Thursday, 30 August 2007

Tolerance Should Be Shown To What God Says About Homosexuality

(The following letter-to-the-editor of the Zanesville, Ohio, “Times-Recorder” was written by Dr. Patrick Johnston in response to the editor’s urging that their community be more tolerant toward homosexuals. Dr. Johnston has announced he is a Republican candidate for the 94th District seat in the Ohio House of Representatives.)

Managing editor Len LaCara decried the intolerance of our community in a recent Sunday editorial. I also would like to see more tolerance, but tolerance of something besides what he proposes we tolerate. Liberals propose we tolerate homosexuality and pornographic literature in our public libraries. I propose we tolerate the standards of morality found in the pages of the Bible.

According to the Bible, homosexual acts are “unnatural” and sinful. Physiology and statistical analysis show that homosexual acts spread dysfunction and disease. Michael Glatze, a major national gay activist, recently came out of the closet to talk about his repentance of homosexuality. He said, “For me, homosexuality was spiritual and psychological death.” The Bible says that homosexuals can change through God’s power (I Corinthians 6:9-11). It is not loving to embrace a sin that our Creator condemns and that is so destructive to those engaging in it. Love constrains us to oppose immorality, even as we lay down our lives (and sometimes our reputations) for those for whom Christ died.

When liberals are losing a debate over morality, they frequently resort to calling Christians “intolerant” and “judgmental.” But aren’t they being judgmental when they call us names? When they preach against our community’s intolerance, aren’t they foisting their morality upon others? Who they are to judge? You see, they violate the very standard they have set up to reprove Bible-believing Christians. Isn’t that hypocritical?

Ask a liberal what their basis for right and wrong is, and which behaviors should be tolerated or not tolerated. Ultimately, the liberal has no basis for his moral standards besides his personal opinion. Christians have the objective standard of right and wrong that has stood the test of time, the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Bible, our Creator tells us which behaviors are acceptable and healthy. Homosexual acts have traditionally been condemned by the world’s three main religions for good reasons. When tolerance of rebellion to God becomes widespread, destruction, not prosperity, is imminent.


Jemdude's Comments:

The article is very true. Christians determine right and wrong in accordance with the Bible, while atheists determine right and wrong according to their own opinion and the changing political climate. Homosexuals and their supporters need to be more tolerant toward those who have different views than they do. Not doing so is failure to practice the very same tolerance that they want everybody else to do toward them.

Wednesday, 29 August 2007

The problem with Mighty Markie's reasoning on the issue of children

Mighty Markie is one of the administrators in one of the message boards I sometimes frequent. He is of the opinion that only parents should be involved in child issues and that if one is not a parent, then they have no business with child issues whatsoever. To date, this is the only person I've met that thinks this way. I am going to explain why this is flawed reasoning.

1) If only parents are allowed to engage in child issues, then only parents can get involved in the pro-life/pro-abortion issues. The reasoning that anyone who is not a parent should keep out of this if flawed.

2)Some issues are not purely parental issues. A good example is the issue as to whether to lower the voting age to 16. Such an issue is a political issue as well as a parental issue. Another issue are laws outlawing spanking. These are political issues and therefore, are legitimate topics to talk about by anyone; not just parents.

3) I have my own childhood experiences to draw upon. In other words, I used to be a kid myself. I haven't forgotten what it was like to be one. I also had a little brother to guide and take care of. So the idea that not being a parent means that I have zero knowledge about kids is completely false.

4) Mighty Markie is opposed to the young marriages that I advocate. Nothing wrong with that. However, he seems to think that it is of my own thinking when in reality, it is a Bible principle that is geared toward people of conservative religious faiths. He is not a member of such a faith and yet he opposes it so much. If he doesn't like it, then he should take it up with God.

(I have modified my position on young marriages to ages 18-25 which I believe that the vast majority can wait until. Marriages at ages 16-17 with parent's permission is good in special circumstances, but not recommended for the majority of people.)

What is ironic is that he seems unconcerned about gay organizations in Canada who support keeping the age of consent at 14. Why this inconsistency is something that has yet to be explained.

5) Mighty Markie supports the "right" of parents to consent to doctors in hospitals to mutilate their child if they have a mental disabiity that makes them unaware of what is happening to them. A good example is the "Ashley treatment" where her parents consented to having perfectly healthy body parts removed to keep her "childlike". This is a violation of human rights that even parents should not break. So much for the rights of people with disabilities.

Saturday, 25 August 2007

Uganda: ABC Aids Strategy is the Way to Go

STATISTICS project that in 2010, 100 million people will be HIV-positive globally. As usual, majority of these will be the poor from Africa and Asia. Uganda's success story of reducing HIV prevalence from 30% to 6% will soon be a gone case. We have forgotten where we came from yet uncertain of the future.

Uganda's point was clear: Aids kills, abstain from sex before marriage and be faithful in marriage. Hope was restored and Uganda became a universal focal point on the Aids issue.

However, the consequences of Uganda's approach were not business friendly because condom-makers would not sell. Secondly, some organisations earn their daily bread from HIV/Aids. These advocate the change of the prevention strategy to anything other than ABC.

Today, abstinence is viewed as a primitive and religious act, but I do not agree with that. What matters is my life. A female friend in her 30s told me how a man had live sex with her after having begun with a condom. She was at that time too emotional to resist. She is now infected with Aids and regrets why she did not choose abstinence.

It is clear to anyone who reads between lines that UNAIDS does not appreciate the ABC model. If, indeed, they supported ABC, their funding would be highest on abstinence.

The Uganda Aids Commission (UAC) has of late been reluctant to do the right thing - pursuing the ABC strategy. Now in their quest to get funding, the UAC bows down to donor demands. They have become more of reporters on Aids than "trouble-shooters". Recently, they reported that Aids is fast spreading among married people without doing anything to protect marriage. They should defend the ABC strategy, especially before the donors. And where principle is involved, be deaf to expedience. What good is there in getting the money and you lose lives?

Let us make our point clear that we are not about to change our strategy. All Ugandans should rise up to defend this cause at any cost.

We also need to fund abstinence activists and come up with programmes to promote marriage to counter the reports of increased infections among married people.

The secret to success is consistency of purpose and this is what every human being should pursue. We can do our job well in one accord and kick Aids out of Uganda.


Jemdude's Comments:

It looks like there is more to the incentive to promote condom use than meets the eye. It is really shameful when organizations put money over people just because they make more money promoting condoms than saving lives and good health. It is even more shameful when they actually make money on the disease itself and want to keep the disease from being curable. Condoms may reduce the risk, but they do not eliminate the risk.

Friday, 10 August 2007

Is Pedophilia The Next 'Sexual Orientation' To Be Normalized?

by Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Washington, DC - The "Sexual Orientation" lobbyists are at it again. In mid-May, 2003, members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) met in San Francisco and listened to a psychiatrist argue for the declassification of pedophilia, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR).

Rev Lou Sheldon

Dr. Charles Moser with San Francisco's Institute for the Advance Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) and Dr. Peggy Kleinplatz with the University of Ottawa, presented a paper entitled: "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal." (Moser's IASHS is a Kinsey-based sexologist training group that approves of homosexuality, pornography, sadomasochism, and other deviant sexual practices.)

Moser and Kleinplatz argued that these various sexual interests are culturally or religiously forbidden-and thus should not be considered mental illnesses. They claimed that because psychiatry has no baseline to determine what is normal or abnormal behavior, these sexual behaviors should no longer be stigmatized.

Over the past few years, the APA has done several flip flops on its position on pedophilia as a mental disorder. According to Linda Ames Nicolosi with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), the APA's DSM-III maintained that merely acting upon sexual urges against children is sufficient to earn a diagnosis of pedophilia. However, in the DSM-IV, the APA changed the definition. It claimed that only if a person experienced significant stress or social impairment, would his sexual attraction to children be considered pedophilia. In other words, if the person felt no remorse for molesting kids, he wasn't really a pedophile.

Is this really how the APA wants to define what is and isn't a mental disorder? If a person doesn't feel bad about his behavior, then he's normal. Using this definition, one could say that a person who feels no emotional discomfort from having sex with dead people or animals is perfectly normal. Would APA psychiatrists argue that Jeffrey Dahmer was a normal person because he felt no remorse or social impairment for cannibalizing his sex victims?

Has the psychiatric community gone insane? After bad publicity over this watered-down definition of pedophilia, the APA again flip flopped and issued a statement saying that pedophilia was morally wrong.

The debate, however, continues within the APA with the Sexual Orientation lobbyists working feverishly to normalize what most rational humans would consider serious mental disorders and sexual dysfunctions.

The leaders of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), the Christian Boy-Love Forum, Girl Love Garden, and Philia (all pedophile web sites) must be pleased with the debate going on within the APA.

But will children?


Video about pedophile activist

26 minute video interview with pedophile activist

Jemdude's Comments:
I sincerely believe that this will someday be a "sexual orientation" of the future that will be given public acceptance someday. This doesn't mean that I want that to happen. I actually don't. But with the way political correctness works, it's only a matter of time.

Pedophile activists are even "coming out" now. These guys are sick!

Sunday, 5 August 2007

Jemdude's reporting

I guess those of you who have been reading my blog have been wondering why I report so much about homosexuality? I will tell you. I do it because in the mainstream media, you only hear about homosexuals in the best possible light. You are not allowed to say anything bad about them; even if what you are saying is true.

Much of what I post here about homosexuals are the things that they themselves are doing. So if you don't like what I'm posting here, blame it on the homosexuals. Instead, people tend to take a "shoot the messenger" approach and blame me. But in reality, if the homosexuals were not doing the things that I'm reporting on, I would have nothing bad to report.

Some people like to dismiss what I am reporting by claiming that it's something that can happen to anyone and not just homosexuals. This is not necessarily true. For example, homosexuals are the ones that engage in immoral and illegal activity such as having naked people at gay pride parades, support public washroom sex, and at the same time, tell people they are being "hateful and bigoted" for opposing these activities.

Some people will say to me, "I don't believe you". The problem with this is, I'm reporting actual activities that the homosexuals themselves are doing. So what is there that can't be believed?

There is nothing hateful or bigoted about reporting the truth. If you don't like my reports, then do something about the people that I'm reporting on. In other words, don't put your head in the sand and pretend these things are not happening. If you live in Fort Lauderdale Florida, you need to know about the things I reported on in my last post. Most parents are more concerned about their children's well-being than being politically correct. Are you one of them or not?

Some people on the nostalgia message boards have really changed. If we were back in the 80s and earlier, they would never put up with this PC crap. In fact, if it were possible to go back in time, I'm convinced that I would have a much easier time adjusting than the others who have accepted political correctness. Imagine trying to defend gay rights and gay marriages in the 80s?

So what caused these people to change their views? I think the experiment of the frog and boiling water holds the answer. If you put a frog in boiling water, the frog will jump out. But if you put the frog in cold water and slowly heat it up, the frog will stay there even if it's boiling and die. I believe the same thing is happening here. At this present time, political correctness does not support pedophilia. But will that be the same 15 or more years from now, or even in the not too distant future? Current events are showing that if change happens slowly enough, people will end up supporting the most outrageous issues that they never would have supported in previous times and that's exactly what has happened in our present time.