Throwing out any pretense of being neutral in the culture war, McDonald’s has taken up the rhetoric of gay activists, suggesting those who oppose same-sex marriage (SSM) are motivated by hate.

The American Family Association has asked for a boycott of McDonald’s restaurants because of the company’s promotion of the gay agenda. AFA asked McDonald’s to remain neutral in the culture war. McDonald’s refused.

In response to the boycott, McDonald’s spokesman Bill Whitman suggested to the Washington Post that those who oppose SSM are motivated by hate, saying "…hatred has no place in our culture." McDonald’s has decided to adopt the "hate" theme used by gay activist groups for years.

Whitman went on to say, "We stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment." Mr. Whitman has intentionally avoided addressing the reason for the boycott. This boycott is not about hiring gays or how gay employees are treated. It is about McDonald’s choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting their agenda. (emphasis added) Read the rest of this entry »

By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

Read the rest here: http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html

Clement Attlee became Prime Minister after a huge victory swept Winston Churchill from office in 1945.  When asked what his predecessor’s contribution to winning WWII was, Attlee made an odd but actually quite insightful response.  He replied that Churchill talked about it.  Of course many factors went into the push for victory over the long dreary years — but verbal communication was of paramount importance.

My friends in Changing Attitude (CA) must operate along similar lines.  One of their primary strategies has been precisely  this:  to talk about their gayness until we all become so bored of,  uncomfortable with, confused by or guilt-ridden about the whole subject that we concede defeat with a ‘whatever’ and corporately decide we can move on to more uplifting, positive and productive topics.  My American gay ‘gurus’ explain how this dynamic functions:    ‘Application of the keep-talking principle can get people to the shoulder-shrug stage … That impression (that homosexuality is commonplace) is essential, because, as noted (earlier) the acceptability of any new behavior ultimately hinges on the proportion of one’s fellows accepting or doing it (emphasis added).  One may be offended by its novelty at first …  But as long as the behavior remains popular and Joe Sixpack feels neither physically nor financially threatened by it … he soon gets used to it, and life goes on.  The conservative may still shake his head and think. "People are crazy these days",  but in time his objections will become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional.’ 

And how to reach this for-some desirable state, according to my experts?  One of the primary ways is through ‘talking’.  Again, I quote my authors: ’The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome’ (italics theirs).  This material comes from After the Ball:  How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Doubleday, 1989) pp. 177-178.  And a brief comment on the title:  though my authors were too optimistic in their timing, their stategy was perfection itself. They are keen observers of how people function and they know how to effect change. Is there any wonder CA is so insistent upon the importance of the ’Listening Process’ for all? 

However, every now and then, things are shown for what they in essence are - the talk gives way to the realities which stand behind and fuel and motivate it. For many this ‘Reality Therapy’ is deeply uncomfortable and confusing, because they are still operating with modes, models and views largely drawn from the situations of the late 1990s/early 2000s.  Some Anglicans now discuss CoE dioceses with a strong gay priest presence - some openly partnered, others openly gay sans a partner.  Some Anglicans are aware of Rowan Williams’ private celebration of the Eucharist last November with 80 or so LGBT CoE clergy and their partners in London at a CA event.  However, for the most part, things have been so carefully stage-managed that people have not become corporately aware of the immensity of social and moral change enveloping their worlds and which, if they but knew, would worry them hugely.  Most are not psychologically ready to see the marital paradigm of The Bride and Groom be altered to that of Two Grooms (or Two Brides, for that matter — and Polys are even further behind, with their non-binary relationships of three+ Brides and/or Grooms).  This is one of the reasons why London’s gay ‘wedding’ is so important.  While it is discouraging that as StandFirm notes, the Bride was missing because there was one Groom too many, this famous/almost infamous event may serve as a wake-up call for some.   Read the rest of this entry »

Though this analysis is controversial in parts, the author has honed in on some important truth which in my opinion is hard to deny. The ‘proof of the pudding’ in relation to key aspects is found now almost daily in the news; whether people are aware or not is quite another matter. But I highlight this as well because of the many and significant similarities to TEC, its ethos, dynamic, and mode of operation. As you read this echoes of TEC are clearly heard. Deja vu! 

‘Another issue on which Radicals and Liberals part ways is the question of tolerance. For the Conservative, tolerance means allowing other people to speak their minds even when you believe they are wrong. For Conservatives people have rights, but opinions have no rights. It is perfectly acceptable to criticize foolish and dangerous opinions and to believe that you are right and other people are wrong. Liberals are also for tolerance, but they tend to fall into moral relativism. Liberals believe that not only are all people equal, all opinions are equal. They don’t actually believe this, what they really believe is that moral relativism is the only truth, and anyone who believes that it is possible to make judgments is dogmatic, bigoted, or narrow minded.

Radicals, when they are not in power, vociferously defend their right to freedom of speech, and scream intolerance when, after they have been allowed to speak, someone criticizes their extreme statements. However, when in power Radicals shut down the speech of anyone who disagrees with them. If they don’t have the outright power to censor, they send out goon squads to scream, bang pans, and threaten to riot in order to assure that no voice but their own is heard. We see this occurring in universities that used to be bastions of Liberalism, but have fallen under the control of the Radicals. While persons with extreme Radical views are hired and receive tenure, Liberals who question Radicalism are marginalized, and Conservatives are banned outright. Conservative speakers are denied the opportunity to speak - they are either not invited to speak or are shouted down when they try to speak.

The Radical Takeover of the Democrat Party

By Dale O’Leary  June 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Democrat party is in the midst of a great battle and while the pundits recognize that something is going on, none of them seem willing or able to explain the nature of the conflict. At root, the battle is a battle between Liberals and Radicals.

Take the issue of rights. Conservatives believe that everyone has equal rights, no matter their sex or race or ethnic background or religion. Liberals also believe in equal rights, but they believe that equal rights should lead to statistically equal outcomes. Conservatives accept that giving people equality of opportunity and rights does not guarantee equality of results, but Liberals see inequality of results and assume that there has been some injustice. Therefore, Liberals push for affirmative action, quotas, and other artificial mechanisms, which they hope will create statistical equality. This inevitably replaces one injustice with another.

Radicals are not interested in equality of rights or even statistical equality of results. Radicals believe that all history is the history of class struggle: the rich oppressing the poor, those of European ancestry oppressing those of African ancestry, men oppressing women, heterosexuals oppressing gays, lesbians and transgendered, America oppressing developing nations. It is not enough for the oppressors to stop oppressing and offer equality of opportunity and rights, or even equality of results. According to the Radicals, the oppressors have enjoyed "privileges" that the oppressed have been denied. This privilege consists in belonging to the privileged oppressor class. So even if you personally have never engaged in a single act of racism, sexism, or homophobia, the fact that you are a white, heterosexual male means that you have benefited from being a member of the oppressor class and therefore you are guilty and you deserve to pay. Read the rest of this entry »

 As a psychiatrist and a clinical assistant professor at Brown, I am well aware that proponents of same-sex marriage will cite the American Psychiatric Association and other professional organizations to justify their view: There is nothing scientific at all about the view that a child needs his mother and father. 

The scientific reality is that there are only a handful of studies on same-sex parenting (less than 50 total), and almost none of them are based on nationally representative data, which means we simply do not know how typical or atypical the gay parents and their children studied are. 

The point I wish to underscore here is not that gay people cannot be good parents (just as many single mothers and fathers are good parents), but that there is something special and distinctive about sexual unions that can both create life and connect those babies to a mother and father.

Read it in its entirety below

Daniel Harrop, May 26, 2008

RECENTLY ONE-HALF of the lesbian couple seeking "same-sex divorce" in Rhode Island courts told a judge she has moved to Massachusetts , meaning she may now pursue a legal divorce in the state where she and her partner first traveled to evade Rhode Island ’s marriage laws.

She could not pursue a divorce under Rhode Island law because marriage in Rhode Island is a union of husband and wife; people in other kinds of unions do not need a divorce in this state because they are not married.

Same-sex divorce is thus part of a campaign to get Rhode Island law to recognize unions of two men and two women as marriages.

What is at stake in the marriage debate today in Rhode Island ? Why should anyone besides Adam and Steve care?

The answer, in my personal and professional opinion, is the common good and the welfare of Rhode Island ’s children. The public definition and meaning of marriage profoundly serves both ends.

Marriage is a core social institution, the only one we have that is dedicated to communicating and reinforcing a unique and vitally important task: bringing together men and women to make and raise the next generation together.

How do we make sure a child begins life with a mother and a father committed to his or her care? Marriage serves many important private and personal purposes, but its great public purpose, and the source of marriage as a unique legal and civil status, is its role in sustaining this social ideal. Read the rest of this entry »

Note the superb propaganda value in this article below. Do you see how well it is crafted?  Robyn is no monster but a kind-looking blonde in her 40s whose poly (polyamoury:  ‘many loves’) movement, though perhaps not your cup of tea, is undoubtedly hers.  Note how she presents the poly movement, what arguments are given in its support and what information (i.e. the actual sex bit) is withheld.   It all sounds so reasonable, does it not? 

Of course polys are just people - like gays and lesbians and bisexuals and transgendered people are just people!  Having a name, a face and a history helps to normalize and legitimate the behaviour and the lifestyle, especially as the most problematic aspects are kept under cover while the more ’normal’ ones are used as a PR device to get the public used to the general idea. This is one of the primary strategies deployed by the GLBT lobby and works its magic  almost every time. Fewer have the courage/nerve/whatever to question what is actually involved or to say in public that they believe another’s behaviour to be immoral and why, especially when the individual honestly believes she/he was made this way.  They are just doing what comes ‘naturally’; they are not forcing their lifestyle on others, but merely asking that it be allowed to enter and remain in the public domain because it is who they are. 

In essence Robyn has concurrent love/sex relationships with three men, though not simultaneously.  Some polys, however, who are actively bisexual, have simultaneous sexual relationships with each other.  When they ‘come out’ properly and demand acceptance and recognition for their ‘relationships’ and family structures, what will our response be?   

And finally, do you see what is happening in terms of broader questions of family and marriage?  Where is marriage (other than failed)?  This is a great example of the de facto triumph of Anthony Giddens’ ‘pure relationship’.  It is not that marriage is attacked, frowned on or scorned - oh no, it would not be smart to do so on a number of counts.  What happens is that it simply becomes an irrelevance and slides into a gentle decline.

 Head Of ‘Polyamory’ Group Discusses Multiple Partners

By KATHLEEN MEGAN | Courant Staff Writer May 8, 2008  Most of what we hear about polygamy has to do with stomach-turning situations like the recently raided West Texas ranch where it is believed that members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — a breakaway Mormon sect — abused children.

But Robyn Trask, executive director of Loving More, a Boulder, Colo.-based group, believes it is unfortunate that the public often doesn’t hear about what she believes are the positive aspects to having more than one partner.

While polygamy involves having more than one spouse, Trask’s group, which has 1,500 active members, including some in Connecticut, supports polyamory: having multiple loves of either sex with or without marriage.

Trask’s organization publishes Loving More Magazine and runs conferences and retreats that address topics that naturally arise, such as jealousy and envy, and provides support and education for people who wish to have "poly" lives.