Unwanted Homosexual Attraction

Please pass this video on.

H/T to Jackie Parkes

About Brother Burrito

A sinner who hopes in God's Mercy, and who cannot stop smiling since realizing that Christ IS the Way , the Truth and the Life. Alleluia!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Unwanted Homosexual Attraction

  1. Toadspittle says:

    Most of the gays I know – and that is quite a few – seem perfectly comfortable in their sexuality.
    But maybe that is a front.
    I doubt if gays are, deep down, any happier than the rest of us.
    Anyway, if any of them seriously wanted to stop being gay, they have every right to do whatever’s necessary to make that happen.
    And, just by wanting to, they’d be half way home from the get-go.
    Be a shame if all gays went straight, though.
    Very many are such good company as they are.

  2. johnhenrycn says:

    “Be a shame if all gays went straight, though.
    Very many are such good company as they are.”

    You’re confusing morality and the good of society with conviviality. There are many industrious church-going Germans (Lutherans mostly, but a fair Catholic contingent too) where I live and our community is lucky to have them for 51 weeks of the year; but when Oktoberfest rolls around, I’d like to put them all on a ship back to Bavaria. Such a bunch of beer-swilling lederhosen wearing oom-pa-pa bumpkins you never did see. My point? Yes, ‘Gays’ can be gracious and sophisticated; but we’ve got to keep our eye on the ball, which I suggest means doing what we can (not much, I fear) to curtail their influence and encroachment.

  3. johnhenrycn says:

    Floyd Godfrey, one of the interviewees, says (at 03:20) that “…the easiest way to understand homosexual feelings is [to think of them as] “the sexualization of emotional needs and wounds”.
    I’ve never heard it expressed quite that way before, but that seems to be a good starting point

  4. Toadspittle says:

    “…the easiest way to understand homosexual feelings is [to think of them as] “the sexualization of emotional needs and wounds”.

    Hmm. I’ve a suspicion that statement might apply equally well to heterosexuality.

    Nor am I convinced that it’s the easiest way.
    …because, thinking a bit more – “needs,” and “wounds,” have little in common.
    Nobody needs a wound. “…needs and desires,” maybe? “…wounds and traumas”?
    However, if Godfrey is correct, would it be also true to say, “Tap dancing is the physicalisation of emotional needs and wounds.” ?

    …But then, God is probably in favour of tap dancing. No reason why not.

  5. johnhenrycn says:

    I don’t know about tap dancing, but according to Sister Helena Burns, a rabid fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team, God “unfortunately loves the Vancouver Canucks”:

    “All Canadians east of the Rockies loathe the smug Canucks”, says Sr Helena of the Pauline Sisters:

    “This is where I become really unchristian because [Vancouver Canucks and Canadian Olympic team goalie Roberto] Luongo is so weird. He is a total head case, like Chris Pronger. Alexander Ovechkin is another guy I can’t stand. That guy should be a prison guard.”


  6. Actually Toad, I’ve read on blogs by people like http://www.gaycatholic.com that when they decided to stop living a homosexual lifestyle, their former gay friends tried to convince them not to stop, they felt betrayed, angry etc. Also, from my own experience, men that I have known who were quite effeminate were put under pressure to “come out”. Whether they were actually attracted to other men, I do not know, but they were convinced by their friends that they MUST be and don’t deny your true feelings, be true to yourself etc etc blah blah blah.

    An American friend of mine who I met on my year abroad in France said that at her university (in the US), some men who were visiting from France (on their year abroad) were put under pressure to ‘acknowledge’ their attraction to other men. Then, when they returned home (and let’s not pretend that the French are sexually constrained), they went back to how they’d been before. No more attraction to men, now they weren’t being pressured either way.

  7. kathleen says:

    I think ragazzallese‘s comment here, and johnhenry‘s at 21:15 yesterday (where he talks about the necessity of curtailing the “influence” and “encroachment” of the homosexual movements) puts this whole problem in its proper perspective.

    Whereas in the not-so-distant past, to have such unnatural tendencies as a sexual attraction to someone of the same gender was considered wrong, something one should keep quiet about, even shameful, the pendulum has swung completely in the other direction! Now it is considered the fashionable thing to be, wonderful, something to be proud of even… (gay “pride” and all that rubbish.) This is crazy! What sort of society are we living in now in the western world where this evil (sodomy) is lauded and celebrated? The gay lobby is growing in power and influence, and most westerners are actually encouraging it to do so.

    The video shows how some honest men, without even having to bring judeo-christian religious values into the argument, see homosexuality for what it really is (i.e. anti-natural, abnormal). By fighting against it they mostly succeed.

    The difficulty we are facing nowadays is recognising that homosexuality is a problem, and active homosexual behaviour a grave evil.

  8. Toadspittle says:

    Crikey, Ragazza – in all the 16 years I spent in the States, nobody ever one suggested I ‘acknowledge’ my attraction to other men. Not once! What can be wrong with me? Not ‘effeminate’ enough, maybe. Ugly, small, scaly green skin, and all.

    Still, as Kathleen and I never fail to agree – it takes all sorts to make a world.
    God clearly agrees Himself, as He created a great many sorts, including, it would appear, a very great many gays, not a few of them Catholic priests.
    Can all this be part of His ‘plan’?
    He must have His reasons, mysterious though they are to us…Maybe we should leave it a that. Incidentally, did Christ ever condemn ‘gays’? Did tongues ever wag about Him and his ‘crew’ of virile young men? I don’t know.

    “(i.e. anti-natural, abnormal)” What is ‘natural and normal,’ is virtually every species on earth living off others, from fleas living on a dog, to lions living off killing antelopes, to humans living off killing, well, practically everything else. Or we’d all be extinct.
    We all know that. But that’s all right. That’s normal.
    Some might think it ‘anti-natural’ to have blood transfusions or to fly in aeroplanes, or wear underpants, or watch mel Gibson movies.
    Takes all sorts, etc, etc., (yawn.)

  9. Ragazzagallese says:

    Dear Toad,

    I’m sure that AAAALL the obvious arguments have been written out for you dozens of times. If I may be so bold, you are a broken record and I think that the moderators here are saintlike in their tolerance of your repetitive comments.

    When I mentioned the US, I was specifically citing my friend’s university. But of course you knew that, didn’t you.

    I absolutely believe that homosexuality is part of God’s plan, in the way that all our crosses are part of His plan. I agree that He doesn’t make mistakes. But, there is a certain way that we must all live with our crosses, be they temptations towards a certain way of living or a disability. We know that The Way must always be according to God’s laws. “1 Corinthians 6:9: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

  10. Toadspittle says:

    “If I may be so bold, you are a broken record..”
    If I were a broken record, I wouldn’t play, would I, Ragazza? I think I’m just a little cracked, is what you mean. Can’t argue with that.
    But it’s true I repeat myself a great deal – just as much as many others do on here.
    But then, you will rightly say, it’s a Catholic blog, so what do you expect but repeated Catholicism?
    True, but someone’s got to raise a few pluralist observations. And I somehow seem to have drawn the short straw.
    And AAALL the arguments so far have failed to impress me. But you never know, do you?
    Next time, maybe?
    “But, there is a certain way that we must all live with our crosses, be they temptations towards a certain way of living or a disability.”
    So, is it all right, in a certain way, to thank God for making you ‘gay,’ or for giving you cerebral palsy?
    Or is it all right, in a certain way, to thank Him for making you ‘straight,’ and healthy?
    Or both? Or either? Silly questions, I know.

  11. kathleen says:

    You and I never fail to agree??? What an insult! 😡
    Agreeing with Toad would be tantamount to agreeing with relativism, doubting (everyone and everything), agnosticism, and a whole lot of other “isms” and things that I can’t even mention here.
    Perhaps there are a few minor things we might agree on, but I can’t think what they might be right now. Dogs, maybe?

    In saying God “created a great many sorts, including, it would appear, a very great many gays…” is totally off track. God did not “create” people gay. It appears that only a tiny, tiny percentage of homosexuals are born with a hormone imbalance that might later produce in them some distorted sexual attractions. Most homosexuals become that way through disordered upbringings or environments, or keeping the wrong company!
    Inferring that there are loads of “gay priests” is a cruel affront to the vast majority of faithful, holy priests, who are utterly “straight”, and who embrace celibacy for the greater spreading of the Kingdom of God.

    Did Christ condemn gays? He did not single out this sin, but He condemned sin in all its forms and told men to strive towards perfection.
    Jesus Christ said He had “not come to abolish the Mosaic law, but to fulfill it.” (Matt. 5:17) The Mosaic law condemned the sin of sodomy.

  12. Yeah, I suppose why not thank God for your cross, since our crosses bring us closer to Him if we accept them and use them properly.

  13. johnhenrycn says:

    “Incidentally, did Christ ever condemn ‘gays’?” asks our pensioner in Spain.

    To follow up on Kathleen’s last comment, viz: “He did not single out this sin, but He condemned sin in all its forms and told men to strive towards perfection” :

    Christ also did not specifically condemn abortion, or paedophilia, or insider trading; but reading between the lines of his words of Truth and Love, we get the message. Duh? And this is before we begin to consider types of sinful conduct that Jesus couldn’t even imagine unless He’d been born in the 20th century (except for the fact that He’s God, of course) and that would have completely befuddled his disciples: eugenics, in vitro fertilization, lobotomies, drone warfare, sex changes…

    The scourging that homosexual conduct inflicts on us is so self-evident – and would have been to Jesus’ disciples – there was no need for Him to mention it specifically.

    At any rate, the great Apostle Paul was a devil for details, and we can thank him for filling us in.

  14. Toadspittle says:

    “The scourging that homosexual conduct inflicts on us is so self-evident…”
    I don’t see that at all, JH. What gays choose to get up to inflicts no scourging on me that I can see – but it does, you say, on you.
    In what way?

  15. johnhenrycn says:

    We will have to disagree. Like someone else (can’t spell her name right now – hic!) said here yesterday, you’re a broken record, Toad. And like I’ve said before, people who don’t wish to follow the teachings of the Church will never be persuaded to do so by argument – no matter how inspired the argument may be. People first have to find a place within themselves where they want Jesus to be. Until then, no persuasion, no St John of the Cross, no St Thérèse, no Fulton Sheen, will ever make a bit of difference. You obviously care about the issues we discuss, and you are – so far as one can tell from blog comments – a pretty decent person; but arguing with you won’t bring you to Jesus. Until you come to Jesus as a purely voluntary act, your function, ordained by God as I see it, is to be a foil – one who, by contrast, underscores and enhances the miracle of Faith joyously announced here by missionary Catholics. Sort of a Screwtape-in-training.

  16. “The scourging that homosexual conduct inflicts on us is so self-evident – and would have been to Jesus’ disciples – there was no need for Him to mention it specifically.”

    How do you know that Our Lord did not mention it specifically?
    Yes, I know that there is no mention of it specifically by Christ in the New Testament, but that must not be taken to mean that He avoided any discussion of it at all. Read John 21:25.

  17. True that Geoffrey!

  18. kathleen says:

    @ Geoffrey

    It is quite obvious that Our Blessed Lord must have mentioned many many things in his three years of public life that are not written down in the New Testament. Johnhenry and I took for granted that obvious fact (when we were saying that it was not mentioned specifically). We have all we need to know in order to faithfully follow Christ in all His Teachings from the words that were written down in the Gospels, Acts, Letters and Epistles by His immediate Disciples.

    It’s what I was saying about the “Mosaic law” that Our Lord said He had come to “perfect” but not to “change”.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s