Monday, 2 January 2012

Messianic Judaism

I have been attending a Messianic congregation for 6 months now after leaving the Seventh Day Adventist church. I am really enjoying the fellowship and the new things that I am learning.

So how is being a Messianic different from being an Adventist? We go by the Bible only and not the Bible and Elen G. White. We keep the Biblical festivals such as Passover, etc. instead of Christmas and Easter. We are allowed to drink alcohol in moderation. We are allowed to wear jewellery. We have a good relationship with other church denominations. We are allowed to drink coffee and tea.

The services resembles more like a Jewish synagogue than a traditional church service. There is a lot of Hebrew spoken. I am glad that God has called me out of the Adventist church and fellowshipping with Messianics.

A common misconception is the idea that embracing Messianic Judaism makes me Jewish. I am not Jewish. Jews are the ethnic group that are the physical descendants of Abraham. I am a Gentile (non-Jew) who now practices Messianic Judaism, but I am still a Gentile. I am now an adopted son of Abraham's people and I am glad to be a part of it.

Saturday, 19 November 2011

From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventist's Attitudes Towards Abortion

A study of Adventist literature showing the dramatic shift by the Seventh-day Adventist North American Church’ attitude towards one of the most fundamental rules designed by God for the protection of human life—the Sixth Commandment which forbids the murder of innocent human beings. A careful research indicating that financial profit moved the church leadership to tolerate the offering of abortion on demand services to the patients of several hospitals owned and managed by the Adventist organization.

Individual Adventists will have differences of opinion on the issue, but the Adventist organization has a lukewarm view on abortion that is very embarrassing when a pro-life person who is an Adventist finds out about it. We need to pray that the Adventist organization changes their views to a truly pro-life stance and puts it into practice.

The book is available here:


It will eventually be available at Amazon.

Monday, 5 September 2011

I've left Adventism

I have finally decided to leave the Seventh Day Adventist church! My main reason is because they have a lukewarm approach to the abortion issue. Adventist hospitals support abortions for rape, incest, serious disabilities, etc.


They claim that they do not support elective abortions (abortions for any reason), but whether or not that is true is very questionable:



I believe that most Adventist laypeople in the pews are pro-life, but that the leaders at the top of the organization itself are not as strong in that area as we would like. The Adventist organization refuses to allow for an official Adventist pro-life ministry.

Another problem I have is the trademark of the Adventist name. They are threatening lawsuits towards not only businesses that use the Adventist name without permission, but even forums and blogs! Most lawyers charge a minimum of $250 an hour and I do not feel comfortable paying my tithes and offerings towards this kind of thing.

Unlike a lot of other former Adventists you might read on the web, I still keep the Sabbath and the dietary laws. I'm also keeping the Biblical festivals as well. Instead of going to a regular church, I've decided to convert to Messianic Judaism and attend a Messianic congregation. Mine in particular is affiliated with Chosen People Ministries.

Keeping the Sabbath in Messianic Judaism is very different from keeping it with the Adventists. For example, the Sabbath in Messianic Judaism is only one of the teachings of God. It is not put on a pedestal as if it were the most important doctrine; as is the case with the Adventists. We have a good relationship with other church denominations as well.

I would be interested in meeting with other former Adventists who have joined a non-cultic Sabbath-keeping alternative to Adventism.

Wednesday, 18 August 2010

Why I support net tithing? (Gross vs Net tithe)

There have been lots of arguments about whether people should tithe on their gross income or their net income. I think it is best to let the individual decide, but after doing a lot of research, I have decided to tithe on the net income.

1) It is more affordable and possible to do even if a person is in a high tax bracket. But gross tithing is not practical or even possible if a person is in a high tax bracket. Middle-class Americans might be able to tithe on their gross, but what about the European who is taxed at a much higher rate? What about the person who lives in a country where he might be taxed as high as 90% of his income? What about the person who earns a gross pay of $50,000 but is taxed half of his income and has a net pay of only $25,000? In a case like that, giving 10% of gross pay would be equivalent to giving 20% of your net pay! That's way too cost prohibited. Gross tithing is not practical or possible in these cases, but net tithing is always possible regardless of how much a person is taxed.

2) There is at least some evidence in the Bible of net tithing on crops. For example, the farmer would tithe on what he harvested from his crop, not the entire field. He didn't include the crops that were left in the field, or the ones that got spoiled, eaten by insects or wild animals, or damaged by bad weather.

3) While most Christians believe that they should tithe, many do not tithe in actual practice. Many people would be willing to tithe on a regular basis if the tithing amount is reasonable and not cost prohibited. Net tithing qualifies in that category. A lot of church leaders advocate gross tithing because they think that they are getting more money. However, they are actually getting less money that they would have gotten. If church leaders insist that gross tithing is the only acceptable way to tithe and that net tithing is not good enough, then people will give up on tithing altogether and not bother to tithe at all; especially if they find gross tithing too cost prohibited.

Whether you agree or disagree with me, I encourage you to respond and tell me what you think. (Please do not write if you believe that tithing is not for Christians. That is a different topic and I won't allow it to be posted here).

Friday, 30 July 2010

Pescetarians Forum

I moderate a forum for pescetarians. A pescetarian is a person who eats a plant-based diet plus fish/seafood. Dairy and eggs are optional. Many people adopt this diet to be healthier or as a stepping stone towards a vegetarian diet.

Pescetarians Forum

Wednesday, 7 April 2010

Pediatricians Warn Educators: 'Pro-Gay' Attitude toward Gender Confusion Damages Children

By Kathleen Gilbert

GAINESVILLE, Florida, April 6, 2010 ( - The American College of Pediatricians has cautioned educators about the management of students experiencing same-sex attraction or exhibiting symptoms of gender confusion, saying that a pro-homosexuality attitude could disrupt a natural uncertainty in youth for the worse.

“As pediatricians, our primary interest is in the health and well-being of children and youth,” Dr. Den Trumbull, Vice President of the College explains. “We are increasingly concerned that in too many instances, misinformation or incorrect assumptions are guiding well-intentioned educators to adopt policies that are actually harmful to those youth dealing with sexual confusion.”

These concerns are outlined in a letter and fact sheet sent by College president Thomas Benton, MD, to all 14,800 school district superintendents in the U.S.

Dr. Benton also alerts them to a new web resource,, which was created by a coalition of health professionals to provide factual information to educators, parents, and students about sexual development.

The College reminded school superintendents that it is not uncommon for adolescents to experience transient confusion about their sexual orientation, and that most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. For this reason, the doctors warned that schools should not seek to develop policy which “affirms” or encourages these non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion.

Such premature labeling, they said, can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.

Because there is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay or transgendered, the College noted, schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.

Family Watch International, a pro-family advocacy group, backed the pediatricians' letter and urged parents to spread the crucial information.

"While the ACP can lay out the facts to educators, it is up to parents and other concerned individuals to now follow up with them," wrote FWI president Sharon Slater in an email to constituents. "We must make sure schools do not simply ignore the facts for such reasons of personal bias or political correctness."

Arthur Goldberg, a board certified counselor and expert on assisting individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction, told (LSN) that, "Unfortunately prior to the American College of Pediatricians' (ACOP) effort to develop the new web site and the factual material they sent to school district superintendents, hundreds of false and misleading books, pamphlets, films, and other materials were absorbed - with our taxpayer dollars - into America's public school systems."

Goldberg cited as one example a pamphlet distributed in 2008 by the National Education Association and the American Psychological Association entitled "Just the Facts," which he says was "issued for the distinct purpose of radically impacting how schools dealt with the sexual consciousness and behavior of school age children." The booklet discourages discussion of therapy to change same-sex attraction, and upholds homosexuality as a "normal expression of human sexuality."

Contrary to the booklet's claims that homosexuality is unchangeable, said Goldberg, "there is clear and convincing evidence that many factors can lead an adolescent into homosexual behavior - including curiosity, a feeling of not fitting in, the experience of earlier molestation, and a desire for attention or a sense of belonging. Teen years often serve as a transitional phase when affectional, emotional and identification needs can be too easily sexualized."

"Because the premature gay self-labeling that is encouraged by 'Just the Facts' and other such material presents major public health risks, ACOP, as a medical organization dedicating to best practices in child-rearing, has performed a major public service by making their material available to school administrators, students and their parents," he said.

For more information, including printable factsheets on the dangers of encouraging homosexuality in children, visit

Friday, 18 December 2009

Salute to Crushmaster and Gamespot's anti-Christian actions

I got moderated on Gamespot for speaking my mind on the anti-Christian tactics the mods/admins on Gamespot have done. Since they decided to censor my comments over there, I'll post it here where it is outside their jurisdiction.

It is with sadness to report that the leader of the Christian Witness Union, Crushmaster, has been banned from Gamespot. I don't know of all the details, but it has something to do with him expressing the Christian viewpoint on something. He is a strong Christian who will be missed very much.

It is no secret that expressing the Christian viewpoint on any issue on Gamespot has become harder as time goes on. I have also noticed that a lot of the Gamespot mods/admins, even some of those who claim to be Christian themselves, will be hostile towards the Christian user. What they claim violates the TOU is so subjective, that they might as well say that any viewpoint that they don't like violates the TOU.

I know that Gamespot is primarily a video game site. But we do a lot of talking on other subjects. The Christian perspective on many issues is not a politically correct perspective and never will be. If Gamespot doesn't want the Christian perspective expressed, then they might as well come out and say it, instead of making Christians do an enormous amount of "verbal acrobating" in an attempt to word the Christian perspective in accordance to their personal interpretation of the TOU.

I know that Gamespot wants everyone to be respectful. However, being respectful should not require softening or compromising the Christian persective on the issues.

In addition to not being able to express the Christian perspective on various issues on Gamespot, there is also evidence of other people saying insulting things about Christians with the mods/admins not removing it despite it being reported.

Here is a 1 hour video called Speechless - Silencing The Christians

I am getting sick and tired of the mods/admins trying to hide behind the TOS to justify giving Christians a hard time and to promote immorality.

When I agreed to the TOS, I didn't agree to having the Christian world view on the issues being censored.

What happens is that when someone says something about homosexuality that someone doesn't like, they report it to the mods/admins. Then the individual mod/admin use their own judgement (not the TOS) to decide if the statement is offensive and then *claim* that it violates the TOS. I do not advocate any violence against those who practice homosexuality, but I cannot change the fact that homosexuality is contrary to God's teachings. If saying that is contrary to the TOS, then the TOS is anti-Christian.

When the mods/admins go before God on the day of Judgement, He will not accept the excuse, "we went by the TOS" if the TOS is contrary to God's law.

The mods/admins should not take the view that questioning homosexual actions is some kind of "stereotyping" or being offensive. For example, when I'm in a political discussion talking about the reason why homosexuals are not wanted in the military, the issues should be left open to discussion or debate. It should not be arbitrarily decided by a mod/admin that the reasons themselves are offensive when they are genuine concerns of the military, and then moderate the post and hinder discussion on the issue in the process.

The mods are trying to make it look as if it is limited to the tos, but it's much more than that. The mods are moderating for things not specifically mentioned in the tos and then saying that it violates the tos. So they really are using their own interpretation and not going by what is specifically mentioned.

The fact that the mods/admins are making rules that make Christian expression on Gamespot harder is proof of that.

It's not just Crushmaster, but on how the mods have been treating Christians as a whole lately. They are no better than the police in my links who are arresting them for things that do not break the law.

Moderations of these types seem to be in accordance to the individual opinion of the moderator that happens to come across it. For example, btaylor2404 might not moderate a person quoting Bible verses against homosexuality, but another moderator might. The TOU says not to make offensive comments, but what constitutes being offensive seems to be up to the individual moderators. Homosexuals and the people who support them as a whole are known to find any negative comment about homosexuals as offensive, regardless on how diplomatic the wording is, so I would not trust that kind of judgement to decide what is offensive.

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

Veganism is crazy over the honey issue!

I'm not vegan, but I am a lacto-ovo vegetarian. That means that I eat a plant based diet with dairy and eggs. However, I am really turned off by the attitude that a lot of vegans have over the honey issue. Vegans say that honey is an animal product and that anyone who consumes it should not call themselves a vegan. Others disagree and say that honey is really processed flower nectar. Unlike meat, dairy and eggs, honey is a product that bees process, not produce from their bodies like the other three.

I believe that the vegan community should stop making a federal case over the honey issue, and accept people who call themselves vegan that use honey personally that still agree with the rest of the vegan philosophy. Making a major case over the honey issue makes the vegan movement look very dogmatic to outsiders and turns people off from considering becoming vegan. This attitude also hurts the cows, pigs, sheep, etc because less people join the vegan movement over the honey issue.

Fortunately, there are some vegan associations who are not dogmatic over the honey issue such as Vegan Outreach:

I hope that someday, the definition of the word vegan will be officially changed to allow for honey consumption. In actual practise, that may have largely happened already.

Thursday, 27 November 2008

The Aftermath of Sodom and Gomorrah

This 30 minute video shows all the scientific details of what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. A very visual and educational video of the Biblical account:


Thursday, 20 November 2008

Do you believe the Genesis account to be literal?

I am very surprised that many Christians do not believe that the creation account in the book of Genesis is literal. Many Christians believe that the creation account in Genesis is myth that is not accurate history and that God gave it just to satisfy man's "primitave" thinking back in ancient days.

I also know that these same people do not believe that Adam and Eve were literal people. From what I can tell from searches, Genesis 1-11 is the "myth" part of the book.

I have nothing personal against the people who hold this view, but I am very disturbed by the number of Christians who hold it. It's not just one place I've checked this, but with Christian at other locations as well. To me, it seems as if they are putting man-made teachings over the Bible and using man-made teachings to interpret the Bible. Don't get me wrong. True science can verify the Bible, but science tainted with evolutionary concepts or other man-made concepts that are not scientific to begin with, is not going to give the right answer.

Thursday, 13 November 2008

“Coming out” puts adolescents at risk

Encouraging adolescents with same-sex attractions to identify as gay has no scientific or ethical justification.

How should schools treat students who self-identify as homosexual? Today entire school systems in a number of states and counties promote “acceptance”. The demand for acceptance is based on the premise that patterns of sexual attraction – to the other sex or to same sex are determined at birth and unchangeable; therefore, everyone – the affected students themselves, their parents, teachers, and classmates – should be educated and when necessary pressured into accepting same-sex attraction (SSA) as normal and as healthy as the love between a man and a woman in marriage.

There is, however, no evidence to support the claim that SSA is genetically determined and unchangeable. If it were, one would expect that identical twins would always have the same pattern of sexual attraction. A study led by J. Michael Bailey based on the twins registry in Australia found that among male identical twins, when one twin had SSA, in only 11 per cent of the cases so did the other. This research virtually precludes genetic determination.

There is also no evidence to support the claim that SSA is unchangeable. There are numerous reports of people understanding the emotional conflicts that led them to SSA, successfully addressing these weaknesses and then experiencing a new pattern of sexual attraction. A large study of sexuality led by Edward Lauman found the percentage of people self-identifying as homosexual declining over time. Lisa Diamond found that patterns of sexual attraction are particularly unstable among women.

Those who support acceptance might argue that even if SSA is not genetically determined and changeable it would still be better for those experiencing these feelings to “come out” and be accepted as homosexual by the school community. This view ignores the very real risks that accompany coming out, particularly for males.

Vulnerable boys

Over 40 per cent of males who self-identify as homosexual (“gay”) before age 18 have been victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault. (Doll et al, 1992) An even higher percentage has suffered from untreated Gender Identity Disorder. (Zucker, Bradley, 1995) A study of the sexual behavior of 239 homosexually active males, 13 to 21, found that 42 per cent had a history of sexual abuse/assault. (Remafedi, 1994; Osmond, 1994) A study of 425 homosexual males, ages 17 to 22, found that 41.4 per cent reported an occasion of forced sex. (Halkitis, Wilton, Drescher, eds. 2005; Wainberg 2006) Forced sex rarely involves “safe” sex practices. (Kalichman, Rompa 1995)

Sexual child abuse and sexual assault have been linked to long-term psychological problems, including depression, sexual addiction, drug addiction, involvement in prostitution, and suicidal feelings. Some of these young men see their victimization as proof that they were “born” homosexual. Programs directed to acceptance rarely acknowledge or address these problems. When these serious emotional conflicts are not uncovered and treated, these males often act out in ways that are dangerous to themselves and to others. It is important to address this highly prevalent problem in young males with SSA.

At high risk of infection

Even if an adolescent male with SSA was not the victim of sexual abuse and did not experience untreated gender identity disorder GID, engaging in homosexual activity as an adolescent carries a high and truly unacceptable risk.

New statistics from the Centers for Disease Control reveal that the epidemic among young men who have sex with men (MSM) is raging unabated. In August 2008, it was revealed that the CDC had underestimated the number of new cases of HIV by 40 per cent. The report found that while new infections among heterosexuals and injection drug users are falling, new infections continue to increase in younger MSM. In 2006, the number of MSM aged 13-24 diagnosed with HIV/AIDS increased by 18 per cent over the previous year.

A study of sexual risk behaviors of young MSM aged 17-22 found that 22 per cent reported beginning anal sex with men when they were ages 3 to 14; of these 15.2 per cent were already HIV positive. Of those who began sex when they were 15-19, 11.6 per cent were HIV positive, while of those who began sex with men when they were 20-22, only 3.8 per cent were HIV positive. (Lemp, 1994) It is clear that every year a male with SSA delays sexual involvement reduces his risk of HIV.

Vulnerable young men may use the internet to seek out sexual partners. Out magazine, a publication targeted to MSM, ran an article by Michael Gross (2008) on how MSM are using the internet, posting pornographic pictures of themselves, and becoming addicted to the process of cruising on the web. Gross worries about the “health risks” and “psychological dissociation that’s characteristic of online social life.” Men may be looking for love but, Gross suggests, “You might as well train for a marathon by doing sprints in a minefield.”

Once a young man has exposed himself on the internet, whatever he has put up becomes part of the public record forever. The 15-year-old boy who realizes at 20 that his SSA was just a phase of his life related to weaknesses in male confidence will have those pictures follow him for the rest of his life.

HIV/AIDS is not the only disease affecting MSM. The number of sexually transmitted infections (STI) transmitted by homosexual activity is staggering. They include syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis B and C, lymphogranuloma vernereum and human papillomavirus (HPV), which has been linked to genital warts and a number of cancers. (Carter, 2007) HPV is transmitted by skin contact and therefore condoms provide only minimal protection. The much-touted new HPV vaccine protects against only four of the 100 varieties of this disease.

In some areas the increase in syphilis infections has been traced to an increased use of crystal meth and “high risk sexual behavior at resorts or bath houses, or through meetings initiated over the Internet.” (Brian, 2004; Klausner, 2000)

Not only are MSM at high risk for infection with HIV and many other STIs, the problem compounds itself in that infection with another STI makes a man more vulnerable to HIV and an HIV-positive man is more likely to contract another STI. According to a recent study, “HIV positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer.” (Cranston, Ross, 2007)

Recently, doctors in San Francisco traced outbreaks in San Francisco and Boston of multidrug-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MSRA), the flesh-eating bacteria, to homosexual activity. It is also possible that a new, yet unidentified disease will find its way into this community. In 1980 before the first case of AIDS was identified, Dr. Selma Dritz, an expert on STI’s, looked at the behaviors of MSM and warned, “There are so many opportunities for transmission that, if something new gets loose here, we’re going to have hell to pay.” (Shilts, Randy, And the Band Played On). Her warning came too late; by 1980 the HIV virus was already spreading among MSM. Tragically, in spite of massive education the high-risk behaviors continue.

As treatment for AIDS has improved and life expectancy has increased, young MSM no longer fear HIV as they should. Many of those who start out planning to use condoms, fail to do so because they are drunk or are high on drugs or don’t want to send a message that they don’t trust their partner. If this is a pattern among adult MSM, it is not surprising that adolescent males who have sex with males ignore warnings.

Does education prevent infection?

A large study on the association of health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among adolescents concluded: “GLB youth who self-identify during high school report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors, including suicide, victimization, sexual risk behaviors, and multiple substance abuse use. In addition, these youth are more likely to report engaging in multiple risk behaviors and initiating risk behaviors at an earlier age than their peers.” (Garofalo, 1998)

Homosexual activists forced to explain why persons with SSA are at “elevated” risk for addictions, partner abuse, rampant promiscuity, anxiety, depression and suicidality usually blame the increased problems on the stress of living in a rejecting, “hateful and heterosexist” culture. (Cochran, Mays 2007) They then use these problems to justify pro-homosexual education in schools. However, if this view were true then one would expect to see lower levels of severe psychiatric illnesses in more accepting cultures such as the Netherlands, but this is not the case. (Sandfort, 2006)

The hope that identifying boys with SSA and providing them with HIV prevention education will reduce the risk of STI infections is not supported by the research. According to a review of studies of HIV prevention programs, “the efficacy of health education interventions in reducing sexual risk for HIV infection has not been consistently demonstrated…More education, over long periods of time, cannot be assumed to be effective in inducing behavior changes among chronically high risk males.” (Stall, Coates, Hoff, 1988)

Dr. Philip Alcabes, an epidemiologist, commenting on the latest CDC data to the New York Times said, “[I]t looks like prevention campaigns make even less difference than anyone thought… HIV incidence did not decline as much from the 1980s to the 1990s as we believed despite the dramatic increase in condom promotion and so-called prevention education.”

He quoted an editorial in Lancet, a leading medical journal, that was even blunter: “U.S. efforts to prevent HIV have failed dismally.”

AIDS education, which provides children and adolescents with explicit information about the various forms of sexual behavior that spread the disease, may create curiosity and encourage experimentation among young men. Because AIDS education has also been used as a vehicle for promoting positive attitudes toward homosexuality, while at the same time ignoring the serious health risks associated with SSA, it is possible that the number of young men experimenting with homosexuality will increase.

As support groups in schools for males who think that they might be homosexual are being established, younger boys will be encouraged to "come out." This "coming out" will probably include engaging in sexual activity at an earlier age and more often. These young men may be attracted to the urban homosexual community, traveling to centers of homosexual activity where they are likely to encounter HIV-positive adults interested in engaging in sexual activity with attractive teenagers. This can lead to hustling (receiving money or compensation for sex) which is a high-risk activity.

A brochure, entitled Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel, was sent to school officials by a coalition of groups including the National Education Association. It claimed: “If school environments become more positive for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, it is likely that their differences in health, mental health, and substance abuse will decrease.” This has not been born out by experience. Nothing could be more positive than the Harvey Milk school in Manhattan, which was set up to provide a safe environment for students with atypical sexual orientations and gender identities, yet in November of 2003, five male students were arrested. They had for some time been intimidating other students, working as prostitutes, blackmailing Johns, stealing from trendy stores, and involved with ecstasy and cocaine. (Cross, 2003)

Given the substantial, well-documented risks involved in engaging in homosexual activity as an adolescent and since a certain percentage of males who experience SSA in adolescence find that these feelings disappear in time, schools should not encourage adolescent males to “come out”, but, instead, offer positive support for addressing the serious emotional problems in these teenagers.


While adolescent females with SSA do not face the same risk for STIs as males, a significant number of these young women with SSA have been victims of sexual abuse or rape. (Bradford, 1994) SSA is even less stable among young women than among young men with some females finding themselves attracted to men and to women at different times in their lives. Many adolescent girls have crushes on female teachers or coaches. With time and growth in maturity these feelings resolve. Rather than assuming that every young female who ever experiences any SSA is permanently homosexual, schools should encourage young women to try to understand themselves and wait before identifying themselves as homosexual.

Finally, educators, like physicians and mental health professionals, have a serious responsibility to provide informed consent to their students and not advocate a lifestyle which has serious medical and psychiatric illnesses associated with it without warning students about such risks.

Dale O’Leary is a US writer with a special interest in psycho-sexual issues and is the author of two books: One Man, One Woman" and The Gender Agenda. She collaborated on this article with Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D., a psychiatrist and Director of Comprehensive Counselling Services in W. Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, and Peter Kleponis, M.S., a psychotherapist also based in Philadelphia.

* A complete version of this paper with footnotes can be found in the Backgrounders section of this website: Same-sex attraction in adolescents


Thursday, 6 November 2008

Same-Sex "Marriage" Supporters Furious at California Loss: Lawsuits Filed Challenging Proposition 8

By Kathleen Gilbert

SACRAMENTO, California, November 6, 2008 ( - Hours after Californians won the battle to protect the true definition of marriage through Proposition 8, numerous lawsuits have been filed in California courts by frustrated homosexualist activists bent on overruling the voter-approved amendment.

Three lawyers filed separate lawsuits on Wednesday claiming that Proposition 8 was an illegal constitutional revision, rather than an amendment. Proposition 8 adds to the state constitution the sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

"If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign, told the LA Times, in response to the flurry of lawsuits. "But they don’t. They go behind the people’s back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."

In all three states in the US where same-sex “marriage” is or has been legal, it was imposed by a court decision and not by the legislature or the citizens.

Having won one of the most hard-fought battles in the 2008 election, Proposition 8 overturned the May ruling of four activist judges who declared same-sex “marriage” legal in California. This ruling was handed down despite the strong majority of Californians who had voted to include the true definition of marriage in the state’s Family Code in 2000.

The victory of Proposition 8, and that of similar legislation in Florida and Arizona, was met with jubilation from pro-family advocates Wednesday as a strong sign of hope for true marriage protection across the country.

But homosexual couples and lobbyists nationwide are seeing red now that same-sex “marriage” has suffered a massive blow.

The first lawsuit against Proposition 8 came from the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal. Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles brought a second case against the new legislation to court. The third came from Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred on behalf of a "married" lesbian couple. Homosexual rights groups are arguing that the constitution's “core commitment to equality for everyone" has been violated by the true marriage amendment.

Besides the lawsuits, reports of threats aimed at Christian and other religious groups have been pouring in since it became clear that Proposition 8 would pass.

In a blog entry titled “You’ll Want to Punch them” on, poster “BillyBob Thornton” wrote, “I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our Equal Rights, But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one.” “Stenar” asked, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.”

“Jonathan” warned, “I’m going to give them something to be f – ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”

Meanwhile, at, “World O Jeff,” said, “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” While, “Tread,” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.” “Joe,” stated, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”

And on the Web site, “scottinsf” posted, “Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs.”

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel, said, “This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they’re not happy with a political outcome.

"This is criminal activity. The homosexual lobby is always calling for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and ‘hate.’"

But now that the homosexual lobby is on the defensive, says Barber, they pull out all the stops in expressing their violent hate for religious believers and supporters of true marriage.

"Imagine if Christian Web sites were advocating such violence against homosexuals," he emphasizes. "There’d be outrage, and rightfully so. It’d be national front-page news."


Jemdude's comments:
Do you notice that homosexuals claim to promote "tolerance" but do not practice it in return? What hatred and violence they promote!

Tuesday, 4 November 2008

How do I take my mind off the things of this world?

I'll tell you how I don't do it. It's not by going to "nosteliga boards" where you have moderators and posters like greenhornet, Mighty Markie, and Bloviator who support 21 Century political correctness over the family values that those earlier eras truly represented. I do it by watching TV Land and Dejaview in Canada and watching shows like Hart to Hart and Fantasy Island, and Three's Company, and Cosby Show, etc.

Monday, 29 September 2008

Jemdude is running for public office!

That's right. I am officially running as a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party. I am very proud that I am providing a moral alternative to the other parties out there.