Defend It If You Can- Esolen on the Sexual Revolution

Anthony Esolen over at Public Discourse takes on the Sexual Revolution from the view of the common good...
and Magister Christianus has some great comment (as usual) over at Bedlam and Parnassus..

"...let the sexual revolution be justified on grounds of the common good. I believe it fails that test miserably, with evidence that is weighty, obvious, manifold, logically and anthropologically deducible, and clearly predictable by wisdom both pagan and Christian. Let them make their case, rather than asserting a principle that, in reality, would destroy the very idea of the common good. For if we cannot appeal to the common good in a matter so fundamental, I do not see how we can appeal to it in any other." 
Read the whole thing

Taiwan woman 'marries' herself

The headline says it all....

"...We must love ourselves before we can love others. I must marry myself before marrying the special someone," she told AFP...."


Blech!

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.

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.

The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage

Interesting insights from the Weekly Standard by way of MereComments:

...When a gay man becomes a professor or a gay woman becomes a police officer, he or she performs the same job as a heterosexual. But there is a difference between a married couple and a same-sex couple in a long-term relationship. The difference is not in the nature of their relationship, not in the fact that lovemaking between men and women is, as the Catholics say, open to life. The difference is between the duties that marriage imposes on married people--not rights, but rather onerous obligations--which do not apply to same-sex love. ...

Well worth the read.

Over at Cathoholic, they have highlighted this article as well:

Schulman writes: "I think that the fundamental objection to gay marriage among most who oppose it has very little to do with one's feelings about the nature of homosexuality or what the Bible has to say about sodomy. The obstacle to wanting gay marriage is instead how we use and depend on marriage itself--and how little marriage, understood completely, affects or is relevant to gay people in love. Gay marriage is not so much wrong as unnecessary. But if it comes about, it will not be gay marriage that causes the harm I fear, as what will succeed its inevitable failure."

He believes that same-sex couples will determine on their own that the benefits accrued in marriage are simply not worth the obligations it imposes. Unfortunately, by the time same-sex couples and the larger culture arrive at this juncture, traditional marriage as an institution could be in even worse shape than it is now. Why? Because same-sex couples will assist in the unravelling of the social constrains and familial obligations that constitute the foundation of marriage as a once sturdy, if occasionally oppressive cultural institution.
and added some addtional thoughts

and they have added some additional thoughts:

One of the best meditations on the manifold obligations and joys intertwined in kinship practices must be an essay by Leon and Amy Kass: "What is your Name?" These two professors at the University of Chicago offer some very interesting insights regarding the deeper significance of 'naming a child' -- one of the primary kinship rituals that underscores parental authority, but also the mother and father's responsibility for the defense, nurture and education of their offspring:

You need to go read the whole thing. Perfect lunch time reading. Let's just hope enough people read it and heed it before its too late.

"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.

NOM CONGRATULATES THE PEOPLE OF CONNECTICUT

Press Release from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM)

Princeton, NJ) - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) applauds the Connecticut legislature which, in a surprise move today, adopted substantive religious liberty protections as part of what was expected to be a routine bill implementing the Connecticut court decision ordering same-sex marriage. “We are just grateful that the Connecticut legislators acknowledged and addressed the serious potential implications of same-sex marriage for traditional faith communities,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. “We hope this decision represents a change of heart among gay marriage advocates and a new willingness to accept broad conscience protections.”NOM launched its “Gathering Storm” ad campaign in Connecticut and neighboring states last week to help alert the people to the threat on religious liberty brought on by same sex marriage legislation. Robocall technology was also used to generate citizen outreach to elected officials regarding SB 899, a bill that followed a state Supreme Court decision granting same-sex marriages. “Thousands of ordinary Connecticut voters called up legislators. We are pleased that our Gathering Storm ad campaign could help put this issue on the map even in a blue state like Connecticut,” said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM.

One does not equal the other

One does not equal the other

From bioethike
Posted using ShareThis

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? ...

The Loss of Religious Freedom and Freedom of Speech

As a follow up to a previous post, also by the Washington Post, on what the redefining of marriage will cost. World wide, the freedom of speech, long a cherished bullwark of western civilization, is under assault and any many cases has been killed.

For years, the Western world has listened aghast to stories out of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations of citizens being imprisoned or executed for questioning or offending Islam. Even the most seemingly minor infractions elicit draconian punishments. ...

...Among the new blasphemers is legendary French actress Brigitte Bardot, who was convicted last June of "inciting religious hatred" for a letter she wrote in 2006 to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, saying that Muslims were ruining France. It was her fourth criminal citation for expressing intolerant views of Muslims and homosexuals. Other Western countries, including Canada and Britain, are also cracking down on religious critics.

Emblematic of the assault is the effort to pass an international ban on religious defamation supported by United Nations General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann. Brockmann is a suspended Roman Catholic priest who served as Nicaragua's foreign minister in the 1980s under the Sandinista regime, the socialist government that had a penchant for crushing civil liberties before it was tossed out of power in 1990.... (more)

Beetle has some examples of actual healthcare professionals who have been pressured to violate ethical standards.

And over at Get Religion they're also talking about the WaPo article and have pulled in a number of different viewpoints on the matter like this one from GayPatriot:

Ms. Salmon cites a number of examples where individuals, organizations and entrepreneurs were fired for, fimed for or barred from refusing service to or inclusion of gay people. Now, I personally think these groups are wrong to so exclude gays, but they’re not requiring me to buy their product or participate in their activities.

At the same time, if a gay group wanted to exclude Christians from its membership, it should be free to do so. Their right to do that would come from the First Amendment’s clause on “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” and also possibly the Ninth Amendment.

But, these constitutional protections don’t seem to be a barrier to gay groups in their zeal to reduce the freedom of private individuals and organizations. They are prevailing in courts according to Ms. Salmon “because an individual’s religious views about homosexuality cannot be used to violate gays’ right to equal treatment under the law.”

Say what? That’s not equal treatment under the law. That’s using the law to limit individuals’ freedom, just as it would be if Christians used the law to mandate that gay organizations include ex-gays or gay business serve the Christian Coalition. (more)

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.

Official Hate- Obama Names Pope-Basher to Faith-Based Initiative Board

More Pope bashing, this time courtesy of the Administration. Of course it has once again shown the true colors and sorry state of journalism in that very few have bothered to quote the Pope accurately regarding the condom statements or examine the possibility that he is right and he is.

Here is the link to the previous story on the matter.

CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama has named to the federal government’s faith-based initiative a gay-rights activist who, last month, described Pope Benedict XVI and certain Catholic bishops as “discredited leaders” because of their opposition to same-sex marriage.


Harry Knox, who is a newly appointed member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group.


In addition to his remarks about the Pope, Knox also criticized the Catholic Knights of Columbus as being “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” because of the Knights’ support of Proposition 8. The latter was a ballot initiative that amended California’s state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and passed in November 2008.


Knox told CNSNews.com that he “absolutely” stands by his criticism of the pope. "The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use," Knox said on Monday, Apr. 6. "We are eager to help him do that. Until he is willing to do that and able, he's doing a great deal more harm than good -- not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people's lives.”


On Mar. 19, Knox told the San Francisco-based gay newspaper The Bay Area Reporter, “The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case [Proposition 8], they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression.” The newspaper further reported: “Knox noted that the Knights of Columbus ‘followed discredited leaders,’ including bishops and Pope Benedict XVI. ‘A pope who literally today said condoms don't help in control of AIDS.’” (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

Webster Redefines Marriage

If there was any doubt left in your mind about the culture war that we are involved in, check out the entry for "marriage" at Merriam-Webster. H/T Doctor Bulldog:

mar·riage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union

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)

Same-sex "Marriage" Used as Defense in Canadian Polygamy Case

"Slippery Slope" defined....from LifeSite

CRESTON, British Columbia, January 22, 2009 (LifeSIteNews.com) - Canada's same-sex "marriage" law is being used as justification for polygamy by defense lawyers in the case of Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44. The pair are leaders of the controversial polygamous sect in Bountiful, near Creston, British Columbia, and are accused of being married to more than one woman at a time....

...Blackmore is being represented by lawyer Blair Suffredine, a former member of Premier Gordon Campbell's Liberal government, who, while stating he is personally opposed to polygamy, says that Blackmore has "a very strong case" in light of Canada's legalization of homosexual "marriage."

"If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" said Suffredine in an Associated Press report....

...Opponents of same-sex “marriage” have long observed that once homosexuals are permitted to “marry,” there is nothing holding polygamous marriages from being legally recognized as well. “It’s like this,” explained Stanley Kurtz in a 2006 National Review article,

“The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless.”

While same-sex “marriage” advocates have strongly denied that such “marriage” would lead to polygamy, it appears that the warnings of pro-family advocates may now be coming to fruition in Canada.