by Zac Alstin
Do taboos on incest and infanticide have a rational basis?
The father of modern astronomy, Galileo, did not win converts to his theories through their obvious truthfulness. Rather, the younger generation of astronomers were drawn to the new and exciting research possibilities that came with Galileo’s telescopes. Older, more established astronomers doubted that the new technology could be trusted. We moderns take for granted that what we see through the end of a telescope is real. Yet some of Galileo’s contemporaries refused to even look through one of his telescopes for themselves. Read more…
This video has been circulating in pro-life circles. I’m interested in the images of the signs carried by the pro-abortion people. Pause the video around 3 minutes, and run it slowly for the next 15 seconds. You will see:
“Life Begins when you stand up to Christian Fascists” ”Abortion on Demand without Apology” “Abortion Providers Save Lives”
all done up in the Revolutionary Red style of slightly dripping red paint.
oh, I’m so intimidated by the intimations of violence. LOL. But it does pretty much show you where these people are coming from. “Central Casting? Send me over a batch of extras for a Left-wing Mob Scene.”
This article in the Baptist Standard isn’t particularly interesting. It is the photo that interests me:
A Clenched Fist wouldn't be my idea of a lovey-dovey marriage image
The Clenched Fist is an image straight out of the Hard Left playbook. They are getting careless, and letting the mask slip. Up until now, the Sex Radicals have done a pretty good job of steering people away from their radicalism. They must think they have the same sex marriage issue wrapped up, so they can let people see who and what they really are: social revolutionaries, hiding behind White Picket Fence gays and lesbians, who really do just want normal lives. All the shouting about “equality” is a way to keep people from thinking about what is really being changed here. We are being ask to change the definition of marriage and tacitly, the definition of parenthood, without even having an honest discussion about the issues at stake.
“Oh, same sex marriage is not a big change of anything. No sir. Nothing to see here, just keep on moving. We just want what everyone else has.” Just one problem: Most normal (ie, non-revolutionary) people don’t put Workers of the World Unite images on their wedding invitations.
I’m just saying.
There’s been some flak in the news lately about new abortion counseling guidelines issued by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
LifeNews.com:
The guidelines, which have already been panned for ignoring the link between abortion and breast cancer, contain other scientific flaws.
The guidelines say “Women should be advised that abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term,” even though abortion comes with a host of medical and mental health concerns and has been found to cause more problems for women than childbirth. Read more…
So now you can’t even support a candidate for elected office if he’s not pro same-sex ‘marriage’:
Target attracted the ire of many LGBT rights supporters — some of whom pledged to boycott the company — after it was revealed last year that the retail chain donated $150,000 to MN Forward. The group ran ads backing Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who opposes same-sex marriage.
Well how dare they!
But if they thought they could allay the hatred of the lavender thought-gestapo, the first comment on the article would indicate that they were probably wrong: Read more…
When it comes to behavior, society gives them a very mixed message.
By KATHERINE KERSTEN
Today, I wouldn’t trade places with an 18-year-old guy for a million bucks.
It’s a wonder our sons don’t end up in the loony bin, given the schizophrenic messages we bombard them with.
The latest “you’ve-got-to-be-kidding” example to cross my desk involved frat-boy antics at Yale University — home to lots of folks who pride themselves on being among our nation’s best and brightest.
A few months ago, it seems, a group of Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity pledges marched onto Yale’s campus and chanted crude slogans “making light of” rape and necrophilia, according to the Yale alumni magazine. Read more…
Dr. J, in her speeches, often brings along some obscure birth certificate application to show how fathers are being eased out of families by government functionaries.
But no more.
This disgraceful stupidity is now being brought to you by the federal government. Read more…
I recently posted Stuart Scheiderman’s comments about the Ivy League Incest case. The comment section was not kind to me. I guess I now have to admit that I was wrong for saying that the ideas of the sexual revolution have consequences. I was wrong for implying that if we can justify a departure from traditional morality for some people with certain non-traditional desires, it gets just that much harder to forbid similar departures for others with other non-traditional desires. I was wrong. Wrong. Wrong. WRONG! Read more…
A few days ago, I posted some questions by Dr. Stuart Schneiderman. He discussed the recent Ivy League Incest case. In his post he asked questions implying that the ideas of the Sexual Revolution make it somewhat more difficult to argue that incest is immoral.
But that was just a bunch of overheated rhetoric.
He’s just hyperventilating.
It’s not like a major country is considering repealing its incest laws.
Not like that at all…
Wait…. what’s this?
A major country IS considering repealing it’s incest laws? Because they’re “obsolete”?
Never mind.
What does the recent art exhibit in the Smithsonian say about the sex radicals and their goals? According to Michael Medved, nothing good. (I won’t bother to describe the exhibit here. It’s horrifying. You can read about it in the article).
In the midst of the current same-sex marriage debate, gay right advocates insist that homosexual and heterosexual couples are virtually indistinguishable, and that same sex desire constitutes as normal and positive a force in our society as the attraction between males and females. “Hide and Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture” powerfully and definitively rebuts that notion. Read more…
I recently weighed in on The Politics of Disgust. As an intellectual middleweight who occasionally punches above his weight, it’s kind of discouraging to see a bona fide heavyweight such as Stuart Schneiderman weighed in on the same issue. Nonetheless, it’s nice to see good ideas expressed as well as Dr. Schneiderman expresses them. Here, in part, what he has to say:
Martha Nussbaum believes that Americans who oppose same-sex marriage need therapy. They disagree with her because they have the wrong feelings. They feel disgust toward homosexual behavior, and this bespeaks a lack of empathy and imagination.
In truth, many people do feel some measure of disgust, or disinterest, in male homosexuality, but they do not have the same feelings toward lesbianism. This would lead one to believe that people have different feelings about different kinds of homosexual behavior and orientation. Read more…
I find it ironic that Martha Nussbaum chose to entitle her book From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law. I’m having to deal with waves of nausea just from having read a review.
In her new book, From Disgust to Humanity, Martha Nussbaum offers an unusual argument about opposition to gay rights. She wants to show that much of that opposition arises from what she calls the “politics of disgust”–a politics based on visceral reactions and disreputable attempts at psychological manipulation. According to Nussbaum, those who promote this kind of politics try to provoke feelings of disgust in their audience by disclosing facts about the sexual practices of homosexuals. In turn, the audience directs those feelings toward gay men and lesbians. Nussbaum’s goal is to document the politics of disgust as an influential though largely unnoticed phenomenon in our time. She also criticizes it as unworthy of the American political tradition.
I haven’t read the book, but I’m willing to bet large sums of money that Nussbaum never discussed the “Politics of Disgust” as it relates to how gay activists view institutions like the Ruth Institute. Are we not similarly entitled to Nussbaum’s “Politics of Humanity”? (No, it would seem. We are not). Read more…
The Southern Poverty Law Center (I was going to attempt a comment here, but I just can’t stop shaking my head…). So, here’s Radio Derb:
In case you hadn’t noticed, let me bring to your attention the current big push by a mass of leftist groups acting together to shame out of public life all criticism of homosexuality.The so-called Southern Poverty Law Center is out in front of the effort. This nest of crooks, whose financial and ethical shenanigans have been exposed innumerable times, starting with their hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, in 1994, this gang of thieves is still being held up by our left-wing media as an unimpeachable authority on who should or should not be accepted as respectable contributors to public debate. Read more…
I was tickled pink to note that one of my posts was singled out for condemnation over at “goodasyou.”
Here’s what they had to say:
Dancing with ourselves: NOM’s Ruth Institute compares gay unions to self-love
Over at the Ruth Institute (an official National Organization For Marriage affiliate), site blogger “Ari” has posed the following question: Read more…
Here’s a sad and discouraging article from Yahoo News (Cited in “Outside the Beltway”).
Seventy-two percent of black babies are born to unmarried mothers today, according to government statistics. This number is inseparable from the work of Carroll, an obstetrician who has dedicated her 40-year career to helping black women.
“The girls don’t think they have to get married. I tell them children deserve a mama and a daddy. They really do,” Carroll says from behind the desk of her office, which has cushioned pink-and-green armchairs, bars on the windows, and a wooden “LOVE” carving between two African figurines. Diamonds circle Carroll’s ring finger. Read more…
Here’s a great article from Mother Jones. (Gosh, that’s a sentence I rarely have a chance to write). It is not directly related to marriage abolition via redefinition, but it does have this to say about those brilliant social engineers who promised us that they were going to eliminate poverty and turn all of our children into geniuses with their education proposals. You know, those prodigies whose designs have had about the same effect on our society as a large meteor strike on one of our medium-sized cities. Read more…
One consequence that is sure to follow from marriage redefinition is that courts will be yet more empowered to assign parental rights and responsibilities.
How wonderful that would be!
If we just allow biology to determine parental rights, what a disaster! In disputed cases, we would send wet, messy biological samples to labs! There, those samples will be analyzed by scientists. Scientists who probably never took a humanities course in their lives! How can we let people who don’t know the first thing about postmodern critical theory make decisions like that? How would social justice be served?
And that’s not just in same sex cases, either.
Andrew Stuttaford discusses an article in which this frightening idea is aired: Read more…
Categories: Children, Divorce, family, fathers, Fathers' Rights, feminism, Marriage, motherhood, Political Correctness, Sex Radicals Tags: Divorce, family, fathers, feminism
I’ve been telling my audiences that redefining marriage means redefining parenthood. I’ve told people that same sex marriage will create pressure for triple parenting. Now, here is an article in the Boston Globe, explaining what I’m talking about. You can see for yourself that I am not making this up. (By the way, notice the unisex, ungendered, “generic human” look of the child in the Globe’s drawing.)
Now a few family-law scholars have begun to argue that there is nothing special about the number two — if three or four or five adults have a parental relationship with a child, the law should recognize them all as parents. Going beyond two, these scholars argue, would better reflect the dynamics of the modern family, and also protect the children in such families. It would ensure that, even in the event of a split or major disagreement between the adults in question, the children would not be deprived of the affection, care, and financial resources of any of the people they have grown up regarding as their mothers and fathers.
“The law needs to adapt to the reality of children’s lives, and if children are being raised by three parents, the law should not arbitrarily select two of them and say these are the legal parents, this other person is a stranger,” says Nancy Polikoff, a family-law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law.
Gosh, that all sounds so reasonable. But why are we allowing adults to manufacture children in the first place? Is there any thought to the interests of children here? The Globe evidently thinks interviewing a couple of Sex Law Radicals, and giving one short paragraph to their thoughtful critics like Elizabeth Marquardt (author of the important report, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor,”) is fair and balanced journalism.
Read it all here.
Good news. After the recession, things are looking up. Businesses are hiring again. Take for example, Butterfly Body Massage, in Burnaby, British Columbia. They offer “pretty and sexy, open-minded and passionate girls to satisfy your desires,” this as advertised in the Georgia Strait newspaper. They also recently pinned a “Hiring—no experience necessary” sign to their front door. Read more…
Loading ...
