No Right to Homosexual Marriage says World Court  of Human Rights 

26 09 2017

HOMOSEXUAL WEDDING – JUDGMENT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COURT OF STRASBOURG – FRANCE Unanimously, the World Court of Human Rights has established, verbatim, that “there is no right to homosexual marriage.”

The 47 judges of the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, which are members of the full Court of Strasbourg (the world’s most important human rights court), issued a statement of great relevance that has been surprisingly silenced by information progressivism and its area of ​​influence. In fact, unanimously, the 47 judges approved the ruling that “there is no right to homosexual marriage.”

The sentence was based on a myriad of philosophical and anthropological considerations based on natural order, common sense, scientific reports and, of course, positive law.Within the latter, in particular, the judgment was based on Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is equivalent to the articles of human rights treaties, as in the case of 17 of the Pact of San José and nº 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this historic but not disclosed, Resolution, the Court decided that the concept of family not only contemplates “the traditional concept of marriage, that is, the union of a man and a woman”, but also that they should not be imposed on governments to “obligation to open marriage to persons of the same sex”.

As for the principle of non-discrimination, the Court also added that there is no discrimination, since “States are free to reserve marriage only to heterosexual couples.”

****It is important and absolutely necessary to spread this kind of news because governments and sympathizers of such lobbies will not want people to know. Help spread if you want! Obviously, it does not interest the media to publicize this news.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/european-human-rights-court-rejects-gay-marriage





Why The Trangender ideology is The end of human knowledge

25 02 2017

 

This video is worth 10 mins of  your time. Watch and see how college students give moronic answers to obvious question. The decent to the absolute unknown.

ignorace





How LGBTQ Won by Peter Hitchens

21 08 2016

The Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Queer lobby groups have won in England according to Peter Hitchens and those who oppose gay marriage or allowing young people to use drugs are in for rough times

Please watch the Peter Hitchens vs Dan Savage debate and judge for yourselves.





Gay Catholics tell synod to promote chastity: CNA

3 10 2015

ministerin to the sick

I just watched on CNN, a Catholic Priest who, Saturday, came out as gay,  accusing the Church of being homophobic for sacking him. But priest are not supposed to be in any relationship, straight or gay. They are supposed to be celibate for the kingdom of God. In any case here is what other gay catholics have to say, courtesy of CNA

Same-sex attracted Catholics who have turned away from a homosexual lifestyle are urging participants at the upcoming Synod on the Family to defend the Church’s teaching on chastity for everyone – including for divorced and remarried.

“I fear that chastity does not have enough of a voice at the Synod,” said Rilene Simpson, a member and spokesperson of Courage, an apostolate which offers pastoral support for men and women with same-sex attraction. She told CNA: “We need to have the Church’s support.” “We’re talking about chastity for everybody. We’re talking about chastity for people with same-sex attraction. We’re talking about chastity within the confines of marriage. We’re talking about chastity for people who are divorced, and remarried.”

“It is a beautiful, beautiful virtue, it’s a grace from God, it’s a way to become closer to him, and we need to hear more about chastity,” she said. Rilene, whose story is featured in the 2014 Courage-produced documentary Desire for the Everlasting Hills, was one of the main speakers at a conference held Friday in Rome aimed at presenting the Church’s pastoral resources for persons with same-sex attraction.

The international gathering, entitled “The Ways of True Love – Pastoral Approaches to Welcome and Accompany those Living with Homosexual Tendencies,” was held Friday at the Pontifical Thomas Aquinas University, also known as the Angelicum. Organized by Courage, Ignatius Press, and the Napa Institute, the gathering was intentionally scheduled to take place as close to the Synod on the Family as possible. “What I am hoping from the Synod fathers… (is) that they can see the truth and not buy into the lies,” said David Prosen, a Catholic therapist at a Franciscan University in Steubenville, who also shared his testimony at the Oct. 2 gathering.

Having himself lived a homosexual lifestyle before embracing the Church’s teaching on chastity, David – whose story is featured on the 2014 documentary The Third Way – told CNA he had once been told by a priest it was “okay to be in an intimate relationship with a man as long as you love him.” “This is so harming,” he said. “So, what I hope is that the Synod fathers will really look at the truth that we, all of us, all men and women have gifts that God has given us because we are created in his image and likeness and because we are his sons and daughters – not because of who I’m attracted to.”

David’s presentation at Friday’s gathering was entitled “I am not gay…I am David,” and touched on his own struggles with identity during his youth. “I know for myself, when I was in the culture, that whole sense of identity to me meant belonging,” he told CNA. “I didn’t really fit in in high school. Finally I felt like I belonged somewhere but it wasn’t giving me what I really needed. I found out years later that the reason is because that’s not who I am. I was embracing something that wasn’t true.”

David explained how in high school he had admired traits in other people that he felt he lacked in himself. “I was looking at my peers and going ‘gosh if only I looked like him, if I was athletic like him, or popular then maybe I would fit in,’ and there was this shame,” he said. “In puberty, that piece became exaggerated and that’s when I believed something that really wasn’t true.” “I wasn’t really affirmed in my gender and that’s what I was looking for all along.” David explained he has since learned to establish fulfilling and chaste friendships with other men, largely through the help of the Courage apostolate. “There is a profound joy and peace in living a chaste life,” he said.

Friday’s conference comes partly in response to the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family, in which persons with same-sex attraction did not have an adequate voice, according to organizers. At least two of the Synod fathers will take part in the event: French Guinea’s Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Pontifical Council for Divine Worship, and Australia’s Cardinal George Pell, prefect for the Secretariat for the Economy. In brief remarks given to journalists at the conference, Cardinal Pell stressed that the Church has long offered support to persons with same-sex attraction. “It’s happening already…in many places,” he said. “No non-government institution offers more avenues of care of, say, HIV people, in parishes, communities, groups like Courage, Christian families,” etc. “We’re obliged to. Because we’re Christians.” The conference also featured a presentation by Monsignor Livio Melina, president of Rome’s John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family, who spoke on the Christian anthropological understanding of homosexuality. Other experts included Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins; Dr. Timothy Lock, a clinical psychologist; and Dr. Jennifer Morse of the Ruth Institute. Friday’s conference comes one day ahead of another gathering in Rome entitled Ways of Love, whose organizers support a form of pastoral care which does not necessarily preclude sexually intimate relationships between same-sex couples. This year’s Synod on the Family, to be held on Oct. 4-25, will be the second and larger of two such gatherings to take place in the course of a year. Like its 2014 precursor, the focus of the 2015 Synod of Bishops will be the family, this time with the theme: “The vocation and mission of the family in the Church and the modern world..CNA





Story of Boy Raised a Girl will Break Your Heart

25 08 2015

bruce jenner

Why do people still go around preaching gender neutrality when the man who first came up with it was clearly proven wrong and was also a sick child abuser; and the child, David Reimer, who was the first guinea pig of this novel experiment committed suicide?  Here is his story by John Colapinto that is sure to break your heart:

Brenda-Reimer

Just shy of a month ago, I got a call from David Reimer’s father telling me that David had taken his own life. I was shocked, but I cannot say I was surprised. Anyone familiar with David’s life—as a baby, after a botched circumcision, he underwent an operation to change him from boy to girl—would have understood that the real mystery was how he managed to stay alive for 38 years, given the physical and mental torments he suffered in childhood and that haunted him the rest of his life. I’d argue that a less courageous person than David would have put an end to things long ago.

After David’s suicide, press reports cited an array of reasons for his despair: bad investments, marital problems, his brother’s death two years earlier. Surprisingly little emphasis was given to the extraordinary circumstances of his upbringing. This was unfortunate because to understand David’s suicide, you first need to know his anguished history, which I chronicled in my book As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised As a Girl.

David Reimer was one of the most famous patients in the annals of medicine. Born in 1965 in Winnipeg, he was 8 months old when a doctor used an electrocautery needle, instead of a scalpel, to excise his foreskin during a routine circumcision, burning off his entire penis as a result. David’s parents (farm kids barely out of their teens) were referred to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, home of the world’s leading expert in gender identity, psychologist Dr. John Money, who recommended a surgical sex change, from male to female. David’s parents eventually agreed to the radical procedure, believing Dr. Money’s claims that this was their sole hope for raising a child who could have heterosexual intercourse—albeit as a sterile woman with a synthetic vagina and a body feminized with estrogen supplements.

For Dr. Money, David was the ultimate experiment to prove that nurture, not nature, determines gender identity and sexual orientation—an experiment all the more irresistible because David was an identical twin. His brother, Brian, would provide the perfect matched control, a genetic clone raised as a boy.

David’s infant “sex reassignment” was the first ever conducted on a developmentally normal child. (Money had helped to pioneer the procedure in hermaphrodites.) And according to Money’s published reports through the 1970s, the experiment was a success. The twins were happy in their assigned roles: Brian a rough and tumble boy, his sister Brenda a happy little girl. Money was featured in Time magazine and included a chapter on the twins in his famous textbook Man & Woman, Boy & Girl.

David Reimer

The reality was far more complicated. At age 2, Brenda angrily tore off her dresses. She refused to play with dolls and would beat up her brother and seize his toy cars and guns. In school, she was relentlessly teased for her masculine gait, tastes, and behaviors. She complained to her parents and teachers that she felt like a boy; the adults—on Dr. Money’s strict orders of secrecy—insisted that she was only going through a phase. Meanwhile, Brenda’s guilt-ridden mother attempted suicide; her father lapsed into mute alcoholism; the neglected Brian eventually descended into drug use, pretty crime, and clinical depression.

When Brenda was 14, a local psychiatrist convinced her parents that their daughter must be told the truth. David later said about the revelation: “Suddenly it all made sense why I felt the way I did. I wasn’t some sort of weirdo. I wasn’t crazy.”

David soon embarked on the painful process of converting back to his biological sex. A double mastectomy removed the breasts that had grown as a result of estrogen therapy; multiple operations, involving grafts and plastic prosthesis, created an artificial penis and testicles. Regular testosterone injections masculinized his musculature. Yet David was depressed over what he believed was the impossibility of his ever marrying. He twice attempted suicide in his early 20s.

David did eventually marry a big-hearted woman named Jane, but his dark moods persisted. He was plagued by shaming memories of the frightening annual visits to Dr. Money, who used pictures of naked adults to “reinforce” Brenda’s gender identity and who pressed her to have further surgery on her “vagina.”

When David was almost 30, he met Dr. Milton Diamond, a psychologist at the University of Hawaii and a longtime rival of Dr. Money. A biologist by training, Diamond had always been curious about the fate of the famous twin, especially after Money mysteriously stopped publishing follow-ups in the late 1970s. Through Diamond, David learned that the supposed success of his sex reassignment had been used to legitimize the widespread use of infant sex change in cases of hermaphroditism and genital injury. Outraged, David agreed to participate in a follow-up by Dr. Diamond, whose myth-shattering paper (co-authored by Dr. Keith Sigmundson) was published in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in March 1997 and was featured on front pages across the globe.

I met David soon after, when he agreed to be interviewed by me for a feature story in Rolling Stone. He subsequently agreed to collaborate with me on a book about his life, As Nature Made Him, published in February 2000. In the course of our interviews, David told me that he could never forget his nightmare childhood, and he sometimes hinted that he was living on borrowed time.

Most suicides, experts say, have multiple motives, which come together in a perfect storm of misery. So it was with David. After his twin Brian died of an overdose of antidepressants in the spring of 2002, David sank into a depression. Though the two had been estranged, David had, in recent months, taken to visiting Brian’s grave, leaving flowers and, at some point prior to his own suicide, a note.

David also had marital difficulties. He was not easy to live with, given his explosive anger, his cyclical depressions, his fears of abandonment—all of which Jane weathered for almost 14 years. But with David spiraling ever deeper into sloth and despair, she told him on the weekend of May 2 that they should separate for a time. David stormed out of the house. Two days later, Jane received a call from the police, saying that they had found David but that he did not want her to know his location. Two hours after that, Jane got another call. This time the police told her that David was dead.

David Reimer before he killed himself

Genetics almost certainly contributed to David’s suicide. His mother has been a clinical depressive all her life; his brother suffered from the same disease. How much of the Reimers’ misery was due to inherited depression, and how much to the nightmare circumstances into which they had been thrown? David’s mutilation and his parents’ guilt were tightly entwined, multiplying the mental anguish to which the family members were already prone.

In some press reports, financial problems were given as the sole motive in David’s suicide. While this is absurdly reductive, it is true that last fall David learned that he was the victim of an alleged con man who had hoodwinked him out of $65,000—a loss that ate at him and no doubt contributed to his despair.

In his final months, David was unemployed—for him, a disastrous circumstance. When I first met him, seven years ago, he was a janitor in a slaughter house—tough, physically demanding work that he loved. But when the plant closed a few years ago, David never found another full-time job. And thanks to me, he didn’t have to. I split all profits from the book with David, 50-50. This brought him a substantial amount of money, as did a subsequent movie deal with Peter Jackson, the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. With no compelling financial need to work, David was able to sit around his house and brood—a state of affairs for which I feel some guilt.

In the end, of course, it was what David was inclined to brood about that killed him. David’s blighted childhood was never far from his mind. Just before he died, he talked to his wife about his sexual “inadequacy,” his inability to be a true husband. Jane tried to reassure him. But David was already heading for the door.

On the morning of May 5, he retrieved a shotgun from his home while Jane was at work and took it into the garage. There, with the terrible, methodical fixedness of the suicide, he sawed off the barrel. Then he drove to the nearby parking lot of a grocery store, parked, raised the gun, and, I hope, ended his sufferings forever.

John Colapinto is the author of As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised a Girl. He is a contributing editor at Rolling Stone magazine where his original story about David Reimer won a national magazine award for reporting. His 2001 novel About the Authoris being developed for the screen by Dreamworks.

Story is courtesy of www.slate.com





Incest Next: USA Taking the Plunge

29 06 2015

taking the plung

In 1997, Wisconsin officials, acting on reports of an abandoned child, got more than they bargained for: not only did the child show signs of extreme neglect, she turned out to be the product of an incestuous marriage between siblings.
In addition to terminating Allen and Patricia Muth’s parental rights, Wisconsin tried and convicted them of criminal incest. Since the Muths didn’t challenge the facts of the case, you would think that settled the matter. But it didn’t.
Both at trial and on appeal, the Muth’s challenged the constitutionality of the Wisconsin law. That’s right: they argued that there’s a constitutional right to incest. While this may sound shocking, it shouldn’t be surprising, not if you take the Supreme Court at its word.
Two years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned Texas’ law against sodomy, Justice Kennedy didn’t say that there was a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy. He did something even worse: he wrote that people are “free as adults to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”
Kennedy said that these adults “are entitled to respect for their private lives” and that “the State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”
Justice Scalia warned, in a blistering dissent, that the case language would encompass any consensual sexual practice, including incest or polygamy. And that’s exactly what the Muth’s lawyers argued —- first before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and then before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Earlier this summer, the Seventh Circuit rejected Muth’s argument, thankfully, but only because Judge Daniel Manion said that Lawrence didn’t apply only because this case “did not [specifically] address the constitutionality of incest statutes.” Legal scholar Matthew Franck wrote that this is “true but trivial.” The issue is whether Lawrence’s reasoning should be applied to cases not involving homosexuality.
Given Kennedy’s sweeping rhetoric about “private lives” and demeaning someone’s existence, the answer would appear to be “yes.” Substitute “incestuous” for “homosexual” in Kennedy’s opinion and its meaning remains exactly the same. And, as Kennedy wrote, “profound and deep convictions” about the immorality of a practice isn’t a constitutionally-sufficient reason to criminalize that practice.
Some believe that Judge Manion knew this and ruled against the Muths on other grounds because Manion “would rather someone other than himself,” preferably, the Supreme Court, commit such a travesty.
No one is sure what the Supreme Court will actually do with the Muth’s case. If it follows Kennedy’s logic in Lawrence, however, it will declare incest constitutional —- so we may be only one case away from this moral horror.
This is why the upcoming confirmation process is so important. Today, all that stands between us and the logical inevitability of the protection of incest is one more vote in the High Court. Read more>>








%d bloggers like this: