Hilary White

,

From their own mouths, Pt 1: LGBT Lobby plans to 'wholly transform the definition of family'

Hilary White
Hilary White
Image

ROME, February 1, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – “Transforming the very fabric of society;” and “radically reordering society’s view of reality”: these are what “being queer” means to the ideologues behind the homosexual political movement that is currently sweeping through legislatures around the world. Is this the insane ranting of a right-wing Christian conspiracy theorist? Is it yet another “attack” by wicked Pope Benedict XVI on innocent gays doing nothing more than seeking a better place in society?

No, they’re the assertions by a lesbian academic about the real purpose and goal of the LGBT political movement.

When Christians and other opponents of the homosexual agenda say this, we hear the screeching of the media pundits around the world. It’s all about equality! Equality!! About overcoming centuries of mindless prejudice…! We hear it so often, we could practically write the script ourselves.

But the quotes above are from the late lesbian homosexual thinker and activist Paula Ettelbrick, who was not the only member of the homosexual movement to forthrightly lay out the plan. As far back as the late 1980s, well before “gay marriage” was a glimmer in the eye of the most radical leftist politician, she wrote, “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.”

“We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality,” she wrote.

In case there were still any question whether the entire “gay marriage” political debacle was about “equality,” Ettelbrick went on to say in a1989 article in OUT/LOOK – entitled,“Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” – that though she objected to the idea of same-sex “marriage” itself, the fight was still useful as a political ploy. Although she believed homosexuals are “fundamentally different” from straight people and should not want to buy into our patriarchal and inherently oppressive institutions, she counseled, “People should marry for symbolic not economic benefits.”

Other lesbian academics have been equally open about the real goals.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Nan Hunter, a professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, wrote in the National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law (yes, there is such a publication) that the purpose of legalizing “gay marriage” was to “destabilize marriage’s gendered definition, thus disrupting the link between gender and marriage, thereby subverting its power differential.”

Indeed, she chronicles efforts to force the issue by activists dating back to the early 1970s.

Michelangelo Signorile wrote in OUT magazine in 1994, “A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

He added, “It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”

In case these seem merely like the wild rantings of obscure academics speaking only to the bats in their ivory belfries, another more recent admission comes from PinkNews, the main online journal of the homosexual movement in Britain.

Chris Ashford, a Reader in Law and Society at the University of Sunderland, said on Friday that, although winning the “gay marriage” fight has been a major step forward for the movement, it ain’t over yet.

Britain’s leading gay political lobby, Stonewall, has said that with the passage of the bill (yes, it’s more or less a foregone conclusion, and has been since it was announced) the political fight will be over. Equality achieved.

What does “equality” look like? “It looks like being ‘normal,’ being the ‘same’ as the dominant heterosexual majority, or at least, a fantasy image of that majority…We will aspire to a monogamous, state-sanctioned relationship…stop those group-sex shenanigans and embrace normality.”

But, Ashford says, “Legislative victory should not mean identity erasure.”

“There remain numerous sexual freedoms to campaign on – yes sexual – that’s what gay rights is about, not merely a civil rights campaign – and there are battles still to be won. Battles relating to pornography, the continued criminalization of consensual sexual acts, re-constructing our ideas of relationships in relation to sex, monogamy and the illusion that only ‘couples’ might want to enter into a state-sanctioned partnership, are just a handful which spring to mind,” he wrote.

The “gay marriage” bill, he concludes, “is not the end of the journey, or the final piece in a jigsaw. It is just another step – albeit a significant one – on a never-ending journey.”

While most of the mainstream media and the political class, whether out of fear of reprisal or genuine collusion, rigidly restrict the discussion to topics of “rights” and “equality.” And it has certainly worked. The “equality” tactic has been the strongest weapon in the movement’s political arsenal when pointed at the generalized fear in western societies of being seen to be “discriminatory,” a fear that has metastasized into a national mental pathology in Britain.

We are told that it is “unfair” to “restrict” marriage to “heterosexual couples,” as though we are all in perfect lockstep agreement that there is any other kind. We are accused, strangely, of “racism” and “discrimination” when we so much as ask difficult questions.

So terrorized have the Western peoples become of being called these schoolyard names, again particularly in Britain, that I have witnessed ordinary citizens censor their thoughts, halting in mid-sentence in a private discussion out of fear that they may say something unacceptable.

This terror – essentially a grotesque swelling of the English phobia of making a social faux pas – is the origin of the odd phenomenon of straights turning suspected homophobes over to the authorities for punishment:

Perhaps we should redefine “homophobia” to mean the, largely justified, terror of offending homosexualist bullies.

When Pope Benedict XVI, one of a tiny handful of leaders on the global stage willing to talk about what we’re really talking about, said that the pressure for “gay marriage” in the West “threatens the future of humanity,” the world’s media went into a screaming frenzy.

But here are the homosexuals themselves saying exactly the same thing, and the media is standing by with the tissues. It makes the question about who is working for whom redundant.


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
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