Schools and Same-Sex Marriage

The SPUC Anthony Ozimic's apperance on This Morning has caused a stir in the marriage debate, both within Catholic new media circles and doubtless in the so called "equal marriage" camp. Generally, I think Anthony did very well in a heated debate which left him facing three opponents, instead of the one opponent discussion which was meant to be overseen by two impartial television presenters.

Opinion appears divided over the approach that Anthony took on the range of issues forcefully and emotionally presented to him. Some commentators have described Anthony's approach to the issue as the right one, while one Catholic commentator on Twitter described the debate as a 'train crash'. This is somewhat unfair, I think, and given that Anthony single-handedly, against three opponents, reduced public support in the live opinion poll for same-sex marriage to be taught in school by 20%, quite untrue.

This debate is highly charged - since we are now such a highly charged and hyper-sexualised country - and the language being used is so emotionally loaded. Anthony was accused, in what is now the most consistently employed gay lobby truth missile defense system, of 'homophobia'.

Is Anthony 'homophobic'? I really doubt it, but, that said, one Catholic I know who has same-sex attraction reacted very angrily to the interview yesterday. As well as mounting a 'homophobic' attack on 'gay marriage' and it being taught in schools, Anthony's crime appears to be one of 'pathologising' homosexuality. I personally found Anthony's approach to the issue refreshing precisely because he refused to buy into or accept any part of the LGBT campaign's propaganda.

In refusing to do this - by asserting that there is something 'not normal' or disordered or even unhealthy about homosexuality, Anthony was able to do the one thing that people at home who are uncomfortable with the LGBT agenda feel unable to do - that is - he spoke his mind. He refused to take this issue on the terms presented by the media and also refused to publicly accept the sacred cows so cherished by the LGBT brigade.

Assessing homosexuality as something that is plausibly linked to issues grounded in childhood development, environment and psychology, rather than genetic or necessarily 'chromosomal' factors, may be an avenue that Anthony did not have to explore, nor perhaps the particular angle from which the Church comes from, or even an argument grounded in natural law.

Anthony's defense, however, was a defence mounted in defence of children. The Catholic Church states quite clearly that homosexuality is a disorder of the natural sexual state. Why should we not explore the possible reasons as to why a child may grow up into an adult with a disorder of the natural sexual state and find himself only able to form sexual relationships with members of the same-sex? Are we saying that there is a whole field of psychological enquiry which has been closed off? Who closed it off? Was it closed off by 'Peer Review'? Are 'Peer Reviews' infallible documents or could it b,e that on the subject of homosexuality, enquiry into this was called off because the liberal, taboo-smashing orthodoxy requires consensus of psychiactric opinion?

Personal experience

I'll be quite frank. I continue to live a life with what the Church, more helpfully and dispassionately describes as 'same-sex attraction'. This, I whole heartedly accept to be a disorder. The very phrase, 'same-sex attraction' itself is more helpful to understanding ourselves than 'gay' - a term which was robbed by the 'gay community' from the English dictionary and distorted to fit their political and frankly Marxist agenda.

My experience of homosexuality or same-sex attraction is that it developed in childhood. My first sexual experience was with another boy at about the age of 9, though I cannot recall the exact age. This person shall of course remain nameless. This experience, however, was initiated by him. It then came to pass that an older boy of around 14, known to me and the boy, took me to a wood and got me to hold his private parts and do things 'for him'. Looking back, this was some kind of abuse encounter. I was very young and impressionable.

Secondly, I found it difficult to form a strong relationship with my father. At the same time, I had a very close relationship with my mother. It so happens that most homosexuals I have encountered, in which I mean 'met', as well as myself, have had distinct 'father' issues. One I know, actively despises his own father. Another clearly never had one. Another cannot forgive his father for what his father did to his mother. Another, his father was never at home because he was always at work and meetings. Whenever I have met a homosexual, I have picked up the distinct impression that this individual has either no bond or a severed bond or only partial bond with father. I don't have a psychology degree, but just looking at my own sexual formation and that of others I know, does it not make perfect rational sense for a child with no father bond to seek bonding with a man he is perpetually searching for?

Thirdly, if there is one psychological disorder prevalent in the gay community (indeed rampant throughout society), it is the psychological disorder of narcissism. I'll be frank, I have this disorder too. Anyone who blogs as much as me must think rather highly of himself that his thoughts are so valuable they must be posted extremely regularly. Indeed, the age in which we live (Facebook, Twitter, fashion, trends etc) actively encourages this most pernicious of disorders.

Self-glorification, self-worship, even, is elevated to an astonishing degree, to the detriment of the health of family, society and indeed the individual. It is a "me, me, me" age. The brazen selfishness and self-obsession of the political gay lobby, indeed, is the very reason why all of society is now being ordered to usher in an age and a Brave New World at that in which the family is to be re-ordered so that their unjustified wrath may be appeased and the unnatural unit of two men and a baby is to be seen as equal to the natural family unit of man and woman and children.

The Rainbow: Policy is being made through an LGBT Prism

This is what, in fact, lies at the heart of the marriage debate - a debate taking place only because the LGBT community have launched an astonishing attack on the institution of marriage by insisting that, by some intrinsic right created out of nowhere, this institution that comes about through the union of man and woman belongs equally also to them. The truth of course is that it belongs to the whole society and uniquely to those who enter into it in order to unite two complementary, but uniquely different, genders. Man and woman. Nobody is excluded by the institution of marriage. Men and women are both catered for. The only people not catered for by the institution of marriage are those who refuse, either willingly or unwillingly, to unite with a person of the opposite sex for the procreation of children.

Public policy is now being made through an LGBT prism. That's why there are rainbows everwhere. Everything in the LGBT world is seen through a prism of self - even a prison of self - that ignores, holds in contempt or esteems as of trifling importance those natural bonds of love that every civilization has valued.

Marriage is one of these natural bonds, for marriage is a natural institution. Another is motherhood - a widely disparaged vocation. Another is fatherhood and the bond between father and son. Another is grand-parenthood and the role of extended family.

The LGBT lobby, in truth, will never be happy - another word for 'gay' - even if society, Church and State should bend over backwards to give it all that this voracious lobby requires. Why? Because the truth is that the LGBT lobby present to the nation, to families and to children a philosophy regarding sexuality in which slavery is promoted. What is this slavery? It is the slavery of sin and the slavery of the self and of the fulfillment of selfish desires that refuse to respect the role and purpose of sexuality and sexual expression for children, for family and and society.

In truth, this vision of sex for purely pleasurable and selfish reasons in terms of homosexuality is merely an extension of what is already taught widely in schools - that sex has no objective moral dimension or purpose - and that neither does marriage. This is what Anthony Ozimic was talking about in terms of giving children an education that respects the authentic and only good vision of human sexuality, life and love. Marriage is about liberty - not licence. The family is about liberty - not licence. Love is about liberty - not licence. Those who distort the meanings of love, family and marriage do so in order to suit their own licentious ends and end up making prisoners of themselves and, in turn, the rest of the society who refuses to be slaves to their own disordered sexual desires.

Real slavery is the slavery of the self

The Divine Founder of the Catholic Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ, said, 'The truth will set you free'. What is the Truth? The Truth is Jesus Christ, the Way and the Truth and the Life. What is 'free'? To be free is to be free from the tyranny of selfishness, the prison of self-love or even self-worship, in order to love God, to love your neighbour, to love Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother and His Church even unto the shedding of your own blood. To be a slave of Jesus Christ is to be free. To be a slave or a hostage to sin and to the Devil is to be forever in chains.

The primary reason why children should not be taught about same-sex marriage in schools is that it is not primarily the responsibiliy of the State to give children the moral formation and moral education that is the duty and right of parents. It is not to the State to indoctrinate children with a new and wholly untested vision of human sexuality, love and marriage.

It is not to the State to indoctrinate children with its own vision of such matters which run entirely contrary to the natural law. This is the duty and right of parents. It is not just the rights of children to be given an authentic vision of human sexuality and love in school that are under attack. It is the rights of parents and, in particular, any parent who objects to this kind of education.

Indeed, at one point in the discussion, the presenter asks Anthony to descibe the 'lifestyles' and 'practices' of homosexuality. For some reason, Anthony felt unable to do this. Is this, perhaps, because the practices and lifestyles associated with homosexuality are not suitable subject matter for daytime TV? Perhaps Anthony should have mentioned fisting, mutual masturbation, rimming, sodomy and the rest and just let the complaints from those at home fly in. Then he could have said, "....and this is what Stonewall and the Terrence Higgins Trust want to be taught in your child's school. Oh, but don't worry, because all such behaviours are perfectly 'normal' and 'healthy', despite the fact that HIV claims many gay men's lives and rates of HPV are so bad in gay men that there are calls for 'vaccinations'.

My own experience of being a man with same-sex attraction may have been heavily influenced by being exposed to homosexuality at a very tender age. The event with an older boy was deeply distressing and its something I rather not think about because I realise that it was, fundamentally, child abuse. Teaching about homosexuality in schools is a recipe for the exact same events to be promoted and replayed in every school up and down the land.

Do parents want this kind of education for their children?

So, I ask parents of the United Kingdom:

1. Is this what you want for your child?
2. Do you want your 8-year-old son to be abused by an older child, having been encouraged to sexually experiment by the teachers you thought were there for your child's education and protection?
3. Do you want your impressionable cherub experimenting sexually with any other children?
4. Do you want the State to be the moral educator of your children or would you rather do this yourself?
5. If much of what consists of gay literature is so offensive that it cannot be discussed on daytime TV, then in what sense is it suitable for your child in a school setting? 

Before you make up your mind, do have a look at the substance, if not the precise material, of what the Terrence Higgins Trust actually wish to promote in schools.

If it is not what you want for your child and you do not want your Government to enshrine into legislation law that will promote child abuse, wake up, get off the fence, stop pandering to the dogma of political correctness and do everything you can to oppose the Government's redefinition of marriage, because time is short and the Devil never sleeps.