I’ve argued here that the homosexualist agenda has been patiently engaged for a long time and is still reaching for that brass ring.
The homosexualists have slowly been shifting the language about deviant same-sex acts and those who regularly commit them. Through the MSM and entertainment industry the image of homosexuality as something hidden and unclean was broken by replacing it with victim status during the flaming up of the AIDS epidemic in certain populations. Then the victim image had to be broken and replaced, which was accomplished through cool and with it characters in TV shows and other culture movers. Think of the absurdly high percentage of homosexuals in TV shows, increasing every year. I’ll bet you can’t turn on a TV series now and not find it filled with deviants. BUT! They are the cool and emotionally sensitive ones, who have answers for the dysfunctional and often less attractive “hetero” characters.
Fuse this culture shift with the rise of no-fault divorce and nearly universal contraception and we have the perfect deadly storm that can rip the sexual act conceptually away from marriage (what’s that?) and procreation (what’s that?).
Now that subcultures are multiplying like viruses, we are just about ready, I think, for the next stage of the assault on the human person and God’s plan. Not content for legalization of same-sex “marriage”, the next phase of the homosexualist agenda will soon be implemented: lowering of the age of consent (aka the aforementioned the brass ring).
With that horrific thought – and I’m right and you know it – I direct your gaze now to Catholic World Report where there is an important piece about the “bridge” building that Jesuit homosexualist activist James Martin wants to build instead of the bridge that the Church has and can build.
Remember, the agenda has its agents within the Church.
If you were the Devil, isn’t that where you would want your agents? Above all? When ever I write about any of this, they come out of the woodwork and send obscene emails as if after all these years that would in some way disturb me. For the record, you poor wretches, I grew up surrounded by cops. I spent my youth (when this sort of thing was still possible) in police stations looking at crime and homicide scene photos and hearing about the cases my folks and their colleagues investigated, raids they conducted. Some of it was really really bad, the stuff of nightmares, which I occasionally did have. And now I’ve been a priest with over a quarter of a century of hearing confessions under my belt. Priests hear it all. We hear it and hear it and don’t even blink, except to feel compassion and admiration for the courage of those making their confessions. I’ve heard it all. We see it all too, including things like bodies broken on train tracks and poor souls in burn units and mental health wards. And yet you wretched dopes think that sending hate mail with perversion is somehow going to be effective? You poor sick dupes. I pray for you. But… if you send a threat… I’ll pray for you too, but you’ll also have a whole new experience. But I digress.
Let’s have a good chunk of the CWR piece so you can get the sense before going over there and getting the rest. I’ll provide some signposts…
Re-Building a Bridge: The connection between contraception and the “LGBT community”
by Jim Russell [a deacon in the Archdiocese of St. Louis]
We’ve arrived at the end of the road—and we stare into a massive, rippled fun-house mirror that shows us in its own twisted reflection the extent of the monumental destruction our journey really caused.
Let’s build a bridge. No—not that bridge. Not a warm, fuzzy, attention-getting bridge between the Church and the ‘LGBT Community,’ whose architects are misguided masters of error, ambiguity, confusion, and dissent. Don’t waste your time. Across the globe, we already have built more than a hundred bridges that actually lead to a Catholic sanctuary for those with same-sex attraction. It’s called the Courage apostolate, along with its companion apostolate for families of those with SSA, called EnCourage.
No, the bridge we really need to build right now is a replacement for the bridge that was burned and destroyed over the last century or more. [Did you get that? Over a quarter of a century or more. And this is what Fr. Murray wrote about the other day when he clearly described the pernicious agenda in the Jesuit writer’s book… which did not have an imprimi potest or imprimatur but which did have a nihil obstat from the Jesuit’s superior.] We need to come to terms with how we’ve wandered so far away from the truth of who we really are as human persons. We need to look back on the road we’ve traveled and find a way back to the smoldering ash and timber of the bridge we first crossed and then set ablaze long ago.
We need to rebuild that bridge so that we can get back home where we belong.
Here’s the problem: it’s been about 150 years since we were really “home,” [that’s more than a quarter of a century… right? What’s up with that?] and most folks alive today have no idea what that home looks like. Before we can go back, we need to rediscover what “home” really is and how we moved so far away from it.
From the beginning (two centuries ago) it was not so…
Many Catholics today already possess the intuition that there is a crucial link, so to speak, between Humanae Vitae and homosexuality. They can see how the severing of the unitive and procreative meanings of marital relations—and the reduction of marital relations to mere “sex”—paved the way for the ideologies of “orientation” and “gender” that generate so-called “sexual minorities” and “sexual identities.” [Yep. That’s what I’ve been saying.]
Yet, the genie was let out of the bottle so long ago that most of us can no longer see just how glaringly obvious this connection really is. To get a glimpse, one needs to go back to the beginning of the ideological roots that gave us “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality” and spawned the chaos we have now.
[NB] A show of hands, please: How many of you know that the term “heterosexual” was originally used to describe a condition that was considered, in clinical terms, like the term “homosexual,” to be “morbid” or “pathological”?
That’s right. These terms were first brought into use in the last decades of the 19th-century by psychologists seeking to classify sexual attractions, emotions, and acts—not persons, not “identities”—associated with sexual abnormality. Of course, this begs the question—if even “heterosexual” was pathological, [QUAERITUR…] what was considered “normal” sexual attraction, emotion, and act?
Normal sexual desires and behaviors all had procreative sex as their focus. Acts and desires that directed a person toward procreative sexual activity (acts that properly could lead to procreation) were considered “normal.” Acts and desires reflecting a “morbid passion” for non-procreative sex acts with someone of the other sex were classified as “heterosexual.” Similarly, acts and desires reflecting a “morbid passion” for obviously non-procreative sex acts with someone of the same sex were classified as “homosexual.” How many people are aware of this?
The original thinking of those who popularized the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” was aligned with the natural-law truths upheld by the Catholic Church regarding God’s plan that the only normal and natural expression of sexual behavior is marital relations that are always open to procreation. Frustrating the procreative potential of sexual activity was always wrong. It is what so many psychologists of that late 19th century saw as “pathological.”
The seismic shift away from this thinking occurred mainly in the early 20th century—because of the birth control movement. The more socially acceptable birth control became, the greater the need to eliminate the procreative framework associated with categorizing non-procreative heterosexual behavior as “abnormal.” The “Roaring” 1920s reflect that transition, with some medical dictionaries by 1923 still referring to “heterosexuality” as “morbid passion,” while by the end of the decade, the first mainline Christian denomination (the now infamous Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930) allowed the use of contraception by its members.
And so the new “normal” emerged [Isn’t there a TV show by that name?] —the term “heterosexual” was untethered from its “morbid” status and “procreative sex” fell by the wayside as a norm. A new norm began to emerge: the bright line between normal and abnormal was no longer whether your acts were procreative or non-procreative, but was instead about “who” your sex partner was. [See what’s happening?]
The ironic twist here is that normalizing heterosexuality [If you are just joining us here, go back a few paragraphs and read what went before!] by accepting contraception effectively escalated the stigma associated with having homosexual tendencies. The “we-they” divide, so to speak, focused mostly, and more overtly, on whether your partner was same-sex or not.
Society had stepped firmly upon this bridge that led away from home, and promptly struck the first spark that would ultimately set the whole structure ablaze.
From acts to “identity”
Meanwhile, another evolution in thinking was underway. While the psychological distinction that saw homosexuality as a mental disorder held sway, more radical thinkers were thinking that, if this is the “kind” of person who commits these pathological sex acts, then maybe the prevalent view that “heterosexuality” was the mark of sexual maturity wasn’t quite right. Non-heterosexuality in all its forms was viewed basically as some form of sexual “immaturity” that could be overcome with treatments intended to direct a person to heterosexual maturity. But maybe people who committed homosexual acts were a different “kind” of person altogether, some theorized. [This is the “made that way” idea that the Jesuit writer is pushing along with the twisted notion “by God”. If homosexuals and same-sex attraction is also made by God, then what can be wrong with normalizing their behaviors and even calling them “good”? Remember: the next phase, or brass ring, is the lowering of the age of consent.]
If homosexual attraction were somehow innate and fixed, then no amount of intervention would likely alter the homosexual inclination. Further, then homosexual activity could be said to constitute acts “proper” to this kind of person. It could be said that the homosexual inclination represented this person’s identity—they didn’t merely “have” these attractions or “do” homosexual acts. These people actually “were” homosexuals.
This is an important essay to read, and keep close by for reference. He has brought an interesting new dimension to this discussion, at a good moment in time.
From the wikipedia entry for the TV show The New Normal with some edits and notes:
Bryan and David are a happy gay couple[they’re so gay together!] living in Los Angeles, [where else] with successful careers. [they’re gay and successful!] The only thing missing in their relationship is a baby. [Right? That’s what’s missing!] They meet Goldie Clemmons, a single mother and waitress from Ohio. [Uh ohhhh… not so successful, are you Goldie?] Goldie left her adulterous husband[sounds kinda dysfunctional] and moved to L.A. with her 9-year-old daughter Shania to escape their former life and start over. [Yep, a gal with a few problems. If only there were someone cool and successful to help her?] Jane, Goldie’s conservative grandmother, [OH NO! She’s CONSERVATIVE?]follows them to the city against Goldie’s wishes, [More dysfunction, right?] thus causing havoc for her granddaughter and the couple. [Remember them? They happy gays with successful careers who only want a baby?] Goldie decides to become Bryan and David’s gestational surrogate, [what the hell is THAT?] and naturally, [“naturally”… my God how twisted are the minds that write this] her family gets involved. [And quirky hijinx ensues in which the conservative grandmother – I’ll bet – I haven’t seen it – gets in the occasion good point, but is generally thwarted by the happy successful gays who generally have the sensitive solutions and help everyone just get along. Is that about right?]
And then there’s Modern Family:
Modern Family revolves around three different types of families (nuclear, step- and same-sex) living in the Los Angeles area [again] who are interrelated through Jay Pritchett and his children, Claire Dunphy (née Pritchett) and Mitchell Pritchett. Patriarch Jay is remarried to a much younger woman, Gloria Delgado Pritchett (née Ramirez), a passionate Colombian [are there any other kind?] with whom he has an infant son, Fulgencio (Joe) Pritchett, and a son from Gloria’s previous marriage, Manny Delgado. Jay’s daughter Claire was a homemaker, but has returned to the business world; she is married to Phil Dunphy, a realtor and self-professed “cool Dad”. They have three children: Haley Dunphy, a stereotypical ditzy teenage girl; Alex Dunphy, a nerdy, smart middle child; and Luke Dunphy, the off-beat only son. Jay’s lawyer son Mitchell and his husband Cameron Tucker have an adopted Vietnamese daughter, Lily Tucker-Pritchett. As the name suggests, this family represents a modern-day family and episodes are comically based on situations which many families encounter in real life. [REAL life. Even if people in this earthly vale have complicated situations like that, is that real? I am reminded of Plato’s analogy of reality and the cave.]
And then there’s Transparent:
The story revolves around a Los Angeles [what a surprise] family and their lives following the discovery that the person they knew as their father Mort (Jeffrey Tambor) is transgender.
The moderation queue is ON. Of course.