Is any TV show immune to the left's agenda?

[QwertyGirl]

Normal, healthy, straight people don’t really consider (in the way you suggest) what homosexual people do with their private parts in their digestive tracts. It isn’t a thing. Only people who are obsessed with the concept think that way.

Personal sexual appetite or preferences has nothing to do with determining if one is a homophobe, or not. To suggest that it does, indicates a gross lack of understanding of the entire issue.

 

[edwest211]

Homosexual persons are living how they want. When this sort of sexual activity is promoted indirectly by using words such as “acceptance,” the entire point is missed. TV is about entertainment, at least it was. Now it is about promoting lifestyles such as the fornication in Friends and now, married homosexuals or homosexuals in physical relationships. Misusing certain parts of the human body should be part of a documentary but not TV entertainment. Even the CDC does not use the term homosexual in their studies/reports but “Men Who Have Sex with Men.”

The TV show Friends was a horrible example of how unmarried people should behave regarding misusing their sexuality.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I wouldn’t entertain him.

 

[TMC]

So what would you have in entertainment? Should there be a complete bar on depicting homosexuals and sexually active but unmarried heterosexuals?

Also you say that entertainment is like this now, but I think it has pretty much always been like this. The movie touted as the greatest movie of the golden era, Casablanca (1942), is about an illicit affair. As was much of what Shakespeare wrote 500 years ago.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I don’t know why anyone with such an aversion to TV would watch TV. Seems like the kid who pulls his own hair then cries because it hurts.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

What do you hope to gain through this?

 

[edwest211]

Let’s start with heterosexuals. In the 1960s and before, the word pregnant could not be said on TV. Married couples slept in separate beds. Sex was not on the list at all. The addition of bad/wrong material on TV began in 1971 and got progressively worse year after year till now.

I think a new version of Leave it to Beaver showing a boy and his functional family rejecting all the bad/wrong ideas on TV right now would do well.

 

[Thorolfr]

Yes, but what are they agreeing to? They have not changed their minds, they are just agreeing to what is, to them, an abstract concept.

A majority of Americans agreed in the latest Gallup poll that gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal and that marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. None of that seems terribly abstract to me and many people have changed their minds since 20 years ago, more Americans disagreed with those statements than agreed with them. And none of that is abstract for gay men, for example, who could still be prosecuted 20 years ago in many states for consensual sex with another man and couldn’t enter into a civil marriage to another man.

 

[QwertyGirl]

A good example of human evolution, for the better.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Homophobia is defined (from a quick look at dictionary.com) as:

“Unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality”

Well, homophobia is pretty binary. Either you are or you aren’t.

Sorry both are wrong. People do not have to have a fear of something to dislike it, disagree with it, see it as physically and mentally harmful, just plain wrong, or sinful toward God.

I worked quite a few years in a AIDS unit in a hospital. I am not “afraid of” homosexuals or homosexuality but, I am “afraid FOR” homosexuals and those who are being deceived into believing there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts. I have seen way too many health issues from unnatural acts for someone to tell me there is nothing wrong with it. It is actually “reasoning”, contrary to the definition above, that helps one see what is wrong.

Also, Christians do not fear homosexuals or homosexuality, but due to a “respectful” fear of God, love of others and because of our love for Him and His love for us, we choose to obey rather than offend. The Church is also about the salvation of souls. The world is not. The world doesn’t care if your soul is condemned forever or not.

Should there be a complete bar on depicting homosexuals and sexually active but unmarried heterosexuals?

That would be a good start.

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

Because it is unnatural, against human nature, and against God’s design of the human sexual faculty.

And that’s the exact truth my students will hear, every time.

 

[Thorolfr]

Sorry both are wrong. People do not have to have a fear of something to dislike it, disagree with it, see it as physically and mentally harmful, just plain wrong, or sinful toward God.

I worked quite a few years in a AIDS unit in a hospital. I am not “afraid of” homosexuals or homosexuality but, I am “afraid FOR” homosexuals and those who are being deceived into believing there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts. I have seen way too many health issues from unnatural acts for someone to tell me there is nothing wrong with it. It is actually “reasoning”, contrary to the definition above, that helps one see what is wrong.

The definition quoted by QwertyGirl say “fear of OR antipathy toward”. Merriam-Webster defines “homophobia” as, “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.” So when you says, “People do not have to have a fear of something to dislike it,” I think that just having an extremely strong dislike for it falls under the part of the definition about having “antipathy toward” or an “aversion to” it.

And the health issues you mention are not intrinsic to gay sex. Some gay men do have long term monogamous relationships with just one other man in which case there is no chance of getting AIDS or any other STDs and there would be no other health issues different from those faced by straight couples who are also in monogamous relationships.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The definition quoted by QwertyGirl say “fear of OR antipathy toward”. Merriam-Webster defines “homophobia” as, “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.”

Both of those definitions used state that the dislike, antipathy or fear is based on unreasoning or irrational. That is where they are absolutely wrong. The Church and Christians understanding of what is wrong with homosexual acts is not based on irrationality or unreasoning but God’s laws, the natural law, and most certainly reasoning.

And the health issues you mention are not intrinsic to gay sex.

While this is true, homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law which can cause physical harm to one’s body and according to the CDC the greatest number contacting HIV is through male to male contact.

Again, it is not a fear “of” homosexuals but a fear “for” homosexuals out of love for them and those deceived into believing it is just an alternative way of life.

 

[edwest211]

As a percentage of the population, gay and bisexual men have a disproportionate number of STDs.

https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats17/msm.htm

 

[Tolle_Lege]

A good example of human evolution, for the better.

Homosexuality itself is contrary to evolution, as it makes no sense for a species to have members not attracted to the appropriate sex for reproduction.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

I will add this to temper this thread (since it’s mine) a bit, keeping in mind the teaching of Holy Mother Church:

[2357] Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

[2358] The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

[2359] Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Also, " 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." [St. Matthew 7:3-5]

and

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” [St. Matthew 22:36-40]

Those with same-sex attraction must be respected as human beings. We are to pray for them. We are to work on our own flaws and sins. We all have crosses to carry.

The intent of this thread was to discuss “higher powers,” e.g. corporations, the wealthy, the entertainment industry, who are leading souls astray by normalizing and encouraging acts and lifestyles contrary to God’s commandments. Obviously this goes beyond just homosexuality, as violence, fornication, and greed are also portrayed copiously on TV and in the movies. My point with bringing up this particular topic was that the normalization of homosexuality is being driven into shows intended for younger and younger audiences all the time.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

And the health issues you mention are not intrinsic to gay sex.

While this is true, homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law which can cause physical harm to one’s body and according to the CDC the greatest number contacting HIV is through male to male contact.

I’m not sure what kind of physical harm homosexual acts by themselves could cause. I know a gay men who just turned 90 this year and homosexual acts don’t seem to have harmed him any. And he doesn’t have AIDS, so it is possible for gay men to avoid it if they’re careful.

 

[Thorolfr]

QwertyGirl:

A good example of human evolution, for the better.

Homosexuality itself is contrary to evolution, as it makes no sense for a species to have members not attracted to the appropriate sex for reproduction.

Evolutionary biologists like Harvard’s Edward O. Wilson have offered some examples of how gay people in a kinship group can help ensure the propagation of their sibling’s genes. In his book, On Human Nature (Harvard University Press, 1978), he says (pp. 143-144):

There is, I wish to suggest, a strong possibility that homosexuality is normal in a biological sense, that it is a distinctive beneficial behavior that evolved as an important element of early human social organization. Homosexuals may be the genetic carriers of some of mankind’s rare altruistic impulses…

Homosexuality is above all a form of bonding. It is consistent with the greater part of heterosexual behavior as a device that cements relationships. The predisposition to be a homophile could have a genetic basis, and the genes might have spread in the early hunter-gatherer societies because of the advantages they conveyed to those who carried them. This brings us to the nub of the difficulty, the problem most persons have in regarding homosexuality to be in any way “natural.”

How can genes predisposing their carriers towards homosexuality spread through the population if homosexuals have no children? One answer is that their close relatives could have had more children as a result of their presence. The homosexual members of primitive societies could have helped members of the same sex either while hunting and gathering or in more domestic occupations at the dwelling sites. Freed from the special obligations of parental duties, they would have been in a position to operate with special efficiency in assisting close relatives. They might further have taken the roles of seers, shamans, artists, and keepers of tribal knowledge. If the relatives - sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, and others - were benefited by higher survival and reproduction rates, the genes these individuals shared with the homosexual specialists would have increased at the expense of alternative genes. Inevitably, some of these genes would have been those that predisposed individuals towards homosexuality.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I know a gay men who just turned 90 this year and homosexual acts don’t seem to have harmed him any. And he doesn’t have AIDS, so it is possible for gay men to avoid it if they’re careful.

There are always exceptions. The same type of argument is heard when mentioning the hazards of smoking. Someone will usually say they know a 90 year old person who smoked 2 packs daily since he was 16 and is very healthy, but they are just exceptions.

The CDC statistics are pretty clear as to the rates of HIV. They are just not spoken of much anymore.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

I know a gay men who just turned 90 this year and homosexual acts don’t seem to have harmed him any. And he doesn’t have AIDS, so it is possible for gay men to avoid it if they’re careful.

There are always exceptions. The same type of argument is heard when mentioning the hazards of smoking. Someone will usually say they know a 90 year old person who smoked 2 packs daily and is very healthy, but they are just exceptions.

The CDC statistics are pretty clear as to the rates of HIV.

But gay sex is not like smoking. As I said, if a gay man is in a monogamous relationship with another man and neither one of them has AIDS, then there is zero risk of either one contracting AIDS in the future as long as they are in a monogamous relationship with each other. Sex with other men is not what causes gay men to get AIDS. It is having unprotected and risky sex with multiple sexual partners that increases the risk.

And a woman, for example, who has frequent unprotected sex with many different men is also at significant risk of contracting AIDS or another STD. But that doesn’t mean that heterosexual sex by itself is harmful.