Amnesty International is begging for money on British public transport, informing us that “a teenager faces a death sentence for being gay”.
The ad continues: “will you send a text?”
Oh, Aaahh, uhhh, who would not send a text in solidarity to the poor teenager?
In littler fonts, we are then informed that in ten countries, people can be put to death for “loving someone of the same sex”.
Oh well, it's not about “being gay”, then. It's about Sodomy! A criminal offence in all civilised Christian countries, when they still were both!
Now, we can disagree about whether the death penalty might not be a tad too harsh. I personally think it is far too harsh; but by all means, feel free to disagree. It's a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, anyway.
The point is, though, another one: being homosexual does not force anyone to commit acts of sodomy, exactly as being a pedophile does not force anyone to rape children.
All this is, though, conveniently forgotten by our atheist, Morality-free friends. They suggest, instead, that you text a certain number, after which Amnesty will have another plug possibility everytime they think, or suspect, that someone, somewhere, may, or might, be at risk of being executed for “being gay”. I'd love to have the statistics about real executions, by the way.
Hardly a genocide, I am sure.
If you know any Christian friend or relative of yours who is inclined to give money to these people, you may want to educate them to Faggotry International's agenda: the shameless promotion of heathenism and sexual perversion as a way to get to your wallet.
No, it's not for “being gay”. It's for being a sodomite. A very free choice, that requires overcoming a very strong and very natural sense of disgust, and which is very painful anyway.
I won't send my text. My phone will stay faggotry-free. Fag chappy will have to keep his perversion under control.
US Secretary of State Kerry is so stupid that he compares the recent Ugandan measures against sexual perversions to Nazi Germany.
Some facts for Mr Kerry:
1. There was only one Country in Europe or North America that allowed Abortion in the Thirties. It was Nazi Germany. Abortion in its most extreme forms is a flag of the Obama Administration.
2. Sodomy laws were in place all over the West until a few decades ago. Including all the Western countries that defeated Nazism.
Who is the Nazi, then?
On another note, and as you read in the same article, the World Bank has frozen aid money for Uganda after the adoption of the law. Unfortunately for them with no results, at least for now. But make no mistake, the bullying will continue.
Leading the charge are countries like Norway, Danemark and the Netherlands; all of them heavy sponsors of sexual perversion, or euthanasia, or both.
Let us pray countries like Uganda – last time I look, a success story for African standards in the last decades – find the economic and spiritual strength to go on without the bribes of an increasingly nazified West.
If you have followed the recent events in Uganda, you will have noticed a strong contrast between the useless waffle of much of the West and the robust Christianity in Africa.
Here in the satiated – actually, obese – West, “who am I to judge?” is the order of the day, and the entire Church apparatus bends over backward to be as much aligned to secular values as they can get away with. As the Bishop of Rome is the one who can get away with pretty much everything, it is no surprise he is very much at the head of the movement.
Meanwhile, in regions of more recent Christianisation – like Sub-Saharan Africa, where Christianisation has been largely absent, albeit with some notable exceptions – Christianity is taken far more seriously, and the local prelates fulfill their role of shepherd in a way most Western ones would never think of, or dream about. This is why the Ugandan clergy – can you believe it – supports the Ugandan law against sodomy and homosexual propaganda.
Mind, though, that they do not shout “God hates fags”. God hates faggotry, and He hates the fact that one person is a fag. But he certainly loves him as an immortal soul. Still, the love for the person does not mean the condoning of the abomination; something African clergy would not do more than they would child abuse, or incest. Note that, in doing this, they are not only very sound, but also very charitable.
All this escapes our very corrupt – from the Bishop of Rome down – hierarchy, most of whose adherents would very probably describe sodomy laws and the punishment of homosexual propaganda as “homophobic”; either because they are blissfully unaware this is what Christian countries – being Christian – have always done, or because they find it more convenient to ignore the facts than to confront the world.
This creates, on reading of the news coming from Uganda, the clear impression that the Church is split in two: an ailing body, sullied with all the filth of the world in the Western world broadly intended – that is: including Central and South America – and a far younger, healthier, clearly pugnacious one in parts of Asia and vast parts of Africa, where “who am I to judge?” is rightly ignored in favour of the sensible, Christian, and charitable “why should I be an accomplice?”.
And in fact, when the Ugandan bishops approve the law – whose explicit aim is to avoid the corrupting influence of the satanic Western mentality – they are not only stating their refusal of the Western secular society; they are, and emphatically so, also rejecting the bogus Christianity preached everywhere from Western Catholic prelates and priests, from the Pope down, who would obliterate the Christian message and substitute it for a vague, fluffy, effeminate emotionalism in which only God's mercy has remained.
Being Christian, they are not worried in the least of being called “homophobic”. In fact, the very use of the word “homophobia” is a very worrying sign the person who uses it might have strayed already so far from Catholicism and Christianity at large, that his ability to promote sound Catholicism is now severely impaired.
Let us take an example from the brave Ugandan government, and the sound Ugandan Catholic clergy.
We do not need measures against “homophobia”.
We need to bring back Sodomy laws.
Good and shocking news reach us today from India. The good news is that, certainly going against the trend of at least the stupid, corrupted, utterly amoral West the Indian Supreme Court has de facto reinstated sodomy laws in the country by banning the law that abolished them.
The shocking news is that, of all people, the Indian Cardinal Gracias should complain about it.
We really live in an upside down world. A Cardinal should very well know that a sin is an action (or thought or omission, but here we are interested in the action, and it is the act of sodomy that is a criminal offence, not being an inverted) that offends God, and therefore the Church should approve every action from foreign legislative or judiciary bodies that introduces or upholds punishment for the most atrocious offences, as they align at least in tendency the civil society – even of prevalently non-Christian countries – to Christian values.
I will never tire to repeat that the laws of one generation shape the morality of the following one, and it is in fact no surprise that only one generation went from considering the sin of the Sodomites worthy of criminal punishment to considering it a criminally neutral behaviour, and in another generation or less the same behaviour once considered worthy of jail time is now considered – or on the brink of being considered – even worthy of legal protection.
This did not happen by chance, of course, but in part thanks to the silence or utter complicity of the clergy, among whom Cardinal Gracias is an egregious example.
One must, in fact, wonder where the Cardinal has left his sense of shame, provided he ever had one. We are talking here of such abominations – akin to the raping of children, or to incest – that up to one and a half generation ago the very fact was only mentioned in the most indirect and least shocking of ways, and only when absolutely necessary. Not so for the good (or rather, bad) Cardinal, who should be asked why he does not intervene in public to defend, say, the decriminalisation of incest among consenting adults.
I note in his very stupid defence of perversion, the Cardinal states that he has “full respect for homosexuals”. He clearly considering sodomy an obvious and inevitable corollary of being a pervert, as the law in question does not punish being homosexual, but merely the act of sodomy. Interesting. The Cardinal should read a catechism when he has time. Or perhaps he should ask that sex with children be decriminalised, as the impulse to sexual acts in child rapists is at least as strong as the one to sodomy by sodomites; this, apart from the fact that not infrequently the child rapist is also homosexual.
Note, though, that Cardinal Gracias is another member of the “gang of eight”, and it appears Francis has carefully handpicked them so that the upside-down-ing of the Church may go on undisturbed. It can also be that nowadays every such “gangbanger” feels he could be the next one in charge, and feels the need to promote his, ahem, “Francis II” credentials. I am being malicious, you say? As Giulio Andreotti used to reply: those who think ill of others commit a sin, but are often right…
As we write the Year of Our Lord 2013, Church prelates all over the world publicly and enthusiastically embrace the values of the secular and perverted society, whilst it is left to the judiciary of foreign countries to uphold the most elementary morality. It truly beggars belief that only 55 years could reduce the Bride of Christ to such a state.
Poor Holy Mother Church, in the hands of people like Bergoglio, Marx, Maradiaga, Gracias and yes, Ricca…
Imagine one day your Government, following the “call” of the times, would decide that sexual intercourse with animals does not constitute a criminal offence. It is still horrible of course, but it has now been decided that prosecution (with the added expenses) is now not the way anymore.
In just a few years, behaviour once considered criminally perverted would be considered merely disgusting; after a while, purely very strange. Disquieting people would emerge from anonymity, beginning to give themselves as zoophiles names like “smart” or “spiffy”. Soon, they would begin to consider themselves a ” minority”, and the carriers of a “culture”, and this culture would be, of course, “discriminated against” by the “hypocritical” followers of “bourgeois morality”.
Give them just a few years more (the time to infiltrate Hollywood, and be considered “normal” by a generation of people who cannot even remember zoophilia was once a criminal offence) and Bob’s your uncle: they will be accepted. This point – when people start to say “some of my best friends are spiffies” without being ashamed; nay, feeling modern and alternative and “with it” – is the turning of the tide. After a while, calls for “civil partnerships” will be heard, and when one already has a neighbour living with an extremely nice female of German Shepherd it might not sound so absurd at all because the abomination was there, to be seen every day and shamelessly practised under the sun already; after a while, the calls for “marriage” will follow, and those who refuse to congratulate Bella (the German shepherd) and Adam (the English accountant) for their beautiful relationship will be called, by the then deputy Prime Minister, “bigots”, whilst the Prime Minister of the day will call their “commitment” something “conservative” and give his blessing. In the end, they say, Bella and Adam are “happy”, and how can anyone be so cruel as to be against, oh, oh, “happiness”?
What is this all to do with the so-called “gay marriage”, you will ask?
The debate about the so-called “gay marriage” (which isn’t gay; much less marriage) is not the product of some strange combination of planets; it is the unavoidable consequence of the abolition of sodomy laws. How was it not to be expected that the toleration of perversion would not, in time, lead to calls for its normalisation? One can’t be half against abominations. Either one refuses them altogether as taboos, or one will be forced to “include” what he is afraid to condemn.
Our forefathers, much smarter than we are and with no false gods of tolerance at all costs, knew this. We know this ourselves when some types of sexual perversions (paedophilia, say) are concerned. But again, after only one and a half generation without sodomy laws many people would struggle to even link the two and put them in the same ballpark, which countless generations before us did without any problem. This happens because, as I have often repeated, the laws of one generations are the morality of the following one. Those legislators who decriminalised sodomy in the Sixties certainly did not favour the so-called “gay marriage”, but clearly did not think this through. We now pay the consequences of their folly, and it might be a long time before sanity (and with it sodomy laws) returns.
We live in such senselessly stupid times that we have lost sight for elementary truths just because they impact some neighbour or colleague or “friend”. God is not part of the picture anymore, and no average “British Neighbour” wonders anymore whether he must really tolerate scandalous perversion out of his own front door. This happens, because he has not been taught to call a spade a spade; and whilst he feels all the disgust he has no heart to say what he thinks, lest he should appear a Neanderthaler in the eyes of his neighbours; many of whom, no doubt, think exactly as he does.
This cycle of cowardice – which generates more homo screaming; which generates more cowardice – has to stop. It has to stop if we want to go back to basic Christianity and elementary decency, instead of allowing Satan to manipulate us everywhere whilst we say to our friends how modern and tolerant we are.
So-called “gay” (I’d love to see the suicide statistics of such “gay” people) “marriage” is not fought against saying that civil partnership is enough of a civil right, because this invites the problem rather than avoiding it. If perversion is right, why should only half perversion be accepted? Isn’t the very institution of “civil partnership” the statement that sexual perversion is absolutely normal? If it’s normal, what’s the fuss?
So-called “gay marriage” is fought against by calling s spade a spade, and a pervert a pervert, not by giving perverts almost full recognition and then telling them they are ok, but really, they should not ask to be treated as such.
Bring back the sodomy laws.