The LGBT Thread / Agenda

The Penitent Man

Pelican
Protestant

The Penitent Man

Pelican
Protestant

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
It appears that Netflix is in the doghouse:

They should add Silence of The Lambs to the list. Buffalo Bill was a psychopathic murderous cross dresser. It was an obvious sign of mental illness at the time the film was made.


As for the Vanderbilt study, they are claiming that The Science! says that any girl experiencing "chest dysphoria" will be happier if her breasts are chopped off.

If that's true, they should just let doctors cut off every girls breast, the same way they convinced Americans in the 70s and 80s to let them chop off up to 1/4 of the penis in the Jewish circumcision ritual. I imagine basically EVERY girl has serious insecurity about her breast at some point in adolescence.

What else? Oh, Virgin Atlantic now lets male stewardesses wear dresses.


63345c1c20302702474496d9.png


Imagine actually seeing this on an airplane. I guess most of us have seen at least a cross-dresser at some point in life, but this male stewardess is going to be up in your face, inches away from you. I can't imagine people will react well to it.

I would say boycott Virgin Atlantic but all the Anglo airlines will be doing this. You can always choose to fly something conservative like the top rated Qatar or Singapore airlines if you're going abroad.
 

Nordwand

Pelican
Other Christian
This comes from the UK this morning; a library in England has retired "Bookstart Bear", a character designed to get children interested in books, and replaced him with.....well, you can probably guess the rest:

 

Towgunner

Kingfisher
The thing I dislike the most about the lgt^3:[erefe is that its made everything about sex. Perhaps this distinction should really go to the broader left in general. Think about it; most, if not all, of the current controversial issues we constantly hear about in the US have to do with sex.

Abortion - its become contraception and ultimately a woman is saying she has a right to sex.

gay "marriage" by proxy sex, but, that's just a technicality. First of all, there's a sex element inherent to this issue, in some way or form, and sex seems to always attract leftists. Let's face facts, the homosexual community is a highly sexual community, exceptions noted.

Degenerate "story" hour - definitely sex. To deny that a drag queen isn't sexual is literally denying that water is wet. Moreover, the disturbing footage we constantly see from these "events" has literal sex acts being performed. Yeah, this is all sex too and its odious.

Of course, we also have the now ubiquitous "lgt + issues".

"trans" is sex, in that it derives from this agenda and the feminist agenda. But, "trans" is inadvertently asexual, not because the intentions are not sexual, but rather, as a consequence of the drugs and surgery. People are left sterile and mutilated. Nonetheless, you can't deny the sex component.

Of course, we have the worst of the worst, which is the slowly emerging pedophilia agenda.

I find it distressing, because, it reveals the secular end-state, which elevates sex above all other things like family and faith. But also sex is above things like loyalty, honor, and commitment, which is most disappointing, because, by necessity, items like these are demoted. In practical terms, the moral would say that a chance unfaithful sexual encounter ranks higher than, say, honor, so, you're better off taking advantage. To us, this makes no sense and is profane, but consider the source. Also, just as much as we hear from homosexuals we hear from feminists. And feminism is very much linked to sex. What is the reason for a "slut walk"?

I get sad because of this. I find it hard to live with this being so tirelessly promoted. There can be a sense of loneliness and you think you're the only person that looks at sex as something extremely personal and delicate. Our Grandparent's generation never talked about this in public and in general. Why that had to be smashed, stomped out, problematized troubles me. Because I do not think I'm alone.

There was an idea, once, that appeared just as this revolution started; its said that since we have new modern conveniences and better contraception we can have sex without consequences. This is profoundly wrong because it didn't take into account the personal distress caused by sexual encounters, which did not go away even with the new technologies. Dating is tragic, people come and go, there are one's that got away and one's that betrayed. I miserable as a single 20-something. And I was having a gratuitous amount of sex. At first its great, because you're young and naive but dating is soul-crushing, just like being a wage slave. There is no such thing as "free love". Also, infidelity causes ramifications that can impact a family for generations. Divorce is the unspoken tragedy of Generation X. Sex is more important than your kids. Infidelity is nothing new, but, the impact it had this time around was devastating.

We got here because of influences like sex in the city. And that item has been a well-covered issue here. It's just sad to have to live with the fallout caused by something as unexpected and frivolous as a TV show. If that show and will and grace were never produced chances are we'd never have homosexual marriage. I wonder about women, they have their advantages in the sexual paradigm today, but, they're subject to value distributions just like everything else. Therefore, there are plenty of left out women. Interestingly, it does seem like this lifestyle is having more than just cultural and political consequences, a very large and growing cohort of women after 30 are simply undesirable and end up alone.

We made a terrible mistake elevating sex above all other things.
 

Rush87

Hummingbird
Catholic
They should add Silence of The Lambs to the list. Buffalo Bill was a psychopathic murderous cross dresser. It was an obvious sign of mental illness at the time the film was made.


As for the Vanderbilt study, they are claiming that The Science! says that any girl experiencing "chest dysphoria" will be happier if her breasts are chopped off.

If that's true, they should just let doctors cut off every girls breast, the same way they convinced Americans in the 70s and 80s to let them chop off up to 1/4 of the penis in the Jewish circumcision ritual. I imagine basically EVERY girl has serious insecurity about her breast at some point in adolescence.

What else? Oh, Virgin Atlantic now lets male stewardesses wear dresses.


63345c1c20302702474496d9.png


Imagine actually seeing this on an airplane. I guess most of us have seen at least a cross-dresser at some point in life, but this male stewardess is going to be up in your face, inches away from you. I can't imagine people will react well to it.

I would say boycott Virgin Atlantic but all the Anglo airlines will be doing this. You can always choose to fly something conservative like the top rated Qatar or Singapore airlines if you're going abroad.
Emirates, Etihad and Qatar airways are far better value on international flights anyway.
 

Bird

Ostrich
Catholic
Homo Lobby

Already 60 children enrolled: First gay kindergarten in Berlin

The homosexual lobby does not even stop at the smallest and most easily influenced members of our society, the young children. Thus in Berlin now a kindergarten is to be established in a homosexual multi-generation house.

93 daycare places for "LGBT" children

Of the 93 places, 60 are already occupied, mostly children from rainbow families and parents with a background in the gay and lesbian scene have been registered. In the crude theory of the creators of this facility, a three-year-old child should therefore already know about his sexual orientation or be immersed in this world.

Children's books as a tool for indoctrination

The question of how this will affect the play or learning materials is answered by Marcel de Groot, the managing director. In the case of fairy tale books, instead of ten books in which the prince marries the princess, three books will now be read aloud in which the prince "finds" another prince. Whether this concept will really catch on or whether soon only princes will "marry" princes is unclear. How this will affect the development of children cannot be estimated.

Pedophilia advocate Rüdiger Lautmann on the board of directors

A fuss was caused when it became known that Rüdiger Lautmann, a public advocate of pedophilia, is on the board of this new institution. He is the editor of the book ,,Lust am Kind. Portrait of a Pedophile," which he published in 1994 and presented the perspective of a pedophile. Meanwhile, Berlin authorities have reported that they will be looking at this organization.
 

infowarrior1

Peacock
Protestant
Reminder that the sexual union hold more significance than just procreation and potential for procreation. Because even sodomites procreate but by surrogacy:
FcKuYyEaAAA-SaF.png


As I read by a Catholic in regards to this issue he said:


If we look at the female menstrual cycle, we notice that the potential for fertility is not present throughout the cycle but is limited instead to about six days.
Screen Shot 2018-09-12 at 7.46.56 pm.png
In other words, in an "average" 28 day cycle, there is no potential for procreation in roughly 22 of the 28 days present. Sexual activity during this period has no "intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." This is not my opinion, it is an empirically observable fact, like the Earth's rotation around the Sun.

The fact that for most of the menstrual cycle sexual activity is intrinsically infertile has several important implications:

Firstly, what exactly is sex for? Clearly that assertion, carried over from Aristotle, that sex is primarily for procreation is wrong given that most sexual acts occur outside the fertility window. As I see it, sex is teleologically ordered towards getting people together, i.e. it is primarily unitive. The generation of life is a second order phenomenon which occurs after union. In fact, this second order phenomenon is completely outside the couple's control. If you look at the above graph, the probability for fertility is only about 35% when sex activity deliberately occurs at the optimal point in the menstrual cycle. Even in healthy people sex at the optimal time is still not "intrinsically" linked to fertility.

Secondly: Given that the unitive meaning seems to be the primary reason for sexual activity does that mean that all acts of infertile sex are legitimate. In my opinion acts which private the sexual act are acts which are contra Caritas and are therefore forbidden. The difficulty here is determining what constitutes a privation.

For instance, does a using a condom during the infertile phase of the cycle constitute a privation?

The old "manualist" theologians, divided the sexual act into voluntary and physiological components.
The sexual act was understood as depositing the sperm into the vagina, the physiological component took care of the fertilisation. Taking a holistic view with regard to Church tradition and the notion of privation, it's my opinion that privation of sexual act consists of measures which aim to frustrate the deposition of live semen into the vagina. That means things like condoms, pessaries, caps, spermicides are morally illicit.

Actions which mutilate the reproductive tract, vasectomy and tubal ligations are likewise illicit.

 

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
most, if not all, of the current controversial issues we constantly hear about in the US have to do with sex.


I get sad because of this. I find it hard to live with this being so tirelessly promoted. There can be a sense of loneliness and you think you're the only person that looks at sex as something extremely personal and delicate. Our Grandparent's generation never talked about this in public and in general.
Amen, brother. I left my last (protestant) church over precisely this issue.
A gay visitor came in and was openly speaking about his sexuality "As a gay man, I feel that blah blah..."
This was during a time of the service where the congregants are encouraged to speak publicly if they wish.
I can't remember what he was speaking about, but it wasn't a sexual issue at all. He was just throwing his sexuality in our face for no reason.

I found it absolutely disgusting. Not because he was gay, which didn't really bother me at the time. But because it was so degenerate to be talking about your sexuality in church. I would have never stood up and said "As a man attracted to slim long haired latinas, I think..." and yet this was EXACTLY the kind of perverse statement this gay interloper was making.

It bothered one other old man I was friends with, but most people just thought it was great that they could welcome and love a diverse gay man. That was the last time I attended.

I remember one time asking my grandmother if gay people existed in her day. She said "Oh there were always rumors about certain women who never married." But that's all it was. Rumors. You never really knew if someone was an old maid or if there was something else going on. Sex is made for a husband and his wife in their marital bed, and it should stay there.
 

Francis

Pigeon
Catholic
Reminder that the sexual union hold more significance than just procreation and potential for procreation. Because even sodomites procreate but by surrogacy:
View attachment 48928


As I read by a Catholic in regards to this issue he said:


If we look at the female menstrual cycle, we notice that the potential for fertility is not present throughout the cycle but is limited instead to about six days.
View attachment 48929
In other words, in an "average" 28 day cycle, there is no potential for procreation in roughly 22 of the 28 days present. Sexual activity during this period has no "intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." This is not my opinion, it is an empirically observable fact, like the Earth's rotation around the Sun.

The fact that for most of the menstrual cycle sexual activity is intrinsically infertile has several important implications:

Firstly, what exactly is sex for? Clearly that assertion, carried over from Aristotle, that sex is primarily for procreation is wrong given that most sexual acts occur outside the fertility window. As I see it, sex is teleologically ordered towards getting people together, i.e. it is primarily unitive. The generation of life is a second order phenomenon which occurs after union. In fact, this second order phenomenon is completely outside the couple's control. If you look at the above graph, the probability for fertility is only about 35% when sex activity deliberately occurs at the optimal point in the menstrual cycle. Even in healthy people sex at the optimal time is still not "intrinsically" linked to fertility.

Secondly: Given that the unitive meaning seems to be the primary reason for sexual activity does that mean that all acts of infertile sex are legitimate. In my opinion acts which private the sexual act are acts which are contra Caritas and are therefore forbidden. The difficulty here is determining what constitutes a privation.

For instance, does a using a condom during the infertile phase of the cycle constitute a privation?

The old "manualist" theologians, divided the sexual act into voluntary and physiological components.
The sexual act was understood as depositing the sperm into the vagina, the physiological component took care of the fertilisation. Taking a holistic view with regard to Church tradition and the notion of privation, it's my opinion that privation of sexual act consists of measures which aim to frustrate the deposition of live semen into the vagina. That means things like condoms, pessaries, caps, spermicides are morally illicit.

Actions which mutilate the reproductive tract, vasectomy and tubal ligations are likewise illicit.

Good Post my friend but take more care with your terms. Gays do not procreate in the proper sense. Again, good post.
 

BasilSeal

Kingfisher
Trad Catholic
Gold Member
A good analysis, I agree with your conclusion. It would be very surprising if a Catholic actually believed that sex outside of the fertility window does not have the potential to constitute a procreative act. Many large Catholic families are evidence that it just isn't so. Furthermore, it should be clear from the study as well: see the section on "The Study Stample"; the authors throw out 12% of the data based on the fact that it is irregular for one reason or another. And, a great many women have menstrual cycles which are not regular. Women who have PCOS, for example. PCOS throws all of the "timing" concepts completely out the window. Every act is potentially procreative because of the irregular menstrual cycles associated with PCOS; although to a much lesser degree, I also believe this is also true for most women, even those without any underlying reproductive irregularity.
 

infowarrior1

Peacock
Protestant
Amen, brother. I left my last (protestant) church over precisely this issue.
A gay visitor came in and was openly speaking about his sexuality "As a gay man, I feel that blah blah..."
This was during a time of the service where the congregants are encouraged to speak publicly if they wish.
I can't remember what he was speaking about, but it wasn't a sexual issue at all. He was just throwing his sexuality in our face for no reason.

I found it absolutely disgusting. Not because he was gay, which didn't really bother me at the time. But because it was so degenerate to be talking about your sexuality in church. I would have never stood up and said "As a man attracted to slim long haired latinas, I think..." and yet this was EXACTLY the kind of perverse statement this gay interloper was making.

It bothered one other old man I was friends with, but most people just thought it was great that they could welcome and love a diverse gay man. That was the last time I attended.

I remember one time asking my grandmother if gay people existed in her day. She said "Oh there were always rumors about certain women who never married." But that's all it was. Rumors. You never really knew if someone was an old maid or if there was something else going on. Sex is made for a husband and his wife in their marital bed, and it should stay there.


Exactly. When sexuality is no longer sacred (set apart only for Husband and Wife and a wonderful symphony at that). Then it simply goes everywhere.


Of course the emphasis only on the male but not also for the female half responsible is in error. But we see how God beginning with Ancient Israel waged war against prostitution and other adulteries which in those days were religious in nature.

So that legitimate pleasures are confined to wedlock. And safely contained like fire with fireguards around it.
 

Towgunner

Kingfisher
Amen, brother. I left my last (protestant) church over precisely this issue.
A gay visitor came in and was openly speaking about his sexuality "As a gay man, I feel that blah blah..."
This was during a time of the service where the congregants are encouraged to speak publicly if they wish.
I can't remember what he was speaking about, but it wasn't a sexual issue at all. He was just throwing his sexuality in our face for no reason.

I found it absolutely disgusting. Not because he was gay, which didn't really bother me at the time. But because it was so degenerate to be talking about your sexuality in church. I would have never stood up and said "As a man attracted to slim long haired latinas, I think..." and yet this was EXACTLY the kind of perverse statement this gay interloper was making.

It bothered one other old man I was friends with, but most people just thought it was great that they could welcome and love a diverse gay man. That was the last time I attended.

I remember one time asking my grandmother if gay people existed in her day. She said "Oh there were always rumors about certain women who never married." But that's all it was. Rumors. You never really knew if someone was an old maid or if there was something else going on. Sex is made for a husband and his wife in their marital bed, and it should stay there.

He sounds like a "change agent", a dedicated leftist who infiltrates organizations to induce change from within. Also, this reveals the imposed incentive structure, which engenders this kind of behavior. Victims are "all the rage" and people get attention and admiration, all from being something they insist is "how they were born". And in most instances, except for homosexuality, this is the case, but so what? That individual didn't go to your church to communion with God or sincerely learn about his teachings, instead, he went there for himself, which is pride. He's exactly the same as the people Jesus talked about, who dress and act very "holy", but, they do it all in public, therefore, this is all for themselves and not for God.

There was a time that I felt the same way as you did about homosexuals, but, all that has gone away. Like many others, I believed there was a middle ground with this "community" because they originally said we just want to live in our little corner of the world and you'll hardly ever hear from us. And, importantly, all this fear that we're going to come into your life and schools and etc, is silly...because we just want to live our lives. Have we seen this? No sooner did the spittal dry from their lips after saying this did they set about to dominate society and push their life into all of our faces. They did the exact opposite of what they said, so, as far as I'm concerned they're liars.

Side note: I've been thinking a lot about the various obscure Christian denominations, which are regrettably "woke". In fact, they're effective nodes that push this agenda. That said, all of these woke denominations have very small and rapidly declining congregations. Yes, Church rates are generally all in bad shape, but, Catholic churches are holding up better than others. I think activists saw this as an opportunity to subvert. If you have literally a couple of dozen people belonging to your congressionalist church, then, its going to be very easy to run for an executive position and, just like that, you're flying a rainbow flag. But, just as much as this was an opportunity for the left its equally an opportunity for the right. Again, if there's a baker's dozen of, for example, congressionalists in the community, its easy to infiltrate and gain an executive position. And once you have this authority you could swiftly implement something like a "non-political" policy, and viola down goes the rainbow flag.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
One quibble:

A major reason they push the alphabet people so hard is that they instinctively behave as change agents without any provocation or management. The combination of narcissism and resentment drives many to attempt to take over and transform any social organization they encounter.
 

Grigori

 
Banned
Other Christian
Imagine actually seeing this on an airplane. I guess most of us have seen at least a cross-dresser at some point in life, but this male stewardess is going to be up in your face, inches away from you. I can't imagine people will react well to it.
To be honest, I think that most people are used to this, and desensitized to seeing stuff like this. They may think to themselves, oh how bizarre, but they won't let it show on their face. I, for one, am at such a point, that I could walk around Tatooine, and not be surprised by seeing non-human creatures milling about. That is how I consider transsexuals, like aliens from outer space, just living aside humans. You could occasionally interact with them in business, maybe sell them something, but don't let your guard down with them.

A major reason they push the alphabet people so hard is that they instinctively behave as change agents without any provocation or management. The combination of narcissism and resentment drives many to attempt to take over and transform any social organization they encounter.
I think that those alphabet people who you are referring to may actually be "alphabet people" of other kinds too. Yes, they may indeed be plainclothes agents, to spy on people, or secretly punish someone by way of sabotage or something else. Taking over a social organization is done for no other purpose other than to have a "plant" in that organization and maintain control and observation over it's members. It is clear that these people are not doing these things by their own will, they are serving *some master*.
 
Top