From Tom Haskins:
We have entered into a deadly war. Who will win? Christ will win in the end, however, who will win this battle for America ? Will Christians rise up, take up their shield of faith and conquer through righteousness and obedience? Or are we too busy getting our piece of the pie?
This is a video from Charlotte N.C. 2005 homosexual pride event in a public park…… http://vimeo.com/261055
John Haskins comments:
Indeed, the "Spirit of the Age" is against those who speak the truth. It is seducing pious "Christians" who find the moderate ground between good and evil a lucrative field for their earthly ambitions. When God's judgment falls, it will fall on us first. Christ spoke of "weeping and gnashing of teeth." He spoke of being "cast into Outer Darkness." The word "moderate" does not describe Christ.
Watch this video. And weep for America. But first, weep for us who have slept in our church pews, for us who have been silent when it was time to speak. Weep for the "pragmatists" who persistently lied and reassured us that the wolves, properly understood, are actually our friends (and capable of honest "dialogue").
Beware, if you think the disease can be contained in Massachusetts. This video comes from the "Bible Belt!"
Showing posts with label homosexual agenda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexual agenda. Show all posts
Monday, August 06, 2007
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Dr. Satinover Exposes Big Lies
Just came across this interview with Dr. Jeffrey Satinover (from World Magazine, 2005), "From mental disorder to civil-rights cause; Psychiatrist and Princeton law professor traces the advances of the gay-rights agenda in science and the law to a common source: political intimidation." Satinover is a practicing psychiatrist and author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. He has degrees from Harvard, Yale, and Univ. of Texas Medical School, and has taught civil liberties and constitutional law at Princeton.
This interview summarizes the Big Lies the homosexual movement is using to bowl over legislators, judges, voters, corporations, schools, parents, and of course children. Big Lies:
[Excerpt:] Satinover: The mental-health organizations have submitted briefs to courts at every level, and have profoundly corrupted our understanding of human sexuality tacitly via their general influence. They influence judges' understanding before they become judges so that when a man or woman becomes a judge he is, for all purposes, an ignoramus with respect to homosexuality, full to the brim with sentimental platitudes.
These platitudinous outlooks "feel" deep, but are astoundingly shallow (the concept "sexual orientation" is an example-it is a "stopthought" that won't bear five minutes of serious scrutiny before dissolving into a welter of contradiction). But when a judge is handed an amicus brief that bears at its end a list of say five or 10 well-respected national or state mental-health professional organizations -- he's impressed. Then he starts reading, and it's "The Emperor's New Robes." In learned-sounding terms, he's fed back all the nice-sounding pieties with which he's become familiar and comfortable. He doesn't have to stop and think for a second. He just has to be "nice."
That said, we should remember that homosexuality has risen to the top of the social-policy agenda because of the utter wreck we all have made of family life over the past 50 years. This horror cannot be blamed on anyone but us.
This interview summarizes the Big Lies the homosexual movement is using to bowl over legislators, judges, voters, corporations, schools, parents, and of course children. Big Lies:
- homosexual behavior stems from an inborn "sexual orientation" which does not change;
- homosexuality was legitimately removed from the American Psychiatric Association manual of mental disorders;
- homosexuality is a stable, measurable trait that defines a certain class of people, so they can claim "civil rights" based on that trait
[Excerpt:] Satinover: The mental-health organizations have submitted briefs to courts at every level, and have profoundly corrupted our understanding of human sexuality tacitly via their general influence. They influence judges' understanding before they become judges so that when a man or woman becomes a judge he is, for all purposes, an ignoramus with respect to homosexuality, full to the brim with sentimental platitudes.
These platitudinous outlooks "feel" deep, but are astoundingly shallow (the concept "sexual orientation" is an example-it is a "stopthought" that won't bear five minutes of serious scrutiny before dissolving into a welter of contradiction). But when a judge is handed an amicus brief that bears at its end a list of say five or 10 well-respected national or state mental-health professional organizations -- he's impressed. Then he starts reading, and it's "The Emperor's New Robes." In learned-sounding terms, he's fed back all the nice-sounding pieties with which he's become familiar and comfortable. He doesn't have to stop and think for a second. He just has to be "nice."
So, over the years, the concept of "sexual orientation" has worked its way into the culture and up the court system to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court and in certain key state Supreme Court cases, especially in the Goodrich [sic; i.e. Goodridge] case in Massachusetts. The key U.S. Supreme Court cases are Romer and Lawrence. Leaving specific variations aside, all three approach homosexuality from the point of view of civil liberties -- a misframing that goes all the way back to Hooker and the history I've mentioned. It has been critical for the mental-health guilds to stand before the courts and say, "You see, your honors, we in particular, who are the very experts of what constitutes a mental disorder, proclaim that sexual orientation should not be discussed as a condition that is problematic and changeable, it is a normal and immutable state of the human being and therefore should be discussed in civil-rights terms, like race." ... What you're left with are human beings, no different than you or me, who are, of course, sexual beings. Like you and me, their sexuality is broken in a broken world. The notion that "homosexuals" are in effect a "different species" (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows. Of course as one grows and changes, one "grooves" a pathway that becomes embedded and increasingly difficult to alter. Of course a different innate disposition places one at a different "risk profile" for all sorts of different paths in life. So what else is new? It is also true that people do sometimes want to change, and some do and some don't. This is true of everything. It's also true that few good things in life are easy, and no achievement is ever perfect.
That said, we should remember that homosexuality has risen to the top of the social-policy agenda because of the utter wreck we all have made of family life over the past 50 years. This horror cannot be blamed on anyone but us.
[Read the entire interview . . .]
Friday, August 03, 2007
"No Place for Hate" Sponsor ADL Denies Holocausts
It's good to see that someone's calling the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on its hypocrisy. In Watertown, the Armenian community is challenging the ADL's "No Place for Hate" campaign (which Watertown officially joined in 2005), because the ADL refuses to acknowledge the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Turks in the early 20th century. Even the Boston Globe editorialized today that it is "a genocide not to be denied." (Of course, both the Globe and the ADL agree to deny the ongoing American Holocaust of abortion.)
But, as usual, the Globe does not give the full story on the "No Place for Hate" (NPfH) campaign. It is being used by the homosexual extremists to silence any opposition to their demands. It's not just about the grievances enumerated by the Globe. i.e. prejudice based on "ethnic, racial, and religious" lines. It's part of the national effort advocating for "hate crimes" laws to give extra protection to special groups, like homosexuals or "transgenders" -- or people who just need to "express their gender" in some undefined way. And the Globe ignores the eruption over the "No Place for Hate" campaign in the Watertown Tab newspaper in May, which we've referenced.
Here's a recent post by John DiMascio on a townie blog:
... Now there are also other questions [besides the Armenian genocide] that need to be addressed. It’s not like the Town Council just voted a proclamation and put up a sign. Taxpayer’ resources are being are being spent to support it. Public employees work on the program while on the clock. The program uses other resources as well. I believe they have some sort of diversity seminars for school children. That means they use the schools.
1) Given the genocide question, I don’t think anyone living in Watertown is comfortable having their taxes spent to support a program connected to the ADL.
2) Even the NPTH committee admitted in a recent letter that Watertown has always been welcoming. Why the heck are we spending money on this program? Last time I checked we don’t have history of lynchings, cross-burning, or hosing down innocent children (as Younger fears we’ll do).
Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure Town employees working on this program do so with honorable intentions. I’m sure they are just as disturbed at the recent revelations.That said; our Town employees are a valuable resource. We shouldn’t be wasting on a program that is in anyway connected to Abraham Foxman or his ilk. And honestly, we really don’t need NPTH in Watertown.
[emphasis added]
We had a front-line encounter with one of the neighborhood NPfH gangs. As reported by Traditional Values Coalition, "A Blue Cross/Blue Shield funded group called "No Place for Hate" operated in concert with the homosexual organizations to condemn those who favor traditional marriages as engaging in "hate speech." Specifically, in Peabody in 2004, the mayor and his homosexual activist cronies poured out of City Hall with "NPfH" placards, to try to intimidate an Parents' Rights Coalition/Article 8 Alliance (now MassResistance) press conference on the homosexual lobby's challenge to Rep. Joyce Spiliotis. Clearly, that hateful attempt to silence any opposition to sodomy "marriage" (by labeling it "hate") had nothing to do with combatting "ethnic, racial, and religious" prejudice, which is what the Boston Globe claims the NPfH program is all about.
The "No Place for Hate" campaign receives financial support from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Massachusetts. And remember who just became the Executive Director of that organization: homosexual extremist and former State Senator Jarrett Barrios. Hmm...
But, as usual, the Globe does not give the full story on the "No Place for Hate" (NPfH) campaign. It is being used by the homosexual extremists to silence any opposition to their demands. It's not just about the grievances enumerated by the Globe. i.e. prejudice based on "ethnic, racial, and religious" lines. It's part of the national effort advocating for "hate crimes" laws to give extra protection to special groups, like homosexuals or "transgenders" -- or people who just need to "express their gender" in some undefined way. And the Globe ignores the eruption over the "No Place for Hate" campaign in the Watertown Tab newspaper in May, which we've referenced.
Here's a recent post by John DiMascio on a townie blog:
... Now there are also other questions [besides the Armenian genocide] that need to be addressed. It’s not like the Town Council just voted a proclamation and put up a sign. Taxpayer’ resources are being are being spent to support it. Public employees work on the program while on the clock. The program uses other resources as well. I believe they have some sort of diversity seminars for school children. That means they use the schools.
1) Given the genocide question, I don’t think anyone living in Watertown is comfortable having their taxes spent to support a program connected to the ADL.
2) Even the NPTH committee admitted in a recent letter that Watertown has always been welcoming. Why the heck are we spending money on this program? Last time I checked we don’t have history of lynchings, cross-burning, or hosing down innocent children (as Younger fears we’ll do).
Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure Town employees working on this program do so with honorable intentions. I’m sure they are just as disturbed at the recent revelations.That said; our Town employees are a valuable resource. We shouldn’t be wasting on a program that is in anyway connected to Abraham Foxman or his ilk. And honestly, we really don’t need NPTH in Watertown.
[emphasis added]
We had a front-line encounter with one of the neighborhood NPfH gangs. As reported by Traditional Values Coalition, "A Blue Cross/Blue Shield funded group called "No Place for Hate" operated in concert with the homosexual organizations to condemn those who favor traditional marriages as engaging in "hate speech." Specifically, in Peabody in 2004, the mayor and his homosexual activist cronies poured out of City Hall with "NPfH" placards, to try to intimidate an Parents' Rights Coalition/Article 8 Alliance (now MassResistance) press conference on the homosexual lobby's challenge to Rep. Joyce Spiliotis. Clearly, that hateful attempt to silence any opposition to sodomy "marriage" (by labeling it "hate") had nothing to do with combatting "ethnic, racial, and religious" prejudice, which is what the Boston Globe claims the NPfH program is all about.
The "No Place for Hate" campaign receives financial support from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Massachusetts. And remember who just became the Executive Director of that organization: homosexual extremist and former State Senator Jarrett Barrios. Hmm...
Saturday, July 28, 2007
MassEquality Shifting Focus to "Trans Rights & Hate Crimes" Bill
Bay Windows has a long piece on MassEquality's future focus, now that they believe homosexual marriage" is secured. It is clear that they'll be helping the Mass. Transgender Political Caucus pass its "transgender rights and hate crimes" bill (H1722). Remember that the Gill Foundation's Patrick Guerriero -- who brought in millions to secure defeat of the marriage amendment -- is also committed to the "trans rights" cause. So we're sure that MassEquality -- which also benefits from Gill's largesse -- is clearly on that bandwagon, more than they're publicly acknowledging. From "MassEquality plots its future," Bay Windows (7-25-07):
The Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) of which MassEquality is a member organization, on July 17 sent a letter to the MassEquality board of directors asking that the organization step up to the plate on the effort to pass a bill that would outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression and enhance penalties against perpetrators of crimes motivated by the victim’s gender identity or expression....
Ryan [MTPC co-chair; a "transwoman"] said that this is the first time MTPC has reached out to the MassEquality board for help on the transgender rights bill. Both she and fellow MTPC Co-Chair Gunner Scott ["transman"] said that though they have long had conversations with MassEquality staff members about the bill, they recognized that the organization’s primary focus was on securing marriage equality. Now, said Scott, “If they’re going to continue as a GLBT equality organization we’d like, of course, for them to focus on the trans bill that’s currently pending.” Solomon [MassEquality director] agreed that the LGBT community must turn its attention to securing protections for transgender people. “Passing an aggressive transgender civil rights bill that protects transgender people from hate crimes and discrimination has got to be a top community priority,” he said. [emphasis added]
As the MassEquality board weighs the organization’s future, daily work continues. Most importantly, the organization has set about offering support to the nine legislators who switched from supporting to opposing the amendment between the Jan. 2 ConCon and the June 14 session and the two freshman lawmakers who had campaigned on support for the amendment last fall but ultimately decided to vote against it. To that end, MassEquality Development Director Scott Gortikov [who once donated to MassResistance in an attempt to get on our email alert list] has been working with some of the organization’s major donors — gay and straight — to steer campaign contributions to the newest crop of pro-equality legislators, who may be vulnerable in next year’s elections because of their vote switch. Gortikov declined to name specific legislators who have benefited from his work thus far. ...
Besides steering major donors toward potentially imperiled pro-equality legislators, MassEquality is also encouraging its members to attend fundraisers for their respective lawmakers. On July 12, for example, members of the affiliate group Quincy for Marriage Equality were a visible presence at Sen. Michael Morrissey’s annual fundraiser at Waterworks, a Quincy nightspot. ... Beyond campaign contributions, MassEquality members are making their support for vote switchers visible in other ways, said Solomon. For instance, in a Fourth of July parade in state Sen. Gale Candaras’s Western Mass. district, a crowd of marriage equality supporters turned up waving signs thanking Candaras for coming around to the cause of equality after several years of anti-equality votes.
The Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) of which MassEquality is a member organization, on July 17 sent a letter to the MassEquality board of directors asking that the organization step up to the plate on the effort to pass a bill that would outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression and enhance penalties against perpetrators of crimes motivated by the victim’s gender identity or expression....
Ryan [MTPC co-chair; a "transwoman"] said that this is the first time MTPC has reached out to the MassEquality board for help on the transgender rights bill. Both she and fellow MTPC Co-Chair Gunner Scott ["transman"] said that though they have long had conversations with MassEquality staff members about the bill, they recognized that the organization’s primary focus was on securing marriage equality. Now, said Scott, “If they’re going to continue as a GLBT equality organization we’d like, of course, for them to focus on the trans bill that’s currently pending.” Solomon [MassEquality director] agreed that the LGBT community must turn its attention to securing protections for transgender people. “Passing an aggressive transgender civil rights bill that protects transgender people from hate crimes and discrimination has got to be a top community priority,” he said. [emphasis added]
Not mentioned in the Bay Windows article: MassEquality is also now quietly working hard to be sure they have the votes to actually LEGALIZE "gay marriage" -- with an actual LAW! Though why they think the law is important, we don't know. They certainly don't want the public to know about this little glitch -- that Mass. statutes still don't allow same-sex "marriage"! While he didn't mention that issue, Marc Solomon of MassEquality did say (immediately after the defeat of the marriage amendment on June 14) that he was working on the best timing to overturn the 1913 law barring out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying here. Though we're not sure why they need to do that either, since Massachusetts bureaucrats claim they are now empowered to tell other states what to do. (See yesterday's news on the Mass. DPH bureaucrat who issued a fiat allowing New Mexico homosexual couples to marry here.) MassEquality and the Trans Caucus have a sure ally in Gov. Deval Patrick for these bills, which will probably all be heard by the Judiciary Committee in the Fall:
- legalizing their same-sex "marriages" H1710, S918
- overturning the 1913 law barring marriages by out-of-state same-sex couples S800, S1029
- "transgender rights and hate crimes" H1722.
As the MassEquality board weighs the organization’s future, daily work continues. Most importantly, the organization has set about offering support to the nine legislators who switched from supporting to opposing the amendment between the Jan. 2 ConCon and the June 14 session and the two freshman lawmakers who had campaigned on support for the amendment last fall but ultimately decided to vote against it. To that end, MassEquality Development Director Scott Gortikov [who once donated to MassResistance in an attempt to get on our email alert list] has been working with some of the organization’s major donors — gay and straight — to steer campaign contributions to the newest crop of pro-equality legislators, who may be vulnerable in next year’s elections because of their vote switch. Gortikov declined to name specific legislators who have benefited from his work thus far. ...
Besides steering major donors toward potentially imperiled pro-equality legislators, MassEquality is also encouraging its members to attend fundraisers for their respective lawmakers. On July 12, for example, members of the affiliate group Quincy for Marriage Equality were a visible presence at Sen. Michael Morrissey’s annual fundraiser at Waterworks, a Quincy nightspot. ... Beyond campaign contributions, MassEquality members are making their support for vote switchers visible in other ways, said Solomon. For instance, in a Fourth of July parade in state Sen. Gale Candaras’s Western Mass. district, a crowd of marriage equality supporters turned up waving signs thanking Candaras for coming around to the cause of equality after several years of anti-equality votes.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" -- Part III
Is this OK with Boston Parents' Paper?
Back to the Boston Parents' Paper's promotion of "gay parenting" (see our Parts I and II). The sidebars on parental rights (p. 25) and parenting resources (p. 28) bring up some serious concerns.
1. Parents' rights in the schools: The sidebar (p.25) title, "In school, the subject of same-sex marriage is an issue of parental rights," is fair enough. But Evelyn Reilly of the Mass. Family Institute perhaps misspoke when she said the subject of homosexual marriage "shouldn't be shoved down the throats of parents. This is forced indoctrination." It's not the well-grounded parents who are being indoctrinated; it's the young school children.
Reilly mentions that children ideally need both a mother and a father. True. But she fails to mention that homosexual "parenting" puts children in direct touch with unhealthy practices as a valid role model for their own adult lives. Reilly said, "We have no adversity [sic; did she mean aversion?] toward homosexuals. We're just trying to protect marriage." Why protect marriage unless there's something wrong with homosexuality, and especially in this context, homosexual "parenting"?
Well, we do have an aversion toward those homosexuals who -- as "parents" to young children -- encourage them in a GLBT identity. Besides the questionable "love life" models they show their children, it's common for homosexual "parents" to include their children in unseemly adult events such as "Pride" parades. (See the popular homosexual "parenting" book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride.)
We documented that Meg Soens, a leader of the GLBT extremists (attacking David Parker) in Lexington, was at Boston Pride with two of her young children in 2006. What did her boy learn there? He certainly saw the ManHunt.net float, which encourages anonymous sexual encounters. What did her young daughter learn there? She saw women with bare breasts riding motorcycles, and other women whose breasts had been surgically removed, dressed as "drag kings", and "tranny" parents. Is this the kind of good parenting the Parents' Paper is promoting?
See the paper by Real Women of Canada which points out these documented dangers inherent in "same-sex parented" households: higher incidence of domestic violence; higher incidence of mental health problems in parents; reduced life expectancy of parents; higher incidence of "same-sex orientation" in children; greater risk of sexual involvement with parents*; greater risk of social or psychological problems in the children; higher incidence of child molestation.**
See also Dawn Stefanowicz's web site. Dawn's childhood experiences with a homosexual father, who included her in his depraved and dangerous activities, are a warning to our too accepting society. (Her book is coming out in the fall.)
Parents' rights in the schools are not jeopardized only through "sex ed." "Family" topics of any sort should NOT even be discussed. No newly manufactured stories about Mommy & her boyfriend. No stories about two "daddies". No stories about divorce. No stories about Daddy undergoing sex-change surgery. No stories about Mommy's (or is it Daddy's?) collection of whips. No stories about "Daddy died." No stories about "Grandma's Alzheimer's."
Can't we just leave all this stuff out of the schools? Read classic literature instead. Keep it neutral, non-controversial. It's the old argument we've been putting forward for years: Return to academics, and leave the family therapy for families to deal with on their own. Schools -- and the government -- cannot solve these problems for our children. (It would be nice, however, if the schools didn't worsen things by assaulting our kids with sensitive, emotional materials -- and the government didn't create more problems by financial incentives for family dysfunction.)
2. Parenting Resources Sidebar (p. 28) How can any "parenting" guide that mentions Fenway Community Health and PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians & Gays) be taken seriously?
Fenway Community Health Center is the group that passed out the Little Black Book to teenagers at the GLSEN Boston Conference in 2005 at Brookline High School. Fenway runs ads in the Boston "gay" newspaper seeking practitioners of "barebacking" anal intercourse -- for "tops and bottoms" -- to take part in HIV drug tests. They send bizarre "entertainers" to the Fens anonymous sex cruising grounds to hand out anal lubricants and condoms. (Some of their advice: "Safer sex is not necessarily about wrapping yourself in latex until no part of you is exposed. Although some people may find this appealing, for many people it comes across as a complete turn-off. So what else can you do?"... read more. And check out their Dr. Cox.) This is a "parenting" resource?
PFLAG bills itself as a group that supports parents whose children "come out" as G L B or T. (Are you ready for your teenage daughter to tell you she wants her breasts removed? If not, PFLAG will help you!) PFLAG is pushing hard for homosexualizing and transgenderizing your children. (See their pamphlet, "Our Trans Children.")They do teacher and counselor training and "GLBT pride days" in our public schools promoting homosexuality and transgenderism. We've drawn attention to their more secretive Transcending Boundaries conference which also promotes transsexuality, poly sexuality and "families" (multiple partner relationships), BDSM (whips & chains), and now hormone-blocking injections to pre-pubescent "transgender children" (making their later transitioning surgery less complicated). PFLAG also has a "straight spouse group"! (We think this means a spouse whose opposite-sex spouse is actively bisexual? So their child is seeing who knows what in the home?) This is a "parenting" resource?
From Real Women of Canada report:
*According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.
**Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.
Well, we do have an aversion toward those homosexuals who -- as "parents" to young children -- encourage them in a GLBT identity. Besides the questionable "love life" models they show their children, it's common for homosexual "parents" to include their children in unseemly adult events such as "Pride" parades. (See the popular homosexual "parenting" book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride.)
We documented that Meg Soens, a leader of the GLBT extremists (attacking David Parker) in Lexington, was at Boston Pride with two of her young children in 2006. What did her boy learn there? He certainly saw the ManHunt.net float, which encourages anonymous sexual encounters. What did her young daughter learn there? She saw women with bare breasts riding motorcycles, and other women whose breasts had been surgically removed, dressed as "drag kings", and "tranny" parents. Is this the kind of good parenting the Parents' Paper is promoting?
See the paper by Real Women of Canada which points out these documented dangers inherent in "same-sex parented" households: higher incidence of domestic violence; higher incidence of mental health problems in parents; reduced life expectancy of parents; higher incidence of "same-sex orientation" in children; greater risk of sexual involvement with parents*; greater risk of social or psychological problems in the children; higher incidence of child molestation.**
See also Dawn Stefanowicz's web site. Dawn's childhood experiences with a homosexual father, who included her in his depraved and dangerous activities, are a warning to our too accepting society. (Her book is coming out in the fall.)
Parents' rights in the schools are not jeopardized only through "sex ed." "Family" topics of any sort should NOT even be discussed. No newly manufactured stories about Mommy & her boyfriend. No stories about two "daddies". No stories about divorce. No stories about Daddy undergoing sex-change surgery. No stories about Mommy's (or is it Daddy's?) collection of whips. No stories about "Daddy died." No stories about "Grandma's Alzheimer's."
Can't we just leave all this stuff out of the schools? Read classic literature instead. Keep it neutral, non-controversial. It's the old argument we've been putting forward for years: Return to academics, and leave the family therapy for families to deal with on their own. Schools -- and the government -- cannot solve these problems for our children. (It would be nice, however, if the schools didn't worsen things by assaulting our kids with sensitive, emotional materials -- and the government didn't create more problems by financial incentives for family dysfunction.)
2. Parenting Resources Sidebar (p. 28) How can any "parenting" guide that mentions Fenway Community Health and PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians & Gays) be taken seriously?
Fenway Community Health Center is the group that passed out the Little Black Book to teenagers at the GLSEN Boston Conference in 2005 at Brookline High School. Fenway runs ads in the Boston "gay" newspaper seeking practitioners of "barebacking" anal intercourse -- for "tops and bottoms" -- to take part in HIV drug tests. They send bizarre "entertainers" to the Fens anonymous sex cruising grounds to hand out anal lubricants and condoms. (Some of their advice: "Safer sex is not necessarily about wrapping yourself in latex until no part of you is exposed. Although some people may find this appealing, for many people it comes across as a complete turn-off. So what else can you do?"... read more. And check out their Dr. Cox.) This is a "parenting" resource?
PFLAG bills itself as a group that supports parents whose children "come out" as G L B or T. (Are you ready for your teenage daughter to tell you she wants her breasts removed? If not, PFLAG will help you!) PFLAG is pushing hard for homosexualizing and transgenderizing your children. (See their pamphlet, "Our Trans Children.")They do teacher and counselor training and "GLBT pride days" in our public schools promoting homosexuality and transgenderism. We've drawn attention to their more secretive Transcending Boundaries conference which also promotes transsexuality, poly sexuality and "families" (multiple partner relationships), BDSM (whips & chains), and now hormone-blocking injections to pre-pubescent "transgender children" (making their later transitioning surgery less complicated). PFLAG also has a "straight spouse group"! (We think this means a spouse whose opposite-sex spouse is actively bisexual? So their child is seeing who knows what in the home?) This is a "parenting" resource?
From Real Women of Canada report:
*According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review.
**Proportionately, homosexual men are more inclined to child molestation than heterosexual men.According to American studies, the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys and teenagers at rates completely disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. A study shows that the homosexual child molester accounts for approximately 7 times more victims than the heterosexual molester. When it comes to child sex abuse, men are almost always the perpetrator. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual, yet one-third of the sex abuse cases are committed again boys.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Pro-Life Activists Who Don't Hold Back the Truth
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that pro-life protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights in showing a graphic photo of an aborted baby. (It's encouraging to hear about a good ruling once in a while!) But the attorney for the defendants noted that, "Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers," and urged "they be used prudently and sparingly – with warning signs wherever possible."
Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.
The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.
See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).
... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...
... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."
Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.
The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.
See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).
... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...
... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" -- Part II
The July issue of the Boston Parents' Paper (PP) uses a typical propaganda ploy in its attempt to normalize homosexual "parenting": It focuses on the innocent beauty of children, and the child's emotions regarding his "parents." The PP starts with the glowing face of a strawberry blonde imp on their cover, whose sideways smile leads your eye directly to the feature headline, "Gay Parenting: 'See Us as Family'." And whose heart wouldn't go out to the smiling boy "who is happy his parents got married" in a half-page color photo of a smiling "family" -- two men and a boy -- on the beach. We learn the boy was adopted from Russia. And we respond: "What a wonderful thing!"
But who are the "parents"? One assumes the two men partake of anal intercourse. If they were habitual smokers, or drug users, what would the PP say? Would they hold them up as model "parents"? Yet it is medical fact that anal intercourse and other typical homosexual sex practices are inherently unhealthy, even if the couple is monogamous and "committed." And the boy will of course accept it as normal, and perhaps be drawn into the very unhealthy and dangerous GLBT world. (Studies show children of homosexual parents are more likely to identify as homosexual themselves.) What sort of role models are they for the boy?
State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two sons with "his spouse," Democrat consultant Doug Hattaway, is quoted. Why didn't the PP say "his husband"? Would that be unpalatable to most of their readership? Somehow the word "spouse" softens the conjured image a bit ... And there is no challenge to Barrios' claim that homosexual "marriage" is about "civil rights." This after the editor carefully states the PP takes no stand on "gay marriage."
Then we get to the part about special support groups for "gay and lesbian parents," sponsored by Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Jewish Family & Children's Service, and Fenway Community Health Services. PFLAG and COLAGE are listed as resources. But PP wouldn't dare mention the support groups for "poly" parented families ... at least not for a few years!
What's really going on here is a propaganda assault on hetero parents, because the "gay and lesbian parents" already know about their special support groups! There is no need for the PP to write about these for that limited, already informed audience. You don't go through an adoption process without already knowing all the support systems available for your special case! This is also just a lot of whining from the "gay and lesbian parents" who are facing many of the same emotional issues heterosexual adoptive parents face. But this article is all about building sympathy for the former.
We read about the Home for Little Wanderers in Boston, which places many children with homosexual couples. But nothing is said about its "Waltham House," which actually encourages transgenderism in teenagers. It's well known that the Dept. of Social Services, also connected to Waltham House, favors placement of children including those without special needs with homosexual couples. Adoptions to "gay and lesbian parents" have been going on for many years, and gave a major political weapon to homosexual activists, who could then lobby in the State House with babies and children in tow: "You can't break up our family by banning gay marriage!" (Even VoteOnMarriage bought this line.)
Last but not least, the article errs in saying that "gay marriage" was "legalized" in Massachusetts. Governor Romney issued Partner A/Partner B marriage licenses, but no laws changed to allow for this alteration of the marriage statutes.
[Coming soon: Part III on the PP article's sidebars: parents' rights, and resources.]
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.com
Publisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Email: boston.parentspaper@parenthood.com
But who are the "parents"? One assumes the two men partake of anal intercourse. If they were habitual smokers, or drug users, what would the PP say? Would they hold them up as model "parents"? Yet it is medical fact that anal intercourse and other typical homosexual sex practices are inherently unhealthy, even if the couple is monogamous and "committed." And the boy will of course accept it as normal, and perhaps be drawn into the very unhealthy and dangerous GLBT world. (Studies show children of homosexual parents are more likely to identify as homosexual themselves.) What sort of role models are they for the boy?
State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two sons with "his spouse," Democrat consultant Doug Hattaway, is quoted. Why didn't the PP say "his husband"? Would that be unpalatable to most of their readership? Somehow the word "spouse" softens the conjured image a bit ... And there is no challenge to Barrios' claim that homosexual "marriage" is about "civil rights." This after the editor carefully states the PP takes no stand on "gay marriage."
Then we get to the part about special support groups for "gay and lesbian parents," sponsored by Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Jewish Family & Children's Service, and Fenway Community Health Services. PFLAG and COLAGE are listed as resources. But PP wouldn't dare mention the support groups for "poly" parented families ... at least not for a few years!
What's really going on here is a propaganda assault on hetero parents, because the "gay and lesbian parents" already know about their special support groups! There is no need for the PP to write about these for that limited, already informed audience. You don't go through an adoption process without already knowing all the support systems available for your special case! This is also just a lot of whining from the "gay and lesbian parents" who are facing many of the same emotional issues heterosexual adoptive parents face. But this article is all about building sympathy for the former.
We read about the Home for Little Wanderers in Boston, which places many children with homosexual couples. But nothing is said about its "Waltham House," which actually encourages transgenderism in teenagers. It's well known that the Dept. of Social Services, also connected to Waltham House, favors placement of children including those without special needs with homosexual couples. Adoptions to "gay and lesbian parents" have been going on for many years, and gave a major political weapon to homosexual activists, who could then lobby in the State House with babies and children in tow: "You can't break up our family by banning gay marriage!" (Even VoteOnMarriage bought this line.)
Last but not least, the article errs in saying that "gay marriage" was "legalized" in Massachusetts. Governor Romney issued Partner A/Partner B marriage licenses, but no laws changed to allow for this alteration of the marriage statutes.
[Coming soon: Part III on the PP article's sidebars: parents' rights, and resources.]
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.com
Publisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Email: boston.parentspaper@parenthood.com
Monday, July 09, 2007
Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" - Part I
Same-sex "parenting" is not a biological possibility. It is a twisted social construct of 21st-century secular Western values and IVF clinics.God's construct is one man/one woman marriage with children. The failure of heterosexual marriage and parenting is the failure of man, not of God's design. (That's called "original sin".) And when it happens, our society used to be quick to label it a failure: the words used were dysfunction, abandonment, desertion; illegitimacy, etc. But now, not only are such judgments (on us all) silenced, but we may not even speak out against a "family" based on parents bonded through sexual perversions.
And worse, the July issue of the Boston Parents' Paper promotes "gay parenting" as legitimate. The very fact that the issue is addressed in the magazine means it's equated with normal parenting. Allowing such illegitimate use of the words "parenting" and "family" for such unnatural social arrangements is the first step to total acceptance of the other, the abnormal as the real thing. Yet the editor of the Parents' Paper [alison.murray@parenthood.com] dishonestly claims in her "Editor's Note" on p. 8:
"... we don't take sides on the issue of gay marriage; instead, we seek to illuminate -- to bring understanding -- to the plight of same-sex couples raising children. They face all of the same obstacles that the rest of us do, and then some. These parents are always mindful that others are watching, and sometimes disapproving, of their childrearing. The solution for many is to build their own communities of support. Read [our] article ... for some enlightening insight into how that's done."
Note the word "plight" -- the magazine clearly sides with same-sex parents. (The "plight" was very consciously chosen by the adults involved.) Anyone who doesn't accept same-sex parenting clearly is lacking understanding, is not "illuminated". The feature article "See Us As a Family" [discussed Part II of our commentary, coming soon] clearly supports and encourages such "families" by giving helpful tips, just as the magazine does for normal families.
But what of the plight of the children being brought up by "same-sex couples"! Last weekend's Boston Globe Magazine ran another article normalizing "two mommies" -- where one of the mommies actually admitted her son's verbalized yearning for a father he'll never really know. See "Two Moms and No Dad -- For Now" ("for now" meaning, that's because the lucky kids might get to meet their sperm-donor "dad" when they get older, and are past all those annoying years when they wanted him to do stuff with them.) If you don't get the heebie-jeebies when reading this, you're ABNORMAL:
When 10-year-old John was 3, he told me one morning as I was driving him to preschool that not having a dad made him feel sad. He has said this on a number of occasions over the past seven years. We do what we can to fill the gap. He's very athletic, and we take him to play baseball, soccer, basketball, and ice hockey, anywhere that men congregate to coach and cheer on their sons.
I have come to love the fathers of his teammates at the testosterone- soaked hockey rink who slap my son's helmet and say, "Way to go, John!" I love his first-grade teacher, who has become his unofficial Big Brother and who takes him to Red Sox and Celtics games, Northeastern hockey games, mini-golfing, and bowling. I love the father of one of my son's friends who takes him camping and teaches him to build rocket launchers.
These men are godsends, but sometimes I wish we could have provided my son with a real live father. The scourge of HIV ended the lives of some of my gay men friends whom I had asked to help me start a family 15 years ago, and the two straight men friends who volunteered were subsequently un-volunteered by their girlfriends. In the end, I scoured the country for donors who would agree to meet the children at a specified later date. When I became pregnant with our first child, I bought $10,000 worth of his sperm so that all our children would be genetically related.
I feel him with us much of the time. He is on the Brookline soccer fields when the mother of one of Katie's friends says, "Your donor must be an Olympian!" Katie runs like a gazelle. I feel his presence when I look at the children and see a wonderful similarity among them, despite two being born to me, and one to my partner. He is there when our Christmas cards go out, and we get back notes referring to "your beautiful children." In six years, when Katie turns 18, John will be 16 and Meg 10.
That is when they can meet him. I don't know what level of interest he will have in them or they in him. I can only hope that it will be mutual, and it will be strong.
I have come to love the fathers of his teammates at the testosterone- soaked hockey rink who slap my son's helmet and say, "Way to go, John!" I love his first-grade teacher, who has become his unofficial Big Brother and who takes him to Red Sox and Celtics games, Northeastern hockey games, mini-golfing, and bowling. I love the father of one of my son's friends who takes him camping and teaches him to build rocket launchers.
These men are godsends, but sometimes I wish we could have provided my son with a real live father. The scourge of HIV ended the lives of some of my gay men friends whom I had asked to help me start a family 15 years ago, and the two straight men friends who volunteered were subsequently un-volunteered by their girlfriends. In the end, I scoured the country for donors who would agree to meet the children at a specified later date. When I became pregnant with our first child, I bought $10,000 worth of his sperm so that all our children would be genetically related.
I feel him with us much of the time. He is on the Brookline soccer fields when the mother of one of Katie's friends says, "Your donor must be an Olympian!" Katie runs like a gazelle. I feel his presence when I look at the children and see a wonderful similarity among them, despite two being born to me, and one to my partner. He is there when our Christmas cards go out, and we get back notes referring to "your beautiful children." In six years, when Katie turns 18, John will be 16 and Meg 10.
That is when they can meet him. I don't know what level of interest he will have in them or they in him. I can only hope that it will be mutual, and it will be strong.
Whose emotional well-being are the Parents' Paper and Boston Globe most concerned for -- the children's? or the adults'? And is it just a coincidence that the Boston Parents' Paper and the Boston Globe Magazine both feature articles promoting same-sex parenting in this lazy month of July?
In case you missed our posting from some months back, read this very sad piece by a young woman who was the product of an anonymous sperm donation: "The Pain of Not Knowing Your Biological Parent."
Boston Parents' Paper (offices in Jamaica Plain ... are we surprised?)
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.comPublisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Saturday, July 07, 2007
The Myth of "Gays" Wanting "Gay Marriage"
[Graph from Boston Globe, 5-17-07]We posted on the dramatic decline in homosexual "marriages" taking place in Massachusetts a few months back. People are starting to notice. At Boston Pride, the Ramrod anonymous sodomy bar and the "Bears" with their folding chairs made a lot louder statements than that dishonest lobbying organization called MassEquality. Now we hear that in Toronto (a very "gay" city), hardly any homosexual "marriages" are taking place!
Along these lines, see this piece by Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America: " 'Gays' don't want 'marriage' after all" (WorldNetDaily, 7-6-07). Excerpts from Barber:
The homosexual lobby has fine-tuned its rhetoric in recent years. Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as "marriage equality" and "gay rights," the left has dishonestly but effectively framed the debate over homosexual behaviors.
...But getting married isn't even on the radar screen for the vast majority of homosexuals who choose to engage in a lifestyle largely delineated by short-lived and unstable relationships at best – and more often by casual and promiscuous sexual encounters.
Consider that according to the latest Massachusetts Department of Public Health statistics, there have been only 9,695 total "gay marriages" in Massachusetts since 2004 when then-Gov. Mitt Romney began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Of those 9,000 plus, some 6,121 took place in just over the first six months while the "gay marriage" novelty toy still had its sheen.
In 2005, only 2,060 same-sex couples took the "gay-pride" plunge; and in 2006 only 1,427 tied that queer little knot. By the end of April of this year, a mere 87 "gay" couples had "married" in Massachusetts.
Even more telling – though not particularly surprising – are statistics coming out of Canada where "gay marriage" is now legal nationwide. For instance, in the city of Toronto – which boasts of having one of the world's largest homosexual populations –only one Canadian "gay" couple has "married" so far this year, according to a report by Reuters....
The good news is Americans are catching on to the disingenuous motives behind the homosexual activist push for "same-sex marriage." A recent survey by the Pew Center ...
Friday, June 22, 2007
Multiple Surrenders on Marriage Issue in Mass.
Great piece by R. T. Neary of ProLife Massachusetts on the meaning of the VoteOnMarriage amendment defeat last week at the State House -- and Mitt Romney's earlier surrender which paved the way. See Renew America's site: "Reflections on Flag Day 2007 in Massachusetts: John Adams RIP." Neary is past president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. He gets the big picture on the flawed amendment, and Mitt Romney's constitutional violations in implementing homosexual "marriage" in 2004.
Neary was at the State House on June 14, when ...
Only 45 legislators of the 50 necessary voted to continue moving the issue to this vote. The process died in its tracks! In the wake, however, I wonder how many interpret the Constitutional Convention's brazen action as one of Divine Providence. I do.
The amendment's wording would allow 99 percent of the camel into the tent by permitting what would be a "marriage" arrangement under a different label. Then, in only a short period of time, it would morph legally into the same relationship that has been preserved for millennia, one involving only one man and one woman. But above and beyond this gaping flaw, worse still was a grandfather clause which would allow and affirm 10,000-plus "marriages" which would have been performed up to Nov. 4, 2008--and then deny any after that date. A prompt challenge would have ipso facto relegated the dual status to the legal trash bin. And then folks: Go back to Square One!
What also has been sadly overlooked in the surreal political world in which we have been living is that "Same Sex Marriage" still does not exist in this once-proud Commonwealth. And yes, we do owe a monumental apology to John Adams for these last few years. In the Goodridge decision on Nov. 18, 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court never established SSM; they ruled that the Legislature had the right to do so, but that was never done. The Legislature knew that it did not have the votes to pass SSM into law in 2003-04, so the 180 days the SJC gave to them came and went on May 17, 2004.
Herein started the legal tailspin that gave us the pseudo-marriage situation which exists today. Governor Mitt Romney, a Harvard Law School graduate, tacked 180 degrees off course as he instructed Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to start issuing "marriage licenses" to applicants of the same gender. What he clearly should have done at this point was exercise bold leadership by issuing an Executive Order prohibiting any such action until the Legislature took appropriate constitutional steps. Herein lies the genesis of this unconstitutional tailspin, one which has started rapidly to re-design the social, political, and religious underpinnings of our society from early education throughout our entire social framework.
READ MORE...
Neary was at the State House on June 14, when ...
Only 45 legislators of the 50 necessary voted to continue moving the issue to this vote. The process died in its tracks! In the wake, however, I wonder how many interpret the Constitutional Convention's brazen action as one of Divine Providence. I do.
The amendment's wording would allow 99 percent of the camel into the tent by permitting what would be a "marriage" arrangement under a different label. Then, in only a short period of time, it would morph legally into the same relationship that has been preserved for millennia, one involving only one man and one woman. But above and beyond this gaping flaw, worse still was a grandfather clause which would allow and affirm 10,000-plus "marriages" which would have been performed up to Nov. 4, 2008--and then deny any after that date. A prompt challenge would have ipso facto relegated the dual status to the legal trash bin. And then folks: Go back to Square One!
What also has been sadly overlooked in the surreal political world in which we have been living is that "Same Sex Marriage" still does not exist in this once-proud Commonwealth. And yes, we do owe a monumental apology to John Adams for these last few years. In the Goodridge decision on Nov. 18, 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court never established SSM; they ruled that the Legislature had the right to do so, but that was never done. The Legislature knew that it did not have the votes to pass SSM into law in 2003-04, so the 180 days the SJC gave to them came and went on May 17, 2004.
Herein started the legal tailspin that gave us the pseudo-marriage situation which exists today. Governor Mitt Romney, a Harvard Law School graduate, tacked 180 degrees off course as he instructed Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to start issuing "marriage licenses" to applicants of the same gender. What he clearly should have done at this point was exercise bold leadership by issuing an Executive Order prohibiting any such action until the Legislature took appropriate constitutional steps. Herein lies the genesis of this unconstitutional tailspin, one which has started rapidly to re-design the social, political, and religious underpinnings of our society from early education throughout our entire social framework.
READ MORE...
Monday, June 11, 2007
Polluted Streets of Boston Pride
(c) 2007 MassResistance
Left: At "Boston Dyke March". Does D.O.E. stand for Department of Education?
Right: "Transwoman" looking his best.
Here are some of the proud participants in "Boston Pride" this past weekend. There were many children on the parade route who viewed this -- most were probably children of "GLBT parents".
If you don't like this, take it up with Mayor Thomas Menino and Governor Deval Patrick.
Right: "Transwoman" looking his best.
Here are some of the proud participants in "Boston Pride" this past weekend. There were many children on the parade route who viewed this -- most were probably children of "GLBT parents".
If you don't like this, take it up with Mayor Thomas Menino and Governor Deval Patrick.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick Celebrating Porn, Risky Sex & Depravity at Boston Pride
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Boston Pride Official Participants: All-Out Assault on Decency
Here is an index of the groups assaulting our community today at the Boston Pride parade. Will the elementary and pre-schools have their little children marching alongside adults of unknown character? What are hospitals and health care companies doing on the list (Beth Israel, Dana Farber, Tufts Health)? From Boston Pride's web site:
Boston Pride Parade Participants 2007 (as of June 4)
All The Kings Men -- Animal Rescue League of Boston -- Arlington Street Church -- Atrium School -- Auburndale, United Parish -- Avalon Night Club -- Backyard Productions -- Barrios Committee -- Bay State Stonewall Democrats -- Bay Windows -- Bedford, First Parish -- Belmont Gay Straight Alliance Committee -- Bentley College -- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center -- BGLANTS, GLBT Students at Andover Newton Theological School -- Bisexual Resource Center -- Boston Derby Dames -- Boston Gay Men's Chorus -- Boston Living Center -- Boston Prime Timers -- Boston, First Church of -- Braintree, All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church -- Cambridge Friends School -- Cambridge Health Alliance -- Cambridge, First Parish Unitarian Universalist -- Cambridge, The City of -- Chiltern Mountain Club -- Colage of Greater Boston -- Concord, First Parish -- Coro Allegro -- Dana Farber -- Delta Air Lines -- Dignity Boston -- Donor Pride, Inc -- East Coast Biker Chicks Motorcycle Club -- Ellis South End Neighborhood Association -- Emmanuel Church -- Episcopal Dioscese of MA -- Fagbug -- Femmes & Allies -- Fenway Community Health -- FLAG Flag Football -- Franklin, First Unitarian Church -- Freedom Trail Band -- Frontrunners Boston -- Gay Fathers of Greater Boston -- Gay Men's Domestice Violence Project -- Gay Officers Action League -- Gays for Patsy -- GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) -- GLBT Youth Network -- GLSEN -- Greater Boston PFLAG -- Greater Lynn, UU Church -- Groton, First Parish Church -- Harbor To The Bay -- Hub Plumbing & Mechanical Inc -- In Newsweekly -- Independent Pagans of New England -- Ironside Rugby Football Club -- K Street Facilities -- Keshet -- KinshipLanes-Liquid Assets New England Swimming -- Latin American Health Institute -- Lexington Montessori School -- LGBT Aging Project -- Liz Malia [State Rep.] -- MA Conference (UCC) -- Machine Nightclub -- Malden, First Parish -- Map For Health -- MAPS -- MassEquality -- Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition -- Metropolitan Community Church of Boston -- Michael F Flaherty (Boston City Council) -- Michael Ross, Boston City Council -- Mike Cottei, Committee to Elect -- Moving Violations Motorcycle Club -- Multicultural AIDS Coalition-State Emergency Initiative -- Network Health -- Network La Red -- New England Leather Alliance -- Newton, First Unitarian Society -- North Andover-North Parish of Interweave UU -- Now Greater Boston -- Old South Church in Boston -- Ole [Older Lesbian Energy] -- Phoenix -- Pine Village Preschool -- Queer Soup Inc -- Ramrod -- Rhode Island Pride Committee -- Sam Yoon, Committee to Elect -- Seacost Gay Men, Inc. -- Sexual Orientations United With Pride -- Sidney Borum Jr. Health Center/JRI -- Sidney Frank Importing Co. Inc. (Jagermeister) -- Social Justice Committe-Wellsley Hills Unitarian Church -- Somos Latinos -- Sovereign Bank -- Speak Out -- Starbucks -- Stonewall Communities -- Stow & Acton, First Parish -- Sudbury, First Parish UU -- Team Enterprises, USA -- Theatre Offensive -- Tim Schofield, Commttiee to Elect -- TJX Companies -- Tobin Committee (Boston City Councillor) -- Tufts Health Plan -- United Here Local 26 -- Verizon -- Voices Rising -- Waltham, First Presbyterian Church -- Wellesley Friends Meeting -- Weston, First Parish Church -- Winchester Unitarian Society -- Women Meeting Women -- Yale Appliance & Lighting
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Talk of Bestiality in Elementary School
Last year we reported on the bill filed in the Massachusetts legislature which would have decriminalized bestiality (sex with animals). While Howie Carr (WRKO, Boston Herald) may still treat this issue as a big joke, it's no joke. Parts of the GLBT community are quite serious about it. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia warned that Lawrence v. Texas opened the door to legalizing bestiality, among other perversions.
Beyond reading the occasional story of remote farms catering to these tastes, or absurd (supposedly satirical) theater about a man and his goat, we've recently heard tell of a local elementary school where one of the little boys is repeatedly telling his classmates how he French kisses his dog, and how good it feels. Now where is this child getting these ideas? Will the teacher be able to put a lid on it, or is this just another "sexual orientation" that cannot be discriminated against?
Beyond reading the occasional story of remote farms catering to these tastes, or absurd (supposedly satirical) theater about a man and his goat, we've recently heard tell of a local elementary school where one of the little boys is repeatedly telling his classmates how he French kisses his dog, and how good it feels. Now where is this child getting these ideas? Will the teacher be able to put a lid on it, or is this just another "sexual orientation" that cannot be discriminated against?
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Watertown Declares Itself "Place for Hate" -- of Traditional Values
Reading about State Senator Jarrett Barrios' selection to head the Mass. Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation made us think about some of the bad programs it supports. Like the campaign to get towns to join the "No Place for Hate" network. Coincidentally, we were just referred to a hateful editorial in Watertown Tab, celebrating that town's admission to this "Limit Free Speech" club called "No Place for Hate". Hate is not defined, of course, by this campaign. As we wrote two years ago:
Their message, in other words: If you don't agree that homosexuality if fine, normal, and beautiful, and that same-sex "marriage" is a blessing from God, YOU ARE A HATER! ... How convenient that they don't bother to define "hate speech and hate crimes." If a parent objects to the rainbow flag at the middle school, is that "hate speech"? If a citizen questions the "Day of Silence" at the high school, is that a "voice of division" which must be stomped out?
The "No Place for Hate" campaign is an imitation of the extra-governmental organizations ("Civil Rights Tribunals") that pushed the envelope for ultra-leftist and homosexual causes in Canada. These are community-based "Brown Shirt" clubs, and only haters of traditional Judeo-Christian values need apply. Ironically, a nominally Jewish group -- the Anti-Defamation League -- is behind "No Place for Hate"! But then, the liberal Jews threw out their Bible-based beliefs and values a long time ago. They're wandering in the desert again, ignoring the word of God.
While this will take up a lot of space, we believe the exchange below regarding Watertown's naming as a "No Place for Hate" community is worth preserving (and the local papers remove their links quickly). First, we reprint the hateful, irrational editorial by the Watertown Tab; then, a good response by Mark Charalambous, spokesman for the Fatherhood Coalition of Massachusetts.
Watertown Tab Editorial
Editorial: The left finally wins one in the culture war (5-10-07)
Bellevue Road curmudgeon Ralph Filicchia, to no one’s surprise, is “offended” that Watertown has declared itself “No Place for Hate.”
The Town Council voted unanimously in 2005 to adopt the “No Place for Hate” resolution, which says in part that “all acts of subtle or overt racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and ethnic bigotry substantially undermine our communities, schools and the promise of equal justice…”
Not exactly incendiary stuff. But Filicchia strode to the mic at Town Council on Tuesday to demand that the “No Place for Hate” sign be torn down and the resolution rescinded.
“The proclamation is discriminatory and a violation and infringement upon my civil rights as an American citizen,” Filicchia said. “I want the right to speak out without being guilty of a hate crime.”
There’s one way in which Filicchia makes an interesting argument. Labeling homophobia “hate” short-circuits debate over whether gay folks should be tolerated. After all, who could possibly be in favor of “hate?”
This paper has no sympathy for Filicchia and his right-wing fellow travelers, however few they may be. The right is simply reaping the whirlwind of years of its own highly successful debate-framing.
Let’s start with the term “pro-life.” How can anyone be against life? It’s a cunning coinage, though, that has done much to help the anti-abortion cause.
Or how about those on the right who proclaim or imply a monopoly on “patriotism?” Leftists are finally realizing they can reclaim the word in the name of virtues like peace.
Of course there’s also “family values,” which begs the questions “What kind of family?” and “Whose values?”
So the left’s successful conversion of the term “hate” to include opposition to homosexuality and diversity is a nice coup. It’s a joy to see the sour looks on the faces of right-wingers as they get a taste of their own medicine.
Response:
Mark Charalambous (Fatherhood Coalition Spokesman)
It comes as no surprise that the Tab editors consider the anti-abortion movement's use of "pro-life" as "cunning coinage" ("Editorial: The leftfinally wins one in the culture war," May 10). After two generations worth of politically correct indoctrination in our educational system, logical reasoning has become a rare commodity.
The word "choice" describes a countless number of events experienced daily in every single person's life, starting at the very beginning of the day with, perhaps, "Should I get up now or snooze for a few minutes?" Perhaps followed soon after with "Do I have time for a third cup of coffee?" Choices are made every moment of our lives. In fact, one could argue that consciousness itself is nothing more than a series of choices, constituting our very sense of existence.
The use of this neutral and innocuous word to describe the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child/fetus remains the single greatest example of the cultural left's corruption of language. "Affirmative action" as a euphemism for racial discrimination runs a close second. Somewhere George Orwell is smiling.
In comparison, it requires no stretch of the imagination or strained logic to recognize that "pro-life" is in fact a completely reasonable choice ofwords to describe the anti-abortion position. The issue at stake is life --human life, I might add -- and those opposed to abortion wish to prevent its taking.
So let's see now. I find rap music repellent, and I consider this "art form"and lifestyle representative of a degenerate culture. Under Watertown's "No Place for Hate" resolution, that would easily qualify as "hate speech." Similarly, I believe that homosexuality -- which is overwhelmingly learned, adaptive behavior -- is abnormal. (Once again, for the logic-challenged Tab staff and readers: "normal" is not just a word with some fuzzy, malleable definition; it means "that which functions according to its design.")
It is to me a no-brainer that any healthy society would draw clear distinctions both in custom and law between biological nuclear (heterosexual) families and homosexual "families" that require artificial means to produce or obtain their children. That, undoubtedly, also qualifies as "hate speech," and might cost me my job or even worse if the 'No Place for Hate' crowd continue to have their way.
I'm not sure if Mr. Filicchia is representative of a substantial proportion of the Watertown population who, except for him, have been mugged and muzzled by the PC thought police. I fear that he is the lone boy in the crowd of sycophants crying out that the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps his example of "speaking truth to power," to borrow a phrase from the cultural left's history, will motivate others to follow suit.
-- Mark Charalambous, Leominster
Their message, in other words: If you don't agree that homosexuality if fine, normal, and beautiful, and that same-sex "marriage" is a blessing from God, YOU ARE A HATER! ... How convenient that they don't bother to define "hate speech and hate crimes." If a parent objects to the rainbow flag at the middle school, is that "hate speech"? If a citizen questions the "Day of Silence" at the high school, is that a "voice of division" which must be stomped out?
The "No Place for Hate" campaign is an imitation of the extra-governmental organizations ("Civil Rights Tribunals") that pushed the envelope for ultra-leftist and homosexual causes in Canada. These are community-based "Brown Shirt" clubs, and only haters of traditional Judeo-Christian values need apply. Ironically, a nominally Jewish group -- the Anti-Defamation League -- is behind "No Place for Hate"! But then, the liberal Jews threw out their Bible-based beliefs and values a long time ago. They're wandering in the desert again, ignoring the word of God.
While this will take up a lot of space, we believe the exchange below regarding Watertown's naming as a "No Place for Hate" community is worth preserving (and the local papers remove their links quickly). First, we reprint the hateful, irrational editorial by the Watertown Tab; then, a good response by Mark Charalambous, spokesman for the Fatherhood Coalition of Massachusetts.
Watertown Tab Editorial
Editorial: The left finally wins one in the culture war (5-10-07)
Bellevue Road curmudgeon Ralph Filicchia, to no one’s surprise, is “offended” that Watertown has declared itself “No Place for Hate.”
The Town Council voted unanimously in 2005 to adopt the “No Place for Hate” resolution, which says in part that “all acts of subtle or overt racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and ethnic bigotry substantially undermine our communities, schools and the promise of equal justice…”
Not exactly incendiary stuff. But Filicchia strode to the mic at Town Council on Tuesday to demand that the “No Place for Hate” sign be torn down and the resolution rescinded.
“The proclamation is discriminatory and a violation and infringement upon my civil rights as an American citizen,” Filicchia said. “I want the right to speak out without being guilty of a hate crime.”
There’s one way in which Filicchia makes an interesting argument. Labeling homophobia “hate” short-circuits debate over whether gay folks should be tolerated. After all, who could possibly be in favor of “hate?”
This paper has no sympathy for Filicchia and his right-wing fellow travelers, however few they may be. The right is simply reaping the whirlwind of years of its own highly successful debate-framing.
Let’s start with the term “pro-life.” How can anyone be against life? It’s a cunning coinage, though, that has done much to help the anti-abortion cause.
Or how about those on the right who proclaim or imply a monopoly on “patriotism?” Leftists are finally realizing they can reclaim the word in the name of virtues like peace.
Of course there’s also “family values,” which begs the questions “What kind of family?” and “Whose values?”
So the left’s successful conversion of the term “hate” to include opposition to homosexuality and diversity is a nice coup. It’s a joy to see the sour looks on the faces of right-wingers as they get a taste of their own medicine.
Response:
Mark Charalambous (Fatherhood Coalition Spokesman)
It comes as no surprise that the Tab editors consider the anti-abortion movement's use of "pro-life" as "cunning coinage" ("Editorial: The leftfinally wins one in the culture war," May 10). After two generations worth of politically correct indoctrination in our educational system, logical reasoning has become a rare commodity.
The word "choice" describes a countless number of events experienced daily in every single person's life, starting at the very beginning of the day with, perhaps, "Should I get up now or snooze for a few minutes?" Perhaps followed soon after with "Do I have time for a third cup of coffee?" Choices are made every moment of our lives. In fact, one could argue that consciousness itself is nothing more than a series of choices, constituting our very sense of existence.
The use of this neutral and innocuous word to describe the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child/fetus remains the single greatest example of the cultural left's corruption of language. "Affirmative action" as a euphemism for racial discrimination runs a close second. Somewhere George Orwell is smiling.
In comparison, it requires no stretch of the imagination or strained logic to recognize that "pro-life" is in fact a completely reasonable choice ofwords to describe the anti-abortion position. The issue at stake is life --human life, I might add -- and those opposed to abortion wish to prevent its taking.
So let's see now. I find rap music repellent, and I consider this "art form"and lifestyle representative of a degenerate culture. Under Watertown's "No Place for Hate" resolution, that would easily qualify as "hate speech." Similarly, I believe that homosexuality -- which is overwhelmingly learned, adaptive behavior -- is abnormal. (Once again, for the logic-challenged Tab staff and readers: "normal" is not just a word with some fuzzy, malleable definition; it means "that which functions according to its design.")
It is to me a no-brainer that any healthy society would draw clear distinctions both in custom and law between biological nuclear (heterosexual) families and homosexual "families" that require artificial means to produce or obtain their children. That, undoubtedly, also qualifies as "hate speech," and might cost me my job or even worse if the 'No Place for Hate' crowd continue to have their way.
I'm not sure if Mr. Filicchia is representative of a substantial proportion of the Watertown population who, except for him, have been mugged and muzzled by the PC thought police. I fear that he is the lone boy in the crowd of sycophants crying out that the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps his example of "speaking truth to power," to borrow a phrase from the cultural left's history, will motivate others to follow suit.
-- Mark Charalambous, Leominster
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
American Family Association Reports: Top 10 Corporate TV Sponsors of Homosexual Agenda
Check out the Amerian Family Association's report on the top 10 sponsors of pro-homosexual programs on prime-time network TV. This corporate sell-out has two major causes:
- Activists and allies in top positions within the corporations;
- Fear of lawsuits by corporate management, due to "sexual orientation" non-discrimination laws.
The network shows monitored:
Ugly Betty, ER, Desperate Housewives, Simpsons, The Office, Brothers & Sisters, Grey's Anatomy, The Class.
The corporations advertising the most:
Ford, Toyota , AT&T, Procter & Gamble, Revlon, Glaxo Smith Kline, Unilever, Daimler Chrysler, Verizon, Quaker Oats.
Between February 11 through May 5, American Family Association monitored the top eight prime-time network programs featuring lead or supporting homosexual characters. These programs were specifically identified by the activist-homosexual group GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) as GLAAD Media Award winners, or as showcasing leading or supporting homosexual characters.
In each program monitored, homosexuality was promoted in a positive manner as a normal and accepted lifestyle. Some scenes included homosexuals kisses and bedrooms scenes. In instances where opposition to homosexuality was portrayed, the opposing character was publicly ridiculed or condemned by the other characters on the program.
Ford Motor Company was the top sponsor of programs promoting homosexuality on the prime-time network programs monitored.
- Activists and allies in top positions within the corporations;
- Fear of lawsuits by corporate management, due to "sexual orientation" non-discrimination laws.
The network shows monitored:
Ugly Betty, ER, Desperate Housewives, Simpsons, The Office, Brothers & Sisters, Grey's Anatomy, The Class.
The corporations advertising the most:
Ford, Toyota , AT&T, Procter & Gamble, Revlon, Glaxo Smith Kline, Unilever, Daimler Chrysler, Verizon, Quaker Oats.
Between February 11 through May 5, American Family Association monitored the top eight prime-time network programs featuring lead or supporting homosexual characters. These programs were specifically identified by the activist-homosexual group GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) as GLAAD Media Award winners, or as showcasing leading or supporting homosexual characters.
In each program monitored, homosexuality was promoted in a positive manner as a normal and accepted lifestyle. Some scenes included homosexuals kisses and bedrooms scenes. In instances where opposition to homosexuality was portrayed, the opposing character was publicly ridiculed or condemned by the other characters on the program.
Ford Motor Company was the top sponsor of programs promoting homosexuality on the prime-time network programs monitored.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Q & A on Massachusetts "Trans Rights" Bill
Recently, we were asked by a college journalism student to respond to these questions on the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill," H1722, filed this past January in the Massachusets legislature. Here are our answers. (The fact that anyone even discusses this topic seriously says a lot about where society has gone!)
Q: In January 2007, legislation to outlaw gender-based discrimination and hate crimes in the state of Massachusetts was introduced. Do you think this law WILL pass and do you think this law SHOULD pass, why or why not?
A: The Massachusetts Legislature can be outrageous at times. But we don't think this will pass. And it should not pass. It's complete lunacy. It's a bill that would institutionalize and codify depraved and destructive behavior.
Transgenderism and transsexuality are considered disorders by the American Psychiatric Association (which bowed to homosexual radical pressure in the 1970s and removed homosexuality from its list of disorders -- see their diagnostic manual, DSM-IV). That is one indication of how truly disordered so-called “transgender/transsexual” people are – that even the APA still considers their condition a disorder. It's really very sad: “Trans” people wish to deny their God-given, natural bodies and psyches, but through cross-dressing, hormonal manipulation, and genital mutilation pretend they are something or someone they are not. (They will always have the DNA of their natural sex.) This should not be encouraged by government in any way, which this bill would do by normalizing such disordered and inherently unhealthy behaviors. Transsexuals have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS measured in any vulnerable sub-group. (Just Google this.)
The larger population would be forced to approve of any imaginable manifestation of "gender identity and expression", since these terms are not clearly defined in the bill. (Nor has "sexual orientation" ever been defined in Mass. law.) For example, naked sex in public could be considered "gender expression", and so could prostitution, and even pederasty. Who knows? It's not defined. Wacky judges could let this go anywhere if it becomes law. (See Traditional Values Coalition paper on the many possible sexual behaviors this law could protect: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/print.php?sid=3062)
Also, freedom of speech will be curtailed by this law. Any speech or even facial expression that could be considered by the alleged victim as intimidating or discriminatory would be open to possible prosecution. If a "transman" (a woman pretending to be a man) is addressed as a female by a waiter in a restaurant, and is offended by such "discrimination", the restaurant or waiter could be sued. This is insanity, not reasonable law.
Q: Do you think sex-change surgery should be required for the law to recognize a person as transgender? Why or why not?
A: No one should be recognized by law as "transgender" as there is in reality no such thing. Every person is biologically the person he was born as, according to his DNA.
Q: Do you think that changing laws to make it easier for transgender people to be recognized under the law as the gender they feel they are - even if they have not had sex-change surgery - will open doors for criminals to commit identity fraud?
A: This is a red herring. This would be the least of society's problems if this becomes law.
Q: Do gender-neutral bathrooms compromise the safety of women?
Absolutely. And they also offend the normal person's sense of decency and sanity, as well as one's sense of order and common sense. Why is there no law proposed to protect the normal person's feelings of intimidation or threat? It's not just that a man is wearing a woman's clothes. It's the normal person's recognition that such behavior is so unbalanced that anything might be possible on the part of this person. Why is only the "trans" person's perception important here? Why is the normal woman's perception no longer important? This is a classic case of special rights -- for people who are not different because they were born that way, but are making a choice to be perverted and abnormal.
Q: Some states use dollars from taxpayers to fund sex-change surgeries for transgender people who cannot afford the surgery on their own. Do you think taxpayer money should be used for this, why or why not?
A: Absurd. Taxpayer money should not be used to undermine anyone's health, or the health of the larger society.
Q: In January 2007, legislation to outlaw gender-based discrimination and hate crimes in the state of Massachusetts was introduced. Do you think this law WILL pass and do you think this law SHOULD pass, why or why not?
A: The Massachusetts Legislature can be outrageous at times. But we don't think this will pass. And it should not pass. It's complete lunacy. It's a bill that would institutionalize and codify depraved and destructive behavior.
Transgenderism and transsexuality are considered disorders by the American Psychiatric Association (which bowed to homosexual radical pressure in the 1970s and removed homosexuality from its list of disorders -- see their diagnostic manual, DSM-IV). That is one indication of how truly disordered so-called “transgender/transsexual” people are – that even the APA still considers their condition a disorder. It's really very sad: “Trans” people wish to deny their God-given, natural bodies and psyches, but through cross-dressing, hormonal manipulation, and genital mutilation pretend they are something or someone they are not. (They will always have the DNA of their natural sex.) This should not be encouraged by government in any way, which this bill would do by normalizing such disordered and inherently unhealthy behaviors. Transsexuals have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS measured in any vulnerable sub-group. (Just Google this.)
The larger population would be forced to approve of any imaginable manifestation of "gender identity and expression", since these terms are not clearly defined in the bill. (Nor has "sexual orientation" ever been defined in Mass. law.) For example, naked sex in public could be considered "gender expression", and so could prostitution, and even pederasty. Who knows? It's not defined. Wacky judges could let this go anywhere if it becomes law. (See Traditional Values Coalition paper on the many possible sexual behaviors this law could protect: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/print.php?sid=3062)
Also, freedom of speech will be curtailed by this law. Any speech or even facial expression that could be considered by the alleged victim as intimidating or discriminatory would be open to possible prosecution. If a "transman" (a woman pretending to be a man) is addressed as a female by a waiter in a restaurant, and is offended by such "discrimination", the restaurant or waiter could be sued. This is insanity, not reasonable law.
Q: Do you think sex-change surgery should be required for the law to recognize a person as transgender? Why or why not?
A: No one should be recognized by law as "transgender" as there is in reality no such thing. Every person is biologically the person he was born as, according to his DNA.
Q: Do you think that changing laws to make it easier for transgender people to be recognized under the law as the gender they feel they are - even if they have not had sex-change surgery - will open doors for criminals to commit identity fraud?
A: This is a red herring. This would be the least of society's problems if this becomes law.
Q: Do gender-neutral bathrooms compromise the safety of women?
Absolutely. And they also offend the normal person's sense of decency and sanity, as well as one's sense of order and common sense. Why is there no law proposed to protect the normal person's feelings of intimidation or threat? It's not just that a man is wearing a woman's clothes. It's the normal person's recognition that such behavior is so unbalanced that anything might be possible on the part of this person. Why is only the "trans" person's perception important here? Why is the normal woman's perception no longer important? This is a classic case of special rights -- for people who are not different because they were born that way, but are making a choice to be perverted and abnormal.
Q: Some states use dollars from taxpayers to fund sex-change surgeries for transgender people who cannot afford the surgery on their own. Do you think taxpayer money should be used for this, why or why not?
A: Absurd. Taxpayer money should not be used to undermine anyone's health, or the health of the larger society.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
ABC Joins Propaganda Campaign for "Transgender Children"
ABC will show "My Secret Self: A Story of Transgender Children" with Barbara Walters interviewing children and their families.
Friday, April 27, 2007 on "20/20" at 10 p.m. EDT
Preview of "Transgender Children" http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3079668
ABC has also posted: "Transgender Children: Frequently Asked Questions and Resources" from PFLAG, one of the most extreme organizations in America. PFLAG holds an annual conference in the fall which promotes not only transsexuality, but also polygamy, swinging, BDSM, and other dangerous perversions.
See also: "Born in the Wrong Body" http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3073483
Friday, April 27, 2007 on "20/20" at 10 p.m. EDT
Preview of "Transgender Children" http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3079668
ABC has also posted: "Transgender Children: Frequently Asked Questions and Resources" from PFLAG, one of the most extreme organizations in America. PFLAG holds an annual conference in the fall which promotes not only transsexuality, but also polygamy, swinging, BDSM, and other dangerous perversions.
See also: "Born in the Wrong Body" http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3073483
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
African-American Ministers Speak Out on "Gay Rights" Bills
Buried in the Boston Globe story today, "Gay-rights proposals gain in Congress" is a note on how African-American ministers from around the country spoke out against the federal "gay rights bills." We hope that Boston's Black Ministerial Alliance and others in Massachusetts will take a close look at our state version of a "transgender rights and hate crimes" bill, H1722.
Citizen Link also covered the Capitol Hill press conference:
Alan Chambers, a former homosexual and president of Exodus International, said the law would pave the way to criminalize thoughts and religious beliefs. "We stand today with many in the African-American community who also recognize that one's sexuality can be changed, but one's skin color cannot," he said.
"This legislation says that we, as former homosexuals, are of less value and worth less legal protection now than when we were living as homosexuals. We categorically reject this mindset and reaffirm every American's value and right to equal protection under the law."
Bishop Harry Jackson, founder and chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, Pastor Marvin Winans, Bishop Larry Brandon and Bishop Liston Paige joined Chambers to speak out against homosexuality being equated with civil rights.
"We call upon Congress to promote legislation that affirms authentic equality and protects our religious freedoms," Chambers said.
From the Globe report :
"Courts have an interesting way of interpreting laws, and once this can of worms is open, it will be very hard to close," said Pastor Marvin L. Winans of Perfecting Church in Detroit. "This step of recognizing homosexuality as a protected class would be a huge advancement in this nation toward adopting and condoning this behavior as natural."
Citizen Link also covered the Capitol Hill press conference:
Alan Chambers, a former homosexual and president of Exodus International, said the law would pave the way to criminalize thoughts and religious beliefs. "We stand today with many in the African-American community who also recognize that one's sexuality can be changed, but one's skin color cannot," he said.
"This legislation says that we, as former homosexuals, are of less value and worth less legal protection now than when we were living as homosexuals. We categorically reject this mindset and reaffirm every American's value and right to equal protection under the law."
Bishop Harry Jackson, founder and chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, Pastor Marvin Winans, Bishop Larry Brandon and Bishop Liston Paige joined Chambers to speak out against homosexuality being equated with civil rights.
"We call upon Congress to promote legislation that affirms authentic equality and protects our religious freedoms," Chambers said.
From the Globe report :
"Courts have an interesting way of interpreting laws, and once this can of worms is open, it will be very hard to close," said Pastor Marvin L. Winans of Perfecting Church in Detroit. "This step of recognizing homosexuality as a protected class would be a huge advancement in this nation toward adopting and condoning this behavior as natural."
Monday, April 16, 2007
Jesuit Urban Center's rainbow flag photos disappear
The Boston Globe is sad that the "gay" Catholic church, the Jesuit Urban Center (Church of the Immaculate Conception) in Boston, is closing down.
This blog once linked to a hideous photo of the interior of this beautiful church -- draped with rainbow flags. But now, as we read that the JUC is closing down, their rainbow photos have disappeared from their online catalog. (Sadly, we didn't save it.) We were, however, able to retrieve this photo of JUC church members marching in a "Gay" Pride parade. And their rainbow flag icon is still available.
The church assures the Globe that its "gay" identity had nothing to do with its closing. We wonder... From the Globe:
The Jesuit Urban Center, a predominantly gay Catholic congregation in Boston's South End, will close at the end of July, and the landmark church in which services are held will be put up for sale, the Jesuit religious order announced yesterday. The Rev. Thomas J. Regan , the superior of the New England Jesuits, said in an interview that the rationale for the closing is purely financial. ...
Regan said that he had received no pressure from the Vatican, the Jesuit headquarters in Rome, or the Archdiocese of Boston, to close the church, and that the sexual orientation of the worshipers played no role in his decision.
He said that the Jesuits would continue to welcome gays and lesbians to worship at St. Ignatius of Loyola , the parish they oversee in Chestnut Hill, and that there are two other downtown congregations that have been reaching out to gay Catholics, the Paulist Center on Beacon Hill and St. Anthony Shrine, operated by the Franciscans, near Downtown Crossing.
Regan also said members of the congregation may choose to worship at the nearby Cathedral of the Holy Cross, also in the South End, but many gay Catholics are likely to balk at that option because the cathedral is the seat of Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley , who has been an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. ...
The decision to close the Jesuit Urban Center comes nearly seven years after the Jesuits fired a nun and a priest from the Urban Center because the nun, Sister Jeannette T. Normandin , was allowed to help perform two baptismal rites for adopted sons of gay male couples. The Jesuits at the time said that the violation had nothing to do with the sexuality of the children's parents, but that baptismal rites, except in emergencies, are to be performed by priests. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)