S
StubbleSpark
Guest
Gee, what could have given anyone the idea that a homosexual defines his very being based on sex?
The truth is, a homosexual who does not act on physical lust is barely a homosexual at all in the eyes of the homosexual community.
He is made the object of belittling derision and pressure until he capitulates, gives in to desire, and becomes one of the fold. Where is his true self? It is in the closet. He is “hiding” it from society and from himself.
Never mind if his true self also happens to be committed to a life of chastity and renounces the dark, dehumanizing world of gay sex. (In fact, to have the very opinion that the world of gay sex is dark and dehumanizing is forbidden.)
Bb can show breeders weighed down with the oppressive responsibilities for having the power to bring new souls into the world. (Which is actually a very good argument for the unique and awesome power available only in a heterosexual union).
If he has yet to be initiated, he is “curious.” If he is older, then he is “closeted” and “repressed.” He is not fully himself until he caves into desire. He is denying his self image, as has been said. Apparently, this takes precedence over dying to self to please God. No sin is worse than not following self.
Never mind the undeniable fact that your body is made to fit with the opposite sex and that this fitting makes human beings – who are sacred and wonderful gifts in God’s sight.
The homosexual pats himself on the back for leaving authentic masculinity to embrace an equally inauthentic femininity. He is “advanced” because he has, in some way, both sides of the coin of the human person.
I think the Church agrees with this in principle. When you combine both the masculine and the feminine, you get something that is closer to God who is not a dichotomous either/or. Both man and woman were created in his image. (Which is a more intelligent way of stating that “Adam and Steve” quip.)
But look at the difference between the homosexual model and the heterosexual model:
In the homosexual model, the man gives up his masculinity in an attempt to grasp a greater fullness. But by doing this, he disparages authentic masculinity as being inherently insufficient. The lesbian likewise disparages authentic femininity and reaches out to the masculine. The two are like travelers passing on the same path between two opposing states.
“From where do you flee?” she asks.
“Masculine Town.” he says.
“Where are you going?”
“Feminine Town.”
“But you shouldn’t go there,” she warns, “Feminine Town is not all it’s cracked up to be!”
“What do you mean?” he says incredulous. “Nothing can be worse than Masculine Town!”
“But that’s the place I was going to!” Was her exasperated reply.
In the heterosexual model, the man embraces what he is – what he was really born to be and so the woman does likewise. When they come together, they are two positively charged yet completely compatible forces – each attracted by the fullness of the opposite represented by the partner.
The result? Life. The only time in the universe when 1+1=3. It is supernatural math. And it is the basis for human survival. A million homosexuals on an island living in accordance with their “self image” would, in 100 years’ time, become an island of bones. That same island with just two heterosexuals would become a small town in half the time.
Like it or not, heterosexual relationships are the bedrock of human existence. Without them, there is no life and without life, there are no humans. This clearly represents why such relationships deserve a place of honor and reverence in all societies (in fact, no viable society thinks anything less – all that have opposed this ideal are not even memory in the history books).
So unless you can come up with A) proof why this reverence is misplaced or even jeopardizes society, and present it with B) a logical argument demonstrating why this is the case and back it up with C) an appeal to an authority that is greater than man; nothing you say is more than shifting sand of implication.