Hilary White

How to lose the fight over gay ‘marriage’ in one easy step

Hilary White
Hilary White
Image

ROME, August 27, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Since the push for "gay marriage" started, people who opposed it have absolutely refused to engage in discussions about the moral liceity, or even the physical and psychological consequences of homosexual behaviour. Have you noticed? The one thing no one in the argument seems to want to do is really to talk about what we’re talking about. 

In the case of the Catholic Church, this has become a nearly universal policy, from the CDF on down. We have been informed that it was official. When the issue started gaining speed, bishops and national conferences told priests they were to talk exclusively about the glories and wonders of marriage, and never, ever breathe the slightest hint about all that other icky stuff.

Indeed, so appealing was the Catholic Church’s line to UK Prime Minister David Cameron – note: Conservative Party leader – that he actually used it to bring "gay marriage" into Britain, the little gift that he now wants to keep giving to the whole world. So, good work there, guys, thanks. 

A very, very small number of people, including LifeSite, a couple of pro-family groups and maybe a handful of bloggers have been willing to say out loud that this policy is going to backfire. We’ve been the only ones to reject the disclaimers, evasions and excuses that nearly all the “conservative” world has embraced in order to sell the message. And for our troubles, we’ve had people, mainly these same “conservatives,” screeching at us like Pod People ever since. 

We said that the arguments against "gay marriage" that start with the nice warm-cuddlies and go pretty much no further, are going to be ultimately incoherent. They won't move out any further than the borders of the conservative discussion bubble. Certainly, the average TV watching Regular Person, we said, is going to hear that line, shrug and say, "Well, OK, if marriage is so great, we should let everyone do it." Then he's going to flip over to the next episode of Glee. 

Ultimately, we predicted, these “conservative” politically correct arguments are going to be so weak, that even the people holding and using them will eventually be forced to abandon them and join the throng themselves. Aaaaand guess what? This week, the US “conservative” political world is all in a tizzy over the column by Joseph Bottum, former editor of the kind-of Catholic magazine First Things, who said he’s not got any arguments to make against the change. (Yes, I’m going to keep using the scare quotes; deal.) 

Lately we are increasingly being told, by everyone, that universal “gay marriage” is “inevitable”. To this, we at LSN and other assorted wacky hold-outs-to-reality, can really only say, “Yes, we told you that”. 

We have been saying for some time that the Sexual Revolution isn’t over, that it’s an ongoing process that has as its aim the total abolition of any recognisable social structure based on objective biological realities, starting in the 70s with no-fault divorce, artificial contraception and abortion and moving on to the outer stratosphere of the weird. 

We have also said that the language and processes of political conservatism, especially when they are applied to religious institutions, are inadequate to our immediate or long-term needs. That the political model, once summed up for me by a Canadian bishop as “the art of the possible,” isn’t going to be enough to provide the solutions to these big questions that people are looking for. 

This political approach is the one that has bishops, and their “conservative” followers, around the world promoting the compromise of homosexual civil unions, a phenomenon that I think psychologists have called Stockholm syndrome. But I have bad news for these churchmen: that crocodile isn’t going to eat you last. 

We have said that you can’t separate the moral law from politics. That the creation of a divide between “social conservative” and “fiscal conservative” is fatuous and a grave error that will result in the total elimination of any opposition whatever to the global socialist culture-wrecking agenda. 

Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

But we were nuts, weren’t we? And we were “nuts” again when we followed the logic one or two steps further and said that once you’ve separated – in the words of a noted Italian pundit – the procreative ends of marriage from the unitive, you’ve pretty much opened the field up to anything at all. Meaning that the logic will take you very rapidly indeed from “gay marriage” to polygamy, paedophilia, incest and whatever else human concupiscence can come up with. 

Logic is like math, people. Don’t shoot the messenger who insists, against all political fashion, that two and two still equal four. 

Well, I've got to say that the least fun part about Cassandra Syndrome is saying "I told you so." 

So, I’m going to change it to “Soooo, you don’t want to talk about the nasty, politically incorrect, squelchy stuff? You want to keep the discourse ‘civil’ and polite and friendly? 

“How’s that workin’ out for y’all?”
 

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships around the world *:

Andorra – civil unions
Argentina – same-sex “marriage”
Australia: – civil unions
· ACT, NSW, QLD,
· TAS, VIC
Austria – civil unions
Belgium  – same-sex “marriage”
Brazil  – same-sex “marriage”
Canada  – same-sex “marriage”
Colombia – civil unions
Czech Republic – civil unions
Denmark – same-sex “marriage”
Finland – civil unions
France – same-sex “marriage”
Germany – civil unions
Greenland – civil unions
Hungary – civil unions
Iceland – same-sex “marriage”
Ireland – civil unions
Isle of Man – civil unions
Israel – same-sex “marriage”
Jersey – civil unions
Liechtenstein – civil unions
Luxembourg – civil unions
Mexico – same-sex “marriage” and civil unions
Netherlands – same-sex “marriage”
New Zealand – same-sex “marriage”
Norway – same-sex “marriage”
Portugal – same-sex “marriage”
Scotland – civil unions
Slovenia – civil unions
South Africa – same-sex “marriage”
Spain – same-sex “marriage”
Sweden – same-sex “marriage”
Switzerland – civil unions
England & Wales – same-sex “marriage”
United States – same-sex “marriage”
· CA, CT, DC, DE,
· IA, MA, MD, ME,
· MN, NH, NY, RI,
· VT, WA, and 5 tribes
United States: – civil unions
· CO, HI, IL, NJ,
· NV, OR, WI
Uruguay – same-sex “marriage”
Venezuela – civil unions 

* I won’t list the countries – Italy for one – currently thinking about legislation and I won’t take the trouble to look up those jurisdictions that, when putting the new sexual paradigm into law also made it illegal to dissent – though the Republic of Ireland springs to mind as an especially ironic exemplar. 


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook