Peter Baklinski

LGBTTIQQ2S: How many more letters do we need?

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski
Image

30 August, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - “LGBTTIQQ2S? How many letters do we need, and what do half of these even stand for?,” someone recently asked in the comments section of a news article I wrote.

The answer is simple: A letter is needed for every single sexual inclination and action that deviates from the obvious norm - i.e. sexual inclinations and actions between a male and female that are best expressed in marriage.

Can I say such a thing without being discriminatory and homophobic?

I hope it is not being discriminatory to point out what biology teaches. On a purely biological level, sexual organs are for the sake of reproduction. Nature produced woman with a vagina and man with a penis so that the two could come together to procreate new life. Ejaculation is for the sake of shooting a seed to fertilize the egg so that a new human being can come into existence. On a purely biological level, the sexual inclination is for the sake of the continuation of the species. If there was no sexual drive, the human race would become extinct. Any lover of wisdom worth his salt knows this, from Aristotle to Darwin to John Paul II. It is not homophobic to point out the function of the sexual organs and to argue from this that male/female relations are the sexual norm.

But there is more than the biological evidence for establishing the male/female sexual norm. Men and woman are not simply biological machines that by nature have parts that fit together. They are also persons who have been made to complement each other on the personal, emotional, and spiritual dimensions. Marriage is the institution that has for millennia provided the social framework that allows a man and a woman to come together and rear children while at the same time providing for them an occasion for the flourishing of their personal/emotional/spiritual dimensions. In this kind of communal flourishing, a man and a woman partake in the full spectrum of the human experience.

But what happens when society forgets that a man and a woman have sexual inclinations and sexual bodies for the sake of flourishing together and uniting so that the species may continue? The answer in a nut shell is this: numerous sexual perversities. There is an operating principle here, namely that actions continuing with their purpose lost, multiply perversities. In a similar way, archers who are ignorant of the mark will shoot their arrows with bizarre futility.

So, how did society get to the point of having LGBTTIQQ2S?

Because people have forgotten, mostly through radical propaganda efforts by homosexual activists, that the body of a man and the body of a woman were made to come together in the sexual act for the sake of union and procreation.

But how could people forget such a basic thing? People became predisposed to listen to the homosexual activists only after using contraceptive technologies to separate the unitive dimensions of the sexual act from its procreative potential. For the past 70 years and more, contraception has essentially turned sexual acts between a man and a woman into homosexual acts by deliberately precluding the potential of the act to create new life. Contraception was a major perversion of sexuality that set the stage for all the other perversions that were to follow, and for the ones that are yet to come.

Because of contraception, people began to subconsciously reason that since sexual acts were no longer about procreation, why should such acts not be condoned between people of the same-sex. Society’s acceptance of contraception was the thing that stripped away any real argument that one might make against homosexual activity. Thus, society grew to accept Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual non-procreative sexual activity via acceptance of contraception.

What the acronyms stand for:

G, for Gay, is for men who experience an inclination to other men and want to express that inclination in sexual ways. Since a man was not made by nature to enter into another man via the rectum, this activity is concomitant not only with sickness, disease, and shortened life, but also with numerous emotional and psychological maladies. This fact is openly admitted by homosexuals themselves. A homosexual group once filed a complaint with a government agency claiming that they were not receiving adequate medical support for all the health problems caused by their homosexual lifestyle.

L, for Lesbian, is for women who experience an inclination to other women and want to express that inclination in sexual ways. Lesbian activity also results in a set of maladies. One study found that bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among women active in the homosexual lifestyle when compared to ‘heterosexual’ women.

B, for Bisexual, is for men and women who sometimes experience an inclination to the same-sex, and sometimes to the opposite sex. The same health risks apply to this groups as to the G and L group.

The double T, for Transexual and Transgender, is for people who have the biological parts of a man or woman, but who believe that their body is a mistake and that they really belong as members of the opposite sex. Many mental health professionals continue to express serious reservations about encouraging people to identify themselves in this way. One of the most prominent of these, Dr. Paul McHugh, distinguished professor of psychiatry at John Hopkins University School of Medicine and psychiatrist-in-chief at John Hopkins Hospital, says he was compelled to ban “sex change” surgery in his hospital after discovering that it did not rectify the problem for people who were struggling with their biological sex. He wrote in 2004 that “Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness” by catering to the desires of people who wanted surgery to change their biological sex.

“We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia,” he wrote, adding that “to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.”

I, for Intersexual, is for people who appear to have both male and female sexual characteristics. This relatively rare but naturally occurring phenomena has been hijacked by intersex activists to further the gender agenda which would have people believe that masculine and feminine characteristics are simply social constructs that have no real basis in reality.

Q, for Queer, is meant to be a catch-all term for anyone with same-sex attraction who does not want to be identified as a stereotypical homosexual.

The other Q, for Questioning, is for people who have made the decision not to identify themselves as a man, woman, homosexual, bisexual, Intersexual, queer, or any of the other options that our society has made available. These people want to explore their options before committing.

2S, for Two Spirited, is a term created by homosexual activists in the 1990’s to label indigenous persons from the past who were known to have performed tribal tasks that were usually performed only by a male or female.

So, is this the end of the letters that represent sexual anomalies? Not quite. There are some deviations that fall away from sexual inclinations and resulting actions that are proper to male/female relations that homosexual activists want to keep hidden from their supporters.

MAP, for Minor-Attracted Persons, indicates those people who believe that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation” comparable to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Homosexual-themed MAP academic conferences have taken place that aim at reordering society so that the “stigma” associated with older men acting sexually toward younger children will be erased. Psychology experts at these venues suggest that persons who are “emotionally and sexually attracted to children” ought to have society bless their inclinations and the sexual acts that result from them.

Here are all the acronyms lined up now: LGBTTIQQ2SMAP. Can there possibly be more?

A, for Asexuality, describes a group of people who have no sexual attraction to others.

V, for Vorarephilia, is for people who believe in homosexual cannibalism. Montreal gay porn actor Luka Magnotta shocked the world in June by allegedly killing and cannibalizing his ex-homosexual partner. Critics have pointed out that Magnotta’s behavior follows a newly discernible trend of an out-of-control sexual deviancy fueled by violent pornography. Dr. Judith Reisman, an internationally-recognized expert on pornography and sexuality, said about Magnotta that his “homosexual cannibalism links sex arousal with shame, hate and sadism”.

LGBTTIQQ2SMAPAV. Enough yet?

M, for Masturbators, is for people who believe that having sex with one’s self is the “cornerstone of sexual health”. 

Z, for Zoophilia, what used to be called bestiality, is for people who believe in having sex with animals. The renowned animal rights group PETA came out in favor of zoophilia after animal rights activist and Princeton Professor Peter Singer endorsed the practice in an article titled Heavy Petting.

LGBTTIQQ2SMAPAVMZ. Where does the deviancy stop?

The fact is that such deviancy cannot stop. The further society falls away from the truth that sexual acts belong to a man and woman for the sake of union and procreation, and that the best context for this is marriage, the more the deviancies multiply.

The only way to stop the deviancy and avert an impending social collapse resulting from the chaos is for society to return to the ancient wisdom - testified to by nature - that human beings were made as male and female for one another.

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh … What therefore God [through nature] has joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matt 19:5-6)”


Advertisement
Featured Image
Saturday Chores / Tumblr
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

This woman mocks pro-lifers every week but raises money to save animals

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

Tina Haver Currin and her husband, Grayson, have become heroes in the feminist blogosphere for mocking pro-life counselors who oppose abortion. But the feminist couple, who spend their Saturdays holding irreverent signs in the midst of sidewalk counselors in North Carolina, do not approve of killing in every case: They raise money for a no-kill cat shelter and have an abiding concern over “the ethics” of eating meat.

Tina, a “creative strategist” at Myriad Media and former English teaching assistant at UNC-Chapel Hill, is a self-described “atheist” with a penchant for “black metal” – a genre of heavy metal music extolling Satanism, with occasional ties to the neo-Nazi movement. She met her husband, Grayson, through a friend and bonded over their love of similar music.

She says she and Grayson were driving past A Preferred Women's Health Center, a chain of abortion facilities with an office in Raleigh, in March when the site of pro-life sidewalk counselors angered them.

After her husband suggested they make their own signs to stage a counterprotest, they took pictures of themselves holding placards with such derisive messages as “Honk if you're horny” and “Bring back Crystal Pepsi.”

Another sign simply said, “pro-cat.”

They began documenting their shenanigans on their blog, Saturday Chores, and soon they received profile pieces in Cosmopolitan and The Huffington Post. The executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina, Suzanne Buckley, recently sent Tina “a *heartfelt* thank-you” for her efforts.

“It's true that we're mocking people,” Grayson Haver Currin – who adopted his wife's maiden name when he married – told several media outlets. But Tina said their actions have been well received, except for “some creeps on the internet.”

While the couple cannot fathom anyone being concerned with unborn children – the first sign they ever made had an arrow pointing at pro-life advocates with the words “Weird hobby” – they are heavily involved in protecting stray cats from being put to sleep.

Tina is an organizer of the annual HepCat race to benefit the SAFE Haven Cat Shelter and Clinic, which its website describes as “a nonprofit, no-kill shelter” in Raleigh.

Tina, who has been a vegetarian since she was 12, told Cosmo that one of the first disagreements she and her husband had was over “the ethics and the politics of” eating meat. (The other was “about Grayson using gender pronouns.”) In time she convinced her husband to give up the joy of eating Bojangles chicken.

The born activist has taken to the streets throughout their marriage. She was arrested as part of the “Moral Monday” protests at the state capital, the weekly liberal protests against the policies of Republican Gov. Pat McCrory. In addition to McCrory's policies on abortion, she has said she is “upset about voter ID laws, [and] reduction of education funding and social programs.”

“By the way, we support marriage equality, too,” she blogged.

But it was not until they began opposing the pro-life movement that she gained any notoriety. Now, she said, her movement has ballooned from just two people to dozens.

She told The Huffington Post she “probably” had 60 people supporting her side outside the abortion facility last week. A photograph for the following Saturday showed perhaps half that many people in attendance.

Her ultimate goal, she said, is to have enough pro-abortion protesters to “crowd them out,” so that pro-life sidewalk counselors “don't have a chance to show their signs.”

“We would love to see this more humorous take on combating these hateful things spread,” she told Cosmo


Advertisement
Featured Image
womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

Growing ‘Women Against Feminism’ movement draws fury

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White
Image

Critics of feminism have long said that it is entering the final stages of its long career, with more of its assertions about the nature of human sexual and social relations being contradicted by the evidence and fewer young people following its dictates every decade. But in the last few weeks, it seems that feminism’s last gasp is being used to direct insults at young women who are lining up to publicly reject and ridicule it.

The Tumblr site Women Against Feminism has started a social networking trend in which thousands of young women photograph themselves holding signs bluntly denouncing feminism, giving a sharp indication that the feminist brand has become poison to young, hip, and internet-savvy women.

Mainstream and journalistic feminists have lashed out at the site and its followers, entering into an online spat over the increasingly popular photos. The signs say, “I am not a victim,” and “This is what an anti-feminist looks like.”

They continue: “I am an adult who is capable of taking responsibility for myself and my actions. I define myself and derive my value by my own standards. I don’t need to be ‘empowered’. I am not a target for violence and there is no war against me. I respect me and I refuse to demonize them and blame them for my problems.”

The messages held by the women pinpoint with pithy and acerbic precision exactly the reasons given by many critics that the movement has lost favour with young people. They call it a creed of double standards that promotes victimhood and endorses bullying of anyone who critiques it.

The site’s explanatory page, which was taken down for unknown reasons in the last two days, said, “Feminists are the only people who lose their minds with rage when you tell them that women already have the same exact rights as men. That’s not good enough. They want more. They desperately want to be victims. They want a privileged social position.”

The author goes on to accuse feminism in general of systematic censorship, discrimination, elitism and “policing other women” who do not toe the line – as well as baseline misandry. The anonymous creator denounced feminism’s adoption of “abortion as ‘empowerment’”:

This opinion is unpopular, but I don’t agree that I need to have my baby scraped out of my uterus in order to feel empowered. But the abortion industry (i.e. Planned Parenthood) makes a ton of money off this perversion of empowerment. ‘Abortion as empowerment’ teaches women to see their wombs as nothing but garbage bins full of disposable waste.

One of the contributors wrote, “I don’t need feminism because my self-worth is not directly tied to my victim complex. As a woman in the western world I am not oppressed, and neither are you,” says one. Another: “I don’t need feminism because I don’t need to bully someone to share my opinions with others.”

Some come right out and say that feminism promotes exactly the evils it purports to fight against: “I don’t need feminism because I believe in equality, not entitlements and supremacy.”

Although the site and its contentious photos have been running around the internet for many months, arguments among journalism’s feminists started breaking out this week after a mocking Buzzfeed feature helped the site gain momentum on social media outlets.

Some feminist journalists simply flung insults. Lillian Kalish sniffed on Ryot, “These Women Who Think They Don’t Need Feminism Don’t Know What Feminism Is.” “Did these posters ever think to look up the actual definition of feminism?”

Nuala McKeever, in the Belfast Telegraph, called the women posting the photos “silly, ignorant, vacuous wee girls with absolutely no thoughts beyond their own self-absorbed inanities.”

Time Magazine’s Sarah Miller said, “I Really, Truly, Fully Hate ‘Women Against Feminism’—But…” Miller wrote, “[T]he tendency to see sexism everywhere is proof that feminism is healthy and vigilant, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, because misogyny is insidious and rampant… We need feminism.”

But Miller added, “Still, the pain that we experience as women—even physical—does not give us the right to tell people there’s one way to think or feel, or to assume that we have some god-like understanding of everyone’s motivations.”

Cathy Young, however, responded in Time, saying, “Stop Fem-Splaining: What ‘Women Against Feminism’ Gets Right.” She writes, “The charge that feminism stereotypes men as predators while reducing women to helpless victims certainly doesn’t apply to all feminists—but it’s a reasonably fair description of a large, influential, highly visible segment of modern feminism.”

The site, Young says, “raises valid questions about the state of Western feminism in the 21st Century — questions that must be addressed if we are to continue making progress toward real gender equality.”

Sarah Boesveld wrote in the National Post on Friday that the site shows that feminism has become “complicated” and “sometimes alienating.” She quotes an email sent to the paper by 22 year-old Australian Lisa Sandford, who “believes in equality for the sexes” but firmly rejects feminism as “rude and nasty” and intends to be a stay-at-home mother. 

Sandford wrote, “If feminism really accepted equality, they would not tell me my views are wrong, they would accept it and let me be.”

Browse the 'Women Against Feminism' archives here (warning: occasional strong language).


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Steven W. Mosher and Anne Roback Morse

,

Welcome Baby Filipino 100 Million!

Steven W. Mosher and Anne Roback Morse
By Steven W. Mosher and Anne Roback Morse

Population Research Institute welcomes the birth of little Chonalyn Sentino. Baby Chonalyn was born this past Sunday to parents Clemente and Dailin, and was feted in the Philippines as “Baby 100 Million.” PRI welcomes Baby Chonalyn as well, saying that she will be a blessing to her family, her community, and her nation.

The Philippines is one of the largest Catholic countries in the world, and its people value children. For this reason, it has been a target of the population controllers for decades. It was one of the countries singled out by Henry Kissinger’s National Security Council in 1974 for special “attention” and, more recently, has been bullied by the Obama administration into passing its first population control law. 

The bill, which was touted as being all about promoting “reproductive health,” was actually intended to drive down the birth rate. For example, section 15  requires that all couples receive a “Certificate of Compliance” from the local Family Planning Office before becoming eligible for a marriage license.

Some in the Philippines are decrying Chonalyn’s birth, repeating USAID’s talking points about the “dangers” of overpopulation. They welcome Chonalyn as an individual little girl, while simultaneously calling for future little girls and boys to be removed from existence.

The Philippine Star wrote that the birth symbolized a “large population that will put a strain on the country's limited resources.” Another paper cited the executive director of the official Commission on Population who bluntly said “We'd like to push the fertility rate down to two children per (woman's) lifetime.” And the Global Post cited “concerned advocates” who thought the current population was not a “complement with the country's economic growth.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

But many other Filipinos aren’t buying into the anti-people hysteria. Francisco Antonio, a Filipino Chemical Engineering graduate student at Yale, adamantly rebutted the notion that there are too many Filipinos, saying: “I celebrate life because population control is defeatism disguised as pragmatism. And because human creativity holds more potential for protecting this planet and its inhabitants than any other resource I know of.”

A Filipina currently living in California told PRI that she welcomed the transition of her country to 100 million persons: “Filipinos are not a burden to the world population, because we not only care for our own but also for others in the world. One of the greatest and most sought after exports of the Philippines is our skilled, motivated, and exemplary workforce. And these workers tirelessly cultivate their family and community abroad and in the Philippines. We are a very social and civic minded people. We care and share because it is part of our culture and we do it with a smile.”

 Ed, a Filipino accountant, also celebrated the birth of Baby Chonalyn: “The typical Filipino does not associate a baby with ‘cost’ or ‘expense’ but rather as a ‘blessing’ and a ‘gift.’ This is because Filipinos recognize that true happiness does not come from the accumulation of material wealth or prestige, but rather, from true, genuine, and strong relationships with other people. [Filipinos] value life, not because the Church says or the Pope says so, but because they recognize it to be true. And the truth about the value of life, will continue to shine, long after the debates are over.”

It goes without saying that we at the Population Research Institute also welcome Chonalyn’s birth. We need more Filipinos, not fewer. 

Reprinted with permission from Pop.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook