Published on Mercatornet, May 12, 20161
The USA is in the midst of what has been called the Bathroom Wars; however, access to bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex for the so-called transgendered is only a means to an end. The real objective can be discerned from ACLU’s press release supporting U.S. Department of Education’s demand that the Palatine High School in Illinois (and by extension all schools receiving federal funds) allow a boy, who wants to be accepted as a girl, unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room. The transgendered and their supporters claim that people are merely assigned a sex at birth, their gender identity (how they feel) may or may not match their assigned sex. The goal is to force everyone to accept that gender identity should take precedence over the biological reality of sexual identity and men who claim to be women should be treated as though they were women. Read more…
In 1981 my daughter came home from secondary school with information about her first day in health class. The teacher did not allow the students to bring the materials home, but what she told me caused concern. I went to the school and asked to see the materials they were using. I was shocked. It was far worse than I had imagined. Basically, every form of sexual sin was promoted, the course even downplayed the harm of incest and child abuse. I asked to have my daughter removed from the class and was told that the health class was a requirement for graduation.
The most troubling part of the course was not the open promotion of the sexual revolution, but use of what was called values clarification. Morality and virtue were replaced by values. Students were told they should make decisions based on what they chose freely to value. The course equated what music you chose or flavor of ice cream you like with the decision to have sex. Choice was the key word. The pro-abortion movement calls itself pro-choice. Read more…
Gender identity and gender expression should not be added to anti-discrimination policy because gender is an amorphous undefined term, used to cover up lies.
What is needed is a campaign strategy, to wean the public away from the deceptive word gender and back to the reality based sex,
I would suggest the slogan for bumper stickers
We will not lie
We will not call the baby in the womb a woman’s choice.
We will not call the relationship between 2 women a marriage.
We will not call a man a woman.
We will not say gender when we mean sex.
We will use sex-specific words: father, mother, bride, groom, husband wife.
We will not let others lie to our children.
We need a symbol, I suggest XX/XY, with the double helix of the DNA drawn inside each leg.
We are the defenders of reality. XX/XY remind us that the difference between man and woman is an undeniable reality, that it takes an XX and an XY to consummate a marriage, that takes an XX and an XY to make a baby.
Every child has a right to grow up in a home with his biological mother and father, biology matters.
Government documents should document reality. They should not be changed to accommodate political pressure.
If it says women on the door, it should be for women. Perhaps we should put an XX on the door to make it clear.
It is interesting to note that some Radical Feminists do not accept men who claim to be women or in some cases lesbian women. They point out that women who have been surgically altered to resemble women have not experienced the reality of women’s lives. Such men are invaders. Such men envy women and covet what rightly belongs to women. Some gay men have started a petition drive to “Drop the T” because they see the men pretending to be women undermining their agenda.
No has the right to lie or to force others to lie.
My article “A Simple Plan for Winning Back the Culture After the Same-Sex Marriage Decision: Envisioning a positive future after the Obergefell case,” was published on line by Aleteia, July 14, 2015
The following is a brief summary of the five initiatives that I think could make a difference. I hope my readers will download the entire piece, send their comments, share with me what they are already doing, and consider how they could support some of these initiatives.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that no state may deny a marriage license to two members of the same sex, those who have been fighting in defense of natural marriage are asking, “Where do we go from here?”
I offer some suggestions:
1. First, it is necessary to confront the Sexual Revolutionaries and their promotion of Utilitarian ethics…
2. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech must be defended…
3. Prayer, fasting, repentance, and reparation. Individually and in our churches, we need to pray for people with same-sex attraction (SSA) and gender identity disorder (GID), for their children, and their parents….
4. Support groups. In spite of the fact that gay activists insist that they don’t need therapy, we must be there for those who want help…
5. We need to know and speak the truth about SSA and GID…
HOW NOT TO BE USED: LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY
In the last thirty years, advocates for a revolution in sexual ethics and practice have mounted a frontal assault on traditional morality. These Sexual Revolutionaries have presented themselves as promoters of pleasure and freedom, working to liberate the world from the bondage of sexual restraint. Their activism has lead to the removal of legal restrictions on sexual behavior, popularization of what a generation ago would have deemed pornography, and a shattering of social norms. In today’s media-driven culture the defenders of traditional sexual morality face derision and contempt. The powerful entertainment industry delights in breaking down barriers and portraying sexual rebels as heroes persecuted by neurotic, hypocritical bigots. Journalists treat Sexual Revolutionaries as victim/heroes fighting for freedom against oppressive discrimination. Read more…
On the program MediaBuzz (April 5), there were rare moments of honesty. One of the panel of members of the media admitted that while 50 percent of the public considered themselves faithful Christians, only 10 percent of those working in newsrooms would classify themselves as such. The panelists all but admitted that they just didn’t understand Christians. The ten percent who are believers probably aren’t always candid about their feelings. Even when big names admit to religious motivations, they are treated with skepticism. When Bill O’Reilly said that he was inspired by the Holy Spirt to write Killing Jesus, his interviewer Nora O’Donnell of 60 Minutes was incredulous. She asked him if he thought he was “the chosen one.” Ms. O’Donnell is undoubtedly unaware that average Christians often are convinced that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit to take up a particular work. Read more…
Suppose parents were informed that their child has a serious condition, one for which the recommended treatment included: a lifetime regime of powerful drugs which could cause serious, even life threatening, side effects; mutilating surgeries, which leave scars and compromise urinary track function; total loss of the ability to procreate; and partial or complete loss of genital function and feeling. Even with this radical treatment, their child would be at high risk for depression, other psychological disorders, suicide, HIV infection, and a shortened life span. In addition, their child would probably have to deceive others, including intimate partners, about the nature of the condition. Should these parents be allowed to seek a second opinion? President Obama and his advisor Valerie Jarret say, “No.” Read more…