Bringing the youth the most up to date prolife news in Minnesota and around the US!
|Posted by Jim on September 18, 2013 at 11:55 AM||comments (0)|
We are abandoning this site! Our new site will be www.mnyouthforlife.com See you there!
|Posted by Jim on July 4, 2013 at 4:25 AM||comments (0)|
So a lot has changed since I last posted. Gay marriage is now legal in Minnesota. Lots to talk about in future posts! For some reason this blog editor likes putting words together, so I apologize about that. If you see two words joined together, please know it is the web editor not me!
In the last blog post we looked at whythe question of same sex marriage is even on the table. A basic summary of my argument is that it is another step in the devaluation of sex in our culture today. There are three other areas that show this devaluation- divorce, artificial birth control, and pornography. Since we have accepted those threein our culture as “normal” or at the very least not bad things, then it is avery small step to normalizing homosexual actions, lifestyles, and eventually unions/marriages.
We will now look at a commonly asked question when this topic is discussed: Are people born gay? There are a few reasons why this question is asked:
1. If homosexuality is a biological/genetic issue, then there is a basis for calling it a rights issue (since it would be comparable with skin color or other biological mutations *the scientific meaning of mutation of course).
2. If homosexuality is a biological/genetic issue, then it cannot be said it is immoral because it is not a “choice”.
3. Homosexuality is a phenomenon of the 21st century, and people are truly curious in the cause of it.
4. Many people who have same sex tendencies feel as though they have these deep seeded sexual desires, and feel as though they must have been born that way. Thus, they look for evidence in nature.
Before we get into any of the details on the question: “Are people born gay?” we need to first ask ourselves an even more fundamental question: What does it mean to be human?
In order to properly analyze this topic, we need to be sure we define our terms before we get started, because truly our arguments are going to rely on the basic foundation of humanity.
We are taking for our definition that a man is a rational animal. What I mean by that is, man has two parts- a body and a soul. The body is physical and the locus for all sensation. The soul is the spiritual element of man, the part of him that knows, loves, and chooses.The soul is not part of the body, as the brain is part of the body. It is also not something completely separate from the body. Let’s stop right here. It needs to be agreed upon at this moment, that we accept that definition of man,or else there is no use continuing.
If we say that there is no “spiritual”part of man, if man does not have a rational soul, then all we have is thebody. This is the premise of atheism. There is no God, therefore there is nosoul. Since there is no soul, there is no freedom of choice (everything HAS to be determined by some biological element). If there is no real freedom, butmerely all of our actions are a result of physical stimuli, the answer is simple. The answer is that same sex attraction MUST BE biological, because thatis the ONLY thing that really exists. If we choose this route though, we willneed to make many admissions that I believe very few would be willing to makesuch as: love is not real, it is just a chemical reaction to another person,there is no freedom in any action because our bodies are determined by thephysical (cells, atoms, neurons, etc… which are admittedly set), there is nomorality because morality would need to be a physical reality- we could neversay anything is wrong because they are doing just what their bodies tell themto do (we do not convict lions in court for devouring wildebeests. They are not free to choose otherwise.). Ifany of my good and learned atheist friends would like to give a rebuttal andexplain: human freedom, love, and truthto me without the existence of a soul, I would love to hear it!
Without launching into a debate aboutthe nature of God, I would like to simply say- we have a soul. We have a souland we know we have a soul because we know we are free. Truth is not physical.Love is not physical. Happiness is not physical. Man has two parts a body and asoul. Therefore, we must look at both parts of man in order to rightly identifythe cause of homosexuality. (*A very brief side note- many of the supporters ofnormalizing same sex attraction are atheists. Morality is of little consequencesince there is no eternal consequence to actions. The people who are trying toprove that same sex attraction is biological are evolutionary biologists whoreject the notion of a spiritual soul.)
We will now look at what is knownabout: Are people born gay?
There are a few possible answers towhether people are born with same sex attraction.
1. Yes, people are born that way.
2. No, people are not born that way.
3. Maybe, maybe not….we don’t know.
I know that probably just blew you outof the water. Yes, no, and maybe.
So what does the scientific researchtell us? There has been more and more interest on this subject as homosexuality has become more prevalent in our culture. One thing is clear from all thestudies- they don’t know if there is a biological/genetic component in same sexattraction.
The studies come in all differentforms of natural sciences. The sciences have a broad range of fields from thevery generic science of genetics to extremely narrow sciences such asneuroscience or epigenetics.
I will do my best to be objective in analysisof the studies. The sources I will be looking at are:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1307557/pdf/westjmed00347-0085a.pdf- this is a short response of Dr. Reus who had written an article for theWestern Journal of Medicine saying that homosexuality should be studied alongwith other psychiatric conditions.
https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~bmayes/pdf/homosexuality_biology_burr.pdf - this article is not scholarly, butoutlines three different areas of science and how they relate to homosexuality.It is interesting to note that all of the studies were as old as 1869 and onlyas new as the early 1990’s (also all of which had very small sample sizes). Allthree areas of science were inconclusive.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/13/new-insight-into-the-epigenetic-roots-of-homosexuality/- there is a new theory posited by the National Institute of Mathmatical andBiological Synthesis that states there are these “epimarks” that rest on DNAthat can are the cause of homosexuality. However, this is just in the theorystage and say that much more research needs to be done. Covers the same topic as- http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/being-born-gay-isnt-your-genes-its-them
INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND POLICY COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
OPPOSITE-SEXTWINS AND ADOLESCENT SAME-SEX ATTRACTION
Peter S. Bearman - Institute forSocial and Economic Research and Policy; Columbia University
Hannah Brückner , Department ofSociology Yale University
“Results provide substantial support forthe role of social influences, reject the hormone transfer model, reject aspeculative evolutionary theory, and are consistent with a general model thatallows for genetic expression of same-sex attraction under specific, highlycircumscribed, social conditions.
http://www.nature.com/aja/journal/v13/n6/full/aja2011127a.html- – Is there a hormonal basis for homosexuality. His results- “Maybe, but theexplanations offered in this mini-review fail to come to grips with humanhomosexuality as it is lived.”
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v28n01_04#.UZKTA0rLvIV– “this essay shows how unacknowledged assumptions and culturally boundpatterns of thinking about sexuality taint biological research.”
Simon Levay (who is himself an openhomosexual) and Jacques Balthazart are probably the two leading authorities onthe relation of homosexuality and science. Here are a few things they said:
Gay, Straight, the Reason why - Simon Levay –Based on studies of humans and then attempted to support his findings with theresearch done in animal studies. 1NAH3 Study- Simon Levay- 1991- "It’simportant to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, orfind a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born thatway, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did Ilocate a gay center in the brain.”
Queer Science- Simon Levay- it is probablehomosexuality is closely tied in with the prenatal sexualdifferentation of the brain. But it is important to stress several limitationsof the study. The observations were made on adults who had already beensexually active for a number of years. He continues, “Another limitation arises because most of the gay menwhose brains I studied died of complications of AIDS.”
The Biology ofHomosexuality ByJacques Balthazart- sexual orientation is a under the control of embryonicendocrine/phenomena in which there is little room for individual choice. Basedon studies of sexuality in animals and related his studies to how they could beapplied to humans. He admits that, “it is thus impossible to attribute abehavior to a single specific cause.” Thus he continues, “we must usestatistics and probabilities to draw a firm conclusion.”
If you look atarticles on PBS, Time, Popsci, and even Wikipedia the results are the same. Wedo not know if there is a biological cause of homosexuality. The best bet isthat it MAY be part biological and part choice.
I will now add alittle commentary on the conversation.
It is interestingto note that the term homosexual was not even around until the 19thcentury. In former generations there people who performed homosexual actions,but it never defined them as a person.
People will tryto claim that sexual orientation is determined the same as gender or skincolor. However, that is just not the case. Both skin color and genetics areeasily known in the scientific field. They are not mysteries likehomosexuality.
Another thingwe know scientifically is how it harms. From the CDC- Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) havebeen increasing among gay and bisexual men. Recent increases in syphilis caseshave been documented across the country. In 2008, men who have sex with men(MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the UnitedStates. MSM often are diagnosed with other bacterial STDs, including chlamydiaand gonorrhea infections.
Gay andbisexual men can be infected with HPV(Human Papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States. Some types ofHPV cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of analand oral cancer. Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to developanal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even morelikely than those who are uninfected to develop anal cancer.
Also, Gay menlifespan shorter than non gay men: "The life expectancy forgay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for men in general. RobertS. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gayand Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997)
Although thedata on the cause of homosexuality is unclear, the data on the effects are muchmore clear. Homosexual actions lead to health risks.
So, from thestudies I found it is pretty clear there is no clear indication of thebiological cause of homosexuality.
I will hold offon the spiritual aspects of homosexuality until later in this series. The nextarticle will be answer the question- Is homosexual marriage a civil right? This will cover the conversation regardingquestions of similarity between mixed marriage and equality of different racesand whether that is the same thing as homosexuality.
|Posted by Jim on May 15, 2013 at 1:45 AM||comments (0)|
I was fortunate that one of our readers sent our first two parts of Marriage 101 to some of her family. It was also very good that one of her family members wrote a reply to our first posts. I will post his response with a response to his response My response will be in bold. His will be regular font.
First of all, anyone who wishes to deny millions of people the opportunity to contractually have their partnership recognized by the government and starts off their argument with "I love gay people" totally negates whatever is about to follow. It's similar to the bigot saying, "Some of my best friends are black", before making a racist comment. If he really loved them he would stand beside them and allow their love and commitment to be recognized. (You can love someone without agreeing with them. If loving means standing beside people and letting them do what they want, what about other moral issues? If Iwant to shoot up on heroine, is it loving to let me do so? What is shooting heroine really makes someone happy? Is it okay then?)
Secondly, marriage is about sex? So people who have suffered an injury, loss of sexual impulse or are asexual should not be allowed to be married? Once you are no longer able to have sexual intercourse your marriage is null and void? Marriage is not about sex. Marriage is a social union or legal contract that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses. It's great to see that the author doesn't want to just discriminate against homosexuals but people who aren't able to have sex. *We can not invent our own meaning of marriage. A eunuch cannot get married. The literal word for marriage means to join, join in a sexual way. People who have lost sexual impulse or have been injured can take steps to remedying the problem (if done in a moral manner). There will be a later post about the role of the state and it’s relation to marriage. So your issues regarding marriage as a social union or legal contract will be addressed then. If you say it is discriminatory to notallow marriage in certain cases, you are both correct and incorrect. The manner in which you are correct is that to discriminate means to make distinctions. So yes, distinctions must be made. You are not correct by saying we should not make distinctions on who is allowed to get married. Because if we say anyone can marry anyone, would you be okay saying- a10-year can marry a 50 year old? What about a brother and sister? A grandmother and grandson? Three people who love each other? Where would we draw the line for discrimination? *Please answer the question of where the line is drawn. Also,please provide evidence that it is ACTUALLY is the line that should be drawn (and not just your opinion).
Thirdly, as an agnostic I'll gladly point out that the main objectors to same-sex marriage are religious zealots and homophobes. Often these are one and the same, both born out of ignorance. The homophobe at least has the courage to own that his/her phobia is solely their opinion. Sadly, the religious zealot hides behind the words of men and women who denies themselves nature's basic instinct due to archaic vows, or they hide behind the ghosts whose words have been altered throughout history to serve the purpose of whatever politician is currently controlling whatever bishop. (Your point about agnosticism is telling in so far as you are mistaken. You accuse religious people (once again, please stop name calling- religious zealots and homophobes-both of these are heartily condemned by the majority of people who stand for traditional marriage) of acting out of ignorance, but the word agnostic literally means to be ignorant. So, your whole third point is irrelevant in the discussion. )
The final point of the author's first article, the purpose of sex is to procreate, is true. (If you grant that the purpose of sex is procreation, you cannot say that people can act against that end freely. For using things against their purpose is wrong.) If everyone was gay or lesbian the human race would cease to exist, but you know what, not everyone is gay or lesbian. The world population is over 7 billion people. Are you seriously afraid of the extinction of the human race due to same-sex marriage? Let's use the argument that certain citizens be denied the same rights as others because they are not able to reproduce. So any man or woman that is sterile or infertile should be denied the right to be married. Congratulations. You're now in the special "I can't reproduce so I can't get married" club (In regard to your comment on sterility or infertility you are mistaken because (so long as they can actually have sex) the couples that struggle with those issues are open to the proper ends of marriage/sex and are not violating the ends of sex. It is obvious that even if procreation is an end of sex, no one is saying that a pregnancy must be achieved every time a couple has sex.)
Let's try this for a change. Consensual sex is the manifestation of physical attraction between two people. A person who is gay is genetically or societally not wired to mate with a member of the opposite sex and has no choice but to choose a same sex partner. Perhaps homosexuality is the Earth's/God's/Universe's way of saying, "Whoa! We're getting a little crowded here. Let's start slowing down this population thing before ya'll hurt yourselves." What should really blow your mind is the question are more people these days gay or are more just able to be out? Many of humanities greatest individual atrocities (murder, rape, abuse, violence) are the result of the frustration experienced when one is not allowed to be themselves (ie. the priest who is denied his most basic instinct so he abuses young boys, the closeted husband forced to live a lie and beats his wife out of frustration, etc.) (“Consensual sex is the manifestation of physical attraction between two people.” Why not three, ten or twenty? What about age? What about relation? Please read my blog post tomorrowy about: Are people born gay? People who have same sex attraction have a choice. They can choose to live chastely or they can choose to live unchastely- just like everyone else. There is also absolutely no evidence that somehow same sex attraction is nature’s way of avoiding over population. Once again, you cannot provide any evidence for your accusation that the greatest atrocitiesare committed by people who are not allowed to be themselves! There is NO evidence for that. I agree that the issues of domestic/sexual abuse/violence are horrible things, but they are not caused by people living morally. Since the sexual revolution, these horrible actions have done nothing but go up. Also, studies show that the rate of abuse is the same in homosexual relationships.-http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/apc.2010.0235, http://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/
Let's also examine all the heterosexual people who have been blessed with the capability of procreation. Just because you are straight and married and able to reproduce does not mean you are going to be a good parent. Millions of children every day are abused in multiple ways in good old fashioned married heterosexual homes while there are perfectly good, loving, morally dependable gay households that either should be or are taking in those children to give them a chance at a "normal" life. All because nature and the law of the land says you can procreate doesn't mean you should. Nor should tax paying citizens who can't procreate have their commitment to each other denied. (The comment about priests is also misguided in regards to molestation about young boys. Your example of child predatory behavior would have been more appropriate if you used married Protestant pastors http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/the-protestant-cleourgy-sex_b_740853.html or even a more telling example- public school teacher- http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1933687.htm lLastly, I agreethat if you are not going to be a good parent, then you shouldn’t get married. That should be discerned before you get married though. As to your point about gay couples waiting for adoption, I would like to point out that abuse rates among homosexual couples are just as high as heterosexual couples, thus the kids would not necessarily be any more safe.)
Now let's address the authors "Three Strikes" in the second article.
The first strike touches upon the use of birth control and it's effect on sexual integrity. Maybe not everyone has the self-control that you want them to have. Maybe some people have the intelligence to explore their natural impulses without the risk of life-long responsibility through conception. To say people need to be married has contributed to centuries of domestic violence against women. Let's take two incredibly young adults who have no idea what they want except to give into their natural urges. Now let's make them pledge a lifetime to each other in order to fulfill those urges. Wow! That sounds like a great formula!! Everyone who wants to believe that the past was so great when people waited to have sex until they were married so they got married at 19 greatly overlook the amount of disharmony that existed within those times (alcoholism, spousal abuse, child abuse, abandonment). Birth control gives intelligent, responsible people the ability to service their natural desires without sacrificing not just their future but the future of others. (People who are intelligent follow purpose. You admitted that the purpose of sex was procreation, so intelligent people follow that. If people choose to have sex, they choose responsibility. If you are not ready for the consequences of an action, don’t do the action. I would like to see the evidence to your claim that there was more alcoholism, abuse, and abandonment than before birth control than there is today. If all we do is service our natural desires, then pretty much anything goes. If my natural desire to get angry leads to murder, and I tell the judge I am just servicing my natural desires- I would to jail. If I see a woman and decide she would service my natural desires, I would be put in jail for rape. The sacrifice needs to take place prior to sex. The sacrifice needs to be mastering yourself and having self-control.)
His second strike could be the most offensive of all. I have many people within my circle who are from divorced households. They openly admit that they are better off that their parents divorced. My favorite comment from homosexuals concerning gay marriage is, "If gays want gay marriage then they better want gay divorce." Divorce is not an epidemic in our culture, marriage is! Straight and gay. You want less divorce? Have less marriage. Allow people to be together because they love each other. Not because they feel pressure from a higher power or societal norm to pledge the rest of their life to someone. There's a big difference between waking up and having to earn someone's love on a daily basis versus expecting it because they vowed it before they had any idea who they were or what they wanted. Too many young adults are pressured into marriage before truly exploring who they are or knowing what they want. They are sold an idea, a dream, that does not always hold up to reality. Stop putting so much pressure on marriage and divorce will be just fine. (I am not saying that divorce should not be allowed in any case. Cases of abuse and abandonment legal divorce is reasonable. If I wake up and realize I don’t “love” my spouse any more is not okay just to divorce her. At your vows you a promise was made to the spouse in sickness/health, etc... It is a matter of justice to stay with a spouse even if the passion experienced at the beginning of marriage has gone away. Also, I live in an area with a high divorce rate, and I work with a lot of youth. The ones who struggle most are the ones from divorced families. If we also follow your line of reasoning, that less marriage is better then why make laws for more people to “marry”? Marriage rates are at all time lows, and there are more societal issues than ever before. So, the statistics actually completely contradict what you are saying. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/low-marriage-rates_n_3071625.html and http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005044.html )
I won't touch upon the third strike for that is just a whole other topic. Yes, pornography is very dangerous but, like all things, when used appropriately can be very healthy in a relationship or person's life. (People can’t use porn appropriately. It leads to addiction and use. There is, once again, no evidence to show porn is beneficial. The evidence proves the opposite.)
In the end, Carol, marriage is a social contract between two consenting adults. It is not a religious right. It's a civil right. You and everyone else who is against the civil rights of all humans on this debate are no better than the people who stood against rights for African-Americans or women's rights. When your grandchildren look back upon your stance you will be viewed as the villain. What's sad is you and so many like you are putting either your fear, ignorance or servitude to faith ahead of simply granting millions of people the right to happiness and recognition. I believe there was once a man named Jesus, and he said some pretty amazing things. I believe his words and teachings have been twisted throughout time to serve others wants and desires. I believe that man would want these people's love to be recognized and look upon you with sad eyes. Without knowing it you are causing someone you love pain. Someone close to you is gay but cannot or will not let you in because of your judgement of them. That is sad. (Accusing us of being the same ones who opposed rights to the African-American’sand women is completely the opposite of anything true. The Catholic Church excommunicated those who were in favor of slavery. Priests walked hand in hand with MLK Jr. It was the atheists who proclaimed that the negro was essentially just a close relative to the ape. There were many who believe that. Robert Knox, evolutionary biologist and author of the Races of Men, was one of those. Our children won’t look on us as villain’s, but heroes. Hero’s who dared to stand up to the dictatorship of relativism. If America survives, it will only be by returning to morality. John Adams, one of our founders, said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”)
After reading this blog and writing these thoughts not only do I disagree with the authors premise but believe even more in supporting gay marriage. So thank you for forwarding it to me.
|Posted by Jim on May 11, 2013 at 12:15 AM||comments (0)|
So, I definitively ended the argument in favor of homosexuality with my last blog post, right? Haha, if only it were that easy!
So, the principles in favor of heterosexual sex were outlined in our last blog post. But there are many objections to that. Most of the time, people will refuse to answer any of the questions regarding the limitations on sex. Or objections may be responded too, but when pressed to answer how they have come to the conclusion that some sexual behavior is okay and others are not, they are silent. Simply put, we were made to live in truth. When there is contradiction in our lives we do one of a few things-
1. We change our lives to conform to truth.
2. We change truth to conform to our lives.
3. We simply deny. By denying contradiction, we don’t need to deal with it.
Since the argument about the principles of sex is mainly just denied, we have work to do to show people the truth about human sexuality by addressing more particular questions regarding the issue.
Here is a list of those particular Q & A we will look at:
1. How is it that we are discussing whether homosexual marriage should be legal or illegal?
2. Are people born homosexual or is it a choice?
3. Do people have the right to marry? If two people love each other, why can’t they get married? Is it a civil right?
4. Are the health risks of homosexuality different from heterosexuality?
5. What will the effects of same sex marriage be on society? Are there any examples?
How is it that we are currently discussing whether there ought to be same sex marriage? From the beginning of marriage, it has only been among one man and one woman. Marriage was also about children. People used to wait to have sex until they were married. Why, because they knew sex led to children. There were the few that wanted to avoid pregnancy, and for the most part birth control was not used. Homosexuality and promiscuity were never accepted as normal. In St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae (Summary of Theology) which is five volumes (thousands of pages), he only dedicates one part of one article to it! (Granted there is a lot that can be said from that one article! If you want a longer read, here is one about Aquinas’ position on homosexuality by Janet Smith. http://www.archdioceseofdetroit.org/aodonline-sqlimages/shms/faculty/SmithJanet/Publications/MoralPhilosophy/ThomisticNaturalLaw.pdf ) Homosexuality was always considered as just another way people fall into lust. It was not a huge issue!
However, things started changing in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. At this time in history divorce was still illegal, it was a BIG deal to have sex before marriage, pornography was not prevalent (actually it was still illegal in most states), and sex was a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman. However, the “enlightened” thought of England and America started to become that sex does not necessarily need to be about children and family.
Strike one for sexual values came in 1914 when Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, coined the term birth control. From that point the meaning of sex shifted. It shifted away from the idea of children, to the idea of pleasure without responsibility or consequence. However, birth control was not accepted as moral by the majority of Americans. Margaret Sanger’s mother had 18 pregnancies and 11 births. She was a faithful Catholic. Her father started off as a faithful Catholic, but fell away from the faith and became an atheist. Margaret Sanger followed that path of her father. No church though allowed the use of contraception until 1930 at the Seventh Lambeth Conference, the Anglican’s allowed for the use of birth control. They said, “"when there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence." From there, more and more Protestants jumped aboard. In 2005, a survey was done of over 2000 Protestants. Over 88% of those surveyed admitted to being on some form of birth control. Another post for another day is that birth control led to frivolous/meaningless/irresponsible sex. But birth control fails. So, what happens if there is a pregnancy in a situation where you didn’t mean to get pregnant? Fifty-five million abortions and 24 million (1/3 of all kids) fatherless children is where that leads. Strike one for sexual integrity in marriage.
Strike two for marriage went hand in hand with birth control- divorce. Until the 1970’s divorce in the United States was illegal in all circumstances except abandonment or adultery. Because of the sexual revolution and birth control (sex hadn’t meant babies for 40 years), people wanted the “freedom” to leave their spouses for any reason. Since 2010, EVERY state has no fault divorce. It is proven over and over children do best in a married and stable environment. Children who are from divorced homes (which is sadly over half of our population now) do worse on a variety of levels. Divorce is an epidemic in our culture.
Strike 3 for marriage was pornography. In 1973, which was also the year Roe V Wade legalized abortion, there was a court case that was Miller v California. In this case, the federal law prohibiting pornography was over turned, and now only state laws could outlaw pornography. States were taken to court and the only pornography that is still illegal in the United States is child pornography. This has rewired brains even further, and ruined marriage after marriage. One study estimated that over 25% of all marriages end because one of the spouses is addicted to porn. Pornography is a $13 billion a year industry. The NFL has an annual is $8.3 billion. There are over 28,000 porn site views on the internet per second. Pornography is an epidemic.
Three strikes and traditional marriage is out. Marriage has been so devalued in our culture that if we allow: divorce for any reason, sterile sex (birth control), and self gratification through pornography- the leap to same sex marriage is but a step.
Pray for America.
|Posted by Jim on May 9, 2013 at 5:50 PM||comments (2)|
First, I want to say that I love gay people. I don't hate them in the slightest. I have friends, family, and acquaintances who are gay. I don't believe ANY ofthem would say I hate them. So, let's get it straight from the beginning, I hold my positions NOT out of hatred and bigotry.
Second, homosexuality is about SEX! Please don't tell me that homosexuality is about two people who just want to hold hands who are the same gender oranything else like that. Sexuality is ultimately what we are talking about. Asa follow up, marriage is about sex. *I will get around to how this works, even in our broken culture.
Third, I am going to hold off on any of the teachings of the Catholic Church until one of the last blog posts. I am doing this to show that you can hold beliefs about marriage when they are not related to faith. This way we won't be shut down by others because of religious views.
Third, here is my suggested list of posts. I am going to break things up into smaller segments and take a day or two to write each one. I don't know about you, but my eyes cross at longer blog posts
So here is the order I propose-
1. Purpose in nature, sex, and homosexuality.
2. Homosexual marriage- Q&A (THIS ONE MAY TAKE A FEW POSTS TO GET THROUGH!)-
2a. The relationship between sex and marriage and it's devaluation through the 20th century.
2b. The relationship of marriage and the state. What itwas meant to be, and what it is now.
2c. Homosexuality and health
3. Homosexuality and Catholicism
4. What to do now?
We will endeavor to look at the first thing on the list- Purpose, sex, and homosexuality.
The first thing we need to do is ask ourselves, do we believe in purpose? Dowe believe in a purpose that is greater than what "I" think something ought to be? This is called in fancy philosophy language- teleology. It essentially means looking at a thing's ultimate purpose. So here are some examples- the eye is for seeing. A camera is for taking pictures. Those are it's purpose or another word for purpose is end. So the end of a camera is picture taking. The end of feet is walking, running, etc... With that said as well, can I use things against their purpose? Sure, I could use my camera as a baseball or my hand as a knife, but that only leads to brokenness, uselessness, and pain. Does anyone object so far? If so, please comment!
So, continuing, nature works for an end/purpose. What then is the end/purpose of our sexual organs? If we get this wrong, we get all the follow up questions about it wrong!!! Simply sex is about procreation and union. Thatis not what people say though. People will say pleasure. But if that is the case, feel free to plug something in- Sex with ____________ gives me pleasure (one man, one woman, two, three, 10, trees, animals, my car, minors, my mother,sister, etc...). You can not say any of those are wrong. Why? Because they give me pleasure, and who are you to limit my pleasure. The same argument can be made about intimacy, and the same problems arise as a result.
Really the purpose of sex is union and pro-creation. (This is what is achieved in natural sex!) Now, how do we go from this, to an action being good or bad?
Whenever a choice is made (assuming there is such a thing as free choice-which there is) there are different parts of that action. Those parts are: the object, circumstances, and end.
1. Object- What the action itself is.
2. Circumstances- Who, why, where, how, etc...
3. Ends- What is the ultimate purpose of the action.
If we are going to talk about sex being a moral action, which it is, we needto clarify the answers to the three parts of a moral act.
1. Object of sex- The action itself is sex. Sex is good in and of itself. Itis NOT a bad thing. However, it really depends on the circumstances and end to determine whether the action is moral or not.
2. Circumstances of sex- Who are you having sex with- very important! Obviously no one thinks having sex with some else’s spouse is okay, even if itis consensual. Then, the rest of the circumstantial questions of where, how,etc...
3. The ends of sex are pro-creation and union. If these ends are not achieved by a sexual action, the action is bad. Now, with that said culturally speaking we have said that a number of sexual actions are okay even if they do not achieve these two ends. Really, here certain actions place pleasure or something else as the end of sex. So, you may ask what are the culturally acceptable sexual actions. The main ones are: masturbation, pornography, oral sex, pre-marital sex, sex when birth control is used, and homosexuality. These actions are held as "normal" in our society, but they are not. These are a distortion of what sex ought to be.
So, why is homosexuality wrong? Homosexuality is wrong because it does not achieve the proper ends of sex- i.e. union and procreation. The reasons are not religious, or political, nor are these reasons accepted by the culture. But, they are teleological God bless!
|Posted by Jim on May 6, 2013 at 12:10 AM||comments (0)|
I feel like life is very similar to the viral Youtube video-David after the dentist (Here is a link for the video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txqiwrbYGrs. Also, that is his picture above ).
We pro-lifers are looking at the world and wondering if the world can be as bad as it is. It almost seems that even though we are on the same planet as people who hold contrary beliefs, somehow we (or they) are really from some distant galaxy that doesn’t believe in truth!
That is obviously not the case. It is true that the pro-life movement is founded on truth but so many people in the world are from another planet, they actually just don’t think or don’t care. They make excuses, they neglect evidence, and they are happy to live in a false state of dystopia.
What are we, as the pro-life movement, to do with this disregard for truth and reality? Very simply, we need to stop shying away from reality. We need to take courage, and engage reality. We need to force others to engage reality/truth too. This, admittedly, is very hard to do in our individualistic, relativistic, atheistic culture.
Earlier this week, Minnesota Youth for Life posted a link on our facebook page from lifenews.com about Margaret Sanger. Unbeknownst to us,we were an open group. Somehow random facebookians started commenting on the link. At first they were just making snide remarks about the pro-life movement.They said they hope we just pray to end about because then we won’t actually “do” anything about it. (Because praying doesn’t actually DO anything, right?(sarcasm implied)). I asked them to keep it charitable not realizing they were not actually part of our group. THEN things got interesting.
Others started commenting. I was amazed to see the stereotypical arguments that people usually come up with about why they are not pro-life. At that moment, I felt as though I was David after the dentist. Iasked myself it if I was actually reading these posts, and if it was actually real life. Of course, once again, it was. I really just couldn’t (actually, knowing a little bit about human nature, I can) believe that people actually believe the lies, the UNASHAMED lies, about the pro-life movement. When I corrected them, it made no difference. Truth wasn’t a priority. They just started calling us the f-word and accused pro-life groups of making bombs. At that point, I deleted the conversation!
It made me step back for a moment and think that there should really be a place pro-lifers can look to get the answers to pro-choice objections. Turns out, there are places where this exists! Actually, pretty much every major pro-life group has something like it on their websites. However, something is still missing. What is missing is not merely arguing back and forth. We need to keep the conversation about life issues in our court, and not give upground.
How do we do this? First, I will tell you what we will not be doing. We will not be responding to objections using statistics, biology, theology, or politics. If we do this, no ground will ever be made. Using those lenses allow for too much possibility of jumping issue to issue, and never gaining any ground in hearts and heads. So, instead of just replying to common objections that pro-choicers come up with, we will look at abortion through the eyes of philosophy and in particular, the first principles which will help us to engage them at their most fundamental level.
What do I mean by first principles? First principles are those starting points that both parties use as a foundation for the remainder of their arguments. If our first principles are wrong, our arguments will never be sound. If we can’t agree on first principles we end up not being able to communicate! But if wecan establish first principles and show the line of reasoning from the general first principles to the particular subjects we discuss, we at least can’t be accused of being inconsistent. Even more than that, we will actually be effective in our conversations with people because people do not live well withcontradiction in their lives! (That is actually the personified first principle of non-contradiction!)
Here is the series I propose we at Minnesota Youth for Life (and maybe some experts on different subjects) will write.
1. First principles- defining the rules of engagement (we will only look at a few)
b. First principles in morality
c. Causality and goodness
d. Modern science isn’t science. The limitations of modern science.
e. Double effect
2. Application of these principles to various views opposed to life
a. The rape/incest argument
b. The birth control argument
c. The bodily autonomy argument
d. The we don’t know if it’s a person argument
e. The overpopulation argument
f. The pro-lifers only care about babies before their born argument
g. The women will do it anyways, back alley abortion argument
Obviously, the list of arguments and principles could continue. We will address all of the above issues and more in blog posts up and coming. Once again, the goal is to present the pro-life message in a rational way with the hopes that reasonable people will be convinced of the veracity of the pro-life cause and to strengthen pro-lifers understanding of the principles that the movement is built on. God bless!
|Posted by Jim on April 29, 2013 at 8:15 PM||comments (0)|
The right to life is one of our inalienable rights, at least that's what our founders believed. How far our country has come from the day of the founders. This week Live Action began releasing what is set to be a series of undercover videos that will blow your mind. It's already horrific to think about the things that happen inside an abortion clinic, but after watching these videos, which focus on the late term abortion industry, all I could do was pray; pray for the women who are decieved by the staff and doctors and pray for the staff and doctors themselves. Also, I wanted to do more to fight for our unborn generations. So, as I sit here and plan what we at Minnesota Youth for Life can do to further the cause in our own state and our own towns, I hope that you check out the below videos. What you will hear and see is hard to listen to and hard to watch, but it's important to watch because it is what is happening in our country. We can no longer ignore the horrifying truth about abortion and act like these are "safe" procedures and the doctors and nurses are following protocol to save a baby's life when an abortion fails and it is born alive. I'm absolutely appalled by what I hear in these videos, and by watching it I am even more determined to put an end to this atrocity. I hope you will join me.
|Posted by Jim on April 22, 2013 at 7:50 PM||comments (0)|
Born September 14, 1879 one of eleven children to an Irish Catholic family, Margaret Sanger (I know this seems like the start of a term paper, but keep reading!), is written about in some circles as an activist, the ultimate feminist. She was, of course, the woman who coined the term “birth control” after all. I also consider myself a feminist, however, I believe in the rights of all women, that includes those in the womb. However, Margaret Sanger’s activism led to the formation of the largest abortion provider in the United States, Planned Parenthood. So who is Margaret Sanger anyway?
Margaret Sanger’s mother died of tuberculosis. Her father blamed the death of his wife on the children saying that raising children caused her the stress that ultimately took her life. Hmmm….actually tuberculosis is caused by a bacterium called mycobacterium tuberculosis. In the days of Margaret Sanger and her mother, people referred to tuberculosis as “consumption” because those who caught it were consumed by it and many died. However the harsh words of Sanger’s father stuck with her and she made it her life’s mission to control the population. These beliefs even carried over in the birth of her own children. She said the birth of her first child was “mental torture,” and “agonizing.”
In 1916 Margaret Sanger opened the nation’s first birth control clinic and in 1921 founded the American Birth Control League which became Planned Parenthood and dedicated her life to women “choosing” what is best for them and for their bodies, and ignoring the ultimate beauty of a woman’s ability to produce and sustain life. Most striking however, is Sanger’s involvement in eugenics, which is defined as “The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.” And Sanger believed in an ultimate race, even speaking to the woman’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan. But I will let Sanger’s words speak for themselves…
"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism." –The Pivot of Civilization (1922)
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization (1922), referring to immigrants and poor people.
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
Then there are these gems:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
Sadly, Planned Parenthood still carries on the views of birth control and abortion on-demand as their founder did. But Margaret Sanger did not leave this earth as the champion of women’s rights that her followers saw her as. She was sad, lonely, bitter and battled drugs, alcohol and dabbled in the occult. I share this with you because in order to truly understand who we are up against as the pro-life generation, we must first understand where the culture of death began and how Margaret Sanger’s beliefs are still being carried out today in Planned Parenthood clinics all over the nation.
Writing this I became very discouraged and saddened, but then I realized, we are the pro-life generation. We have science and advanced technology on our side, not to mention millions of young people who strive for truth, who will stand up for life and stand up to protect the thousands of lives being lost each year to abortion. We are living in an amazing time right now. Although we see tragedy, we are also seeing abortion clinics closing their doors in record numbers, pro-life legislation being introduced and passed in states all over our nation. This is happening because you, yes you, refuse to stay silent.
I do not believe I’m being optimistic when I say we will see Roe v. Wade overturned in my lifetime. I think I’m being realistic. I wonder what Margaret Sanger would say about that.
|Posted by Jim on August 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM||comments (0)|
Life is so beautiful! As we gear up for an awesome conference we are going to be blogging more and more! We will do our best to keep you update on all the developments of the conference! We will also keep you up to date on all the pro-life goings on!
For life and liberty!