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
http://www.silencingchristians.com
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.
Friday, 18 December 2009
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:
article
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.
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:
article
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:
video
video
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.
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
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 Queerty.com, 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 JoeMyGod.blogspot.com, “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 Americablog.com 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."
source
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!
SACRAMENTO, California, November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 Queerty.com, 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 JoeMyGod.blogspot.com, “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 Americablog.com 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."
source
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.
Monday, 15 September 2008
Homosexual U.K. Documentarian Says Gay Lifestyle a "Sewer" of Casual Degrading Sex, Drug Abuse and Misery
By Hilary White
LONDON, September 10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A British homosexual journalist admits that his documentary on the London gay scene is likely to "burn every bridge in the gay world I've got."
Simon Fanshawe is a writer and broadcaster who created the documentary "The Trouble With Gay Men" after becoming increasingly alarmed at the shallowness and destructiveness of the "gay lifestyle." The film, made for BBC 3 television, questions the emotional and psychological immaturity, narcissism, nihilism and self-destructive tendencies of many in the homosexual community. Fanshawe says he wants homosexual men to "grow up" and get beyond their state of "extended adolescence."
Fanshawe, who was involved in the early homosexualist political movement, says, "We've fought discrimination and prejudice, only to wreck ourselves with drugs and wild sex."
In his documentary Fanshawe admits that the homosexualist movement has in the main achieved its political goals of equalising homosexuality with natural sexual relations, in abolishing laws against sodomy and creating legal equivalency with marriage and adoption. Given these achievements, Fanshawe asks, "Why do we seem hell bent on behaving like eternal teenagers?"
"We're hooked on vanity, and regard older men with contempt. Despite AIDS we're still chasing the ultimate sexual high and what's more are determined to wreck ourselves on designer drugs. We're happy to assist the straight world in keeping alive the image of all gay men as limp-wristed queens."
He says that he has recently "started to worry" about the ways in which "gay liberation is celebrated" in his hometown of Brighton, a major centre of the homosexual subculture. At the annual "Mr. Gay" beauty pageant, which he describes as a "pathetic display of self-delusion", Fanshawe tells a contestant, "I'm old enough to remember when all those women were fighting against Miss World...What we're all saying about ourselves is that actually to be really gay, properly gay, what you've got to be is cute, and young."
"Extreme vanity" he says, has been "sewn into gay culture." It "is now so mainstream in the gay community that otherwise intelligent young men are happy to be treated as sex objects on a demeaning meat rack."
Gay men, he says, are so "hardwired" towards finding casual sexual encounters, some going as far as plastic implants to enhance their appearance, that finding genuine intimacy is "practically impossible."
"Vast amounts of our leisure time are organised around sex, straight or gay. But what gay men have done is organise our identity around sex. And that is corrosive. And to make things worse, promiscuity has become the norm."
The documentarian asks the proprietor of a gay sex bath house, "Paul", who had just related some graphic stories of group sexual encounters in the establishment, "Are we just swimming around in a sewer which we're just sort of saying is normal?"
For objecting to the lifestyle of pursuing casual and "extreme" sex and for holding genuine human intimacy as a goal, Paul told Fanshawe that he is "the closest thing to a straight person in a gay man's body I have ever met. There should be an operation for you, dear."
Paul was adamant and forthright in his belief that the gay lifestyle is incompatible with happiness and fidelity in human relations, expressing his dissatisfaction with civil unions legislation. "The temptation of other things will always stand in the way of two gay men having a long-term, loving, caring relationship."
Fanshawe says he is horrified at the lack of emotional involvement and at the willingness of men to engage in "unsafe sex." The film includes statistics that show the deadly consequences of the homosexual lifestyle. One in nine gay men in London is HIV infected and new cases of HIV have doubled in the city in five years. Incidences of syphilis have increased in the same time period 616 per cent.
"Unsafe" sex, he says, is not the only way in which gay men are self destructive. "If there's a new drug, gay men will find it and take it," he states.
At one point Fanshawe interviews a homosexual man who has "done all the drugs" and now campaigns in gay clubs against the growing use of crystal methamphetamine. The man, who could not be identified for fear of reprisals from drug dealers, said that crystal meth is preferred in the gay community because it reduces the inhibitions and allows sex to be brought to an "animalistic" level "devoid of emotion." The film says that one in five gay men in London use crystal meth.
source
Jemdude's comments:
Remember, this is a homosexual saying all of this; not second hand information from an "ignorant" person.
LONDON, September 10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A British homosexual journalist admits that his documentary on the London gay scene is likely to "burn every bridge in the gay world I've got."
Simon Fanshawe is a writer and broadcaster who created the documentary "The Trouble With Gay Men" after becoming increasingly alarmed at the shallowness and destructiveness of the "gay lifestyle." The film, made for BBC 3 television, questions the emotional and psychological immaturity, narcissism, nihilism and self-destructive tendencies of many in the homosexual community. Fanshawe says he wants homosexual men to "grow up" and get beyond their state of "extended adolescence."
Fanshawe, who was involved in the early homosexualist political movement, says, "We've fought discrimination and prejudice, only to wreck ourselves with drugs and wild sex."
In his documentary Fanshawe admits that the homosexualist movement has in the main achieved its political goals of equalising homosexuality with natural sexual relations, in abolishing laws against sodomy and creating legal equivalency with marriage and adoption. Given these achievements, Fanshawe asks, "Why do we seem hell bent on behaving like eternal teenagers?"
"We're hooked on vanity, and regard older men with contempt. Despite AIDS we're still chasing the ultimate sexual high and what's more are determined to wreck ourselves on designer drugs. We're happy to assist the straight world in keeping alive the image of all gay men as limp-wristed queens."
He says that he has recently "started to worry" about the ways in which "gay liberation is celebrated" in his hometown of Brighton, a major centre of the homosexual subculture. At the annual "Mr. Gay" beauty pageant, which he describes as a "pathetic display of self-delusion", Fanshawe tells a contestant, "I'm old enough to remember when all those women were fighting against Miss World...What we're all saying about ourselves is that actually to be really gay, properly gay, what you've got to be is cute, and young."
"Extreme vanity" he says, has been "sewn into gay culture." It "is now so mainstream in the gay community that otherwise intelligent young men are happy to be treated as sex objects on a demeaning meat rack."
Gay men, he says, are so "hardwired" towards finding casual sexual encounters, some going as far as plastic implants to enhance their appearance, that finding genuine intimacy is "practically impossible."
"Vast amounts of our leisure time are organised around sex, straight or gay. But what gay men have done is organise our identity around sex. And that is corrosive. And to make things worse, promiscuity has become the norm."
The documentarian asks the proprietor of a gay sex bath house, "Paul", who had just related some graphic stories of group sexual encounters in the establishment, "Are we just swimming around in a sewer which we're just sort of saying is normal?"
For objecting to the lifestyle of pursuing casual and "extreme" sex and for holding genuine human intimacy as a goal, Paul told Fanshawe that he is "the closest thing to a straight person in a gay man's body I have ever met. There should be an operation for you, dear."
Paul was adamant and forthright in his belief that the gay lifestyle is incompatible with happiness and fidelity in human relations, expressing his dissatisfaction with civil unions legislation. "The temptation of other things will always stand in the way of two gay men having a long-term, loving, caring relationship."
Fanshawe says he is horrified at the lack of emotional involvement and at the willingness of men to engage in "unsafe sex." The film includes statistics that show the deadly consequences of the homosexual lifestyle. One in nine gay men in London is HIV infected and new cases of HIV have doubled in the city in five years. Incidences of syphilis have increased in the same time period 616 per cent.
"Unsafe" sex, he says, is not the only way in which gay men are self destructive. "If there's a new drug, gay men will find it and take it," he states.
At one point Fanshawe interviews a homosexual man who has "done all the drugs" and now campaigns in gay clubs against the growing use of crystal methamphetamine. The man, who could not be identified for fear of reprisals from drug dealers, said that crystal meth is preferred in the gay community because it reduces the inhibitions and allows sex to be brought to an "animalistic" level "devoid of emotion." The film says that one in five gay men in London use crystal meth.
source
Jemdude's comments:
Remember, this is a homosexual saying all of this; not second hand information from an "ignorant" person.
Friday, 5 September 2008
Two Birds with One Stone: Australian Homosexual Bill Promotes Polygamist Agenda
By Kathleen Gilbert
SYDNEY, Australia, September 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Australian Federal Parliament today introduced a bill that, if passed, would grant legal benefits to homosexual couples; but critics say it would also essentially legalize polygamy, since the bill would grant benefits to homosexual relationships regardless of whether either partner is currently legally married to someone else.
The Same-Sex Entitlements Bill follows upon a similar bill passed in May granting retirement benefits to same-sex couples, and would extend benefits to homosexuals in matters of immigration, taxation, employment entitlements, and worker's compensation, among other issues. But because the bill stipulates that these benefits must be given to homosexuals regardless of whether they are already legally married to a third party, the Federal Opposition attacked the bill for opening the doors to polygamy.
Polygamy is a hotly-debated issue in Australia due to the rapid rise of Islam, which considers polygamy a cultural option worthy of sanctioning by the federal government. Newsblaze.com reported only two days ago that senior Islamic leaders petitioned for legal recognition of polygamous marriage, but the government has so far remained steadfastly against amending its laws to allow polygamy. Some Australian Muslim women have also made the news in their protest against legalizing polygamy.
Sophie Mirabella, the Victorian Liberal MP, told the Herald Sun that by introducing the homosexual bill "not only is the Labor Party legalising polygamy, but it's changing the law so that the third person in an extramarital relationship can effectively claim the assets of a marriage or of the long-term de facto relationship."
Homosexual activist Rodney Croome criticized the Opposition for considering "a marriage without love" to be "more important than a de facto relationship with it," with "de facto relationship" understood as adultery or fornication. He continues that it's simply "a fact of life" that some homosexual relationships are adulterous, and expressed concern that the extra-marital party would not have legislative protection as Australian law stands, according to pinknews.com.
But critics of the bill emphasize that this would lead to the ruin of the innocent spouse that is uninvolved in the adultery, since it allows the extra-marital lover to make a legitimate property claim. Such a state of affairs, the opposition claims, is materially the same as legalizing polygamy, only under the guise of homosexual tolerance.
Rather than striking down the bill, the opposition hopes to remove the portions that recognize adulterous homosexual relationships. Both political parties in the Australian government, despite the recent legislation favoring homosexual couples, still maintain that actual marriage pertains only to one man and one woman.
source
Jemdude's comments:
This is very bizzare. Comments?
SYDNEY, Australia, September 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Australian Federal Parliament today introduced a bill that, if passed, would grant legal benefits to homosexual couples; but critics say it would also essentially legalize polygamy, since the bill would grant benefits to homosexual relationships regardless of whether either partner is currently legally married to someone else.
The Same-Sex Entitlements Bill follows upon a similar bill passed in May granting retirement benefits to same-sex couples, and would extend benefits to homosexuals in matters of immigration, taxation, employment entitlements, and worker's compensation, among other issues. But because the bill stipulates that these benefits must be given to homosexuals regardless of whether they are already legally married to a third party, the Federal Opposition attacked the bill for opening the doors to polygamy.
Polygamy is a hotly-debated issue in Australia due to the rapid rise of Islam, which considers polygamy a cultural option worthy of sanctioning by the federal government. Newsblaze.com reported only two days ago that senior Islamic leaders petitioned for legal recognition of polygamous marriage, but the government has so far remained steadfastly against amending its laws to allow polygamy. Some Australian Muslim women have also made the news in their protest against legalizing polygamy.
Sophie Mirabella, the Victorian Liberal MP, told the Herald Sun that by introducing the homosexual bill "not only is the Labor Party legalising polygamy, but it's changing the law so that the third person in an extramarital relationship can effectively claim the assets of a marriage or of the long-term de facto relationship."
Homosexual activist Rodney Croome criticized the Opposition for considering "a marriage without love" to be "more important than a de facto relationship with it," with "de facto relationship" understood as adultery or fornication. He continues that it's simply "a fact of life" that some homosexual relationships are adulterous, and expressed concern that the extra-marital party would not have legislative protection as Australian law stands, according to pinknews.com.
But critics of the bill emphasize that this would lead to the ruin of the innocent spouse that is uninvolved in the adultery, since it allows the extra-marital lover to make a legitimate property claim. Such a state of affairs, the opposition claims, is materially the same as legalizing polygamy, only under the guise of homosexual tolerance.
Rather than striking down the bill, the opposition hopes to remove the portions that recognize adulterous homosexual relationships. Both political parties in the Australian government, despite the recent legislation favoring homosexual couples, still maintain that actual marriage pertains only to one man and one woman.
source
Jemdude's comments:
This is very bizzare. Comments?
Monday, 1 September 2008
Corruption in the San Fransicso Police Service
San Francisco Police Officer ignores sodomites breaking the law by giving each other oral sex on a public sidewalk during this year’s Folsom Street Parade. What do these pictures show? They demonstrate the breakdown of the impartial application of the law as homosexual activism and political correctness corrupts North America’s big city police forces.
Sunday, 31 August 2008
Homosexual Activists Target California Businesses That Support Pro-marriage Proposition
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
CALIFORNIA, August 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An upstart homosexual rights group in California has begun to target not only individuals, but also companies to which they are connected, if they have contributed money to committees that support Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to ban same-sex "marriage" in California.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Californians Against Hate, a new homosexual-rights group, intends to identify and publicize corporate connections to individuals that make significant donations.
Fred Karger, who runs the homosexual group, said he will compile and publish a list which includes the donor's name, employer and the corporate logo of that employer, even if the company itself didn't donate to the Proposition 8 fight.
An example given in the WSJ report involves William Bolthouse, a California philanthropist, who donated $100,000 in March to support Proposition 8.
Calls and emails began to be received by the corporate offices of a company that bears his name, even though he sold it three years earlier.
"I'm not connected to Bolthouse Farms at all," said Mr. Bolthouse.
Jeffrey Dunn, chief executive of Bolthouse Farms, which produces bottled juice, said, "It wasn't us, it's not our fault."
Mr. Dunn said Bolthouse Farms' profits were not affected by the publicity and that his company has made an effort to correct wrong information on blogs that said Mr. Bolthouse still owned a large portion of the company.
Another individual, whose business was targeted by homosexuals in a call-in campaign after he and his family donated $300,000 to support Proposition 8, said the effort was "stupid" and totally ineffectual.
Terry Caster, the owner of A-1 Storage, a self-storage company based in San Diego, said he received a few phone calls a day that petered out after several weeks, and his business wasn't affected.
"To tell a business owner that they can't express their beliefs on an issue is a really stupid thing," said Mr. Caster
Both sides contending this issue see the outcome of Proposition 8 as pivotal in determining which way other states in the US may go in extending marriage rights to homosexuals.
source
Jemdude's comments:
Homosexuals are the only ones that seem to claim that disagreement equals hate. This is not the case. For example, I can respect a Muslim without being accused of "hate" just because I do not accept Allah and Muhammad as a prophet. I can also respect a co-worker who lives in a common law relationship without having to agree that such a relationship is right. So why do people practicing homosexuality believe that a person who doesn't support their agenda is hating them?
CALIFORNIA, August 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An upstart homosexual rights group in California has begun to target not only individuals, but also companies to which they are connected, if they have contributed money to committees that support Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to ban same-sex "marriage" in California.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Californians Against Hate, a new homosexual-rights group, intends to identify and publicize corporate connections to individuals that make significant donations.
Fred Karger, who runs the homosexual group, said he will compile and publish a list which includes the donor's name, employer and the corporate logo of that employer, even if the company itself didn't donate to the Proposition 8 fight.
An example given in the WSJ report involves William Bolthouse, a California philanthropist, who donated $100,000 in March to support Proposition 8.
Calls and emails began to be received by the corporate offices of a company that bears his name, even though he sold it three years earlier.
"I'm not connected to Bolthouse Farms at all," said Mr. Bolthouse.
Jeffrey Dunn, chief executive of Bolthouse Farms, which produces bottled juice, said, "It wasn't us, it's not our fault."
Mr. Dunn said Bolthouse Farms' profits were not affected by the publicity and that his company has made an effort to correct wrong information on blogs that said Mr. Bolthouse still owned a large portion of the company.
Another individual, whose business was targeted by homosexuals in a call-in campaign after he and his family donated $300,000 to support Proposition 8, said the effort was "stupid" and totally ineffectual.
Terry Caster, the owner of A-1 Storage, a self-storage company based in San Diego, said he received a few phone calls a day that petered out after several weeks, and his business wasn't affected.
"To tell a business owner that they can't express their beliefs on an issue is a really stupid thing," said Mr. Caster
Both sides contending this issue see the outcome of Proposition 8 as pivotal in determining which way other states in the US may go in extending marriage rights to homosexuals.
source
Jemdude's comments:
Homosexuals are the only ones that seem to claim that disagreement equals hate. This is not the case. For example, I can respect a Muslim without being accused of "hate" just because I do not accept Allah and Muhammad as a prophet. I can also respect a co-worker who lives in a common law relationship without having to agree that such a relationship is right. So why do people practicing homosexuality believe that a person who doesn't support their agenda is hating them?
Sunday, 17 August 2008
Friday, 15 August 2008
Washington Times Op-ed—Teens Challenged to do Hard Things
by J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President
What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word “teenager”? For many, it is not positive.
Teenage rebellion has become commonplace, and our culture has responded by expecting less and less of teenagers. But is teenage rebellion inevitable, or are there new ways of thinking that could address the problem? Responsibility for teenage rebellion and underperformance must fall primarily at the feet of parents and other adults. This is because our current expectations for teenagers provide very little challenge.
Alex and Brett Harris, 19-year-old homeschooled twins, are trying to give adults and teens a wake-up call. In their book, Do Hard Things, they attempt to explode the myth of adolescence. They show that prior to the early 20th century, people were either children or adults. Family and work were the primary occupations of the group we now call “teenagers.” Teens, though it was often driven by economic necessity, were given real-world responsibility. Today, few teens are expected to imitate responsible adults, but are rather immersed in a frivolous peer culture.
The Harris twins are not the only writers to question the conventional wisdom about teenagers. Robert Epstein, a longtime researcher in psychology who received his doctorate from Harvard, has exposed the myth of the teen brain in his book, The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen. He argues against the common belief held in the scientific community that an incompletely developed brain accounts for the emotional problems and irresponsible behavior of many teenagers.
Mr. Epstein shows the differences in the teen brain are the result of social influences, rather than the cause of teen turmoil. He concludes that a careful review of the research shows the teen brain we read about in the headlines—the immature brain that is supposedly the cause of teen problems—is nothing less than a myth.
For example, if the teen brain was really fundamentally different from an adult brain, then we would see similar patterns of teenage rebellion throughout history. We do not. Teens in other cultures, and our own until the early 20th century, held responsible positions and were expected to imitate adults rather than children.
Mr. Epstein says teens are extraordinarily competent, even if they do not normally express that competence. Also, long-standing studies of intelligence, perceptual abilities and memory function show that teens are in many instances far superior to adults.
Mr. Epstein concludes that the peer culture of teens, where they learn virtually everything they know from one another, rather than from people they are about to become, is the cause of the problems we see today. Almost all teens are isolated from adults and wrongly treated like children.
What is the solution? When teens are treated like adults, they almost immediately rise to the challenge. Parents must trust their teens by giving them more and more responsibility, accompanied with the proper mentoring. This is a strong admonition to parents and adults to challenge our teens to act more like adults rather than traditional teens.
The Harris twins are giving direction to the teens to become productive. By first exploding the teen myth, they inform teens they are capable of much more than is usually expected of them and that adults have completely underestimated their talents and abilities. They challenge teens to join the “rebelution,” which is a revolution against rebellion, and spell out five steps to responsibility for teens.
First, teens should “do hard things” that take them out of their comfort zone. Second, teens should go beyond what is expected or required of them. Third, teens should attempt tasks that are too big to be done alone to learn teamwork and collaboration. Fourth, teens should do things that don’t pay off immediately. These are the unexciting things that may seem like an endless round of chores that go without recognition. These chores, however, build character. Finally, teens should stand up for their beliefs even if the majority opposes them.
Do Hard Things is a book for teens and their parents. I firmly believe this book, if taken seriously by the current generation of teens and their parents, could prove to be one of the most life-changing and culture-changing books of this generation.
Michael Smith is the president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He may be contacted at (540)338-5600; or send email to media@hslda.org.
link
Jemdude's comments:
This is why I do not agree with the saying "kids should be kids as long as possible". Teenagers in the past were part of adulthood; not childhood and this is something that western culture doesn't understand.
HSLDA President
What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word “teenager”? For many, it is not positive.
Teenage rebellion has become commonplace, and our culture has responded by expecting less and less of teenagers. But is teenage rebellion inevitable, or are there new ways of thinking that could address the problem? Responsibility for teenage rebellion and underperformance must fall primarily at the feet of parents and other adults. This is because our current expectations for teenagers provide very little challenge.
Alex and Brett Harris, 19-year-old homeschooled twins, are trying to give adults and teens a wake-up call. In their book, Do Hard Things, they attempt to explode the myth of adolescence. They show that prior to the early 20th century, people were either children or adults. Family and work were the primary occupations of the group we now call “teenagers.” Teens, though it was often driven by economic necessity, were given real-world responsibility. Today, few teens are expected to imitate responsible adults, but are rather immersed in a frivolous peer culture.
The Harris twins are not the only writers to question the conventional wisdom about teenagers. Robert Epstein, a longtime researcher in psychology who received his doctorate from Harvard, has exposed the myth of the teen brain in his book, The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen. He argues against the common belief held in the scientific community that an incompletely developed brain accounts for the emotional problems and irresponsible behavior of many teenagers.
Mr. Epstein shows the differences in the teen brain are the result of social influences, rather than the cause of teen turmoil. He concludes that a careful review of the research shows the teen brain we read about in the headlines—the immature brain that is supposedly the cause of teen problems—is nothing less than a myth.
For example, if the teen brain was really fundamentally different from an adult brain, then we would see similar patterns of teenage rebellion throughout history. We do not. Teens in other cultures, and our own until the early 20th century, held responsible positions and were expected to imitate adults rather than children.
Mr. Epstein says teens are extraordinarily competent, even if they do not normally express that competence. Also, long-standing studies of intelligence, perceptual abilities and memory function show that teens are in many instances far superior to adults.
Mr. Epstein concludes that the peer culture of teens, where they learn virtually everything they know from one another, rather than from people they are about to become, is the cause of the problems we see today. Almost all teens are isolated from adults and wrongly treated like children.
What is the solution? When teens are treated like adults, they almost immediately rise to the challenge. Parents must trust their teens by giving them more and more responsibility, accompanied with the proper mentoring. This is a strong admonition to parents and adults to challenge our teens to act more like adults rather than traditional teens.
The Harris twins are giving direction to the teens to become productive. By first exploding the teen myth, they inform teens they are capable of much more than is usually expected of them and that adults have completely underestimated their talents and abilities. They challenge teens to join the “rebelution,” which is a revolution against rebellion, and spell out five steps to responsibility for teens.
First, teens should “do hard things” that take them out of their comfort zone. Second, teens should go beyond what is expected or required of them. Third, teens should attempt tasks that are too big to be done alone to learn teamwork and collaboration. Fourth, teens should do things that don’t pay off immediately. These are the unexciting things that may seem like an endless round of chores that go without recognition. These chores, however, build character. Finally, teens should stand up for their beliefs even if the majority opposes them.
Do Hard Things is a book for teens and their parents. I firmly believe this book, if taken seriously by the current generation of teens and their parents, could prove to be one of the most life-changing and culture-changing books of this generation.
Michael Smith is the president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He may be contacted at (540)338-5600; or send email to media@hslda.org.
link
Jemdude's comments:
This is why I do not agree with the saying "kids should be kids as long as possible". Teenagers in the past were part of adulthood; not childhood and this is something that western culture doesn't understand.