Friday, June 1, 2012

Perverse urges

Surprising absolutely no one at all, yesterday a three-judge panel of a federal court in Boston, the state that decided marriage was "gay," decided that Congress doesn't have the power to define marriage. The judges included the following:

--Michael Boudin, a leftist whose sister was a member of Weather Underground (she served time in prison for taking part in an armed robbery which killed three people);

--Sandra Lynch, a left-wing activist judge who ruled that Massachusetts parents could not exempt their children from public school classroom discussions of homosexual sex and/or "gay" parent-partner families on religious (or any other) grounds;

--Juan R. Torruella, a "moderate" judge who ruled against a New Hampshire abortion law which required parental notification.

(Oh, and only Judge Lynch was appointed by a Democrat, so the idea that electing Republicans will "fix" the court situation is clearly nonsense.)

Meanwhile, Mark Shea yesterday linked to a heartbreaking blog written by a woman who was married for over a decade to a gay man. She's not in favor of gay marriage, and has some interesting things to say (though some of the language isn't safe for work or children). This post, for instance--I think it's worth reading, but I know some readers would prefer not to open it with children in the room, or may be too sensitive to handle a realistic look at what gay sex acts involve. One post I can share here, and find really thought-provoking, is this one:.

So. Is homosexuality or is it not a mental illness?

Frankly, given the history of civilizations in which same-sex activity is ubiquitous – and that means every civilization except the Judeo-Christian world – I’m not sure that diagnosis was quite honest. I find it hard to imagine cultural mental illnesses, national mental illnesses.

That does not mean that mental illness is excluded from the reality of homosexuality. Permit me to explain:

Psychiatry must be secularized, and as such it does not recognize the real issue behind homosexuality: that it is a very grave sin. What Catholics call a mortal sin.

Which means – if I may use this analogy – that homosexuality is like a bomb blast in the soul. Once one has yielded to the temptation and engaged in the act (and it is the act, not the temptation, which is a sin), then the damage is immediate and catastrophic, in the same sort of way that a bomb blast decimates a building or causes immediate and visible damage.

I observed in my ex-, and I’ve heard friends speak of their family members who’ve floated in and out of the lifestyle in the same way – that when he entered the lifestyle after we separated, his personality and character changed. He became more bitter, more sarcastic, more supercilious, haughtier. He became more insulting of me, of women in general, of his own mother (whom he’d not been very respectful of, before). An angry and defiant edge seemed to develop in him. He became deceitful, openly dishonest, and paranoid, and he even demonstrated an explosive temper that I’d not seen before.

In fact, I would go so far, based on basic observation, to suggest that in this case the egg (the orientation) definitely came first, and the chicken (the mental illness) followed.

It's worth pondering, as we rush ahead with society's plan to insist that two men or two women are just like a man and his wife--even when the man contemptuously leaves his wife to satisfy his perverse urges.


Anonymous said...

sorry, but i read this blog now and again and you constantly seem to have this mentality that because, say, "Roe"/some other bad contra-Catholic decision hasn't been overturned, it means conservatives are evil sellouts. it seems a little petulant to me to be honest.

with this specific complaint, well no, electing generic Republicans doesn't necessarily mean anything, but this is like saying "Nixon did X, so the idea that electing Republicans will do good is clearly nonsense." the important thing obviously is to appoint conservative justices as opposed to establishment CW Republicans -- and i think Bush did a good job on that front to the extent he had the opportunity, Harriet Miers aside

Patrick Praying said...


Are the bitter ramblings of a spurned ex-wife really "thought-provoking" to you? I doubt there is a less credible source for a serious discussion regarding the mental health of American gay people.

The only value I see in this post and her blog is we are now aware of another troubled soul on God's earth and we are moved to pray for her, that she find more peace in life.

Red Cardigan said...

Anonymous, please choose a nickname next time. Thanks!

Patrick, I almost didn't publish your comment because I can't believe you're that dense. Clearly a man lying to his wife about his same-sex attraction for twelve years, treating her like dirt, and then leaving her to pursue anal sex with boyfriends is causing harm to an even greater degree than divorce usually does--and nobody here would mistake me for a pro-divorce apologist. Frankly, it's perverted for a man to leave his wife for a blond female hottie, but it's even more perverse for him to enter a marriage knowing that he really hates women and wants sex with men. Anybody who thinks legalizing gay pseudomarriage will fix that problem is kidding themselves. And your complete lack of empathy for the innocent woman who is the victim here is stunning.

Anonymous said...

Two things; I have none people who were gay but married someone of the opposite gender to appease family, try to "change", or out of fear of being themselves. One is divorced, one is getting a divorce, and the other is dead (she killed herself). All of them came from religious families (two Christian, one Catholic) that did nothing but constantly hate and insult the gay community.



Anonymous said...

A correction on my earlier comment. It is "known" not "none". I apologize.


Diamantina da Brescia, aka Gentillylace said...


I would say, as a practicing Catholic who has a moderately high degree of same-sex attraction (I rate myself as a 4 on the Kinsey scale, with 1 being exclusively other-sex attracted and 7 being exclusively same-sex attracted), that the Catholic Church would prefer that people with same-sex attraction not marry someone of the opposite sex in order to appease family, try to "change", or out of fear of being themselves. Instead, I believe that Catholics with same-sex attraction should strive to remain celibate and chaste. Is everyone with same-sex attraction called to be celibate and chaste for life in a society that emphasizes sexual union? It seems so. It is a hard saying, but the Christian life is not for the weak.

However, this is just my personal opinion. I have never had intercourse with a man or performed sexual acts with a woman, and have not been sexually intimate with anyone for almost 25 years (I am now 45), but my libido seems to be relatively low compared to others. It may be much harder for those with stronger libidos to remain celibate and chaste, especially in a society as sex-saturated as ours.

And it is no good to hate and insult the gay community, because heterosexuals are no better. Christians should fear the sin of Sodom (which is not just anal sex between men, but any form of non-procreative sex, even between heterosexuals) because it is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for justice, along with murder, cheating workers of their wages and oppressing the poor. But we are all implicated in the sin of Sodom: almost none of us in this society past the age of 20 are innocent of it.

What is sad is that the four sins that cry out to Heaven for justice do not seem to be taught in catechism classes. I am a catechist to sixth-graders, and I would not dare to tell them about the four sins that cry to Heaven to justice. I have trouble enough teaching the Ten Commandments to them, especially "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife". It is hard to discuss sex with 11- and 12-year-olds while trying to preserve at least some of the innocence that they should have.

Erin, if I have strayed too far from the topic at hand, please forgive me! I did not intend to do so.

petrus said...

I understand two of the Judge descriptions, but is the best (/worst) thing you can pin on Judge Boudin the association with his sister?? a blood relationship, in which he had utterly no say in entering into, and is powerless to divorce himself from, even civilly (where Wonderland progresses at a wonderful rate)??

Red Cardigan said...

Petrus, that's a fair point. Still, Boudin is frequently described as a "moderate," which is usually code for a pro-abortion, pro-leftist on personal issues worldview, however conservative any fiscal views might be.

I just thought that the Weather Underground thing was interesting, given Obama's various friends' connections to this group. As someone born in the late '60s, I find these connections to old hippie radical groups intriguing--yes, even if it was just the judge's sister.

Red Cardigan said...

Diamantina: I admire you tremendously for what you write here. Really. If everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or marital status, embraced the Christian message of chastity as you do, the world would be a much better place.

Charlotte said...

Well, those who know me know that I have personally experienced (in a different way and within a much shorter time period) what that woman experienced, and I experienced it more than once.

Overall, yes. When they bail to homosexuality, they get mean, catty, bitter, and angry. That is 100% my experience, which I know will be disregarded by those who will say that I am biased.

JP Stone said...

here, a nickname. i await a new snippy comment about how Republicans are all worthless soulless sellouts and implying that people who vote for them based on issues like abortion are idiots. maybe even with a specific diss to Anthony Kennedy as if that's the only type of justice a Republican president will appoint.