Peter Baklinski

LGBTTIQQ2S: How many more letters do we need?

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski

30 August, 2012 ( - “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”.


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)”

Share this article

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve

Today’s chuckle: Rubio, Fiorina and Carson pardon a Thanksgiving turkey

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

A little bit of humour now and then is a good thing.

Happy Thanksgiving to all our American readers.

Share this article

Featured Image
Building of the European Court of Human Rights.
Lianne Laurence


BREAKING: Europe’s top human rights court slaps down German ban on pro-life leafletting

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

STRASBOURG, France, November 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that a German regional court violated a pro-life activist’s freedom of expression when it barred him from leafleting in front of an abortion center.

It further ruled the German court’s order that Klaus Gunter Annen not list the names of two abortion doctors on his website likewise violated the 64-year-old pro-life advocate’s right to freedom of expression.

The court’s November 26 decision is “a real moral victory,” says Gregor Puppinck, director of the Strasbourg-based European Center for Law and Justice, which intervened in Annen’s case. “It really upholds the freedom of speech for pro-life activists in Europe.”

Annen, a father of two from Weinam, a mid-sized city in the Rhine-Neckar triangle, has appealed to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights at least two times before, Puppinck told LifeSiteNews.

“This is the first time he made it,” he said, noting that this time around, Annen had support from the ECLJ and Alliance Defense Fund and the German Pro-life Federation (BVL). “I think he got more support, better arguments and so I think this helped.”

The court also ordered the German government to pay Annen costs of 13,696.87 EUR, or 14,530 USD.

Annen started distributing pamphlets outside a German abortion center ten years ago, ECLJ stated in a press release.

His leaflets contained the names and addresses of the two abortionists at the center, declared they were doing “unlawful abortions,” and stated in smaller print that, “the abortions were allowed by the German legislators and were not subject to criminal liability.”

Annen’s leaflets also stated that, “The murder of human beings in Auschwitz was unlawful, but the morally degraded NS State allowed the murder of innocent people and did not make it subject to criminal liability.” They referred to Annen’s website,, which listed a number of abortionists, including the two at the site he was leafleting.

In 2007, a German regional court barred Annen from pamphleteering in the vicinity of the abortion center, and ordered him to drop the name of the two abortion doctors from his website.

But the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that the German courts had "failed to strike a fair balance between [Annen’s] right to freedom of expression and the doctor’s personality rights.”

The Court stated that, “there can be no doubt as to the acute sensitivity of the moral and ethical issues raised by the question of abortion or as to the importance of the public interest at stake.”

That means, stated ECLJ, that “freedom of expression in regard to abortion shall enjoy a full protection.”

ECLJ stated that the court noted Annen’s leaflets “made clear that the abortions performed in the clinic were not subject to criminal liability. Therefore, the statement that ‘unlawful abortions’ were being performed in the clinic was correct from a legal point of view.”

As for the Holocaust reference, the court stated that, “the applicant did not – at least not explicitly – equate abortion with the Holocaust.”  Rather, the reference was “a way of creating awareness of the more general fact that law might diverge from morality.”

The November 26 decision “is a quite good level of protection of freedom of speech for pro-life people,” observed Puppinck.

First, the European Court of Human Rights has permitted leafleting “in the direct proximate vicinity of the clinic, so there is no issue of zoning,” he told LifeSiteNews. “And second, the leaflets were mentioning the names of the doctors, and moreover, were mentioning the issue of the Holocaust, which made them quite strong leaflets.”

“And the court protected that.”

Annen has persevered in his pro-life awareness campaign through the years despite the restraints on his freedom.

“He did continue, and he did adapt,” Puppinck told LifeSiteNews. “He kept his freedom of speech as much as he could, but he continued to be sanctioned by the German authorities, and each time he went to the court of human rights. And this time, he won.”

ECLJ’s statement notes that “any party” has three months to appeal the November 26 decision.

However, as it stands, the European Court of Human Rights’s ruling affects “all the national courts,” noted Puppinck, and these will now “have to protect freedom of speech, recognize the freedom of speech for pro-lifers.”

“In the past, the courts have not always been very supportive of the freedom of speech of pro-life,” he said, so the ruling is “significant.”

As for Annen’s pro-life ministry, Pubbinck added: “He can continue to go and do, and I’m sure that he does, because he always did.”  

Share this article

Featured Image
A vibrant church in Africa. Pierre-Yves Babelon /
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, ,

‘Soft racism’: German Bishops’ website attributes African Catholics’ strong faith to simplemindedness

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

GERMANY, November 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) --  The only reason the Catholic Church is growing in Africa is because the people have a “rather low level” of education and accept “simple answers to difficult questions” involving marriage and sexuality, posited an article on the official website of the German Bishops' Conference posted yesterday. The article targeted particularly Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, the Vatican's prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and ardent defender of Catholic tradition.

First Things blogger Leroy Huizenga, who translated a portion of the article, criticized the article's view as “soft racism.”

In his article, titled “The Romantic, Poor Church,” editor Björn Odendahl writes: 

So also in Africa. Of course the Church is growing there. It grows because the people are socially dependent and often have nothing else but their faith. It grows because the educational situation there is on average at a rather low level and the people accept simple answers to difficult questions (of faith) [sic]. Answers like those that Cardinal Sarah of Guinea provides. And even the growing number of priests is a result not only of missionary power but also a result of the fact that the priesthood is one of the few possibilities for social security on the dark continent.

Huizenga said that such an article has no place on a bishops’ conference website. 

“We all know that the German Bishops' Conference is one of the most progressive in the world. But it nevertheless beggars belief that such a statement would appear on the Conference's official website, with its lazy slander of African Christians and priests as poor and uneducated (Odendahl might as well have added ‘easy to command’) and its gratuitous swipe at Cardinal Sarah,” he wrote. 

“Natürlich progressives could never be guilty of such a sin and crime, but these words sure do suggest soft racism, the racism of elite white Western paternalism,” he added. 

African prelates have gained a solid reputation for being strong defenders of Catholic sexual morality because of their unwavering orthodox input into the recently concluded Synod on the Family in Rome. 

At one point during the Synod, Cardinal Robert Sarah urged Catholic leaders to recognize as the greatest modern enemies of the family what he called the twin “demonic” “apocalyptic beasts” of “the idolatry of Western freedom” and “Islamic fundamentalism.”

STORY: Cardinal Danneels warns African bishops to avoid ‘triumphalism’

“What Nazi-Fascism and Communism were in the 20th century, Western homosexual and abortion ideologies and Islamic fanaticism are today,” he said during his speech at the Synod last month. 

But African prelates’ adherence to orthodoxy has earned them enemies, especially from the camp of Western prelates bent on forming the Catholic Church in their own image and likeness, not according to Scripture, tradition, and the teaching magisterium of the Church. 

During last year’s Synod, German Cardinal Walter Kasper went as far as stating that the voice of African Catholics in the area of Church teaching on homosexuality should simply be dismissed.

African cardinals “should not tell us too much what we have to do,” he said in an October 2014 interview with ZENIT, adding that African countries are "very different, especially about gays.” 

Earlier this month Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, instead of praising Africa for its vibrant and flourishing Catholicism, said that African prelates will one day have to look to Europe to get what he called “useful tips” on how to deal with “secularization” and “individualism.” 

The statement was criticized by one pro-family advocate as “patronizing of the worst kind” in light of the facts that numerous European churches are practically empty, vocations to the priesthood and religious life are stagnant, and the Catholic faith in Europe, especially in Belgium, is overall in decline.

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook