Archive for the ‘Homosexuality’ Category

Sexual Propagandizing

Thursday, November 26th, 2009

For his New York Times article “Coming Out in Middle School,” Benoit Denizet-Lewis interviewed middle-school children from all over the country who have identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual and have come out to their friends and families. It’s unnerving to hear from the mouths of babes their experience of coming out to their parents: “I told my cousin, my cousin told this other girl, she told her mother, her mother told my mom and then my mom told me.” Or of discovering their own sexual identity: “It was confusing for a while, because for some reason I thought that you had to be straight or gay, and that you couldn’t be both. . . . So I thought about it a lot, like I do about everything, and I went online and looked up bisexuality to read more about it. I realized that was me,” or bickering over their classmates’ sexual proclivities, “We can’t even keep up with who’s gay or bi and who’s into who, and we go to school here!” Even Denizet-Lewis guiltily admitted that he found himself blurting out to a pair of seventh-graders glibly discussing their sexual orientation: “But you’re so young!”

But as most any ten, eleven, or twelve year-old could tell you, they know almost everything. Confusion and uncertainty are states they especially loathe; give them labels to neatly categorize themselves (and their peers) and they will zealously apply them. And labels are exactly what these prepubescent tweens are given when they are told that sexual preference is a fundamental, inborn, aspect of personhood; it is only natural for them to conclude, as Fr. Paul Scalia wrote in A Label That Sticks (First Things, June/July 2005), that “an adolescent with homosexual inclinations must necessarily be homosexual, or gay, or lesbian, or transgendered—whichever label fits.”

One very supportive mother told Denizet-Lewis she was not surprised when her ten-year-old daughter confessed to her (in rhyming couplets, no less) that she was bisexual: “Kids just know what these words mean a lot earlier.” Well, that’s really not fair. Kids don’t just know; it takes a lot of hard work. Chapters of the Gay-Straight Alliance at middle schools across America work “to educate the school community about homophobia, gender identity, and sexual orientation issues,” and for over a decade now the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network has been working to ensure that “students in all grade levels [have] access to curricula, trainings, texts and materials—in all areas including but not limited to, history, literature, family life, sexuality and health education—that are relevant, comprehensive, age-appropriate, medically accurate and inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.”

- Fr. Elijah

The Politigayly Correct Principal

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

WIARTON, Ontario, October 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 16-year-old high school student Jennifer Rankin fully intended to unite her voicelessness with that of the unborn as part of the annual Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity when she arrived at school yesterday, reports Bill Henry of Sun Media.

She was impeded, however, by her school principal, who stated that the right to free speech does not apply on school property and who forced Rankin to remain in isolation for the entire day as long as she participated in the event.

During the annual Day of Silent Solidarity international campaign, which is organized by Stand True Ministries, students don red bands on their arms and red duct tape on their mouths, remaining silent while passing out fliers about the atrocity of abortion.

Rankin, 16, arrived at Peninsula Shores District School in Wiarton, Ontario yesterday morning, with the red tape over her mouth and with the simple word ‘life’ written upon it.  She and her mother were stopped at the door, however, by school principal Patricia Cavan, while police cruisers stood nearby.  Cavan initially told Rankin that she could not enter school property, but then consented to allowing her in the building, separated from other students.

“I was taken directly into a small room that was opposite the vice-principal’s office and I was in there all day,” Rankin told Sun Media.  “I wasn’t allowed to speak with or see any other students and students were not allowed to come and see me and I was isolated in that room for the entire day.”

While Cavan had informed students in advance that their pro-life witness would not be allowed, Rankin insists that her Charter right to free expression was infringed.  “I felt very discriminated by it,” she said.  “I don’t think it was right at all what happened.”

Several students had joined her in the event last year, but this time Rankin was alone.  “I think a lot of people got scared and backed out,” she said. “I would like to have the ability to correct this. I don’t think it should be just left alone.”

The youth pastor at Rankin’s church, Ken Holley, expressed disappointment and insisted that the school’s actions violated her rights.  “It’s a day of silence and basically they lose their voice for those that never had a voice,” he said. “It’s pro-life. There’s no arguing. They can’t talk all day. They just stay silent and if anybody asks why they’re silent they hand out a little sheet that says this is why.”

“I guess I am disappointed that they’re not allowed to have a voice, or not have a voice, actually,” he said.

Cavan, who did not return a message left by LifeSiteNews.com, told Sun Media that the right to free speech does not apply on school property.  “School property is not a public place,” she said. “So while absolutely we support the right to free speech in a public space, that’s not school property.”  She said that school policy prohibits the dissemination of one-sided information on religious, political, or other issues that are controversial.

Pastor Holley pointed out that the school does an annual ‘Gay Pride’ day “where everybody wears pink shirts,” and that the school allows nude pictures on the wall to stand as ‘art’.  “My students have to go to school and deal with that,” he said, “and as soon as they try to stand up for anything, it’s like, well, just be quiet, go home. I don’t think that’s right.”

Cavan maintains that the ‘Gay Pride’ event is a different issue because it is about fighting homophobia and supporting rights guaranteed in the Charter.  Jennifer Rankin’s cause, however, “is not an issue under human rights,” Cavan said.  “It’s an ethical/moral decision and everyone has the right to their view, absolutely. And I commend the students for their personal views and their desire to share their beliefs. I just want to assure that every student feels supported when those beliefs are shared.”

Mary-Ellen Douglas of Campaign Life Coalition expressed dismay that the school shut down Rankin’s message.  “You would think a school, as a facility of education, would be the place where free speech would flourish, not the opposite,” she said.  Regarding the school’s ‘Gay Pride’ day, she said, “There’s only one side on that one, I guess, too, eh?  They’re just trying to make sure that the truth doesn’t get out.”

David Cortman, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defence Fund, told LSN that “the school should be ashamed of its hypocrisy.”

“On the one hand, the school first of all is apparently picking and choosing which parts of the Charter that it wants to comply with,” he said.  “It hides behind the Charter to justify its blatant promotion of the homosexual agenda, while at the same time it ignores the students’ rights to free expression under the Charter.”

“In my opinion, the policy and their actions, violate the Charter,” he continued.  “If homosexual behaviour is a human right, even more so is life itself a human right. … I think it’s just another instance of government indoctrination that’s aimed at the suppression of religious speech.”


Ms. Cavan,

School property is not public space?  It’s a space provided to you to do your job on the taxpayer’s dime, Ms. Cavan. That means that you are answerable to the people of Canada and to the taxpayers of your municipality.  You have no right to limit the freedom of expression for those who oppose abortion, while not only teaching students to promote sodomy, but actually endorsing and setting aside a day to do it on behalf of the School.   The school is not private property. If it were, the School Board wouldn’t be getting our tax revenue. The fact that I have to explain this very basic reality to you is, needless to say, rather troubling.

And if you want to talk about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it doesn’t guarantee anything about sexual behaviour:

 S. 15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

On the other hand, the Charter most certainly guarantees freedom of conscience and religion and thought, belief, opinion, and expression. In fact, these two freedoms are included FIRST in the section called FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS in order to ensure that everyone understands that all other freedoms are built on these ones:

S. 2

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

It is thoroughly hypocritical to officially propagandize for “gay day” while concurrently denying the inalienable right to freely advocate for the most basic right that exists: the right to life.  The school system, and your school in particular, have apparently become a breeding ground for radical social engineering which seeks to promote sodomy while refusing to even recognize the right to conscientious objection by its students.

Your policy is even worse than arbitrary.  It’s shamelessly partisan and political. Far from trying to avoid, as you claim,  ”one-sided information on religious, political, or other issues that are controversial“, you have only exposed yourself to doing just that in institutionalizing the promotion of homosexual behaviour while banning criticism of it or the promotion of an opposing life ethic. 

Do you not see the irony in your statement? 

Be true to what you are there to do as a teacher and let the exchange of ideas begin.  Otherwise, don’t call it a school. Call it a programming centre.

John Pacheco

Social Conservatives United

No Religion Without Sexual Permission

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

LONDON, May 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com ) – British churches will be forced to accept practicing homosexuals or “transsexuals” in positions as youth workers and similar roles, under upcoming equality legislation, the government has said. The Labour government’s Equality Bill will prohibit churches from refusing to hire active homosexuals even if their religion holds such behavior to be sinful, said deputy equalities minister Maria Eagle. The legislation is due to come into force next year, and churches fear that it will force them to act against their religious convictions in a broad range of areas. Eagle indicated at a conference called “Faith, Homophobia, Transphobia, & Human Rights” in London, that the legislation “will cover almost all church employees.” “The circumstances in which religious institutions can practice anything less than full equality are few and far between,” she told delegates. “While the state would not intervene in narrowly ritual or doctrinal matters within faith groups, these communities cannot claim that everything they run is outside the scope of anti-discrimination law. “Members of faith groups have a role in making the argument in their own communities for greater LGBT acceptance, but in the meantime the state has a duty to protect people from unfair treatment.” The bill allows a religious exemption for roles deemed to be “for the purposes of an organised religion” but restricts this definition to those who conduct liturgical celebrations or spend their time teaching doctrine. The Daily Telegraph quoted Neil Addison, a Roman Catholic barrister and expert on religious discrimination law, who said that the bill will leave churches powerless to defend the fabric of their organization. “This is a threat to religious identity. What we are losing is the right for organizations to make free choices,” he said Equality commissioners include the homosexual lobbyist, Ben Summerskill, the head of the leading British homosexualist activist group Stonewall. Summerskill has called for churches to be forced to employ homosexuals and for the police to stop Christians who were peacefully protesting against ‘gay rights’ laws outside Parliament. Tony Grew, a homosexualist activist and the former editor of PinkNews.co.uk, wrote recently that the Equality Bill will “entrench gay rights in all aspects of public life.” Grew wrote on PinkNews that the bill will open unprecedented opportunities for homosexuals. The bill, he said will cover central government departments, local authorities, education bodies, NHS bodies and the police service, plus a wide range of other public and private bodies, including churches and church-run institutions. It will impose the “Equality Duty” on all organizations providing public services, he said, such as residential care homes that “would have to consider the needs of same-sex couples.”

It’s very sad that the Catholic Church in Britain (and soon to be the whole Western world) will have to go underground to be true to its faith.  Many of us have been sounding the alarm bell for years, but people just wouldn’t listen or get involved.

We did our best, but it wasn’t good enough. 

I don’t care so much for myself.  Being 40, my life is half over, if I’m lucky.  It’s my kids and my grandchildren that I fear for.  They’ll have to practice their faith in secret, like fugitives and outcasts from society.  Because they will not bend the knee to the Gay god and accept the homosexual dogma, they will be punished for not adhering to the State religion. The Sexual Jihadists will be marching around the country kicking down doors and terrorizing people of faith with their “gay rights” laws. They’ll even setup their secret gay police and hire informants to ensure churches are following the new sexual guideliness mandated by the government. Kinda like what happened in the old Soviet and Nazi days.  (I wonder if this law will be strictly applied to the Mosques as well. This, I have to see.)

Freedom of association is dead in Britain.   If you are a Christian, you will not be able to associate publicly with other Christians in any sort of organized way without accepting the gay passport to do so.  The next step will be to expand the inquisition and imposition from Church building to individual Christian homes. After all, why should they stop at Churches, when they know where influential Christians live?

The sexual liberation of the 60s has turned into the sexual tyranny of the twenty-first century. And the really pathetic part of it is that most Christians are still asleep. Where have our leaders been — the bishops and other Christian leaders?

Please. Don’t get me started.  They’ve either been asleep, on drugs, or in the tank for the Lobby.

And as for the parents who still have no idea of what is about to befall them, they will find out soon enough at their kids’ future Sunday School class.  The teacher is going to be teaching them about how great it is to have two moms, and that a father is really not necessary in the end.  But then it will be too late. On reflection, it’s not difficult to understand how feminism paved the road for the homosexual take-over.  Demote the father and reduce his role to being a mere option among many.

You can think about this while you are waiting for the knock at the door and your arrest.

The Charge? 

Conducting unlawful religious activities without permission of the Sexual Secretariat.

Milk & KoolAid

Saturday, May 9th, 2009

Liberals pass resolution to end gay organ donor ban

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

At their convention in Vancouver this past weekend, Liberal Party delegates passed a resolution that supports lifting the ban on gay men from donating organs.

“Apparently it was a positive discussion, and it passed easily, so I was quite pleased about that,” says gay Toronto MP Rob Oliphant. “It seems to be a shift in the party in understanding that this is an issue of discrimination, not an issue of some trumped-up health issue.”….(Source)

Normally I would say this would be a great case for the courts, then I thought….not really.

Nobody is concerned with the facts.

So we all have to die because we won’t admit the truth about risky sex.

Remember, folks, sin makes you stupid.

When the Gay Jackboot Comes Knocking

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

April 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -Julio Severo, one of Brazil’s most prominent pro-life and pro-family activists, has fled Brazil to escape federal prosecutors who sought him following a complaint of “homophobia” filed against him for his unfavorable coverage of the nation’s Gay Parade in 2006, according to Severo.

Julio SeveroSevero states on his blog that federal prosecutors were seeking to obtain his address from the man responsible for his domain name in Brazil (http://www.juliosevero.com.br), who hired an attorney to defend his claim that he was not obligated to turn over the information.  However, their arguments were rejected.

“Therefore, faced with this absurdity, I was forced to leave the country with my family: a wife in the advanced stages of pregnancy and two little children,” Severo writes on his blog.  “We are now in a place that is completely foreign to us.  What choice did we have?” (see blog entry in English at http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/2009/03/julio-severo-aw…).

“If they wish to continue with their absurd acts against me for ‘homophobia,’ I state that I am no longer in Brazil. Leave my friends in peace,” adds Severo.

“At the same time, I am making another statement.  I will not be silenced.  The voice that God gave me will continue to be used to alert Brazil, whether I am in India, Kenya, Nicaragua, or any other country in the world.”

The term “homophobia” is used by homosexualist ideologues to refer to those who reject sodomy and other unhealthy practices common among homosexuals.  Although the term itself is meant to imply that the critic of homosexual behavior has an irrational fear of homosexuals, it is now treated as a crime in some nations, including Brazil….

I give pro-family activists in this country about 5 years or sooner before this happens here.  It fits hands and glove with the Rainbow jackboot suppression of free speech in this country.  I don’t know how anyone who advocates this kind of thuggery can have any self-respect. Their position must be very brittle indeed for them to stomp out a lone voice…unless of course what he says is…true.

We Fascist Bastards

Friday, February 13th, 2009

LOS ANGELES — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit against officials of the Los Angeles Community College District on Wednesday, Feb. 11, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit comes after a professor censored and threatened to expel a student following a speech about marriage and his Christian faith during an open-ended assignment in a public speaking class.“Christian students shouldn’t be penalized or discriminated against for speaking about their beliefs,” said ADF senior counsel David French. “Public institutions of higher learning cannot selectively censor Christian speech. This student was speaking well within the confines of his professor’s assignment when he was censored and ultimately threatened with expulsion.”On Nov. 24, 2008, Los Angeles City College speech professor John Matteson interrupted and ended Jonathan Lopez’s presentation mid-speech, calling him a “fascist bastard” in front of the class for speaking about his faith, which included reading the dictionary definition of marriage and reciting two Bible verses. Instead of allowing Lopez to finish, Matteson told the other students they could leave if they were offended. When no one left, Matteson dismissed the class. Refusing to grade the assigned speech, Matteson wrote on Lopez’s evaluation, “Ask God what your grade is.”

One week later, after seeing Lopez talking to the college’s dean of academic affairs, Matteson told Lopez that he would make sure he’d be expelled from school. Matteson’s treatment of Lopez during his speech follows an earlier incident in which Matteson told his entire class after the November election, “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist bastard.”

“Professor Matteson clearly violated Mr. Lopez’s free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and retaliation because he disagreed with the student’s religious beliefs,” said French. “When students are given open-ended assignments in a public speaking class, the First Amendment protects their ability to express their views. Moreover, the district has a speech code that has created a culture of censorship on campus. America’s public universities and colleges are supposed to be a ‘marketplace of ideas,’ not a hotbed of intolerance.”

ADF-allied attorney Sam Kim and attorney Michael Parker of the Buena Park firm Sam Kim and Associates APC, are serving as local counsel in the case. (Source)

Why are we pretending that we can live with the Left? I’m afraid that dark and violent times are ahead.

Chattel Children – The Sequel

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, despite the protests of their grandparents. The devastated grandparents were told they would never see the youngsters again unless they dropped their opposition.  The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old – at 46 and 59. For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict.

… 

When the grandparents eventually conceded defeat, they were assured by social workers that they would still have regular contact with them. The fostering arrangement worked well, but the council decided that the children should be adopted, to give them a permanent home. The grandparents agreed – as long as they could be assured that the adoptive parents would be a loving mother and father. The couple were then told an adoption had been arranged – but the grandfather ‘hit the roof’ when he discovered that the adoptive parents were two gay men.

… 

When they made their opposition clear, however, the couple were told that social workers would ‘certainly look’ at allowing them access to the children ‘when you are able to come back with an open mind on the issues’.  (Source)

I see the Gay Jackboot has turned it up a notch.  I wonder just how long people will continue to accept it.  Judging by how society is going, it looks like it will continue for a long time until society collapses under its inequity.

Hold on to your kids, friends, and file this one under the “Duh…how does same-sex “marriage” affect me?” file. 

7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case. (Source)

Conversions to Heterosexuality: Secular Humanism’s Heresy

Sunday, January 25th, 2009

SANREMO, ITALY, January 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Italian singer Giuseppe Povia is making waves in Italy with his new song recounting the conversion of a homosexual to heterosexuality.

The piece, which is to be performed for the first time at the Sanremo Festival in Sanremo, Italy on February 21, tells the true story of Luca di Tolve, a young man who recently spoke of his conversion in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale.

Tolve attributes his former homosexuality to the divorce of his parents during his childhood, when his father left. “I remained alone in a feminine environment, playing with dolls. It is a mistake to believe that people are born gay,” he said in the interview.  “You fall in love with a man because that is what you would have wanted to be.”

 That might be the most devastatingly true statement you will ever hear about homosexuality.

“Homosexuals experience a frenetic emotional nomadism,” he went on to say.  “It is understandable, like anyone, they look for something different from themselves. If in the other they find only something similar, the relationship can’t be more than fleeting and compulsive.  Stability and fidelity can’t exist in the gay world.”

Povia stated last December that he has converted two homosexual friends to heterosexuality, both of whom are now married, and said that “one is not born homosexual, but is converted to it.”   He is also known to have participated in the 2007 Family Day in Rome, organized to defend the right to life and family values.

Heretic! Heretic! Call the Rainbow police! We are mightily offended! Call the Human Rights Commission! Call the Hate Crimes Unit!  There ought to be a law!  Fine them. Imprison them. Shut them up! 

Homosexual activists, enraged by Tolve’s account and Povia’s song, have accused Tolve of lying, and have begun a Facebook account to bring together those who wish to prevent Povia from singing at the Sanremo Festival.  The organization “Arcigay” has reportedly threatened to disrupt the event.

In addition, European Parliament Deputy Vittorio Agnoleto has reportedly presented the case to the European Court of Human Rights and has asked the Parliament to review the song, claiming that its lyrics constitute a violation of the rights of homosexuals.

Like there’s such a big surprise here at the Rainbow Crowd’s reaction, eh?   How can this movement survive beyond the foreseeable future when it is so brittle and weak that it cannot withstand even the mildest criticism or rejection?  Homosexualism is the most protected and fascist sexual movement ever.

Sex Addicts Despise Catholic Church for Her Teachings

Monday, January 19th, 2009

San Francisco Set to Tax Catholic Church Millions in Suspected Prop 8 Retaliation

By Kathleen Gilbert

SAN FRANCISCO, January 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A San Francisco assessor has called for the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco to hand over $15 million in taxes because of an internal restructuring of the archdiocese, a move that some are describing as “retaliation” for the Church’s opposition to Proposition 8.

Assessor Phil Ting concluded that the Catholic Church owed the city taxes after the archdiocese was restructured and its property, which is almost all used by parish facilities, was consolidated seven months ago.

“Because we knew the accusations (of unfair treatment) could be out there, we worked to look at every single document so we could totally and completely understand their argument,” Ting said. “We looked at all the various exemptions that could have been applied, and we felt that none of them were applicable in this case. That meant it was our determination that this was a taxable event.”

Ting claimed that because the restructuring involved “separate legal entities,” it was “not just a cosmetic” change and therefore liable to be taxed.

The archdiocese immediately filed legal action and questioned the precedent for Ting’s decision.

“San Francisco Recorder Phil Ting has taken a step that is unprecedented in the history of the state of California. He has determined that an internal reorganization of church property, within the family of corporations of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, constitutes a ’sale’ and is subject to a property transfer tax,” archdiocese spokesman Maurice Healy told the San Francisco Chronicle.

“A tax on transfers of property, all owned by the Catholic Church, within the same family of Archdiocesan corporations, is unprecedented in the history of the state of California and the law is overwhelmingly in our favor on this subject,” said Healy.

Many are decrying the move as retaliation for the church’s support of California’s same-sex “marriage” ban, as pro-homosexual “marriage” San Francisco residents and politicians have made no secret of their ire at the Catholic Church and other religious groups for supporting Proposition 8. 

“This is fishy at the least and evil at the most,” Randy Thomasson of California’s Campaign for Children and Families told LifeSiteNews.com.  “Phil Ting is doing to the Catholic Church what has not been done in other venues, taking away the Church’s tax-exempt status in regards to property.”

Thomasson said that Ting, “who went head to head with the Catholic church over marriage between a man and a woman … is aiming his rifles … right at the Catholic Church, and this is something that a higher court should be more just in its analysis.”

The call to tax the Catholic and Mormon churches, which helped propel Prop 8 fundraising and campaigning, became a mantra of same-sex “marriage” supporters ever since the amendment passed in November.

During the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast last year, which was attended by Archbishop Niederauer, Mayor Gavin Newsom lambasted the Catholic Church and the archdiocese for their support for Proposition 8. The crowd reportedly responded with a standing ovation – minus the archbishop and a handful of other religious leaders.

Jack Smith of the Catholic Key blog suggested that Ting, who at a No on 8 rally declared he was “proud” to have signed several same-sex “marriage” certificates, had political motives for the aggressive move. 

“Any clear-eyed observer might view this action by Ting, who’s rumored to want the Mayor’s chair after Newsom, as pandering to the anti-Catholic sentiment of voters in San Francisco,” said Smith.  

Most people in North America and Europe do not go to church anymore and have no real loyalty or concern about the survival of Christianity. Many have deep-seated anger and even hatred of Christianity for a number of reasons, not least of which is its moral teachings on sex. The “secular” West is really largely made up of ex-Christians or person’s of Christian background rebelling against their heritage. That reality helps explain the contradiction in their intolerance toward Christianity and yet their pandering tolerance of Islam; their indifference to the sufferings of persecuted Christians around the world but their seeming concern about the Falun Gong in China and Muslims in Darfur. So the idea of destroying the Church is not beyond them. Years ago someone asked me when I thought the persecution might intensify in our country (we were talking about the clamour to remove the churches’ tax exempt status among other things). I said it would possibly happen after the older generation of church-goers is gone. They will not do it while they are around – it is their parents and grandparents after all. The secular Boomers may not love the Church but they may love their parents and grandparents – just blame a lot of the conflict between them on the odious beliefs their parents grew up with, due to that damnable Christianity. But after they’re gone… Well we are getting pretty close to there. The only thing that might save us is the Boomers are aging and diminishing in numbers themselves (yet are currently the movers and shakers in our society) while many of the immigrants filling the void are practicing Christians. The immigrants do have a high fall-off rate but those practicing the faith still represents a significant number. This may soften some of the more overt forms of persecution but make financial assaults more attractive. High litigation settlements for various scandals and loss of tax-exempt status are just two of the ways this can be done. – Fr. Elijah

Rainbow Terror Raining Down on Young & Old

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

Not content with going after the children and demanding conformity to The Agenda, the Rainbow Jackboots have turned their attention to the elderly people.

I remember telling people when I ran in the 2006 Federal Election as the only Federal candidate in defense of Traditional Marriage in Ottawa West Nepean: this will mean the end of freedom. It will also mean the advancement of the objectivization of women. 

The former has already begun while the latter is about to start.  How ironic that feminism’s power play with the Gay Jackboot is leading it to being the defacto advocate for the enslavement of women.

How will same-sex “marriage” affect you?

Now you know.

The Church & Persons Inflicted with Homosexual Tendencies

Saturday, January 3rd, 2009

by Fr. Elijah

OUTLINE

1. What is Homosexuality?

2. What is the Cause of Homosexuality?
a) Nature
b) Nurture
c) Evaluation
d) Reparative Therapy

3. What is Church’s Teaching on Homosexuality?
a) Bible
b) Tradition
c) Natural Law
d) Catechism of the Catholic Church

4. The Response of the Homosexual Person to his State

5. The Response of other Christians to the Homosexual Person.

6. The Female Homosexual

7. Some Current Issues:

A) Gay Rights Movement
(I) Language
a) “Gay”
b) “Homophobe”
II) “Outing”
(III) AIDS & Other Health Risks
(IV) Homosexual (Teen) Suicide

B) The Law
I) Homosexual Rights
II) Hate, Violence and Discrimination
(III) Marriage
(IV) Child Adoption
(V) Pedophilia/Ephebophilia

8. Conclusion

____________________________________________

1. What is Homosexuality?

Several decades ago homosexuality was rarely mentioned in polite society. It was viewed as too perverse or sinful to be discussed. The stigma against homosexuality still made it, in the famous words of Oscar Wilde at his trial, “the love that dares not speak its name.” Then things began to change. The subject was first popularly broached in the 1940s, through the seemingly scientific research of Alfred Kinsey, who announced that homosexuality was much more prevalent than commonly believed. In the 1950s it became a subject (especially lesbianism) for adult pulp novels. With the sexual revolution and the minority rights movements of the 1960-70s homosexual rights groups began to organize publicly calling for a change in people’s attitudes and in the law. In the 1980s the AIDS epidemic elicited an immediate and compassionate response from many quarters of society to the plight of the active homosexual. Now, homosexuality and the gay lifestyle have entered into mainstream culture via court fiats, media exposure, and growing public acceptance. Needless to say the Christian response to homosexuality has become an extremely important and yet sensitive and politicized issue. Who is a homosexual person? Definitions vary widely. Homosexuality is a term used to describe the psychosexual attraction of a person to others of the same sex. The first half of the word comes from the Greek word “homos” meaning the same. The word “homosexual” can refer to men or women, although female homosexuals are often referred to as lesbians (from the islandof Lesbos, on which the Greek poetess Sappho lived with her disciples). The term “homosexual” may describe a tendency or behaviour covering a wide spectrum from the most temporary and minor inclinations of teenagers and young adults to permanent, exclusive, and deeply rooted patterns of homosexual preference in mature adults. It is this latter type that is most commonly meant by the term. The Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to homosexuality as relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. This is what we will mean by the term in this talk. Homosexual orientation may be said to include not only one’s overt physical attraction for members of one’s own sex but also the fantasy life that has preceded it for years. It is commonly accepted that this inclination is not consciously willed by the person and is sometimes not even recognized by them.

A caution must be made here at the very beginning. Although sexuality is inherent in all aspects of life, and has a sublime role in God’s plans, human motivation and activity should not be explained entirely on the basis of sexuality. Therefore the label “homosexual” is an inadequate description of human persons. While we are profoundly influenced by our sexual identity and propensities we are nonetheless more than them. Homosexual behaviour, of course, is not something new. Arlo Karlen’s historical and biographical overview (Sexuality and Homosexuality, 1971) gives sufficient evidence to conclude that homosexuality has existed in all places and times and has even appears to have flourished in some periods (such as the classical Greece and Renaissance Italy). He does note, however, that exclusively homosexual behaviour was generally viewed negatively and could be punished severely in some societies. If homosexual acts were accepted, it was only in special situations or at certain times in life. For example, Eastern Mediterranean and Sumerian peoples worshipped deities whose religious rites included both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse. In classic Greek society, where the status of women was very low, a separate male culture existed that included older males mentoring adolescent boys, with some acceptable homosexual activity. Yet, again, in Greece the exclusive homosexual was generally considered laughable and despicable.

The APA’s Declassification of Homosexuality as a Disorder

In 1973 American Psychiatric Association’s decided to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a pathology. This has done much to promote the idea of the normalcy of homosexuality. However, its removal was not done in an impartial, scientific manner. It was very much a political decision made under pressure. During the early 1970s, gay activists had made a number of disruptive demonstrations at professional meetings, placing considerable pressure on psychiatrists to revise their designation of homosexuality as a disorder treatable by psychiatry. In 1973, the board of the American Psychiatric Association voted to change the classification of homosexuality in its DSMD Manual. Members of the APA who specialized in treating homosexuals protested the board’s decision, but immediately before a general referendum on the issue, a letter went out in the name of the board, urging APA members not to reverse the board’s decision. It was not known until after the vote that this letter was in fact written and paid for by the National Gay Task Force. Only about one third of APA members voted in the referendum but the final tally upheld the board’s decision to reclassify homosexuality. The 1973 decision was based not on any advance in scientific or medical knowledge. It occurred instead as a result of successful gay lobbying and a considerable body of psychological data on homosexuality was dismissed as no longer relevant. In 1977, four years after the politically motivated change in definition, a survey of 2,500 psychiatrists on “current thinking on homosexuality” revealed that 69% still believed that “homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation,” with only 18% opposing that view (13% were undecided). Thus, it seemed that the APA took a position contrary to the majority view of the field it purports to represent (see H. Lief, “Sexual Survey #4: Current Thinking On Homosexuality,” Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, Vol. 11). However, with time professionals do adapt their viewpoints. In a 1995 American study it was reported that 47.3% of psychiatric training directors polled viewed homosexuality as normal or somewhat normal, 51.2% view homosexuality as neutral, and 1.5% view it as somewhat pathological or pathological (Mark Townsend, “Gay and Lesbian Issues in U.S. Psychiatry Training as Reported by Residency Training Directors,” Academic Psychiatry 1995). There is much controversy, as in so many areas of this subject, as to the percentage of any given population that is truly homosexual. It was Alfred Kinsey’s famous 1948 report, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, that first claimed about ten percent of the American male population was homosexual (over a period of at least three years — four percent for those exclusively homosexual over many years) and that as many as 37% of the male population had had at least one homosexual experience in their lifetime. The one-in-ten ratio has become commonly accepted even though no study since 1960 has data supporting this number. Kinsey’s study was criticized in his own day and later investigation found it profoundly flawed. Kinsey used volunteers rather than randomly chosen participants. One of Kinsey’s colleagues admitted in a 1972 book that coaching was common in collecting the data (Wardell Promeroy, Dr. Kinsey And the Institute for Sex Research, 1972). Kinsey also used a grossly non-typical study population. His volunteers included male and female prostitutes and pimps. Most disturbing was his heavy use of criminals: 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent). Many of them were convicted sex offenders. This is a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods and personal character, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel, 1990). Recent and more scientifically accurate studies done since 1987 in England, France, Norway, and the United States, each show the incidence of exclusive homosexuality falls consistently between one and two percent of the male population and about half that of the female population.

Recent Surveys

National Statistics found that of the 8000 men included in the random sampling only one percent of the men said that they were exclusively homosexual. Another one per cent indicated that they were bisexual. A 1991 nationwide survey of 19,000 adults found that 1.4 per cent of men aged 16 to 59 had homosexual contact in the previous five years, Herald Sun, January 22,1994. See also Forman, D., British Medical Journal, 1989, Vol. 298, pp. 1137- 1142, where a study of 480 white males aged between 15 to 49 disclosed that only 1.7 per cent had had homosexual intercourse. A 1992 French government study of over 20,000 adults found that 1.4 per cent of men and 0.4 per cent of women had had homosexual intercourse in the five years preceding the survey. A nationwide 1987 Norwegian poll found 1.8 per cent had had homosexual experience within the previous three years. An American study by the National Opinion Research Centre, University of Chicago, Feb. 1989 found that less than 1.2 per cent of the surveyed males and females reported homosexual activity. The Alan Guttmacher Institute published in Family Planning Perspectives (March/April 1993) found less than 2% of males had experienced a homosexual relationship in the past ten years and only 1% had exclusively homosexual relationships. Four separate national surveys conducted in the United States in 1970, 1988, 1989 and 1990 by the National Opinion Research Center (total 7,408 subjects) came up with an aggregated incidence of 1.8% who had male-to-male sex during the previous year, with 3.3% percent reporting that they experienced male-to-male sexual contact “occasionally” or “fairly often” as adults, and 5-7% in a lifetime have had a homosexual encounter. Less than 0.5% of the population “go both ways” (bisexual) in a given year. Source: Robert Fay et al., “Prevalence and Patterns of Same-Gender Contact Among Men,” Science 243 (January 20,1989): 338-48: S.M. Rogers and C.F. Turner, “Male-Male Sexual Contact in the U.S.A.: Findings from Five Sample Surveys, 1970-1990, Journal of Sex Research, November 28, 1991: 491-519. Tom Stoddard, a leader in the gay rights movement, admitted to Newsweek in February 1993, “We used that figure (10 percent) when most gay people were entirely hidden to try to create an impression of our numerousness.”

Read remainder here.

Doggin it in Public

Wednesday, November 26th, 2008

A mother shocked by seeing two half-naked men having sex while out walking the dogs with her daughter was told by police to take a different route in future.

Marie Cragg, 44, spoke of her disgust at the officers’ reaction and said she feared the woodland beauty spot would be turned into a no-go area for ordinary members of the public.

The men seen by Miss Cragg and her 18-year-old daughter Jessica were stripped from the waist down and carried on with their activities even after they knew they had been spotted.

…’They saw me and didn’t care and just carried on. I could have been a childminder with kids. I would rather go past a gang of hoodies  -  they are making the place seedy.’

But Mr Cunningham, who is also a spokesman on homosexual issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, argues that offenders should only be prosecuted as a last resort because of the potential impact on their lives of making their activities public.

Miss Cragg, who also has a 21-year-old daughter and a 15-year-old son with her partner, said police already seemed too tolerant.

It is the second time this year she has caught a pair of gay men having sex in the area, which is near a primary school.

‘When it happened again I just said to Jessica, ‘Oh my God!’,’ she added.

 (Source)

Lighten up, Lady.  It’s all about freedom and sexual identity. And who in their right minds could be against that? Didn’t I see you at the last year’s gay pride parade downtown?  Didn’t you vote for the liberal politician?  Don’t you want to teach your children to be inclusive?

Genderism: Our New Heresy

Tuesday, November 25th, 2008

Modern Catholic apologetics is often associated with historical questions or scriptural exegesis. Theological questions such as justification, the role of the Bible in the Christian Church, and the nature of Church authority, for instance, remain very common and popular topics today in discussions between Protestants and Catholics.

In the early Church, too, theological battles were very common as competing sides fought over the famous christological and mariological issues of the time. The Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, His human and divine natures and wills, the virginity of Mary and her identity as theotokos were all hotly-contested theological controversies fought and won by the Catholic Church.
Needless to say, theological controversies among Christians and between Christians and non-Christians will exist until the Second Coming of Christ when they will be, thankfully, settled once and for all. While these disagreements are still very important in the religious realm, their relevance in the current culture war has fundamentally changed.In the past, the attacks on the Catholic Faith came through the aforementioned theological questions. Today, while these attacks still remain — and in some cases have even intensified — they have been upstaged somewhat by a new and pernicious menace. The new heresy, which some are now calling “Genderism,” seeks to recreate man away from his divine origin into a mere human invention.The war being waged in our modern culture is over this very question. The major issues of today — abortion, contraception, euthanasia, divorce, invitro-fertilization, cloning, stem-cell research, and same-sex “marriage” — all involve, at some fundamental level, a direct attack on the dignity and image of the human person as created by Almighty God. This conflict is particularly heated in the case of so-called “gender-identity” issues in which proponents of radical feminism or gay “marriage” have tried to argue that gender is mutable.

The Church rejects this position as a perversion of God’s revelation concerning man and his nature. The Church teaches that in man, God created one human nature with two distinct and complementary relational expressions of that nature. These expressions, what we know as “male” and “female,” are not merely tangential or incidental characteristics of our human nature, but are intrinsic and fundamental to it.

We know this to be true because this relational expression is reflected in the physiological features of the male and female bodies which, although sharing the same flesh (Cf. Gn 2:23), are nonetheless distinct from one another in their physical appearance. The physiological composition of the male and female bodies — far from being incidental or transitory — is a reflection of a person’s inner psychological nature. A man’s genitalia, for instance, shows him that his human nature is expressed as a male with all of the attendant traits of masculinity which flow from it. The characteristics corresponding to masculinity naturally engender him to assume a certain role in relation to a female who, corresponding to her phsyiology, has a different yet complementary psychology.

The male and female cannot insist on playing the same role in their relationship with one another for the simple reason that their human natures are not precisely the same, at least insofar as the expression of that nature is concerned. It would be analogous to a nut and bolt wanting to fulfill the same function in the operation of a mechanical device. If they both insisted on doing so, the machine would break down. And this is precisely what has happened to marriage in the latter part of the twentieth century. Similarly, gay “marriage” advocates fail to realize that two nuts or two bolts will also fail to work because the intimacy required for success in coupling success demands complementarity, not uniformity.

The clamor for gay “marriage” and the push for the legitimacy of gay sex is rooted in radical feminism’s blurring of the unique and distinct personalities inherent in the male and female sexes. Radical feminism and the “gay rights” agenda are nothing more than two sides of the same coin, much like communism and materialist capitalism are rooted in the same philosophical system which sees man as a mere commodity, either of the state (communism) or of himself or another (capitalism).

As the distinction between men and women becomes more distorted, their traditional roles within the family unit are likewise further confused. With the advent of contraception and the widespread acceptance of sterility, this confusion has logically led to the acceptance of same-sex unions. When women relinquish their fertility and assumed the roles traditionally filled by men, they give up much of what expresses their distinction from men so that, in men’s eyes, they become functionally little different than other men. This has led to the acceptance of homosexuality in popular culture.

In his letter dealing with the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church, Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) stressed the unique and irreplaceable elements of both sexes and notes that being male and female is an immutable expression of the human person. He writes:

Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions. It cannot be reduced to a pure and insignificant biological fact, but rather is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love. This capacity to love — reflection and image of God who is Love — is disclosed in the spousal character of the body, in which the masculinity or femininity of the person is expressed. (”Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World,” [8]

The very capacity to love, the Pope says, is expressed through the “spousal character of the body.” In other words, if masculinity is not tied to the male body or femininity to the female body, as the Church’s opponents claim, then people will discover that their capacity to love will be obscured and gravely wounded. Genderism has sought to create a contradiction between the “spirit” (i.e. the relational expression of sexual differences) and the “flesh” (i.e. physical expression of sexual difference). This false dichtomy between the spirit and the flesh is but another dimension of the first century heresy known as Gnosticism. Instead of declaring flesh “evil” like the early Gnostics did, however, the new Gnostics merely designate the flesh as arbitrary and divorce its masculine or feminine traits from their psychological counterparts.His Holiness also rightly points out that human nature itself cannot be sterile, and because of that, it requires a relational dimension to its existence:

Formed by God and placed in the garden which he was to cultivate, the man, who is still referred to with the generic expression Adam, experienced a loneliness which the presence of the animals is not able to overcome. He needs a helpmate who will be his partner. The term here does not refer to an inferior, but to a vital helper. This is so that Adam’s life does not sink into a sterile and, in the end, baneful encounter with himself. It is necessary that he enter into relationship with another being on his own level. Only the woman, created from the same “flesh” and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man. It is therefore above all on the ontological level that this takes place, in the sense that God’s creation of woman characterizes humanity as a relational reality. (Ibid., 6)

The document goes on to further explain that this “relational reality” is not merely a static, detached relationship, but rather a relationship which rises to the level of interdependence: “In the unity of the two,” the Pope writes, “man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist ’side by side’ or ‘together,’ but they are also called to exist mutually ‘one for the other’…. The text of Genesis 2:18-25 shows that marriage is the first and, in a sense, the fundamental dimension of this call” (Ibid., 6).Indeed, this teaching on the relational reality of both sexes being called to exist mutually for the other points to a fundamental truth of the limitation and interdependence of either sex. In its natural expression, man cannot propagate the human race alone. He needs, as the Bible says, a “helpmate.” With this realization, man recognizes that he is limited and finite. His dependence on his wife is a reminder of his greater reliance on God Himself who is the infinite and unlimited source of life.In contrast to this, the opposing feminist-gay world view does not believe that both partners exist mutually for the other. In feminism, a woman is not dependent on a man. She is independent of him and merely relates to a man as she pleases. She uses him as a commodity to fulfill her base, materialistic pleasures (and he uses her). Similarly, under the homosexual rubric, there is no context of existing “for the other” since the relationship’s physiology does not correspond to this language. In fact, the physiological language of gay sex points in the opposite direction, where the participants are attempting to join two uniform expressions of the same nature, and therefore, on an ontological level, seek to exist for “themselves.” This is why gay relationships are so unstable — because there is no inherent sense of “existing for the other” as there is in a normal heterosexual marriage.According to the Book of Genesis, the human person is revealed to be made in the very image of God: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gn 1:27). In the account of creation, not only does God reveal to us that man’s image is a reflection of the divine essence, but we learn that in creating man, God created one image with two distinct expressions of that image. These two distinct expressions of our human nature are as important to Christian theology as the two natures in Christ’s person. Indeed, the modern attack on these two expressions is a form of gender “Monophysitism” — the sixth-century heresy which sought to reduce Jesus’s two natures to only one. In the same way, radical feminism has sought to blur and even negate the distinction between the male and female expressions in human nature.While feminism began in response to legitimate grievances to promote prospects for equality of women, it has evolved a new theory of the human person in an effort to seek liberation from ”biological determinism.” In its latest stages, it has inspired ideologies which call into question the family in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent — what the Pope called “a new model of polymorphous sexuality.”Indeed, the central question of our time concerns authentic human dignity and how it is defined. On the one hand, secular culture views man’s intrinsic nature as malleable and replaceable. The culture’s materialistic and consumerist philosophy has translated the human person into a mere product of consumption. Since the human body itself can be harvested, destroyed, or manipulated to serve selfish and perverse ends, the physical characteristics that are specific to either gender are consequently seen as tentative and optional.The Church, in opposition to this lethal view, upholds the sanctity and inalienable constitution of the human person and believes that there can be no separation between the physical characteristics of the human body with the associated psychological and spiritual elements of it. In other words, male genitalia must correspond to a male psychology. This is why, as Cardinal, the Pope highlighted the fact that “male and female are thus revealed as belonging ontologically to creation and destined therefore to outlast the present time, evidently in a transfigured form. In this way, they characterize the ‘love that never ends’ (1 Cor 13:8), although the temporal and earthly expression of sexuality is transient and ordered to a phase of life marked by procreation and death” (Ibid., 12).

In God’s infinite love for us He became “one of us” at His incarnation. This incarnation represents the sacramental dimension which vivifies the teaching that man is created in the image of God. God fulfilled this teaching by showing man that not only would God Himself become man to save him, but also that man’s destiny is to partake in God’s own divine nature (Cf. 2 Pt 1:4). At the moment of the Incarnation, when the divine person of the Son of God assumed a human nature, human nature itself was sanctified. Through baptism we become united mysteriously with Christ’s divine nature. Jesus has therefore united Himself to all men through His incarnation and His baptismal marriage to us, and therefore any attack on man becomes an attack on God Himself.

As the current culture war continues to rage, all of the Church’s efforts to combat the culture of death must be brought forward. To defeat this ominous threat to mankind’s existence, Christians must learn to cooperate with one another despite our theological differences. We must work towards a common “life ethic” which can serve as a unifying beacon of light and a common front against an increasingly darkened and hostile world. When the boat is sinking, there is no time to fight over who is manning the helm. The important thing is to get to work and start bailing.

John Pacheco
November 2, 2004

Gay Brownshirts on the March

Saturday, November 22nd, 2008

Against a Christian dating service here.

Against a Christian author here.

Against Christian doctors here.

See a pattern?  Where ever there is totalitarianism, the gay agenda is doing the stomping and the victims are almost always Christian.  Not a week goes by without these stories. It’s a way of life now. It’s become normalized.  And it shows how utterly corrupt liberals are. They can’t even uphold their own libertarian principles of “free speech” which they clamored for during the 60s.

But, you know, the question was raised: how could Gay Marriage possibly affect me?

Now you know the answer. It was never about marriage. It was about normalization of the act and the imposition of its acceptance into every strata of our society.

Angry Gay Mob Attacks Christians

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A mob of homosexuals sexually and physically assaulted a group of Christians praying together in the city’s Castro District last week, in apparent retaliation for the recent defeat of homosexual marriage in California. The Christians, a group of Evangelical Protestants who regularly go to the predominantly homosexual Castro District to sing songs and pray with passers-by, say they were holding hands and singing “Amazing Grace” when a angry mob began to shove and kick them, steal their belongings, pour hot coffee on their faces, and sexually assault them….

Prepare for more “tolerance” from the militant gay community as the Obama years enfold.

I seriously doubt if the West is going to be able to survive.  Civil unrest and “no go” areas will be commonplace.  Of course, the “no go” areas will be restricted to Christians. Gay brownshirts will not stop at crashing Church services.

Get ready, folks, it’s going to be a rough ride. 
 

Swedish leftist: Compel pastors to conduct same-sex marriages

Monday, November 17th, 2008

Even as Swedish politicians debate legalisation of same-sex “marriages”, the leader of a leftist party wants recalcitrant pastors forced to violate their consciences.

As Sweden moves closer to a same-sex marriage law, Left Party leader Lars Ohly wants to include a provision to force pastors to wed gay couples.

According to Ohly, the gender neutral marriage law currently under consideration is only a first step.
[…]
“In the long run it’s inappropriate to be allow discrimination like this. We don’t think that someone should be allowed to refuse to wed same-sex couples.”

If Ohly has his way, a pastor who says no to marrying a gay couple would lose the right to perform wedding ceremonies.

By implication, Mr Ohly does not think freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are important. It’s simpler to force everyone to conform to the will of the state. So much for that tolerance stuff.

H/T Nova Scotia Scott 

Pepsi Promoting Gay Agenda

Monday, November 17th, 2008

This is not too smart.  McDonald’s tried to ignore the American Family Association too and look what happened to them. 

PepsiCo gives $500,000 to promote the gay agenda in workplace

Company ignores two requests from AFA to discuss Pepsi’s support of gay groups.

Take Action!

  • E-mail Chairman Indra K. Nooyi. Tell her that you expect Pepsi to stop supporting the gay agenda.
  • After sending your e-mail, please call Pepsi (914-253-2000) (800-960-3602) and ask the company to remain neutral in the culture war.
  • Forward this e-mail to your friends and family so they will know about Pepsi’s support of the gay agenda.

Pepsi’s products include Pepsi soft drinks, Frito-Lay chips (800-352-4477), Quaker Oats (800-367-6287), Tropicana (800-237-7799) and Gatorade (800-367-6287).




















November 14, 2008

Dear Guy,Pepsi has given Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) a half-million dollars to help push the homosexual agenda in the workplace. PFLAG is a political advocacy group that promotes radical homosexual political causes like same-sex marriage, hate-crime laws, and gay adoption.Pepsi has a long tradition of financial support for homosexual groups. According to Jacqueline Millan, director of PepsiCo Corporate Contributions, “We are delighted to continue our partnership with PFLAG…(in) promoting the necessary message of inclusion to untapped groups…and that is a crucial step toward building a healthy working environment.”Despite the fact that 30 states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, Pepsi continues to support the efforts by same-sex groups pushing for homosexual marriage.AFA wrote Pepsi on October 14 and again on October 29 asking the company to remain neutral in the culture war. Pepsi didn’t care enough to respond to the AFA letters. Pepsi’s lack of response indicates the company plans to continue support for the homosexual agenda.

CRTC forces Shaw to Carry Gay/Lesbian Channel

Thursday, November 6th, 2008

Coming to a cable package near you

Good News/Bad News

Friday, October 10th, 2008

The Good News….

AFA ends boycott: McDonald’s agrees to changes

October 9, 2008

Dear Robert,

Great news! Because of AFA supporters like you, McDonald’s has told AFA they will remain neutral in the culture war regarding homosexual marriage. AFA is ending the boycott of McDonald’s. As you know, AFA called for the boycott in May after McDonald’s joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

McDonald’s said McDonald’s Vice President Richard Ellis has resigned his position on the board of NGLCC and that his seat on the board will not be replaced. McDonald’s also said that the company has no plans to renew their membership in NGLCC when it expires in December.

In an e-mail to McDonald’s franchised owners the company said, “It is our policy to not be involved in political and social issues. McDonald’s remains neutral on same sex marriage or any ‘homosexual agenda’ as defined by the American Family Association.”

We appreciate the decision by McDonald’s to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organizations. You might want to thank your local McDonald’s manager.

The Bad News…

 

The homes of 30 Christians were burned in the eastern Indian state of Orissa on Wednesday night, according to a UCA News report. Christian leaders urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to exercise his constitutional prerogative to dismiss the state government; the prime minister told them he would soon visit victims of the Orissa violence.