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)”

Help us expose Planned Parenthood

$5 helps us reach 1,000 more people with the truth!


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Dr. Miriam Grossman speaks to large audience in Mississauga, Ontario Steve Jalsevac/LifeSite
Lianne Laurence

VIDEO: How DO you to talk to kids about sex? US sex-ed critic gives practical tips

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

MISSISSAUGA, ON, August 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Talking to their children about sex is “anxiety provoking to say the least,” for parents, says American sex-ed expert, Dr. Miriam Grossman.

“Some people just can’t even do it, and that’s okay,” the New York-based psychiatrist told the crowd of 1,000 who packed a Mississauga conference hall August 18 to hear her critique of the Ontario Liberal government’s controversial sex-ed curriculum.

After Grossman explained how the Liberal sex-ed curriculum is dangerously flawed and ideologically driven, she used the question-and-answer session to give parents much appreciated and sometimes humorous practical advice on how to teach their children about “the birds and the bees.”

“If you feel you can’t do it, maybe there’s someone else in the family or in the constellation of people that you know you can trust that could do it,” said Grossman, author of “You’re teaching my child WHAT?” and an internationally sought-after speaker on sex education.

A child, adolescent and adult psychiatrist with 12 years’ clinical experience treating students at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) clinic, Grossman said explaining sexuality and procreation to children is “a process,” that “shouldn’t ideally happen all at once. A child is not a miniature adult, and absorbs…new information differently than adults do.”

And parents need to be sure just what their child wants to know.

To illustrate this, Grossman referred to her earlier story about a father who gave his son every detail on human procreation after the boy asked him, “Dad, where do I come from?”

After the father finished, his son replied, “Well, that’s funny, because Johnny told me that he came from Montreal.”

“Try to find out what your child is really getting at, and, don’t give it all at once,” Grossman said. “You start with a little bit at a time…and you know, there’s so many variables here, and people have their own traditions and their own ways of explaining things, and something that might be right for my family might not be right for your family.”

She also advised that, when confronted with a four, five, six or seven-year-old asking about a pregnant woman, or where babies come, a parent can ask, “What a good question that is. What do you think?”

And parents can also legitimately put off the discussion when appropriate, telling the child, “That’s really not something you need to know about right now.”

“Wow, what a novel idea: Telling a child that they could wait until they’re older to discuss that subject,” Grossman said, adding that parents wouldn’t brook a six- or even fifteen-year-old child asking how much money they made or had in the bank. “Excuse me? Not every subject has to be an open book.”

However, the time will come when a child needs to know “about how her body’s going to change, about reproduction, about how a new life is created.”

That time, Grossman advised, is puberty, or “as puberty is beginning,” and this is especially so for girls, who, if unprepared for the surprise onset of menstruation “might think [they’re] dying.”

“The actual nitty-gritty about the birds and the bees and intercourse” can “be told in bits and pieces, or it can be told all at once, if you feel it’s necessary,” she said, adding that it’s beneficial if the parent acknowledges his or her awkwardness, because the child will think: “This must be such an important subject that my mother or my father is sitting there squirming, but he’s doing it anyway. I’m really loved.”

“And the children need to understand that as you grow up, you change a lot, not only physically but emotionally,” Grossman said, “and what may seem odd or disgusting when you’re ten years old, or whatever age, it becomes something very special and beautiful when you’re older and you’ll understand it later. You don’t have to understand it now.”


Know your child and guard your home

But as an essential foundation for this discussion, parents must both know their children and guard their home from the encroachments of a culture that Grossman described as “very, very sexualized” and “really horrible.”

“Children need parents who are loving but are also firm and authoritative,” she asserted.  “They don’t need best friends. They need us to guide them, to know what they’re doing, to be on top of what they’re doing.

So parents need to be aware of whom their child is “hanging around with, and what kind of movies are they watching…what’s going on with your child.”

“You need to know that anyway, even if it’s not about sex education,” she pointed out. “Try and know your child. Every child is different.”

And Grossman emphasized that it is “extremely important to be careful about what your child is exposed to in the home, in terms of television and Internet, obviously.”

Children need to understand that “just like you have garbage you take out of the house, you put it in the garbage bin, it’s dirty, it smells…there are other things that also don’t belong in the house.”

And children learn quickly what is, and is not, permissible inside the home, Grossman said. “Me, I keep kosher…If I go into a store, my kids know from a very young age, we don’t eat that.”

So they are used to the idea of “the world outside and the inside world, of inside your home, and inside your heart as well.”

Parents can also convey this by telling their children that “the world is an upside-down place, and sometimes the most special, holy subjects are…just thrown in the gutter. And that’s a bad thing. In our family, in our tradition, we don’t do that.”

“Sexuality is one of the subjects that in this upside-down world, it is sometimes just in the gutter,” she said. “And so I want you to tell your child to come to me when you have questions, I will give you the straight story about it.”

Grossman herself is “not even sure,” as she stated in her seminar, that sex education should be in the schools: “I believe sex education should be at home for those parents that want to do it.”

She also noted that parents “can make mistakes. We all make lots of mistakes but it’s okay, you can always come back and do it differently,” adding that this is “another wonderful message for your child. You know what, it’s okay to make mistakes, you can always go back and try and fix it.”

Grossman urged parents to visit her Facebook page, website and blog. “I have so much information you can get there that you’ll find useful,” and added that she will be publishing books for children, and has posted her critique of New York City’s sex-ed curriculum, which is similar to Ontario’s.

The parental backlash to that sex-ed curriculum, set to roll out in the province’s publicly funded schools this September, has been “amazing” Grossman noted.

Grossman’s seminar was sponsored by Mississauga-based HOWA Voice of Change along with the Canadian Families Alliance, an umbrella group representing more than 25 associations and 200,000 Ontarians opposed to the curriculum. The report on her devastating critique of the sex-ed curriculum can be found here, and the video here.

Ontario readers may find information and sign up for a September 2 province-wide protests at MPPs offices here. So far, there are protests planned for 92 of Ontario’s 107 constituencies. The parents’ movement seeking removal of the curriculum is urging all concerned citizens to join this special effort to influence individual Ontario legislators.

See related reports:

Ontario’s dangerous sex-ed is indoctrination not science says U.S. psychiatrist to large audience

Videos: US psychiatrist tells parents “stand firm” against dangerous sex-ed

See the LifeSiteNews feature page on the Ontario sex-ed curriculum containing nearly 100 LifeSite articles related to the issue

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Giulio Napolitano / Shutterstock.com
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

,

Did the pope just endorse a gay children’s book? Of course not, says Vatican

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

ROME, August 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- While mainstream media is gushing with news today that Pope Francis allegedly praised a children’s book that promotes gender theory, the Vatican is decrying what they called the "manipulation" of a cordial letter from an official in the Secretariat of State to suggest that the Vatican is promoting teachings contrary to the Gospel.

Italian children’s author Francesca Pardi was reported by The Guardian to have submitted a parcel of children’s books promoting the acceptance of homosexuality and gender theory to Pope Francis in June after Venice’s mayor Luigi Brugnaro publicly banned the author’s newest book, Piccolo Uovo (Little Egg), from children’s schools. The book was criticized by pro-family leaders for promoting non-natural family structures of two men and two women.

In a letter accompanying the books, Pardi wrote: “Many parishes across the country are in this period sullying our name and telling falsehoods about our work which deeply offends us. We have respect for Catholics. ... A lot of Catholics give back the same respect, why can’t we have the whole hierarchy of the church behind us?”

The Guardian is reporting that Pardi has now “found an unlikely supporter in Pope Francis,” who through his staff has responded to the author and is presented as “praising her work.” It quotes the following from a July 9 letter to Pardi from the Vatican.

“His holiness is grateful for the thoughtful gesture and for the feelings which it evoked, hoping for an always more fruitful activity in the service of young generations and the spread of genuine human and Christian values,” wrote Peter B. Wells, a senior official at the Vatican Secretariat of State, in a the letter The Guardian is reporting it has seen.  

While the letter gently calls the author to use her talents to spread “genuine human and Christian values,” The Guardian takes it as the pope’s endorsement of gender theory.

“Pope Francis sends letter praising gay children's book,” the paper’s headline states. “Italian book that explores different family types including same sex was banned by mayor of Venice, but pontiff becomes unlikely supporter,” reads the subtitle.

In a press release that Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi sent to LifeSiteNews on Friday, the vice speaker of the Vatican, Ciro Benedettini, made clear that the friendly reply letter to the author in no way approves of attitudes or positions that are contrary to Catholic teaching and the Gospels.

The Vatican's statement also says that in the original letter from the secretariat of state Wells merely "acknowledged receipt" of the materials sent by Pardi, and also made clear that the letter was private and not meant for publication. 

"In no way does a letter from the Secretary of State intend to endorse behaviors and teachings not in keeping with the Gospel," says the statement, decrying the "manipulation" of the letter.

Benedettini said the blessing of the pope at the end of the letter was meant to be for the author herself, and not to affirm positions concerning gender theory that are contrary to the Church's teaching. Using the letter to this end is erroneous, he said.

Pope Francis has strongly condemned the notion of “gender theory” on numerous occasions, saying that it is an “error of the human mind that leads to so much confusion.”

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Lisa Bourne

,

Poll suggests most US Catholics wrongly believe Pope Francis backs gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

August 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- A considerable majority of U.S. Catholics are in conflict with Church teaching on abortion and marriage, a new study says, and a startling number of those also believe Pope Francis backs homosexual “marriage.”

Despite Church teachings, Catholics in America also closely parallel the general populace in their support for abortion and homosexual “marriage,” falling short in the Biblical call to be “in the world but not of the world.”

The findings suggest what many Catholics have said is a climate of confusion in the midst of the Francis pontificate. Concerns over that confusion prompted a coalition of pro-family groups to respond with an international petition effort asking the pope to reaffirm Church teaching, drawing more than a half-million signatures.

The survey, conducted by Public Religions Research Institute, found that 60 percent of all U.S. Catholics favor legalized homosexual “marriage,” compared to 55 percent of all Americans. Likewise, 51 percent of Catholics think that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, with 53 percent of the general population holding this view.

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is a sacramental union between one man and one woman, mirroring Christ and the Church respectively as bridegroom and bride.

The Church also teaches that life begins at conception, that each human life possesses dignity as a child of God and is to be afforded protection, making abortion an intrinsic evil.

Catholics, accounting for 22 percent of adults in the U.S. population, have a favorable view of Pope Francis, the study said, but they are very confused about his take on homosexual “marriage.”

Of the Catholics who back homosexual “marriage,” 49-percent also think the leader of the Catholic Church backs it along with them. Fifteen percent of those Catholics who oppose homosexual “marriage” also mistakenly believe Pope Francis supports it.

Pope Francis has made numerous statements in support of life, marriage and family, but the confusion remains.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

"After Ireland and the U.S. Supreme Court both approved same-sex 'marriage,' a strong reaffirmation of Church teaching could save the sacred institution of marriage, strengthen the family and dispel the lies of the homosexual revolution," TFP Student Action Director John Ritchie stated.  "Young Catholics -- even non-Catholics -- look to the Church as a beacon of morality and stability in our Godless culture, but some of our shepherds have issued confusing statements."

TFP Student Action is a part of the lay Catholic organization American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, and is part of the alliance behind the Filial Appeal, the petition asking the Holy Father to reinforce Catholic teaching at the Vatican’s upcoming Synod on the Family in October.

Ritchie explained how the confusion was aiding the Church’s enemies, and warned of the potential consequences.

"This prayerful petition asks Pope Francis to clear up the moral confusion that's been spreading against Natural and Divine Law," he said. "If the enemies of the family continue to chip away at holy matrimony, the future of the family and civilization itself will be in even more serious peril."

At press time more than 500,000 signature had been gathered for the appeal, including five cardinals, 117 bishops and hundreds of well-known civic leaders.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook