Two recent stories underscore the unhealthy ideology behind “gay rights” and comprehensive sex education that is endangering our children and our national health.
The first is the outbreak of a drug resistant, highly contagious staph infection in U.S. hospitals. A new study by the University of California, San Francisco reported that the strain has spread rapidly in the homosexual populations of San Francisco and Boston. They feared the “flesh eating” infection “has the potential for rapid, nationwide dissemination” among gay men.
In a Reuter’s interview, Dr. Binh Diep, the researcher who led the study, said, “Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable … ‘We think that it's spread through sexual activity.’”
Beware extremists claiming that anyone can catch the infection. Perhaps. However, before it spreads to the general population lets point out that those indulging in high-risk, anonymous sex with multiple partners aren’t just anyone.
In another story, San Jose University has banned blood drives from campus because homosexuals (a high risk category for HIV/AIDS) are not allowed to donate. According to Citizen Link, “San Jose State students and faculty donate about 300 units of blood a year, and, according to Michele Hyndman of the Stanford Blood Center, any further losses could put local patients in jeopardy.”
“We’re not arguing anything about the science," said Larry Carr, university vice president. "We’re not in a position to argue the science. We have a conflict with a nondiscrimination policy on our campus.”
Parents should demand that Carr resign, as he is endangering the health of the students, the blood supply and the community at large. He is allowing political correctness to trump sound medical standards. In an era of rampant sexually transmitted diseases this is criminal.
In Minnesota Clamydia is up. STD’s are up. Unwanted pregnancies are up, and yet the cowardly and deceitful comprehensive sex ed ideologs - and their media shills - blame abstinence and demand condom/dental dam* based indoctrination for our innocent youth.
Has it occurred to these dangerous ideologs that all these precautions (condoms, dental dams, vaccines, pills, abortions) are proof that they are encouraging our children to play in a disease infested playground?
A healthy dose of science teaches us that unhealthy sex begets unhealthy consequences and teaching our children to practice unhealthy behavior - even with a dental dam or condom - is child abuse.
* A dental dam is a piece of latex used for oral sex. Even the CDC has stated "No barrier methods for use during oral sex have been evaluated as effective by the FDA."
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Surrogacy Agreements: Selling babies, designer babies and rent-a-wombs
I came across an interesting New York Times story by Judith Warner entitled, "Outsourced wombs." It describes the use of women in India to carry to term babies for wealthy US couples and women. The author feels very uncomfortable about the practice but just isn't sure why. That's understandable if there isn't an universal moral framework in the world which governs human actions and relationships.
She raises the specter of Huxley's "Brave New World" and the dehumanization of the practice. That's just what surrogacy is for all concerned. For the birth mother who's "used" to bring into the world the "designer" baby. The intended parents who can have the baby of their choice without all the hassles of child birth. The sperm or egg donors who can sell their genetic material for money and simply walk away with no responsibility for the "product" er baby resulting. And of course the baby who is treated as a commodity exchanged for money as part of an arm's length business agreement.
The practice tweaks the moral sensibilities of lots of people and rightfully so. The practice is an affront to the design and purpose of the Creator for parents, children, and families. As Chuck Colson says:
"...we cannot get away from the law written on our hearts, which tells us that the Creator has an intentional design for our families that benefits and protects men, women, and children. And when we deliberately try to circumvent that design, the frightening truth is that we end up using people; men for their sperm, women for their eggs or their body parts. And sadly, we even use the resulting children for our own gratification.. that every human life has value and dignity--not because we can use that life to satisfy a need or desire, but because the Creator of all life made us in His image and values us beyond all comprehension."
Colson points to the moral framework Christianity brings to the discussion.
Interestingly, the practice is frowned upon in Europe, of all places, where surrogacy is outright banned or severely restricted.
The issue will be coming to Minnesota in the 2008 legislative session where the Minnesota Bar Association is working on a bill to legalize the practice.
She raises the specter of Huxley's "Brave New World" and the dehumanization of the practice. That's just what surrogacy is for all concerned. For the birth mother who's "used" to bring into the world the "designer" baby. The intended parents who can have the baby of their choice without all the hassles of child birth. The sperm or egg donors who can sell their genetic material for money and simply walk away with no responsibility for the "product" er baby resulting. And of course the baby who is treated as a commodity exchanged for money as part of an arm's length business agreement.
The practice tweaks the moral sensibilities of lots of people and rightfully so. The practice is an affront to the design and purpose of the Creator for parents, children, and families. As Chuck Colson says:
"...we cannot get away from the law written on our hearts, which tells us that the Creator has an intentional design for our families that benefits and protects men, women, and children. And when we deliberately try to circumvent that design, the frightening truth is that we end up using people; men for their sperm, women for their eggs or their body parts. And sadly, we even use the resulting children for our own gratification.. that every human life has value and dignity--not because we can use that life to satisfy a need or desire, but because the Creator of all life made us in His image and values us beyond all comprehension."
Colson points to the moral framework Christianity brings to the discussion.
Interestingly, the practice is frowned upon in Europe, of all places, where surrogacy is outright banned or severely restricted.
The issue will be coming to Minnesota in the 2008 legislative session where the Minnesota Bar Association is working on a bill to legalize the practice.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Is what you believe really true?
The February 2008 issue of The Rake magazine came out with a story on The Truth Project a small group curricula designed to encourage Christians to study the implications of their faith, e.g. are Christianity's truth claims merely one's personal preference or are they true for all and every area of life.
The writer Alyssa Ford, who describes herself as having "left the flock" and "no longer a true believer", did I think a fair and balanced story on the program. (You never know whether a writer from one of the alternative magazines merely wants to trash you or geniunely tell a story.)
The Truth Project, which is a very basic, elementary discussion of a wide range of topics, asks the big question: what is truth? And it has struck a cord with an increasing number of evangelicals. There are a wide range of contradictory, confusing assertions in society about what is true. It's all the more incumbent then on Christians now to tackle the issues head on. I'm fully confident that Christianity can more than hold its own. In fact, I think it ultimately prevails. Why? Because it's true and is the only worldview which truly and accurately explains what we see, hear, experience, and understand in life.
From a public square standpoint, I think the cultural Left is rooted in an ideology bereft of a grounding in the truth. In many instances, they don't even believe in truth. At best, it's "my truth" as found in postmodernism. The truly dangerous folks are those so wed to an ideology that they're unwilling and unable to consider facts which counter their most deeply held beliefs. The most murderous ideology in the history of the world was the secular ideology of communism which led to the death's of a hundred plus million people in the 20th century.
The same challenge, debate is being played out in the religious arena between Christianity and Islam. What's so powerful about Christianity is it's rooted in history, reality not a person's private perspective of reality. That's Islam's Achilles' heel and why it will be found wanting.
The writer Alyssa Ford, who describes herself as having "left the flock" and "no longer a true believer", did I think a fair and balanced story on the program. (You never know whether a writer from one of the alternative magazines merely wants to trash you or geniunely tell a story.)
The Truth Project, which is a very basic, elementary discussion of a wide range of topics, asks the big question: what is truth? And it has struck a cord with an increasing number of evangelicals. There are a wide range of contradictory, confusing assertions in society about what is true. It's all the more incumbent then on Christians now to tackle the issues head on. I'm fully confident that Christianity can more than hold its own. In fact, I think it ultimately prevails. Why? Because it's true and is the only worldview which truly and accurately explains what we see, hear, experience, and understand in life.
From a public square standpoint, I think the cultural Left is rooted in an ideology bereft of a grounding in the truth. In many instances, they don't even believe in truth. At best, it's "my truth" as found in postmodernism. The truly dangerous folks are those so wed to an ideology that they're unwilling and unable to consider facts which counter their most deeply held beliefs. The most murderous ideology in the history of the world was the secular ideology of communism which led to the death's of a hundred plus million people in the 20th century.
The same challenge, debate is being played out in the religious arena between Christianity and Islam. What's so powerful about Christianity is it's rooted in history, reality not a person's private perspective of reality. That's Islam's Achilles' heel and why it will be found wanting.
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.
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate.
The Minnesota Department of Health, in a wise move has decided not to make the HPV vaccination a mandatory vaccination for all Minnesota children.
HPV which is one of the most prevalent STDs and a leading cause of cervical cancer is transmitted through sexual activity. Normally, mandated immunizations are tied to diseases spread through the air or casual contact, so that's a major difference with HPV.
This decision should be left to parents. With any immunization there are potential side effects so simply immunizing children for everything isn't the answer.
I thought it was interesting that the immunization only lasts for five years and of course the push is to immunize girls earlier and earlier, down into the junior high ages.
And the question has to be asked does simply immunizing more children with the HPV vaccine, send the message that kids are now "protected" from one more of the negative consequences of premarital sexual activity, so it's OK to proceed. Like the condom message which also doesn't prevent the spread of STDs. It should be noted that the HPV vaccine doesn't prevent 30% of cervical cancers, so it's not 100% effective.
The answer? A clear chastity message, parental involvement and regular medical check ups.
HPV which is one of the most prevalent STDs and a leading cause of cervical cancer is transmitted through sexual activity. Normally, mandated immunizations are tied to diseases spread through the air or casual contact, so that's a major difference with HPV.
This decision should be left to parents. With any immunization there are potential side effects so simply immunizing children for everything isn't the answer.
I thought it was interesting that the immunization only lasts for five years and of course the push is to immunize girls earlier and earlier, down into the junior high ages.
And the question has to be asked does simply immunizing more children with the HPV vaccine, send the message that kids are now "protected" from one more of the negative consequences of premarital sexual activity, so it's OK to proceed. Like the condom message which also doesn't prevent the spread of STDs. It should be noted that the HPV vaccine doesn't prevent 30% of cervical cancers, so it's not 100% effective.
The answer? A clear chastity message, parental involvement and regular medical check ups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
