RIP Hugh Hefner

Yes, it is a bad thing. One thing are human rights, which make no distinction on race, sex, or sexual orientation (regardless of whether it is natural or deviated).

To say that advocacy for gay rights is not a bad thing is missing the big point:
- homosexual couples have no right to adoption, because the right of a newborn to a mother and father (whether biological or adoptive) comes first than any other thing. A child needs both a paternal and maternal figure, this is something that has been known for centuries, and something that any honest psychologist/psychiatrist will tell you. There are countless scientific articles on the matter. Homosexuals can have children if they want to, what is asked from them is that they undertake the effort needed to heal from their deviation before they have children (which is the same demand that would be made on an alcoholic, or a drug addict, for example).
- homosexual couples should not be treated before the law in the same way heterosexual couples are because heterosexual couples can do society favors that homosexuals cannot. Namely, bring new children to life and raising them to become good people who benefit society. This is not an undermining of the homosexual person or couple, it is simply affirming that it is an injustice to provide a sterile same-sex couple that does not provide the necessary conditions for a healthy environment for the raising of children with the same benefits than a heterosexual couple that fulfills both requirements. A couple of drug addicts, for example, can be deprived of their right to raise children if their offspring are at risk or in an unhealthy environment; why then give same-sex couples the undeniable right to adoption if they do not meet even the most basic criteria to be classified as a healthy environment for children?

This does not hold, even in a court of law. Sentences given to children who commit serious crimes are usually lighter than the ones given to adults who commit the same crime. The reason for this is that the psyche of a child is not fully formed and their understanding of some moral matters can be limited (if not absent). We can argue the same thing in addiction to pornography. A kid of 13 years of age has a null understanding of both the physical and spiritual dimension of sexuality, this is why in some countries there is the legal figure of "corruption of underage children" which is severely punished. This is why in some countries selling pornography to children is a serious crime. This is also why there is a minimum age of consent for sexual relationships: because the understanding of sex of a child is a lot more constrained than that of an adult.

Finally, I take ownership of my decisions as an adult. I did when I went to confession to uproot my sexual deviations; and I continue to do as I go to confession for other matters. What is absurd is to say that it was my exclusive responsibility to fall for porn, and not Hugh Hefner's. At the age of 13, when I started watching porn, I had no idea of that, no understanding of sexuality and no sound moral tutoring to see the wrong of what I was doing. And that is what I pin on this individual.

 

My most sincere apologies. I guess that some people have other things to do aside from participating in a forum. Allow me to remind you that your response to my message had a delay of around one month, mine has a delay of around two months. May I suggest that your lack of disposition for debate has nothing to do with the so-called delay?

That is not the point. I have seen veterinarians performing surgery on rodents much better than medical doctors performing medical surgery in humans. Would you send a person to be operated by a veterinarian? I guess not.

I have seen wild wolves taking better care of human orphans than homosexual parents. Would you take a child from an homosexual couple and put it under the care of wild wolves?

https://gothamist.com/2013/04/07/gay_couple_accused_of_raping_multip.php

https://www.metroweekly.com/2019/04...ted-children-in-murder-suicide-inquest-finds/

http://www.outono.net/elentir/2019/...er-a-child-in-brazil-media-silence-in-europe/

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/28/how-to-be-human-the-man-who-was-raised-by-wolves

This is to point the absurdity of your reasoning.

You DO NOT choose the lesser evil, especially when it comes to raising children. You aim to the highest good; and the highest good is a normal couple. I have also seen countless heterosexual couples raising children better than homosexuals. According to your logic, this is another invalidation of your argument.

No, it is not. Rejecting homosexual couples as foster parents is as discriminating as rejecting heroin addicts, alcoholics, or mentally insane people. Additionally, nobody here has rejected homosexuals as foster parents. You can read my message. I said that if homosexuals want to adopt children, the least thing they can do is address their sexual deviation, try to heal it, constitute marriage with someone of the other sex and then adopt. Which is the case of several individuals. Read the story of Luca Di Tolve.

Homosexual rights were not Hefner's magnum opus. Other individuals were involved, the pimp was instrumental in the destruction of the family values of the west. And it is beyond doubt that the destruction of the moral order in regards to sexuality paved the way to the destruction of the moral order in the family structure.

Actually you did. You pointed fingers and started saying that it was the responsibility of a 13 year-old kid to become addicted to pornography. Should I quote you your fragment of the message?

See you in 2 months.

 

And all this arguement is because an old pervert died.

 

I am porn free since march 30th 2018. Was masturbation free since that day until january of this year, when I started dating my girlfriend.

I came to this forum some time ago to share my recipe for recovery (which is basically frequent confession with a priest and praying the rosary to Our Lady of Sorrows every day) and got censored by some dude who got offended. This led to my retirement soon after leaving some messages in this post.

If you know how the sacrament of confession works, you will know that the first step is taking responsibility. And yes, I was responsible for watching porn while I was aware that it was immoral and had devastating effects. Which came to my knowledge at the age of 21, 8 years after I started watching porn.

Again, I pin the blame on Hefner for pushing the agenda that would facilitate the access to pornography to children in a way that is unprecedented in history. If you want to understand why a young child is NOT responsible for its addiction to porn, read my first response to you. Once the person is a full-grown adult, once the person has a full knowledge and UNDERSTANDING on the moral issues of pornography, then the person is fully accountable. The problem is when men and women reach their age of majority and have been watching pornography for so long that it is nearly impossible for them to see the issue (which happens more often than you think, and was my case).