Archive for the ‘Sex’ Category

Boy Scouts – reaction

June 10, 2013
Norman Rockwell's self-portrait Beyond the Eas...

Norman Rockwell’s self-portrait Beyond the Easel with Boy Scouts (1969 Boy Scouts of America calendar by Brown & Bigelow) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Lots of people are quitting the Boy Scouts:
Boy Scouts’ decision on gays tests loyalty of members – Washington Times

So, instead of admitting they had lied when they joined the Scouts, refused to quit when they found out that “gay” scouts were not welcome, instead they did the closet thing and then tried to make themselves honest and cover the guilt they felt all that time by making the Scouts change instead of themselves.

Now they feel partially vindicated, but now you’ll see the adult “gays” that used to be Scouts and want to be scoutmasters will keep on pushing for “gay” scoutmasters.

It’s because it’s such a traditionally rooted organization, it’s a target for changing everybody else, not for equal treatment.

Equal treatment would have been for an alternative organization. No, they want to take over the existing infrastructure politically, get all that propaganda potential. Now instead of correcting scouts for using pejoratives for “gays”, they will tell them that it doesn’t matter whether the psychology fits the physiology or not.

The Boy Scouts of America has just made a much bigger decision that just allowing “gay” boys to join their ranks. There is a HUGE BIG change more than just admission policies. If it’s okay for boys, why not for anybody? They can no longer say that homosexuality or sodomy is bad for boys, so how can they restrict them from being scoutmasters?

It’s a so-called “compromise” that is much more a surrender than a compromise.

That’s what happens when you don’t have the conviction for what you say you believe.

They should have thundered about it, but I guess the de facto monopoly position the leaders thought they had was too much temptation, too much corruption. The policy dissidents should have set up their own group, but they preferred to take over the existing organization, its buildings and infrastructure and mailing list, and convert the philosophy to one that supports homosexual behavior.

The result will be dissident groups sprouting up everywhere.

But now, when they apply for state recognition, after the IRS and Justice Department persecution of political and religious dissidents, and the HHS rules that violate religious freedom for groups and individuals, and persecution of whistleblowers, who can trust the governments of either of the bipartisan cartel in power to treat anybody fairly?


Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Luke 15:32
It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.


Marriage is for a family, a family is for the children

May 5, 2013
education online

education online (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

This is a reply to the blog by Brian Roberts, a sociologist:

First this: “Functionalism and the New Right see this as detrimental to society, evidenced in the increase in crime, educational failure etc.” Then “This argument rests upon the assumption that a child needs to be raised within an environment of married mum and dad – dad being the key stabilizer here.”

If something is “evidenced in”, then it’s not an argument that “rests upon the assumption”. As a matter of fact, the “evidence” you mention shows the actual truth of the matter, something that actually some voices agree from among the more censored and suppressed voices ion today’s “sociology”.

In fact, the “evidence” is stronger than how it was presented. The studies –even from more “gay-friendly” survey organizations– show that the correspondence between a strong nuclear family of husband, wife, on one side, and less crime, more educational success, more psychological stability, and so on.

There are exceptions on all sides, depending on what measures you accept.

The damage is done when social and political pressures in the majority of social milieus impose the assumption that the family type doesn’t matter.

Besides, the historical evidence from millenia of recorded history shows us also that the tendency toward the true nuclear, natural family springs from nature. A woman is driven by her maternal instincts unless it is “socialized” out of her. Genders of man and woman are *most obviously* and self-evidentially natural, and not impositions of society, an idea some some “social disruptor forces” are trying to impose on the rest of us, mostly from positions of power.

A society with fewer stable children, after all, is more resistant to dictates from state decrees. Children raised by father and mother, less confused by gender confusions imposed unnaturally upon them, absorb more of their parents’ base values and are not so vulnerable to manipulation.

That’s why the powers that be demand state indoctrination centers for the children, and that’s why they assume that taxes extorted from the populace must be allocated there. That’s why from the beginning, free and forced education requirements were imposed early on. Instead of treating the education dole like they treat the welfare dole, they instead want to make it education by the state.

It’s not “for the children”, obviously. If it were “for the children”, they would look at the results of nearly a century of almost universal obligatory and government-provided schooling, and recoil in horror at it, and immediately insist on letting parents have those resources so they can have a choice as to where to put their children. Using the slower children as an excuse to put chains on the brighter ones to bind them to centrally planned failures is an outrageous atrocity, and not even based in fact, since the “slower ones” are often freed up in a different setting to thrive.

California school district sued over ‘inaccurate, biased’ sex ed program | Fox News

September 15, 2012
English: A poster promoting the U.S. military'...

English: A poster promoting the U.S. military’s WWI policy of abstinence to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Anti-ACLU-2 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

ACLU lawsuit against a California school district says that it is inaccurate medical information to tell teens that the best way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases is if both partners abstain before marriage.

I don’t go preaching the abstinence message everywhere, it’s not any different than many other sins, but the ACLU is the one wanting to have schools break the law, as the ACLU spokesperson herself explains it:

“Schools should teach teens about building healthy relationships, the benefits of delaying sexual activity, and accurate information about condoms and birth control. That’s what state law requires and that’s what meets the needs of teens,” she said.

Read more:

Condoms are not foolproof. The best contraceptive during sex is physiological sterility.

Junk science is killing us.

Abortion clinics love the spike in business when somebody gives the condom message in a nearby high school.

And anybody today who thinks teens don’t already know from their peers all about condoms and sex, they’re out of their own minds. ACLU lawyers are the ones who maybe grew up sheltered from knowledge of that awful thing. Bwaa.

Too many parents are dropping the ball, though, and myself was one of them, who did not speak too much about the subject with my kids when they were young. Doesn’t mean sex promotion is the answer.

Do women belong in combat?

June 14, 2012
Pregnancy in the 26th week.

Pregnancy in the 26th week. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The article I just posted from WSJ, but even more so the other two links, go into great FACTUAL detail about the difference between men and women and the effect on a military mission. The facts therein detailed are not “sexist” at all. There are just facts.

It doesn’t help an argument to make a false argument from irrelevant analogies, such as between race and sex, as an answer to facts that are relevant to the issue.

I say irrelevant because all that long list of facts that detail the sex differences, PLUS the actual results of mixing the sexes PLUS the drain on military readiness from the pregnancies without even starting on issues of the menses and other such factors, these are real differences.

There are no real racial differences. Guys from different people groups are more like the men in other people groups than the women in their own same people groups, physically, emotionally, and mentally, and in behavior generally, and these differences cry out for fair treatment. To be fair you cannot pretend they are the same. Only in modern urban settings and in modern occupational and urban culture do they lay out an equal playing field.

Black recruits don’t get pregnant,  don’t need a monthly accommodation, Amerindian guys behave more like Caucasian guys than they do Amerindian women.

I can see red lights going off in a FALSE alarm in some readers now, because they are missing the point, trained in the false analogies and the trained response of thinking that any facts against mixing women into combat can ONLY come from prejudice. Consider those facts and RESPOND TO THEM instead of going to straw man diversions.  It is difficult to argue against the results in practice, and so even considering the real-world realities can be a difficult concept, let alone responding to them.

Turn it off. Is it possible for one woman in certain situations to get the better of a man in combat? Sure. Not as often as in Hollywood movies I’m sure and on average, but sure. When the right man cannot be found, often there is a woman. Deborah leading the charge at the head of the Israeli Army, she had to do it and did it well. My wife would have made one fearsome General in any man’s army.

But to make it policy to treat women like men, or to think bringing them in equal numbers to combat situations, is ludicrous. That policy has nothing to do with thinking a female army would do in combat as good as a male army, it only has to do with forcing a false ideology (women = men) into an institution that we trust to protect us from invaders.

It also has to do with a more shadowy unstated purpose, that of removing women from child bearing, a population control mechanism with a different costume, and child nurturing in the earliest and most important years of a person’s life. Some military couples have already been ordered to simultaneous overseas deployments and had to leave their children in the care of others.

Family breakups are bad, and are mitigated when one parent can stay with the kids. The mother is the best at nurturing during the younger years, that is a fact of scientific biology, and it is sexism-gone-batty to claim otherwise. Sexism because it claims territory that forces women into roles that MOST of them do NOT want.