sexpo foundation, sex, sexuality, transsexuality

Letter to the Sexpo Foundation

Read how the false teaching about sexuality that the Sexpo Foundation promotes increases the suffering of children in particular.

The following is a letter that I sent to the representatives of the Sexpo Foundation. This foundation is focused on sex education and sex, but its representatives have little respect for the usual Christian teaching on sexuality. Before my turning to Jesus, I myself thought about these things almost in the same way as the representatives of Sexpo, so I have not been, and am no better than anyone else. I hope, however, that the next few lines will make you think about these things from a new perspective; especially in terms of how adult choices can affect children and their well-being.

Dear repsesentatives of Sexpo

This is Jari Iivanainen from Lahti. I am a former atheist and evolutionist, but now I believe in God and Jesus Christ. This is my background with which I approach you. However, I am not approaching to accuse or bark at you, but to bring up a few important points about sexual issues.

I understand that you must have prejudices and negative preconceived notions about people like me who represent the Christian faith. I don't blame you or anyone else for that, because I used to be the same when I was an atheist. I denied the existence of God and was quite sure of my own beliefs, so if I have been like that myself, why would I accuse others of the same?

So why am I writing to you? The reason is that I am concerned about the trends in society that I see you represent to some extent. I will therefore go straight to the point and bring up a few issues, specifically related to sexuality.

Sex outside of marriage and its impact on children.. First, a little word about children’s well-being and mental health. This area has been going in a worse direction all the time. The position of children is getting worse and their nausea has increased. I will highlight a few news items that show the direction of development. Firstly, the news from Helsingin Sanomat from 1996. According to it, child nausea was already on the rise at that time:

Children's distress and problems are increasing. One reason may be the recession of recent years.

More and more families are visiting family counseling centers seeking help for their children's restlessness, antisocial behavior, unusual disruptiveness, low mood and maladjustment.

A typical client is a 7-8 year old boy who is disobedient, aggressive, restless, pilfers and harasses others.

Children have to be alone too much. A 10-year-old child may be contemplating suicide. (Helsingin sanomat 16.12.1996)

However, the bad development did not remain in the 1990s. The following news shows how the development has gone from bad to worse. Children's mental health problems have increased drastically. The first of the following news specifically refers to the 1990s, when the problems were already bad, but years later, children's problems had increased considerably:

A billion soon for institutional care for children and young people.

Children's problems have escalated drastically since the beginning of the 1990s

… 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)

“Violence among children is becoming more common …Aggressiveness of small children has increased in Finland (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 20.11.2013)

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, then, are the causes of mental health problems and increased malaise in children? I am convinced that the biggest reason is that an increasing number of children are born out of wedlock. For I myself was born in the 1960s, when only 5% of children were born out of wedlock, but now around 55% of children are born out of wedlock. (Back in 1990, the figure was 25.2%.) In my opinion, this development has been a clear weakening from the point of view of children, because the commitment of parents to each other is a key factor in terms of children's well-being. If it is not there, the children will not be well.

Because of this, I see that the children born in the 1960s were in a safer and better position than the children of today, more and more of whom have to live in single-parent families or new families. Favoring sex outside of marriage is not good for children.

Because of the same thing, society's social costs and housing allowances have grown enormously. Because the more families break up and the more wrong models are favored, the more housing subsidies, subsistence allowances and other subsidies have to be paid to correct the situation. This is shown by the following news.

Divorce is costly for many

Economist Pasi Sorjonen of Nordea Bank wonders why the financial impact of divorces is not discussed much even though divorces are very common and the financial impact caused by a divorce can be great for the people involved.

A study by Nordea Bank suggests that a divorce can lower the living standard of a family even more than unemployment. It is a very extensive social phenomenon: almost half of marriages now end in divorce.

"Divorces are very costly to the society," says Executive Director Heljä Sairisalo of the Finnish single-parent family association.... (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 25 January 2011)

The rate of giving allowances is accelerating in Finland… Housing allowance is being paid at a more and more rapid rate. In November Kela paid public housing allowances for over 93 million euros, when the same amount last year in November was a little under 87 million euros and in the year before that it was 65 million euros. The total sum of the money that goes into public housing allowances has doubled in the 21^thcentury.. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat 8.1.2017)

I will also mention a quote from Matti Joensuu's book Avoliitto, avioliitto, perhe. He described a development that began in the 1960s, the fruits of which we are now reaping in the form of increased sickness in children and increased costs for society. Back then, in the late 1960s, sex was mainly tied only to marriage, but people began to appear who defended extramarital relationships with love ("There can't be anything wrong with it if both love each other"). They wanted to disconnect sex from marriage. This led to poor development for children:

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.... "Love in the name of the law" was the headline of a radio program that presented legal marriage and true love as opposites. (1)

Dear representatives of Sexpo! If sex is separated from marriage, it is a bad trend for children, as it was found out. In addition, sex outside the marriage of a man and a wife is wrong before God. You may not believe this, but I personally think that the following lessons about marriage apply to all people. They highlight e.g. that marriage should last until death (I understand of course that if there is serious violence in the union, it can be an exceptional case), that God hates abandonment, and that to avoid the sins of fornication, everyone should have their own spouse. In addition, spouses are guided to fulfill each other's sexual needs.

So, sexuality in itself is not a bad thing, but the following verses show its proper limits in the relationship between husband and wife in marriage. This is also best for children if the parents are committed to each other. We are fools if we are eternal beings but do not consider the following verses:

- (Hebr 13:4) Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

- (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.

- (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 7:39) The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

- (Mal 2:14-16) Yet you say, Why? Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously: yet is she your companion, and the wife of your covenant.

15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And why one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, said that he hates putting away: for one covers violence with his garment, said the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that you deal not treacherously.

Sexual minorities. Then to another matter, i.e. homosexuality. Your page had the following mention: "Sexpo marches together with sex workers and the Pro support point in the Helsinki Pride parade". Of course, I understand that your intention is good. You want to defend the "discriminated", i.e. people living in homosexuality. I used to think the same way myself.

But what causes the homosexual tendency? Is it innate as is often thought? I haven't seen any articles where this topic has been discussed in depth in the columns of magazines (even though the theory of innateness has been repeatedly debunked in conferences dealing with the issue, in twin studies, and even though many homosexuals themselves do not believe in this theory.). I myself understand and am convinced that homosexuality is not innate, but has been influenced by other people in the past of a child and young person.

The concept of innateness cannot be supported by studies conducted on twins either. Identical twins have exactly the same genes and the same environment in the womb, yet only one of them can be interested in their own gender. That should not be the case for gene-like factors. The following quote is from a large study on the subject, which was conducted in Canada and involved about 20,000 subjects. It shows that genes and heredity are not a decisive factor in the origin of homosexuality.

A study on twins in Canada showed that social factors are more important than genes…

The research results show that genes do not have any major significance. If one of a pair of identical twins was homosexual, there was a 6.7% probability that the other twin was also interested in people of the same sex. The percentage for non-identical twins was 7.2% and for regular siblings 5.5%. These results strongly disagree with the above-mentioned genetic model for homosexuality.

The environment in which twins grow inside the uterus of their mother is exactly the same for both twins in terms of hormones, and thus the results obtained by Bearman and Brucker disprove the theory that an imbalance in the hormones of the mother during pregnancy causes homosexuality.

(...) Previous twin studies had obtained their subjects at clinics or through homosexual organisations, or otherwise had a limited sample. Bearman and Brucker state that their study is the most reliable one because it was based on a random sampling from a youth study including the entire nation. There were around 20,000 test subjects! Furthermore, the researchers did not rely on what one of a pair of twins said about the twin's sexual orientation: Instead, they went to the other twin and asked them about it. (2)

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 years. Such figures speak volumes about the impact of circumstances and emotional deficiency because 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. (3)

The following quote further reveals how homosexuals generally do not believe in the innateness of their tendencies, but consider growth conditions to be essential:

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.”

I myself am convinced that in homosexuality is usually a question of emotional need that a person is trying to fill. Many have a history of having a difficult relationship with their parents or peers, but sexual abuse has also been common. This has been observed in numerous interview surveys conducted with homosexuals. Quite recent news is related to the topic. It told of sex offenders who had committed child abuse. The news reported that a large number of sex offenders had themselves been victims of a sexual offence as children. This shows that homosexual behaviour can often originate from sexual abuse, by adult towards a child. The cycle continues when those sexually abused as children commit the same thing:

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 the homosexual tendency is not an innate thing, 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. Sexpo also indirectly supports the abuse and sexual exploitation of children in this way. Or isn’t this the right conclusion if sexual abuse and traumatic experiences are at the root of homosexuality? This is a sensible conclusion if it is not a question of inborn tendency but a developmental disorder of a child and adolescent that has arisen as a result of traumatic experiences. However, I do not bother to discuss this further here. I have written about homosexuality, as well as gender-neutral marriage impact on children in many writings on my website.

The importance of gender for adults, what about children? As I said, surely you sincerely want to help people who are discriminated against, such as homosexuals. I believe you have sincere intentions.

However, it must be taken into account that they too can act selfishly like each of us. They too can defend their actions in the name of love, but still act selfishly.

What do I mean by this? Male and female couples cannot have children together, but it is possible through sperm banks, uterus rental or temporary heterosexual relationships. However, this results in a big problem: the child is separated from his biological father or mother from birth. In my opinion, couples who act like this (fertilization treatment for single women also results in the same situation where the child is left without a father) are selfish and thoughtless. They don't think about it in terms of the children, but only in terms of themselves.

It is characteristic that in a gender-neutral relationship, gender is considered important, but it is not considered important for children. It is not considered important that the child has parents of different sexes. Anthony Esolen has drawn attention to this inconsistency, where adults' feelings and desires are more important than children's:

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. (5)

Robert Oscar Lopez, who grew up in a lesbian home, has also taken a stand on how essential it is for a child to have its own father and mother at home. This is the ideal to strive for, and children should not be separated from one parent from birth:

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)

Dear representatives of Sexpo! These are not nice things and I don't want to be anyone's judge. However, things should also be considered from the point of view of children. Sexual behavior can be selfish if it does not take children into account at all. I believe that you certainly want to consider the position of the children as well.

Polygamy and abortions. On your page, there is also a brief reference to polygamy. I don't want to go deeper into it here. However, here it would be worthwhile to think about things from the children's point of view again. Is it in the children's interest that one or both of the child's physical parents are having sex with others? It is quite certain that the children do not wish for this. They want their own father and mother's relationship to remain healthy, and having sex outside of this relationship certainly won't help with that. Such marriages and relationships - and as a result, families - break up much more easily than normal, faithful relationships.

What about abortion? Your website supports the right to abortion. Here, however, I see once again that children's human rights, i.e. children's right to live, are being rejected. So how can it be considered a human right that parents have the right to kill their children? Here I will take a few quotes that deal with the issue and how children are killed through abortion. I consider it a violation of human rights (I have also written about it on my own website in the article "About abortion"):

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.”(7)

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." (8)

The issue has also been discussed in newspaper columns. I myself took part in it through the following post, which was a counterpart to a representative of a Social Democratic party (in this writing I only use the designation person X). She appealed to women's human rights, as is so often the case, while completely ignoring the human rights of children. I hope that this will make you think about it from another point of view as well. I do not want to be anyone's judge, but I think it would be worth considering what is right and wrong in this matter. Is it right to kill a child in or outside the womb ("You shall not kill") if the parents don't want the child?

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

Pedophilia. Your website also mentions pedophilia and refers to e.g. Tapio Puolimatka, who mentioned his concern that the current discussion about sexual rights could lead to acceptance of pedophilia.

Does Tapio Puolimatka have reason to worry? Here you should look in the direction of the Netherlands, for example. Years ago, there was a so-called pedophile party in this country, so this issue has already been brought up in Europe.

(It's worth remembering that Amsterdam in the Netherlands has also been the capital of child pornography production in Europe. Similarly, Amsterdam is a pioneer in other evils. The UN has listed Amsterdam as the number one target for human trafficking, the Netherlands was the first to legalise euthanasia, Amsterdam is the European drug centre and, in addition, Amsterdam has been considered the capital of homosexuals)

Therefore, I believe that when Finland has been following the Netherlands all along, especially in the issue of homosexuality and bringing euthanasia to the fore, we will soon see similar emphases that have already occurred in the Netherlands. The concern of Puolimatka is therefore not necessarily unwarranted.

It is also worth noting that well-known homosexual magazines and executives in homosexual movement abroad have brought this issue, i.e. pederasty and pedophilia, to the fore years ago, as the following quotes show. So when we start to accept forms of sexuality that were previously considered wrong (such as cohabitation, extramarital sex and homosexuality), it can sometimes later lead to the acceptance of pedophilia.

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. (9)

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. (10)

Transgenderism. Your website also refers to transgenderism under the title "New international disease classification: transgenderism and sadomasochism are no longer mental health disorders".

So what is this about? I myself am convinced that transgenderism, i.e. dissatisfaction with one's own gender, is specifically a psychological issue. It is not a remarkable thing in itself, because each of us can be dissatisfied with ourselves in many other areas as well. It can appear 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 is a question of psychological factors in trans stories, but there is nothing wrong with the body itself. The background is similar to psychological factors as in eating disorders or other experiences of dissatisfaction with oneself. They may often originate from the harmful demands or remarks of others. Therefore, many trans people often have a background where the child has been expected to be a representative of the other sex, and this has then affected the child's identity and desire to be the other sex.

(I personally came across such a case last year. A man told about his relative's daughter who had her breast amputated. Since I knew that transsexuality is usually the result of parental dissatisfaction with the child's gender, I immediately asked this man if this had happened to his relative's daughter. He immediately agreed that the girl's father was disappointed with the girl's gender)

The following example refers to this:

Loren, an elegant, handsome forty-year-old man, had been openly homosexual since his youth. This had caused great conflicts between him and his father, and problems in his other relationships. He did not accept himself, but defended his behavior passionately when arguing with his father. He understood that his homosexuality included a grudge and a rebellion towards his father, but he was never able to deal with these. This man had genuinely found Christ and salvation, but he often lost the battle against his homosexual tendency, until God brought into light his first memories. This happened when we asked the Lord to find that recollection that would expose the cause of the problem. During this prayer, he relived an occurrence that took place when he was only just born.

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. (11)

Therefore, the appropriate question for a person struggling with their gender identity is: "Why do you expect and demand the acceptance of others for your trans identity, but you do not accept yourself as what you were made to be?" "Why do you expect acceptance from others, but reject yourself as the person you were born to be?"

So where does this thing lead? Many certainly sincerely want to help trans people and people struggling with their gender identity, but in this way they support a lie and do not take into account the underlying psychological factors.

In addition, it is problematic that when the issue is presented in a positive light in the media, children and young people can drift into decisions that they later regret. They can, when they try to change themselves, drift into irreversible surgeries. This often has sad consequences. A blogger called Musta Orkidea has told about her own experiences:

“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 about intersex? So the fact is that there are only two genders, male and female. There is no such thing as a third gender. Instead, many struggle with their gender identity and its acceptance, but that's a different matter. It involves similar psychological factors that occur in other areas, such as eating disorders. Often they originate from the hurtful words of others and traumatic experiences. However, the positive thing is that over 80% of children who struggle with their gender identity grow out of it, becoming normal men and women. That's why children should be allowed to develop in peace, and not bother their minds with things like this. In that, media representatives have a great responsibility.

(It is good to note that homosexual or bisexual orientation in young people is 25 times more likely to change to heterosexual within a year than vice versa. This was observed in a study among 16-22 year olds (Savin-Williams & Ream 2007: 385 pp.). The study also showed that about 70 percent of 17-year-old boys, who expressed unilateral homosexual interest, expressed unilateral heterosexuality at age 22.)

Therefore, a person's gender and chromosomes cannot be changed, because it is a physical characteristic. A person remains essentially a man and a woman, although the original body may be corrupted as a result of the treatments. In addition, it is questionable to change personal identification numbers if a person's inner wishes are not the same as the gender received at birth. Such measures cause unnecessary extra work for society. Similarly, changing the toilets to gender neutral is questionable. How can you make sure who is serious and who is a pervert who is just taking advantage of the situation?

What about sports competitions? The performance of men and women is different, which is why separate sets for men and women are needed. Many have not taken these kinds of things into account.

What about intersex? This is something that many trans activists take advantage of, but it does not mean some third gender, but a gender developmental disorder. It can mean an abnormality in the genitals (a larger than normal clitoris or a noticeably small penis), the absence of a uterus and ovaries, or that the reproductive organs are so vague that it is impossible to tell which sex the person represents. Such people cannot reproduce.

Intersex is therefore a gender developmental disorder. Similar disorders can happen so that someone is born missing arms, legs or a body part or has only one eye. This can happen, for example, in those areas where there have been strong nuclear fallouts (Hiroshima, Chernobyl). However, these exceptional cases do not prove that it is someone other than a human or that there is a third gender.

Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual health. There is a mention on your website: "Sexpo celebrates World Sexual Health Day!".

This is certainly a good thing, but how can sexual health be improved and STDs reduced?

Surely the most important means is our own behavior. If we follow the aforementioned teaching of Jesus and the apostles, that sex is right only between a man and a wife in marriage, this is the most effective way to reduce sexually transmitted diseases (1 Cor 7:2: Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.). On the other hand, if you practice prostitution and have free sex with many people, this spreads sexually transmitted diseases and other diseases.

For example, AIDS has been a serious problem in Africa, India and elsewhere precisely because people have been sexually reckless. Millions have died as a result of AIDS. The AIDS epidemic that broke out in the USA in the 1980s among male homosexuals is also well-known, because they have many sexual relationships and because they often included anal intercourse. These examples show how wrong sexual behavior increases STDs.

Incorrect sexual behavior also has financial consequences. For example, the medical treatment of one AIDS patient costs around 20,000 euros per year (Heikki Peltola, professor of infectious diseases at Hus Children and Youth Hospital, Helsingin sanomat opinion column). In addition, there are other costs, so it is not exactly a cheap treatment.

Homosexual sex (men) is especially harmful in this sense. Although thousands have marched for this issue, and we understand that people's choices should be respected, this issue also has an impact financially. A very large percentage of sexually transmitted diseases are spread through homosexual relationships. Professor David Deming has written on the subject:

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? (12)

Christian school and sex education. You have also taken a stand on the Lahti Christian school and its sex education on your website. There is a mention on your website in this connection: "Comprehensive and inclusive sex education is a proven way to improve sexual well-being, reduce sexually transmitted diseases and prevent abortions among young people."

But that's exactly what Christian sex education is all about. If it is taught, as is happening at the Christian school in Lahti, it will reduce sexually transmitted diseases and prevent abortions among young people. Instead, the opposite teaching (which you support) leads to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases and abortions. I don't understand how best to reduce these harmful things than by our own behavior, which is based on the New Testament's teaching about sexuality.

You also mention that if you teach, like Jesus and the apostles, about sexual matters, that it is discrimination against sexual minorities. However, that is not what it is about, but right and wrong. Saying that stealing is wrong, that murder is wrong, that extramarital sex is wrong, or that homosexual sex is wrong is not discrimination. Each of us can commit wrongdoings, and if they are pointed out to us, it is not discrimination at all. I think a lot of people don't really understand what this is all about.

You also mention bullying in schools, but you should pay attention to ordinary schools. In them, bullying problems and discrimination are many times worse than in Christian schools. Christian schools are certainly not perfect, but they clearly have fewer problems like this.

Then to another thing. Sexpo declares that it supports a pluralistic society, but is this also true for Christian teaching and people? You seem to only accept SETA's model of sexuality, but you completely reject the traditional Christian teaching on the same issue. In my opinion, this does not represent a multi-valued society, but a single-valued society.

On the other hand, I see the narrowing of freedom of religion and speech as a danger in the current development. We are moving towards a society where no one dares to disagree with e.g. SETA, because it may result in the risk of losing their job or a storm of criticism (Aki Ruotsala's case, Tapio Puolimatka... Some years ago, the bisexual Ann's case was also known, from which a huge uproar. In the opposite case, if someone turns homosexual, such a person is considered a hero and brave. I think this example of Ann's shows even more clearly how bad people are if they get angry about this. It also shows how far they have diverged from the Christian view, which was still mainstream in the 1960s.).

However, the UN Declaration of Human Rights refers to freedom of religion and speech in the following way. This declaration was drawn up after the Second World War, when the unethical actions of the Nazis had been exposed. I hope that you, as representatives of Sexpo, are promoting freedom of faith and speech also towards those of us who think according to the traditional Christian view, and not just towards SETA. Here is an excerpt from the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Dear representatives of Sexpo! (Tiia Forsström, Tommi Paalanen, Tiina Vilponen, Vilho Ahola, Anni Karnaranta, Taru Höykinpuro, Jaana Kauppinen, Nina Nurminen, Kirsimaria Örö, Arja Nieminen, Karoliina Vuohtoniemi, Henriikka Sundell, Veera Uusoksa, Oona Turunen, Kolona Thesleff, Veera Virta and other possible representatives of Sexpo)

I've written about things that are the opposite of your worldview and views. I understand that some aspects in my writing may irritate you, and I do not blame you, because I too thought before in the same way as you do now.

However, these things are not at the core of the Christian faith, but are the relationship with God and the forgiveness of sins. I hope, above all, that you will turn to God and ask Jesus Christ to your life. For if we are eternal beings, it is worth thinking about things in terms of eternity. Doesn't this make sense?

Sexuality matters are good and useful at best, like many worldly things, but eternal life is another matter. That is why I urge you to turn to God, read the Bible, and take eternal life seriously. You can pray, for example, as follows:

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. Ari Puonti: Suhteesta siunaukseen, p. 76,77

3. Ari Puonti: Homoseksuaalisuus – hämmennyksestä selkeyteen, s. 101

4. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132

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

6. Robert Oscar Lopez, p. 114

7. Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970

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

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

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

11. Leanne Payne: Särkynyt minäkuva, p. 84, 85

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