(snarky comments in boldface added by your editor. -ed.)
That a coalition of eastern bloc and developing countries prevailed at the UN is itself unprecedented.
“This is unprecedented, a tremendous victory for the family,” Sharon Slater, the head of Family Watch International, told LifeSiteNews. “It is the first time ever in the history of the United Nations that a comprehensive resolution has been passed calling for the protection of the family as a fundamental unit of society, recognizing the prior right of parents to educate their children, and calling on all nations to create family-sensitive policies and recognize their binding obligations under treaty to protect the family.”
Two generations ago, Ronald Reagan described an “evil empire”. Who fits the description now?
“Those opposing the motion included the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland and other Western European countries, while its sponsors included Russia, China, Belarus, and more than a dozen Muslim and African countries. The four abstaining members of the council—Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Macedonia—probably were forced to do so by the rich countries opposing the bill.”
The Western position was supported and advanced by a mixed bag of radicals, sexual deviants, and social revolutionaries,
“…a defeat for the small but powerful group of anti-family groups supported by developed countries and the United States. Several attempts were made by feminist and pro-LGBT groups to first defeat and then amend the resolution by inserting “reproductive rights”–a euphemism for abortion, and by replacing “the family” with “families” and by inserting inclusive language to apply the resolution to sexual minorities.”
The usual suspects bemoan the outcome,
The passage of the resolution was predictably condemned by feminist and sexual advocacy groups. The Sexual Rights Initiative, for example, called it “a set back to the advancement of the human rights of individuals as it seeks to elevate the family as an institution in need of protection without acknowledging the harms and human rights abuses that are known to occur within families, or recognizing that diverse forms of family exist.”
They find an oppression hidden under every rock.
“Specifically, it claimed, “Families perpetuate patriarchal oppression, traditions and harmful practices”
The same rocks they all should go crawl back under.
Here is the link to the full news article from our friends at Lifesite.com
Protodeacon Brian Patrick Mitchell has written an interesting, and rather thought-provoking article about the dangers posed by “Gay” Christians, or rather those who “come out” and self-identify as “gay”, agree with their church doctrine regarding homosexual relations as sinful, and perhaps choose celibacy. It’s long, not quite what you are thinking, but well worth the read…
Excerpt: “Conflict makes people uncomfortable, so in mixed company, people watch what they say. Instead of speaking their minds on controversial issues, they trim their opinions to fit those around them—sometimes out of charity, sometimes out of prudence, but often out of cowardice.
Coming out therefore poses a special danger to Christianity, but not in the way many might think.”
Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=28-01-031-f#ixzz3ehdj26nU
Rod Dreher, writing for Time.com, echoes the four US Justices who dissented against legalizing homosexual “marriage”. He predicts the beginning of open persecution of orthodox Christians. The safe refuge for those who hold to traditional values, he says, is to find ways to preserve them in community. Basically, to form a counterculture.
Excerpt: “For one, we have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist. To be frank, the court majority may impose on the rest of the nation a view widely shared by elites, but it is also a view shared by a majority of Americans. There will be no widespread popular resistance to Obergefell. This is the new normal.
For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions.”
The complete article can be read at Time.com. Click on this link:
Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, delivered the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s 2014 Diane Knippers Memorial Lecture, Washington, D.C., October 16, 2014. Continue reading
I have to admit that I’ve never heard of Jackie Hill-Perry before, but I’m way out of her demographic fan base. I found a story in the Washington Times mentioning her as a “Christian rapper” and an ex-lesbian who has since rejected her lesbian lifestyle and married a man. It also mentions that she was sexually abused as a young girl and thereafter became confused about her own sexuality. This statement ties in to what was a growing body of evidence, developed prior to 1970, that emotional trauma is a contributing cause to some people taking up homosexual activity. Of course, you will never see any studies done again in that area by psychiatric professionals because in today’s climate of pro-“gay” intimidation they would lose their research grants and be brought up on ethics charges.
“Hill-Perry’s experience runs counter to pronouncements by gay rights groups that exclaim sexuality as an inherent, immutable characteristic. What’s more, her assertions come amid wide-ranging reports about the psychological dangers of so-called “reparative therapy,” which aims to change the orientation of homosexuals.”
Naturally the denunciations were not long in coming.
The complete article can be found in this link at the Washington Times:
(JS: I’m re-blogging a piece from Matt Barber, the original of which can be read over at BarbWire.com. I encourage my readers to visit Matt’s excellent blog where you may click on links he has embedded to related articles)
What The ‘Gay Marriage’ Debate Is Really About
By: J. Matt Barber
It’s called Pandora’s Box.
And the Supreme Court just opened it.
Did you actually think the debate over “gay marriage” was about marriage? Have you really come to believe that this cultural kerfuffle has anything to do with “civil rights” or “equality”? Have you bought into the popular premise that this is a legitimate discussion on federalism that it’s a reasonable disagreement over whether the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause requires that newfangled “gay marriage,” something rooted in same-sex sodomy, a deviant and disease-prone behavior our Constitution’s framers officially declared “the infamous crime against nature,” be made law of the land?
A lot of people have, so don’t feel bad. A lot of reasonable, well-meaning and even, at times, intelligent people have taken the bait. Continue reading