“Healthy, Happy and Hot”

But of course the real reason for the teen pregnancy rate going up is we don't have enough sex-ed in the classroom. According to C-Fam:

According to International Planned Parenthood Federation, the brochure called “Healthy, Happy and Hot” has become their most popular publication. 

Aimed at young people with HIV, the brochure contains sexually explicit language and promotes casual sex with multiple partners, as well as oral, anal, and homosexual sex.  

“Some people like to have aggressive sex,” says the brochure.  “There is no right or wrong way to have sex.”    It encourages young people who might have sex after drinking or using drugs to “plan ahead by bringing condoms.”  Another section suggests readers visit family planning clinics for help in preventing or aborting unplanned pregnancies.   

The publication encourages youth to keep their sexual activity secret from their parents, as well as visits to family planning clinics.  “You should find out whether there are any centers near to you where you can go without needing the permission of your parents or guardians.” 

Good grief. Next thing you know they'll want to teach this crap from day one...oh, wait...

UN Agency Promotes Sex Ed From Birth

The Value of Marriage

From the AP:


"...in 1965, when a now famous government report by future senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described a "tangle of pathology" among blacks that fed a 24 percent black "illegitimacy" rate. The white rate then was 4 percent."


"...The black community's 72 percent rate eclipses that of most other groups: 17 percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americans were born to unwed mothers in 2008, the most recent year for which government figures are available. The rate for the overall U.S. population was 41 percent...."


"...Statistics show just what that fullness means. Children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock...."


Ah... the fruits of the sexual revolution. Rarely has so much information been packed into a news article. The failure of sex education in the public schools, the failure of a contraceptive societal mindset, the false idea that every family, no matter how defined, is the same, the failure of a welfare state that discourages traditional family, and the lie that marriage doesn't matter, all tied up in one article. Let's pray that the public discourse continues. But of course the article also proves that there are some pretty stupid people discoursing and missing the obvious.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back... So goes the old saying and song. And so goes the news on the marriage and abortion front:

Efforts to redefine marriage have seemingly stalled in New Jersey:
(LifeSiteNews) - A bill to legalize same-sex "marriage" in the state of New Jersey will likely never arrive on the desk of Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, an ardent same-sex "marriage" supporter, as momentum for its passage has stalled in committee, reports the Associated Press.

While same sex marriage proponents' campaign to redefine marriage whatever the cost appears to be poised to wreak havoc on D.C.'s poor.
(More here) -- Members of the D.C. City Council have continued to refuse to address the Archdiocese of Washington's concerns that a bill to legalize same-sex "marriage" would injure the poor by forcing Catholic Charities either to support a violation of Catholic teaching or drop government social-service contracts.

and last but not least we have this lovely (and by lovely I mean horrific) story of a hospital in France found guilty of "Unreasonable Obstinacy" in saving a newborn's life. Problem is you see, that the child is now facing "severe mental and physical disabilities due to the trauma."

Recommendations

OK- I know I've added a great deal of content to the site, so much so that it may be difficult to wade through it all even with the handy dandy headings and groupings. For many of you this will not be a problems and you will slog through as you are led. But some may not and thus may miss some of the really good stuff that is there. The blogs and links I offer all have some redeeming quality and are trustworthy as far as I know. If I feel the subject matter is somewhat lacking, it will go away. Still, you may find it a bit much, so to assist you I have included below some of the highlights this week. As I've said, I think they are all worth a look but if you can only get to a few, these would be them for this week:

A new way to achieve victory in the Mid-East. A thought provoking article by analyst and writer Daniel Pipes:

When Barack Obama announced in June 2009 about Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, "I'm confident that if we stick with it, having started early, that we can make some serious progress this year," he displayed a touching, if naïve optimism.

Indeed, his determination fits a well-established pattern of determination by politicians to "solve" the Arab-Israeli conflict; there were fourteen U.S. government initiatives just during the two George W. Bush administrations. Might this time be different? Will trying harder or being more clever end the conflict?

No, there is no chance whatever of this effort working.

Without looking at the specifics of the Obama approach — which are in themselves problematic — I shall argue three points: that past Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have failed; that their failure resulted from an Israeli illusion about avoiding war; and that Washington should urge Jerusalem to forego negotiations and return instead to its earlier and more successful policy of fighting for victory. (more)

Over at Bedlam or Parnassus an excellent post on shameful things and the shame and bedlam present in our schools and in our government.

Many of the pro-family blogs are helping in Maine's fight to preserve tradtional marriage. At the Pomegranate Apple they tell you some concrete ways you can help.

And last but certainly not least, when it all seems a bit much to handle, you can go to A Trail of Flowers and rest. If you are Catholic (or a closet Catholic-like me) and/or appreciate or write (or attempt to write- like me) poetry, then you will be doubly blessed. I've never known a blog to be a poem till now. It is a breath of fresh air.

I hope you enjoy them all.

'No truth' in Obama's speech before homosexuals

A couple of stories from OneNewsNow.

The first one about speaking out as Ken Hutcherson, former NFL Linebacker and Senior Pastor of Atioch Bible Church in Washington State says:

"...it is "a shame" that the president is "supporting what destroys the family...."There's absolutely no truth in anything he said, from beginning to the end," ..."(T)here is no such thing as [a] biblical stance for homosexuality, if you use the Bible."

In his talk, Obama acknowledged that many Americans still disapprove of homosexuality. "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes," he stated. (See related article) Hutcherson says those comments demonstrate the president has contempt for more than just conservative Christians.

The second article is about the silence of Duke University. A good post on this can be found over at Self Evident Truths.
Mike Adams a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, wonders where the outrage is concerning Duke's homosexual rape/abuse case is?

Frank Lombard, associate director of Duke University's Center for Health Policy, has been accused of molesting his adopted five-year-old African-American son and offering him up for sex with strangers on the Internet. Lombard's homosexual partner, who resides in the same house with Lombard, was allegedly unaware of the activities.

In the infamous Duke lacrosse team rape case more than 80 university officials and professors signed a statement accusing the players of racism. Adams wonders where those professors are now in this new rape case at the university.

Team of Researchers Blames Children's Films for Perpetuating "Heteronormativity"

"Heteronormativity"- Like Frankensteins's monster, bad satire comes to life.....

ANN ARBOR, Michigan, June 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Researchers at the University of Michigan have concluded that the love stories told in classic Disney and other G-rated children's films – such as the Little Mermaid - are partially to blame for the pervasiveness of what they label "heteronormativity."
"Despite the assumption that children’s media are free of sexual content, our analyses suggest that these media depict a rich and pervasive heterosexual landscape," wrote researchers Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin, in a report published in the latest issue of the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) publication Gender & Society.

Good Grief!

Casual Sex is Unhealthy

Doctors, Joe McIlhaney and Freda McKissic Bush, explain what we now know about sex and the human brain in their book, Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex Is Affecting Our Children

From OneWoldNews:

...Males have their own neurochemical related to bonding: vasopressin. It floods the male brain during sexual intercourse, causing him to feel at least partially bonded to every woman with whom he's been intimate. If men begin a pattern of having sex with partner after partner, they risk not developing the ability to form long-term emotional attachment. As McIlhaney and Bush put it: "Their inability to bond after multiple liaisons is almost like tape that loses its stickiness after being applied and removed multiple times." ...

...Now let's add to that new information that neuroscience teaches us about the brain chemistry of sex and bonding some cold, hard facts about how effective birth control really is when it comes to teenagers. The authors of Hooked have compiled the following statistics from various sources:

- 20 percent of 12- to 18-year-olds using the Pill will become pregnant within six months

- 20 percent of teens under 18 using condoms will become pregnant within a year

- 50 percent of female teenagers who live with a boyfriend and use contraception will become pregnant within a year...

...For those of us unconvinced by moral or religious arguments, it's time to re-order our priorities. Now that we have science behind us, it's time for society to change its collective mind when it comes to sex, just as it did with smoking. Maybe in one generation, we can undergo a transformation when it comes to sex outside of marriage. Maybe TV shows and movies will stop implying that casual sex is no big deal. Maybe we'll begin to teach young people that waiting till marriage is best. Then the dopamine and the oxytocin and the vasopressin can do their jobs of helping to make two people one.

"Gay Gene" and the Tyranny of the Me

Years ago when talk first started about a “gay gene” I remember hearing many homosexual leaders and writers speak out against such studies saying, in essence, being homosexual had nothing to do with science and everything to do with choice. I didn’t think I’d be able to find any of this talk in the current day but I was wrong. It’s over at a site called queer by choice. While I disagree with the choice itself, it is refreshing to see such honesty. The site looks at many of the studies which purport to show that homosexuality is biologically driven and goes beyond the headlines and reads what the studies really say. For example:


To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date.
—PFLAG (Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians And Gays), "Why Ask Why: Addressing the Research on Homosexuality," 1995

Because of problems with statistics and sampling, nearly every report of a 'behaviour gene' located in this way—including those supposedly associated with schizophrenia, manic depression, criminality and alcoholism—has been retracted or called into question when later investigators failed to replicate the results. A famous example is Dean Hamer's 'gay gene,' announced with much fanfare in 1993, when his group found an association in 40 families between a marker on the X chromosome and male homosexuality. Because of the high political stakes and levels of public interest, Hamer's results immediately hit the headlines, followed quickly by the publication of his popular book, The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behaviour. The expected uproar ensued: many gays rejoiced that homosexuality could no longer be seen as a sinful choice, and some conservatives spoke darkly of pre-emptive abortion. Since 1998, however, two independent research groups have failed to find any evidence for Hamer's gene, which now seems likely to be an artefact of sampling. Unsurprisingly, the press has largely ignored these later studies.
—Jerry Coyne, "Not an Inkling" (review of Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley), London Review of Books, Vol. 22 No. 9, April 27, 2000

Examples of such honesty can also be found in those gay writers who stand against the redefining of marriage (here)

And from those who stand up against the "hate" law currently before congress and call it what it is-

The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that - and Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time. The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings. Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for HRC, more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It's very, very powerful as a money-making tool - which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn't passed (if it passes, however, I'll keep a close eye on whether it is ever used).(more)


Over and above the concern that professional associations such as the APA and journalists have in the past and continue to this day to slant the information they provide in response to pressure from homosexual lobby groups and thought police, is the damage done to our children.

In every child’s sexual development there is a time when pseudo-homosexual activities occur. About the time when the hormones kick in and the idea that the opposite sex is not as obnoxious as had been believed over preceding years but before that point of being really comfortable with the opposite sex, many young people experiment with varying degrees of sexual or pseudo-sexual activities with the opposite sex. In a normal world most quickly outgrow this phase. Some however, because of traumatic experiences or lack of parental example, or other unknown reasons, remain in this state of immature and retarded emotional/psychological growth. In some ways it makes sense as it is always easier to love one’s own reflection than to love someone who is completely “other.” But whatever the cause it is not “normal.”

In today’s twisted world, children are encouraged to go with these initial, fitful, misguided first experiments in sexuality and to declare themselves gay, bi-sexual, etc. A prime example of child abuse if ever there was one.

Lesbian/feminist writer Camille Paglia is a fine and refreshing example of intellectual honesty in this debate. Not only does she admit that there is nothing “normal” about homosexuality but rightfully is concerned about the impact that attempts to normalize such ideas have on our children. (From Americans's for Truth)

The psychological turmoil of adolescents at sexual awakening cannot be underestimated. Everything is in flux — impulses, fears, dreams, with simultaneous longings for independence and for protection by adults. What I dislike about the push of organized gay activism into high schools is that it imposes a rigid political paradigm on a stage of life that is in rapid, painful transition for everyone, gay or straight.

As an equity feminist, as well as an open lesbian, I oppose special protections for any group, including my own. Teachers and administrators should obviously not permit physical harassment of any kind on school property, but verbal epithets, however offensive or hurtful, have First Amendment protection. The PC thought police, having been defeated on college campuses after the court-ordered banning of the fascist speech codes, are now oozing their way into high schools. “Hate” cannot be stopped by authoritarian manipulation but by slow social change, which may take generations.

The Internet has been a boon to lonely gay teens in geographically remote areas — but, of course, computers still remain largely a white middle-class luxury. I find very suspicious the statistics about teen suicides with which gay activists badger the media. If gay teens are indeed attempting suicide at a higher rate than straight teens, perhaps more questions need to be asked about the genesis of homosexuality. The intolerable sense of isolation may precede the homosexuality, rather than vice versa.

I have written repeatedly about my theory that homosexuality is an adaptation, rather than an innate trait, and that it is reinforced by habit. With its cant terms of “oppression” and “bigotry,” gay activism, encouraged by the scientific illiteracy of academic postmodernism, wants to deny that there is a heterosexual norm. This is madness. We need more art and history and less politics in primary education. Art gives the young the psychological and spiritual tools for authentic self-discovery. And art is where sexual dissenters have contributed the most to the human record.

In short, I agree with your concern about the Trojan Horse of gay activism, which is being dragged into high schools under the false flag of compassion. Young people who oppose homosexuality for any reason have a constitutional right to express their views, in or out of the classroom. Whatever they may privately believe as individuals, educators have a professional obligation to remain ideologically neutral in their treatment of students. (more)


Perhaps in this discussion lies the seeds of the hostility of many in the homosexual movement toward religion (or at least any religion who speaks against their chosen way of living). For in Christianity at least, we love and worship a God who makes a claim on every aspect of our lives including our genitals. Though we know that we are made in his image, this God is wholly other.

But the tyranny of the me, taints us all as pointed out in two excellent articles over at MereComments:

Our problem is pseudogamy, false marriage, and it assumes many forms. Same-sex pseudogamy is but the latest and most flagrantly absurd, but it is not the first. We find the most fundamental form, from which other corruptions rise up like diseases, when a man and woman go through the ceremony and utter the traditional words "as long as you both shall live," while harboring the mental reservation, "as long, that is, as I am happy," or "as long as the marriage 'works,'" whatever that is supposed to mean. In other words, in the fundamental form of pseudogamy, we don't have people who are not married behaving as if they were, but people who are married (or who present themselves as having been married) behaving as if they were not.

Why should anyone care about the private mental reservations entertained by the couple next door? The obvious answer is that those reservations are not really private. They will inevitably be talked about, urged upon others, or acted upon, if not by the couple next door, then by the couple two doors down, and then their problems are also ours. We must live with their divorce. We must try to teach their addled children. We must get along in neighborhoods blasted by the instability and the chaos. We must help feed the sharks in the divorce industry....

...That's the obvious answer, but not the best one. The best answer examines what we in our culture of divorce have nearly forgotten, namely the high and adventurous calling that marriage truly is. "Should a man give the woman he is weary of a bill of divorce?" ask the scribes, and Jesus replies by reaching behind all human custom, and behind all of the Mosaic law's concessions to human weakness, by reminding us that it was not so from the beginning -- which is to say also that it is not so now, from the foundations of our beings. "What God has joined together," says Jesus, "let no man put asunder."...

...In love and only in love do we discover the beauty of another being, and only in love do we become ourselves, for he who would save his life will lose it, but he who would lose his live will save it, unto life everlasting. ... Christians should acknowledge the truth of this, but it is ready to be seen by anyone, regardless of faith. Marriage -- marriage such as Jesus defined it -- is the foundation of society not simply because it is the best environment for raising children, though it is. It is the foundation because in it man and woman commit themselves one to another, as if they were, so to speak, gods freely bestowing freedom upon what they create. They are like God Himself in that free and freedom-making relinquishment of themselves, and they find themselves in that greater thing they create, the one flesh, the love that embraces them and that stands as an example to all others of the beauty and grandeur of that complete gift....

...In other words, the mental reservation vitiates the marriage. To the extent that we entertain it, we lie. We say aloud, "I give myself to you," but whisper to ourselves, "I retain myself for me." We say, to paraphrase Augustine, "Lord, marry me to this woman, but not quite." We engage in a convoluted and expensive pretense, complete with band and wedding cake and ring and honeymoon in Cancun, when all along we are saying, in part, "I am for myself, and for this person here only insofar as this person is for me," rather than, "I now belong to my spouse, and in my belonging to my spouse I will become myself, because it is only in giving that we receive, and only in binding ourselves to the gift that we are set free."...

... The man and woman who bind themselves together with Elmer's glue do not really intend to bind themselves together. Wedding ring or no, they are passing off as marriage what is, at least in part, a pseudogamous relationship. And they are helping to build a pseudosocial culture, a culture of selfishness, division, chaos, and enmity. (read the whole article here) the second is here

The idol of this world is no golden calf but rather a mirror. It is unrestrained and unchecked appetite and instant, (and often impersonal) careless gratification. We are in love with our own reflection.

"Castration Celebration"

It's the name of a book. Random House. CHILDREN's Book!

From NY Post:

HOLD on to your laps, Amer ica. And lock up the kids until they're 42.
The latest addition to the well-stocked smut canon is aimed not at adults, but at impressionable teens and pre-adolescents. It's called "Castration Celebration" -- a kind of "High School Musical" meets "Saw." Gross.

The novel is about what you think, but worse. This twisted, comic romp does little more than cheerfully promote underage sex, drug-taking, binge-drinking and, most painfully of all, male dismemberment by a high-school-age female, the heroine.

The theme is captured on the very first page, which reads: "Did you know that in imperial China, eunuchs had their testicles, penis [sic] and scrotum [sic] removed?"
Aside from the egregious grammatical sins, the nastiest thing about this book is that it's not offered for sale in a brown paper bag by some oily character. This tome is the giddy, proud publication of prestigious Random House.

Random House Children's Books, that is.

Gay and Alive

What did you think when you read the title of this post. I'll wager it had nothing to do with happiness.

My oldest son came into the room a few minutes ago having just watched an episode of "Get Smart."

"That is a good example of how things have changed," he said. "(Smart) just said, 'What happened, you used to be so alive and gay'... If someone had said that now days people would say, 'what is she lesbian or something?' "

The word has been co-opted by a movement. As has the whole idea of male friendship.
It reminded me of an article that I read some time ago at Touchstone on language and the death of male friendship:

Sam Gamgee has been fool enough to follow his beloved master Frodo into Mordor, the realm of death. To rescue Frodo from the orcs who have taken him captive and who will slay him as soon as he ceases to be of use in finding the Ring, Sam has fought the monstrous spider Shelob, has eluded the pursuit of the orcs, and has dispatched a few of them to their merited deaths.

Finally he finds Frodo in the upper room of a small filthy cell, naked, half-conscious, lying in a heap in a corner. “Frodo! Mr. Frodo, my dear!” he cries. “It’s Sam, I’ve come!” With a bluff tenderness he clasps him to his breast, assuring him that it is really he, Sam, in the flesh.

Still groggy, Frodo can hardly believe it, but he clutches at his friend. It seems to him all the tissue of a dream—that an orc with a whip has turned into Sam—and it is all mixed up with the sound of singing that he thought he heard and tried to answer. “That was me singing,” says Sam, shaking his head and saying that he had all but given up hope of ever finding his friend again. He cradles Frodo’s head, as one would comfort a troubled child.

At that a snigger rises from the audience in the theater. “What, are they gay?”...

...Language is not language if it is not communal; it is a neat trick of political abracadabra to argue for an individual’s right to change the very medium of our thought and our social intercourse. If clothing is optional on a beach, then that is a nude beach. It cannot be a nude beach for some and an ordinary beach for others; to wear clothes at that beach at the very least means something that it had not meant before. If you may paint your house phosphorescent orange and violet, and you persuade a couple of your neighbors to do likewise, you no longer have what anybody would call a historic neighborhood.

If all of Kate’s friends leap into bed with whatever male gives them a hearty dinner at Burger King and a round of miniature golf, and Kate chooses instead to kiss her date once on the cheek and leave him on the porch, she will suggest to everybody that she is a prude. She may be, or may not be; she may be more firmly in the grip of lust than they are, for all we know, and may just detest the boy. But her actions have connotations they did not use to have.
Imagine a world wherein the taboo has been broken and incest is loudly and defiantly celebrated. Your wife’s unmarried brother puts his hand on your daughter’s shoulder. That gesture, once innocent, must now mean something, or at least suggest something. If the uncle were wise and considerate, he would not make it in the first place. You see a father hugging his teenage daughter as she leaves the car to go to school. The possibility flits before your mind. The language has changed, and the individual can do nothing about it.

By now the reader must see the point. I might say that of all human actions there is nothing more powerfully public than what two consenting adults do with their bodies behind (we hope) closed doors. Open homosexuality, loudly and defiantly celebrated, changes the language for everyone. If a man throws his arm around another man’s waist, it is now a sign—whether he is on the political right or the left, whether he believes in biblical proscriptions of homosexuality or not.

If a man cradles the head of his weeping friend, the shadow of suspicion must cross your mind. If a teenage boy is found skinny-dipping with another boy—not five of them, but two—it is the first thing you will think, and you will think it despite the obvious fact that until swim trunks were invented this was exactly how two men or boys would go for a swim.

Because language is communal, the individual can choose to make a sign or not. He cannot determine what the sign is to mean, not to others, not to the one he signals, and not even to himself. ...

...On three great bonds of love do all cultures depend: the love between man and woman in marriage; the love between a mother and her child; and the camaraderie among men, a bond that used to be strong enough to move mountains. The first two have suffered greatly; the third has almost ceased to exist....(more)

It's a good article. Close, intimate male friendship is no longer possible to the degree it once was. And every man has suffered for it. Frankly, so have women.

Marriage: A Hill to Die On

Though the meat of the article focuses mainly on the political question of which I could give a rat's patootie, I agree with the sentiments expressed here. Namely, "the latest demand is never the last."
Said before but worth repeating-and often, the redefining of marriage has nothing to do with civil rights and is a radical social experiment that has disastrous consequences for our society and our children as well as our religious freedoms...

From the Spectator blog:

...Over and over, we find ourselves fighting what is essentially a defensive battle against the forces of organized radicalism who insist that "social justice" requires that we grant their latest demand.

We know, however, that their latest demand is never their last demand. Grant the radicals everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with new demands that they insist are urgently necessary to satisfy the requirements of social justice.

When they refer to themselves as "progressives," radicals express their own basic truth: Their method of operation is always to move steadily forward, seeking a progressive series of victories, each new gain exploited to lay the groundwork for the next advance, as the opposition progressively yields terrain. Such is the remorseless aggression of radicalism that conservatives forever find themselves contemplating the latest "progressive" demand and asking, "Is this a hill worth dying on?" ...

...Some conservatives are wholly persuaded by the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates. Others, however, are merely unprincipled cowards and defeatists. Concerned about maintaining their intellectual prestige, some elitists on the Right do not wish to associate themselves with Bible-thumping evangelicals. Or, disparaging the likelihood of successful opposition, they advocate pre-emptive surrender rather than waging a fight that will put conservatism on the losing side of the issue.

Yet if the defense of traditional marriage -- an ancient and honorable institution -- is not a "hill worth dying on," what is? ...

Redefining Marriage Will Cost You

A dangerous social experiment that will effect our culture and our children. How does the same sex issue effect you? Just your religious freedom and your conscience.
And so it has begun. From the Washington Post:

Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.
The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:

-- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.

-- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

-- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage. (more)

Go see the ad over at Self Evident Truths then go over to the NOM -National Organization for Marriage and get informed.

Self Evident Truths' Snarky Files

Over at Self Evident Truths, Euripides has started a new feature called the Snarky Files. It's good fun and a good read on the latest headlines from a fellow, self described "curmudgeon". Euripides is fast becoming one of the top 10 bloggers I'd like to have a beer with. I can relate to his outlook as my wife said (when I had appendicitis) that she could tell I was sick because, as she lovingly pointed out, "you're always cranky, you were just cranky in a different way." But I digress.

good stuff over there and a good conversation starter. Rather than hijack his comments section I've included a bit of his list here with some comments:

Babies

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics released statistics that show that single mother birth rate is on the rise. Anti-male and anti-family feminism is taking its toll. The institution of the family is decaying before our eyes. Startling is that nearly 40% of total births are to single moms. Shameful is the statistic of 71.6 percent of black babies and 51.3 percent of Hispanic babies born to unwed mothers. Where are the dads and what's happened to the responsibility of fatherhood? Isn't anyone else alarmed by these numbers? Children have a right to be raised by a mother and a father.

Over at the Washington Times there is a good article on this issue, specifically the executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. Marybeth Hicks says that
what we really need is a White House Council on Men and Boys:

If Mr. Obama wanted to actually do something significant for American's women and girls, he would have created instead a White House Council on Men and Boys....

... A council on men and boys would promote stable marriage as the best avenue to improve the lives and living conditions of America's women and families. A council on men and boys would address the crisis in American manhood that results in the scourge of infidelity, divorce, lack of commitment and fatherhood with multiple partners.

A council on men and boys would seek to eliminate the objectification of women in the media. It would battle our hypersexual culture by fighting against the “hook-up” mentality that defines the way in which young men view young women. And most importantly, it would stamp out the violence against women that emanates from men's widespread exposure and growing addiction to pornography.

Such a council would work to train a new generation of boys to become real men, who honor and uphold women as equals in the workplace, the community and the home - not because the government regulates such an attitude, but because it's right.

A council on men and boys also would address the underlying problems that create “women's issues” such as child care, inadequate pay and domestic violence. These aren't “women's issues,” but issues related to the systemic collapse of the American family. ...(more)

Of course a feminist agenda that seeks to make women the same and not just equal is an important discussion as well. One I'm sure the Council will not address...

One more from the list:

Epidemic

The US capital struggles with an increasing AIDS epidemic. Why-oh-why is there a continuing epidemic of AIDS in cities such as DC (30.5 per 100,000), Miami (33.1 per 100,000), Baltimore (29.6 per 100,000), New York (27.1 per 100,000), or San Franscisco (26 per 100,000)? And why is the epidemic so prevalent among blacks (76% of total DC infections) and gays (37% of total DC infections)? Beats me since everyone keeps assuring me that AIDS is not related.

The cluster of AIDS in the urban centers reminds me of one of the most convincing arguments against the claim that homosexuality is genetic in nature. If it were genetic in nature (and no study has ever said that conclusively then we should expect it to be equally spread amongst the population. (like blue eyes for example)

But its not. It too, clusters around the urban areas where the laise fare attitude toward sexuality specifically and morality in general is more common.

Anyway, check the rest of the list out over there.

Obama Administration to Endorse Decriminalization of Homosexual Acts

What next? The international court calling states to task? Is that an extreme reading? hmmm...

Lots of folks picking up on this but the first I saw was over at Beetle Blogger:


I thought it wasn’t cool for the U.S. to be bossing other nations. But I guess not because the Obama Administration is going to sign a UN declaration calling for world wide forced acceptance of homosexual acts. No matter the cultural/religious and/or societal traditions of other nations.
The declaration is problematic for many reasons. One, it makes comment on other nations’ laws (based on their citizens’ morality). Two, the declaration conflicts with U.S. state and federal laws:

Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review. (more)

Voice of the Nation- Debuts Thursday

You just knew Beetle was something special when you visited the site. This just underscores it.
They are partnering with UFI to start a radio show for family issues on blog talk radio.

Voice of the Nation

United Families International (UFI) and the Digital Network Army (DNA) are pleased to announce the new BlogTalkRadio show: Voice Of The Nation, on Family Values Blog Talk Radio.

Voice Of The Nation will be hosted by UFI Media Director, Drew Conrad and DNA Director, Angela Rockwood. The on-line talk radio show will highlight current Family Values news and discusses the logic behind the Pro-Family Movement.

The inaugural show will be on Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 2:00 PST. Voice Of The Nation will discuss same-sex marriage initiatives that are taking root across the country as well as summarize the recent happenings regarding the assault on the family at the UN.

UFI International Policy Director, Laura Knaperek, who was one of several UFI representatives at the UN during CSW, will be a guest on the show. Prior to joining UFI, Mrs. Knaperek served in the Arizona State Legislature for ten years. During her tenure as a State Representative, she established herself as an advocate for children, families and the disabled.

CLICK HERE FOR THE SHOW’S HOMEPAGE

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Redefining Marriage Fight in Vermont

Thanks to Pearl Diver for this heads-up:

The Salt Lake Tribune published an article today heralding a week of hearings in Vermont over legalizing same-sex marriage. If you live in Vermont and you value marriage for the protection of children and society, please stand up and speak up. Call your legislators to let them know that you will not accept runaway politicians who act and speak according to their own agendas rather than representing the people who voted them into office. (More)

Are You My Mother?

Good article over at "And Sometimes Tea." Highlighting the issue once again: "who is thinking about the children?"

I think just about every child knows the sweet story called Are You My Mother? Written by P.D. Eastman, the story follows a poor baby bird who has fallen from his nest in his mother's absence, and he asks just about everyone and everything he meets that same plaintive question (with results from the silly to the mildly scary). Just when the sad little bird is about to give up, his own real mother returns and finds him, and he is safe and secure once more.I thought of that story when reading this news brief:

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Things are about to get crowded in Cat Cora's kitchen.
The "Iron Chef America" star says on her MySpace page that she and her partner, Jennifer, are each expecting sons.
"(Jennifer) carried my embryo and I carried hers," Cora told OK Magazine. "It's like surrogating, but obviously all of our kids are equal."
The same anonymous sperm donor fathered all four children.
The 41-year-old Food Network chef says she and her 37-year-old partner will deliver their babies about three months apart. The couple already has two sons: Zoran, 5 and Caje, 22 months.

Are you my mother? How do children in this sort of "arrangement" ever answer this question? How do the women answer? "Well, I'm your genetic mother, but to make things fair she's your birth mother--we didn't want there to be any messy custody fights over you if our relationship doesn't work out. So we were willing to take the chance of creating you outside either of our wombs; if you didn't survive implantation we had some leftovers in the freezer--so don't worry! We'd have gotten to experience the wonderfulness of parenthood even if you, personally, didn't end up making it. Your father? Some guy, we never found out his name. Why do you ask? Aren't two mommies enough for you?" Read the full post here

Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage

A paper over at the Catholic Education Resource Center is a nice summary of arguments against gay marriage. Interestingly one of the writers is gay. Neither is Catholic nor in full agreement with the Church's teaching on the matter which is made clear in the disclaimer on the site. Still, the writers are intelligent enough to recognize the dangers of redefining marriage. H/T to Beetle Blogger.

The summary make some key point in the whole debate. One, that gay relationships are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples or could be, which makes me suspicious of the true motive behind redefining marriage as something more akin to an assault on Christians rather than a plea for equality.

Second I think it does a pretty good job of describing the dangerous cultural and societal implications inherent in redefining marriage.

Third it defines the whole thing accurately, I think, as a massive human experiment, one whose consequences if wrong would wreak havoc on our children and our society.

Click on the claim for the rebuttal.

Claim 1: Marriage is an institution designed to foster the love between two people. Gay people can love each other just as straight people can. Ergo, marriage should be open to gay people.

Claim 2: Not all straight couples have children, but no one argues that their marriages are unacceptable

Claim 3: Some gay couples do have children and therefore need marriage to provide the appropriate context.

Claim 4: Marriage and the family are always changing anyway, so why not allow this change?

Claim 5: Marriage and the family have already changed, so why not acknowledge the reality?

Claim 6: Children would be no worse off with happily married gay parents than they are with unhappily married straight ones.

Claim 7: Given global overpopulation, why would anyone worry about some alleged need to have more children in any case?

Claim 8: Marriage should change, whether it already has or not, because patriarchal institutions are evil.

Claim 9: Gay marriage has had historical and anthropological precedents.

Claim 10: Banning gay marriage is like banning interracial marriage.

Claim 11: The case for gay marriage is more "poignant" than the case against it.

Claim 12: Gay marriage is necessary for the self-esteem of a minority.

Claim 13: Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is homophobic.

Claim 14: Exceptions could be made for religious communities that disapprove of gay marriage, or religious communities could simply add their rites to those of the state.

Claim 15: To sustain an "ethic of caring and responsibility," we must include gay people in every institution.

Claim 16: Norms of any kind at all are discriminatory.

Claim 17: Almost everyone believes in equality. How can we have that if gay citizens are denied the same rights as other citizens?

Claim 18: Winning the struggle for gay marriage is important for the cause of gay liberation.

Claim 19: What about majority rule in democratic countries?

Claim 20: But gay people are a small minority. Allowing them to marry would mean nothing more than a slight alteration to the existing system and would even add support for the institution. What's all the fuss about?


Conclusion Endnotes


Summary
There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. One of us, in fact, is gay. We oppose gay marriage, not gay relationships (which are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples and should be supported by all).

Most people assume that heterosexuality is a given of nature and thus not vulnerable to cultural change, that nothing will ever discourage straight people from getting together and starting families. But we argue — and this is important — that heterosexual bonding must indeed be deliberately fostered by a distinctive and supportive culture.

Because heterosexual bonding is directly related to both reproduction and survival, and because it involves much more than copulation, all human societies have actively fostered it (although some have also allowed or even encouraged homosexuality in specific circumstances). This is done through culture: rules, customs, laws, symbols, rituals, incentives, rewards, and other public mechanisms. So deeply embedded are these, however, that few people are consciously aware of them.

Much of what is accomplished in animals by nature ("biology," "genetics," or "instinct" ) must be accomplished in humans by culture (all other aspects of human existence, including marriage). If culture were removed, the result wouldn't be a functioning organism whether human or non-human. Apart from any other handicap would be the inability to reproduce successfully. Why? Because mating (sexual intercourse), which really is largely governed by a biological drive, isn't synonymous with the complex behaviours required by family life within a larger human society.
So how could marriage be harmed by adding a few gay couples? A good question, especially when you consider the deplorable state of marriage right now, which has been caused by hedonistic and irresponsible straight people.

Marriage is a complex institution. It must do several things (and, from an anthropological and historical perspective, fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is the least important).

It must foster the bonds between men and women for at least three reasons: to encourage the birth and rearing of children (at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society); to provide an appropriate setting for children growing to maturity; and — something usually forgotten — to ensure the co-operation of men and women for the common good.

Moreover, it must foster the bonds between men and children, otherwise men would have little incentive to become active participants in family life. Finally, it helps provide men with a healthy masculine identity based on a distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society — fatherhood — especially when no other contribution is considered acceptable.

Without public cultural support for a durable relationship binding men, women, and children, marriage would initially be reduced to nothing more than one "lifestyle choice" among many — that is, it could no longer be encouraged in the public square (which is necessary in a secular society).

In fact, doing so would be denounced and even challenged in court as discrimination — the undue "privilege" of a "dominant" class, which is a breach of equality as defined by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But discrimination in this case should be allowed — and could be under the Charter — in view of the fact that marriage, as a universal institution and the essential cultural complement to biology, is prior to all concepts of law.

In short, redefining marriage would amount to a massive human experiment. Some experiments work, it's true, but others don't. Remember that an earlier experiment, changing the divorce laws, set in motion social forces that would not be evident for forty years. This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven't taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we've allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations.

How the Homosexual Agenda Threatens Our Freedoms

From the JournalistaChronicle a review of some of the forms of intimidation already occuring:


(1) Go to jail for “hate speech.”

If a “Human Rights Commission” finds that you have made public statements that “incites hatred” against homosexual persons, you may go to prison. Ultimately, even ministers of the gospel will not be exempt. [I assume they are referring to global orthodox angelicism since that is where I found the article, but I think that would also apply to those teaching at other churches as well]....

...Just three weeks ago in Philadelphia eleven people belonging to a Christian evangelistic group called “Repent America” were arrested for singing hymns and carrying signs (”Homosexuality Is Sin; Christ Can Set You Free”) at a homosexual celebration called “Outfest.” They were charged with “ethnic intimidation” under Pennsylvania’s “hate crime” law (”sexual orientation” and “gender identity” were added to the law this past summer). This, along with a charge of “criminal conspiracy,” and other trumped-up charges, could result in a prison sentence of up to 47 years.

(2) Lose your job for not supporting “coming out” celebrations at work or for “discriminatory” speech outside of the workplace.

That’s right, you can even be fired from your job for statements made outside your place of employment. Chris Kempling, a public school teacher and guidance counselor in British Columbia, Canada, was suspended for one month, without pay, for writing allegedly “discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals” to a local newspaper. What kind of terrible statements did Kempling write? Things such as: “Gay people are seriously at risk [of sexually transmitted disease], not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behavior”; and “Homosexual relationships are unstable, ‘gay’ sex poses health risks and many religions consider homosexuality immoral.”

(3) Be fined and pay heavy legal fees for daring to criticize, or not supporting with your business, homosexual practice.

Two incidents in Canada give a good indication of where things are headed. Canadian print shop owner Scott Brockie was ordered to pay a fine of $5000 because he refused to print homosexual advocacy materials for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives.

(4) Have your children taken away from you if you teach them “homophobic” ideas.

In 2003 Dr. Cheryl Clark was ordered by a Denver Circuit Court judge and later in 2004 by the Colorado Court of Appeals not to say anything to her adopted daughter that her ex-lesbian partner might construe as “homophobic.” In California potential foster parents who express disapproval of homosexual practice are disqualified from foster care.

Read the entire article here.

Sex without Morals

Insanity. Our kids need clear guidelines, but we do not know what is right and wrong...That's really an excellent illustration of the cunundrum isn't it? Without Truth there is no right and wrong and then everything is up for grabs isn't it...

From MereComments:

Brits this past weekend read about a new government leaflet informing parents how to talk to their children about sex.

Linda Blair, a clinical psychologist, said educating older children and teenagers about sex had to be a process of negotiation. “We do not know what is right and wrong; right and wrong is relative, although your child does need clear guidelines,” she said.

So what's to tell?...(More)