Sunday, May 29, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
City of Moscow defies court order to permit ‘gay pride’ parades Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
MOSCOW, May 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The City of Moscow has announced its intention to defy the European Court of Human Rights and continue its prohibition on “gay pride” parades, citing the “moral damage” that may be inflicted on the young.
According to homosexual activist Nikolai Alekseev, the government of Moscow is concerned about “the large number of letters received in protest against the Pride events and Russia’s international obligation to protect the rights of children because Gay Pride ‘may impact psychological health and inflict moral damage on children and teenagers who were to become unwilling witnesses of the event.’”
Homosexual “pride” parades, which are now held annually in many cities worldwide, are frequently scenes of drunkenness and drug abuse, public nudity, and simulated and even real sex acts. Public authorities routinely fail to act against such behavior during the parades, applying an exception for the homosexual community.
The government of Moscow has been prohibiting “gay pride” parades since homosexualists first attempted to carry them out in 2006. It is continuing the ban despite the threat of a fine from the European Court of Human Rights, and has already been fined over $41,000 for its previous bans.
The decision of the Moscow government reflects a religious and social consensus in Russian society over homosexual behavior. According to a recent poll, 84 percent of Russians continue to regard sodomy as immoral, in defiance of America and Western Europe’s increasing acceptance of the behavior, which is often accompanied by a variety of physical and behavioral disorders, including high rates of HIV infection and sexually transmitted diseases, anal cancer, promiscuity, and depression.
The Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow, has called homosexual behavior a “vicious deviation from God-given human nature” and notes that the Orthodox Church “treats people with such inclinations with pastoral responsibility urging them to reform and resolutely opposes any attempts to present this sinful tendency as a ‘norm’ and example to follow. The Church does not accept any propaganda for immorality.” His opposition to sodomy is shared by Catholic, Muslim,
According to homosexual activist Nikolai Alekseev, the government of Moscow is concerned about “the large number of letters received in protest against the Pride events and Russia’s international obligation to protect the rights of children because Gay Pride ‘may impact psychological health and inflict moral damage on children and teenagers who were to become unwilling witnesses of the event.’”
Homosexual “pride” parades, which are now held annually in many cities worldwide, are frequently scenes of drunkenness and drug abuse, public nudity, and simulated and even real sex acts. Public authorities routinely fail to act against such behavior during the parades, applying an exception for the homosexual community.
The government of Moscow has been prohibiting “gay pride” parades since homosexualists first attempted to carry them out in 2006. It is continuing the ban despite the threat of a fine from the European Court of Human Rights, and has already been fined over $41,000 for its previous bans.
The decision of the Moscow government reflects a religious and social consensus in Russian society over homosexual behavior. According to a recent poll, 84 percent of Russians continue to regard sodomy as immoral, in defiance of America and Western Europe’s increasing acceptance of the behavior, which is often accompanied by a variety of physical and behavioral disorders, including high rates of HIV infection and sexually transmitted diseases, anal cancer, promiscuity, and depression.
The Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow, has called homosexual behavior a “vicious deviation from God-given human nature” and notes that the Orthodox Church “treats people with such inclinations with pastoral responsibility urging them to reform and resolutely opposes any attempts to present this sinful tendency as a ‘norm’ and example to follow. The Church does not accept any propaganda for immorality.” His opposition to sodomy is shared by Catholic, Muslim,
iGoogle
The myth of the genderless baby
| Albert Mohler |  | Wed May 25 11:52 EST | | Opinion |
May 25, 2011 (AlbertMohler.com) - Back in the nineteenth century, the British people were introduced to a fairy tale about “water babies” through a story written by Rev. Charles Kingsley. The water babies entered folklore, and generations of British children imagined the water babies and their story.
Now, out of Canada comes another strange story, but this one is not a fairy tale. Two Canadian parents have ignited a firestorm over their determination to raise their third child as a “genderless” baby.
As reporter Jayme Poisson reports, “The neighbors know [Kathy] Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising a genderless baby. But they don’t pretend to understand it.”
Well, the neighbors might take these parents at their word, but the very idea of a genderless baby is nonsense. This is not a baby with ambiguous genitalia, a defect that occurs in a very small percentage of births. The parents admit that this baby has a clear biological sex, but they do not want that to become the child’s identity. They want the child to make that determination at a later date.
To no real surprise, these parents classify themselves on the political and ideological left. Their two older children are both boys, but the parents encourage the boys to act and dress in unconventional ways. So much so, that as the reporter informs us, many who see them assume they are girls.
The new baby, named Storm, is dressed and presented in a manner that makes no clear gender statement. Only the parents, the two older boys, and a close family friend know the truth about the child’s biological sex.
As Poisson reports:
“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.
“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.
Well, actually, you do — not in the crass and crude way that Mr. Stoker puts it, but in the virtually universal way that people ask of a baby: Is it a boy or a girl?
The controversy surrounding Storm is a sign of our times. Our rebellion against the Creator has now reached the point that we will deny the fact that our identity is not just our own personal project, but is first of all established in the Creator’s intention — and part of that intention is the fact that we are male or female.
Storm’s parents clearly believe that our personal identity is our own personal project. They lament even the fact that parents make so many decisions for their children. “It’s obnoxious,” Stoker says.
Well, the decision about gender is not something made by parents, but by God. At this point, the Christian worldview and the worldview of secularism run into direct collision. Nevertheless, the objective reality of the child’s gender will eventually become a public issue, regardless of the parents’ intentions. As even they recognize, at some point in the future, decisions about such things as which bathroom the child will use will force the issue.
The major issue at stake in this controversy is the objective reality of sex and gender. We are, in fact, what our genitals tell us we are. This is not because we are genitally determined, but because we were created by a holy God, whose plans and purposes for us are, inescapably, tied to our gender.
Gender is not merely a socially constructed reality. When the Southern Baptist Convention modified its confession of faith, The Baptist Faith & Message, in 2000, it added language that defined gender as “part of the goodness of God’s creation.”
Some observers wondered why that language is important. Now, you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
