A Moscow city MP has promised to press for the ban on the most known symbol of the LGBT community after the campaign of support of the US move to legalize same-sex marriage has hit Russian social networks, drawing ire from conservatives.
Aleksey Lisovenko made this pledge via a Facebook post and in the same post he claimed that “the United States must have gone completely mad and now its gay delirium is threatening the entire civilized world.”
The politician went on to suggest that the American nation can start “spreading gay marriage all over the world by means of aircraft carriers,” similar to today’s policy of “imposing democracy with tanks.” He warned the concern over minorities’ rights can be used to interfere into the affairs of sovereign nations.
“Billions of US dollars would be pumped into gay propaganda all over the world, preparing the grounds for ‘rainbow revolutions,'” he forecasted.
Lisovenko noted that soon after the verdict on same sex marriage was announced in the US, profile pictures of thousands of Facebook accounts were painted with rainbow colors, including the accounts of many celebrities, politicians, and major brands. He added that the simultaneousness of this move allowed for the suspicion that some coordination or even “an order from above” – and Barack Obama’s statement that the verdict was a victory for America confirmed this suspicion.
The MP wrote that he was sending an address to State Duma with a request to include the LGBT flag into the list of symbols banned for use on the territory of the Russian Federation. Lisovenko also asked the parliament to allow the state internet watchdog Roskomnadzor to block any website or social network accounts that use the rainbow flag on their pages.
Last Week, Russian Senator Mikhail Marchenko (Bryansk Region) addressed the Roskomnadzor agency with a request to influence Facebook so that it would stop using LGBT symbols and promoting same sex marriage.
Get rid of the fag flag and burn it into oblivion!
Today, many love to say that if people are indulging in what they want to do, “and as long as they are not hurting anyone and doing it in the privacy of their own homes,” then they are completely fine with it, no matter how evil or deviant. This is especially true when it comes to any debate over homosexuality, or disordered beliefs. They hold that no law should be made against the acts, even though they are a danger to society, because they consider it a private pleasure.
Many claiming to be Christians will express their support for the sodomites, and they, many times, will bring up the “love of Christ” to vindicate their support for them. Let us remind such people that nowhere in Scripture is evil tolerated simply because it does not physically or directly harm someone or because it is private. In fact, Christianity is so much against allowing private deviancy, that it says that those who “approve of those who practice them” are “worthy of death” (Romans 1:32).
This means that opinions expressed in favor for homosexuality and other deviancies (such as cannibalism), are worthy of capital punishment. This purely illustrates that Christianity is so much against the license to do evil — even if it is done in private — that it prohibits any approval of it. For those who disapprove, let them read the words of St. Isidore where he said that law “is composed of no private advantage, but for the common benefit of the citizens” (Isidore, Etymologiae, 5.21, in Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia IIae 90, article 2). Let them read St. Thomas where he says that “Law must therefore attend especially to the ordering of things toward blessedness” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia IIae 90, article 2).
Does homosexuality bring blessedness? Does the tolerance of such a deviant act bring any blessed fruition to a people? Does it honor the sacrament of marriage from which children, “a blessing and a gift from the Lord” (Psalm 127:3), come to this world? St. Thomas also says that “every law is directed to the common good” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia IIae 90, article 2).
What good has ever come from the act of homosexuality? No offspring, no sacrament, nothing. St. Thomas also says that the natural affections between man and woman “is directed to a common good: namely, to the preservation of nature in the species or in the individual” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia IIae, 92, article 6).
And later, this same Doctor of the Church affirms that “sexual intercourse between men is especially said to be a vice against nature” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia IIae 94, article 3).
And so the natural affections are to be upheld, protected, and honored by the state, and anything that comes against it–let it be uprooted and cut off like cancer, for such is against the common good. Let the woman who “exchanged the natural use for what is against nature” and the man who left “the natural use of the woman” (Romans 1:26-27), “be put to death” (Leviticus 20:13).
Homosexuality needs to be treated as sedition against the people. What is a people? A people, as St. Augustine defines one, is not to mean “any indiscriminate multitude, but an assembly of those united by agreement as to what is right and by a common interest.” Therefore, sedition is not just against the government itself, but against the collective and common morals and precepts by which a community is united. As St. Thomas says, “sedition is opposed to justice and the common good” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae 64, article 2).
Since homosexuality is against the sacrament of marriage, which is the building block of society, then it is against the common good, and the very Faith of our civilization, and thus is an enemy to the Christian people and should be treated as sedition. Let the heretics who believe in such license read where St. Paul refers to these sodomites as “deserving of death,” and also those who “approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:32), and let them dare say that homosexuality should be allowed in a Christian society. The first principle of law is that good must be rewarded and strived for, and evil punished (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia IIae, 94, article 2), and this is why we say with St. Peter that rulers are sent by God “for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14).
It is the job of the ruler to cut off those who are a danger to the spiritual and moral health of the community (See Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae 64, article 3) and to help bring that community to good behavior. How can good behavior be expected when the state allows the people to believe and practice whatever demonic ideology they want to follow? Anarchy only leads to more anarchy; rebellion to more rebellion. So only violence, disorder, and perversion can come out as a result of absolute freedom of religion. This is why we need laws against cults and other insidious organizations, and most certainly they must apply to the sodomites, the godless, and all of the promoters of prevision. Vitoria, who stands amongst the most learned of theologians and who is one of the fathers of international law, said:
Princes have enacted laws concerning moral goodness, such as prohibiting blasphemy, sodomy, and so on; laws must concern moral actions, or these would be invalid (Vitoria, On Law, ST I-II. 92, article 1, 122b).
To those who object to intolerance against homosexuality, or any grave evil, we repeat the words of Solomon, “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 17:15).
The inculcation of the homosexual ideology is due to the weakness of churches. In ancient Israel, when low class priests reigned, sodomites were also given leeway to conduct their evils and further degenerate society. For after Jeroboam made “of the lowest of the people priests of the high places” (13:33), “there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel” (14:24).
This is why the sodomites must be rooted out, for such is what God commands, and failure to do so leads only to spiritual anarchy, and then, ultimately, to societal anarchy. This command was obeyed by Asa, who, doing right for God, rooted out the sodomites:
And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made (1 Kings 15:11-12).
The societal anarchy that comes from toleration toward homosexuality is illustrated by the modern advocates of “consensual cannibalism,” or the diabolical idea that says that cannibalism is permissible as long as the one getting eaten is being eaten willfully. For all of the advocates for this heathen practice are atheists, occultists, and promoters of homosexuality. In other words, if a society can accept the demonic actions of the sodomites under the pretense of “privacy” and “individual freedom,” then it can just as easily permit the consumption of human flesh under the guise of “privacy” and individual freedom.” But the uprooting of the homosexuals will only happen once the Church is restored to its rightful place.
HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF CIVILIZED SOCIETY
God’s law should be the only acceptable system for society, because it is the only system that promotes the natural order by which a healthy civilization flourishes. Christianity teaches that marriage must be between man and woman, and anything contrary to this must be uprooted because it is a hindrance to the natural order.
Since a part (and the order of a part) stands in relation to the whole, then the order of marriage stands in relationship to the rest of civilization. Marriage’s end is orderly and fruitful reproduction of humankind, without which there is no civilization.
With this said, homosexuals (or sodomites) cannot be considered as a part of civilized life because their activity is not in relation to the whole of civilization but is a willful declaration of war against it–a willful hindrance to the order that perpetuates civilization, a contumacious attempt to destroy the very means by which humankind exists. Since what is good for the part is good for the whole of civilization, sodomites cannot be esteemed as part of it, for they are beneficial to neither the part nor the whole.
If everyone were a sodomite, we would cease to be a civilization, becoming a mere aggregate that leads to a transient existence that ends in the inevitable death of itself. Men die, but, because of procreation, civilization lives on. Therefore, homosexuals cannot be a part of civilization.
HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A CERTAIN ACTION IS DANGEROUS
There are those who argue that homosexuality is not harmful. But, before making such a rash conclusion, we must first observe the process by which an action is determined to be dangerous or not. The way we determine if something is harmful or evil is to consider the result of it being commonly accepted or participated in by everybody. Once we make this observation, then we can determine whether an act is worthy of toleration or punishment. A dangerous act committed by even one person must be punished so as to prevent the crime from being collectively acceptable. As Vitoria articulates:
We must instead consider what would happen if it were done commonly, by all or by many. For instance, if the export of money outside the kingdom is prohibited, then anyone who smuggles out money commits a mortal crime, because although a single infringement is of little damage to the commonwealth, if it were to become general the kingdom would be wasted away; therefore the law obliges all on pain of death. Similarly, one case of fornication does little harm, but general fornication would do great damage, and therefore this too is a mortal crime on every occasion (Vitoria, On Civil Power, question 3, article 2).
The reason why homosexuality, and even infanticide, have become so dangerously common is that we have refused to see it as a crime. “A little homosexuality here, some abortions there, or some drug usage will not hurt you.” This is what the moderns say, and this sophist way of talking has efficiently deceived many (and we can thank the obsession with free speech for that).
Notice how people frequently say that such and such a perversion is not done by everyone. They use the minority participation in a crime to somehow make the warning against it benign. A small step is a great fall, and a little leaven spoils the whole batch; if we allow such wickedness to be done in incriminates, then they will soon be done in great numbers. Crush the eggs of the baby serpents before they hatch. The sodomite, the atheist, the fanatic feminist, the Muslim — all such must be deemed as criminals and enemies to civilization, for they war against the Faith, promote death, and hate life.
They should be told to leave their wicked ways under coercion, and if that does not work, then death and strong suppression is the only solution. We cannot allow someone the freedom to do evil, for this will only increase the presence of darkness in the society, and it will become an internal enemy. As Augustine once said:
When we take away from someone the freedom to do wrong, it is beneficial for him that he should be vanquished, for nothing is more unfortunate than the happiness of sinners, when impunity nourishes guilt and an evil will arise like an enemy within (Augustine, letter 138:2, in Aquinas, Summa Theologiae IIa IIae 40, article 1).
Theodore Shoebat is the Communications Director for Rescue Christians, an organization that is on the ground in Muslim lands, rescuing Christians from persecution. He is the author of two book, For God or For Tyranny and In Satan’s Footsteps: The Source and Interconnections of all Evil , he also has a DVD series called “Christian Militancy,” which is on Christian warfare and our fight against evil and tyranny.
Courtesy of Freedom Outpost.COMMUNITY LINKS: Visit Our Sister Site for Articles Not Seen Here | Browse our Store for Conservative Gifts & Apparel | Join Our Free Speech Social Media Network