COMMENTARY: Put an end to the exploitation of an 11-year-old boy.
Imagine this scenario: A married mother and father encourage their 11-year-old daughter to dress in sexually provocative clothing. They take her to a strip club and allow her to dance onstage. The patrons throw money at her. No one touches the girl in any way, given the environment. What are we to think of these parents?
Now imagine this scenario: A priest invites an altar boy to spend evenings with him. The priest encourages the boy to dress in women’s clothing. The priest tells the boy how nice he looks and how wonderful it is that he is expressing his true self. The boy and the priest spend time together watching videos of men in drag. He arranges for the 11-year-old boy to perform at a nightclub that caters primarily to a homosexual clientele. The patrons throw money at the boy. No one, including the priest, touches the boy, at the club or elsewhere. What are we to think of the priest? Continue reading “Stop Exploiting Desmond: A Challenge to the LGBT Community”
I just got the dearest note from a gal who works with MassResistance, the Truth-Telling group in Massachusetts that confronts the LGBT agenda in the state legislature and in school boards. She was thanking me for the column I wrote in The Stream, about the MassResistance book “The Health Hazards of Homosexuality.”
She has written a gender-affirming children’s book called “I Don’t Have to Choose.” This book supports kids in being comfortable in the bodies they were born in. Ironically, the Right-Wing Watch wrote an article about it, calling it an “anti-trans” book. But they couldn’t quite bring themselves to be nasty. They tell the story, as though it is obviously wrong. But, for any ordinary, non-ideological person, the story sounds quite charming.
Grandmas and grandpas, consider this for Christmas gifts.
In a reversal of federal policy that pleased marriage advocates and angered LGBTQI groups, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a memo interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as not intended to apply to transgenders….
Sessions explained that the word “sex” in the 1964 law means “biologically male or female,” so that particular statute says nothing about “discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status.”
Naturally, the LGBT Legal Establishment and their friends in the media have a different interpretation. BuzzFeed’s headline tells its own story:
This headline is accurate as far as it goes. But, it does not point out that:
Congress never passed a law including gender identity as part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Existing discrimination law was built around the prohibition of discrimination against people for immutable characteristics, such as race.
“Gender identity” is not an “immutable characteristic:” an individual does not need a medical or psychological diagnosis, in order to define themselves into the classification of “transgender.”
Therefore, current Attorney General Sessions’ memo simply returns federal policy back to what it was in those dark medieval days before 2014.
The steady expansion of discrimination law from race to a category into which a person can define themselves, is not self-evidently “progress.”
The idea that the sex of the body is a social construct, which can be socially reconstructed, and now, personally, reconstructed through a combination of hormone therapy and surgery is a full-out assault on our existence as bodily creatures. We are mammals. Sexual differentiation between male and female is a reality of the entire mammal class.
The sexual radicals resent the fact that we are created male and female. The transgender ideology is a reflection of that resentment. This is not a small, harmless idea. Nor is it something that is so crazy it will naturally burn itself out. We must oppose the ideology and the ideologues, while showing love and compassion to the people in its grip.