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?
Source
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!
Friday, 10 August 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, 26 July 2007
Mayor Issues Apology Demanded by Homosexuals, But Not One They Expect
Tells citizens he will end scourge of public sodomy in Ft. Lauderdale
By Peter J. Smith
FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, July 26, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A major metropolitan mayor has finally issued an apology that has homosexual activists enraged and pro-family advocates cheering for his defense of decency.
Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle called a press conference at City Hall Tuesday afternoon telling reporters that he intended to make an "apology." Homosexual activists and reporters expected Naugle to retract comments published earlier in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in which the mayor said that a proposed self-cleaning, automatic toilet the city was going to buy for the beach would have an added benefit idof deterring "homosexual activity.''
Naugle, the city's Democratic mayor, had also gone on record as saying that he preferred to use the term "homosexual" not "gay" since homosexuals are "unhappy" touching off calls from homosexual activists that he resign or apologize.
Mayor Naugle finally did apologize, except that instead of retracting his controversial statements he instead apologized to the citizens of Fort Lauderdale for failing to do more to put an end to the public homosexual activity taking place in Fort Lauderdale's parks, beaches and public restrooms.
"I was not aware how serious the problem was of the sexual activity that is taking place in the bathrooms in public places and parks around Broward County, particularly in the city of Fort Lauderdale," Naugle told reporters Tuesday.
"I've been educated on that and I want to apologize to the children and to the parents of our community for not being aware of the problem."
Naugle's office had been receiving information from all over the country, but Naugle said the most important information came from a local homosexual activist and "a guy I call a friend", Norman Kent, who wrote an article condemning the practice of sex in public places and alerted Naugle to a website called "cruising for sex." The site lists 13 printed pages of "cruisy" places in the Fort Lauderdale metropolitan area for anonymous homosexual hookups. The website itself is bedecked with homosexual pornography and references to parks, fitness centers, department stores, shopping malls, farmers' markets, beaches, etc. (A greatly sanitized list can be viewed on the American's for Truth website - warning even the sanitized content is offensive and inappropriate for children: http://americansfortruth.com/news/homosexual-male-cruising-s...)
"This to me is totally unacceptable," the Mayor told reporters. "I don't think that in the name of being inclusive or tolerant that anyone in the community should have to tolerate this."
"My goal is to get the city parks removed from these lists," concluded Naugle, who urged all citizens to contact the police department if they witness any illegal activity.
Naugle also called upon "responsible members of the homosexual community" to help the city put a stop to this public homosexual behavior. He stated that the county health department recently announced that Broward County is leading the nation in new HIV/AIDS cases in the MSM (men having sex with men) category and criticized the Tourist Board for inviting homosexuals to Broward County with the HIV/AIDS health crisis ongoing.
"I'm really asking the homosexual community to join with me, to cease this activity, for the benefit of the children, the parents, and the community."
When a homosexual reporter asked him if he had any apologies to offer homosexuals, Naugle deftly replied, "I apologize for not having brought this earlier, maybe some lives could have been saved."
As he left the conference, angry homosexual activists began shouting at Naugle saying "shame, shame" and "you're an embarrassment to our city."
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth said Mayor Naugle should be congratulated for his courageous stand against a "vocal fringe and the liberal media."
"Finally, a public servant with the courage to stand up to the homosexual militants and their fellow travelers in the media," LaBarbera said. "Imagine: a big-city mayor tries to stop gross perversions from occurring in public places - and the pro-'gay' lobby says HE is the problem and is embarrassing the city!"
A video of the news conference can be found here at the Sun-Sentinel:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-724naugleapology,0,5688916.s...
Those who wish to contact Mayor Naugle to thank him for his actions may do so at this e-mail address: mayorjames@aol.com
source
Jemdude's Comments:
I also hope that responsible members of the homosexual community join with the mayor and do something about the gross public indecency that others in the homosexual community are doing. This shouldn't be tolerated. Not all homosexuals support public sex as the mayor pointed out, but the ones that did ought to be ashamed of themselves. They actually wanted to promote public sex in the name of "tolerance and diversity"! Please watch the video.
Additional video!:
Here is another video in support of Mayor Naugle and against public gay sex.
video
By Peter J. Smith
FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, July 26, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A major metropolitan mayor has finally issued an apology that has homosexual activists enraged and pro-family advocates cheering for his defense of decency.
Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle called a press conference at City Hall Tuesday afternoon telling reporters that he intended to make an "apology." Homosexual activists and reporters expected Naugle to retract comments published earlier in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in which the mayor said that a proposed self-cleaning, automatic toilet the city was going to buy for the beach would have an added benefit idof deterring "homosexual activity.''
Naugle, the city's Democratic mayor, had also gone on record as saying that he preferred to use the term "homosexual" not "gay" since homosexuals are "unhappy" touching off calls from homosexual activists that he resign or apologize.
Mayor Naugle finally did apologize, except that instead of retracting his controversial statements he instead apologized to the citizens of Fort Lauderdale for failing to do more to put an end to the public homosexual activity taking place in Fort Lauderdale's parks, beaches and public restrooms.
"I was not aware how serious the problem was of the sexual activity that is taking place in the bathrooms in public places and parks around Broward County, particularly in the city of Fort Lauderdale," Naugle told reporters Tuesday.
"I've been educated on that and I want to apologize to the children and to the parents of our community for not being aware of the problem."
Naugle's office had been receiving information from all over the country, but Naugle said the most important information came from a local homosexual activist and "a guy I call a friend", Norman Kent, who wrote an article condemning the practice of sex in public places and alerted Naugle to a website called "cruising for sex." The site lists 13 printed pages of "cruisy" places in the Fort Lauderdale metropolitan area for anonymous homosexual hookups. The website itself is bedecked with homosexual pornography and references to parks, fitness centers, department stores, shopping malls, farmers' markets, beaches, etc. (A greatly sanitized list can be viewed on the American's for Truth website - warning even the sanitized content is offensive and inappropriate for children: http://americansfortruth.com/news/homosexual-male-cruising-s...)
"This to me is totally unacceptable," the Mayor told reporters. "I don't think that in the name of being inclusive or tolerant that anyone in the community should have to tolerate this."
"My goal is to get the city parks removed from these lists," concluded Naugle, who urged all citizens to contact the police department if they witness any illegal activity.
Naugle also called upon "responsible members of the homosexual community" to help the city put a stop to this public homosexual behavior. He stated that the county health department recently announced that Broward County is leading the nation in new HIV/AIDS cases in the MSM (men having sex with men) category and criticized the Tourist Board for inviting homosexuals to Broward County with the HIV/AIDS health crisis ongoing.
"I'm really asking the homosexual community to join with me, to cease this activity, for the benefit of the children, the parents, and the community."
When a homosexual reporter asked him if he had any apologies to offer homosexuals, Naugle deftly replied, "I apologize for not having brought this earlier, maybe some lives could have been saved."
As he left the conference, angry homosexual activists began shouting at Naugle saying "shame, shame" and "you're an embarrassment to our city."
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth said Mayor Naugle should be congratulated for his courageous stand against a "vocal fringe and the liberal media."
"Finally, a public servant with the courage to stand up to the homosexual militants and their fellow travelers in the media," LaBarbera said. "Imagine: a big-city mayor tries to stop gross perversions from occurring in public places - and the pro-'gay' lobby says HE is the problem and is embarrassing the city!"
A video of the news conference can be found here at the Sun-Sentinel:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-724naugleapology,0,5688916.s...
Those who wish to contact Mayor Naugle to thank him for his actions may do so at this e-mail address: mayorjames@aol.com
source
Jemdude's Comments:
I also hope that responsible members of the homosexual community join with the mayor and do something about the gross public indecency that others in the homosexual community are doing. This shouldn't be tolerated. Not all homosexuals support public sex as the mayor pointed out, but the ones that did ought to be ashamed of themselves. They actually wanted to promote public sex in the name of "tolerance and diversity"! Please watch the video.
Additional video!:
Here is another video in support of Mayor Naugle and against public gay sex.
video
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
Bill O'Reilly and Rod Wheeler Apologize for Inaccuracies in Their Report on Violent Lesbian Gangs
July 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On July 3rd LifeSiteNews and many other services reported on a Fox News Bill O'Reilly segment on violent lesbian gangs in Washington, DC. and elsewhere. The report included video footage of violent incidents and a report from crime investigator Rod Wheeler. O'Reilly and Wheeler now report that there were significant inaccuracies and exaggerations in the the report.
In his apology Wheeler states, "During the O'Reilly Factor segment on June 21st, while engaged in a discussion on Lesbian gangs, I inadvertently stated that gang members carry pistols that are painted pink and call themselves the "Pink Pistol Packing Group." I was not referring to the gay rights group "Pink Pistols" who advocates for the lawful rights of gays to carry weapons for protection. Further, I mentioned that there are "over 150 of these gangs" in the greater Washington DC area. What I actually meant is that there are over 150 gangs in the Washington DC area, some of which are in fact lesbian gangs. Lastly, I mentioned in the segment that there is this "national epidemic" of lesbian gangs. A better choice of words would have been to say that there is a growing concern nationally, and especially in major urban areas, of increased gang activity, which includes some lesbian gang activity. I apologize for any misunderstanding this may have caused."
See also a YouTube video of Bill O'Reilly's apology and clarification of the issue at
video
See the original LifeSiteNews story which has been updated to reflect the new information
link
source
Jemdude's comments:
It is good to know that Fox News, Lifesitenews.com and even Jemdude's Truly Outrageous Blog are not afraid to print corrections when the information has proven to be inaccurate. This proves that alternative news sources can be trusted. Now don't get me wrong. Although the numbers and some other details were either greatly exaggerated or wrong, it doesn't change the fact that there are Lesbian gangs out there doing harm to other people in addition to other types of gangs.
In his apology Wheeler states, "During the O'Reilly Factor segment on June 21st, while engaged in a discussion on Lesbian gangs, I inadvertently stated that gang members carry pistols that are painted pink and call themselves the "Pink Pistol Packing Group." I was not referring to the gay rights group "Pink Pistols" who advocates for the lawful rights of gays to carry weapons for protection. Further, I mentioned that there are "over 150 of these gangs" in the greater Washington DC area. What I actually meant is that there are over 150 gangs in the Washington DC area, some of which are in fact lesbian gangs. Lastly, I mentioned in the segment that there is this "national epidemic" of lesbian gangs. A better choice of words would have been to say that there is a growing concern nationally, and especially in major urban areas, of increased gang activity, which includes some lesbian gang activity. I apologize for any misunderstanding this may have caused."
See also a YouTube video of Bill O'Reilly's apology and clarification of the issue at
video
See the original LifeSiteNews story which has been updated to reflect the new information
link
source
Jemdude's comments:
It is good to know that Fox News, Lifesitenews.com and even Jemdude's Truly Outrageous Blog are not afraid to print corrections when the information has proven to be inaccurate. This proves that alternative news sources can be trusted. Now don't get me wrong. Although the numbers and some other details were either greatly exaggerated or wrong, it doesn't change the fact that there are Lesbian gangs out there doing harm to other people in addition to other types of gangs.
Sunday, 22 July 2007
Stuttering (Stammering)
I want to talk about one of the most misunderstood disabilities out there; and that is stuttering, also known as stammering in Europe. It's misunderstood because some people think that it is not a disability, when it is. Some people think that because I can still walk, see and hear, that it's not too serious. However, the truth is that it is the disability that gets lots of discrimination despite how intelligent such a person is.
Here are a couple of videos that show a couple of people who stutter and the device they are using to help in their situation. It costs around $5000 and it doesn't work for everybody all the time. I hope these videos give you a better idea on what stutters have to go through:
video 1
Video 2
Video 3
Here are a couple of videos that show a couple of people who stutter and the device they are using to help in their situation. It costs around $5000 and it doesn't work for everybody all the time. I hope these videos give you a better idea on what stutters have to go through:
video 1
Video 2
Video 3
Monday, 16 July 2007
The hyprocracy of atheists in religious matters
Atheists can be very hypocritical when it comes to religious matters; especially when it comes to religion.
A good example of this is Harry Potter. Harry Potter is based on Witchcraft and the Occult. Yet many Atheists will defend Harry Potter products and try to pass it off as secular. Atheists will say that the Harry Potter books are educational. If that is the case, then why do they reject Christian books that are also educational? They do the same thing for Halloween which is an official religious holiday of Wicca.
Why do Atheists try to pass off stuff from Satan, Witcraft, or the Occult as secular?
A good example of this is Harry Potter. Harry Potter is based on Witchcraft and the Occult. Yet many Atheists will defend Harry Potter products and try to pass it off as secular. Atheists will say that the Harry Potter books are educational. If that is the case, then why do they reject Christian books that are also educational? They do the same thing for Halloween which is an official religious holiday of Wicca.
Why do Atheists try to pass off stuff from Satan, Witcraft, or the Occult as secular?
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
The Truth About Gay Pride Parades
Have you ever watched a gay pride parade? If you watch on the news, they will show same-sex people hugging and kissing each other. But in reality, a lot more than that takes place. What they don't want you to know is that excessive lewdness and nudity takes place in these parades and the police fail to enforce anti-decency laws. Here is a link to some photos at Toronto's gay pride parade of 2006.
(Warning: nudity!)
link
Here is a news article that talks about these things and lies about the true number of people at these parades and the gay's continued use of the 10% figure that has proven to be false years ago.
link
It's interesting that homosexuals say they want equality, but they are really gaining special rights when they are able to engage in law breaking activities in public nudity with the police doing nothing about it.
(Warning: nudity!)
link
Here is a news article that talks about these things and lies about the true number of people at these parades and the gay's continued use of the 10% figure that has proven to be false years ago.
link
It's interesting that homosexuals say they want equality, but they are really gaining special rights when they are able to engage in law breaking activities in public nudity with the police doing nothing about it.
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
Lesbian Gangs Raping Young Girls, Some Attacked in School Washrooms
Here is some news footage that politically correct people do not want you to know about about.
I'll put the disclaimer that this doesn't represent the entire homosexual community as a whole. So please don't write in claiming that's what I'm trying to do.
I would be interested in knowing what the homosexual community plans to do about groups like this?
Video 1
Video 2
full article
I'll put the disclaimer that this doesn't represent the entire homosexual community as a whole. So please don't write in claiming that's what I'm trying to do.
I would be interested in knowing what the homosexual community plans to do about groups like this?
Video 1
Video 2
full article
Friday, 29 June 2007
Why Canadians know more than Americans
I believe that it is absolutely true that Canadians as a whole are much more knowledgeable about what is happening around the world than Americans do and that Canadians are more adaptable than Americans.
One of the reasons is because Canada is bilingual, not just in the language of English and French, but because of the differences in Canadian and American spelling. Occasionally an ignorant American will say that I spell a word wrong when, in reality, it's the Canadian spelling.
Another reason why Canadians know more is because we have to keep track of 2 different political systems. Not only do we have to know about what the Republicans and Democrats are doing in the US, but we also have to know about what the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois are doing in Canada. We have to know what Prime Minister Stephen Harper is doing as well as President George W. Bush.
Canadians also get Canadian media and American media, but Americans only get American media. In the age of the internet, Canadian media is accessible to Americans, but few Americans use it. They probably think that Canada is not important, but they are wrong. Canada is the US's largest trading partner. That's a good enough reason to know what is going on in Canada because whatever Canada is experiencing has a good likelihood of it happening in the US.
Americans are not concerned about certain issues unless it is happening in their own country. For example, Planned Parenthood and EGALE are two of the organizations that are fighting to keep Canada's current age of consent for sex at 14. This is also happening in other countries around the world. But since it is not yet happening in the US in a significant way, the Americans are not concerned about it. However, most politically correct American parents who defend organizations like Planned Parenthood and EGALE would be really angry if these same organizations were doing in their country what they are currently doing in Canada.
So there you have it. Canadians as a whole know more about what is happening in the world than Americans.
One of the reasons is because Canada is bilingual, not just in the language of English and French, but because of the differences in Canadian and American spelling. Occasionally an ignorant American will say that I spell a word wrong when, in reality, it's the Canadian spelling.
Another reason why Canadians know more is because we have to keep track of 2 different political systems. Not only do we have to know about what the Republicans and Democrats are doing in the US, but we also have to know about what the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois are doing in Canada. We have to know what Prime Minister Stephen Harper is doing as well as President George W. Bush.
Canadians also get Canadian media and American media, but Americans only get American media. In the age of the internet, Canadian media is accessible to Americans, but few Americans use it. They probably think that Canada is not important, but they are wrong. Canada is the US's largest trading partner. That's a good enough reason to know what is going on in Canada because whatever Canada is experiencing has a good likelihood of it happening in the US.
Americans are not concerned about certain issues unless it is happening in their own country. For example, Planned Parenthood and EGALE are two of the organizations that are fighting to keep Canada's current age of consent for sex at 14. This is also happening in other countries around the world. But since it is not yet happening in the US in a significant way, the Americans are not concerned about it. However, most politically correct American parents who defend organizations like Planned Parenthood and EGALE would be really angry if these same organizations were doing in their country what they are currently doing in Canada.
So there you have it. Canadians as a whole know more about what is happening in the world than Americans.
Saturday, 23 June 2007
Political Correctness
On another message board, we are talking about political correctness. I mentioned that referring to groups of people in the way that they would like is good since it's good manners that being practised, but I should add "within reason" because of the different labels and changes that can sometimes take place. For example, dark skinned of African descent like to be called "Black" or "African-American", but they generally don't like being called "coloured" and definitely not "Negro". People who have a physical or mental disability like to be called "physically challenged" or "mentally challenged" and NOT "crippled" or "retard". But when it comes to discussing issues, political correctness should have no place.
For example, there is one particular administrator who is into fitness. If someone were to ask him about junk food, he would say not to eat it, or at least in moderation, because it is not good for you, even though eating them may feel good. If someone were to ask this same individual about drugs, he would say to keep away from them, even though the drugs may make the person taking them feel good for a while. However, when this same individual is asked if kids experiencing same-sex feelings should act on them, he will say something like, " You encourage the child to be whoever he or she wants to be, regardless of sexual orientation" and will completely ignore the scientific evidence that it's not good for them (source). No truly responsible parent or anybody else who works with kids would encourage them to engage in behaviour that is inherently unsafe. That's political correctness for you. This is one example as to why political correctness is not good when talking about issues.
Abortion is another issue. Canada's birth/death replacement rate is dangerously low. The main reason is because of abortions, but politicans want to believe that it's something else and are not able to solve the problem. In some ways, I don't blame them because many people don't want to believe it either and probably don't care.
Another issue is "Happy Holidays" vs "Merry Christmas". Political correctness should not be used to look out for the wishes of minorities at the expense of the majority, in this case, religions. Most people know that the majority of people are celebrating Christmas at the winter holiday season. Yet some businesses and governments want to please minority faiths and disregard Christians.
The biggest problem with political correctness when referring to issues is that does away with freedom of speech. The concept of freedom of speech is, "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Political correctness does away with that. So for those who are reading this blog, if you don't like what I am saying, and wish to silence what I am saying, then you do not truly believe in freedom of speech. There are some reasonable limits such as not yelling "fire" when no fire exists, spreading lies, and that sort of thing. But when it comes to expressing beliefs, opinions, and especially verifiable information, there should be no political correctness to get in the way.
For example, there is one particular administrator who is into fitness. If someone were to ask him about junk food, he would say not to eat it, or at least in moderation, because it is not good for you, even though eating them may feel good. If someone were to ask this same individual about drugs, he would say to keep away from them, even though the drugs may make the person taking them feel good for a while. However, when this same individual is asked if kids experiencing same-sex feelings should act on them, he will say something like, " You encourage the child to be whoever he or she wants to be, regardless of sexual orientation" and will completely ignore the scientific evidence that it's not good for them (source). No truly responsible parent or anybody else who works with kids would encourage them to engage in behaviour that is inherently unsafe. That's political correctness for you. This is one example as to why political correctness is not good when talking about issues.
Abortion is another issue. Canada's birth/death replacement rate is dangerously low. The main reason is because of abortions, but politicans want to believe that it's something else and are not able to solve the problem. In some ways, I don't blame them because many people don't want to believe it either and probably don't care.
Another issue is "Happy Holidays" vs "Merry Christmas". Political correctness should not be used to look out for the wishes of minorities at the expense of the majority, in this case, religions. Most people know that the majority of people are celebrating Christmas at the winter holiday season. Yet some businesses and governments want to please minority faiths and disregard Christians.
The biggest problem with political correctness when referring to issues is that does away with freedom of speech. The concept of freedom of speech is, "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Political correctness does away with that. So for those who are reading this blog, if you don't like what I am saying, and wish to silence what I am saying, then you do not truly believe in freedom of speech. There are some reasonable limits such as not yelling "fire" when no fire exists, spreading lies, and that sort of thing. But when it comes to expressing beliefs, opinions, and especially verifiable information, there should be no political correctness to get in the way.
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Why I believe that alcohol should be illegal (and why Christians should avoid it)
In the past, I supported alcohol in moderation, but now, I support total abstinence of alcohol. One of the reasons is because of my conversion to the Seventh Day Adventist Church which requires all members to abstain from alcohol. But the most important reason is because of all the problems that it causes. The hazards seem to outweigh any benefits.
Many people have been injured or killed through drunk driving. Families have been split as a result, jobs have been lost, and many other problems alcohol causes. Many people don't even realize that you don't have to be drunk for alcohol to impair one's ability to drive. You don't even have to be drunk or have several drinks to be charged with drinking and driving violation. Also, there are laws that penalize a person or business for serving alcohol if drinker gets into an accident. It just doesn't seem worth it.
Many people say that moderation is the key. However, none of these people can agree on what moderation is. There are health benefits of moderate drinking, but it's only limited to one or two drinks a day. How many drinkers limit their drinking of alcoholic beverages to one or two drinks at a party? Not many I'm afraid. There are also studies that suggest that one can get similar health benefits from grape juice. This type of moderation may be fine for medications, but not for social drinking.
I know that not everybody will agree with this, but I would like to see a resurrection of the prohibition movement, or at least more Christians voluntarily abstain from alcohol. You don't need to drink alcohol to have a good time. Even if you yourself don't have a drinking problem, one of your invited guests may have one and serving alcohol only adds to that person's temptation.
I am not writing this to judge anyone in particular. I don't see anyone who disagrees with me as some kind of evil person. I'm also aware that there were problems with prohibition in the past, but I do think there should at least be a movement to encourage people to abstain. Personally, I would rather have prohibition back, even with the challenges of enforcing it, than to stay with the status quo of alcohol abuse going into the millions of dollars and ruined lives. With the high social costs of alcohol, I'm surprised that more Christians do not voluntarily abstain from it.
I am very thankful that I am part of a church that teaches and practises total abstinence because it enables me to hang around with friends that believe and practise the same thing and keeps off any pressure to serve or drink alcohol.
Many people have been injured or killed through drunk driving. Families have been split as a result, jobs have been lost, and many other problems alcohol causes. Many people don't even realize that you don't have to be drunk for alcohol to impair one's ability to drive. You don't even have to be drunk or have several drinks to be charged with drinking and driving violation. Also, there are laws that penalize a person or business for serving alcohol if drinker gets into an accident. It just doesn't seem worth it.
Many people say that moderation is the key. However, none of these people can agree on what moderation is. There are health benefits of moderate drinking, but it's only limited to one or two drinks a day. How many drinkers limit their drinking of alcoholic beverages to one or two drinks at a party? Not many I'm afraid. There are also studies that suggest that one can get similar health benefits from grape juice. This type of moderation may be fine for medications, but not for social drinking.
I know that not everybody will agree with this, but I would like to see a resurrection of the prohibition movement, or at least more Christians voluntarily abstain from alcohol. You don't need to drink alcohol to have a good time. Even if you yourself don't have a drinking problem, one of your invited guests may have one and serving alcohol only adds to that person's temptation.
I am not writing this to judge anyone in particular. I don't see anyone who disagrees with me as some kind of evil person. I'm also aware that there were problems with prohibition in the past, but I do think there should at least be a movement to encourage people to abstain. Personally, I would rather have prohibition back, even with the challenges of enforcing it, than to stay with the status quo of alcohol abuse going into the millions of dollars and ruined lives. With the high social costs of alcohol, I'm surprised that more Christians do not voluntarily abstain from it.
I am very thankful that I am part of a church that teaches and practises total abstinence because it enables me to hang around with friends that believe and practise the same thing and keeps off any pressure to serve or drink alcohol.
Sunday, 3 June 2007
Hope for homosexuals
If you've read the article in the previous post, then you know about the health consequences of homosexuality. I'm not someone that hates homosexuals. I'm someone that cares enough about homosexuals to tell them the truth. In other words, this isn't merely Jemdude's view or the Church's view. Engaging in homosexual acts may make you feel good (in ways I'll never understand), but it is not good for you.
You probably want help getting out of the homosexual lifestyle.
If you are in this situation, then I would like to refer you to Stephen Bennet Ministries. He's a former homosexual whose been there. He no longer struggles with it, and now has a wife and kids.
I'm not going to say that getting out of homosexuality will be easy, but this ministry will help you get through this.
You can download his 30 minute testimony at the following link:
30 minute testimony
Written testimony
Home site
You probably want help getting out of the homosexual lifestyle.
If you are in this situation, then I would like to refer you to Stephen Bennet Ministries. He's a former homosexual whose been there. He no longer struggles with it, and now has a wife and kids.
I'm not going to say that getting out of homosexuality will be easy, but this ministry will help you get through this.
You can download his 30 minute testimony at the following link:
30 minute testimony
Written testimony
Home site
Friday, 25 May 2007
FDA: Gay Men Still Banned from Donating Blood Over HIV Fears
By John Jalsevac
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 25, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the FDA has renewed its 1983 policy that gay men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle.
This past Wednesday the FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.
According to the FDA, the ban is in place because, “A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”
The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977.
The Administration, however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”
Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion. “At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said.
“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. “If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.”
Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation,” reads the FDA's policy.
“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.”
Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA. “The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said. “Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.”
A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns.
Read the full text of “FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men”:
http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/msmdonor.htm
Source
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 25, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the FDA has renewed its 1983 policy that gay men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle.
This past Wednesday the FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.
According to the FDA, the ban is in place because, “A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”
The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977.
The Administration, however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”
Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion. “At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said.
“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. “If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.”
Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation,” reads the FDA's policy.
“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.”
Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA. “The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said. “Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.”
A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns.
Read the full text of “FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men”:
http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/msmdonor.htm
Source
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Some In Democratic Underground Worried About Backlash To Their Falwell Hate Rantings
Almost from the moment that Jerry Falwell's death was announced on Tuesday, the leftwing nutroots at the Democratic Underground began gleefully dancing upon his grave. Here are just a few of their hate rants about Falwell:
Uncharitable or not, I am sorry his death was not more painful and drawn out. He did not deserve a relatively peaceful, painless and quick death.
Rot in Hell Falwell!
May Pat Robertson and James Dobson be next.
I'm putting on my dancing shoes and am going to look for his grave!
One more nail in the coffin for the hate crime that is religion.
Pretty strong stuff. Even a few of the more rational DUers thought it was over the top and are now worrying about the backlash to their extreme hate rants against Falwell. One of these DUers goes by the screen name of earthlover who is now desperately worried that this backlash will ultimately hurt the Democrats at the polls. Here is some of the nervous commentary by DUer earthlover in a thread titled, Is Our Response To Falwell's Death Hurting Our Cause?
Since Falwell's death, these boards have been inundated with posts, many of which demonstrated absolute glee at his death and judgementalism that rivaled Falwell's...
...Followers of Falwell, and there are MANY, are going to be really angry to read or hear about such hostility coming from our side, especially during this time. This will motivate them to fight their fight even harder, and they will have all kinds of ammunition now to further their cause and to try to convince everyone that Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites who show the same sort of hatred they disdain in others...
...Members of the conservative media are already picking up on the profuse hatred being spewed forth on these boards. So, to those who think these boards are just a means to "vent," remember one thing: the whole world is watching...
...Most moderates, and most sane people, and ANYONE with common sense is going to see people dancing on the grave of a still-warm body as being reprehensible, stupid and just plain rude...
...So, the question I have for you: do you have a political death-wish? Democrats have a great chance of winning in 08. However, the sort of thing I have seen about Falwell is going to help...the Republicans! They already are skilled at getting elected by painting us as anti-religion. Who would have dreamt that Democrats would act the way they have done this past day? It is a nightmare to me, but it is a dream come true for the Republicans...
To answer your question, earthlover, yes you folks on the left do have a political death wish. Don't think the over the edge hate rants against Falwell in the leftwing blogosphere will go unnoticed. Much to your evident dismay they will definitely be remembered.
If you don't have the stomach to see the unfiltered sicko hate rants against Falwell directly in the Democratic Underground, you can read a large digest of their bile in the DUmmie FUnnies.
source
Uncharitable or not, I am sorry his death was not more painful and drawn out. He did not deserve a relatively peaceful, painless and quick death.
Rot in Hell Falwell!
May Pat Robertson and James Dobson be next.
I'm putting on my dancing shoes and am going to look for his grave!
One more nail in the coffin for the hate crime that is religion.
Pretty strong stuff. Even a few of the more rational DUers thought it was over the top and are now worrying about the backlash to their extreme hate rants against Falwell. One of these DUers goes by the screen name of earthlover who is now desperately worried that this backlash will ultimately hurt the Democrats at the polls. Here is some of the nervous commentary by DUer earthlover in a thread titled, Is Our Response To Falwell's Death Hurting Our Cause?
Since Falwell's death, these boards have been inundated with posts, many of which demonstrated absolute glee at his death and judgementalism that rivaled Falwell's...
...Followers of Falwell, and there are MANY, are going to be really angry to read or hear about such hostility coming from our side, especially during this time. This will motivate them to fight their fight even harder, and they will have all kinds of ammunition now to further their cause and to try to convince everyone that Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites who show the same sort of hatred they disdain in others...
...Members of the conservative media are already picking up on the profuse hatred being spewed forth on these boards. So, to those who think these boards are just a means to "vent," remember one thing: the whole world is watching...
...Most moderates, and most sane people, and ANYONE with common sense is going to see people dancing on the grave of a still-warm body as being reprehensible, stupid and just plain rude...
...So, the question I have for you: do you have a political death-wish? Democrats have a great chance of winning in 08. However, the sort of thing I have seen about Falwell is going to help...the Republicans! They already are skilled at getting elected by painting us as anti-religion. Who would have dreamt that Democrats would act the way they have done this past day? It is a nightmare to me, but it is a dream come true for the Republicans...
To answer your question, earthlover, yes you folks on the left do have a political death wish. Don't think the over the edge hate rants against Falwell in the leftwing blogosphere will go unnoticed. Much to your evident dismay they will definitely be remembered.
If you don't have the stomach to see the unfiltered sicko hate rants against Falwell directly in the Democratic Underground, you can read a large digest of their bile in the DUmmie FUnnies.
source