AROLINE CRAWFORD – 05 DECEMBER 2013

A THIRD level institution has suspended a college society over complaints about alleged homophobic activities.

The National University of Ireland, Galway suspended the Legion of Mary after the distribution of controversial leaflets around the campus.

The leaflets, from the Courage Community group, promoted what it described as a Purity Matters Initiative.

It invited people with same sex attractions to “move beyond the confines of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ label” by developing “an interior life of chastity”.

A statement on the leaflets continued; “I'm a child of God, don't call me gαy.”

The initiative was in conjunction with the NUIG Legion of Mary society, according to the leaflets.

The University Societies Coordination Group met on Tuesday to review the matter. This was initiated by Dr Pat Moran, the Vice-President for the Student Experience following complaints.

This meeting resulted in the immediate suspension of the Legion of Mary society. It has now been removed from the University's website.

A statement from the university said NUIG has a “pluralist ethos” and would not condone the production and dissemination of any material by students which discriminates against other students.

It added that the Legion of Mary had apologised for any distress caused adding that “it was not their intention to offend or upset any person or group of people."

“Discrimination or implied or direct harassment, on the basis of sɛҳuąƖ orientation and /or religion, is contrary to Irish and European law.

“The Vice-President for the Student Experience initiated a process of enquiry to review the actions of the Society in question in the context of the University code of conduct, the University policy on harassment and Irish and European equality law,” read the NUI, Galway statement.

“The University Societies Coordination Group met on Tuesday 3rd December, and suspended the Society named the NUIG Legion of Mary with immediate effect. NUI Galway is committed to protecting the liberty and equality of all students and does not condone such behaviour,” it added.

Apologies for not introducing myself to the forum beforehand, but I'd like to offer my opinion on this article.

I respect the position that the League of Mary took. I can't discern, for lack of information, exactly what their position is on "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity", but it seems to be similar to my own; the entire "gαy pride" movement has been built upon the premise that "sɛҳuąƖ repression" is necessarily bad, and that one cannot be truly healthy unless one embraces, with overzealous passion, their sɛҳuąƖ desires and fantasies. This premise is ridiculous, for civilization requires that its members repress various urges when acting upon them would not comply with civil law — you might say that the failure of the rapist is that he was unable to successfully repress his sɛҳuąƖ urge. The same principle applies to divine law. I think that we can trace this mistaken idea that sɛҳuąƖ repression is unhealthy to at least as far back as Freud, who himself admitted that he found purpose in the subversion of culture:

Quote

"I myself had walked in Hannibal's footsteps; like him I was destined never to see Rome, and he too had gone to Campania when all were expecting him in Rome. Hannibal, with whom I had achieved this point of similarity, had been my favourite hero during my years at the Gymnasium; like so many boys of my age, I bestowed my sympathies in the Punic war not on the Romans, but on the Carthaginians. Moreover, when I finally came to realize the consequences of belonging to an alien race, and was forced by the anti-Semitic feeling among my classmates to take a definite stand, the figure of the Semitic commander assumed still greater proportions in my imagination. Hannibal and Rome symbolized, in my youthful eyes, the struggle between the tenacity of the Jєωs and the organization of the Catholic Church. The significance for our emotional life which the anti-Semitic movement has since assumed helped to fix the thoughts and impressions of those earlier days. Thus the desire to go to Rome has in my dream- life become the mask and symbol for a number of warmly cherished wishes, for whose realization one had to work with the tenacity and single-mindedness of the Punic general, though their fulfilment at times seemed as remote as Hannibal's life-long wish to enter Rome."

You can see sɛҳuąƖ libertinism on display in the writing of De Sade, but I do not think that he ever laboured under the notion that his debauched fantasies were salubrious. Nevertheless, that is the most destructive falsehood that Public & Press have made dogma since the "sɛҳuąƖ liberation" of the 1960s, whose captain was the perverted man Alfred Kinsey and whose work was surely precipitated by his pervert predecessor Freud.

So, if I were to come-out-of-the-closest and, with fear and trembling, declare that I am opposed to the very spirit of the gαy Pride parades and the propaganda that attends them (as a "homophobe"), and after enduring the bullying of the Proud one of them were to ask me, "What do you expect us to do!? We're ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, it's who we are!", I'd sincerely ask him or her, "Why don't you repress your sɛҳuąƖity?"

I was speaking with a man over the internet the other day who was speaking about his girlfriend's jealousy. You see, this man was, in his own words, "attracted to asian girls", and so his girlfriend was jealous when she saw him admiring "asian girls". I told him that he wasn't attracted to "asian girls" and that he was only really attracted to his girlfriend, and that his so-called "attraction to asian girls" was nothing but a temptation in his flesh. I told him that he wasn't a heterosɛҳuąƖ at all (though clearly the poor fool thought he was): he wasn't attracted to women. He was attracted to a woman, his girlfriend, and if anyone or anything were to suggest otherwise he was to call that person or thing a liar or deception. This might seem like I'm idealizing monogamous love, but it's practical wisdom ought to be obvious. I can see a weary old married man making a sarcastic joke to an old acquaintance, "No, I'm not a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ or a heterosɛҳuąƖ, I'm married." I could equally see a newly-wed, still passionately-in-love young man saying to a temptress, "You think that I'm heterosɛҳuąƖ? I'm not, I'm married." Apply this principle to a Catholic priest or nun. Properly, a priest or nun is neither heterosɛҳuąƖ nor ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, he or she is asɛҳuąƖ. I'm not denying that these people do not experience sɛҳuąƖ temptation, what I'm saying is that binding yourself so strongly to those temptations so as to define yourself as, "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ", or "heterosɛҳuąƖ", is nothing but foolishness and double-mindedness. You can't be a functioning civilian and not repress your sɛҳuąƖity, you can't be a functioning civilian and not cease to be a "heterosɛҳuąƖ" or "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" or any other kind of -sɛҳuąƖ in most situations. Properly, a person is not any -sɛҳuąƖ except in those times when he is indulging a sɛҳuąƖ urge. Every other time he is not any -sɛҳuąƖ, or he is asɛҳuąƖ. This attempt to create identity based upon our habitual sɛҳuąƖ urges is a very clever attempt to barbarize and animalize us. This point becomes more clear when you recognize that the terms "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs" and "heterosɛҳuąƖs" themselves are a modern invention. Pre-modern society had never heard of a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, though they had heard of sodomites and they were generally contemptuous of them. This is what I would like to stress, and what I think the Legion of Mary was trying to stress, that just because you are a "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" does not mean that you have to humiliate yourself by becoming a sodomite.

Freud and Kinsey both despised chastity. Freud said that the thing he found sɛҳuąƖ morality abominable, and Kinsey said that the only abnormal form of sɛҳuąƖity was chastity. These are the false prophets that have possessed many.