LGBTQP - Sexual Disorders and Perversions

Dr Robert Gagnon PhD Princeton Theological Seminary and Harvard Divinity School





Citing Putin, Australian PM’s sister says what many are afraid to

14 July, 2013 22:44 

A brave woman in Australia has had the courage to speak out against something that very few are willing to speak out against and which is a threat to the very fundamental and key building block of all societies worldwide, that building block being the family.

The brave woman is Ms. Loree Rudd, the sister of the new Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd, and her recent comments about homosexuality have spread throughout the English speaking world not because what she said was so shocking or extreme but because she has voiced what many people have been terrorized into self-censoring themselves about, namely calling such relations marriage.

According to in an exclusive interview with them upon returning from a trip to Russia Ms. Rudd said: “It's like he (Putin) can see the problem ahead..” and, “I think that there should be a law (in Australia) protecting children from the propaganda of homosexuality as normal. They're trying to build their family life and structure in Russia and people in the West don't seem to understand our family life and structures are breaking down. I guess the bottom line, if there's one thing I can say that can't be challenged, it's that society needs to protect its children as best they can."

For those in the West it has become a forbidden topic and everyone who dares to speak out against it is portrayed as being hate filled or somehow discriminatory or backward. People in the West are so terrified of talking about “it” because they risk losing their jobs or even worse being guilty of some sort of hate crime or promoting hate speech.

The hypocrisy of the whole debate is mind-boggling, on the one hand they have gays who are asking the world to accept their sexual deviation and the world is supposed to somehow accept what amounts to s****y on the same level as the holy union between a man and a woman in marriage, yet on the other hand perfectly normal law abiding citizens of the world must not dare to speak out against it or counter the self-serving arguments of those promoting this diversion.

President Putin is right, we have to protect the children. Period. End of discussion. Bravo. Give the President a cigar, better yet a cigar factory. No counter arguments possible, we have to protect the children.

Children are impressionable, if little Billy hears every day how it is normal to engage in relations with Todd and how this is acceptable and even more importantly defended as some sort of right, Billy may be inclined to experiment whereas if he had never heard of the practice he might say “yuck” like most normal kids would. Furthermore removing the social stigma will only make such deviant behavior spread further. This is wrong.

I know I am going to get a lot of hate mail for writing what I think here but I don’t care. I have had to deal with almost every kind of discrimination in my life, I’ll be damned if I have to be ashamed or somehow self-censor because I like women and think marriage is one of the highest institutions known to humans and the family unit must be protected to guarantee the propagation of the human race. Yes, I believe that marriage, in its best form should produce little humans and is an honorable institution.

The entire debate “for” homosexual marriage is a disingenuous one for many more reasons than I care to go into or that I have space for in this column. They also have the entire Western media at their disposal to promote their arguments. In my opinion what it boils down to is individuals with deviant behavior who seek public affirmation for something they know deep down is wrong.

The entire debate itself and forcing normal people to put aside their own values and equate the whole deviation to marriage is far more damaging to society in general than was the quiet acceptance that existed before. Have your “unions” live together, love each other, but don’t make my kids know about it and don’t make me call it marriage, that degrades me, my wife and my children and the whole concept of family.

I recently asked a friend in America about the whole homosexual “marriage” debate, he is someone who is very vocal and willing to express an opinion about everything under the sun, he is not afraid to take on the CIA or call Hillary Clinton psychotic, but when it came to this he said “No way! Can’t talk about it!” we can lose our jobs here if we say anything bad about “it”.

I asked him why, if so called “Conservatives” and Evangelicals are in power in the U.S. this has been allowed to get to the point it has, this was after the British Embassy flew a LGBT flag in Paris (Meaning they have taken over a sovereign nation no doubt?) and his answer was one I can’t forget. He said the breakdown of the family unit is the goal.

For several reasons this makes sense. For one, a strong family means a strong support unit and if you want to destroy a society you start by breaking down the family. Isolated weak individuals with no safety net are easier to control and manipulate. For most countries outside of America family is the most important thing for most societies, if that can be delegitimized and destroyed, all of those societies become weaker. Plus breaking down the family makes great economic sense from a corporate capitalist perspective. A family needs one refrigerator, one TV, one car and one home. If you break up the family then each fragment still needs one refrigerator, one TV and one car, thus by destroying the family unit, you have just doubled or tripled or quadrupled your sales.

In my opinion marriage is a union between a man and a woman which should lead to the creation of children, their education and a continuation of their bloodlines and the human race. That is a noble thing. Marriage for gays produces nothing except egotistical narcissistic “pleasure” between two people of the same sex, and I dare say again, gays themselves know what they do is wrong, they are merely seeking external; encouragement and validation that what they are doing is okay and acceptable.

In January I spoke to Dr. Robert Gagnon, a respected Theologian, on the matter, he said: “And at every level – anatomically, physiologically, psychologically – the appropriate counterpart or complement to a man is a woman and a woman to a man. It is why male-female marriages worked reasonably well, obviously with problems, but reasonably well over the centuries is that the extremes of a given sex are moderated in a union with a true sexual compliment or counterpart, a man with a woman, a woman with a man. And not only the extremes of a given sex are moderated but the gaps in the sexual self are filled appropriately.

If a man has sexual contact with another man it is not natural, just like having sexual contact with an animal, a parent, a sibling or a child, and it is definitely not what you could call a marriage. No matter how you try to twist it. Children must be protected from being taught such behavior is acceptable because the survival and continuation of a healthy society depends on it. Tolerance is one thing, degrading and delegitimizing family and marriage is another.

I have no problems with homosexuals, nor with people with foot fetishes and the like. Just please, that is your personal business, don’t throw it in my face and don’t make me call it a marriage, what you do in your bedroom is your business, let’s keep it that way.

West Promoting its LGBT Policies in Africa: Sodomy Can NOT be Called Marriage by JAR2

23 July 2012, 12:27

Liberia, where men are supposed to be men and women are supposed to be women, on Friday held a vote on a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. All these same sex marriage debates were not only going on in the US - now Liberia and many African countries are also engaged in such discussion. The reasons are different however. Liberia does not have a huge homosexual community as does the US. There are not millions of LGBTs (meaning lesbian, gay, bisexuals and transgender people) engaged in lobbying their interests or making an in-your-face attempt to force the rest of the population to accept their lifestyles.

The reason this has become an issue in Africa is because the US and the UK have decided to tie US aid to rights issues involving LGBTs. This comes after Obama instructed US government officials to "ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, and transgender persons," around the world.

Just for a contrast homosexuality is currently illegal in 37 African countries, with some countries even having life-sentences and the death penalty for homosexual behavior.

When giving his instructions Obama stated that; “…legal, moral, and financial support will be boosted for gay rights organizations, emergency assistance will be sent to groups or individuals facing threats, and asylum in the US will be offered to people forced to flee anti-gay persecution in their countries.”

In a recent speech, full of bravado but lacking real substance or detail, to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva instead of addressing the hundreds of US violations in the area of human rights she made a big show that the US protects gay rights, proclaiming that "gay rights are human rights". She also announced the implementation of U.S. government-wide policies to push for the decriminalization of homosexuality overseas and to ensure US foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights".

In Liberia, as with many African countries, this set off a firestorm of debate, protests and even made things worse for the “LGBTs” who were in most cases quietly tolerated. These moves by the West, another attempt at imposing their will and bankrupt morality on the peoples of other countries, have caused Obama’s popularity and the level of widespread idolization of the US to fall considerably in much of Africa.

Since Clinton’s remarks many newspapers in Liberia have described homosexuality as "desecrating", "abusive" and an "abomination". Those remarks, coupled with a group of US backed activists, the Movement for the Defense of Gay and Lesbian Rights, who began activities to legalize same sex marriage, led to the constitutional debate.

According to an article by the AFP, up until now in Liberia, although “voluntary sodomy” has been considered a criminal offence, the question of gay marriage had not been expressly addressed in law. Well, it has now.

The Senate of Liberia on Friday voted unanimously to pass a constitutional amendment, under section 2.3 of the Liberian constitution which covers polygamy and incestuous relationships.

The president of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, was forced to defend her country and in an interview with the U.K.’s Guardian in March she stated: "We like ourselves the way we are. We've got certain traditional values in our society that we would like to preserve."

Sirleaf recently won the Nobel peace prize for her work in advancing women's rights.

In the above interview with the Guardian, which Sirleaf gave jointly with Tony Blair, Blair, sitting beside the composed and quiet Sirleaf, looked furious and uncomfortable in the extreme, behaving as if Liberia did not have the right to make its own internal decisions. Maybe understandably as Blair was a champion for the “LGBTs”, among his achievements lowering the age of consent for gay sex to 16.

I know I might be accused of being harsh to those with sexual identification issues, but homosexuality is a psychological and some say physiological disorder stemming from earlier childhood development issues, trauma, and a hundred other sociological and familial disorders, which causes pain and suffering for those who suffer from it. These people should be helped and the root causes identified.

Same sex marriage, what exactly does that mean? You can be politically correct and call it homosexuality or alternative sexual preferences or even untraditional orientation, but many countries and people’s view this as an abomination and a deviation from accepted norms.

Maybe I am wrong here but a country, such as the U.K. which now allows old men to have sex with boys as young as 16, and another where men are being allowed to marry men, should not be dictating to the world how it should conduct itself.

Perhaps Sirleaf should be dictating policy to Obama and Blair, she has, after all won a real Nobel Prize and perhaps the US needs to look at the roots of the problem and find a way to help those suffering from sexual disorders, instead of trying to get the world to accept it.

Pussy Riot: Provocation Against Church and State - Using Perversion to Destroy Morality

23 July 2012, 13:42

Pussy Riot: provocation against church and state

On Friday the Khamovnichesky court in Moscow extended the pre-trial detention of three members of the group Pussy Riot, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina and Ekaterina Samutsevich, until January 12, 2013 with their preliminary hearing to continue on Monday July 23.

The three members were part of a group of four who entered the holiest church for followers of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Christ the Savior Cathedral on February 21, 2012, and from a sacred area where only ordained priests are allowed to be present, proceeded to sing an anti-Putin song disguised as a church hymn, filled with obscene language and making a mockery of the entire Christian faith.

Their action coincided with other staged and carefully organized anti-Putin provocations which were taking place before the past presidential elections, and like almost all of the other “opposition” groups and individuals, their only goal was to foment hatred towards and do everything possible to damage the popularity of then presidential candidate Vladimir Putin.

The majority of Russians hold the view that the group went way too far in their activities with most people of the opinion that their actions were everything from an act of sheer brainlessness to a carefully planned insult to the Orthodox Church, the Russian people and the Russian state.

This was evident at Friday’s hearing where more people in protest of the group showed up outside the court to protest what many of them see as an attack on morality, family values and their faith.

Supporters of the group, strangely enough, appeared outside the court at the time the women were exercising their constitutional right to defend themselves before the court, holding signs asking for mercy from the same church that those in custody had blasphemed.

Although the women had already been in custody for four months their behavior in front of the court in no way showed remorse for what they had done, nor did the statements and actions of their lawyers who filed almost a dozen briefs and then blamed the court for not being able to deal with all of them in one sitting.

The women were all smiles and as in evident by witness statements, news reports, and video and still footage, they behaved as if the whole thing were a big joke, smiling and looking glib and not showing even the slightest hint of remorse.

Their lawyers told the press, and I am paraphrasing, that the whole process was a circus. Strange when they are demanding the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia and Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Kirill I appear in court as witnesses, although neither was even present or connected with the foolish stunt in anyway.

Sadly, as can now be expected, the Western media and even Amnesty International have jumped on the bandwagon and are portraying the women as innocent victims of evil machinations. The latter saying on Friday that;”…it considers the three women to be prisoners of conscience detained solely for the peaceful expression of their beliefs."

Had the event taken place at the Evergreen Chapel located in Camp David where U.S. President Obama prays or in the Holy See or from behind the pulpit where the Pope addresses Catholic believers, would they be so quick to defend those guilty of such an act of desecration? Even those at war with the West do not dare to, or have enough taste not to, blaspheme the holy places of the people. Why should this event be deemed as somehow being acceptable and a peaceful expression of beliefs when it occurred in Russia?

As more Russians begin to understand the resonance that is being caused by what these women did, the crowds outside the court will no doubt grow larger and the views of those who have been largely quiet will begin to be heard, not in support of these women, but against the affront to all Russians.

Femen and Pussy Riot: Provocations Against Russia

27 July 2012, 16:11

Both marginal protest groups - Femen and Pussy Riot - have several things in common: they are both women groups, anti-Russian, use vulgarity and anti-social behavior to shock as many people as possible, have no clear agenda and offer no alternative policies and they both seem to exist for one purpose, that being to attempt to shame and disgrace Russia and its leaders.

As it is already well known, on Thursday his Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Kirill I arrived in Kiev, Ukraine where he is to stay for three days to mark the 20th anniversary of the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev. The Patriarch’s arrival in Ukraine was momentarily marred by yet another provocation against the Russian Orthodox Church, when Yana Zhdanova, a member of a Ukrainian group calling themselves Femen, rushed the Patriarch as if to attack him, shouting “Get out! Get out!”. She was intercepted within meters of Patriarch Kirill by a priest, body guards and members of the security detail, who within seconds surrounded his Holiness and escorted the screaming woman away.

The attack appears to have been carefully planned and designed to get maximum press attention, as his arrival would be the moment when he would be in the limelight the most. The words “Kill Kirill” were carefully written in large letters on the woman’s bare back in English. To me this was a curious detail no one has really noticed but which makes it clear the act of provocation was choreographed for the Western media. Had it been aimed at Russia or Ukraine the words would have been obviously written in the language of either country. It is also clear she did not act alone.

The Femen women protest group famous for its radical exhibitionism first appeared in 2008. WikiPedia  claims that they are receiving the financial support from the American businessmen Jed Sunden. The group also organized a protest action in front of the Christ The Savior Cathedral in December 2011.

Femen also posted a statement on the Internet accusing the Patriarch of encouraging the detention of activists, an obvious reference to members of another provocation group Pussy Riot which on February 21, 2012 desecrated the Christ the Savior Cathedral and are currently detained in Russia.

Some say Femen aims to advance women’s rights but I think the “women’s libbers” of the 60s would not support their tactics, if you are as old as I am, or older you may recall how those “feminists” threw away their bras, high-heels and cosmetics because they were “womanizing” objects and dressed in a sever fashion, yet these women choose to wear sexy lingerie and run around top-less in a bid for attention.

If these two groups really have a coherent agenda we can sympathize with, such as women’s rights, freedom of expression or eliminating prostitution, then I am afraid their message is not getting through. What is getting through is the fact that they have absolutely no respect for any kind of authority and that their tactics are vulgar and socially unacceptable. How they behave is always the focus, not why they are doing what they do, that is assuming they really do have a message and are not just out to insult and provoke Russians and the Orthodox Church.

This time the reaction from the West is a bit more subdued, compared to all of the Pussy Riot hoopla. However, many in the Western press are still attempting to show this in a way which plays down the vulgarity of the display. Had anyone rushed the Pope with Kill the Pope written on their back, well you know what the reaction to that would have been.

Another curious thing concerning both groups is the lack of transparency they possess when it comes to who backs them financially. This is very important because when you want to know what an organization is really about you have to look at who is financing them. Several web searches only revealed the names of a German individual called DJ Hell, one Helmut Josef Geier and Jed Sunden, an American ex-pat living in Ukraine who is the publisher of the English language Kiev Post, as financial backers for Femen. No information on the shadowy backers of Pussy Riot is currently available.

Jed Sunden, a pro-Western American with a history of meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine, a man who called Lenin statues: “… a disgusting sight Ukraine should be ashamed of….” and was declared persona non grata in Ukraine, might be a good indication of who is behind these groups. If they are being financed by the West, then this would explain many things, among them the level of arrogance and boldness and lack of coherent message they both possess. They also appear to exist for one reason, to provoke Russia.

On July 28, Patriarch Kirill will take part in commemoration ceremonies to mark the day of the Enlightenment of Rus’, a national holiday in commemoration of the anniversary of Kyiv’s baptism and of Saint Volodymyr. After the service, the primate will lay flowers by the eternal flame at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Hopefully the likes of Pussy Riot and Femen will have the good taste to not attempt to mark the events with yet another vulgar, pointless and silly display of their own foolishness.

How about it girls? Maybe you should all write a coherent argument in the form of a treatise (not striptease), or an essay and distribute it to the masses (after all you do have a publisher as a backer). Here’s another idea: gather a million signatures in support of some change in policy. That is what real activists do. And please keep the vulgarity to yourselves and for crying out loud, keep your shirts on, your message (if you have one) is being ignored and overshadowed by your public nudity and anti-social behavior. Or could it be you have no message?


Last Update: 11/19/2023 20:00 -0000


Site 1JAR2 Blog Button


JAR2 Biz


 Link to JAR2 Twitter Account  Link to JAR2 YouTube Account  Link to JAR2 Blogger Account  Link to JAR2 Live Journal Account  Link to JAR2 Word Press Account    Link to JAR2 Sonation and Support Page


  Please help keep us going and make a donation Thanks to all supporters!

PayPal, Сбербанк Sberbank Visa 4276 3800 4476 1661

Copyright JAR2 2003-2103 All Rights Reserved

Publishing Banned Truth Since June 06, 2003