Thread by @Math_oma

Many cannot understand why 'fanatical' right-wingers are so strongly opposed to homosexuality. One reason is that homosexuality is a total repudiation of any sane sexual ethics.

It rejects the notion that the sexual faculty is for procreation. Because it's not for procreation, people who can't even in principle procreate can 'get married', so it rejects the institution that safeguards the family and rearing of children.

The rejection that sex is for procreation combined with the shitlib idea that just as long as two people consent, anything goes (and make sure you have a good time) leads to promiscuity at insane levels.

It's quite logical. If sex is just for pleasure and homosexuals cannot possibly procreate then why not just cycle through as many partners as you can?

The liberal who thinks by enabling *that* he's going to be making people happy in the long run is quite deluded. Those who have been edified by material more enriching than "American Pie" know that promiscuity eventually leads to despair and self-loathing.

The liberals are leading those who practice homosexuality straight into the abyss.

And someone who lives that lifestyle can be nothing other than a liberal. The liberal controls the homosexual through base passions (these are the supposed intellectuals, remember) and therefore such a person can be easily controlled and manipulated.

Check out E. Michael Jones' "Libido Dominandi" if you want more on that thesis.

That's why 'homosexual' is also a statement of one's political affiliations and those who live such a life are a political force, not just 'some guys minding their business'. What they do and believe is necessarily corrosive to society.

Another repugnant aspect of the homosexualist (if you will) when combined with our pornographic society is the conflation of 'philia' (brotherly love) with 'eros' (as in 'erotic').

C.S. Lewis talks about this in "The Four Loves" if you haven't heard of this, the other two being 'storge' (generic affection) and 'agape' (charity/love of God).

One is quite blessed if he has a deep friendship with someone of the same sex and have great love (philia) for them. But this does not imply that the friendship turn into a love (eros) affair. In our pornographic society, deep affection is erroneously taken to be 'eros'.

I think Lewis points this out as well, but many when reading old texts will try to accuse people of engaging in homosexuality (I do this too) when they hear they have a deep friendship with someone of the same sex.

But we oftentimes only interpret such a thing in this way not because it's true but because our minds are so polluted in this area.

(The 'I do this too' in the above tweet refers to the accusing not to the engaging in homosexual practices ... ambiguous statement there.)

topkek

I mean look at the way those living this life are captivated by pornography, like pride parades. When it comes to thinking about 'love' these guys have intellects that are filled to the brim with filth.

I tend to think the total collapse of virtue, taking chastity and modesty down with it, produces this proliferation of homosexuality; it's a symptom of a more fundamental disease, not an isolated phenomenon.

It along with the other sexual degeneracies such as fornication, co-habitation, contraception, abortion, all have at their root the implosion of virtue, specifically chastity and modesty. It's just one of many downstream effects.

Pornography is a non-starter in a society in which modesty is cultivated. And no pornography means much less filth sloshing around in our minds.

Notice the wisdom of virtue ethics (and Church teaching) and notice the utter stupidity of liberal ethics:

We have a problem, P:

Virtue ethics: Okay, let's cut off *all* the antecedents to P and develop habits that encourage the associated virtue.

We have a problem, P:

Shitlib ethics: Well let's just not call it a problem or remain silent as to whether it's a problem at all. What we can do is tolerate P and just try to introduce things piecemeal to repair all the mess that P could cause.

P: 'people want to have sex contrary to what happens in a marriage'

Virtue ethics: Subordinate the passions, increase one's chastity, modesty, and prudence.

Notice how the answer applies just as well if one had a desire that, when acted upon, would constitute a homosexual act.

Shitlib ethics: Well let them. See what happens. To say 'no' would to be quite illiberal and authoritarian.
>What happens when they have children out-of-wedlock?
Who needs marriage anyway? Get rid of it. And we just could kill the kid before it's born and give people condoms.

>But what happens when people aren't reproducing at replacement levels and women are so damaged by all this fornication that they cannot remain in a marriage?

Just import immigrants from the third-world. Divorce isn't a big deal anyway, not like the kids don't take it well.

I'll leave it to another thread to discuss the stupidity of *identifying* with a *feeling*. It's useful for identity politics and the shitlibs to manipulate people by playing on their base passions though.

Feelings are extremely pliable, for better or for worse, and can be thrown all over the place.

Let's remember how Dante depicts the lustful in his "Inferno":

It would seem that the liberals would like nothing more than to make that a reality, where everyone can be thrown around by the hellish winds of lust if 'muh body' wants it or 'muh rights' permit it.