Cluster of wheat image Grapes and vines image Cluster of wheat image
March 25th, 2011


Ever since they appeared on the scene, human beings have been of two sexes. God created Eve, brought her to Adam, and told them to be fruitful and multiply. The man said “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh..”     Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become two in one flesh. Genesis 2:23,24.

He created them male and female, and he blessed them and called them “human.” — Genesis 5:2

It was all very simple then. Marriage was for mating. Male and female. Mating was for fruitfulness.    What happened?

Babette Francis of MercatorNet writes about  the Australian eagerness not to discriminate on the basis of gender:

In the beginning there was male and female. Soon there was homosexuality. Later there were lesbians, and much later gays, bisexuals, transgenders and queers. But anyone who thinks LGBTQ is the full count of contemporary sexualities is sadly out of date. For example, the transgendered have for some time been divided into those who are awaiting treatment, those who have had hormone treatment, those who have had hormones and surgery, and those who have had hormones and surgery but are not happy and want it all reversed.

Enter the Australian Human Rights Commission with some exciting new developments. In an extraordinary document entitled Protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity, the AHRC has come up with a further list of “genders” which they require us to recognize, and on whose behalf they want our federal government to pass anti-discrimination legislation. To date (by the time you read this, the AHRC’s family of sexualities may have increased and multiplied) these are: transgender, trans, transsexual, intersex, androgynous, agender, cross dresser, drag king, drag queen, genderfluid, genderqueer, intergender, neutrois, pansexual, pan-gendered, third gender, third sex, sistergirl and brotherboy. (No, I don’t know what “neutrois” means).

So if we add these genders to the LGBTQ list we get 23 in all, not to mention the divisions within the transgendered group. For PR purposes, however, the “gendered” community now identifies itself as LGBTQI (the “I” stands for “intersex”.)

Eugene Delgaudio writes of the upcoming vote in our own United States  on the Student Non-Discrimination Act which is  ostensibly to prevent bullying or harassment of queer students.  (If such a law should ever be passed, it should be done  to prevent  harassment OF ANY KIND FOR ANY REASON — red hair, stuttering, nationality, whatever, — not just for one particular trait.)    In actuality, Delgaudio says:

Their ultimate dream is to create a new America based on sexual promiscuity in which the values you and I cherish are long forgotten.

I hate to admit it, but if they pass the deceptively named “Student Non-Discrimination Act,” that’s exactly what they’ll do.

Better named the “Homosexual Classrooms Act,” its chief advocate in Congress is Rep. Jared Polis, himself an open homosexual and radical activist.

The agenda of the homosexual lobby:

*** Require schools to teach appalling homosexual acts so “homosexual students” don’t feel “singled out” during already explicit sex-ed classes;

*** Spin impressionable students in a whirlwind of sexual confusion and misinformation, even peer pressure to “experiment” with the homosexual “lifestyle;”

*** Exempt homosexual students from punishment for propositioning, harassing, or even sexually assaulting their classmates, as part of their specially-protected right to “freedom of self-expression;”

*** Force private and even religious schools to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum and purge any reference to religion if a student claims it creates a “hostile learning environment” for homosexual students.

No matter how much the LGBTQI’s clamor for a right to marry, people with common sense know that marriage is for mating, which is something impossible for LGBTQI’s to achieve. However much they may diddle around and try to “normalize” homosexual activity, their so-called sex is, let’s face it, fruitless and aberrant. When they call themselves queer, they’ve got it right. Queer = aberrant.

Next thing you know we’ll be going to jail for stating a fact.  No one will be allowed to express an opinion not approved by the PC police.    It will be labeled “hate speech.” Goodbye, freedom of speech!

And even if you take God out of the whole mix, mating STILL requires an egg and a sperm!


Focus on Same-Sex Marriage

February 24th, 2009


I’m fit to be tied.

Dr. Neil Clark Warren, a clinical psychologist with a Divinity degree, author of Falling in Love for All the Right Reasons, started the very successful dating service,, because he knew from experience that many marriages failed because people did not really know each other before they married. He came up with a series of questions for men and women to answer in order to learn if they might be compatible before they even started dating.

Along came Eric McKinley, a gay man, who thought the site should work for him. He told the Pasadena Weekly, “So I went to their website but couldn’t pass the initial screen. There was no option for man seeking man.”  What to do? Why sue, of course!

How dare eHarmony cater only to heterosexuals!  eHarmony does not accept married applicants, and rejects 16% of those who take their patented personality test as “poor marriage prospects.” It is totally reasonable to think a gay person might not be a good marriage prospect for a person of the opposite sex.  Nevertheless, in 2005 McKinley filed suit against eHarmony for violating New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And what did eHarmony do? Instead of going to trial, they settled! Read the rest of this entry »

January 15th, 2009


The genius of Shakespeare has Hamlet describing moral relativism in a few well-chosen words: “There is nothing either good or bad, But thinking makes it so.” In moral relativism,  nothing is absolutely good or bad. In moral relativism, there is only my good, or your good.  Good is not seen as rooted in human nature but varies with the times and the cultural milieu and the Zogby poll and who is in power.

On the other hand, our forefathers felt there were unalienable rights (or goods), among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, given to us by our creator.  Taking innocent life (murder) was always wrong. Enslaving human beings or maltreating them was always wrong. Hitler, a moral relativist, thought executing Jews, gypsies, Poles, the disabled, “useless eaters,” and various others was beneficial to the nation.  Rights came from the hand of the dictator, not from God.

The new pope, Benedict XVI, has lost no time in pointing out the danger of moral relativism.  It is getting so that it is hard to come up with anything that is still believed to be wrong by most people. We used to have right and wrong, truth and goodness.  Now we have political correctness and tolerance for everything and anything.

Child molestation is still generally considered bad though there are homosexual groups pressing for a lowering of the age of consent.  Another group will happily teach our children various ways in which they can pleasure each other sexually short of sexual intercourse.  They call it “outercourse” (and actually promote it as a kind of “abstinence!”) We know our kids are learning well  when we hear of the oral sex that is going on in grade school and on the school bus. Read the rest of this entry »

November 6th, 2008


I have a deep, deep sadness about Barack Obama’s election for it means that any progress that has been made over the past 35 years in protecting the lives of the unborn will be entirely wiped out.  See his promise to Planned Parenthood.  Some say he moved away from this stand toward the end of the campaign but obviously he was serious and the liberals will see that he keeps his promise when he said  “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”  This  man was he only Senator who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Goodbye to the requirement to notify parents that their kid is having an abortion.  Goodbye to requiring that the mother be informed about fetal development or shown an ultrasound.  Goodbye to limits based on the viability of the baby.   The FOCA would overturn  over three hundred local, state, and federal abortion restriction laws, including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.

According to Wikipedia:

The Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 3719/S. 2020) is a bill in the United States Congress which, if enacted, would abolish all restrictions and limitations on the right of women in the United States to have an abortion, whether at the State or Federal level.

It also has a retroactive effect in that it says: “This Act applies to every Federal, State and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.”

What could possibly be more overreaching than that?  OPEN SEASON ON UNBORN BABIES COMING UP once Obama is sworn in.

As one poster commented on Mercator Net:

The election process and the result is a testimony to the great openness of  the United States which has been, and always will be, its great strength, but I share the terrible foreboding expressed in some of the other postings.  No-one who has promised to unleash the ‘war’ on the unborn that this man has promised can seriously appeal for unity. As with slavery, there is no middle ground.

Enough crying in my beer.  One good thing happened on election day.  Marriage has survived in another three states!   With the addition of Florida, Arizona and California, a total of 30 states have now amended their constitutions to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Marriage has always been and should continue to be a union between a man and a women.  Other unions may be for bonding, but only marriage is a union designed for bonding and babies.  We all know what the marital act is – and only a man and a woman can perform it.  Without it a marriage is not consummated.  If two men want to perform anal sex, fist, or urinate on each other, whatever else you might call it, it’s not sexual intercourse.  Two women can “pleasure” each other in bed but let’s not call it intercourse.  If they want a legal arrangement, its easily available.  Let’s keep marriage something special and not change its very raison d’etre.

Obama has threatened to repeal the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  As a Senator he wrote:   While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress.  Of course.   They don’t come any more liberal than Barack Obama.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans favor protecting marriage.  Barack Obama does not (yet) have a free hand to “transform this nation” to his liking.

><   OO   >O
No    No   Yes

I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; choose life, then, that you  and your descendants  may live. Deuteronomy 30:19.

June 2nd, 2008


I really have to write about this because it has happened to me, an 85-year-old, mild-mannered, but opinionated blogger, and you all (all two or three of you) are supposed to share in my joys and trials.

Yesterday was a Sunday like any other Sunday except that my local paper was kind enough (or brave enough) to run a shortened version of my previous post on same-sex marriage which I had submitted as a Community Forum offering. As you might recall, I am not in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact the newspaper titled my article “Same-sex marriage should not be permitted.”

I thought I’d look at it online at the News-Times website. Lo, and behold, at the end of the piece there is a line saying “Post your comments,” and an inviting square to fill with one’s thoughts. Many people had things to say. When I first looked at the site there were 139 comments, just about all of them negative. As I look at the site today the number is up to 188. The last comment from “Horrified,” in the neighboring town of Ridgefield says:

The world has no place for hateful, bigots like you.
What if I were to espouse the same hateful remarks about Italians, Jews or Blacks. It would not be tolerated. You need to take a look at your own issues instead of spreading ignorance. The world is the horrible state it is because of people like you. Read the rest of this entry »

May 2nd, 2008


Once I had a friend. We met at the workplace and though he was considerably younger than me, we hit it off. He was gay and struggling with his homosexual leanings, and I was willing to listen. I could not begin to list the many ways in which he was kind to me and my sizable family at a time when I really needed some kindness. He took us on many road trips and even drove me to Montreal when my daughter had her first baby there. It is unlikely that he will ever read what I write here, but I am still so grateful.

I was disturbed when my friend began to enter more fully into a homosexual lifestyle. It became apparent to me that once homosexual actions were accepted as normal we would enter onto a slippery slope in which any kind of sexual activity, with man or beast, with many or none, with kids or corpses, would be defended. Once you abandon God’s and Nature’s norms, where would you draw the line. And why?

I lost my friend when I wrote the following:


I once had a friend who had grown up different-–queer, if you will. He was not turned on by women. He was not turned on by men. What really turned him on was his Saint Bernard. He knew, of course, that there are lots of dog lovers in the world, but they didn’t love their dogs like he did. For a long time he cursed the fate that had made him different, and pretended to be “one of the boys.” But he felt alone, and dishonest, and misunderstood.

One day, quite by accident, he chanced upon someone else with similar sexual preferences, and this someone introduced him to another person, and soon there was a tightly knit little group who got together for understanding and support, had parties, told inside jokes, even swapped dogs. With them, everything could be “up front.” They did not like the ring of “bestiality” so they decided to call themselves the Happys.

The Happys discovered there were many advantages to being Happy and even came out with a book, The Joy of Happy Sex. A Happy did not have to worry about the problem of jealousy. His dog was always there, never out cruising for other masters. It was certainly economical. Dog food was cheap and a motel room for one was quite adequate. No conflicting personalities; no arguments as to whose career came first or who was going to do the dishes. And, of course, no children. And no puppies. It was the perfect answer to the population explosion.

Since the Happys only had sex with female dogs (perhaps the fact that the males wouldn’t stand for it is relevant), they considered themselves superior to the Gays. To them it was perfectly obvious that males and females were complementary and that males were designed to have sex with females.

Now it so happens that at that time there was a Gay crooner who did orange juice commercials and had adopted some children of whom he was very fond. He considered Happy an abnormal sexual orientation. To him it was quite obvious that human beings were intended intended to have sex with other human beings. He wanted for his children a more mature and fulfilling sexuality.

So he said to the Happys, “What you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business. You are hurting no one but yourselves. But please do not teach my children that Happy is a perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle. I cannot blame you for your sexual proclivities but neither can I approve of your actions as good and moral. I don’t want you telling my children about the so-called advantages of being Happy or trying to persuade them that Happy is good. If you are going to do that, I would rather you did not live next door or be in a position where you can influence my children.”

Of course, the Happys were considerably upset about this and raised the cry that they were an oppressed minority, and being persecuted by the Gays. They said they were being discriminated against because of their sexual preferences which was quite as bad a being discriminated against because of race, sex, or national origin.

Now oppression, persecution, and discrimination are ugly words in America, the land of the free, and many folks felt sorry for the Happys and championed their cause. People began to boycott orange juice and the crooner lost his job. What is more, the children listened carefully to what the Happys preached and, being children, it made sense to them. As soon as they were old enough to have a sexual itch they went out looking for a dog to scratch it with. Sure enough, it was fun. Some never looked further.

And that is the story of how our nation began to go to the dogs.

MORAL: As the twig is bent, so is the tree inclined.

NB: I do not regret that I wrote this and showed it to my friend, but the loss of the friendship was painful.