A recent Minnesota Monitor post by Andy Birkey states "Six moderates out, six conservatives in: GOP changes leadership in wake of override vote."
MFC's 2007 Legislative Scorecard (See "Legislative Issues" 2007 Legislative Scorecard) reveals that four of the six moderates were strong supporters of pro-family issues, scoring 81% or better. Two of the four moderates had 100% voting records.
Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka scored 86% on pro-family legislation. He was replaced by Rep. Matt Dean, R-Dellwood with a 96%. Abeler and Dean voted differently on one issue - mental health screening for children.
Another moderate, Rep. Todd Hamilton, R-Mountain Lake scored 100% on pro-family legislation. Rep. Hamilton was replaced by Rep. Dean Urdahl with an identical 100% pro-family voting record.
Rep. Kathy Tingelstad, R-Andover scored a strong 81%. Tingelstad was replaced by Rep. Larry Howes, R-Walker with a score of 93%. Tingelstad and Howes voted differently on two issues - State funding of Interhational Baccalaureate and mental health screening for children.
Rep. Bud Heidgerken, R-Freeport scored a moderate 100%. He was replaced by Rep. Sondra Erickson, R-Princeton with the exact same 100% voting record.
Showing posts with label Minnesota Monitor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minnesota Monitor. Show all posts
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Defenders of Kinky sex materials at UM have a novel defense: It will save lives!
Andy Birkey of Minnesota Monitor has come up with a novel defense of disseminators of "kinky sex" how materials promoted by the University of Minnesota's student group "Kinky U": It will save lives. He points to a Rev. Gary Aldridge who died of from suffocation while engaging in bizarre sex practices. His "hands and feet were bound together behind his back, and they were attached to a nylon cord fastened around his neck...The body was dressed in a face mask with a single breathing vent, two wetsuits and was bound with cords and a belt, according to the report."
If only he'd been told how to do it "safely." Birkey says that " What killed him was a lack of understanding about the safety of the activities he enjoyed engaging in, a lack of information on kinky sex. That's all the students at the university are trying to do: make not-so-vanilla sex safer and "educate those interested about the risks involved."
This mindset is widespread among those who maintain a more libertine view of sexuality. The ultimate goal is human pleasure whatever form that takes. That's the high human value. So we should do all we can to reduce the risks of the inherently dangerous and harmful behavior. In fact, the government should do all it can to help facilitate whatever people want to do. (See massive government spending on contraceptive programs.) The only problem is it makes the problem worse because it sends the message that the underlying behavior is fine, so you have more folks engaging in it.
Compare this to the message communicated on smoking. It's bad for you. Don't do it. We don't encourage people to engage in efforts to merely minimize the dangerous side effects; we tell them to stop. The reason? You're more likely to reduce the number of people smoking if the message is clear, unequivocal and directed at the underlying behavior.
But when it comes to sexual behaviors that's a whole other story. Many people's lives and identities are tied up in their sexual behaviors and practices. To tell them to stop the underlying sexual behaviors or restrict them to a marriage relationship means they'll have to deny who they think they are and/or their passions. The result? Merely try and mitigate the damaging consequences of the behaviors. On the other hand, if we really wanted to protect more people we'd send a clear message discouraging the underlying behaviors. In the long run, more people would be saved.
So if the goal is to prevent dangerous consequences of dangerous behaviors, the most effective solution is discouraging the underlying activity. But that's where proponents of various bizarre sexual practices are not willing to go. They insist it's their right to engage in these activities and have other people subsidize them.
One last comment. Birkey accuses opponents of Kinky U of being "judgmental". It sounds like Mr. Birkey is being a bit judgmental in his assertion of judgmentalism. In their minds, the cultural Left is never judgmental; it's only those on the Right except of course when Mr. Birkey "judges" those on the Right.
If only he'd been told how to do it "safely." Birkey says that " What killed him was a lack of understanding about the safety of the activities he enjoyed engaging in, a lack of information on kinky sex. That's all the students at the university are trying to do: make not-so-vanilla sex safer and "educate those interested about the risks involved."
This mindset is widespread among those who maintain a more libertine view of sexuality. The ultimate goal is human pleasure whatever form that takes. That's the high human value. So we should do all we can to reduce the risks of the inherently dangerous and harmful behavior. In fact, the government should do all it can to help facilitate whatever people want to do. (See massive government spending on contraceptive programs.) The only problem is it makes the problem worse because it sends the message that the underlying behavior is fine, so you have more folks engaging in it.
Compare this to the message communicated on smoking. It's bad for you. Don't do it. We don't encourage people to engage in efforts to merely minimize the dangerous side effects; we tell them to stop. The reason? You're more likely to reduce the number of people smoking if the message is clear, unequivocal and directed at the underlying behavior.
But when it comes to sexual behaviors that's a whole other story. Many people's lives and identities are tied up in their sexual behaviors and practices. To tell them to stop the underlying sexual behaviors or restrict them to a marriage relationship means they'll have to deny who they think they are and/or their passions. The result? Merely try and mitigate the damaging consequences of the behaviors. On the other hand, if we really wanted to protect more people we'd send a clear message discouraging the underlying behaviors. In the long run, more people would be saved.
So if the goal is to prevent dangerous consequences of dangerous behaviors, the most effective solution is discouraging the underlying activity. But that's where proponents of various bizarre sexual practices are not willing to go. They insist it's their right to engage in these activities and have other people subsidize them.
One last comment. Birkey accuses opponents of Kinky U of being "judgmental". It sounds like Mr. Birkey is being a bit judgmental in his assertion of judgmentalism. In their minds, the cultural Left is never judgmental; it's only those on the Right except of course when Mr. Birkey "judges" those on the Right.
Friday, November 2, 2007
What can gay supporters do with ex-gays but attempt to marginalize and/or discredit them
Homosexual activists are always arguing that they have no choice in their lifestyle. But when a person who was in the homosexual lifestyle for many years leaves it, it’s hard for them to know how to respond. A case in point is Janet Boynes. Janet was in the lesbian lifestyle for over a dozen years. It wasn’t pretty. It was a life filled with drug abuse, depression, eating disorder and jealous relationships. She views herself driven into lesbian because of her horrible family upbringing and poor relationships with men.
Janet speaks nationally on the topic and recently gained the attention of Andy Birkey of the Minnesota Monitor, a liberal online newsletter. Andy seeks to marginalize her views.
Andy challenges for her assertion that lesbianism is marked by high levels of destructive behaviors. Andy writes that people know lesbians who grow up with stable, drug free and happy lives. Certainly there are homosexuals who aren’t involved in drugs and are content with their lives. However, when looking at the overall pattern of the lifestyle that isn’t the case. There are studies showing people who engage in homosexuality are disproportionately depressed, suicidal, abusing drugs, and have a shorter life expectancy.
It’s analogous to smoking. Are there smokers who live long, happy lives? Certainly. But on average smoking is bad for your health and we shouldn’t suggest it isn’t.
The same is true with homosexuality. On average it’s not a happy lifestyle. To suggest otherwise is not helpful to individual person or broader society. That’s why the message of Janet Boynes is so important to hear and why some strongly oppose it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
