LGBTQP - Sexual Disorders and Perversions
Dr Robert Gagnon PhD Princeton Theological Seminary and Harvard Divinity School http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Robert_Gagnon.html
PEDO FILES
DOWNLOADS
Citing Putin, Australian PM’s sister says what many are afraid to
14 July, 2013 22:44
A brave woman in Australia has had the courage
to speak out against something that very few are willing to speak out
against and which is a threat to the very fundamental and key building block
of all societies worldwide, that building block being the family.
The brave woman is Ms. Loree Rudd, the sister
of the new Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd, and her recent comments
about homosexuality have spread throughout the English speaking world not
because what she said was so shocking or extreme but because she has voiced
what many people have been terrorized into self-censoring themselves about,
namely calling such relations marriage.
According to
news.com.au in an
exclusive interview with them upon returning from a trip to Russia Ms. Rudd
said: “It's
like he (Putin) can see the problem ahead..” and, “I think that there should
be a law (in Australia) protecting children from the propaganda of
homosexuality as normal. They're trying to build their family life and
structure in Russia and people in the West don't seem to understand our
family life and structures are breaking down. I guess the bottom line, if
there's one thing I can say that can't be challenged, it's that society
needs to protect its children as best they can."
For those in the West it has become a
forbidden topic and everyone who dares to speak out against it is portrayed
as being hate filled or somehow discriminatory or backward. People in the
West are so terrified of talking about “it” because they risk losing their
jobs or even worse being guilty of some sort of hate crime or promoting hate
speech.
The hypocrisy of the whole debate is
mind-boggling, on the one hand they have gays who are asking the world to
accept their sexual deviation and the world is supposed to somehow accept
what amounts to s****y on the same level as the holy union between a man and
a woman in marriage, yet on the other hand perfectly normal law abiding
citizens of the world must not dare to speak out against it or counter the
self-serving arguments of those promoting this diversion.
President Putin is right, we have to protect
the children. Period. End of discussion. Bravo. Give the President a cigar,
better yet a cigar factory. No counter arguments possible, we have to
protect the children.
Children are impressionable, if little Billy
hears every day how it is normal to engage in relations with Todd and how
this is acceptable and even more importantly defended as some sort of right,
Billy may be inclined to experiment whereas if he had never heard of the
practice he might say “yuck” like most normal kids would. Furthermore
removing the social stigma will only make such deviant behavior spread
further. This is wrong.
I know I am going to get a lot of hate mail
for writing what I think here but I don’t care. I have had to deal with
almost every kind of discrimination in my life, I’ll be damned if I have to
be ashamed or somehow self-censor because I like women and think marriage is
one of the highest institutions known to humans and the family unit must be
protected to guarantee the propagation of the human race. Yes, I believe
that marriage, in its best form should produce little humans and is an
honorable institution.
The entire debate “for” homosexual marriage is
a disingenuous one for many more reasons than I care to go into or that I
have space for in this column. They also have the entire Western media at
their disposal to promote their arguments. In my opinion what it boils down
to is individuals with deviant behavior who seek public affirmation for
something they know deep down is wrong.
The entire debate itself and forcing normal
people to put aside their own values and equate the whole deviation to
marriage is far more damaging to society in general than was the quiet
acceptance that existed before. Have your “unions” live together, love each
other, but don’t make my kids know about it and don’t make me call it
marriage, that degrades me, my wife and my children and the whole concept of
family.
I recently asked a friend in America about the
whole homosexual “marriage” debate, he is someone who is very vocal and
willing to express an opinion about everything under the sun, he is not
afraid to take on the CIA or call Hillary Clinton psychotic, but when it
came to this he said “No way! Can’t talk about it!” we can lose our jobs
here if we say anything bad about “it”.
I asked him why, if so called “Conservatives”
and Evangelicals are in power in the U.S. this has been allowed to get to
the point it has, this was after the British Embassy flew a LGBT flag in
Paris (Meaning they have taken over a sovereign nation no doubt?) and his
answer was one I can’t forget. He said the breakdown of the family unit is
the goal.
For several reasons this makes sense. For one,
a strong family means a strong support unit and if you want to destroy a
society you start by breaking down the family. Isolated weak individuals
with no safety net are easier to control and manipulate. For most countries
outside of America family is the most important thing for most societies, if
that can be delegitimized and destroyed, all of those societies become
weaker. Plus breaking down the family makes great economic sense from a
corporate capitalist perspective. A family needs one refrigerator, one TV,
one car and one home. If you break up the family then each fragment still
needs one refrigerator, one TV and one car, thus by destroying the family
unit, you have just doubled or tripled or quadrupled your sales.
In my opinion marriage is a union between a
man and a woman which should lead to the creation of children, their
education and a continuation of their bloodlines and the human race. That is
a noble thing. Marriage for gays produces nothing except egotistical
narcissistic “pleasure” between two people of the same sex, and I dare say
again, gays themselves know what they do is wrong, they are merely seeking
external; encouragement and validation that what they are doing is okay and
acceptable.
In January I spoke
to Dr. Robert Gagnon, a
respected Theologian, on the matter, he said: “And
at every level – anatomically, physiologically, psychologically – the
appropriate counterpart or complement to a man is a woman and a woman to a
man. It is why male-female marriages worked reasonably well, obviously with
problems, but reasonably well over the centuries is that the extremes of a
given sex are moderated in a union with a true sexual compliment or
counterpart, a man with a woman, a woman with a man. And not only the
extremes of a given sex are moderated but the gaps in the sexual self are
filled appropriately.
If a man has sexual contact with another man
it is not natural, just like having sexual contact with an animal, a parent,
a sibling or a child, and it is definitely not what you could call a
marriage. No matter how you try to twist it. Children must be protected from
being taught such behavior is acceptable because the survival and
continuation of a healthy society depends on it. Tolerance is one thing,
degrading and delegitimizing family and marriage is another.
I have no problems with homosexuals, nor with
people with foot fetishes and the like. Just please, that is your personal
business, don’t throw it in my face and don’t make me call it a marriage,
what you do in your bedroom is your business, let’s keep it that way.
West Promoting its LGBT Policies in Africa: Sodomy Can NOT be Called Marriage by JAR2 23
July 2012, 12:27
Liberia, where men are
supposed to be men and women are supposed to be women, on Friday held a vote
on a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. All these same sex
marriage debates were not only going on in the US - now Liberia and many
African countries are also engaged in such discussion. The reasons are
different however. Liberia does not have a huge homosexual community as does
the US. There are not millions of LGBTs (meaning lesbian, gay, bisexuals and
transgender people) engaged in lobbying their interests or making an
in-your-face attempt to force the rest of the population to accept their
lifestyles. The
reason this has become an issue in Africa is because the US and the UK have
decided to tie US aid to rights issues involving LGBTs. This comes after
Obama instructed US government officials to "ensure that US diplomacy and
foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, and
transgender persons," around the world.
Just for a contrast homosexuality is currently illegal in 37 African
countries, with some countries even having life-sentences and the death
penalty for homosexual behavior.
When giving his instructions Obama stated that; “…legal, moral, and
financial support will be boosted for gay rights organizations, emergency
assistance will be sent to groups or individuals facing threats, and asylum
in the US will be offered to people forced to flee anti-gay persecution in
their countries.” In
a recent speech, full of bravado but lacking real substance or detail, to
the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva instead of addressing the hundreds of
US violations in the area of human rights she made a big show that the US
protects gay rights, proclaiming that "gay rights are human rights". She
also announced the implementation of U.S. government-wide policies to push
for the decriminalization of homosexuality overseas and to ensure US foreign
assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights". In
Liberia, as with many African countries, this set off a firestorm of debate,
protests and even made things worse for the “LGBTs” who were in most cases
quietly tolerated. These moves by the West, another attempt at imposing
their will and bankrupt morality on the peoples of other countries, have
caused Obama’s popularity and the level of widespread idolization of the US
to fall considerably in much of Africa.
Since Clinton’s remarks many newspapers in Liberia have described
homosexuality as "desecrating", "abusive" and an "abomination". Those
remarks, coupled with a group of US backed activists, the Movement for the
Defense of Gay and Lesbian Rights, who began activities to legalize same sex
marriage, led to the constitutional debate.
According to an article by the AFP, up until now in Liberia, although
“voluntary sodomy” has been considered a criminal offence, the question of
gay marriage had not been expressly addressed in law. Well, it has now. The
Senate of Liberia on Friday voted unanimously to pass a constitutional
amendment, under section 2.3 of the Liberian constitution which covers
polygamy and incestuous relationships. The
president of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, was forced to defend her
country and in an interview with the U.K.’s Guardian in March she stated:
"We like ourselves the way we are. We've got certain traditional values in
our society that we would like to preserve."
Sirleaf recently won the Nobel peace prize for her work in advancing women's
rights. In
the above interview with the Guardian, which Sirleaf gave jointly with Tony
Blair, Blair, sitting beside the composed and quiet Sirleaf, looked furious
and uncomfortable in the extreme, behaving as if Liberia did not have the
right to make its own internal decisions. Maybe understandably as Blair was
a champion for the “LGBTs”, among his achievements lowering the age of
consent for gay sex to 16. I
know I might be accused of being harsh to those with sexual identification
issues, but homosexuality is a psychological and some say physiological
disorder stemming from earlier childhood development issues, trauma, and a
hundred other sociological and familial disorders, which causes pain and
suffering for those who suffer from it. These people should be helped and
the root causes identified.
Same sex marriage, what exactly does that mean? You can be politically
correct and call it homosexuality or alternative sexual preferences or even
untraditional orientation, but many countries and people’s view this as an
abomination and a deviation from accepted norms.
Maybe I am wrong here but a country, such as the U.K. which now allows old
men to have sex with boys as young as 16, and another where men are being
allowed to marry men, should not be dictating to the world how it should
conduct itself.
Perhaps Sirleaf should be dictating policy to Obama and Blair, she has,
after all won a real Nobel Prize and perhaps the US needs to look at the
roots of the problem and find a way to help those suffering from sexual
disorders, instead of trying to get the world to accept it.
Pussy Riot: Provocation Against Church and State - Using Perversion to Destroy Morality 23 July 2012, 13:42 On
Friday the Khamovnichesky court in Moscow extended the pre-trial detention
of three members of the group Pussy Riot, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria
Alyokhina and Ekaterina Samutsevich, until January 12, 2013 with their
preliminary hearing to continue on Monday July 23. The
three members were part of a group of four who entered the holiest church
for followers of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Christ the Savior
Cathedral on February 21, 2012, and from a sacred area where only ordained
priests are allowed to be present, proceeded to sing an anti-Putin song
disguised as a church hymn, filled with obscene language and making a
mockery of the entire Christian faith.
Their action coincided with other staged and carefully organized anti-Putin
provocations which were taking place before the past presidential elections,
and like almost all of the other “opposition” groups and individuals, their
only goal was to foment hatred towards and do everything possible to damage
the popularity of then presidential candidate Vladimir Putin. The
majority of Russians hold the view that the group went way too far in their
activities with most people of the opinion that their actions were
everything from an act of sheer brainlessness to a carefully planned insult
to the Orthodox Church, the Russian people and the Russian state.
This was evident at Friday’s hearing where more people in protest of the
group showed up outside the court to protest what many of them see as an
attack on morality, family values and their faith.
Supporters of the group, strangely enough, appeared outside the court at the
time the women were exercising their constitutional right to defend
themselves before the court, holding signs asking for mercy from the same
church that those in custody had blasphemed.
Although the women had already been in custody for four months their
behavior in front of the court in no way showed remorse for what they had
done, nor did the statements and actions of their lawyers who filed almost a
dozen briefs and then blamed the court for not being able to deal with all
of them in one sitting. The
women were all smiles and as in evident by witness statements, news reports,
and video and still footage, they behaved as if the whole thing were a big
joke, smiling and looking glib and not showing even the slightest hint of
remorse.
Their lawyers told the press, and I am paraphrasing, that the whole process
was a circus. Strange when they are demanding the President of the Russian
Federation Vladimir Putin and the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia and
Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Kirill I appear in court as
witnesses, although neither was even present or connected with the foolish
stunt in anyway.
Sadly, as can now be expected, the Western media and even Amnesty
International have jumped on the bandwagon and are portraying the women as
innocent victims of evil machinations. The latter saying on Friday that;”…it
considers the three women to be prisoners of conscience detained solely for
the peaceful expression of their beliefs." Had
the event taken place at the Evergreen Chapel located in Camp David where
U.S. President Obama prays or in the Holy See or from behind the pulpit
where the Pope addresses Catholic believers, would they be so quick to
defend those guilty of such an act of desecration? Even those at war with
the West do not dare to, or have enough taste not to, blaspheme the holy
places of the people. Why should this event be deemed as somehow being
acceptable and a peaceful expression of beliefs when it occurred in Russia? As
more Russians begin to understand the resonance that is being caused by what
these women did, the crowds outside the court will no doubt grow larger and
the views of those who have been largely quiet will begin to be heard, not
in support of these women, but against the affront to all Russians.
Femen and Pussy Riot: Provocations Against Russia 27
July 2012, 16:11
Both marginal protest groups - Femen and Pussy Riot - have several things in
common: they are both women groups, anti-Russian, use vulgarity and
anti-social behavior to shock as many people as possible, have no clear
agenda and offer no alternative policies and they both seem to exist for one
purpose, that being to attempt to shame and disgrace Russia and its leaders.
As it is already well known, on Thursday
his Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Kirill I arrived in
Kiev, Ukraine where he is to stay for three days to mark the 20th
anniversary of the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Metropolitan
Vladimir of Kiev. The Patriarch’s arrival in Ukraine was momentarily marred
by yet another provocation against the Russian Orthodox Church, when Yana
Zhdanova, a member of a Ukrainian group calling themselves
Femen, rushed the Patriarch as if
to attack him, shouting “Get out! Get out!”. She was intercepted within
meters of Patriarch Kirill by a priest, body guards and members of the
security detail, who within seconds surrounded his Holiness and escorted the
screaming woman away. The
attack appears to have been carefully planned and designed to get maximum
press attention, as his arrival would be the moment when he would be in the
limelight the most. The words “Kill Kirill” were carefully written in large
letters on the woman’s bare back in English. To me this was a curious detail
no one has really noticed but which makes it clear the act of provocation
was choreographed for the Western media. Had it been aimed at Russia or
Ukraine the words would have been obviously written in the language of
either country. It is also clear she did not act alone.
The
Femen women protest group
famous for its radical exhibitionism first appeared in 2008.
WikiPedia
claims
that they are receiving the financial support from the American businessmen
Jed Sunden. The group also organized a protest action in front of the Christ
The Savior Cathedral in December 2011.
Femen also posted a statement on the
Internet accusing the Patriarch of encouraging the detention of activists,
an obvious reference to members of another provocation group Pussy
Riot which on February 21, 2012
desecrated the Christ the Savior Cathedral and are currently detained in
Russia.
Some say Femen
aims to advance women’s rights but I think the “women’s libbers” of the 60s
would not support their tactics, if you are as old as I am, or older you may
recall how those “feminists” threw away their bras, high-heels and cosmetics
because they were “womanizing” objects and dressed in a sever fashion, yet
these women choose to wear sexy lingerie and run around top-less in a bid
for attention. If
these two groups really have a coherent agenda we can sympathize with, such
as women’s rights, freedom of expression or eliminating prostitution, then I
am afraid their message is not getting through. What is getting through is
the fact that they have absolutely no respect for any kind of authority and
that their tactics are vulgar and socially unacceptable. How they behave is
always the focus, not why they are doing what they do, that is assuming they
really do have a message and are not just out to insult and provoke Russians
and the Orthodox Church.
This time the reaction from the West is a bit more subdued, compared to all
of the Pussy Riot hoopla. However, many in the Western press are still
attempting to show this in a way which plays down the vulgarity of the
display. Had anyone rushed the Pope with Kill the Pope written on their
back, well you know what the reaction to that would have been.
Another curious thing concerning both groups is the lack of transparency
they possess when it comes to who backs them financially. This is very
important because when you want to know what an organization is really about
you have to look at who is financing them. Several web searches only
revealed the names of a German individual called DJ Hell, one Helmut Josef
Geier and Jed Sunden, an American ex-pat living in Ukraine who is the
publisher of the English language Kiev Post, as financial backers for Femen.
No information on the shadowy backers of Pussy Riot is currently available. Jed
Sunden, a pro-Western American with a history of meddling in the internal
affairs of Ukraine, a man who called Lenin statues: “… a disgusting sight
Ukraine should be ashamed of….” and was declared persona non grata in
Ukraine, might be a good indication of who is behind these groups. If they
are being financed by the West, then this would explain many things, among
them the level of arrogance and boldness and lack of coherent message they
both possess. They also appear to exist for one reason, to provoke Russia. On
July 28, Patriarch Kirill will take part in commemoration ceremonies to mark
the day of the Enlightenment of Rus’, a national holiday in commemoration of
the anniversary of Kyiv’s baptism and of Saint Volodymyr. After the service,
the primate will lay flowers by the eternal flame at the Tomb of the Unknown
Soldier.
Hopefully the likes of Pussy Riot and Femen will have the good taste to not
attempt to mark the events with yet another vulgar, pointless and silly
display of their own foolishness. How
about it girls? Maybe you should all write a coherent argument in the form
of a treatise (not striptease), or an essay and distribute it to the masses
(after all you do have a publisher as a backer). Here’s another idea: gather
a million signatures in support of some change in policy. That is what real
activists do. And please keep the vulgarity to yourselves and for crying out
loud, keep your shirts on, your message (if you have one) is being ignored
and overshadowed by your public nudity and anti-social behavior. Or could it
be you have no message?
|