Tag Archives: LGBT

Sex-Change Surgery HALTED at Johns Hopkins Hospital!

By Rev. Austin Miles

BALTIMORE 4/17/16–According to Public Advocate Eugene Delgaudio, a lawyer whose specialty is family issues, a new American College of Pediatricians study is providing stark evidence that so-called “gender ideology” (a person’s decision to identify as a male or female) is very harmful.

IGGY

So dangerous, infact, that they called upon educators and legislators to take action: “The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal, a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex.  Facts—not ideology—determine reality.”

The study also included several irrefutable facts, such as no one is born to “choose” if they identify with male of female chromosomes and persons who believe they are something they’re not biologically, is a sign of confused thinking.

hepburn-in-a-suit

But the most disturbing statistic of the study is just how many deaths are related to transgenderism.

Rates of suicide skyrocket, shown to be twenty times greater among adults who used cross-sex hormones and underwent gender reassignment surgery.Suicide rates are increasing at such an alarming rate, the renowned experts at Johns Hopkins Hospital have banned all sex-change operations at their facilities.

It was revealed in the 1980’s that sodomy (anal sex), caused a major disease, AIDS, which has taken a hefty death toll, yet the homosexuals are so enslaved by their unnatural lusts that they refuse to stop their self-destructive activities.

quentin_tarantino_heels

I remember seeing television interviews when the AIDS epidemic became public. One young homo stated, “Whenever I make love now, I never know if it will be my last time.” This is insane, when it has been proven that sodomy can be deadly. He has no intention of discontinuing the very activity that leads to such a painful prolonged death.  This is absolute enslavement to unnatural lust.

Anal sex can cause serious illness even if between a traditional male and female.  If the male, following anal intercourse, then enters the vagina of his wife or partner, the bacteria mix brings severe illness to the woman. That bacterium in the anus was never intended to be mixed with the bacteria of the vagina.  That Is when this becomes an aberration, which is abnormal and a perversion.

First of all, how can anyone improve upon what God has provided?  Why does man think he can find greater satisfaction by perverting God’s gift of sex? It is that man has been misled to believe that it is necessary to experience something new.  Next it becomes a desperate lifelong quest to fulfill a lust that can increase and never be fulfilled.   It has such a hold on him that he can never really experience satisfaction, and he is willing to try ANYTHING, even the most bizarre activity including……

CAUTION! You might want to skip next paragraph that gives disturbing and sickening details:

One popular pursuit for a new experience is a practice known as, Scatting. In this, one of the sodomites rubs his own feces on his body, and then his partner licks it off.  And they try to convince us that they are just like the rest of us?

The above was learned while looking through a homosexual advice column in a San Francisco newspaper that I picked up from a stand. That was the first time I had heard that term and its meaning.  The advice-seeker stated passionately how the smell gets to him, even though he described how he loves to see his partner get so turned on…but the smell…..never mind the rest.

Caution Warning Lifted…now to next paragraph:

Today, this warped world is getting behind the ‘cause’ of LGBT acceptance and special privileges including allowing men, if they say they feel like a woman, having total access to little girl’s bathrooms and showers.  To not allow this is to be charged with “discrimination.” (?)

For all the past years, all the above behaviors were listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that identified homosexuality as a sociopathic personality disturbance.

The popular definition in the DSM for homosexuals was, until 1973: Same Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD).

As the ‘gays’ came out publicly as a political force, there followed severe pressure from the sexual activists to kill that definition. One sodomite managed to become a psychiatrist and get on the DSM board and pushed from the inside for the change from SSAD to “form of sexual behavior.” However, that doctor’s name, which I had seen, has now vanished from websites.

The transgender issue has become huge, with TV programs and movies attempting to “normalize” transgenderism and the behaviors associated with it.  The above mentioned studies show that most kids who believe they are transgender will grow out of that phase as teenagers.

The Hon. Eugene Delgaudio, who is President of Public Advocate of the United States points out; “The homosexual lobby would rather lie and ignore scientific fact than to address the dangerous implications of their agenda.  That is because they care more about advancing their radical agenda than the well-being of others. “And every time the fight to force transgenderism as a normal behavior in America, they’re further harming the very people they claim are being “discriminated” against.”

For further info and to receive Mr. Delgaudio’s newsletter, go to this link: eugeneforthefamily@gmail.com

Photo Caption: Excuse me…Ma’am

Photo Credit: hewearspanties.com

******

 

Vatican offended by White House guest list inviting LGBT dissidents

pope

BY BARBARA BOLAND FOR THEWASHINGTONEXAMINER

The Vatican is offended by the Obama administration’s decision to invite an array of religious dissidents, including transgender activists and an openly gay Episcopal bishop, to greet Pope Francis on his visit to the United States.

A senior Vatican official told the Wall Street Journal that they are concerned photos taken of Pope Francis near the controversial guests “could be interpreted as an endorsement of their activities.”

When the Pope arrives at the White House Wednesday, some of his greeters will include “Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Anglican bishop who’s now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think-tank with ties to the Democratic Party, and Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of the Catholic social justice lobby Network, and a leader of the ‘Nuns on the Bus’ advocacy tours,” reports the Associated Press.

Sister Campbell wrote a letter signed by over 60 heads of religious orders that urged Congress to pass Obamacare, even as U.S. bishops expressed concern that the bill would provide funds for abortion and contraception, in violation of Catholic teaching. Her support for the Affordable Care Act was recognized by Obama when he signed it into law.

Other guests of concern to the Vatican include Mateo Williamson, the former co-head of the Catholic LGBT organization Dignity USA, who is transgender, and Aaron Ledesma, an openly gay Catholic blogger.

“‘The presence of these figures is especially irritating,’ the Vatican official said, ‘because it isn’t yet clear.

The Vatican is offended by the Obama administration’s decision to invite an array of religious dissidents, including transgender activists and an openly gay Episcopal bishop, to greet Pope Francis on his visit to the United States.

A senior Vatican official told the Wall Street Journal that they are concerned photos taken of Pope Francis near the controversial guests “could be interpreted as an endorsement of their activities.”

American politicians have used photos with Pope Francis to advance their own agendas before. In July, Bolivian President Evo Morales draped the Pope with a hammer and sickle medallion and handed him a “Communist crucifix.”

In this Wednesday, July 8, 2015 photo, Bolivian President Evo Morales presents Pope Francis with a crucifix carved into a wooden hammer and sickle, in La Paz, Bolivia. The crucifix is a replica, originally designed by Jesuit activist Luis Espinal, who was assassinated in 1980 by suspected paramilitaries during the months that preceded a military coup. Even though the Vatican was not expecting the unusual gift, it is seeking to explain the "Communist crucifix" given to Francis, saying it's a symbol of dialogue and not an offensive melding of faith and ideology. (L'Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP)

In this Wednesday, July 8, 2015 photo, Bolivian President Evo Morales presents Pope Francis with a crucifix carved into a wooden hammer and sickle, in La Paz, Bolivia. The crucifix is a replica, originally designed by Jesuit activist Luis Espinal, who was assassinated in 1980 by suspected paramilitaries during the months that preceded a military coup. Even though the Vatican was not expecting the unusual gift, it is seeking to explain the “Communist crucifix” given to Francis, saying it’s a symbol of dialogue and not an offensive melding of faith and ideology. (L’Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP)

And in August, Argentine president Cristina Kirchner tweeted a photo of the Pope holding a sign handed to him at a general audience that read in Spanish: “It’s time for dialogue between Argentina and the United Kingdom on the Falklands.” In both instances, the Vatican stressed that the Pope did not endorse these agendas, but their occurrence underlines the Vatican’s agita over the White House guest list.

The White House could not be reached for response on the Vatican’s reaction to the guest list.

However, on Thursday White House press secretary Josh Earnest said while he did not know all the names on the guest list, reporters shouldn’t jump to conclusions because “there will be 15,000 other people there too.”

The White House hopes to downplay its disagreement with the Catholic Church on life issues during the Pope’s visit, but the Vatican official’s comments come the day the U.S. House voted to suspend funding of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

The Vatican has not responded to a Washington Examiner request for comment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality

Don’t fall for the ‘marriage equality’ sales pitch. It’s a deception.
By Stella Morabito for THE FEDERALIST
15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality
Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.
Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.
Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.
The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.
The Rainbow’s Arc
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.
Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.
Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.

  1. The Kids Are Not Alright

In March, six adult children from LGBT households filed amicus briefs opposing genderless marriage: see here, here, and here. You can read testimonials of many such children in a newly released anthology by Robert Oscar Lopez and Rivka Edelman, “Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family ‘Equality.’”
Whenever a parent is missing—for whatever reason—a child feels a primal wound. In this respect, parents belong to their children more than children belong to their parents. We ought to recognize that privileges of civil marriage should ultimately exist for children, not for adults. Children have the right to know their origins and not to be treated as commodities. Same-sex parenting—which increasingly involves human trafficking, particularly with artificial reproductive technologies (see number eight)—deliberately deprives a child of a mother and/or a father. The “marriage equality” agenda requires that such children bear that burden alone and repress their primal wound in silence.

  1. Love’s Got Nothing to Do with State Interest in Marriage

“Love is love” is an empty slogan when it comes to state interest in marriage. How two people feel about one another is none of the state’s business. The state’s interest is limited to the heterosexual union because that’s the only union that produces the state’s citizenry.
And it still is, whether the union happens traditionally or in a petri dish. Each and every one of us—equally and without exception—only exists through the heterosexual union. In any free and functioning society, there is a state interest in encouraging as much as possible those who sire and bear us to be responsible for raising us.

  1. The Infertility Canard

Just as the state has no litmus test for feelings or motives, it has no litmus test for any heterosexual couple who do not produce children because of intent, infertility, or age. Conflating same-sex couples with childless or elderly heterosexual couples seems to be the fallacy of composition: claiming something must be true of the whole because it’s true of some part of the whole.
Sorry, but the heterosexual union, no matter how it takes place, is the only way any citizen exists, including intersex and transgender citizens. So recognizing that union without prejudice remains the only reason for state interest in marriage.

  1. Same-Sex Marriage Will Settle Nothing

It’s only the starting point for a glut of philosophically related demands for state recognition and approval of many other types of relationships, including polygamy and incest. This will mark the sudden beginning of an even more sudden end for same-sex marriage, not so much because those other types of relationships prove immoral, but because they serve as exhibits for the argument that all civil marriage—including same-sex marriage—is unsustainable and discriminatory.

  1. ‘Marriage Equality’ Opens the Path for ‘Unmarried Equality’

There’s a movement waiting in the wings called “unmarried equality,” which argues that all civil marriage should be abolished because it privileges married people over singles. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, it will set the precedent for abolishing marriage. Far from getting the state out of the marriage business, it will invite the state to regulate all familial relationships, particularly those with children. Once the state doesn’t have to recognize your marriage, it is freer to treat your spouse and children as strangers to you.

  1.  Transgenderism Is a Big Part of This Package

Americans have not thought through the implications of same-sex marriage and how it is logically a big step to erasing all sex distinctions in law. If we become legally sexless, the implications are vast when it comes to how or whether the state will recognize family relationships such as mother, father, son, or daughter. There’s already a push to eliminate sex identification at birth, which could mean removing sex distinctions on birth certificates. This will seem logical because all gender identity non-discrimination laws already presume that everybody’s sex is something arbitrarily “assigned” to them at birth.

  1. It’s an Open Invitation for State Licensing of Parents

If we allow the abolition of sex distinctions and civil marriage—both of which are written into the social DNA of same-sex marriage—we logically allow the state to gain greater control over deciding familial relationships. Civil marriage so far has presumed that a child born into a heterosexual union has the default right to be raised by his biological parents together. How can the presumption of maternity or paternity survive in a legal system that recognizes neither sex distinctions nor a marriage relationship?
The bellwethers are out there. MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry did a “Forward” spot for the Obama administration in which she stated that all children “belong” to communities, not families. Another friend of the Obama administration, gender legal theorist Martha Fineman, calls for state-subsidized care-giving units to replace marriage and the family.

  1.  Same-Sex Marriage Commodifies Children

You may think artificial reproductive technologies (ART) are fine as an avenue to obtain children for those unable to conceive. But in the context of genderless marriage, ART ramps up the potential for human trafficking. Check anonymousus.com to read testimonies of grief and loss felt by children who were conceived in this manner. Check the movies “Eggsploitation” and “Breeders” by the Center for Bioethics and Culture to hear stories of the exploitation of women in the industry. There is definitely an element of human bondage in all of this, particularly because human beings are being deliberately separated from their mothers and fathers, in a way that echoes the wounds of slavery’s separations and the search for one’s roots.

  1. It Sets a Head-On Collision Course with Freedom of Religion

The handwriting is on the wall. You need only reflect on how a screaming mob managed to conjure up total surrender from Indiana Gov. Mike Pence so he would reject that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Catholic Charities is closing its adoption services where same-sex marriage laws pressure them to reject their church’s teachings about marriage and family. Owners of businesses that serve the wedding industry are being forced to either scrap their consciences or shut their doors. Anti-discrimination lawsuits against churches that don’t perform same-sex marriages will undoubtedly increase.

  1. It Sets a Collision Course for Freedom of Speech and Press

Campus speech codes. Social punishment. Firing Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla for discovering his thought crime of privately believing in marriage six years prior. The utter compliance of virtually every big business in America, every media outlet, every pundit who is permitted to have a voice in the public square.

  1. It’s Especially On a Collision Course with Freedom of Association

I already mentioned that abolishing civil marriage, along with legal sex distinctions, puts the government in a better position to regulate familial relationships, and probably to license parents. If we think deeply about these things, it’s hard to avoid the fact that freedom of association begins with family autonomy, a place where the state is supposed to leave you alone in your most intimate relationships. It’s hard to see how freedom of association is not affected, especially when PC speech codes have everyone constantly checking their chit chat with neighbors, co-workers, and classmates. At Marquette University, staff were told that any conversation or remarks construed to be against same-sex marriage were to be reported to Human Resources, even if just inadvertently overheard.

  1. Same-Sex Kills Privacy by Growing Bureaucracy

With the erosion of family autonomy practically guaranteed by the rainbow arc of same-sex marriage, private life will tend to evaporate, just as it always does in centrally planned societies. Distrust grows because people fear punishment for expressing dissenting views. The emphasis on political correctness in the name of equality, coupled with an ever-growing bureaucracy, is a perfect environment in which to percolate a surveillance society.

  1. It’s Meant to Be a Global Agenda

The United States is already punishing countries and threatening to cut off aid if they don’t accept the LGBT agenda. This is especially true of developing countries, in which the whole idea is foreign to over 95 percent of the population. According to a report by Rep. Steve Stockman, corroborated by a Pentagon official, the administration held back critical intelligence from Nigeria which would have aided in locating girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. The new National Security Strategy recently released by the White House makes clear that the LGBT agenda is a global agenda. And it looks a lot like cultural imperialism of the worst kind.

  1. It Promises a Monolithic Society of Conformity

In the past year or two, everyone with something to lose by opposing same-sex marriage—with the honorable exception of Eich—seems to have scuttled their principles. Five years ago, the American Psychological Association voted 157-0—that’s right, ZERO—to support genderless marriage. For an excellent assessment of what this sort of conformity means for a free society, read Brendan O’Neill’s article in Spiked, entitled “Gay Marriage: A Case Study in Conformism.” The agenda was imposed by elites, entirely due to a methodical blitzkrieg of programs and enforcement dictated from above. Same-sex marriage simply could not come about without suppressing dissent in all of our institutions.

  1. Expect More Severe Punishment for Dissent

If you think the bullying of businesses, churches, and individuals who don’t get with the LGBT program now is bad, it promises to get much worse once codified. Is this really the sort of society you wish to live in? Where expressing an opinion from your heart on faith, family, marriage, relationships, love, or the very nature of reality—is routinely attacked as hate speech? Because that is exactly what you need to expect.
Justice Anthony Kennedy made it very clear in his words of the Windsor decision that any dissent on same-sex marriage was tantamount to animus. It is but a short step from presuming animus to punishing dissent.
So perhaps the biggest question hanging in the air is this: What will the authorities decide to do to dissenters?
 

BREAKING: Obama to Force Faith-Based Grant Recipients to Hire LGBTs

 The Obama Administration is poised to require faith-based recipients of federal grants to accept applications from LGBT individuals, according to a report published today by the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam).

By executive order last summer, President Obama amended the Johnson-era federal order on non-discrimination in hiring by federal contractors to include non-discrimination based on “sexual orientation and gender identity.” That order has roiled faith-based groups.

A confidential source tells C-Fam that the White House has directed federal agencies to include “sexual orientation and gender identity” as protected classes in all grant agreements.

What’s more, there are substantially more grant recipients than federal contract recipients. A law professor who works on these issues said, “For every contract recipient there are 50 receiving grants.”

The Johnson-era order was amended in 2002 by President George Bush to include a religious exemption so that faith-based groups would not be forced to hire those in opposition to their teachings. It is unclear whether grant recipients have similar protections. And even those protections are under assault by those who want all such exemptions ended.

According to C-Fam, federal agencies are now being pressured to make this change without a subsequent executive order and that the State Department legal office is telling the White House that this is not a legal matter but a matter of policy.

C-Fam’s source also said that some agencies are hesitant but because of pressure from the White House they are reluctant to object.

Faith-based groups, still grappling with the contracting question, are being caught off guard by this new policy on grants. None of the groups contacted by C-Fam were aware of the new policy.

The office of Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, who also heads the Bishop’s committee on religious freedom, wouldn’t comment. Neither would Anthony Picarello, General Counsel of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference. Catholic agencies would be hit particularly hard by such a change.

At the time of the executive order last summer, two Bishop-Chairmen of the USCCB said the order was “unprecedented and extreme and should be opposed.”

And a comment from a cyber bud:  For the Catholic Church it means that gays, lesbians, transgenders, and bi-sexuals will have to be hired forcefully as part of the staff because the Catholic Church accepts money from the federal government for the program they are running. Catholic Charities has received Mega–Millions of dollars to help transport and settle all those illegal aliens that came in last year.  

Obama Orders Army to Pay Damages to Trans Man Kept from Women’s Bathroom

by Judicial Watch

pinky

The Obama administration has ordered the U.S. Army to pay damages for discriminating against a transgender worker by denying the one-time man access to the women’s bathroom after he “transitioned” to female, thus changing his “gender identity.”

Additionally, the administration has determined that the Army also discriminated against the employee by failing to use his new female name (Tamara Lusardi) and instead continuing to use the name the man was originally hired under. The case involves a military veteran who worked as a civilian software specialist at the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) in Redstone, Alabama. Lusardi served in the Army from 1986 to 1993 and claims he suffered in a hostile workplace when management and co-workers kept calling him “sir” after becoming a woman and legally changing his name.

This month the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the bloated federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws, ordered the Army to pay up for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by committing sex discrimination against Lusardi. The EEOC tweaked the 1960s federal law to include transgender to the mix, asserting that it constitutes “gender identity discrimination” and therefore falls under Title VII of the Civil Rights Law. The agency defines transgender as persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.

In the order issued this month the EEOC writes that Lusardi was harassed because superiors used “male pronouns” after he identified as a woman and “referred to her using these male signifiers on at least seven occasions.” The Army also violated Lusardi’s rights by refusing to let him use the women’s bathroom, the EEOC asserts. The document includes testimony from an Army official explaining that Lusardi was assigned a single-user executive restroom because other female employees would feel “extremely uncomfortable having an individual, despite the fact that she is conducting herself as a female, is still basically a male, physically.”

Allowing a man to use the women’s bathroom would cause more problems than having the individual use a private restroom, the official, identified as the Deputy Program Manager of the Program Executive Office, goes on to explain. “I also thought that under the circumstances, the male restroom would be inappropriate. So, that was left to use the single use bathrooms.” Lusardi used the women’s bathroom anyways and management repeatedly asked him to use the gender-neutral executive restroom until he underwent the final surgery for the sex change because it was making other employees uncomfortable.

There is no cause to question that complainant—who was assigned the sex of male at birth but identifies as female—is female, the EEOC writes in its order. “And certainly where, as here, a transgender female has notified her employer that she has begun living and working full-time as a woman, the agency must allow her access to the women’s bathroom,” the EEOC says. “This ‘real-life experience’ often is crucial to a transgender employee’s transition.” The agency found that the Army’s actions were sufficiently severe or pervasive to subject Lusardi to a hostile work environment based on sex and ordered compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.

Under Obama the EEOC has spiraled out of control to meet the administration’s mission of operating a politically correct government. In fact, nearly half of federal agency rulings dismissing employee discrimination claims have been overturned under Obama, costing American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in settlements. In one year alone this translated into an astounding $51.4 billion that federal agencies paid to settle discrimination claims that often had no merit, according to the government’s figures. In nearly 45% of discrimination claims thrown out by agencies across the U.S. government the EEOC stepped in and revived the cases. The number has increased steadily since Obama became president, according to the EEOC’s figures.

The agency has also taken legal action against private businesses across the nation accusing them of everything from discriminating against minorities for running criminal background and credit checks to discriminating against Muslims for not allowing hijabs on the job. Last year the EEOC even went after a Green Bay Wisconsin metal and plastic manufacturer for requiring employees to speak English at work. In that case the EEOC asserted that the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group. Therefore, according to this absurd reasoning, foreigners have the right to speak their native language even during work hours at an American company that requires English.