Called homo attraction a perversion. Not only the act itself, but the condition.
Is that wrong?
Quote from: Armor of Light on July 02, 2018, 05:53:25 AM
Called homo attraction a perversion. Not only the act itself, but the condition.
Is that wrong?
Nope. Was in psychiatric books as a mental disorder until 1973. Then it became politically incorrect to call it a disorder.
It's 'wrong' in the sense that the mainstream Catholic church would not describe it as a perversion.
Survey and educated opinion suggests that ~ 50% of priests are homosexually inclined. It's certainly at least 30%
So wrong or right it is hardly surprising you got 'booted'.
Try joining Fisheaters.com and saying transsexualism is a perversion. See how long you last.
Ha!
I was there witnessing that whole debacle when it happened. Haven't been back since..
So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.
"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."
"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
objectively disordered == perverted
per·vert·ed
p?r?v?rd?d/Submit
adjective
(of a person or their actions) characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies.
"he whispered perverted obscenities"
synonyms: unnatural, deviant, warped, corrupt, twisted, abnormal, unhealthy, depraved, perverse, aberrant, immoral, debauched, debased, degenerate, evil, wicked, vile, amoral, wrong, bad; More
(of a thing) having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.
"this sudden surge of perverted patriotism"
Yes. Thank You..
I paraphrased that definition a bit, just winging it on common sense and Catholic understanding.
Plus, I was a little extra miffed because of last month being homo pride month. My workplace took that seriously and I was annoyed.
Some of the older members might remember, but recall when it was a badge of honor to get banned from CAF lol?
Quote from: drummerboy on July 02, 2018, 08:16:17 AM
Some of the older members might remember, but recall when it was a badge of honor to get banned from CAF lol?
It still is to some extent, but it is not a very challenging accomplishment. Even I have been banned from CAF.
Quotecharacterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies.
It's now acceptable by most of society.
And even the mainstream catholic church kinda, sorta accepts it. It would have to with 50% of priests being so inclined. Queers were never burned at the stake as long as they didn't flaunt their behaviors.
If you are attracted, without acting, I think an argument could be made that it wasn't a perversion. We all have bizarre thoughts now and then, but we wouldn't describe ourselves as perverts or abnormal.
It must take a fair amount of willpower to be a queer and not act out on it. Especially now, when there's much less threat of getting beaten up or losing your job. I'd resist attacking the ones with self-control
It's the latter definition I was intending to highlight
(of a thing) having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.
"this sudden surge of perverted patriotism"
Therein lies the question.
Are homo-sexually inclined people born or made.
What, for example, would you make of a 5 year old, the last in a large Catholic family where nobody else was queer, who dressed up as female superheros rather than male ones?
5 year old perverts? Surely not.
Or played with dolls when GI Joe was in the toy box and showed little or no interest in the things that boys like. It's impossible to put that down to nurture because 11 siblings before him were nurtured and turned out perfectly normal.
I'm inclined to believe that at least some effeminates are made like that. Why? God only knows.
Others are normal but become perverted through poor experiences, abuse, self-abuse.
Quote from: Carleendiane on July 02, 2018, 05:59:37 AM
Quote from: Armor of Light on July 02, 2018, 05:53:25 AM
Called homo attraction a perversion. Not only the act itself, but the condition.
Is that wrong?
Nope. Was in psychiatric books as a mental disorder until 1973. Then it became politically incorrect to call it a disorder.
As recently as the eighties, Ratzinger as head of the CDF published a document that said the homosexual inclination itself is "intrinsically disordered."
If these people are "conservative N.O.," they should be big fans of BXVI.
Quote from: Greg on July 02, 2018, 10:32:07 AM
Therein lies the question.
Are homo-sexually inclined people born or made.
What, for example, would you make of a 5 year old, the last in a large Catholic family where nobody else was queer, who dressed up as female superheros rather than male ones?
5 year old perverts? Surely not.
Or played with dolls when GI Joe was in the toy box and showed little or no interest in the things that boys like. It's impossible to put that down to nurture because 11 siblings before him were nurtured and turned out perfectly normal.
I'm inclined to believe that at least some effeminates are made like that. Why? God only knows.
Others are normal but become perverted through poor experiences, abuse, self-abuse.
Perverted from the nature of man itself.
It's like a man born without a nose, or retarded, or missing a leg. A disorder is a failing from what man is or should be.
Quote from: Greg on July 02, 2018, 10:32:07 AM
Therein lies the question.
Are homo-sexually inclined people born or made.
What, for example, would you make of a 5 year old, the last in a large Catholic family where nobody else was queer, who dressed up as female superheros rather than male ones?
5 year old perverts? Surely not.
Or played with dolls when GI Joe was in the toy box and showed little or no interest in the things that boys like. It's impossible to put that down to nurture because 11 siblings before him were nurtured and turned out perfectly normal.
I've heard that young children who are "gender confused" almost always grow out of it once they go through puberty. Before puberty children are not really sexual creatures, so their differences are more a matter of cultural enforcement than nature (girls made to wear skirts, boys trousers, etc.). So a young boy that prefers dolls is not necessarily something to be worried about. It could be that he saw his sister playing with them, or whatever. Of course, boys and girls do start differentiating themselves before puberty, but I would suggest that that's more a desire on their part to conform to social norms and behave as they're expected. A child that's slow to pick up on this could just be less sociable and less inclined to follow social norms enthusiastically.
QuoteI'm inclined to believe that at least some effeminates are made like that. Why? God only knows.
I actually think that the queer theorists - gender theorists, or whatever they call themselves - may have a point in saying that our understanding of the distinction between the sexes had become too rigid. Obviously I utterly disagree with the idea that there is no distinction between the sexes or that the sexes don't have different social roles, but if you look at past societies a man wasn't necessarily suspected of being a sodomite if he preferred art and poetry, if he wasn't a typical man whose passion was war and fighting. For example, you will hear about kings and princes whose passion really was to go about waging war, and you'll hear about others whose passion was art & reading - and the latter weren't necessarily suspected of perversion. The consequence of trying to get every man to be a "man's man" is that if he doesn't have that inclination, he himself might suspect that he's a "homosexual"; and that might push men towards perversion that otherwise wouldn't have become perverts if their manhood wasn't questioned the second they turned up their nose to football or wrestling.
Quote from: MilesChristi on July 02, 2018, 11:42:22 AM
Perverted from the nature of man itself.
It's like a man born without a nose, or retarded, or missing a leg. A disorder is a failing from what man is or should be.
Would we call mentally retarded, or physically disabled people people "perverts" or "disordered" on a Catholic forum?
I don't think we would.
We're trying to stop such people getting aborted. The last thing they need is labels.
If a homosexual inclination alone or an effeminate personality (what we call being camp) is "like" a mental or physical disability, then it is no wonder it evoked a ban for the OP. There was a very camp man at the SSPX in London back in the 1980s. I don't remember a bad word being said about him by any of the adults. He was a good Catholic and everyone was very accommodating and friendly. Don't ask don't tell seems to me to be a pragmatic policy.
Now that queers have taken over there is a tendency to over-react and believe every person who is inclined that way is out to seduce our teenage sons. The mature response is not to call everyone disordered but rather to teach your sons to give any
actual perverts a good hard kick in the bollocks.
The world has always functioned with such people. The difference now is that they are being heralded as the "new black" and the media are constantly suggesting that they are a huge and significant bloc of people.
Well..thank you all for the replies. I was not referring to any individual in the ban-worthy comments, but I refused to give up the "pervert" designation. Perhaps Greg is correct. They don't need more labels. We would never refer to a retarded kid as being a perverted version of what God intended..
Quote from: John Lamb on July 02, 2018, 11:45:46 AM
I've heard that young children who are "gender confused" almost always grow out of it once they go through puberty.
That depends how gender confused they are. There are some people who know they are boys but they are attracted to female and feminine things. I think we nearly all knew a kid like that at school.
Did they grow out of it? Some did but I wouldn't say "almost all". How on earth would you track that?
QuoteThe consequence of trying to get every man to be a "man's man" is that if he doesn't have that inclination, he himself might suspect that he's a "homosexual"; and that might push men towards perversion that otherwise wouldn't have become perverts if their manhood wasn't questioned the second they turned up their nose to football or wrestling.
I can remember fancying my Italian brother in law's sister in 1977. I was 9. She was pretty sexy as Italian women tend to be, she must have been 19. I had no solid idea what I wanted to do, but I vividly remember feeling very excited in her presence and hiding under her bed.
My 5 year old boy really likes one of my daughter's friends (who is very good looking). I reckon something is going on bio-chemically inside children's heads. I know a Catholic schoolteacher of 45 years, for example, who told me that 8 year old girls will smarten themselves up for a male visitor to the class like a sportsman or handsome male teacher, whereas 8 year old boys are typically pretty scruffy and don't care about their appearance.
Poets are generally speaking degenerates. It's hard to find a famous poet in the last few hundred years who didn't have a string of sordid escapades. If any of my boys start writing poetry I think I'll take them fishing and use them as bait.
.
Quote from: Greg on July 02, 2018, 12:09:03 PM
Quote from: MilesChristi on July 02, 2018, 11:42:22 AM
Perverted from the nature of man itself.
It's like a man born without a nose, or retarded, or missing a leg. A disorder is a failing from what man is or should be.
Would we call mentally retarded, or physically disabled people people "perverts" or "disordered" on a Catholic forum?
I don't think we would.
We're trying to stop such people getting aborted. The last thing they need is labels.
If a homosexual inclination alone or an effeminate personality (what we call being camp) is "like" a mental or physical disability, then it is no wonder it evoked a ban for the OP. There was a very camp man at the SSPX in London back in the 1980s. I don't remember a bad word being said about him by any of the adults. He was a good Catholic and everyone was very accommodating and friendly. Don't ask don't tell seems to me to be a pragmatic policy.
Now that queers have taken over there is a tendency to over-react and believe every person who is inclined that way is out to seduce our teenage sons. The mature response is not to call everyone disordered but rather to teach your sons to give any actual perverts a good hard kick in the bollocks.
The world has always functioned with such people. The difference now is that they are being heralded as the "new black" and the media are constantly suggesting that they are a huge and significant bloc of people.
It's a harsh word but all it means by the latter definition is twisted or degenerated from the normal. Unfortunately, the connotations of such a word make it inappropriate to be used except with regards to sexual perversion.
And no, I wouldn't use it for those groups because of the sexual connotations. All I mean is that there is something wrong naturally with these people. If such a thing wrong is genetic or caused by an external factor it is not a moral failing. There's a better word for it
Let's just say for the sake of the argument that the normal IQ is 100. In that case a 99 or a 101 is a perversion or abnormal
Quote from: St.Justin on July 02, 2018, 06:18:19 PM
Let's just say for the sake of the argument that the normal IQ is 100. In that case a 99 or a 101 is a perversion or abnormal
This is a misunderstanding of a number of topics, including statistics.
Quote from: Maximilian on July 02, 2018, 06:56:12 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on July 02, 2018, 06:18:19 PM
Let's just say for the sake of the argument that the normal IQ is 100. In that case a 99 or a 101 is a perversion or abnormal
This is a misunderstanding of a number of topics, including statistics.
Here is the problem with what you posted: "Challenges in Defining "Normal" A psychological disorder is a condition characterized by abnormal thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. However, defining what is "normal" and "abnormal" is a subject of much debate. Definitions of normality vary widely by person, time, place, culture, and situation." This is clearly a modernist approach to the question.
Anything that varies from the normal is by definition abnormal.
Quote from: St.Justin on July 02, 2018, 06:18:19 PM
Let's just say for the sake of the argument that the normal IQ is 100. In that case a 99 or a 101 is a perversion or abnormal
Quote from: St.Justin on July 02, 2018, 07:44:37 PM
Here is the problem with what you posted: "Challenges in Defining "Normal" A psychological disorder is a condition characterized by abnormal thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. However, defining what is "normal" and "abnormal" is a subject of much debate. Definitions of normality vary widely by person, time, place, culture, and situation." This is clearly a modernist approach to the question.
Anything that varies from the normal is by definition abnormal.
This is equivocation on the word "normal".
(1) Normal = according to the natural law.
(2) Normal = the average or common occurrence.
Homosexuality is abnormal in both senses, but the point is that it's abnormal in the first sense: it's contrary to the natural law.
Whereas a Chinaman having naturally blonde hair is certainly abnormal in the sense of being uncommon, but it is not abnormal in the sense of being contrary to the natural law.
This just moves the question on to... what is natural?
Essentially anything you (plural) want to define it as.
Notice how environmentalists tell us "we are destroying nature".
How can we if we are part of nature? Evolved apes.
When an invasive species invades that is part of nature too. When an asteroid hits this planet that is also nature.
From a purely natural perspective the rest of the universe isn't going to care a hoot, or even notice, if the entire solar system is wiped out. Compared to the 100 billion or more galaxies out there the earth is just another iron rock revolving around an unremarkable sun.
(1) Nature = the laws (physical, moral) that govern a thing's behaviour.
(2) Nature = primitive environments undisturbed by human intervention and technology.
The second is what I call the "romantic" or "romanticist" use of the word nature. Nature as in hills and lakes as opposed to towns and cities.
The first definition is the relevant one. Modern philosophers deny that there are any moral laws imbedded in natural things; they only allow for physical laws; they think that moral laws are subjective things that exist in human minds and that we project on to things, but do not exist in the things themselves. However, the Church has generally taken the Aristotelian idea that natural things have in-built forms & purposes that go beyond mere physical law, and from this we can extract objective morals (good when we act according to a thing's nature, evil when we act against it). So for example, looking at the human body we can see that the sexual organs have a certain in-built purpose (sexual reproduction), and from that we can conclude that homosexual acts are unnatural and therefore evil. But the modern philosopher who recognises only physical laws and denies moral laws, would say that the fact that two men can't become pregnant is irrelevant; the sexual organs do not exist for any "purpose" apart from what we happen to think or imagine: so if homosexuals decide that their purpose is sodomy, that is just as valid as a married couple deciding that their purpose is for conceiving a child. The modern mechanical philosopher can only describe the mechanics of sex, and can only tell you how homosexual acts differ from heterosexual ones in a physical/mechanical sense; he cannot recognise any moral difference. This is why moderns don't speak of natural laws or purposes or virtues; rather they speak of "values" (which exist in the mind, not in the things themselves). Homosexual "values" differ from heterosexual "values", but both are equally valid.
For accurate info, read St. Peter Damien's Liber ghomorrianus or however the heck it is spelled. (100 degrees out here with swarms of mosquitos) :madsmiley:
Quote from: Elizabeth on July 03, 2018, 12:07:34 PM
For accurate info, read St. Peter Damien's Liber ghomorrianus or however the heck it is spelled. (100 degrees out here with swarms of mosquitos) :madsmiley:
Here's a review on a recent translation of St Peter Damien's book,
https://onepeterfive.com/book-review-the-book-of-gomorrah-by-st-peter-damian/ (https://onepeterfive.com/book-review-the-book-of-gomorrah-by-st-peter-damian/)
Quote from: Greg on July 02, 2018, 06:11:53 AM
It's 'wrong' in the sense that the mainstream Catholic church would not describe it as a perversion.
Survey and educated opinion suggests that ~ 50% of priests are homosexually inclined. It's certainly at least 30%
So wrong or right it is hardly surprising you got 'booted'.
Try joining Fisheaters.com and saying transsexualism is a perversion. See how long you last.
changing your sex is not seen as a sin to those folks??
wow... so I guess what's happening is that anti-Catholics are actually setting up supposedly Catholic sites so as to destroy Catholicism (as best they can)..
I should not be surprised..
Quote from: Greg on July 02, 2018, 12:09:03 PM
Quote from: MilesChristi on July 02, 2018, 11:42:22 AM
Perverted from the nature of man itself.
It's like a man born without a nose, or retarded, or missing a leg. A disorder is a failing from what man is or should be.
Would we call mentally retarded, or physically disabled people people "perverts" or "disordered" on a Catholic forum?
I don't think we would.
We're trying to stop such people getting aborted. The last thing they need is labels.
If a homosexual inclination alone or an effeminate personality (what we call being camp) is "like" a mental or physical disability, then it is no wonder it evoked a ban for the OP. There was a very camp man at the SSPX in London back in the 1980s. I don't remember a bad word being said about him by any of the adults. He was a good Catholic and everyone was very accommodating and friendly. Don't ask don't tell seems to me to be a pragmatic policy.
Now that queers have taken over there is a tendency to over-react and believe every person who is inclined that way is out to seduce our teenage sons. The mature response is not to call everyone disordered but rather to teach your sons to give any actual perverts a good hard kick in the bollocks.
The world has always functioned with such people. The difference now is that they are being heralded as the "new black" and the media are constantly suggesting that they are a huge and significant bloc of people.
i appreciate what u say here. The only problem is that maybe you should be a little more.. um.. clear about where you personally stand on such. You would make a good reporter as u seem to be relaying only what others believe (society, e tc)
If you read my posting history on faggotry it is pretty clear where I stand.
With my back facing the wall.
I have 6 kids and a Russian wife.
I draw the line at throwing them off buildings. If that makes me a liberal then sobeit.
Quote from: St.Justin on July 02, 2018, 06:18:19 PM
Let's just say for the sake of the argument that the normal IQ is 100. In that case a 99 or a 101 is a perversion or abnormal
Anything which DEFIES God is a perversion. Numerous times in the Bible, God calls the act of sodomy an "abomination." It is demonically inspired. Having an inclination toward sin is not a perversion. Acting on a sin which God has singled out as an "abomination" is an egregious sin and also a perversion.
The fact that your mind goes to statistics tells me that either in college or in the cesspool of society, you have been led to confuse statistical norms with morality which is based on God's law.
Something can be statistically the "norm" such as social acceptance of willfully offending God by engaging in what God calls an abomination -- and that act is still be a perversion. If only one person in society adhered to God's law it would still be a perversion.
Quote from: Greg on July 14, 2018, 02:49:50 PM
I draw the line at throwing them off buildings. If that makes me a liberal then sobeit.
You are only mellowing with age. :coffee:
If Greg was living with a radical, in-your-face transgender at home as some of us do, he would have to fight the urge to throw him off a roof.
And anyone who had not 1 but 2 siblings questioning their gender identity, he would abandon the false notion of being born that way--especially with family dysfunction, abuse and/or early exposure to pornography present. I encourage folks to read Joseph Sciambra's blog about this.
As for being kicked off of forums: I was suppressed years ago for defending reception of holy communion on the tongue while kneeling. CAF is a godless place where all religions are accepted.
QuoteCAF is a godless place where all religions are accepted.
I very much enjoy listening to CA radio, except when they venture into 'we're all going to Heaven' mentality. But, in fairness, over the years I've learned that most trads think
the same way - the reinterpreted EENS dogma post '50's = pretty much that you don't necessarily have to be Catholic to go to Heaven, you can click the heels of your ruby slippers and wish yourself there, without even believing the basic tenets of the Faith required for salvation. It's just not logical to me, and I've read the arguments for a dozen years. Modernism at its worst.
But I have to leave it there before we get into a discussion that, sadly, is prohibited here.
There are forums in this world that permit discussions of Catholics practicing Buddhism or Eastern Meditation mixed with Catholicism. And people on there promote it, encourage others to do it. I encountered that discussion and was banned when I objected to mingling paganism with Catholicism. I am proud to be banned and I never returned there.