|
|
|
Justice or the defense of injustice?
Read how people defend injustice, one's own selfish lifestyle and increase children's suffering in the name of equality and human rights
Dear reader! The following lines deal with a sense of justice, a good principle that everyone has, but which can sometimes be misused. It can turn against good things because people have received incomplete or incorrect information. They may not think things through in the long run, and what are the consequences of defending the wrong things by appealing to justice. A misguided principle of justice can lead to suffering, especially for children, because adults selfishly use this good principle. In addition, a misguided sense of justice can turn a person’s mind negative towards God. That is why it is important to address this issue. So one feature of modern society is demanding justice. Justice and equality are vigorously demanded by many range of stakeholders: non-believers, women, abortionists, sexual minorities, defenders of Palestinians… All this is not bad, of course, but often there is thoughtlessness behind it, that is, long-term consequences for people and society are not considered. Especially to children, many trends may be debilitating. Moreover, a feature of modern demands is that is especially attacked against the “old-fashioned and patriarchal” Christian faith and morality. Christian faith and morality are in principle considered a bad thing, while vigorous claimants of justice and proponents of the new morality themselves believe that they represent justice, equality, and love. This negative attitude towards the Christian faith is repeatedly expressed in the demands of these people. Next, let us examine the demands of these people and whether there are reasonable grounds for them.
Annulment of marriage Do Pride marchers support child abuse? "Equal marriage" and the status of children "Equal marriage" and action within the church The experience of the wrong sex Abortions in contradiction with human rights
1. Annulment of marriage. As noted, vigorous demanders of justice and proponents of the new morality often attack “old-fashioned and patriarchal” Christian faith as well as morality. Christian faith and morality are in principle considered a bad thing, while vigorous demanders of justice and proponents of the new morality themselves believe that they represent justice, equality, and love. This negative attitude towards the Christian faith is repeatedly expressed in the demands of these people. However, if one goes back in time, for example, the relationship between husband and wife and its permanence was still respected in the 1950s. Back then, those couples who lived together without marriage and commitment were considered wolf couples. In addition, only 5% of children were born out of wedlock as late as the late 1960s (in Finland). This shows how the Christian teaching on marriage and its permanence was respected during the time of our grandparents and parents. It also benefited children who were allowed to grow up in intact families. Then the sexual revolution began. This was the case in the late 1960s, when the “old-fashioned” church was attacked in a marriage case. There were people who came forward by claiming that it was right — “if both people love each other” —to have sex without commitment and marriage. At the same time, free abortion was called for and there was talk of homosexuality, so the seeds for current development were sown at that time. Now we get to reap the harvest of what these people accomplished. The media considered them some kind of heroes. Matti Joensuu gave his observations on this development:
I was away from my homeland for three years, the years 1965 to 1968. When I returned in the autumn of 1968, I was very surprised at the change that had taken place in the atmosphere of public conversation. This concerned both the tone of conversation and also the framing of questions. (...) In the student world, those who demanded justification of sexual relationships were the ones blowing their trombones loudly. They insisted, for instance, that boys and girls should be allowed to live together in university dormitories even though they were not married. It seemed that the Teen League had been taken over by new leaders who proclaimed not only socialism and school democracy, but also the idea of free sexual relations. All in all, what was new was that reference groups had formed that spoke much more openly about gender issues than had previously been customary in public, accusing society and the Church of applying double standards. The tone of the conversation was to a large extent ethical. Morality was considered evil. It was reproached. At the same time, however, new morality was proclaimed, often in a very moralistic and intolerant manner. Whereas in the past there was talk of understanding the sexual behaviour of young people, some groups declared now that it is right to have casual sexual relations. The institution of marriage and real genuine love were even contrasted. Couples living unlegalized cohabitation were interviewed in public as some kind of heroes of a new morality who dared to stand up against the morality of a degenerate bourgeois society. Similarly, homosexuals were interviewed and free abortion was called for. (...) Even though, according to my observations, the atmosphere of public conversation in Finland had changed surprisingly much between the years 1965 and 1968, the topical questions discussed everywhere else in the world were the same as in Finland. The difference was only in the vehemence of conversation and perhaps in the fact that in a small country like Finland, small active groups can almost overpower the media. In addition, we are probably still unaccustomed to public conversation. Therefore, a single-minded attitude of being right becomes dominant much more easily here than in larger countries.
What, then, were the consequences of these groups making demands to have sex without marital commitment? This is clearly indicated by the statistics. In the late 1960s, when proponents of the new morality began to make demands, only 5% of children were born out of wedlock. Now the figure is over 50%, so relatively ten times more children are now born out of wedlock than there were in the 1960s. This was the first aggravation for the children, as the children could be born in a situation where both parents were not present. However, the poor development for children did not stop. In 1987, another deterioration occurred. At that time, divorce in Finland was made easier so that it no longer required the consent of both, but either spouse could apply for the divorce alone and have it enforced. Thus, the result was a drastic increase in the number of divorces, and most of the divorces concerned marriages where there were no serious problems. Indeed, one scholar said of the ease of divorce: “How much stability in family life can we expect when a person has a stricter liability before the law in a contractual relationship with a plumber than with his wife?) (2) How did this divorce law affect children and how did extramarital sex affect children? This meant that the number of children growing up in the care of single parents has risen sharply. This means that children usually have to grow up with the mother and without the father or without the presence of both parents. Similarly, taking children into custodies have increased. Proponents of the new morality have thus greatly contributed to the deterioration of the position of children. They have repeatedly spoken of love in their demands, but it has not extended to children who suffer from the selfish choices of their parents. The new morality meant a weakening from point of view of the children. Here’s another quote that talks about how growing in a single-parent family isn’t an ideal option for children. Such children have far more problems than those raised in intact families:
A Swedish longitudinal study compared 65,000 children from single-parent families with 921,257 children who grew up with both biological parents. The study covered almost all children who were born in Sweden between 1973 and 1985. At the end of the study, the oldest children were 26 years old and the youngest 14 years old. According to the study, serious mental illness, suicides, suicide attempts and illnesses related to the use of alcohol are twice as common among children from single-parent families compared to children who grew up with a biological father and mother. Serious drug use is three times more common among those raised in single-parent families and four times more common among boys. Even death from accidents and violence was more common among children from single-parent families. (Ringbäck Weitoft et al. 2003.) When the study was published in a prestigious journal, some criticized it for blaming single parents, when saying, that their children were particularly vulnerable to serious problems. The head of the study, Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, however, explained that the purpose of the researchers was to improve the status of children in single-parent families: "We were surprised that the connections were so unambiguous, even though we took into account a number of background factors. But the purpose of our research was to try to improve the conditions of children of single parents, not to point the finger at single parents." (3)
The following news also shows the impact that the proponents of the new morality have had on society. That means children's state is getting worse and worse so that mental health problems are constantly on the rise. The direction of development is clearly negative, which also results in a huge increase in society's costs:
Almost a billion euros will soon be used in institutional care for children and youth Children's problems have escalated dramatically since the early 1990s
The expenses arising from institutional and family care in child welfare are currently increasing by more than 10% per year. This year, institutional and family care for children and the young will cost around EUR 670 million. If the sum continues to increase, it will exceed the billion-euro limit in five years. The number of children in institutional care has doubled since the early 1990s. Problems with children have increased to such an extent that most custody decisions are now urgent. There are many reasons why more and more children are in institutional care: drugs and alcohol, crime, mental health problems and unemployment. Inequality reigns in society, and the number of poor families with children has tripled. The institutional care of one child can cost up to EUR 100,000 per year while proactive supporting measures in outpatient care could be offered with a couple of thousand euros. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 31 October 2010)
Intoxicants take younger and younger to institutions. The number of notifications and the cost of institutional care have increased enormously. (ESS 7.11.2019)
Youth referrals almost doubled Psychiatry: The mental health problems of young people have increased in recent years across the country. In Päijät-Häme, the number of referrals of young psychiatry increased by 40 per cent per year. (ESS, 30.5.2017)
Young people's minds faltering. Mental health: Referrals to specialised medical care in youth psychiatry have increased dramatically... (ESS, 25.9.2018)
What about other developments? Proponents of the new morality often explain how we are more sensible and progressive in moral matters today than past generations, but that does not seem to be in the light of behavior. Bad behavior in schools, health centers, towards foreigners or towards the authorities has clearly increased. If progress has been made, it has not gone in the right direction, as can be seen from the following news:
“Violence among children is becoming more common …Aggressiveness of small children has increased in Finland (ESS 20.11.2013)
The heading of the front page: School: ESS poll reveals, teachers have subjected to violence, vandalism, threats and parents’ rage
The poll that the teachers took part in: How do you think the behavior of students has changed over the last few years? 2,6% it has gotten better 23,1% it has stayed the same 74,4% it has gotten worse
The poll of OAJ: Students are the worst bullies to teachers in the whole country according to the poll 50% of elementary school teachers have experienced bullying over the last year.
A father hits his child and a son hits his mother more and more often. Violence of parents towards children has more than doubled in ten years. (ESS 3.10.2019)
… As a professional of healt care, I bring to your attention the behavior of patients. When I was on call in the central hospital in the emergency room in 1974, it didn’t even come to mind that a patient would be violent or make threats. Today it occurs continuosly in the emergency room. They must have learned it from somewhere. So what happens, when no one (from Finnish people) doesn’t want to serve – or teach? With the loss of discipline, we have also lost civilized behavior. Restoration of discipline is simple, if you will. The will seems to be directed towards adapting to the consequences of indiscipline. More resources, more resources, more debt. Well, that is what the undisciplined policymakers will do. Jyrki Joensuu, a specialist doctor in general medicine and psychiatry, Lahti (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 17.10.2016 / Lukijalta [Etelä-Suomen sanomat 17.10.2016 / from the reader])
Violence experienced by municipal employees has increased The job barometer of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy (TEM) shows that violence experienced by municipal employees and the threat of it have increased drastically in less than ten years. Last year, almost half of municipal employees observed violence or the threat of it. More than 20 percent experienced violence themselves or the threat of it. In 2008, the corresponding figures were just under 30 percent and more than 10 percent... (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 15.2.2017)
2. Do Pride marchers support child abuse? An earlier quote it was told how, in the late 1960s, proponents of the new morality spoke in favor of extramarital sex and raised the issue of sexual minorities, or homosexuals, to some extent. At that time, only the first steps were taken in support of the latter matter. Today, development in this area has also progressed so that thousands may march in the so-called pride marches, and more and more companies are considering flagging on behalf of sexual minorities. Other companies have already done so. What, then, is the reason for this attitude? Personally, I understand that there many may have a sincere desire to support “discriminated”, but it is fundamentally because homosexuality is seen as an innate trait. It is thought to be like a trait comparable to skin color that has come with birth. This view is believed even though the theory of innate feature has been repeatedly refuted in conferences on the subject, and even though many homosexuals themselves do not believe in this theory. Some homosexuals may argue the matter congenital, but many admit that the sexual seduction and conditions of the same sex has played a role in their inclinations. These were also common notions in psychology a few decades ago. Here are some quotes from homosexuals sharing their background (bold added afterwards):
Ole does not believe, however, that there is some kind of a "homosexual gene". He believes that the causes of homosexual feelings are more complex, and he mentions, for instance, that he knows many pairs of identical twins of which only one of the pair is homosexual. Ole believes that many factors contributed to his behaviour, such as his complex and poor relationship with his father when he was a child. Ole does not hold back when telling about his relationship with his father as a child. He felt that his father was never there and he feared his father. The father sometimes had a raging fit, and Ole felt a few times that his father intentionally humiliated him in public. Ole says bluntly that he hated his father. (4)
Harri is interested in the discussion about homosexuality in the media and studies about homosexuality. He is convinced that homosexuality has very little to do with congenital factors. He bases this view on, for instance, the fact that it is often easy to find out why people have homosexual inclinations. They have usually been subjected to sexual violence or have a difficult relationship with their parents or peers. "This has convinced me that it is not first and foremost about genes. However, I don't think that it is impossible for some people to have some genes that make them more susceptible to homosexual inclinations," Harri says. (5)
In her case, Tepi believes that homosexuality is due to the fact that she has some kind of emotional deficit that she is trying to fill. Tepi says she was afraid of her father as a child and still has "such a fear of men". Tepi says she is looking for a mother among women. Although Tepi thinks about the reasons for her lesbianism, she also says about her crush on women: "As it has gone kind of shockingly naturally, I've sometimes really wondered how it can go that way." On the other hand, she believes that there is a reason for this, too. Tepi does not believe that homosexuality is due to genes or that a person can be gay or lesbian from birth. In her opinion, a person grows up gay or lesbian, even without any special disorders. (6)
Of course, I, like many gay people, wonder where homosexuality comes from. I believe that a child's personality is formed during the first three years of life, including sexually. This is influenced by both the environment and human biology. I do not believe at all that homosexuality is hereditary. For some of my relatives, my homosexuality is hard precisely because they fear its heritability. (7)
I read an interesting study by an expert: it was a survey to find out how many actively homosexual people believed they were born that way. Eighty-five percent of the interviewees were of the opinion that their homosexuality was a learned way of behaving caused by destructive influence early on in their home and enticement by another person. Nowadays, my first question when meeting with a homosexual is usually, “Who gave you the inspiration for it?” All of them can answer me. I will ask then, “What would have happened to you and your sexuality if you hadn’t met your uncle, or if your cousin had not come into your life? Or without your stepfather? What do you think would have happened?” This is when the bells start to toll. They say, “Maybe, maybe, maybe.” (8)
The notion of innate feature is neither supported by studies in twins. Identical twins have exactly the same genes and the same environment in the womb, but still only one of them may be interested in their own sex. That should not be the case for gene-like factors. This was observed in an extensive Canadian study (20,000 subjects). The study showed that genes are not of great importance. If one of the identical twins was gay or lesbian, then with a 6.7% probability the other also mentioned their interest in the same sex. The figure was 7.2% for non-identical twins and 5.5% for ordinary siblings. These figures strongly suggest that genes or hormones in the womb have no effect on the birth of homosexuality. What about homosexuality in women in particular? The most important factor in this seems to be the girl’s difficult relationship with her mother or that she has lost her mother as a child. The following study suggests this. According to it, 27% of lesbians and 2% of heterosexuals had experienced maternal loss before the age of 10. Such a relationship speaks volumes about the impact of circumstances and emotional deficiency, as the ratio is more than tenfold.
The study by Marcel T. Saghiri and Eli Robins (1973) was not based on a patient sample; instead, they recruited their homosexual interviewees through homosexual organisations. They noted that 27% of lesbians and 2% of heterosexual women had lost their mother before the age of 10. The relationship between lesbian women and their mothers had often been broken or was distant or indifferent. However, they had a warm relationship with their father. (9)
Personally, I am convinced that in homosexuality is generally a question of emotional deficiency, by man trying to fill. Many have a difficult relationship with their parents or with peers, but sexual abuse has also been common. This has been observed in numerous interview studies conducted on homosexuals. Quite recent news relat to the topic. It reported on sex offenders guilty of child abuse. The news reported that a large proportion of sex offenders had themselves been in childhood as victims of sexual offenses. This shows that homosexual behavior can often originate from the exploitation of adults against a child. The spiral continues when those exploited as children commit the same:
Even a hardened criminal cannot be forced into treatment … On the bench of the accused in court sat on Thursday… a man who first pulled over the prison shirt to hide from the cameras. Fifty year old man is accused of exploiting nearly thirty children, and this is not the first time. He has been convicted of exploiting dozens of boys at least three times before. Last in 2012. … Lauerma does not comment on individual cases, nor on this. He says in general that one of the factors that predisposes to sexual offenses against children is becoming a victim of a sexual offense in childhood. - Quite a large part have been victims of sexual crime in childhood. Estimates range from 30 percent to 80 percent, meaning it’s highly contagious behaviour. Therefore, influencing it would be important because the multiplier effects are intergenerational. (ESS, 12 October 2018)
What can be deduced from the above? If homosexual tendency is not a congenital matter but has been influenced by other people in the child's and young person's past, then many support, for example through Pride marches, the misuse of adults towards children. Or isn’t this the right conclusion if sexual abuse and traumatic experiences are at the root of homosexuality? So the question is, have companies and marchers ever considered the issue in terms of what has happened to children in the past through adults? It is good for us to understand that we are not judges of our neighbors, but it is also good to understand where people’s attitudes and tendencies can come from. Marchers should consider this.
3. "Equal marriage" and the status of children. The so-called equal marriage is one of the demands made by vigorous demanders of justice. It refers to same-sex marriage. At the same time, the argument has been made that the traditional marriage law has been discriminatory. That is why supporters of gender-neutral marriage talk about equality, non-discrimination and the fight against discrimination when they defend their opinions. The media may also mention how human rights and equality are at stake. However, when it comes to discrimination in the context of traditional marriage law, it must be said that all adults have the right to marry. There is no exception to this. Anyone of legal age to a man or woman may enter into marriage with the opposite sex. The traditional marriage law is thus already equal and non-discriminatory. To claim otherwise is contrary to the facts. Instead, the effort to extend marriage to same-sex couples changes the meaning of marriage. The word marriage takes on a new meaning that it has not had before. It is as if it were argued that, for example, a normal employment relationship between an employer and an employee would mean marriage, or that a bicycle and an airplane are cars, even if that is not the case. The word, through which, for centuries, human history has been understood to mean only the relationship between husband and wife, has thus changed its meaning to the second through a gender-neutral conception of marriage. It changes a practice that has been prevalent in all major cultures for thousands of years. It is not worth considering this further here. It is quite certain that this thing will also be realized in its entirety, as also the so-called sexual revolution in the late 1960s. The development has gone so far in that direction that the direction of the ship will hardly be reversed. However, this matter would be worth considering from the point of view of children. Although people of the same sex cannot have children themselves, they can have them in at least three ways (in addition to adoption):
• fertility treatments • temporary heterosexual relationships • uterine rental
However, you who are thinking of having children in the previous ways think twice! The problem with all of these ways is that the child doesn't have one of their own parents at home. Many children whose parents have got divorced have told how their childhood ended in parental divorce. Similarly, many children have publicly expressed their longing for a missing parent. There have also been TV shows where children are looking for their missing parent. This shows the importance of both parents for the children. Those who have themselves grown up in a homosexual family have also criticized the practice of depriving a child of the right to a father or mother in this way; invoking equality between adults. They are deprived of the right to one of their parents. Jean-Dominique Bunel, who grew up with her lesbian mother and this female partner, tells how he experienced it. He suffered from his father's lack. On the other hand, he also says that if a gender-neutral marriage had already been in place during his growing up, 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. (10)
The second comment continues on the same subject. The lack of a father or mother is the reason why children raised in a homosexual environment find it difficult. The point is not that a single homosexual parent could not function well in his or her role as a parent, but that in this setting the child is left from the beginning and on purpose without the presence of another biological parent:
Robert Oscar Lopez (2012) criticizes the rhetoric of homophobia as prejudiced and narrow-minded, because it also labels people like him as homophobic, who grew up in a lesbian couple's home, lived a large part of their lives in a homosexual culture, but who still oppose gender-neutral marriage because they feel it violates the rights of the child to father and mother. According to Lopez, it is difficult to be labeled as homophobic just because he openly says that he experienced the lack of a father as difficult while growing up in the home of his mother and her female partner. "Whether a same-sex couple seeks to replicate the model of heterosexual parenting through surrogacy, artificial insemination, divorce, or commercialized adoption, they are taking many moral risks. Children, who find themselves in the midst of these moral risks, are well aware of their parents' role in creating a stressful and emotionally complex life that separates them from cultural traditions such as Father's and Mother's Day. The position of children is made difficult, when they are called 'homophobic' simply because they suffer from – and admit it – the natural stress imposed on them by their parents. (Lopez 2013.) (11)
So the ideal is for the child to have both parents at home to take care of the child. 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 in which there are children. This is the selfishness and thoughtlessness of adults towards children. In France, many homosexuals themselves have taken a stand on this matter. They see that a gender-neutral marriage law violates a child’s right to a father and mother. That is why they oppose gender-neutral marriage:
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. (12)
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. (13)
Hervé Jourdan: A child is a fruit of love and he or she must stay as the fruit of love. (14)
4. "Equal marriage" and action within the church. As is well known, the vigorous demanders of justice have advocated “equal marriage,” or so-called gender-neutral marriage within the church. These people believe they are advanced, loving, and fighting for human rights when they are doing so. But how is it in the light of the Bible? These people may know the Bible, but in this area they do not honor the teachings of Jesus and the apostles he ordained. There is not even one passage in the Bible that says homosexual relationships good. Friendship and love between members of the same sex, of course, is a good thing, but in many Bible verses we are told that the homosexual behavior is wrong. Thus, people who defend homosexual behavior have an imaginary god that has nothing to do with that God who has revealed Himself in the Bible and in the person of Jesus. In addition, if e.g. the following Bible verses are true, these people lead others to hell because of their false compassion:
- (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.
Nonetheless, most of the aspirations of vigorous demanders of justice in this area will come true. It is foretold in the Bible, that is, how apostasy will occur (2 Thess 2:3: 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first …) and also through modern-day prophets. David Wilkerson stated in his well-known book Näky (The Vision) in the early 1970s what would happen. It can be said that the prophecy has actually come true:
There are two forces that prevent gays from dedicating themselves completely to their sin: society does not accept them and the church's teachings are against them. But these barriers will disappear, when society no longer resists their sin and deems it abnormal, but on the contrary encourages them to continue, and when the church no longer preaches about their sin, but supports them in their sexual activities. The floodgates will open, and the gays will be encouraged to continue in their sin. I have seen in my vision that these two obstacles will be wiped away and when they are taken away, chaos will follow. (15)
5. The experience of the wrong sex. Recently in the media has repeatedly been raised how some people have received the wrong sex in their birth, or how there are actually many genders. The vigorous demanders of justice have also taken up this issue, believing that this will help these people. So, how is this matter? Certainly no one can be born into the wrong sex, but dissatisfaction with one’s own gender, like other things within ourselves, can be common. Dissatisfaction with ourselves can manifest itself e.g. in the following ways:
• Eating disorders such as Anorexia nervosa are a good example. In anorexia nervosa, a person may feel obese, even if he/she is absolutely skinny. A person's body image is distorted and he/she believes he/she is happier when being lean.
• Heavy drug and alcohol use often stems from strong feelings and thoughts of inferiority. A person uses substances to get rid of his/her weakness, feelings of inferiority and negative thoughts.
• Plastic surgery is caused by dissatisfaction with one's own body. Sometimes it can achieve good results when an aesthetic aspect that is considered ugly is removed. However, that doesn't always happen, instead a person may remain under the power of the image that has dominated his/her life.
• Men may be dissatisfied with their bodies and try to increase their self-esteem and satisfaction by building muscles.
• A strong focus on achievement can be the result of low self-esteem and dissatisfaction with oneself. Workaholism may be a symptom of trying to buy approval from yourself and others.
• Self-hate and self-loathing is intense dissatisfaction with oneself. At worst, it can lead to suicide or self-harm. Usually, self-hatred originates from rejection of others and our attitude towards it. Rejection from others does not in itself cause self-hatred, but our own negative thinking is linked to it. On the other hand, if we think rationally, we can be happy even if every person in the world rejects us.
It should therefore be understood that there are psychological factors in the lives of transgender people, but there is nothing wrong with the body itself. The background is similar to psychological factors in eating disorders or other experiences of dissatisfaction with the person themselves. They can often stem from harmful claims or remarks from others. So, many trans people have often the background, where the child has been desired to be of the opposite sex, and this has then impacted on the child's identity and the desire to be the other sex. The following example points to this:
He saw his father coming into the room where he had just been born. Disappointment quickly filled the room and heavily weighed on him. His father looked at him with disgust and said, "Boy again!” Then he turned and rushed away from the room. Loren was their third son, they had been hoping for a girl. Loren "saw" all of this and experienced it again – and this time, understood it both intellectually and emotionally. This rejection explained why Loren had later tried to become a girl, to the great astonishment of the family. He wanted to play with dolls and girls, not with boys. He unconsciously tried to be the girl his father had hoped for. (16)
Therefore, a pertinent question for a person struggling with their gender identity is, “Why do you wait and demand the approval of others for your trans identity, but you don't accept yourself as such you were made?” “Why do you expect approval from others but reject yourself as such you were born?” Where, then, does this matter lead? The vigorous demanders of justice certainly want to sincerely help transgender people and people struggling with their gender identity, but in doing so, they are giving their support to a lie and ignoring the psychological factors behind it. What is also problematic is that when the issue is portrayed in a positive way in the media, children and young people can drift into solutions that they will later regret. They can, when trying to change themselves, drift into irreversible surgeries. This often has sad consequences. A blogger called Musta Orkidea has shared her own experiences:
6. Abortions in contradiction with human rights. As is well known, the vigorous demanders of justice are avid supporters of abortion. One of their claims is that a woman has the right to decide on her body. They also argue that this is a matter of human rights. In addition, they may argue that if abortions are not allowed, they are done illegally anyway and that women’s lives are at stake. But how is it? It is certainly right that we do not belittle anyone’s experiences and be judges of others. We should not make ourselves guilty of this. However, the above arguments are poorly substantiated. First, the claim that in abortion, a woman decides on her own body. This is not the case because it is a child growing up in the mother’s womb. Thus, the child is not part of the mother's body, and abortion does not remove any appendage-like part or lump of tissue, but destroys the living child. The fact that it is a child is a scientific and biological fact that cannot be denied. This was acknowledged in a recent study asking 5,577 biologists around the world when life begins. Of these, 96 percent said it begins with fertilization (Erelt, S., Survey asked, 5,577 biologists when human life begins. 96% said conception; lifenews.com, 11 July 2019). Similarly, the Geneva Declaration of the World Medical Association in 1948, when the unethical behavior of Nazi doctors had been exposed, stated that human life begins with fertilization: "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 the threat." What about human rights? In abortion it is indeed a question of human rights, but the rights of children to live. The right of parents to kill their children, whether in or outside the womb, must instead be regarded as an injustice. Or should parents be given the right to kill children as young as 2 weeks or 2 years old? If the own logic of abortion supporters is followed, this should be their human right. Fortunately, this has not yet been achieved. What about illegal abortions and the harm they cause? Of course they come forth. However, speeding can also cause people to die and be injured. Or people may be killed in ordinary life. However, hardly any sensible person would say that for this reason speeding should be allowed or killing adult people should be made legal. Aren’t the laws just for the sake of protecting people? This should also be the case for unborn children. The issue has also been discussed in newspapers. I myself took part in it through the following writing, which was an answer to one politician (in this writing I only use the designation person X). She appealed to women’s human rights, as is so often the case, yet completely ignoring children’s human rights.
Abortions are in contradiction with human rights Person X from the Socialist party pointed out (27.9) the actions of politicians in the case of Timo Soini. The article referred, among other things, to the human rights and dignity of women. I agree with the importance of human rights, but the question is, what is meant by this. Value Liberals argue that human rights in this case specifically mean the right to kill their children in the womb of the mother. Instead, I see for myself that it is precisely this point of view that is opposed to equality and nullifies children's human rights, that is, the right of children to live. It is pointless to claim that in an abortion, a woman decides on her own body or that a piece of tissue is taken away. It destroys a living child. Most abortions are performed at 8. weeks (2 months), when children have the same body members as we do: hands, feet, eyes, mouth. So it is certainly a human being. Of course, I understand that an unexpected pregnancy can be a difficult thing, and I don’t want to belittle anyone’s experiences. However, that does not change the fact that this is a real person. It is advisable to look at ultrasound images of 2-3 month old fetuses. Secondly, I ask politicians a question. Do you think it is the subject of the celebration - as many celebrated the relaxation of Irish abortion law - if a similar law is passed that entitles parents to kill children aged 2 weeks or older? For if the killing of children in the womb is accepted, why not outside it as well? The only difference is the child's place of residence and size difference. Fortunately, politicians are not always consistent in their reasoning and have not taken this step. Maybe that time will come later. I will also raise the case of India. There especially girls are killed in the womb and as a result there are about 914 women per thousand men in India. This was reported in the news some years ago. So I ask, is this a right of women when girls are killed and there are not enough wives for men? Who would explain this? Or why don’t women’s rights defenders take a stand on such activities? Finally, about the development of society. Person X spoke in a negative tone about conservatism, but is the current generation better than the previous ones? Let's look at the children again. The latest news reported: “Young people's minds are shaken… Referrals to specialist psychiatric care have increased sharply”. This shows the wrong direction of development. So we should not consider our own generation better than previous generations, when many factors suggest opposite. (ESS on 2 October 2018) Jari Iivanainen Lahti
Don't stay in your current state! Many of the issues raised by the vigorous demanders of justice have been addressed above. They have certainly been sincere in their goals and we should appreciate them, even if we disagree. However, many of their goals have been and are a weakening especially for children. This has certainly been due to the fact that the vigorous demanders of justice have strongly advocated models that undermine ordinary family life (it is worth remembering that in the late 1960s, when the so-called sexual revolution began, only 5% of children were born out of wedlock. Now the figure is over 50%) . Thus, children’s mental disorders and nausea have multiplied in a few decades, as previous news showed. Similarly, society's costs have risen. However, you, who have driven harmful lifestyles, do not stay in your current state! If you have defended injustice in good faith or in any sense, confess this and your other sins to God. He has a good will for you, and he does not want any evil for you, but that your soul would be saved and that you would get forgiveness. However, the condition is that everyone must first take a step towards God and towards Jesus. By receiving and welcoming Jesus into your life, you can be forgiven of everything. You can pray, for example, as follows:
THE PRAYER OF SALVATION: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.
References:
1. Matti Joensuu: Avoliitto, avioliitto ja perhe, p. 12-14 2.Ryan T. Anderson: Truth overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. 3. Tapio Puolimatka: Seksuaalivallankumouksen uskonnolliset juuret, p. 47 4. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 104 5. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 131 6. Lesboidentiteetti ja kristillisyys, p. 87, Seta julkaisut 7. Sinikka Pellinen: Homoseksuaalinen identiteetti ja kristillinen usko, p. 77, Teron kertomus 8. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132 9. Ari Puonti: Homoseksuaalisuus – hämmennyksestä selkeyteen, p. 101 10. Jean-Marc Guénois: “J’ai été élevé par deux femmes”, Le Figaro 1.10.2013 11. Tapio Puolimatka: Lapsen ihmisoikeus, oikeus isään ja äitiin, p. 28,29 12. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 94 13. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 210 14. Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard: Homosexuel contre le marriage pour tous (2013), Deboiris, p. 212 15. David Wilkerson: Näky (The Vision) 16. Leanne Payne: Särkynyt minäkuva, p. 84, 85
About Abortion. Learn why abortion is wrong and a murder. It is not about a woman’s right to decide on her body but about killing a child in the womb 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
Homosexuality and being freed from it. What causes homosexuality, its underlying factors and can one get rid of it?
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
About Abortion. Learn why abortion is wrong and a murder. It is not about a woman’s right to decide on her body but about killing a child in the womb 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
Homosexuality and being freed from it. What causes homosexuality, its underlying factors and can one get rid of it?
|
