By Catherine Snow, CitizenLink

Read here

Miriam Grossman, MercatorNet

It is not what you would want to read before breakfast, but it's the sex menu they are serving up to children.

Sex education for tots is in the headlines. Last month it was a policy in Provincetown, Massachusetts making condoms available to first graders. Student requests were to be kept secret and parents’ objections ignored.

Now the news is from Montana. If the Helena school district has its way, kindergarteners will learn about “reproductive body parts”: the penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum, and uterus. Ten year olds will be taught that “sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration”. Two years later they will discover this may involve “the penis, fingers, tongue or objects”.

Have these people lost their minds? To the contrary. All these maneuvers are entirely consistent with the sex education programs supported by President Obama. Moreover, the administration would like taxpayers to fund their export to the rest of the world.

Read here

Lisa Severine Nolland

Though I hugely appreciate Peter Tatchell’s (PT) defence of human rights and religious liberty, I am appalled by some of his views because I believe they are toxic to human well-being.  In the past he contributed to a paedophile-advocacy volume. At present on his site[i], he asserts that ‘all sexualities are valid’.   PT also insists ‘porn can be good for you’ which I consider in the same vein as saying that nuclear waste can be good for you.  Moreover, PT  affirms that ‘equality is not enough’ and that ‘the lofty ideals of queer liberation and sexual freedom’ need to be recovered by gays in order to be able to liberate the rest of us from ‘the more general erotophobic and sex-negative nature of contemporary culture, which also harms heterosexuals'. As well as being vividly pornographic—erect penises all over the place— PT's book, Safer Sexy: The Guide to Gay Sex Safely (1994), provides eloquent testimony to his libertarian sexual views. I cannot do a visual ‘Show and Tell’ of it in this document (see below) but will use words to describe some of the graphic content

Like most of us, I imagine, PT is a mixed bag.  Of his commitment to his principles and willingness to sacrifice himself for them over the decades, there is no doubt!  There is also no doubt that Peter and I share certain values, like the importance of free speech, human rights and social justice. I deeply admire his courage and readiness to aid Christians like Dale McAlpine and many other oppressed folk around the globe.     

However,  Greenbelt [GB],  ‘the UK’s largest Christian festival’, is sending out a sub-text that is totally at odds with a Christian understanding of sexuality by including PT  on its programme, and I ask it to reconsider.  Read the rest of this entry »

Historically, Judaism was the first faith to ban homosexuality, which the entire ancient world accepted. That ban, retained by its daughter religions, Christianity and Islam, channeled sexual activity into the marital bed, thus totally transforming family life. Sex became the spousal bond of faithful, passionate love underlying the stable families within which the products of that sexual love are best raised.

…Most early societies saw sexuality as sacred, and many, including the ancient Canaanites, celebrated its holiness with orgiastic ceremonials featuring sexual pairings of all genders, ages, and generations.(1) The ultimate goal of these ceremonies was to sexually stimulate the gods. They believed the gods were watching and would make their herds, crops, and women fertile.(2) These acts of worship also made the participants feel better?even though they often caused the paternity of the children thus conceived to be uncertain.

Judaism also viewed sex as sacred, but limited it to the conjugal bed.  "The revolution begun by the Torah, when it declared war on the sexual practices of the [surrounding] world, wrought [along with ethical monotheism] the most far-reaching changes in history," Jewish philosopher and talk-show host Dennis Prager writes. "When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world."(3)

Read Dr Nathan Lehrman here

[...] 'My take on yesterday's vote is this. The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church of England into adulthood, to maturity as the Body of Christ. Yesterday she [sic] said, once again, Grow Up! It is time to welcome women into the episcopate. I call you friends, adult friends….

I, of course, have a personal interest in this. I am in favour of the inclusion of women at every level of church ministry. One day General Synod will be asked to vote on the place of LGBT people in the Church of England in respect of Civil Partnerships and the ordination of those with partners. It will need a very mature, emotionally confident group of people on Synod to achieve a positive, pro-gay vote.

Yesterday's vote has laid another foundation stone. I believe members of Synod, Archbishops, bishops, priests and laity, will digest what has happened. Some will continue to feel hurt and in their inner world, feel marginalized or rejected. Others will reflect and adjust to the apparently new environment in which they find themselves. If we are not able to grow and change we will remain a church addicted to immature emotional attachments, to the idealised past and to the tyranny of the child which lurks in each of us.'

Read Changing Attitude here  [Please note that not all individuals who are committed to the women bishop agenda are pushing the LGBT rights agenda as well, but it is important to see where the two overlap. For many, the above is instructive ---  and deeply concerning --- writing on the wall in terms of what awaits those unable to support what will likely be the next major challenge --- the embedding and promoting of the  LGBT rights agenda within the CoE.] 
 

Polyamory in the News     

Attorney Ann E. Tweedy [right] of the California Western School of Law in San Diego, has published an important legal and sociological analysis, Polyamory as a Sexual Orientation, on SSRN, the Social Science Research Network.  [The SSRN is a prestigious, mainstream social science e-resource hosted by, among others, Stanford Law School and the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.]

The abstract:   This article examines the possibility of expanding the definition of “sexual orientation” in employment discrimination statutes to include other disfavored sexual preferences, specifically polyamory. It first looks at the fact that the current definition of “sexual orientation” is very narrow, being limited to orientations based on the sex of those to whom one is attracted, and explores some of the conceptual and functional problems with the current definition. Next the article looks at the possibility of adding polyamory to current statutory definitions of sexual orientation, examining whether polyamory is a sufficiently embedded identity to be considered a sexual orientation and the degree of discrimination that polyamorists face. After concluding that expanding current statutory definitions of sexual orientation to include polyamory would be reasonable, the article looks at some of the complications to making such a move, including potential policy implications and the conflicting evidence as to whether polys want specific legal protections.  Read here

By Albert Mohler

From David Ould at Stand Firm:  Breaking up is hard to do……

…It is commonly acknowledged amongst Christians that God's intention for male-female relationships, if  they occur (not when, as anyone who reads 1 Cor. 7 should plainly see), is monogamy. But what is not so clearly understood these days is the non-equivalence which God has designed in that relationship. By "non-equivalence" I mean that God has intended that men and women should relate differently to one another in marriage…

Genesis 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family.

The Hebrew somewhat under-translated here as "unites" is actually better rendered by the old KJV (and other more modern translations such as the NASB) as "cleaves". That is to say, the sense of the original is not so much a bilateral joining together but a unilateral "clinging" on the part of the man. The Bible's view of marriage, God's view, is that a man leaves his parents and attaches himself  to a woman. One woman. Till death do they part.

There is no such call placed upon the woman. Now, of course, that is not to say that wives are not called to love and be faithful to their husbands, nor that this is not a marriage of equals. But the overwhelming emphasis in the Scriptures is on husbandly love and cleaving/attachment to that one woman. If you think this is not the case then consider for a moment the number of examples you can think of where the Scriptures call husbands to love their wives.  Read here

Pornography, by offering an endless harem of sexual objects, hyperactivates the  appetitive system. Porn viewers develop new maps in their brains, based on the photos and videos they see. Because it is a use-it-or-lose-it brain, when we develop a map area, we long to keep it activated. Just as our muscles become impatient for exercise if we've been sitting all day, so too do our senses hunger to be stimulated.

Norman Doidge, M.D., Columbia University

There is evidence that the prevalence of pornography in the lives of many children and adolescents is far more significant than most adults realize, that pornography is deforming the healthy sexual development of these young viewers, and that it is used to exploit children and adolescents.

Mary Anne Layden, director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program,
Center for Cognitive Therapy, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania

Particularly on the Internet, where much of pornography today is consumed, the type of sexuality depicted often has more to do with violence, extreme fetishes and mutual degradation than with sexual or emotional connection

Pamela Paul, author of Pornified    Read here

Marcia Segelstein  World Magazine  

18 June 2010

This research data suggests that gay couples tend to make decisions about monogamy early in their relationship.   For those individuals who are curious as to why couples would choose to have open relationships, Spears and Lowen have included excerpts from their participants’ survey responses.  These quotes are particularly illustrative of the desire and motivations for choosing to be non-monogamous.  As one partner stated, “we both liked seeing the other enjoy himself.”  Several of the study participants recalled making their decision to open the relationship after engaging in a three-way.  Most of the individuals surveyed were not threatened by the openness.  According to one man, “sex is sex; love is forever.”    From 'Beyond Monogamy', ISSI.  H/T:  CORE

The most recent and cutting-edge research on gay partnerships indicate that significant numbers of them do not mirror heterosexual marriage, nor is there any desire to do so.  They operate according to a 'Beyond Mongamy' ethos.  And in fact, many lclaim this openness gives them an added bonus which opposite-sex couples would do well to consider.  Read The Couples Study here

Cohabitation: A Sensible Step Or a Destructive One? by Mike McManus  VirtueOnline
June 7, 2010
 

…Myths About Cohabitation

There are three widely prevalent myths about cohabitation that are unwisely causing couples to live together while unmarried.

Myth 1: Living together is a step towards marriage.

Actually, cohabitation is a step away from marriage. Evidence?

The number of couples cohabiting soared 13-fold from 523,000 in 1970 to 6.8 million in 2008. Yet the number of never-married adults tripled in those years from 21 million in 1970 to 63 million in 2008. No wonder the marriage rate plunged in half. Cohabitation has diverted tens of millions away from marriage. It seduced them with the notion that they could test the possibility of marriage without making a full commitment. But you can't practice permanence.   Read here
 

Gay marriage impacts marriage for all of us because it alters what has been the historic definition of marriage and family.  This redefinition is then enshrined in the social and political institutions which govern the lives of us all.  Unless one is a hermit living on an island, there is no getting away from its coercive influence. 

Gays have blazed the trail for others to follow. The latest sexual minority and 'orientation' to come out with a splash is polyamory. Polyamory simply means 'plural loves', and mostly involves those of non-binary bisexuality, but also those of heterosexual,  lesbian and gay 'orientations'. This is not polygamy, though gay marriage arguments were deployed by infamous North American polygamists, Winston Blackmore and Tom Green, in court.    

Gene Robinson recently drew attention to the 'other letters in the alphabet',  'so many other sexualities to be explored'. Perhaps more will realise that the LGBT needs to include a P now, and that is just the start. The logic is impeccable.   

For LGBT campaigners it is a tricky call.  If the full programme of this sexual revolution were known, it would put people right off.  The public has been sold this 'social justice' agenda on the basis that it was about the private goings-on of two consenting adults and that it would not impact them or their worlds; that it was really minimal tweaking of the system and that life would then return to normal. However, if people began to realise what was actually involved, they might get alarmed.  They  might discover that gay marriage came with some hidden and unexpected 'extras'.  

The more confused and disordered the sexual landscape becomes, and the more this confusion and disorder becomes enshrined in law and cultural mores, the more difficult it becomes for individuals, families and communities to achieve the kind of wholesome family life and community functioning which provides for all the needs of children.     

A right to live with the people we love": Polyfamilies file statements in Canada court case  9 June 2010

 The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association (CPAA) took a big step forward on Tuesday when five of its members, representing five polyfamilies living in what they consider to be "conjugal unions," filed affidavits with the court in British Columbia that will test the legality of Canada's 19th-century anti-polygamy law. Read the rest of this entry »

I believe this research is really important and needs to be disseminated widely.  The biblical view of sexuality (versus alleged sexual 'liberation') is the most life-giving and positive one, after all.  Sex is simply too important and powerful a force to be engaged in outside of a life-long and exclusive, you-for-me-and-me-for-you, relationship of matrimony. Anything else exposes women and men to harm and disease, psychologically and physically.  Though Christians are sometimes accused of being 'kill joys' (and at times rightly so in terms of how they fail to present the full biblical view of sex), those who preach a gospel of sexual 'liberation' actually merit the description.    

Sexually Indulgent Now, Marriage Ruined Later?
By Paul Strand, CBN

Oftentimes those who preach sexual abstinence have been told to stop trying to impose their beliefs on others. But what if science could prove sexual permissiveness does great damage to future sexual happiness? That's what Dr. Joe McIlhaney of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health in Austin says. New research shows that sleeping around now could ruin your chances of having a happy, fulfilling marriage later.

"Neuroscientists have produced a lot of information in just the last few years. This is new," he told CBN News.

The sex reseacher recently co-authored the book Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children with Dr. Freda McKissic Bush. McIlhaney said the book contains, "The most modern neuro-science available to man today."

Charles M. Blow, "Gay? Whatever, Dude"   H/T:  Kevin Offner

Last week, while many of us were distracted by the oil belching forth from the gulf floor and the president’s ham-handed attempts to demonstrate that he was sufficiently engaged and enraged, Gallup released a stunning, and little noticed, report on Americans’ evolving views of homosexuality. Allow me to enlighten:

By Chuck Colson, Breakpoint

We’ve warned before that same-sex "marriage" will weaken the foundations of traditional marriage. New research shows us why.

Same-sex couples just want the right to be married like everyone else, or so the argument goes. They call it a civil right. You could hardly find a more innocuous argument, perfectly designed to appeal to all of us who believe in equal rights and fair play.

The only problem is that it’s not true. A significant percentage of same-sex couples do not want to get married “like everyone else.” Many of them want to create a whole new paradigm for marriage that has serious implications for the institution and for the rest of society.

Now, if you think I’m being bigoted about this, then perhaps you haven’t checked out the latest scientific research on the subject. A recent three-year study of homosexual couples in San Francisco—where many gay “marriages” have been performed—shows that half of them are in open relationships.

The New York Times wrote in its report on the study, “Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result [of their open relationships], they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage—one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.”

At the same time, the Times reported, “few [homosexuals] will speak publicly about it…. They…worried that discussing the subject could undermine the fight for same-sex marriage.”  Read here

From Elizabeth Marquardt, FamilyScholars.org

…A couple generations now have had drilled into their heads that getting married too young is bad, bad, bad. It’s bad for you, bad for your spouse, bad for your kids, bad for society. You’ll probably end up divorced or, if not that, at least miserable. Plus you won’t get to do all the fun things your friends who didn’t get married are out doing.

The result? Young people have listened and they’re getting married, on average, in their late twenties, if they get married at all. Which wouldn’t be a big deal except that many of those young people haven’t stopped having babies. Our nation’s 41 percent out-of-wedlock childbearing rate is driven by births to women in their twenties (not teenagers), and their kids on average face much greater risks not having their married moms and dads on the scene. As Professor Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania Law School wrote to me the other day, “Women have children more or less on schedule. The key question is whether or not they will be married when they have those children.”  Read here