Archives

Why I Oppose Gay Marriage – Part One: The Straight Spouses

A conversation this week with a new acquaintance raised the old-for-me question: why do I oppose gay marriage? Don’t gays deserve equal rights with heterosexuals? Don’t I want them to have the same opportunities for happiness I enjoy?

Why do I deviate from the “Straight Spouse” standard reply that, because I love my ex-husband, I want him to be happy in his “real self”?  After all, how does gay marriage hurt me, individually? personally? —

Discussing abstract realities is always difficult, and this is an abstract; that is, it’s a reality that cannot be known by our physical senses (touch, sight, hearing, taste, etc.). Nevertheless, I keep coming to a place where I have to try to — not persuade, that’s not in my sphere of influence! But I do hope to speak well enough that people get even a partial glimpse of how I see things, from “behind my eyeballs” as it were.  So I keep trying, hoping the same old responses don’t feel tired to the person who’s reading them, while I keep reaching for better ways to say what I perceive and feel.

The question “how does gay marriage hurt you?” is bantered about like a challenge the opponent is suppose to yield, unable to defend.  But gay marriage does hurt me.  It hurts all of us.

Gay marriage suggests that there is no distinction between the sexes, that we are interchangeable parts of a social construct. This is an attitude that demeans me as a woman — demeans all women (and men, too). It says we have no intrinsic value or worth due our sex.  It says that the rejection of the opposite sex in favor of a different type of union is acceptable and laudable.

It also says that I have no value as a wife — that unique relationship to a husband that simply cannot be replicated in same-sex unions.  Of course, this is why California has abandoned the language of gender and opted for “Spouse One and Spouse Two” in their legal processes.

I was demeaned in my marriage to a homosexual.  I was unworthy of companionship, of basic, nonsexual affection. I was merely a personified abstract — a Wife — behind which my then-husband could hide. This misogynistic attitude is only legitimated through a recognition of gay marriage: it is a society saying that I, as a woman and as a wife, have no meaning, no value.  I am again only a personified abstract, this time expected to approve the very things that diminish my worth and render me inconsequential.

This I will not do.

Still here

I just concluded a conversation with a new friend who, it turned out, knows this blog.  He told me I have more people watching it than I realized —- and that some had assumed that maybe I’d changed my mind about gay marriage, the whole fight, really, because I’ve been inactive so long.

I’ve not.  My opinions are not only unchanged since I began this blog, I find them being more and more strongly confirmed as more men and women come out with their own stories about toxic marriages to gays, or the sufferings of their being raised by gay parents.

The embarrassing truth of it is that having sole responsibility for this blog and being so immersed in this subject matter is oppressive to my spirit.  I live with depression (and, btw, I have yet to meet a former spouse of a homosexual who doesn’t also battle The Black Dog) and sometimes I have to budget my low energy levels as miserly as I can in order to cover the necessities.

But I’m so grateful — no, I’m still sitting here well after midnight shaking my head . . . simply amazed at being known and recognized and  told “Oh, yeah, you’re quite well known among my friends —” —

So let me take a moment to tell you all hello, and to thank you for looking for this blog and for your prayers and whatever positive thoughts you’ve had about what I do, here.

I’ve been collecting things to post here.  I’m looking for a couple other women to post, as well.  I won’t abandon this blog completely — even though sometimes I find I don’t have energy sufficient to post.

The fight really is just beginning.

LGBT vitriol

I questioned why the professional community taxed with screening gender reassignment candidates has not been more capable of recognizing the severe dysfunctions operating in the LGBT community, particularly in those lesbian households that are putting little boys on the transgender trainwreck. But perhaps the answer to that lies here:

“. . . the aggression shown by the LGBT community toward people who question whether children should prepare to have their genitals surgically altered and be injected with massive doses of hormones is such that clinicians are terrified to continue searching for the truth.”

The original article is available from the Wall Street Journal, but they demanded I subscribe before I could access the article.  I’m not in the market for a paid subscription of a work I only use a few times a year, rather than daily, cover to cover.

The LGBT community certainly is aggressive, even hostile, in the face of opposition.  Last week I posted a story by Janna Darnelle about her experiences divorcing, or being divorced by, a man who’d decided to come out of the closet.  Later in the week, this article appeared with an update, revealing that, in the aftermath of Janna’s article’s publication, and widespread sharing on the internet, the Gay Mafia has gone berserk with trying to punish her.

I highly recommend Rivka’s update, full of great information and insights such as this one:

“You want to marry a man and you are a man? Society does not owe you women’s children, women’s eggs, or women’s bodies.”

I would add, ” . . . or our hearts and souls.”

Recommended article: The Soul-Crushing Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage

No, it doesn’t have anything to do, directly, with the ex-wives of gays. But one can extrapolate a LOT about the mentality of the “gay rights” movement, which reflects very directly on the attitude directed toward women (especially We The Ex-Wives) and the attitude that any method of control is acceptable because, after all, no one else matters.

Robert Oscar Lopez wrote an article in which he used his experiences and observations as a young man raised by his mother and her lesbian partner to defend the recent sociological study by Mark Regnerus which outlines the problems of children growing up in same-sex, gay households. That article is entitled “Growing Up with Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View,” and it’s here, for your reading pleasure. Or angst – there is always the risk of pain when we enter these territories.

Well, Lopez has taken a veritable verbal beating from the gay community for having the integrity to stand up and publicly state, “I bear significant scars as a consequence of being raised by two lesbians.” This demonstrates a great deal about the overall, militant disposition of the gay community at large, which we need to be aware of — especially those of us who are still raising children.

Lopez’s further response , and further reflections on the inherently violent, take-no-prisoners tactics of the gay movement, is the immediately recommended article which appeared here this week in American Thinker.

Violent? That guy who shot the security guard at the conservative, Christian-based Family Research Council in Washington, yesterday, was angry and resentful over the FRC’s opposition to gay marriage.

I earnestly urge you to read both articles. Take them to your lawyer if you’re still engaged in custody battle. Take them to your children’s pediatricians and clinical psychologists –

And, if I may be so nosy and bossy and presumptuous, if you don’t get a supportive response from either of those professionals, you might want to read the writing on the wall and recognize that these people have bought into the lies that the gays are promoting in order to further their agenda. That is, they are more concerned with promoting the party politic than with protecting your child – and do not deserve your patronage any longer. You need, and are worthy of (I hate the phrase, “you’re entitled…”) professional services that help you protect your children and minimize the trauma and confusion that comes of having a gay parent.

The risk is real: I did not understand what I was up against when DH and I divorced. I did not believe he would ever be so ungodly…   and to this day, he insists to our daughters that his being gay had nothing to do with our divorce, and our older daughter is now very much a heterosexual, “fag hag” gay activist of sorts – at least, a very vocal proponent of gay rights, and an utterly miserable woman.

Personal experience biasing my vision? Possible. But if it happened to me, you are not immune.

Think about it. And God bless you.

 

Attempts to legitimate Gay Marriage

Tomorrow, May 8, the Great State of North Carolina will be voting on a Constitutional Amendment which would secure for perpetuity the present law recognizing only the marriage between one man and one woman as the only recognized legal union in the State.

The wording of the proposed Amendment, in fact, says just that:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

Opponents of the Amendment, however – promoted and financed by the homosexual community from across the nation – have engaged in a campaign of lies and manipulations, trying to play in ignorant and well-intentioned people by insisting this Amendment would hurt children and affect domestic violence law.

The truth of the matter is that the exact opposite is true. The defeat of this amendment will hurt children and women.

Here’s how it works: As soon as the Amendment could be defeated (tomorrow night), the homosexual lobby will be pushing Raleigh’s lawmakers to legally recognize gay marriage, as has happened already in – I believe it’s seven states at present, with several more in a legislative/judicial limbo. I will say that we will begin hearing rumblings of this almost immediately, and within two years it will be being debated in the State House, if not passed (the gay lobby won’t take “no” for an answer if they can find a loophole anywhere).

If the Amendment is passed by the voters, then you can expect legal challenge to begin immediately.

Now. If a State recognizes gay marriage, then they must also officially begin the process of legitimating homosexuality – and that means homosexual acts. We’re seeing this now, culturally, with lawsuits against private individuals refusing to provide goods and services to gay couples, like a photographer out in the Midwest (Indiana?) who is being sued for declining the privilege of taking photos at a gay wedding. Although it’s not in the U.S., the situation of the Christian B&B owners in England who are being sued for not renting a room to a gay couple is cautionary.

Right now in Canada, priests are being charged with hate speech crimes for preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and parochial schools are being warned that they may not teach Catholic moral theology to their students, in so far as teaching that homosexuality is wrong is concerned. It will be happening in the U.S. as the movement gains a stronger toehold – if we let it.

And that means that the State – Big Brother – will be sanctioning public works, such as public school education, to brainwash our children that homosexuality is equally legitimate with heterosexuality, and will be teaching homosexuality even as they now teach techniques for using condoms and performing oral sex (bet you didn’t know that was happening, did you? But it is.) It’s happening in Vermont, now.— Right now, in our public schools, kids are hearing, receiving, and being taught information that twenty years ago would have been considered “Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor” in most states’ court systems.

And there will be even stronger efforts to get States to lower the age of consent for statutory sex offenses, just as there is currently pressure by an organization called NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Assoc.) to declassify pedophilia and pederasty as a psychiatric disorder (see my upcoming post on the sabotage and hijacking of the American Psychiatric Association and the declassification of homosexuality as mental illness).

Meanwhile, there will be increased pressure against homeschooling – the last bastion of religious conservatism where traditional Christian moral values are being taught by curriculum and lived out within the family structure.

Because the Enemy’s #1 weapon to kidnap our kids’ souls is the breakdown of our families. If our kids don’t see, hear and experience a reasonably healthy heterosexual love through their parents’ examples (and even a toxic marriage has to be better than no heterosexual modeling at all!) and observe our Christian moral values as something normal, integral to daily life, and joy-filled, then they’re easy prey for the pseudo-authority of government institutions.

And that, in its final analysis, will provide a new generation of beautiful boys to serve as the prey of homosexual predators. Our sons.

Perspective – Part Two

Even more important, however, than the basic physical offensiveness of homosexual acts, or of the contemptuous way in which the gay community treats the rest of us, is the spiritual component of homosexuality.

My husband and I were Baptists/evangelicals. When we were married, he was a faithful believer who spent the first part of his morning reading the Scriptures and praying. He was pro-life. He believed that homosexual acts were a sin and that people burdened with the cross of homosexual tendencies were obligated to live as celibates.

He no longer believes these things.

I became Roman Catholic ten years ago, which gives me a new and stronger vocabulary for discussing this stuff.

First, we have the issue of “natural law.” The Apostle Paul was alluding to it when he wrote to the Romans that even pagans have a law that is written on their hearts, that reveals right and truth even to people who haven’t heard the Gospel (Romans 1). Natural law also tells us that sexual relations which in nature result in procreation, must be of the sort that can result in new life if they are going to adhere to that Natural Law. Homosexual acts cannot result in procreation; therefore they violate natural law.

Then we have the historical cultural evidence. Dennis Prager, in Judaism, Homosexuality and Civilization, points out that Judaism arose out of a pagan ancient world – a world in which sexual license-to-depravity was the social norm. Remember all the Greek gods and their proclivities? The ancients just weren’t quite so sophisticated with their mythologies, but the cultures operated the same way: homosexuality, bestiality, incest, fetishism…  But out of this milieu arose a family, which became a tribe, which became a nation!… who said that they’d been formed and called by a God who commanded them to live for Him in ways which included restricting their sexual encounters to the framework of marriage: heterosexual monogamy.

So, not everyone followed the rules. Kings, for instance, like David and Solomon, were polygamous (and got into some serious trouble for it, too). But the rules themselves didn’t change. God prohibited all the ordinary events of the pagan world. The homosexuality He called “abomination,” but He also prohibited bestiality, incest, and the like.

And when the Christian Church was established, and, lo and behold! Gentiles were coming to know Jesus Christ! (and Gentiles were not “protestant jews,” they were pagans) it caused such an uproar that the first Council of the Church had to be held to figure out how to handle them. I mean, this was a MAJOR paradigm shift, from Roman/pagan to Christian! — and Peter and the rest of the Apostles put their heads together and agreed: the new converts to Christ did not have to be circumcised, the signification of the Old Covenant of Abraham; instead, they were to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from sexual immorality.

In other words, the new Christians didn’t have to have their bodies mutilated, but they did have to abandon the old paradigm and embrace a wholly new one – a paradigm of chastity.

It couldn’t have been easy. We know this because the earliest records of the Church demonstrate that private Confession (sacramental Confession) was followed up by public penance – and severe penances were placed in effect for the former pagans falling back into old habits. Severe fasting, separation from the Eucharist and from the community were some of the penances assigned to those who fell into the old ways.

There was vigorous discussion whether one could even be saved, whether penance was possible, who had fallen back into such grave sin after baptism.

Paul, again, wrote of this to the Corinthians. Now, the Corinthians were a particularly depraved group of people with a reputation so lewd that calling someone a “corinthian” was a serious insult. And Paul reminded them of what they had escaped, in I Corinthians 6:
{6:9} Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:
{6:10} Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.

And those are the very sorts of people the Corinthians had been – But Paul goes on to remind them:


{6:11} And such some of you were. But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.

(emphasis mine) Get a load of it: the early Gentile converts to Christianity became…

Ex-gays!

Sure, societies have deviated from the norms throughout history. History is full of examples of kings and nobles who had a decided “thing” for young boys instead of for women. But the law of the Church and the expectations of society never changed.

So – Homosexuality is a very grave sin, perhaps the gravest of sins because of its association with paganism, with following after false gods. And because I believe in a coming Judgment, I worry and grieve far more for my husband’s immortal soul than I do for the abuses he’s placed his body under – or even the ravages to his character I’ve observed in the years since our divorce.

Yet those very character deviations stand out as evidences of the great spiritual damage he – and other homosexuals – are doing to themselves.

And this grieves me most of all.