm  because of it, but if you think the "passive parner"  isn't also wanting an orgasm, you're likely wrong in most cases, which proves my point about other sexual activities being common in the world of active homosexuals. (see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...101811.php )

And, as I've also typed a thousand times, there are more heterosexuals numerically who engage in sodomy. As a percentage, well see this page:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114912/

Our culture's going on about repressed homosexuality and its finding homoeroticism everywhere is a sick thing. But it has nothing in se to do with whether homosexuals should be equated with "sodomites," esp. since many homosexuals aren't active at all, and among those who are, a third of them have never engaged in anal sex and don't want to.
Reply
#16
(04-12-2014, 06:13 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: That's the problem:  normalizing homosexuality has nothing in se to do with sodomy given that there are lots of active homosexuals who have nothing to do with sodomy (I feel as if I've typed that sentence a thousand time. It's getting so old). 

Yes, I'm quoting myself. I want to apologize to Cambrensis because I fear the way I wrote what I wrote might sound as if I was saying to HIM "it's getting so old" in such a way that I was indicating I'd had this conversation with HIM before and he's wearing me out or annoying me or something. Such is NOT the case! For all I know, Cambrensis has never ever heard me talk about this topic before! I just want to make clear that I am NOT annoyed at Cambrensis in ANY way, was not meaning any sort of "smack-down" on him, and that I wasn't even thinking of HIM at all when I wrote that.

I was making a general statement about how I often repeat myself (which makes me fear having readers out there thinking, "Oh, man! She's saying that AGAIN!?!"). I fear that reaction from others and sort of want to let others know that I know, too, that I repeat myself a lot  -- but, on the other hand, there are always new posters, and always new surfers who come by the place who are new to all this, so I typically write with them in mind, too, and not just the folks I'm responding to in a given situation. I know I can sound like a broken record sometimes (and how!), but really am concerned about how homosexuals are treated and thought of, and want to make clear to newbies and passers-by what "the FE stance" is on things. Plus, when someone makes a statement or asks a question that pretty much "requires" me to repeat myself, I have little choice. So please bear with me?

Again, to Cambrensis, I beg pardon if the way I phrased that sounded abrupt or personal to you! It TRULY had not a THING to do with what you wrote in itself. Forgive me?

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)