Letter to the Sexpo Foundation
Read how the false teaching about sexuality that the Sexpo Foundation promotes increases the suffering of children in particular.
The following is a letter I sent to representatives of the Sexpo Foundation. This foundation has focused on sex education and sex, but its representatives have little respect for the ordinary Christian teaching on sexuality. I myself, before turning to Jesus, thought about these things almost in the same way as the representatives of Sexpo, so I have not been, and I am no better than anyone else. I hope, however, that the following lines will make us think about these things from a new perspective; especially in terms of how adult choices can affect children and their well-being.
Dear repsesentatives of Sexpo
This is Jari Iivanainen from Lahti. I am a former atheist, who believed in evolution, but now I believe in God and in Jesus Christ. This is my background with which I approach you. However, I am not approaching to accuse or bark at you, but to bring up a few important points about sexual issues.
I understand that you certainly have prejudices and negative prejudices against people like me who represent the Christian faith. I don’t blame you or anyone else for that, because I myself was the same kind before, when I was an atheist. I rejected the existence of God, and I was pretty sure in my perceptions, so if I've been kind of why I would blame the other for the same?
So why am I writing to you? The reason is that I am concerned about the developments that occur in society, and that I see you also represent to some extent. I will therefore go straight to the point and raise a few issues, specifically related to sexuality.
Separation of sex from marriage and its impact on children. First, a little word about children’s well-being and mental health. This area has been going in a worse direction all the time. The position of children is getting worse and their nausea has increased. I will highlight a few news items that show the direction of development. Firstly, the news from Helsingin Sanomat from 1996. According to it, child nausea was already on the rise at that time:
Children’s distress and problems are increasing. One reason for this could be the economic depression of the last few years.
Family guidance centers have more and more families visiting them, due to their problems with their children’s anxiety, unsocial behavior, abnormal disruptiveness, depression and maladjustment.
A typical customer is 7-8 year-old boy, who is disobedient, aggressive, restless and constantly harasses other peers.
Children are forced to be alone too much. Even a ten year-old child might think about suicide. (Helsingin sanomat 16.12.1996)
However, the poor development did not lag behind the 1990s. The following news shows how the development has gone worse and worse. Children’s mental health problems have grown dramatically. The first of the following news refers specifically to the 1990s, when the problems were already severe, but years later the problems of children had increased considerably:
Almost a billion euros used in institutional care for children and youth
Problems with children experienced strong rise since early 1990s
… The institutional care of one child can cost up to EUR 100,000 per year while proactive supporting measures in outpatient care could be offered with a couple of thousand euros. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 31 October 2010)
“Violence among children is becoming more common …Aggressiveness of small children has increased in Finland (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 20.11.2013)
Youth referrals almost doubled
Psychiatry: The mental health problems of young people have increased in recent years across the country. In Päijät-Häme, the number of referrals of young psychiatry increased by 40 per cent per year. (ESS, 30.5.2017)
The minds of young people are shaken. Mental health: Referrals to adolescent psychiatric specialist care have increased sharply… (ESS, 25.9.2018)
What, then, are the causes of children’s mental health problems and increased nausea? I am convinced that the main reason is that an increasing proportion of children is born outside of marriage. For I myself was born in the 1960s, when only 5% of children were born outside marriage, but now the same figure is already about 55%. (As late as 1990, the figure was 25.2%.) I think this development has been a clear weakening for children, because parental engagement is a key factor in children’s well-being. If this doesn't happen, children may feel unwell.
For this reason, I see that children born in the 1960s were in a safer and better position than modern day children, of whom more and more are forced to live in single-parent families or blended families. Favoring out-of-marriage sex is not good for children.
For the same reason, society's social costs and housing benefits have increased enormously. For the more families break up and the more false models are favored, the more housingsupport, income support and other supports will have to be paid to remedy the situation. This is shown in the following news.
Divorce is costly for many
Economist Pasi Sorjonen of Nordea Bank wonders why the financial impact of divorces is not discussed much even though divorces are very common and the financial impact caused by a divorce can be great for the people involved.
A study by Nordea Bank suggests that a divorce can lower the living standard of a family even more than unemployment. It is a very extensive social phenomenon: almost half of marriages now end in divorce.
"Divorces are very costly to the society," says Executive Director Heljä Sairisalo of the Finnish single-parent family association.... (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 25 January 2011)
The rate of giving allowances is accelerating in Finland… Housing allowance is being paid at a more and more rapid rate. In November Kela paid public housing allowances for over 93 million euros, when the same amount last year in November was a little under 87 million euros and in the year before that it was 65 million euros. The total sum of the money that goes into public housing allowances has doubled in the 21th century.. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat 8.1.2017)
I would like to quote from Matti Joensuu's book Avoliitto, Avioliitto, Perhe. He described a development that began in the 1960s and whose fruits we have to now reap as increased child nausea and increased costs to society. Back then, in the late 1960s, sex was primarily tied only to marriage, but people who defended extramarital affairs with love began to emerge (“I think there can be nothing wrong with that if both love each other”). They wanted to separate sex from marriage. This led to poor development from the point of view of children:
I was away from my homeland for three years, the years 1965 to 1968. When I returned in the autumn of 1968, I was very surprised at the change that had taken place in the atmosphere of public conversation. This concerned both the tone of conversation and also the framing of questions.
(...) In the world of high school, those who demanded justification of sexual relationships were the ones blowing their trombones loudly. They insisted, for instance, that boys and girls should be allowed to live together in university dormitories even though they were not married.
It seemed as though the Teenager Union had been conquered by new leaders, who announced not only socialism and school democracy but also an idea of free sexual relationships.
All in all, what was new with the situation was that there were reference groups speaking about sexual questions much more openly than it had been normal in public. These groups accused the society and the church of double standards.
The tone of the conversation was to a large extent ethical. Morals were regarded as bad, and were blamed. However, a new moral was simultaneously announced, often very moralistically and intolerantly. It was discussed earlier that the sexual behavior of young people must be understood, but now some groups announced that it is right to have free sexual relationships. The institution of marriage and real genuine love were even set aside. Illegal couples were interviewed in public, as though they were some kind of heroes of a new moral standard, who had dared to rise against the morals of the bourgeois society. Homosexuals were interviewed in the same way and people demanded abortion to be legalized.... “Do love in the name of the law” was the title of a radio program in which legal marriage and true love were presented as opposites of each other. (1)
Dear representatives of Sexpo! If sex is divorced from marriage, it is a bad trend for children, as stated. Moreover, sex outside the marriage of a husband and wife is wrong before God. You don’t believe this, but I personally think that the following teachings about marriage apply to all people. They highlight e.g. the fact that marriage should last until death (I understand, of course, that if there is serious violence in the covenant, it may be an exception), that God hates rejection, and that in order to avoid the sins of fornication, each should have his or her own spouse. In addition, spouses are instructed to meet each other’s sexual needs.
That is, sexuality itself is not a bad thing, but the following verses show its true boundaries in the relationship between husband and wife in marriage. This is also best for children if the parents are committed to each other. We are fools if we are beings of eternity, but we disregard the following verses:
- (Hebr 13:4) Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
- (1 Cor 7:1-5) Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render to the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife to the husband.
4 The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud you not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
- (1 Cor 7:39) The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
- (Mal 2:14-16) Yet you say, Why? Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously: yet is she your companion, and the wife of your covenant.
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And why one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, said that he hates putting away: for one covers violence with his garment, said the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that you deal not treacherously.
Sexual minorities. Then to another thing, homosexuality. Your website had the following mention: “Sexpo marches together with sex workers and the Pro support point in the Helsinki Pride procession”. I understand, of course, that your purpose is good. You want to defend “discriminated” people, that is, people living in homosexuality. Personally, I thought the same way before.
But what is the reason for the homosexual tendency? Is it inborn tendency as often thought? I have not seen any article that has discussed this topic in depth in newspaper columns (although the theory of inborn tendency has been repeatedly refuted in relevant conferences, twin studies, and even though many homosexuals themselves do not believe in this theory.). I myself understand and I'm convinced that homosexuality is not inborn tendency, but rather are influenced by other people in the in the past of a child.
The notion of inborn tendency is also not supported by studies in twins. Identical twins have exactly the same genes and the same environment in the womb, but still only one of them may be interested in their own sex. That should not be the case for gene-like factors. The following quote tells of an extensive study on the subject conducted in Canada with about 20,000 subjects. It shows that genes and genetics do not play a crucial role in the origin of homosexuality.
A study on twins in Canada showed that social factors are more important than genes…
The research results show that genes do not have any major significance. If one of a pair of identical twins was homosexual, there was a 6.7% probability that the other twin was also interested in people of the same sex. The percentage for non-identical twins was 7.2% and for regular siblings 5.5%. These results strongly disagree with the above-mentioned genetic model for homosexuality.
The environment in which twins grow inside the uterus of their mother is exactly the same for both twins in terms of hormones, and thus the results obtained by Bearman and Brucker disprove the theory that an imbalance in the hormones of the mother during pregnancy causes homosexuality.
(...) Previous twin studies had obtained their subjects at clinics or through homosexual organisations, or otherwise had a limited sample. Bearman and Brucker state that their study is the most reliable one because it was based on a random sampling from a youth study including the entire nation. There were around 20,000 test subjects! Furthermore, the researchers did not rely on what one of a pair of twins said about the twin's sexual orientation: Instead, they went to the other twin and asked them about it. (2)
What about homosexuality in women in particular? The most important factor in this seems to be the girl’s difficult relationship with her mother or that she has lost her mother as a child. The following study suggests this. According to it, 27% of lesbians and 2% of heterosexuals had experienced maternal loss before the age of 10 years. Such figures speak volumes about the impact of circumstances and emotional deficiency because the ratio is more than tenfold.
The study by Marcel T. Saghiri and Eli Robins (1973) was not based on a patient sample; instead, they recruited their homosexual interviewees through homosexual organisations. They noted that 27% of lesbians and 2% of heterosexual women had lost their mother before the age of 10. The relationship between lesbian women and their mothers had often been broken or was distant or indifferent. However, they had a warm relationship with their father. (3)
The following quote further reveals how homosexuals generally do not believe in the innateness of their tendencies, but consider growth conditions to be essential:
I read an interesting study by an expert: it was a survey to find out how many actively homosexual people believed they were born that way. Eighty-five percent of the interviewees were of the opinion that their homosexuality was a learned way of behaving caused by destructive influence early on in their home and enticement by another person.
Nowadays, my first question when meeting with a homosexual is usually, “Who gave you the inspiration for it?” All of them can answer me. I will ask then, “What would have happened to you and your sexuality if you hadn’t met your uncle, or if your cousin had not come into your life? Or without your stepfather? What do you think would have happened?” This is when the bells start to toll. They say, “Maybe, maybe, maybe.”
I myself am convinced that in homosexuality is generally a question of emotional need, by man trying to fill. Many have a difficult relationship behind them with their parents or peers, but sexual abuse has also been common. This has been observed in numerous interview studies conducted on homosexuals.
Quite recent news related to the topic. It reported on sex offenders guilty of child abuse. The news reported that a large proportion of sex offenders had themselves been victims of sexual offenses as children. This shows that homosexual behavior can often originate from the exploitation of adults against a child. The spiral continues when those exploited as children commit the same:
Even a hardened criminal cannot be forced into treatment
… On the bench of the accused in court sat on Thursday… a man who first pulled over the prison shirt to hide from the cameras.
Fifty year old man is accused of exploiting nearly thirty children, and this is not the first time. He has been convicted of exploiting dozens of boys at least three times before. Last in 2012.
… Lauerma does not comment on individual cases, nor on this. He says in general that one of the factors that predisposes to sexual offenses against children is becoming a victim of a sexual offense in childhood.
- Quite a large part have been victims of sexual crime in childhood. Estimates range from 30 percent to 80 percent, meaning it’s highly contagious behaviour. Therefore, influencing it would be important because the multiplier effects are intergenerational. (ESS, 12 October 2018)
What can be deduced from the above? If the homosexual tendency is not an innate thing, but has been influenced by other people in the child's and young person's past, then many support, for example through Pride-marches, the misuse of adults towards children. Sexpo also indirectly supports the abuse and sexual exploitation of children in this way. Or isn’t this the right conclusion if sexual abuse and traumatic experiences are at the root of homosexuality? This is a sensible conclusion if it is not a question of inborn tendency but a developmental disorder of a child and adolescent that has arisen as a result of traumatic experiences. However, I do not bother to discuss this further here. I have written about homosexuality, as well as gender-neutral marriage impact on children in many writings on my website.
The importance of gender to adults, what about the children? As I said, you certainly want to sincerely help discriminated people, such as homosexuals. I believe you have sincere intentions.
However, it must be borne in mind that homosexuals too can act selfishly like everyone of us. They too can defend their actions in the name of love, but still act selfishly.
What do I mean by that? Male and female couples cannot have children with each other, but it is possible through sperm banks, uterine rentals, or temporary heterosexual relationships. However, this results in a major problem: the child is separated from his or her biological father or mother from birth. I think couples who act in this way (fertility treatment for single women results in the same situation where a child is left without a father) are selfish and thoughtless. They don’t think about it from the point of view of children but only of themselves.
Indeed, in a gender-neutral relationship, gender is considered important, but it is not considered important for children. It is not considered important that the child has parents of different genders. Anthony Esolen has drawn attention to this inconsistency where adult's feelings and desires are more important than the children:
We cannot at the same time say: ‘Gender of a child’s parents does not matter’, and immediately say that adults’ sleeping partner has so much importance that there is no way they can adjust their lifestyle to be more natural. A son does not need a father, since gender does not matter. But his mother needs a ’wife’, and we cannot expect her to take a husband, because in this case gender does natter more than anything else in the entire universe. (5)
Robert Oscar Lopez, who growed up in a lesbian home, has also taken a stand on how essential it is for a child to have their own father and mother at home. This is an ideal that should be pursued and children should not be separated from their other parent from birth:
We can often hear that same-sex couples have loving homes and that they love their children. This does not convince me, because love means making sacrifices for the one you love, and not excepting the other to sacrifice for you. If you are a homosexual and you love your child, you will either sacrifice your homosexuality and raise the child in a home where they will have a mother and a father, or you will give up your dream of becoming a parent and accept the fact that adoptive children will be given to homes which have a mother and a father. If a child is an orphan, a special needs child, or an abandoned child in social institution, they need both a mother and a father more than anyone, because they need stability, and normality because of the traumas they have had. You cannot ask a child to sacrifice something so universal as a mother and a father for you own sake. (6)
Dear representatives of Sexpo! These aren’t easy things, and I don’t want to be anyone’s judge. However, things should also be thought from point of view of children. Sexual behavior can be selfish if it does not take children into account at all. I think you will certainly want to take into account the situation of children as well.
Polygamy and abortions. Your website also makes a brief reference to polygamy and several sexual relationships at the same time. I do not bother to deal with it in more depth here. However, here it would be worth thinking about things again from the point of view of children. Is it in the best interest of children for one or both of the child’s physical parents to have an adventurous sexual relationship with others? It’s pretty certain that kids don’t want that. They want that the relationship between their own father and mother stay fit, and sex outside the marriage doesn't help this. Such marriages and relationships — and, as a result, families — break down much more easily than normal, fidelity-based relationships.
What about abortion? Your site supports the right to abortion. Here, however, I see once again that the human rights of children, that is, the right of children to live, are being rejected. How can it be considered a human right that parents have the right to kill their children? I will take a few quotes here that deal with this issue and how children are killed through abortion. I consider it a human rights violation:
One cannot perform abortion eyes closed. One must be sure that everything has come out of the womb and one must count that there are enough of legs and arms, rib cage and brain that is coming out. Then when the patient is waking up from their narcosis, and asks, whether it would have been a girl or a boy, my resilience has reached its limits and that is when I usually walk away. – If I perform a surgery, where I clearly kill a living being, I think it is folly to talk about destroying nascent life. It is killing, and I see it as killing.” (7)
I had a doctor colleague in the hospital, with whom I talked about abortion. He defended abortion as a woman’s right, and I, on the other hand, objected it as a violation towards a child’s life. One time in the middle of the night I caught him pale leaning against a wall and I asked if he was feeling ill. He told me that he was just performing an abortion, when a tiny leg detached from the thigh had dropped from the suction machine. He started to feel nauseous and groaned: “This is the job of an executioner.” (8)
The issue has also been discussed in newspaper columns. I myself took part in it through the following writing, which was the equivalent of a representative of a socialist party (in this writing I only use the designation person X). She appealed to women’s human rights, as is so often the case, yet completely ignoring children’s human rights. I hope this will make you think about it from another perspective as well. I don’t want to be anyone’s judge, but I think it’s worth considering what’s right and wrong in this matter. Is killing a child in or out of the womb correct (“Do not Kill”) if the parents don’t want the baby?
Abortions are in contradiction with human rights
Person X from the Socialist party pointed out (27.9) the actions of politicians in the case of Timo Soini. The article referred, among other things, to the human rights and dignity of women.
I agree with the importance of human rights, but the question is, what is meant by this. Value Liberals argue that human rights in this case specifically mean the right to kill their children in the womb of the mother. Instead, I see for myself that it is precisely this point of view that is opposed to equality and nullifies children's human rights, that is, the right of children to live.
It is pointless to claim that in an abortion, a woman decides on her own body or that a piece of tissue is taken away. It destroys a living child. Most abortions are performed at 8. weeks (2 months), when children have the same body members as we do: hands, feet, eyes, mouth. So it is certainly a human being.
Of course, I understand that an unexpected pregnancy can be a difficult thing, and I don’t want to belittle anyone’s experiences. However, that does not change the fact that this is a real person. It is advisable to look at ultrasound images of 2-3 month old fetuses.
Secondly, I ask politicians a question. Do you think it is the subject of the celebration - as many celebrate the relaxation of Irish abortion law - if a similar law is passed that entitles parents to kill children aged 2 weeks or older?
For if the killing of children in the womb is accepted, why not outside it as well? The only difference is the child's place of residence and size difference. Fortunately, politicians are not always consistent in their reasoning and have not taken this step. Maybe that time will come later.
I will also raise the case of India. There especially girls are killed in the womb and as a result there are about 914 women per thousand men in India. This was reported in the news some years ago.
So I ask, is this a right of women when girls are killed and there are not enough wives for men? Who would explain this? Or why don’t women’s rights defenders take a stand on such activities?
Finally, the development of society. Person X spoke in a negative tone about conservatism, but is the current generation better than the previous ones? Let's look at the children again. The latest news reported: “Young people's minds are shaken… Referrals to specialist psychiatric care have increased sharply”. This shows the wrong direction of development. So we should not consider our own generation better than previous generations, when many factors suggest otherwise. (News of Southern Finland on 2 October 2018)
Pedophilia. Your website also mentions pedophilia and refers to e.g. Tapio Puolimatka, who mentioned his concern that the current debate on sexual rights could lead to the acceptance of pedophilia.
Is Tapio Puolimatka worried in vain? Here it is worth looking in the direction of the Netherlands, for example. There was a so-called pedophile party, so this issue has already been raised in Europe.
(It is worth remembering that Amsterdam in the Netherlands has also been the capital of child pornography in Europe. Similarly, Amsterdam is a pioneer in other wickedness.)
So I believe that when the Netherlands has been followed in Finland all the time, especially on the issue of homosexuality and the raising of euthanasia, we will soon see similar emphases in Finland as have already been seen in the Netherlands. The concern of Puolimatk is therefore not necessarily unfounded.
It is still worth noting that well-known homosexual magazines and executives abroad have raised this issue, namely pederasty and pedophilia, years ago, as the following quotations show. Thus, accepting forms of sexuality that formerly were regarded as wrong (such as cohabitation, extramarital sex, and homosexuality) can lead to the acceptance of pedophilia at a later date.
In the past decades, we have noted how the breaking of one social taboo related to sex has cleared the way for the acceptance of the next, more serious taboo. Pre- and extramarital sex has become more and more publicly accepted, starting in the 1960s. The next in line in the 1990s were homosexuality and transsexual-ism. The only things left now are paedophilia and pederasty.
This is usually considered to be an exaggeration and an attempt at intimidating people. Homosexual movements are also opposed to comparing homosexuality with paedophilia. This is not an issue that can be lightly set aside, however. Most regular homosexuals are not even familiar with what the international homosexual movement has done or with the discussions that are currently taking place in academic homosexual publications. (9)
Although the things that wide audiences talk about with each other are not widely spread, they are not secrets and surely can be distributed to wide audiences. Do the supporters of abortion, e.g., publicly deny their hostility towards motherhood? Publish Eileen L. McDoagh’s description of an unborn child as an aggressive intruder, who is to blame for the precnancy. Do homosexual activists publicly deny the link between homosexuality and pedofilia? Publish the double copy of Journal of Homosexuality magazine about the topic “The generational love between men”, which is full of articles praising “the loving pedofile”. It can be said that every societal movement has embarrassing allies. Absolutely, but in this case there is a fundamental asymmetry. Proper societal movements reject those, who aspire to be their friends, but say bad things. Movements advocating for immorality take these friends to their side, because they don’t consider what they are saying as being bad. This speaks volumes if only we are willing to hear. (10)
Transsexuality. Your page also refers to transgenderism under the title “A New International Classification of Diseases: Transgenderism and sadomasochism are no longer mental disorders”.
So what is the question here? In fact, I am convinced that the transgenderism, or dissatisfaction with one's own sex is specifically a psychological thing. That in itself is not remarkable, as each of us can be dissatisfied with ourselves in many other areas as well. It can occur e.g. in the following ways:
• Eating disorders like anorexia nervosa are a good example. A person suffering from anorexia nervosa might feel like they are fat, although they are really skinny. Body image of that person is distorted and they believe that they would be more happy if they were skinnier.
• Heavy drug and alcohol use often comes from strong feelings and thoughts of inferiority. A person uses drugs to get rid of their weakness, feeling of inferiority and negative thoughts.
• Plastic surgery is the result of not being satisfied with one’s own body. Sometimes it can have great results, when the feature that has been considered ugly is removed. Though, that is not always the case, and the person might stick with the mental image that has been controlling their life.
• Men might feel dissatisfied with their bodies and try to boost their self-respect and satisfaction by gaining more muscles.
• A strong focus on achievement can be the result of low self-esteem and self-dissatisfaction. Workaholism can be a symptom of trying to buy approval from yourself and others.
• Self-hatred and despise are a sign of extreme dissatisfaction with oneself. In the worst case, it could lead into suicide and self-harm. Usually self-hatred begins, when other people reject you and, how you react to that rejection. Rejection from others does not inflict self-hatred per se, but our own negative thinking is linked to it. On one hand, if we think with reason, we can be happy, even though every person in the world would reject us.
It should therefore be understood that there is a question of psychological factors in transgenderism, but there is nothing wrong with the body itself. In the background there are similar psychological factors as in eating disorders or other experiences of dissatisfaction with the person themselves. They can often stem from harmful claims or remarks from others. So many trans people have often the background, where the child has been a desired to be of the opposite sex, and this has then impacted on the child's identity and the desire to be the other sex.
(Personally, I ran into such a case just last year. One man told of a relative from whom had been cut her breasts off. Knowing that transsexuality is usually based on the issue of parental dissatisfaction with the sex of the child, I immediately asked this man if this had been the case with his relative. He immediately admitted that the girl's father had been disappointed with the girl's sex)
The following example points to this:
Loren, an elegant, handsome forty-year-old man, had been openly homosexual since his youth. This had caused great conflicts between him and his father, and problems in his other relationships. He did not accept himself but defended his behavior passionately when arguing with his father. He understood that his homosexuality included a grudge and a rebellion towards his father, but he was never able to deal with these. This man had genuinely found Christ and salvation, but he often lost the battle against his homosexual tendency, until God brought into light his first memories. This happened when we asked the Lord to find that recollection that would expose the cause of the problem. During this prayer, he relived an occurrence that took place when he was only just born.
He saw his father coming into the room where he had just been born. Disappointment quickly filled the room and heavily weighed on him. His father looked at him with disgust and said, "Another boy!” Then he turned and rushed away from the room. Loren was their third son, they had been hoping for a girl. Loren "saw" all of this and experienced it again – and this time, understood it both intellectually and emotionally. This rejection explained why Loren had later tried to become a girl, to the great astonishment of the family. He wanted to play with dolls and girls, not with boys. He unconsciously tried to be the girl his father had hoped for. (11)
Therefore, a pertinent question for a person struggling with their gender identity is, “Why do you wait and demand the approval of others for your trans identity, but do not accept yourself as such you were made?” “Why do you expect approval from others but reject yourself as such you were born?”
Where, then, does this matter lead? Many certainly sincerely want to help transgender people and people struggling with their gender identity, but in this way they give their support to the lie and do not take into account the psychological factors behind it.
What is also problematic is that when the issue is portrayed in a positive way in the media, children and young people can drift into solutions that they will later regret. They can, when trying to change themselves, drift into irreversible surgery. This often has sad consequences. A blogger named Musta Orkidea has shared her own experiences:
“Some of my body parts have been removed. I have no breasts, because they were removed, and there are scars in my lower stomach that were wounds, through which other parts of my body have been removed, parts that were naturally a part of me. My face shape has changed. Hair grows on my face. My voice has changed into something completely unrecognizable… I cannot conceive a child, and I am entirely sterile even as a woman… My current name is not my real name. My identity is a made-up identity and I have the wrong papers. I am not a man but a mutilated woman… For years, I have lived in a lie, and made myself think that I am something I’m not… I have crossed a line and there is no coming back. I can never get back something that has once been cut off. Sex change surgeries are irreversible. Once the body is broken, you can never repair it. I am completely unfixable. Nothing can be done… It is not possible to be born in the wrong body. The human body has existed long before there has been any awareness, or formation of identity. The body and mind are not separate from each other, nor do they exist as separate or singular entities. They are always one. The thought of the possibility that one could be the opposite gender on the inside is ridiculous. Trans-sexuality and identity disorders and this disorder exist between the ears, not in the body. Sex is a physical quality of the body like height, shoe size, or hair color. One cannot change their sex, like you cannot change your race or height… Trans-sexuality is very much like anorexia. It is like having symptoms of the same condition but in a different form” (Musta orkidea: Viimeisen muurin takana on totuus. [The truth lies behind the last wall])
What about intersexuality? The fact is, then, that there are only two sexes, a man and a woman. There is no third sex. Instead, many struggle with their gender identity and its acceptance, but that’s a different matter. It involves similar psychological factors that occur in other areas such as eating disorders. Often they originate from the harmful speeches by others and traumatic experiences. However, the positive thing is that more than 80% of children who struggle with their gender identity grow out of it, developing into a normal man and woman. Therefore, children should be allowed to develop in peace, and not bother their minds with things like this. In it, the media have a great responsibility.
(It is good to note that homosexual or bisexual orientation in adolescents is also 25 times more likely to become heterosexual within a year than in the opposite direction. This was found in a study among 16-22 year olds (Savin-Williams & Ream 2007: 385 p.). The study also showed that approximately 70 percent of 17-year-old boys who unilaterally expressed homosexual interest indicated that they were unilaterally heterosexual at the age of 22.)
Thus, human sex and chromosomes cannot be changed because it is a physical trait. A person basically remains a man and a woman, although the original body can be damaged as a result of the treatments. In addition, it is questionable to change personal identification numbers if a person’s internal desires are not the same as the sex they are born at birth. Such measures cause unnecessary extra work for society. Likewise, making toilets gender-neutral is questionable. How can we be sure who is serious and who is a pervert who is only taking advantage of the situation?
What about sports competitions? Men and women have different capacity, which is why men’s and women’s own sets are needed. Many people have not taken this into account.
What about intersexuality? This matter is exploited by many trans activists, but it does not mean that there is a third sex, but it is a question of sex development disorder. It can mean an abnormality in the genitals (larger than normal clitoris or a remarkably small penis), absence of the uterus and ovaries, or that the reproductive organs are vague so that it is not possible to say which sex a person represents. Such people cannot reproduce.
In intersexuality is therefore a question of sex development disorder. Similar disorders can occur when someone does not have hands, feet, or any part of the body at birth, or has only one eye. This may be the case, for example, in areas with strong nuclear landings (Hiroshima, Chernobyl). However, these exceptions do not prove that it is someone other than a human or that there is a third sex.
Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual health. There is a mention on your website: “Sexpo celebrates World Sexual Health Day!”.
This is certainly a good thing too, but how can sexual health be improved and sexually transmitted diseases reduced?
Certainly the most important means is our own behavior. If we follow the above teaching of Jesus and the apostles that sex is only right between a man and a wife in marriage, this is the most effective way to reduce sexually transmitted diseases (1 Cor. 7: 2: 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.) Instead, if prostitution and free sex are practiced with numerous people, this spreads sex- and other diseases.
For example, AIDS has been a serious problem in Africa, India, and elsewhere precisely because of sexual recklessness. Millions have died as a result of AIDS. The outbreak of the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. in the 1980s among male homosexuals is also known because they have a lot of sex and because they have often included anal intercourse. These examples show how wrong sexual behavior increases sexually transmitted diseases.
Misconduct has also economic consequences. For example, drug treatment for one AIDS patient costs about 20,000 euros a year (Heikki Peltola, Professor of Infectious Diseases Hus Children and Adolescents' Hospital, Helsingin sanomat opinion column). In addition, there are other costs, so it’s not quite cheap care.
Particularly harmful in this sense is homosexual sex (men). While thousands have marched for this matter, and we understand that people’s choices must be respected, this will also have an impact financially. A very large percentage of sexually transmitted diseases have spread through homosexual relationships. Professor David Deming has written:
The fact that two-thirds of cases of syphilis and AIDS concerns one percent of the population clearly shows that homosexuality is not a safe choice ... I am disturbed by hypocrisy. Many ardent supporters of the homosexual agenda condemn opponents of mandatory vaccinations. They remind us that vaccinations serve the common good by reducing disease. But they do not accept that the reduction in homosexuality achieves the same goal ... We are constantly told about the costs of gun violence, smoking and obesity. What are the costs of homosexuality? How much does it cost to treat syphilis, AIDS and a whole host of other diseases? What price do we have to pay for the fact that syphilis, which was almost defeated, has now been allowed to spread again? (12)
Christian school and sex education. You have also commented on the Christian School in Lahti and its sex education on your website. Your website mentions in this context: "Comprehensive and inclusive sex education is a proven way to improve sexual well-being, reduce sexually transmitted diseases and prevent abortions for young people."
But this is exactly the question of Christian sex education. If it is taught, as is the case at Lahti Christian School, it reduces sexually transmitted diseases and prevents abortions for young people. Instead, the opposite teaching, (which you seem to appreciate) leads to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases and abortions. I do not understand how best to reduce these harmful things than it is through our own behavior, which is based on the New Testament teaching on sexuality.
You also mention that if you teach, like Jesus and the apostles on sexual matters, that it is discrimination against sexual minorities. However, this is not a question, but a question of right and wrong. Saying that stealing is wrong, that murder is wrong, that extramarital sex is wrong, or that homosexual sex is wrong is not any discrimination. Each of us can be guilty of wrongdoing, and if they are pointed out to us, it is by no means discrimination. I think that many people don't understand at all what this is all about.
You also mention bullying in schools, but you should pay attention to ordinary schools. In them, problems of bullying and discrimination are many times worse than in Christian schools. Of course, Christian schools are not perfect, but they clearly have fewer problems like this.
Then another thing. Sexpo states its support for a pluralistic society, but is this also true of Christian teaching and people? You seem to accept only the SETA-driven model of sexuality, but you completely reject the traditional Christian teaching on the same subject. I do not think this represents a pluralistic society, but an opposite of it.
On the other hand, in the current development, I see a danger of a narrowing of freedom of religion and expression. We are moving towards a society where no one is afraid to disagree with SETA, for example, because it may result in the risk of losing one's job or a burst of criticism. Instead, if someone turns into a homosexual, such a person is considered a hero and a brave.This example, I think, shows how far people have diverged from the Christian view that was mainstream still in the 1960s.
However, the UN Declaration of Human Rights refers to freedom of religion and expression as follows. This declaration was made after World War II, when the unethical actions of the Nazis had been exposed. I hope that you, as representatives of Sexpo, are also promoting freedom of religion and expression towards those of us who think according to the traditional Christian view, and not just towards SETA. The following is an excerpt from the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Dear representatives of Sexpo! (Tiia Forsström, Tommi Paalanen, Tiina Vilponen, Vilho Ahola, Anni Karnaranta, Taru Höykinpuro, Jaana Kauppinen, Nina Nurminen, Kirsimaria Örö, Arja Nieminen, Karoliina Vuohtoniemi, Henriikka Sundell, Veera Uusoksa, Oona Turunen, Kolona Thesleff, Veera Virta and other possible representatives of Sexpo)
I've written about things that are the opposite of your worldview and views. I understand that some aspects in my writing may irritate you, and I do not blame you, because I too thought before in the same way as you do now.
However, these things are not at the core of the Christian faith, but are the relationship with God and the forgiveness of sins. I hope, above all, that you will turn to God and ask Jesus Christ to your life. For if we are eternal beings, it is worth thinking about things in terms of eternity. Doesn't this make sense?
Sexuality matters are good and useful at best, like many worldly things, but eternal life is another matter. That is why I urge you to turn to God, read the Bible, and take eternal life seriously. You can pray, for example, as follows:
Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.
1. Matti Joensuu: Avoliitto, avioliitto ja perhe, p. 12-14
2. Ari Puonti: Suhteesta siunaukseen, p. 76,77
3. Ari Puonti: Homoseksuaalisuus – hämmennyksestä selkeyteen, s. 101
4. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132
5. Anthony Esolen: Defending Marriage: Twelve Arguments for Sanity (2014), Charlotte, NC: Saint Benedict Press, p. 149
6. Robert Oscar Lopez, p. 114
7. Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970
8. Päivi Räsänen: Kutsuttu elämään (?), p. 146
9. Ari Puonti: Homoseksuaalisuus – hämmennyksestä selkeyteen, p. 166
10.. J. Budziszewski: Tätä emme voi olla tietämättä (What We Can,t Not Know. A Guide), p. 278,279
11. Leanne Payne: Särkynyt minäkuva, p. 84, 85
12. David Deming: The Gay Agenda and the Real World, American Thinker, December 19, 2015.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!