A staggering symptom of this, to me, was the comment from bufo_viridis [...] To my statement that homosexual practice inevitably narrowed people, he answered "I would be interested to hear how" - implying, one, that he had never come across a motivated statement of this viewpoint, and, two, that he found it hard to understand. To which I can only say, where have you been? Which part of "I am a Catholic" do you not understand? Have you not heard the screeching of the media when a Vatican document, hedged about with a million caveats, said that it was not a good idea to consecrate homosexuals to the priesthood? Do you not know that the Catholic Church has taught from time out of mind that homosexual desire is disordered and homosexual acts sinful?[...]Have I not written an essay on the Catholic view of the sexes within man, and of the union of the sexes as an image of God on Earth? First, thank you for compliments, I'm flattered
( ... )
I'll jump the first two paragraphs, because they're a very longwinded introduction to what you intend to say here:
We are now in virtually the opposite position. Adolescents, whose "hormones" are usually said to be not only uncontrollable but positively not to be controlled, are showered with explicit sex.
Well, yes, unfortunately true. The reason has, however, nothing to do with sex of either kind, but to come back to the original essay: sex sells and kids are a money-spending demographic not to be neglected. It is our perverted economical system, not any perverted sex, that makes kids old before their time. Sexuality is not the reason, but the means, it's victimized by economical greed. But what, for heaven's sake, have kids to do with the discussion of homosexuality in this special case? The cowboys were adults as far as I know and the movie is directed as adults as well.
Adults, on the other hand, are increasingly discouraged from debating an ever-increasing and ever-deepening spectrum of
( ... )
The ideological pressure is to restrict discussion to one area, and one area only - the sufferings of the poor suppressed homosexuals at the hands of the wicked persecuting society.
No one denies the suffering of families of homosexuals who wrongfully chose to go against their orientation. The thing is that those families can do something against it. Women can divorce their gay husbands and find a new mate that fits them better. Kids can adjust to parents living apart. It's rather the norm today than the exception. I personally don't think much of matrimony either way. The old matriarchal concept that children belong to their mothers which ever partner she choses to have at the time seems to be far more natural to me than anything else.
But homosexuals cannot chose just to be not persecuted, can they? Mathew Shepard, for example, couldn't chose just not to be killed by homophobic bigots. The rancher in the movie could not chose not to be castrated and killed by his homophobic neighbours. Tough luck that.
Yet possession is at the very heart of this. The passion we are discussing, the passion outlined by Aung Lee and his cohorts, has this difference from ordinary male friendship: the desire to possess the body of the other person. If that desire was not there, there would be no issue, no point to make, no disagreement. Sexual possession and enjoyment, not love in any universal way, is the difference.Excuse me, but how differs that from a so-called "normal" heterosexual love? Why is it okay if a man wants to possess a female body out of love or desire, but it is wrong if that body is male? I see no kind of logic in that
( ... )
Obviously, you will want to use my religion to dismiss my views. .... But the view that there is design in human nature - whether or not you admit a Designer - is widespread, natural, and eminently defensible. And the view that the two sexes are, in this design, complementary and meant to encounter, is equally easy to reach. And that from it follows that what orientates sexual desire away from its obvious target and to one which has no evident design value at all, is a disorder.That's all fine, but mankind has long overcome the boundaries of doing what nature intended for a certain purpose and has turned it all into an end in itself. We do not eat to stay alive, we eat because we enjoy it. The same goes for sex. No one I know has sex solely for the purpose of making babies (although apparently your church says you should, but really!), but everyone has sex just for the fun of it. And unless *you* stop having sex for fun and only do it to create new life (which I do not think you've done with your four loves/girl friends - or are you a
( ... )
Comments 14
Reply
I'll jump the first two paragraphs, because they're a very longwinded introduction to what you intend to say here:
We are now in virtually the opposite position. Adolescents, whose "hormones" are usually said to be not only uncontrollable but positively not to be controlled, are showered with explicit sex.
Well, yes, unfortunately true. The reason has, however, nothing to do with sex of either kind, but to come back to the original essay: sex sells and kids are a money-spending demographic not to be neglected. It is our perverted economical system, not any perverted sex, that makes kids old before their time. Sexuality is not the reason, but the means, it's victimized by economical greed. But what, for heaven's sake, have kids to do with the discussion of homosexuality in this special case? The cowboys were adults as far as I know and the movie is directed as adults as well.
Adults, on the other hand, are increasingly discouraged from debating an ever-increasing and ever-deepening spectrum of ( ... )
Reply
No one denies the suffering of families of homosexuals who wrongfully chose to go against their orientation. The thing is that those families can do something against it. Women can divorce their gay husbands and find a new mate that fits them better. Kids can adjust to parents living apart. It's rather the norm today than the exception. I personally don't think much of matrimony either way. The old matriarchal concept that children belong to their mothers which ever partner she choses to have at the time seems to be far more natural to me than anything else.
But homosexuals cannot chose just to be not persecuted, can they? Mathew Shepard, for example, couldn't chose just not to be killed by homophobic bigots. The rancher in the movie could not chose not to be castrated and killed by his homophobic neighbours. Tough luck that.
I can only interpret the ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment