"...Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids"

Refreshing in its honesty if nothing else... this article from Queerty. H/T Bulldog and Ronin


"...Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes thatteach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?


... I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak. And I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start fucking men. I want lots of young ladies to develop into young women who voraciously munch box. I want this just as badly as many parents want their own kids to grow up and rub urinary tracts together to trade proteins and forcefully excrete a baby.

I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. ..."

“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

'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.

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.

"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