1. The right of children to live

One of the fundamental human rights is the right to life. Where human rights violations take place, this fundamental right is denied. This is what happened e.g. in Nazi Germany, where human rights were taken off from disabilities, members of the opposition, Jews and Roma. Absolute human dignity was lost in the case of these groups, because through state-run propaganda it was instilled in people's minds that not all human life is equally valuable. Similarly, in communism people were deprived of their human rights and lives if they belonged to the wrong social class.

   The same attitude is manifested today towards children in the womb. They are denied their humanity, and therefore abortion, that is, the killing of children in the womb, is accepted. This has been justified by a woman’s right to her body, even it is a question of developing child in the mother’s womb.

    In this sense, societies have undergone change. Modern media considers abortion supporters to be heroes when they were previously seen as defenders of injustice. Similarly, modern feminists and even some human rights organizations advocate abortion as a woman’s human right, but representatives of the first wave of feminism in the 19th century thought the opposite. They saw abortion as a human rights violation in which the life of a child is destroyed. Likewise, they saw abortion as contrary to true femininity, which also includes the relationship between mother and child.

   The negative attitude towards abortion, and how it was seen as wrong in the past, is well reflected in the words of Garl Gustav Emil Mannerheim, who served as President of Finland, when the Mannerheim League for Child Welfare was founded in 1920. Mannerheim said the following at the opening of this union. He emphasized caring for children since from mother's womb: 

The aim of the work should be that every single child in Finland, since from mother's womb and throughout his or her growth period, receives a rightful share of the affection and care that alone can lay the foundation for the development of young people into good and useful citizens.

I am including a short quote from my article, which was directed at representatives of the Plan International organization, who defended a woman's right to an abortion on the pages of the newspaper (Helsingin Sanomat 11.12. 2020). In my writing for them, important points of view on the subject are brought to the fore:

Hey! This is Jari Iivanainen.

    First of all, I would like to thank you for the good work that Plan International is doing through you for girls, women and other people. Thank you for your efforts.

     However, I dare to disagree on one issue: abortion. I happened to read an opinion piece by Helsingin sanamo, where Mari Luosujärvi and Niina Ratilainen brought up the human rights of women and girls (HS 11.12) and defended abortion.

    However, I personally see that by defending abortion, children's human rights are nullified, i.e. children's right to live. When did killing one's own child in the mother's womb become a human right? Because in an abortion, the woman does not decide about her body (as is often claimed), but about ending the child's life. Most abortions are done at the 8th week (2 months), when children have the same body parts as us: hands, feet, eyes, mouth. So it's definitely a human being. Here are a few quotes that deal with the issue and how aborted children have the same body parts as us:

You can't have an abortion with your eyes closed. You have to make sure that everything comes out of the womb and calculate that there will be enough arms and legs, chest and brain. Then when the patient wakes up from anesthesia and asks if it was a girl or a boy, the limit of my endurance has been reached and that's when I usually walk away. - If I do a procedure where I clearly kill a living being, I think it's nonsense to talk about destroying a budding life. It is killing, and I experience it as killing.” (1)

At the hospital, I had a doctor colleague with whom we discussed abortion. She defended abortion as a woman's right, while I opposed it as a violation of a child's life. Once in the middle of the work day I met her pale leaning against the wall and asked if she was sick. She said that she had just performed an abortion when a tiny leg detached from the thigh had dropped from the suction machine. She had begun to feel sick and sighed: "This is the work of a hangman." (2)

In abortion it is indeed a question of human right, but the right of children to live. The right of parents to kill their child, whether he is in the womb or outside, must instead be considered wrong. Or should parents be given the right to kill 2-week-old or 2-year-old children as well? If we follow the logic of abortion supporters, this should be their human right. Fortunately, it hasn't come to this yet.

    Human life therefore begins at conception, and that is a biological fact. This was also acknowledged in a recent study that asked 5,577 biologists around the world when life began. 96 percent of them said it starts at conception (Erelt, S., Survey asked, 5,577 biologists when human life begins. 96% said conception; lifenews.com, 11 july 2019).

    Similarly, in the declaration of the World Medical Association in Geneva in 1948, when the unethical actions of Nazi doctors had been revealed, it was stated that human life begins at conception: "I hold human life in the highest esteem since conception, and I do not use my medical skills against the laws of humanity, even under threat."

   Killing a child in the womb is also against the oath of Hippocrates. In this oath, which has been regarded as the basic model of medical ethics, the important principle of the protection of life emerges since from the womb. It affirms, "I will not give anyone any deadly poison... Nor will I give a woman fetal destructive substances."

    Of course, I understand that an unexpected pregnancy can be difficult, and I don't want to belittle anyone's experience. However, that does not change the fact that it is a real person. It is worth looking at ultrasound images of 2-3 month old fetuses.

    I will also raise the case of India. There, specifically, girl children are killed in the mother's womb, and as a result there are approx. 914 women per thousand men in India. This was reported in the news some years ago (Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 1.4 2011)

   My question is, is it women's right when girl children are killed and there are not enough wives for men? Who would explain this? Or why do women's rights organisations, such as Plan International, not take a stand on this kind of action, because it is precisely girl children who are being killed?

   So what do I want to say? I think the values of Plan International in this regard are similar to those of the Nazis, who took off the value of human first from the disabled, then from Jews and other groups. How can Plan international say it represents children’s rights when it would not even allow children to live? Isn't this contradictory?

   What about the reactionary attitude you mentioned? Former it was common in Europe for newborns to be abandoned. This custom disappeared under the influence of the Christian faith, when children began to be taken care of. Isn't Plan International's operation reactionary in this sense, when the organization wants to return to an almost similar model that prevailed centuries ago? At least it looks exactly the same.

    Sorry that I have written in a somewhat pointed style. In no way do I mean to offend or accuse, but I think you are doing the wrong thing in this matter, and you are not defending the lives of children.

    I can also say that I used to think exactly the same as you about these things, even when I was an atheist and a believer in evolution. Now I look at this world through a Christian world of values, that is, I have been believing in Jesus for years. I am also convinced that a living Christian faith is the best thing for society, human rights and the status of women. I have also written about this in a few articles on my website ("Christian faith and human rights" and "Book and society").

If a child is born and survives, one of the most fundamental human rights is that the child should have the right to know his or her biological parents as well as to live with them. For example, Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states: "A child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name and nationality and, if possible, the right to know and to be cared for by his or her parents."

   How is this approached? In general, most understand the importance of this issue. Even if they themselves have failed in their marriage and become single parents, they understand the ideal where it is best for a child to grow up with both of their biological parents.

    However, in modern times the so-called a gender-neutral marriage, pursued by the Seta organization in Finland, for example, blatantly violates this fundamental right of children. For in cases where homosexual couples intend to have children (this is possible, for example, through sperm banks and uterine rentals, or that one of the homosexuals has been in a temporary heterosexual relationship), it means separating the child from his biological father and mother since from birth, because adults regard gender-neutral marriage  as their right. Gender-neutral marriage law thus discriminates against children at the expense of adults. Adult freedoms take precedence over the fundamental rights of children.

   There are, of course, situations where a child has to grow up without a father or mother, but it is a different matter to consciously make a child fatherless or motherless just because the desires of adults come true. This is what happens in a gender-neutral marriage that has children. The same category also includes fertility treatments for single women, in which the child is deprived of the right to know his or her father and to be in contact with both parents. People advocating for this often argue that two fathers or two mothers are as good an option for children as biological parents. However, if it were that simple, then why do children raised in institutions, who may have multiple parents, have many times more problems in the following areas: crime, teenage pregnancies, drug and alcohol use, mental health problems, education and participation in the world of work, divorce rates, etc. (Same issues also become financially costly to society. A study in the U.S. showed that divorces and children born out of wedlock cost society $ 112 billion annually.³). The same is true for single-parent families and new families. Millions of examples illustrate this fact. The question is not that someone could do well in their role as a parent and do their best, but that for children it is clearly the best option to grow up with their biological parents. Most people, even if they themselves have failed in their marriage, admit this self-evident fact.

   Many children raised in gay and lesbian families have also strongly criticized the practice of knowingly depriving a child of the right to another parent, as happens in a gender-neutral marriage. In such a relation the importance of gender for adults is considered the most important thing, but at the same time it is alleged that the children is not important that they have both biological parents; both father and mother. It is an obvious contradiction in which adults put their own desires ahead of children. Anthony Esolen has drawn attention to this contaradiction, where the adult's feelings and desires are more important than the children's ones:

We cannot say at the same time: 'The sex of the child's parents does not matter', and immediately afterwards say that the sex of an adult bed partner matters so much that there is no way he can adapt his lifestyle to nature. The son does not need a father, because gender does not matter. But his mother needs a 'wife', and there is no way she can be expected to take a man for herself, because in this case, gender matters more than anything else in this world. (4)

So next are the comments from children raised in lesbian and gay families. First, a comment by Jean-Dominique Bunel. He grew up with his lesbian mother and her female partner, and tells how it affected him. He suffered from not having a father. He, on the other hand, also says that if a gender-neutral marriage had been in place at the time of his growth, he would have sued the state because it allowed his child’s rights to be violated:

I experienced the lack of a father as an amputation… I suffered from the lack of a father, the lack of his daily presence and masculine character and example that would have balanced my mother's relationship with her mistress. I was aware of this shortcoming very early on. (5)

Robert Oscar Lopez, who also grew up in a lesbian home, has drawn attention to a rhetoric that talks about love and equality, but deliberately rejects children’s right to another parent:

We often hear that same sex couples have loving homes, and that they love children. This doesn’t convince me, because love means that you make sacrifices for other people, instead of expecting other people to make sacrifices for you. If you are a homosexual and love the child, you either sacrifice your homosexuality and raise the child in a home, where he or she has a mother and a father, or you give up your dream of being a parent and accept that adopted children are given to homes, where they will have a mother and a father. If a child is an orphan, disabled or abandoned into a government institution, a child like this needs a mother and a father more than anyone, as he or she needs stability and normality due to the trauma he or she experienced. You cannot ask a child for your sake to sacrifice something as universal as mom and dad. (6)

Born with the help of an external donor to artificial insemination and raised in a lesbian home, Millie Fontana has told of the identity problems she had to face when she had no knowledge of her biological father. She had constant questions about his own origins:

My parents took away something from me when deciding which parts of my identity they agreed to reveal to me. Where other children could look in the mirror and reconcile those missing pieces by saying 'I love my father and mother', I couldn't do that... Even though I expressed a lot of pain, they still didn't want to reveal to me who my father was... I struggled with suicidal thoughts, I did poorly in school, I felt detached, I felt I didn't deserve to exist. It is sad to experience that you are not worth of life. (7)

The last quote still says how the children are longing a missing  parent. Two mothers or two fathers cannot replace a missing parent. Children naturally want contact with both their parents and their presence. This opportunity is deliberately deprived of them in a gender-neutral marriage in which children are procured through artificial methods or temporary heterosexual relationships.

    This children’s longing for the missing parent is also good to consider for those straight parents who are planning a divorce. Children never want a separation from their parents - with the possible exception of severe violence - and many children who have experienced a separation from their parents have compared it to the end of their childhood. On this topic has been written e.g. by Judith S. Wallerstein in her bestselling book The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce. In addition, it is worth remembering the biblical teaching that divorce between a husband and wife is completely against God’s will. For example, the book of Hebrews says, "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." (Heb 13:4).

    So here is a quote on how important both biological parents are to children because they may experience difficult identity problems due to the fact that they lack one of their biological parents. This occurs in same-sex relationships in which children have been acquired through artificial means or temporary heterosexual relationships:

Today, it is often argued that a child does not miss a missing parent if he or she has been accustomed since birth to not having contact with his or her biological father or mother. However, Kyle Pruett (2004: 204-208), a psychiatrist at Yale University, concludes from his research that children born as a result of artificial insemination and raised without a father have an unsatisfactory “hunger for the father’s permanent presence”.

   Pruett tells the story of a five-year-old girl born with the sperm of an anonymous donor who bombarded her mother with questions about her father: "Mom, what have you done to my father? Did you get angry with him and drive him away? Didn't he like me? Where can I find him? Can I write him a letter? Has he ever seen me? Do you have a photo of us together?" Stacey, who was born with the help of an outside donor, asked his mother when he returned from a birthday party that his friend's father and mother had arranged: "Mom, what did you do to my dad? You know, I need a father or I can't be a child."

   According to Pruett’s study, children born as a result of artificial insemination who have no knowledge of their father have deep and disturbing questions about their biological origin and the family from which they are biologically derived. These children know neither their father nor their father’s family, and it is repulsive to live in a kind of intermediate space without a relationship with their biological father. (8)

One aspect related to gender-neutral relationships is also having children through renting of the uterus. In general, it means that rich men in Western countries exploit women in developing countries to produce a child for themselves. A woman in a developing country can get another woman’s egg into her womb, so even here, children are deprived of the opportunity to connect with their real mother.

    However, is this different from human trafficking and slavery, where another person can be bought with money? Among others, lesbian feminist Julia Bindel has stated in connection with the topic: ” Europeans and Americans who would be appalled at the idea of taking part in human -and sex trafficking, are also involved with the grotesque ‘reproduction market’.” (Julia Bindel: The International  Baby Business, The Weekly Stndard. July 27, 2015, Vol 20. No 43). Similarly, Rivka Edelman, who grew up in a lesbian family, has taken a stand on activities where children are sold and bought. She sees such children making their voices heard in the future:

“Here is my prediction. Children who have been bought, sold and produced to satisfy adult impulses, will have their voices heard in the future. They will place their experiences in a new framework. Future classrooms are shown video material of the Pride parades, like we today show footage of the Nünberg rallies. The teachers will explain: ’Yes, people did sell and buy women and children.’ The children will listen to this with their eyes wide open from astonishment, like pupils of today as they watch those awful war parades.” (9)

When it comes to gender-neutral marriages and children, not all homosexuals support it. Many of them oppose gender-neutral marriage because it deprives children of the right to both of their biological parents. They see that it is best for children to have their own father and mother at home. It is the best starting point for children. Here are the comments from a few French homosexuals on the subject.

Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Am I a homosexual homophobe… I am against gender neutral marriage, because I defend a child’s right to have a father and a mother. (10)

Jean-Marc Veyron la Croix: Everyone has their limitations: the fact that I don't have a child and that I miss a child does not give me the right to take the love of a mother from a child. (11)

Hervé Jourdan: A child is a fruit of love and he or she must stay as the fruit of love. (12)

3. Children at risk: transideology and pedophilia

The previous paragraphs highlighted how the bond of father, mother and child is in danger, e.g. through a gender-neutral marriage made possible by law. This prevents children from experiencing contact with both of their biological parents.

   One danger to children and families is also transideology, which teaches that a person can be born into the wrong sex. I think this is a completely false notion. For there is nothing wrong with anyone's body, only a person's inability to accept their own gender (some young people may indeed have identity problems and find it difficult to accept their gender, but in adulthood most of them are contented with their gender and accept it. According to some estimates, about 98% of boys, who have gender identity disorders, accept their gender after adolescence and 88% of girls ¹³). So it’s a question of more of a mental thing than a physical thing, and there’s nothing weird about it in itself, because everyone can be dissatisfied with themselves in some area of life. This is most evident in eating disorders, where a person may consider herself or himself too fat, even if she or he is quite thin (anorexia nervosa). However, plastic surgery, muscle building, searching for achievements, or alcohol and drug use can also be due to psychological factors, i.e., dissatisfaction with oneself. Thus, I do not see that if it is difficult for a person to accept his own gender as a strange thing. It may be due to eg. the fact that the parents may have a strong hope for the child to be a representative of the opposite sex and have expressed this to the child. Some girls, on the other hand, may have a background of sexual abuse that makes them want to fade all their femininity. They consider the solution to this to be e.g. cutting their breasts, which is really sad.

    Why pay attention to this issue? I see that false propaganda is destroying the lives of many people, especially girls. It is noteworthy that many value liberals today are fighting against female circumcision, which is quite right, but at the same time they advocate a transideology that leads to the same type of outcome. This is an obvious contradiction.

   I’ll take a quote here where a blogger named Musta orkidea has shared her own experiences. She, too, sees that it is a question of a mental problem, not a physical problem. She compares transgenderism to anorexia:

“Some of my body parts have been removed. I have no breasts, because they were removed, and there are scars in my lower stomach that were wounds, through which other parts of my body have been removed, parts that were naturally a part of me. My face shape has changed. Hair grows on my face. My voice has changed into something completely unrecognizable… I cannot conceive a child, and I am entirely sterile even as a woman… My current name is not my real name. My identity is a made-up identity and I have the wrong papers. I am not a man but a mutilated woman… For years, I have lived in a lie, and made myself think that I am something I’m not… I have crossed a line and there is no coming back. I can never get back something that has once been cut off. Sex change surgeries are irreversible. Once the body is broken, you can never repair it. I am completely unfixable. Nothing can be done… It is not possible to be born in the wrong body. The human body has existed long before there has been any awareness, or formation of identity. The body and mind are not separate from each other, nor do they exist as separate or singular entities. They are always one. The thought of the possibility that one could be the opposite gender on the inside is ridiculous. Trans-sexuality is an identity disorder, and this disorder exist between the ears, not in the body. Gender is a physical quality of the body like height, shoe size, or hair color. You can't change your gender any more than you can change your race or height… Transgenderism is very similar to anorexia in every way.  It is like having symptoms of the same condition but in a different form” (Musta orkidea: Viimeisen muurin takana on totuus. [The truth lies behind the last wall])

What danger, then, does this ideology pose to children and families, in addition to bringing confusion into the lives of many children and young people, causing physical as well as mental health problems? (The risk of suicide for those who have undergone hormone treatments and gender reassignment surgeries is almost 20 times higher in adulthood compared to the rest of the population ¹⁴)

   One danger is legislation that e.g. Seta and Trasek have driven in Finland. They want to give already underage children the right to hormone treatments and surgeries. However, such legislative proposals do not take into account the fact that most children and young people end up adopting their own gender after adolescence. Therefore, such legislation is harmful because children can make unnecessary and irrevocable decisions. For example, the right to drive a car, get married and buy alcohol are things that only adults are considered to be entitled to when they are mature enough. In addition, it has been found that many children with sexual hysteria are autistic (autism is a type of developmental disorder).

   Second, such a law takes away the right of upbringing from parents and the opportunity to protect children from immature decisions. It is a transfer of power from parents to the authorities, where parents are sort of separated from their children by the authorities. Such legislation violates family unity. Immature children and authorities are given power over parents. Some activists have already advocated that children be taken away from parents who do not want to expose their children to transideology and related hormone treatments and surgeries. Such a view was brought forward in 2017, e.g. in WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) U.S. branch meeting, so the direction of development is clear.

   However, this activist-driven performance is about a very similar model to that of communism. For in communist states, parents were not allowed to teach anything that is contrary to the state and the party. In particular, religion was forbidden to teach and children were encouraged to report about their parents. The words of communist Z.I. Lilina have become famous. In them, he taught that children belong to the state and must be saved from the disgusting influence of the family.

We have to save these children from the disgusting influence that the family provides. In other words, we have to nationalize them. They must be taught the ABCs of communism so that they may later become real communists. Our task now is to obligate the mother to give her children to us – the state. (15)

Then to a completely different matter. In recent decades, we have seen many things that have often been driven in the name of love and tolerance, but that have been detrimental to children and weakened their position. These include sexual relations without marriage and commitment, abortion, facilitating divorce (after 1987, when the divorce law was changed in Finland, the number of children who experienced both divorces and parental divorce increased greatly), gender-neutral marriage, denying children the right to another parent and transideology.

    Will development end here? Hardly, development does not stop, but always leads in some direction. If today we welcome one form of evil, we cannot expect other forms to remain in place. They are interrelated and indistinguishable. If we have taken the first step, then it is easy to take the second and third steps in the same direction. We are in a process that we do not always notice. Pressure from other people’s opinions means that we can easily go with the flow, even if the current leads in the wrong direction.

    So what happens next? In this area, many of the changes have been caused by red-green radicals like all previous changes. They have driven these things the most, and their demands don’t end there.

   One example of development is the positive speeches of Finnish green young people towards polygamy, which is not a good option for children either, nor for the other spouse. That is, if someone does not intend to marry another wife or husband, there is no guarantee that his or her spouse will end up with the same solution. A marriage that was originally between two people can form a three-person union, even if other of the original spouses does not want it. In Muslim countries, it is an everyday reality when a man can take another wife alongside the former.

   It has also been found that “in cultures that accept polygamy, competition between men leads to more common crime, violence and poverty, and greater gender inequality than in societies that have institutionalized monogamy." That's what Joseph Henrich, a professor at the University of British Columbia, says. ⁽¹⁶⁾ This shows how polygamy is not a good thing for children or for society. Rejecting the notion and ideal that it is best for a child to live with their own father and mother, runs into problems that are detrimental to children and also cost society financially.

   What about the other status of children? One example of development is the positive talk of sexual relations between adults and children, i.e. pedophilia, which is again an indication of adults' selfishness towards children. This has not happened in all countries, but in the Netherlands, which has been a “pioneer” in a positive attitude towards homosexuality, it is already a reality. There was a so-called pedophile party years ago. The Dutch example shows well how we are on a sloping surface from which development is progressing lower and lower and where one step leads to another. This is what happens once we have gone in the wrong direction. In addition, the Dutch example is relevant because other countries have followed it more or less behind. You don’t have to be a very big fortune teller if you predict that red-green radicals are starting to raise this issue elsewhere.

   Another group that has contributed to this matter are academic gay magazines and organizations. For example, ILGA (International Lesbian and Gay Association. Among others, Seta Finland is a member organization) was accepted in 1993 as an advisory body to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), but when it was found that ILGA included three pedophile organizations, ESOCOC withdrew ILGA's advisory role. It was only after that when ILGA separated those organizations from its membership in 1994, and even then the decision was not unanimous. One may also ask why the decision was not made earlier.

   What about academic gay magazines? They have also actively highlighted pederasty and pedophilia, as the following quotations show:

In the past decades, we have noted how the breaking of one social taboo related to sex has cleared the way for the acceptance of the next, more serious taboo. Pre- and extramarital sex has become more and more publicly accepted, starting in the 1960s. The next in line, in the 1990s, were homosexuality and transsexual-ism. The only things left now are paedophilia and pederasty.

   This is usually considered to be an exaggeration and an attempt at intimidating people. Homosexual movements are also opposed to comparing homosexuality with paedophilia. This is not an issue that can be lightly set aside, however. Most regular homosexuals are not even familiar with what the international homosexual movement has done or with the discussions that are currently taking place in academic homosexual publications. (17)

Although the things that they talk about with each other are not widely spread, they are not secrets and surely can be distributed to wide audiences. Do the supporters of abortion, e.g., publicly deny their hostility towards motherhood? Publish Eileen L. McDoagh’s description of an unborn child as an aggressive intruder, who is to blame for the precnancy. Do homosexual activists publicly deny the link between homosexuality and pedofilia? Publish the double copy of Journal of Homosexuality magazine about the topic “The generational love between men”, which is full of articles praising “the loving pedofile”. It can be said that every societal movement has embarrassing allies. Absolutely, but in this case there is a fundamental asymmetry. Proper societal movements reject those, who aspire to be their friends, but say bad things. Movements advocating for immorality take them alongside them because they do not consider what they say to be bad. This speaks loudly if we only have ears to hear. (18)

4. Only one opinion allowed - taking the freedom of speech out

When it comes to love and tolerance, they are good objectives. Everyone should strive to love and respect those who think differently. It’s not always easy, but that’s what the Bible tells us to do. To this is referred by the following teachings of Jesus, Paul, and Peter:

- (Matt 22:35-40) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like to it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

- (Rom 13:8-10) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loves another has fulfilled the law.

9 For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

10 Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

- (1 Peter 2:17) Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

What about modern times? There has been a lot of talk about love and tolerance also in modern times and in recent decades, and through it has been justified many things. One such issue that has been on the agenda for the past decade or so is homosexual relationships. Instead, in the past, a few decades ago, under discussion were heterosexual sex relationships between those who were not married to each other. It was said that if both love each other, they can have sex with each other without being married. However, this ideology did not take into account the possible birth of children for whom there was no home ready. The “ideology of love” was thus not good for children born of relationships, and this ideology is certainly the biggest explanation for the fact that children’s mental health problems have increased from year to year. The reason is the breakdown of families, and that the father in particular is missing from the family. The situation is illustrated by the fact that at the end of the 1960s, only 5% of children in Finland were born out of wedlock, while in the early 1990s 25% of children were born out of wedlock, and now the figure is over 50%. Bad ideology and its acceptance has been a tragedy for children.

   Back to modern times. As has been said, there has been a lot of talk today about tolerance, and this talk has focused mainly on one thing: homosexual relationships. And yes, the speakers of this speech are right: we must love people living in homosexual relationships, like all people. To this we are urged e.g. in previous Bible verses. That is, if we hate these people or other people, we are clearly contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

   However, does this mean that all behavior would be equally wise or useful? That doesn't mean it. After all, it has been found that regular exercise and non-smoking are more beneficial to a person than immobility and smoking. This is shown by numerous health studies. It is also known that if a person has numerous sex relationships, they are characterized by the danger that sexually transmitted diseases and other diseases such as Korona will spread through them. They spread much more easily than in other contacts. Thus, not all sexual behavior is as wise and beneficial but it can be dangerous to oneself or others.

   And is man primarily a moral or sexual being? Can a person control his or her sexual behavior? Yes certainly can, although often it is difficult and warring against our selfishness. Lusts and false tendencies dwell in everyone, and even the believer can fall because of it, even though trying to stay clean. This is unfortunate, but we do not live in a perfect world and we are very deficient.

   Nonetheless, a person’s morality influences his or her behavior. Man is not just a sexual being, but he is above all a moral being. For example, the aforementioned French homosexuals opposed gender-neutral marriage because they considered it morally wrong and bad for children. They saw that it is better for a child to grow up in the father's and mother's home, as is the traditional concept of marriage (an issue pursued in Finland by, for example, Aito Avioliitto Association). Moral reasons influenced their opinion.

   The same goes for sexual behavior. People can have many kinds of lusts, but morality ultimately affects how each of them works. For example, someone with a pedophile tendency may exploit children, but another person with the same tendency may do the opposite; he seeks to curb his inclination because he sees it as harmful to children and to himself. Likewise, a person with a heterosexual or homosexual tendency may restrain his or her behavior for moral reasons; whether he has sex with one or more, not with anyone, or whether a man has sex only with his wife.

   What about the teaching of the Bible? Again, not all behavior is wise because it is morally wrong and has serious consequences for people themselves. This category includes murder, theft, slander, unforgiveness, greed, heterosexual relationships outside of marriage, that a man looks at a woman with lust (Matt. 5:28), but also homosexual relationships, which is a matter of controversy in modern time.

   As for this last subject, many often try to turn the issue in the direction that it is a matter of homophobia or hatred of homosexuals, even though it is really just a matter of believing that practicing homosexuality is a sin in the light of the Bible, as are many other things. Each of us has sinned in some area, or we can’t point the finger at others. For example, the following verses tell about these things:

- (1 Cor 7:1-5) Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3 Let the husband render to the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife to the husband.

4 The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud you not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

- (Rev 22:14,15) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie.

How does this issue relate to freedom of speech and religion? However, this is a fairly thorough matter. Can we believe the revelation of the Bible and teach about it as we have been told about these things, or not? In communist countries and Nazi Germany, for example, there was precisely hatred of the traditional Christian faith, and the same development is evident today. We are moving towards societies similar to these past societies, where there was little freedom of religion and freedom of speech for the opposition.

   Indeed, modernity in the West is characterized by a strong attack on the Christian faith. It is thought that renouncing God and Christian faith means the development of morality and culture. It leads towards freedom, towards civilization, towards a fairer society, and towards a space where reason is valued. At least that’s how many people who reject the Christian faith think. However, they do not take into account that it is precisely those countries where the Christian faith has been valued that have been socially stable and human rights have been best realized. Instead, when Christian faith and morality have been abandoned, as happened by communists and Nazis in the last century, there has been suffering and human rights have disappeared.

   In any case, the direction of development in modern society is clear. Those who talk the most about tolerance themselves seem to be the most intolerant. This is also true of the discussion about homosexuality or which form of family is best for a child. Saying that homosexuality is a sin or someone wants to get rid of it usually results in a strong burst of criticism. Instead, if someone tells of their opposite experiences, they are considered a hero and open-minded.

   Most proponents and practitioners of homosexuality will certainly behave tactfully, but these extremists will immediately attack the activity that presents them with opposing views and slander it. Ari Puonti explains how this happened years ago when attacks were made against activities in which people themselves voluntarily wanted to leave the homosexual lifestyle. This shows the intolerance of these activists when they do not respect the personal choices of others. (Tekry in the quote stands for Health Promotion Center):

At the same time, Tekry received contacts from gay and lesbian activists who felt that the texts on Aslan’s website about the change in homosexuality were “against good health”. Meanwhile, the branch of Seta, part of Tekry, advertised a men’s weekend on the internet that included a “Jack-off party”; a dark room where one could have sex with anyone. However, this did not attract attention as "against good health ways"…

    In early September 2001, Aslan received a letter from Tekry stating that Tekry's board had removed Aslan from its membership in August 2001.… It was a mere mud-slinging campaign launched by gay activists, the essence of which was that they did not like Aslan offering help to those gays who wanted it. (19)

Another quote tells of a similar attack by extremists when they do not want to accept the teaching of traditional marriage. The story is from the United States, from which almost all new currents in the realm of morality have set in motion. Elsewhere in the West, there will be a delay of some years. The same discussions will take place here in retrospect.

In 2006, thousands of screaming gay activists silenced speakers of the Catholic Church Organization at the Worcester For Marriage open-air event, shouting obscenities. Police did not try to stop them, even though the incident was authorized. When one of the rioters rushed to the stage and started screaming, one male event organizer tried to steer him to the side. As a result, the woman sued the man in court for the attack. The trial lasted 4 days, fortunately the jury released the man. But none of the rioters received fines. In 2006, a group of gay activists with their signs shouted and mocked people who were going at or returning to a Baptist church in downtown Boston. A nationally televised For Marriage event was held there.

In 2005, hundreds of gay activists terrorized the same Baptist church on a temporary stage, shouting outrage through loudspeakers. The church had a national family values ​​group (Focus on the Family) holding a spiritual conference. The crowd was so menacing that participants could not leave the church for a lunch break. Boston riot police stood outside the doors of the church, but did nothing to disperse the protesters, who completely blocked the entire street. (20)

One indication of extremism is also the rat awards given by the Finnish SETA (Sexual Equality) organization. In this way, this organization has wanted to disgrace those who think differently. The rat prize has been awarded to e.g. therapist Tommy Hellsten and Professor Tapio Puolimatka, who has defended the children's right to father and mother.

   However, such activities and comparing people to animals were also characteristic of the early Nazis and Communists. For example, Lenin called his opponents insects, lice, scorpions, and other animals. Similarly, Hitler and other Nazis compared Jews and other groups to animals. This negative propaganda led to known consequences.

   The following quote refers to this. A rabbi imprisoned in a concentration camp came to Ronald Boyd-MacMillan while he was watching the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp and its incinerators. The rabbi said of the influence of propaganda:

You have to understand this: these crematoria were not originally built of bricks, but of words! It all started with lies that were initially set in motion as jokes, slogans and arguments, so soon we Jews became impersonal, stripped of humanity, beings comparable to animals, and anything can be done to animals! We didn't realize what was coming until it was too late. (21).

Likewise, Hans Fritzsche, who at one time held a high position in the Ministry of Propaganda headed by Josef Goebbels and head of the radio department since 1942, has taken a stand on the same subject, namely negative propaganda. He was interviewed during the Nuremberg trials in 1946 by Leon Goldensohn. In an interview, Fritzsche admitted that crime always starts with negative propaganda, not just when people are murdered. This is a good reminder of past decades. Negative propaganda is the first step to evil. 

...I feel that there is a religious demand - You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ - this principle has not been implemented for two thousand years. I would like even one spark of life to emerge in the darkness of this tragedy. I mean understanding that a crime doesn't happen until a person is murdered. The crime starts with propaganda, even if it is for a good cause. The moment the propaganda turns towards another state or person, evil begins. (22)

Then to President Obama's inauguration in 2013. Mark Driscoll, who himself has experienced a lot of attacks and mudslinging, gives an example of the development of society and how the Christian faith is being abandoned. This is a model description of how extremists work. First, it is searched for statements or "offensive comments", which a person has written or said, then general indignation is aroused, ultimately resulting in the isolation of the person and keeping him or her intolerant and narrow-minded. People do not want to receive the message that it is love that can motivate such a person to warn people of the consequences of sin, the practice of homosexuality, and other sins: "Don't go on that way, it may be bad for you!"

    So here's a quote from Mark Driscoll's book and President Obama's inauguration. The description relates to a pastor named Louie Giglio who had been called to recite the opening prayer as a representative of Evangelical Christians. He is a tactful pastor who wants to avoid disputes and has sought to help people in human trafficking or living in sex slavery:

The cane slammed into the beehive when a website published excerpts from a sermon Louie had given nearly two decades earlier. In that speech, the pastor dared to point out that according to the Bible, a homosexual lifestyle is not acceptable in the eyes of God. The revelation had its intended consequences. Meanwhile, like-minded critics grabbed the news, and a man who could have won the title of “most affectionate teddy bear” at Bible school became the number one enemy of society in one night - just because he was God’s messenger and not just God’s loafer. Forty-eight hours after Louie Giglio was invited to join President Obama on stage, he was wiped out of the program. The Presidential Inauguration Committee was clearly troubled by its initial choice and began to repair the damage. It issued a statement reassuring the nation: “When Pastor Giglio was choosed, we were unaware of his previous comments, and they do not reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country. - - Now that we are working to select a new person to deliver the blessing, we make sure that his view reflects the vision of this administration that every american is included and approved".

   I am sure that the irony was unintentional, as the hypocrisy in general. Those who speak most loudly about tolerance are often the most intolerant. As the nation celebrated tolerance, liberation, and homosexuality, the evangelical Christian was forced into the closet… When evangelicals cannot appear, even nominally, in an event designed to reflect different aspects of American society, it is clear that Christian influence has passed its last sale date and removed from the shelf... January 21 was more than just inauguration day. It was also a funeral day. The country’s top leadership made it clear that “including and accepting all Americans” no longer includes Bible-believing evangelical Christians. (23)

If a totalitarian system is born in the West, then through whom will it happen? The answer is simple: The one with the most power. This power may come democratically, but it may be a short journey to totalitarianism as in Nazi Germany.

   Recently, attention has been paid in Europe to the situations in Poland and Hungary, where power has been concentrated in these countries as the rulers grab power for themselves. As a result, there may be some kind of democratic deficit in these countries.

    At the same time, however, a different development is taking place in the West; a development that has been going on for years and where the rule of law is crumbling.

   The following example is related to the topic. It is again a question of the United States, where presidential elections were held recently and where President Trump had to step down after one presidency.

    Everyone will surely admit that Trump was one of the most deficient presidents of his time in the United States. He was not a good example of a presidential person, and this is acknowledged by most of his supporters. So why did many people vote for Trump and not for the Democratic candidate? There are certainly a variety of reasons, such as economic ones. However, one reason is freedom of religion and speech. Trump was seen as better representing these fundamental issues than the Democratic Party representatives. For example, during President Obama’s term, freedom of speech and religion was seen to be severely curtailed, and that’s why Trump got a lot of voters. The same trend was feared to continue if Democrats gain more power.

   So, the following is a quote related to the topic. It is from docent Markku Ruotsila's article "The rebellion of the heartlands of the United States is just beginning, the attempt by US President Joe Biden to unite the nation is doomed". In the article, Ruotsila highlights the division of the United States, suspicions of electoral fraud (21 states would have liked a more extensive study of the counting of elections, as they saw numerous abuses in the elections just as they did in the Belarusian elections.) and how, as a result of the election victory, freedom of speech began to be curtailed, for example, online and in the rest of society. An extreme example is the suggestion of a representative of the state-run PBS television company that the children of Trump supporters should be sent to re-education camps. It is a model quite similar to that which existed in communist countries.

The events of January 6 have, in the most blatant way possible, exposed to the whole world the deep dichotomy of the United States. No longer can anyone maintain the notion of polarization merely as a momentary distortion of the inevitable arc of history.

   Only a small portion of the more than half a million participants marched on behalf of President Donald Trump rushed to the U.S. Congress. There were also far-left instigators of unrest, but the main responsibility for clearly pre-planned violence lies with the far right.

   Very few of the more than 74 million who voted for Trump belong to this far right. But its violence is a manifestation of a much broader concern - a deep sense of existential threa - which suspicions of democrats' return to power by election fraud and their election promises have spawned in half of the country.

   … These feelings have their causes and roots in long-term development. Through his words, Trump did not push these feelings into the heads of his supporters… Trump’s victory in 2016 was the prelude to the revolt of these people in the heart of the United States, by no means a decision. Those who voted for him just wanted to shout: Enough! We want our country back! We do not want to be strangers in our own country! Trump’s years were a new hopeful time for them, for Trump did deliver on his promises. And then everything was lost - by cheating, 80 percent of them believe.

   It is about principles, values, faith, feelings and beliefs. These are two completely different perceptions of what makes life dignified and what is the essence of a good society. About half of Americans just want to be at peace, maintain their traditional way of life, succeed in their own work, trust God and the free market economy, think their own thoughts, and speak according to their conscience without being called insane, racist, fascist, or haters of females and gays.

   The other half of America, on the other hand, believes that the state should nurture and care from cradle to grave, instruct in thinking "right" and punish for "wrong" words, always buy new perks with taxes and debt, shackle the business community with regulation, and empower ethnic and gender minorities, as well as immigrants.

   This side of America was in power for a very long time, and the other side felt repressed and its country stolen.

   And what happens now?

   Conservatives are being denied access to social media. They are being dismissed from their jobs and their bank accounts are being closed. The Democratic Party is called for the establishment of a state agency to censor public speaking. A spokesman for the state-owned television company PBS suggested isolating the children of Trump supporters in retraining camps.

   Is this a modern Western democracy? Is is like this to live in a state ruled by law? At least in this way, are coming true those existential threats why the people in the heart of the United States initially feared the coming to power of the Democrats. (Etelä-Suomen Sanomat 23 January 2021)

Why pay attention to the previous examples? The reason is what was stated, i.e. that Western countries are slipping into the same kind of totalitarianism as, for example, Nazi Germany and communist countries. It was characteristic of these societies that only one type of opinion, sympathetic to the governments, was allowed. People were imprisoned and taken to court for other opinions.

     This does not mean that the exact same pattern as in communist countries or Nazi Germany will repeat itself in modern times. Back then it was wrong to criticize especially rulers, but now "wrong opinion" can be the Bible's teaching about sexuality. The forced homosexual programming by the Western media has led to the fact that "wrong opinions" about sexuality lead to criticism, loss of job and reputation. A gender-neutral way of life and ideology is accepted in the name of tolerance, while refusing to tolerate views that defend the traditional concept of marriage. It is not agreed to consider any kind of justifications. It is a different kind of coercion than the coercion of the last century.

     In any case, the birth of totalitarianism is a simple matter. All that is required is the following conditions:

1. Strong opinion and perception.

2. It is not wanted to give others the right to a different opinion. People are becoming more and more negative towards dissidents, the last step of which is “zero tolerance” where other opposing opinions are not tolerated. This can be both a secular and a religious notion (religious coercion is represented by, among other things, modern-day Islam, where those who reject Islam are killed, as well as medieval papacy), which does not give others the right to be a different opinion.

3. Last is the power that these people attain and begin, from their position of power, to harass those who think differently. Once freedom of opinion is abolished, totalitarian power extends to new and new areas of life. This was the case in communist countries and Nazi Germany. In Germany, for example, this all happened in a democratic way, so the same development is very possible and probable even in Western countries today. It is worth remembering that before the Nazis, Germany was one of the most developed states of its time. There were published e.g. more books than in other European countries.

   So what to expect? If the current trend continues, we will soon see secret police like the Gestapo, whistleblowers and people being brought to justice for “wrong opinions” as happened in Nazi Germany and communist countries. This development is very likely because, within and between nations, there has again been a similar confrontation as in the early part of the last century. Today, the right of others to dissent is less and less respected, even though the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” and “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression” (Articles 18 and 19). The final step in such a development is bloodshed and prison camps. Among other things, the following Bible verses relate to this serious subject.

- (Matt 10:19) But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what you shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what you shall speak.

- (2 Tim 3:1-4) This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

So how do you prevent the emergence of totalitarianism? The answer is simple: the state should not extend its power to all aspects of life. One of the best ways to prevent the emergence of totalitarianism is to protect the rights of families, churches, businesses, schools, businesses and associations, and to guard against excessive concentration of power. In totalitarian societies, this does not happen. The same danger exists in the current globalization, where power is concentrated on ever smaller forces and where nation states lose their relevance. This can be a dangerous development in the long run. 

5. Universities at the forefront: restrictions on freedom of speech and opposition to science

It was noted above how totalitarianism is gradually creeping into Western society. It manifests itself in the acceptance of only one opinion and that dissidents are attacked and their reputations destroyed, just as happened under communism and Nazism.

   The university world is one example of the development of society. One could imagine that universities would be tolerant and all perceptions could be discussed in a civilized manner on the basis of fact and there would be no preconceptions. However, this is not always the case. If a researcher presents research findings that run counter to the prevailing ideology, such as research that shows the traditional family form is a better option for children than other family forms, the researcher may be silenced and isolated. Likewise, the issue of creation and smart design is an area that faces strong resistance. In this case, science is no longer practiced on scientific but on ideological grounds. It is like a shout-out vote, in which the loudest wins and in which the search for truth, which should be the basis of all science, is no longer of interest.The picture often includes demands to dismiss researchers because of their opinions or to seek to destroy the reputation of researchers. Among other things, Tapio Puolimatka, who has himself experienced similar treatment, has given examples in his books of such activities in which science is no longer done on the terms of science but by loud voice.

   The following quote from US universities describes the development. The author describes how freedom of speech is threatened, and how up to 18 percent of American students are prepared for violence if opinions are expressed on campus that do not please themselves. In general, strong attitudes are associated with hatred against the Christian faith and morality as with early communists. American universities are relevant because they are the source of almost all the new currents that have spread to the West as well as to the rest of the world. As the number of such attitudes and people grows, we can expect the emergence of totalitarian societys. So the following is a quote that describes the development in the USA:

... I'm worried about the Americans' right to freedom of expression.
 Attitudes of young adults were recently measured by a survey of 20,000 students on 55 different campuses.
 According to the survey, 18 percent of American students would be willing to accept even violent intervention if opinions were expressed on campus that did not please themselves.
 University campuses have traditionally been places where new ideas have been given space and where they have been discussed. However, there is now evidence that speakers - especially conservatives - have been barred from performing on campuses and events have been canceled due to threats of violence left by students.
 It feels bad that this change is happening to young adults, because it is at that level that it would be important to develop critical thinking… (ESS 31.10.2020: Kirje Teksasista, Adrianne Haladyna)

When narrow-mindedness and intolerance occur in universities, not everyone is guilty of it, but the number of narrow-minded and intolerant is increasing. When such people get into leadership positions in society, they are likely to act according to the same pattern, so it will have far-reaching effects, as many of the students will get into leadership positions.

     What are the issues that the students' intolerance targets? In the end, it is a question of a critical attitude towards the Christian faith, just like in communism, Nazism and the French Revolution (tens of thousands of people were killed there), where e.g. The church of Notre Dame was turned into a sanctuary of a new atheistic religion, the worship of reason. People who pretend to be tolerant are tolerant of almost all other worldviews, but not of the Christian faith. I am convinced that the question is Satan's deception towards these people, as Paul wrote (2 Cor 4: 3,4: But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them). The following quote illustrates well the attitude of such people:

Once upon a time, a group called “Tolerance” began its activities. They demand tolerance for all religious customs, beliefs, and practices. They said we need to end intolerance in our society. Their brochure explained the views of this group and it was interesting that it listed all the things they opposed. Most of the things towards they were intolerant of were related to Christianity. What they really meant was tolerance for all things except Christianity! (24)

It is a question of lies. The changes that have taken place in Western societies, most of which involve the rejection of the Christian faith and morals, have been discussed above, just as the Communists and Nazis rejected the Christian faith and sidelined traditional conservative values. For example, Himmler wrote in 1937:

We live in an era of ultimate conflict with Christianity. One of the tasks of the SS is to provide the German people in the next half century with the non-Christian foundation on which the people can live and shape their lives. This task does not only consist of defeating the ideological opponent, but should be accompanied by a positive contribution at every step: in this case, it means building the Germanic heritage in the broadest and most comprehensive sense. ” (25)

But why is there an abandonment of Christian values ​​and faith in society, even though the Christian faith is a positive thing for society? For if the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are widely followed in society, it will lead to the love of one's neighbors and to the renunciation of crime and all injustice. It results in society spending less money on fighting crime and the consequences of wrong lifestyles.

   The answer is simple: people believe in lies. It manifests itself e.g. in the following matters relating to this subject:

Abortion is supported because it is claimed that a woman has the right to decide on her body. You will never hear anyone advocating abortion with the argument that a parent has the right to decide to kill their child.

Homosexuality is defended because many see it as an innate trait. However, many homosexuals themselves reject this view and it contradicts numerous studies conducted e.g. with identical twins. Similarly, Helsingin Sanomat said on 29 August 2019: "A study of almost half a million people: Genes do not predict whether the same sex will interest."

   On the other hand, if the principle of innateness is invoked, it could be used to justify all other behaviour as equally acceptable: e.g. a person inclined to hatred could justify killing others by the fact that he was born aggressive, and cannot restrain his behavior. Similarly, a rapist could justify his behavior with the same argument. However, many hardly share these views. Each of us has a moral responsibility, although each of us may have different false tendencies.

It is argued that all forms of family are equally good for children, although tens of millions of examples show the opposite. Children raised in single-parent families, new families, or institutions have more problems (crime, teenage pregnancies, depression, drug and alcohol use, number of divorces…) in their lives than those raised with a biological father and mother. This is a fact that is undeniable.

Finally. If you are serious about finding the truth, you can find it. Some argue that this is not possible, but why not? Jesus said that the truth is found specifically in Him and that He spoke the truth. In other words, the truth does not have to be sought very far away, but is found in the person of Jesus. Through Him, it is possible to enter into the communion of a loving Heavenly Father. Take this step in Jesus' direction and be open to Him. Among other things, He taught as follows:

- (John 7:17) If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

- (John 8:45, 46) And because I tell you the truth, you believe me not.

46 Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe me?

REFERENCES:

1. Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970

2. Päivi Räsänen: Kutsuttu elämään (?), p. 146

3. Sherif Girgis & Robert George & Ryan T. Anderson: What is Marriage?

4. Anthony Esolen: Defending Marriage: Twelve Arguments for Sanity (2014), Charlotte, NC: Saint Benedict Press, p. 149

5. Jean-Marc Guénois: “J’ai été élevé par deux femmes”, Le Figaro 1.10.2013

6. Robert Oscar Lopez, p. 114

7. Tapio Puolimatka: Yhteiskuntakoe lapsilla, p. 132,136

8. Tapio Puolimatka: Jälkikristillisen maailman kauhut, p. 94

9. Rivka Edelman (2015) ”Secular Israel, Gays, and Surrogacy”, teoksessa Lopez & Edelman (toim.) p. 143-150

10. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 94

11. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 210

12. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 212

13. Tapio Puolimatka: Seksuaalivallankumouksen uskonnolliset juuret, p. 231

14. Tapio Puolimatka: Seksuaalivallankumouksen uskonnolliset juuret, p. 231

15. H. Kent Geiger: The Family in Soviet Russia. Cambridge, Mass., 1968.

16. Timo Vihavainen, Marko Hamilo, Joonas Konstig: Mitä mieltä Suomessa saa olla, p. 205

17. Ari Puonti: Homoseksuaalisuus – hämmennyksestä selkeyteen, p. 166

18 J. Budziszewski: Tätä emme voi olla tietämättä (What We Can,t Not Know. A Guide), p. 278,279

19. Ari Puonti: Suhteesta siunaukseen, p. 54,55

20. Avunhuuto sorrettujen puolesta, Mitä homoavioliitot tekivät Massachusettsille?

21. Ronald Boyd-MacMillan: Faith that Endures: The Essential Guide to the Persecuted Church (2006), Revell. USA

22. Leon Goldensohn: Nürnbergin haastattelut (The Nuremberg Interviews), p. 120

23. Mark Driscoll: Herätyskutsu (A Call to Resurgence by Mark Driscoll), p 14, 15

24. Ken Ham: Valhe: Evoluutio (The Lie: Evolution), p. 23

25. Peter Longerich: Heinrich Himmler, p. 270

More on this topic:

The worldview and goals of modern value liberals are very similar to those of the early communists and Nazis

The evil spirit world influenced in the background of Nazism and World War II. The same thing emerges in the background of today’s societies

Nazism did not suddenly arise out of nowhere, but development moved in the same direction for more than a century. The same development is possible today

Read how  people defend injustice, one's own selfish lifestyle and increase children's suffering in the name of equality and human rights

Statistics show an increase in child nausea all the time. The reason is the selfishness of adults in the area of sexuality and the changed morality of society

Gender-neutral marriage and children, ie how children's human rights are trampled on when they are denied the right to their biological parents - using as a reason human rights and equality of adults

Learn how abandoning the Christian faith leads to a loss of dignity. It is a return to time before the birth of the Christian faith