conversion therapy, legislation, MPs

Adding or removing human rights?

Learn how wrong legislative initiatives and laws do cause harm and reduce freedom of speech and religion

The following is a message sent to Finnish MPs, which I sent because I am concerned about a few new legislative initiatives and their impact on the church and society. These legislative initiatives concern the so-called conversion therapies and abortion. (There is also a bit of a vaccine matter at the end.) I see, for example, that the first law would lead to a narrowing of the freedom of action of parishes and also to unnecessary suffering and an increase in the costs to society. The authors of this bill believe they will help people, but in reality they are leading people on a path that will destroy the physical health and lives of many. At the same time, society’s costs are rising as a result of wrong lifestyles and ideologies.

Why, then, are harmful laws being made in society that are against God’s will? Personally, I see the biggest reason that the Christian faith has lost its meaning. Today, there is talk of “Western values,” but they are quite different from decades ago. For in previous decades, for example, Christian sexual morality was respected more, but now it is not so, and norms are sought elsewhere than in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I do not think there is any ambiguity about that. Childhood nausea and mental problems have grown all the time as families break up and the teaching on the permanence of marriage is no longer respected and that sex is only right in a marriage between a husband and wife. As a result of incorrect lifestyles, society's social and other costs have also increased considerably.

The direction of the boat in these matters is unlikely to be reversed. The power of public opinion, once misled, is so great that the current easily takes everyone with it. It’s hard to disagree because you’re not very popular if you express opposing opinions. However, it is worth noting that public opinion is not always right. For example, in the late 1930s, more than 90 percent of young people in Germany belonged to the Hitler Jugend youth organization, but they were certainly wrong. Although they were popular at the time, history has shown them to be badly misled.

In any case, the following is a message I sent to MPs:

Honorable MP! It is unfortunate to bother you and waste your precious time. I wouldn’t care to write either unless I was worried about a few things. However, I raise them because they relate to legislation and work in Parliament. The background is my own worldview; I am a Christian who believes in Jesus (a former atheist and a value liberal), that is, I look at the world and its development through my own worldview, and how legislative decisions affect the workings of churches. I understand that most MPs do not share my worldview, but I still hope for an understanding towards the views I have put forward.

The legislative initiative of conversion therapies. Recently, two citizens' legislative initiatives have been on the table: the so-called conversion therapy and the so-called abortion law. I will take a stand on both. (Also, there’s a bit of a vaccine matter at the end.)

First, the designation of conversion therapy. This is a term used by the media because parishes almost never use such a term. Instead, the ordinary Christian faith has always used the words sin, temptation, and sanctification. So why use a term that is not used in congregations?

Secondly, I am concerned about the consequences of such a bill. Legislators and everyone should understand that the Christian faith is and has always based on voluntariness. No one is forced to follow Jesus or follow what Jesus and the apostles taught. That is, if someone does not want to give up their homosexual lifestyle, for example (this is exactly the subject of this bill), it is his choice and should be respected.

However, there are hundreds of people in churches and elsewhere who may have a homosexual (or other) tendency and who do not want to live according to their tendency because they understand it to be a sin or a harmful way of life (e.g. 1 Kor 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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.). What if such a person wants intercession and pastoral care for the cause, and then the priest helps this person with prayer and pastoral care? Are they both prosecuted or the priest prosecuted for this activity? If the legislative initiative materializes, it will inevitably result in either the priest or the seeker being prosecuted, even if the seeker himself wants to give up his homosexual lifestyle. (Of course, Jesus Himself warned in advance that going to justice could be one of the consequences of following him: Matt 10: 17-19: 17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will whip you in their synagogues; And you shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. 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.)

There is an obvious danger here. The authors of the legislative initiative are depriving people of the fundamental right to decide for themselves how they want to live. I see this bill as a serious restriction on religious freedom and human rights. This bill follows, for example, Islamic countries where converting from Muslim to Christianity is illegal (Similarly, it was dangerous in communist countries to convert to Christianity and live as a Christian). While the authors of the legislative initiative are talking about human rights, they are actually eliminating them. They don’t want to respect people’s own decision to live the way they want. I think this kind of attitude is a sign of people’s evil and narrow-mindedness.

Pastor Ari Puonti, who himself has a homosexual background, wrote years ago about the narrow-minded attitude that manifests itself in this matter. Free discussion on the subject is difficult because it results in severe pressure and blackmail. (Just remember the case of bisexual Anni a few years ago. She was been severely attacked and wanted to be silenced because she wanted to give up her homosexual lifestyle.)

It is clear that all homosexuals are not seeking for a way to change their sexual orientation, and these people should not be forced to do so. The problem is actually different now: prior to the 1970s, all homosexuals were offered change therapy but now it is not given even to those who want it. The worst antagonist towards change therapy and the largest oppressor towards all homosexuals who want to become whole is the gay movement that systematically tries to prevent any discussion about change therapy in the academic and psychotherapeutic circles. The oppressed have become the oppressors.

Their tactics include sabotaging change therapy lectures and threatening change therapists with imposition from abroad. Free discussion is difficult because many people are afraid of becoming threatened and vilified by gay activists. (1)

The authors of the legislative initiative increase people’s suffering and society’s costs

- (Matt 23:13) But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither go in yourselves, neither suffer you them that are entering to go in.

Above it was mentioned legislative initiative concerning the so-called convertion theraphies and their prohibition. Related to this is the desire to prohibit all forms of soul care and therapy in which a person himself seeks help when he seeks an ordinary heterosexual lifestyle or identity. The authors of the legislative initiative do not want such people to receive help, but want to deny it to them, citing e.g. that there are psychological disadvantages.

But but. What is harmful and what is good for human health? Have the authors of the legislative initiative ever taken into account that if a person stays in a homosexual lifestyle or adopts a transideology, it can be many times more dangerous to human health than being freed from these things? In practice, the authors of the legislative initiative lead people on a path that destroys the physical health and lives of many. The reasons are as follows:

• Sex- and other diseases (including Korona) are spread through sex, which homosexuals have more than average. For example, AIDS, which costs about € 20,000 a year per patient, is one such disease. It started in the United States in the 1980s mainly among homosexuals. Changing lifestyles makes this disease easier to avoid and people themselves benefit from it. Professor David Deming has written on:

The fact that two-thirds of cases of syphilis and AIDS concerns one percent of the population clearly shows that homosexuality is not a safe choice ... I am disturbed by hypocrisy. Many ardent supporters of the homosexual agenda condemn opponents of mandatory vaccinations. They remind us that vaccinations serve the common good by reducing disease. But they do not accept that the reduction in homosexuality achieves the same goal ... We are constantly told about the costs of gun violence, smoking and obesity. What are the costs of homosexuality? How much does it cost to treat syphilis, AIDS and a whole host of other diseases? What price do we have to pay for the fact that syphilis, which was almost defeated, has now been allowed to spread again? (2)

• Mental disorders are another matter. The authors of the legislative initiative propose that the so-called convertion theraphy are harmful, but have they taken into account that homosexuals and transgender people have, on average, more mental health problems than other people? This is not always due to homophobia or transphobia in society, as is easily explained, as these problems also occur in large cities and areas where homosexuality has been welcomed. The Netherlands, for example, is one such country, and extensive research has shown that gay mental health problems are higher there than in the general population (Sanfort, Theo G.M; de Graaf, Ron; Bijl, Rob V. ja Schnabel, Paul: ”Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)” Archives of General Psychiatry 2001, Vol.58,No.1, s. 85-91).

Another extensive study points in the same direction. It tells how lesbians have had a lot of depression and mental health problems in their lives:

A research team managed by Judith Badford (1994) recruited 1,925 lesbians for their study through homosexual organisations, healthcare centres and lesbian magazines. The researchers stated that it was the most thorough study on lesbians done in the US thus far.

Almost three in four (73%) of the lesbians were in therapy at the time of the study or had previously gotten help from some sort of a mental health professional. The most common reasons for the therapy were depression (50%), problems with a lover (44%) or family (34%) and being a lesbian (21%). 37% of the respondents had experienced a long period of depression or grief at some point in their lives. 68% of the respondents stated that they had some sort of problems with their mental health in the past, such as long-term depression, grief, anxiety or fears. The prevalence of depression is not explained by the homophobia of society alone, as only 12% of lesbians expressed concern about whether people knew them to be lesbians. (3)

What can be deduced from the above? When the authors of the legislative initiative want to deny people from seeking help, they are also loosing the best source of help, that is, the love of God. That is, when a person understands God’s grace and love, he begins to heal from the burdens and weighty things of the past. Sometimes God can change a person’s innermost being in one moment, but usually change and healing is a process.

• What about alcohol and drugs? Millions and millions who have turned to God and Jesus have been freed from these substances as well as from crimes. In addition, they have begun to heal from the wounds of the past, which are often behind the use of substances.

Many homosexuals have the same problem. Many of them have alcohol or drug addiction, for which God’s transforming power would be a good help. However, when the authors of the legislative initiative do not believe in God’s transforming power in the realm of sexuality or the rest of life, they push these people deeper and deeper into substance use and wrong lifestyles. For example, in the book “Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health” (1998), Robert P. Capaj describes how chemical abuse is common among gay men and lesbians:

Most studies (...), reports (...), surveys (...) and healthcare professionals who have worked with gays and lesbians estimate that around 30%, varying between 28 and 35%, of homosexual people abuse some chemical substance. Among the general population, around 10–12% of people are substance abusers. (...) The figures are significantly similar in urban and rural areas, among different socioeconomic groups, in the United States and other countries – even though some differences in substance abuse do occur. (4)

• What about life expectancy? It is a fact that it is very much affected by lifestyles: tobacco, alcohol, drugs, overeating and mental health problems, etc. If a person gets rid of these addictions and problems, his or her lifespan is likely to be longer. In addition, there are a wide variety of associations (AA movement, Get Off Drugs…), courses, and advice on how to get rid of these issues. Indeed, some can succeed in their goals, and that will increase their life expectancy.

Many homosexuals and bisexuals have the same problem. Their life expectancy is also lower than normal. Part of the reason for this is AIDS and other diseases that are spread through sexual intercourse. (Fortunately, the situation has improved due to AIDS drugs). The following quote tells more about the subject. The authors of the legislative initiative claim to be concerned about these people, but that does not seem to be the case, as they are pushing people further and further into a lifestyle that is detrimental to health and can shorten people’s lives.

The probability of bisexual and homosexual men living from the age of 20 to 65 ranged from 32 to 59 percent. These figures are significantly lower than for other men in general, who had a 78 percent probability of living from the age of 20 to 65. Conclusion: In a large Canadian city, the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men in their 20s is 8 to 20 years lower than that of other men. If the same trend in mortality continued, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men now 20 years old will not reach their 65th birthday. Even according to the most liberal expectations, gay and bisexual men in this urban center currently have the same life expectancy as all men in Canada in 1871. (International Journal of Epidemiology Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay andBisexual men; International Journal of Epidemiology; Vol 26, No 3, s. 657)

• Above it was mentioned the legislative initiative concerning the so-called convertion theraphies and their prohibition. It also involves the idea of gender identity; that is, it is desired to prohibit all forms of pastoral care and therapy in which a person himself seeks help in the pursuit of ordinary heterosexual identity. The authors of the legislative initiative do not want such people to get help, but want to deny it to them, citing e.g. that there are psychological disadvantages.

But what are the consequences of transideology and if a person does not accept his or her own sex which he or she got at birth? The authors of the legislative initiative do not take any account of the health disadvantages of this ideology. Often the result is the so-called sex-correction surgeries, in which is amputated healthy body members and is used hormones for the rest of life. (It is remarkable that many criticize circumcision of girls for good reason, but at the same time support transideology that leads to the same type of outcome. Here is an obvious contradiction). These people become lifelong users of hormones, as a result of which they can suffer serious physical ailments such as bone loss, cancer, infertility, heart disease, venous thrombosis, blood clot, liver damage… In addition, mental health problems and suicide risk are multiple for those who have undergone these surgeries. The risk of suicide in adulthood is almost 20 times higher than in the rest of the population. This has also been noted in Sweden, where gender ideology is the most advanced (5).

The following quote tells the sad story of where this ideology leads. It's about a blogger named Musta Orkidea. She sees that in transgender ideology, it is a question of a mental problem, not a physical problem. She compares it to anorexia, in which a person's image of herself / himself is distorted:

“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])

It is a matter of a world of thought and lust. It was highlighted above how people can have addictions and cravings such as craving for tobacco, craving for alcohol, drug addiction, and overeating. Likewise, porn addiction, a tendency to anger, or a tendency to fear people are lusts and tendencies that can disrupt our lives. Everyone has these false tendencies that try tend to guide our lives. There are also psychiatrists in society who work in these areas and try to help people get rid of their addictions. Likewise, in churches it can be prayed for people to be free from their addictions.

What about homosexuality and a distorted gender identity in which a person does not accept his or her own sex which was got at birth? They, too, are matters of lust or world of thought. It is remarkable that the authors of the bill pay attention only to the latter two issues, for which they want to ban conversion therapies, but they do not want to ban conversion therapies related to the former, such as trying to get rid of alcoholism, drugs, overweight or bad condition. Why do they protect these two tendencies or lusts, even though many people themselves want to get rid of their shackles because they are destroying the lives of these people? In addition, these lifestyles and ideologies will have a large (tens of thousands of euros) financial cost to societies such as drug treatments (AIDS drugs, surgeries, and lifelong hormone therapies). The actions of the authors of the bill are not logical.

What about getting rid of these things? Of course you can. (These things are not congenital like the colour of the skin acquired at birth. For example, most homosexuals do not believe that their tendency is inborn. Their comments on the subject can be found in my article Gender-neutral marriage and children, for example). It does not usually mean that a person is one hundred percent free from these things in his world of thought, but that he does not have to live according to his inclination and lust. This is the case with all other lusts and tendencies as well. Yes, they bully us, and sometimes we can fall, but they don’t have to control our whole lives. In addition, we should make our own choices about how we feed our minds. For example, if someone has a tendency to watch porn, it is definitely best for him or her to give up TV and the internet, which can so easily bind our lives and take up all our time. This applies to both ordinary heterosexual lust (Matt 5:28: But I say to you, That whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.) Both are wrong in the eyes of God.

I would also like to emphasize that I think everyone is free to make choices in their own lives. I am not interested in people's private lives except that I hope that every person will receive Jesus into his life so that he will have eternal life (Jesus said: "Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And you will not come to me, that you might have life, John 5: 39,40). Instead, I am concerned about the loss of religious freedom and freedom of expression, to which direction I see our society going, and as one example of which I see this legislative initiative.

Abortion law. I will also take a stand on another topic that arouses emotions, i.e. the so-called to the abortion law, which tries to make getting an abortion even easier. I understand that due to years of brainwashing by the media, people's attitudes are very locked in this matter. They feel hostile if opposing arguments are presented on this matter, which I myself have presented.

In this matter, however, we have to stick to the truth, not a lie. The first lie is that, in connection with abortion, we talk about the right to self-determination or a woman's right to decide about her body. Yes, these are good things, but they do not fit in this context, when the child is already growing in the mother's womb. For the fact is that human life always begins at conception, not at birth. It is a scientific fact that cannot be denied. This was also acknowledged in a recent study that asked 5,577 biologists around the world when human life begins. 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).

In addition, aborted children have the same body members as adults: hands, feet, eyes, mouth, etc., so it is certainly a child and a human, only smaller in size than a newborn child or an adult. This is factual information to which e.g. the following quote refers to:

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.” (Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970)

What if abortion proponents ’own logic is followed? In that case, the killing of children a couple of weeks old, a couple of months old or 5 years old should also be allowed. Why has this not yet been done, because the child, both in the womb and outside it, is always a child and a human? In both cases, there may be the same reason: the parents do not want the child, but want to get rid of the child. Fortunately, no such legislation has been enacted, but if you think logically, both options should be allowed or both should be banned. However, it is difficult to imagine how a change could take place in the Western world on this abortion issue because people’s attitudes are so locked in and because each of us (including legislators) fears criticism from others and wants to be popular with people. We act like the people of Jesus' day: These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. (John 12:41-43).

The vaccine case. Finally, let's talk about the issue of vaccines and the vaccine passport. Personally, I have received both corona vaccines and they did not become bad symptoms for me. In addition, I go to a pray meeting, and even there everyone has received both vaccines and they value them.

Why am I taking a stand on this? One reason is that vaccines do not seem to be suitable for everyone, but can be life-threatening or otherwise harmful. This became apparent through a good friend of mine whose four acquaintances have had severe symptoms from vaccines. The mildest symptoms were in his acquaintance, whose hand became sore from the vaccine (1st vaccine), so that he could no longer reach out his hand. As a result, this person was afraid to take another coroner vaccine because he thought it would make the situation worse.

Instead, the symptoms of the other three of his acquaintances began immediately after the second vaccine, and were much more severe, leading each of them to hospitalization. I first heard about these serious symptoms of his acquaintances as early as the summer. I don’t exactly remember everyone’s symptoms exactly, but just last Monday, this friend of mine told me when I met him that one of his acquaintances had already been hospitalized five times because he had severe headaches, vomiting, and other symptoms that started within a couple of days of taking the second vaccine. A friend told me that this acquaintance was losing his desire of life because of these pains and other symptoms.

However, the surprise came the very next day on Tuesday (28.9) when my friend called me. Now it was a question of his another acquaintance. The wife of this acquaintance called my friend and told the grief news about her husband; her husband (age 56 years old, in good condition who made still long bike rides in the spring) was dead. He had died the previous Wednesday. He, too, had had headaches, vomiting, blurred vision before his death, and he accumulated fluid and each organ after another ceased to function. These symptoms began immediately after the second vaccine.

Yes, there were real-life examples that vaccines can be harmful to some people. These examples are also one reason why many are afraid to take the vaccine. The reason does not have to be any conspiracy theories, but they may have such cases in their immediate circle, or they themselves may have a stronger-than-usual allergy or other sensitivity that makes them afraid to take the vaccine. One of my acquaintances, on the other hand, does not want the corona vaccine because a couple of years ago he got his hand sore from the flu vaccine so that he could not bend it in the upper position (only now, after several months, his hand is starting to be fine). He does wear a mask and is otherwise wary of corona, but does not want to take the vaccine because he fears it will worsen the condition of his hand.

From here it is a good idea to move on to the vaccine passport issue. I understand that the purpose behind this matter is good, but is it necessary? Does it make sense to divide people into categories a and b? I do not consider it a good idea for the development of society. The reasons are e.g. the following things:

• First, the current situation. So far, it has been resolved without a vaccine passport, and this passport will hardly improve the situation much at this stage. Vaccine coverage is already close to 80%. Also Many of those who are not planning to get the vaccine e.g. for the reasons mentioned above, are careful about the matter and continue of wearing the mask.

• As I said, the vaccine passport divides people into categories a and b. It can lead to discrimination and other annoyances, especially among young people. This measure could prevent the unvaccinated from gaining access to public events, gyms, swimming pools and so on. It could prevent unvaccinated 12-year-olds from entering a hobby site, although no serious consequences of corona have usually been observed in their age group.

• In yesterday's Etelä-Suomen sanomat newspaper (9.10), there was news that the representatives of the event industry considered the best solution if there were no restrictions or a corona passport. The news said:

There is still a desire among the main organizers of large public events in Finland that there is no need to introduce a corona passport. However, if pandemic restrictions are not yet got away, a corona passport is the way and tool to organize events despite the restrictions, emphasizes Tomi Saarinen, CEO of Live Nation Finland.

- "In principle, this industry and we hope that there will be no more corona restrictions. Of course, the best situation is the one where no passport is needed and we return to the old normal.

Riku Kallioniemi, CEO of the Finnish Hockey League, sees the situation as follows:

- I do not think that a corona passport is necessary here and now, but it makes sense to prepare for the future…

• One problem is that the effectiveness of vaccines decreases over time. There has been news of this recently, and therefore vaccinated and non-vaccinated people may be in almost the same situation in a few years' time, so that both may become seriously ill (influenza vaccinations are given every year as vaccines become less effective and new forms of influenza emerge). The vaccine passport may therefore be useless in a few years' time if the vaccines are no longer effective. In addition, both vaccinated and no-vaccinated can already spread the disease. A vaccine passport would not prevent the spread of the virus.

Here were the concerns and thoughts I have. I hope something stays in your mind.

Respecting and blessing you

Regards Jari Iivanainen

REFERENCES:

1. Ari Puonti: Homoseksuaalisuus – hämmennyksestä selkeyteen, p. 130

2. David Deming: The Gay Agenda and the Real World, American Thinker, December 19, 2015.

3. Ari Puonti: Homoseksuaalisuus – hämmennyksestä selkeyteen, p. 121,122

4. Robert P. Capaj: ”Substance Abuse in Gay Men, Lesbians and Bisexuals” teoksessa Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, toim. Robert P. Capaj ja Terry S. Stein. 1998, 783-784. Washington, London: American Psychiatric Press Inc

5. Dhejne C et.al: Long-term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery - Cohort Study in Sweden.” Plos ONE 2011; 6 (2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neurosciene, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.