Couple sues over adopted son’s damaging sex-assignment surgery

This is a very sad case. I don’t know what is happening in the medical community in terms of the reigning mentality regarding such choices. Who decided this? Why? A whole number of people had to approve of it. It’s horrible, truly horrible.

I’m happy that this kid has been adopted by these parents, and who are going to fight back regarding what these horrible doctors did to him. Another kid that might be saved from committing suicide in the future from all the psychological trauma that he will now face because of this surgery.

I hope he can rebuild himself as a boy.

A South Carolina couple sued doctors and state social workers on Tuesday for subjecting a 16-month-old child born with both male and female genitalia to what they say was medically unnecessary and irreversible sex-assignment surgery while the toddler was in foster care. The state and federal lawsuits – believed by the couple’s lawyers to be the first of their kind in the United States – argue that doctors should not have performed surgery to make the child’s body appear to be female when they knew they could not predict how gender would develop.

The child, now 8, has shown strong signs of identifying as male and recently began living as a boy, according to Pam and Mark Crawford, who adopted him after the surgery.

………….

Though doctors determined that he could be raised as either a boy or a girl, they opted for genital surgery that made the child’s body look female – a decision the Crawfords say was premature because his dominant gender identity had not yet emerged.

“The surgery eliminated M.C.’s potential to procreate as a male and caused a significant and permanent impairment of sexual function,” according to the filings in state court.

“The doctors knew that sex assignment surgeries on infants with conditions like M.C.’s poses a significant risk of imposing a gender that is ultimately rejected by the patient,” the lawsuit says.

The federal lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Charleston, South Carolina, says the surgery violated the child’s constitutional rights.

================

Not to mention every universal human and child rights.

Evil.

And another homosexual allegedly trying to sexually abuse a teenage boy in order to produce child porn

And another alleged case of a homosexual ephebophile wanting to sexually abuse/exploit a male teenager hits the news.

Pfizer executive faces porn charges in Puerto Rico

— Federal authorities in Puerto Rico have arrested a Pfizer Inc. executive for allegedly producing child pornography.

Officials say 48-year-old Reinaldo Diaz Camacho was charged after Puerto Rico police received information that he was having sexually explicit conversations with a 16-year-old boy on Facebook.

U.S. Attorney Rosa Emilia Rodriguez said Thursday that the boy’s mother told authorities she had seen the conversations on her son’s cellphone.

Rodriguez says Diaz had sent the boy sexually explicit images via Facebook and text messages. She says a federal agent then posed as the teen on Facebook and continued to interact with Diaz. She says Diaz asked the boy to send naked pictures of himself.

================

As I wrote about it here (“There is no such thing as a sexual “minority” when speaking about LGBT individuals”), there is nothing that makes this homosexual pig a “minority” in the sense of an oppressed minority. He is an executive at an international firm, he is privileged in hundreds of ways, and he goes around trying to oppress, exploit, and abuse others, in this case, a teen boy.

There is no such thing as an LGBT “minority” and LGBT individuals do not make up a minority group. The entire “minority” entity is fictional when applied to LGBT people and it is used as propaganda purposes for pulling at the heart strings of naive liberals, but who are often quite irresponsible in matters related to abuse and exploitation.

The road to tyranny – normalizing homosexuality is a tiranical cultural process

Excerpt from

The Road to Tyranny, NOM Marriage News

May 16, 2013 at 4:55 pm

Among the points made in this blog article about the abuses of the IRS persecuting social conservative organizations – such as NOM – the authors also point out that the goal of people with a homosexuality agenda is to shut down all other points of view. And that is a cultural form of tyranny. While the title of the blog article is referring to a tyranny by the IRS, there is a much graver form of tyranny, which is not judicial, it’s not just legal – it is a cultural tyranny. Every criticism, every question must be censored and excluded from the public and/or social sphere of society.

IRS agents acted like the law doesn’t matter. Decency doesn’t matter. Diversity doesn’t matter. The rights of your fellow citizens, friends, neighbors and family to participate in democracy—even if they disagree with you—doesn’t matter. All that matters is getting to your enemies and shutting them down any way.

A piece published this week in the prestigious The Atlantic, coauthored by David Montez of GLAAD (a major gay advocacy organization), openly laid out their goals for America, their vision of America: a place where your views never get heard: “But even today, anti-LGBT activists, who continue to wrongfully state that gay people are unfit to be parents, have a platform in the media to spread their lies. We have a long way to go before groups like the National Organization for Marriage are no longer routinely invited to provide ‘balance’ on national cable news programs.”

(Note how they transform the idea that children ideally need a mom and dad, to the idea that gay people are “unfit” — not what we say of course — but the truth is not relevant to a determined, aggressive campaign designed to silence your opponents and treat them as bigots.)

Let’s play with labels a little. If socons are anti-gay or anti-LGBT, then gay agenda folks are anti-socon. So we arrive at the following: anti-socon activists claim that anti-LGBT activists claim that LGBT people are unfit to be parents. Are you with me? Well, as NOM says above, this is not what they claim.

But now this means that anti-socon activists claim that LGBT individuals are fit to be parents, and since they also claim that heterosexuals are also fit to be parents, the obvious corollary is that everyone is fit to be parents – which is a patent lie.

So this brings us to the question of what does it mean to be fit to be a parent? But I’d like to address that in another post.

What I want to ask here is, more basically, what are LGBT fit for?

I posted the question with one part of the answer at this NOM thread, which was followed by the usual trolling and name-calling (scary, bestial,  demonic, having no common decency and a sense of propriety!) by homosexuality activists who post at NOM.

As can be seen by the reactions on the thread – we can add another answer to the question “what are LGBT fit for?” and that is verbal, nasty abuse.

And why all this verbal abuse, this bullying, and this virulence from the deformed homosexuals and their supporters?

Ah, I posted a link to a gay bar. I committed the greatest crime for homosexual agenda proponents: I contradicted the narrative – simply by linking to a few pictures. And you know what a crime that is! Anyone who exposes LGBT reality must be viciously attacked by these sexually deformed bullies -those who are instituting a tyrannical sexuality culture that is particularly perverted. Therefore, anyone who questions this sexually violent and depraved culture is bullied, persecuted, offended, and harassed.

My first comment asked:

…………………..

Alessandra Posted May 16, 2013 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

And yet, the question must be asked: what are they [LGBT people] fit for?

http://www.toolshed-ps.com/Tool_Shed_2010/Mr_Tool_Shed_Leather.html

What an ugly world.

Isn’t this one of the many, many LGBT realities that the narrative of homosexuals wanting homosexual marriage covers up? How deformed are LGBT individuals? Why are they the way they are? Of course, they hate research regarding their psychology because every time a serious therapist investigates homosexuality, they find profound underlying psychological and cultural problems.

Imagine a little baby girl being given to two such homosexual pigs, who are so deformed they cannot have a wholesome intimate relationship with a woman.

I think it’s funny that homosexual men in such bars call others bigots any time we question how dysfunctional these men (and women like them) are. They shout slurs if anyone suggests they are unfit.

And these are the men who want to have power over boys in the BSA.

It’s these kinds of realities that Americans don’t want to face exist.

…………………

1.  Richard Posted :

   Alessandra, you are truly one scary individual and your preoccupation with the likes of the site you share is indicative more of your proclivities and less the larger gay population getting married, raising families and settling in as responsible community citizens. How deformed are you? This is how you entertain yourself at night? This, then is your reality, your world. You own it.

2.  peter Posted :

   Richard, the word you’re looking for is bestial.

3.  AlessandraPosted :

   Richard,

   I don’t follow you. Are you saying these men are perverted, deformed, bestial? Are they in any way different than you and peter?

   If the majority of men in society were like this, would that change how perverted they are? Isn’t that your theory? “If many millions of men are like this, then it’s normal and anyone who questions it is a bigot! “

   Don’t you want people to know the reality of LGBT individuals? As we can see, there is your narrative, and then there is reality.

   And in case we need to remind you, the numbers of homosexuals who got homosexual marriage in countries where it was legalized is extremely small. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of homosexual men in repulsive gay bars is much, much higher than the total of farcically married homosexuals.

………………………………

1.  peter Posted :

   Lol! Alessandra, you’re a treat. Demonic, but still a treat. God bless you. Better yet….priceless

2.  Barb Chamberlan Posted :

   Thanks, Alessandra. It’s nice to see pics of the trolls who comment here.

1. RichardPosted :

   Alessandra and Barb, my earlier post must have been too revealing of both your natures. Suffice it to say, common decency and a sense of propriety have escaped both your lives. We are left with these images: Barb trolls google to exploit children and Alessandra spends his nights trolling for titillation. Grotesque on both counts.

2.  Randy E King Posted :

   Richard,

   There is nothing decent about the sexual depravity you pimp. Common decency dictates that we kick you folks out of our society.

   When Cain killed Able God commanded the tribe to turn its back on Cain. The 1st Amendment protects our right to treat you in kind.

3.  RobertPosted :

   Randy, in what way does the First Amendment protect your “right” to treat anyone in a particular way? You are certainly free to malign gays, and normal people are free to malign you, in response. Is that what you’re talking about?

1. Randy E KingPosted :

   MSDNC report on rape in the military:

   “male rape survivors are stepping forward to remind officials that men are targeted more often than women “

   Feel good about yourselves Robert and Richard; are you proud of yourselves?

2.  AlessandraPosted :

   About 10% of sexual assaults in the military were males sexually assaulting males.

   You can see the report here (2011):

   http://www.sapr.mil/index.php/annual-reports

   This is interesting because the estimates for homosexual males in the military are about 1-2% of all military personnel. And yet homosexual male sexual assaults were 10% of all assaults.

   That is much higher than their respective representation. And with the repeal of DADT, it will only climb. However there will be tremendous pressure, and much greater pressure than before, to cover up and lie about any homosexual perpetrator, in order to prove for political reasons that repealing DADT “worked.”

   These are the people who call us “demonic” and want to trample on every single one of our fundamental rights.

   1. Richard said: “Suffice it to say, common decency and a sense of propriety have escaped both your lives.”

   Wait… aren’t the men in gay bars “decent” to you? And are women with a homosexual problem in bars what you call having a “sense of propriety”?

   As you and peter demonstrate again and again here: for a pervert, nothing is perverted.

   Deep down, LGBT people know they are warped. They only want to engage in the marriage circus to avoid dealing head on with their profound psychological problems in the area of sexuality.

   You can take the LGBT out of the DSM, but you can’t take the profoundly deformed (DSM) psychological problems out of the LGBT folks.

3. 1. Robert said: “Randy, in what way does the First Amendment protect your “right” to treat anyone in a particular way? You are certainly free to malign gays, and normal people are free to malign you,”

   Given that you think that homosexuals dressed up like dogs or monkeys on a leash is “normal,” maybe you should get off your soapbox for stipulating what normality is.

4.  Will FisherPosted :

   NOM moderator, I think you might want to shut this comment thread down. It’s degenerated into something that bears little resemblance to respectful dialogue.

5. ……………………..

Will Fisher,

Actually the myriad ways that LGBT individuals denigrate sex, sexuality, themselves, and everybody else is a very interesting topic. Any thread on this topic should never be shut down, no matter how upset homosexual agenda proponents get when we expose the reality of the LGBT.

There is nothing that ever comes out of the mouth of a person with a homosexuality agenda that is ever respectful or truthful.

As long as people with your harmful agenda want to pollute the NOM blog with your nasty ideology, be prepared to read what decent people think in response.
===========================

Will Fisher Posted:

Alessandra, I’m a married, church-going, straight man. How do I have a homosexual problem/agenda? You’re crazy!

Will Fisher,

I see that you like lying about your own homosexuality agenda, the one that you promote in everyone of your comments here. As you show, you can be married, go to church, and have the most ignorant homosexuality agenda – all at the same time.

This pretty much sums up the current liberal homosexuality agenda:

The homosexuality agenda is the political and cultural movement to normalize homosexuality in every aspect of society, including legally, by systematically lying about its etiology and consequences, and to criminalize any questioning, differing viewpoints, objections of said homosexual agenda.

The homosexuality agenda (ridiculously called “gay rights movement” and other such euphemistic terms) is part of a larger liberal agenda regarding sexuality and personal behaviors (including the endorsement of promiscuity, hook-ups, perverse and perverted attitudes and behaviors related to sex, porn, adultery, abortion, destruction of traditional marriage, STD epidemics, etc.).

The homosexuality agenda is largely responsible for irresponsible and corrupt research and academic production regarding homosexuality.

Do not confuse the term “(homo)sexuality” with “(homo) sexual orientation. They are not the same.

Homosexuality is about sexual attitudes, values, attractions, repulsions, concepts and interpretations about sexuality, power and domination or subjection dynamics relating to the sexual other, affection or objectification of the sexual other, admiration or disrespect related to the sexual object,conscious and unconscious feelings related to self or other which shapes or deforms relation and sexual feelings towards other, obsessions and distortions, projections, fantasies, dysfunctions, traumas, impacts from social conditioning, problems with masculinity or femininity, problems with personal history and fundamental caretakers, etc. that will result in the sexualization of someone of the same sex and a hindering of the normal sexualization of someone of the opposite sex.

Society needs to be concerned about homosexuality, not homosexual orientation. Homosexual attraction or desire is only a mere product of a myriad configurations of these aforementioned dysfunctional
psycho-social dynamics.

==================

As a final comment, one of the things that was striking in the slurs flung above is that the fact that decent people are called “bestial” by homosexuals, because we insist on a sexuality paradigm that is ethical, wholesome, and respectful.

And these very same homosexuals insist on thinking, behaving, and dressing up as deformed sexuality monkeys on a leash, debasing and degrading sex and sexuality in ways that many beasts in the animal world rise above.

Which one then is the bestial? The homosexuals who think and behave like depraved chained dogs spreading STDs all around society or decent heterosexuals who are fighting for a wholesome culture regarding sexuality?

The fight for marriage will never be successful unless society starts to consider how deformed LGBT people’s ideas about sexuality are. And this only happens because most LGBT individuals, along with liberals, refuse to face how many profound psychological and ethical problems they have.

Germany example – homosexuals turn conception into weird baby factories where not a single child is a product of love of its mother and father.

In Germany, a man with a homosexual problem, Markus K., has fathered 24 children so far – by donating his sperm to women with a homosexual problem (link to article below*):

In Germany, a recent court ruling has gutted the framework of anonymity in which many sperm donors have operated. A regional court ruled that a child’s desire to know her biological father trumped his desire for anonymity, and left some legal question as to whether such children are entitled to inheritance rights. But K. and the women to whom he donated are open about their children’s paternity. “I think it’s a child’s right to know its biological parents,” he said.

But, he and the mothers have come up with a way to make sure that both mothers have parental rights: K. told the German paper that he is listed as the birth father on each child’s birth certificate, and then gives the child up for adoption to its co-mother after eight weeks, allowing both mothers to be legal parents to their children. He sees many of his offspring on a regular basis.

But, with two more children on the way, K. is thinking he might soon retire as a sperm donor. “If the two babies, who are already on the way, are born, I’ll have 12 girls and 12 boys. That’s balanced, a good tally. I’ve promised five other women children. Then I’ll stop, it’ll be enough.”

……………………..

These people are embracing a new concept of what being a father is: “he sees many of his offspring on a regular basis.” I guess for the others, they don’t see him, and it doesn’t matter either. Either seeing a child for an hour a month is now “being a father” or actually “being a real father” does not matter anymore for people with a homosexuality problem.

Then there was this: he has fathered 24 children, he is never with most of them, he is never a real father to them, and he now thinks “that’s enough.” Isn’t that thoughtful of him?

If he isn’t a father to these 24 children, why not 50, 70, or 100?

As we can see, not content with normalizing their perverted sexuality, people with a homosexuality problem must pervert and destroy marriage, and now also, the very fundamental role of parenting.

He gives NO thought to what he is doing to any of these children. And, what’s even more interesting, according to him, who is the victim in this whole story? Himself!

He claims to be a victim because he wasn’t allowed to become a priest (!). And why? Because of those meanie conservatives that have ethics and principles when it comes to sexuality and relationships.

Can you imagine this guy as a priest? Another priest prone to seduce vulnerable teenage boys (as the great majority of sexually abusive priests in the CC scandal were – homosexual men), or to have orgies with other dysfunctional priests, or to get caught with a prostitute or a nun in the end. Fortunately, one less pink mafia pig in his targeted church.

He even admits that all this fathering obsession might be a way for him, in his deformed mind, to get an emotional revenge at the Church. He stated something like,”I was not allowed be a priest, but I can reproduce myself as often as I want. There!”

Obviously he doesn’t consider what he is doing to any of the children. That’s the kind of priest he would have made.

And obviously, no one encourages him to go investigate the mountain of underlying problems he has regarding sexuality and relationships – in order to resolve them – and live his life as he was born to be, a heterosexual human being.

………………….

*Seminarian expelled for being gay became a sperm donor for lesbians constrained by anti-gay donation rules – Megan Carpentier The Raw Story

+++++++++++++

Re this Der Spiegel article – linked in above article:

Papa Ed: The Busy Life of a Prolific Sperm Donor By Barbara Hardinghaus

In this article, the other thing that struck me as profoundly appalling was the fact that it is legal (or at least allowed) that a man will have sex with a woman in exchange for his sperm.

So the woman prostitutes herself to get the sperm – she gets paid “in sperm” instead of getting paid some cash! How gross.

These are liberals – the people who normalize homosexuality. They debase in every way the way that intimate relations and sex can be construed for human beings.

as K. makes reference to, that many private sperm donors — even for lesbians — “donate” in exchange for sex with the donees, as referenced in a 2012 article in Der Spiegel about a Dutch man, Ed Houben, who had fathered 82 children by the time of publication, some with lesbians.

From Der Spiegel:

Just like all of Ed’s children, Max has his round indented chin and large feet. The children usually have their mothers’ eyes. They are still young, but as they get older they’ll start asking questions, and they’ll want answers. Perhaps they’ll want a closer relationship with him, a more loving relationship. Or maybe they’ll want financial support.

When asked whether he worries about such things, Houben answers: “About what?”

If they’ll all show up on his doorstep one day, he says, “it’ll be what I wanted” And if they all want money from him, he says, he simply won’t have any. Certainly not enough for 84-plus children.

What is there to worry regarding the rights of children to a father or to a loving heterosexual couple? Children have no rights according to people with a liberal/homosexuality agenda.

Moreover, it’s plain to see the guy is completely emotionally messed up – serious arrested development there regarding establishing relationships with women. In addition to how he shows no responsibility or thought about the children he’s fathering. It’s all about trying to resolve his own rejection problems with women.

And if there was a common characteristic about all the women wanting the sperm in this story is that they showed a complete failure in establishing a wholesome, long-term relationship with a man. Now, I’m not saying that it must be all their fault – who knows what kinds of men they have searched for or came across in their lives?

But then, this generation that normalizes homosexuality, who is largely liberal, often adopts values and attitudes that destroys the principles for heterosexual marriage (by normalizing hookups, porn, etc.). So even in the case of a woman who wants to find a good, social conservative husband, where can she find such a man? I know of several women who cannot.

Although, in the article, by the profiles and information regarding the women seeking donors – aside from the homosexual ones – we would assume they are equally liberal and equally lacking good attitudes about marriage themselves. But there isn’t enough information to know more about them. Every bit of information in the article concerning the type of relationships that these women have points to problems. What are the attitudes about sex and relationships that these women have? And the men they have been with? These are questions that cannot be overlooked.

People with a homosexuality agenda must deform everything. They have become like some weird baby factories, where not a single baby is the product of love of its mother and father. Not a single one, because it’s impossible given their deformed minds.

Even when the subject refers to heterosexuals, it’s not all that different. Although, under exceptional circumstances, single heterosexual individuals can certainly raise kids from artificial means of conception, and be entitled to it, and do it lovingly, it’s not what we should strive to establish as normal.

CDC report finds stunning rise in suicides; plus: more people die of prescription opiates than from heroin and cocaine combined in the US today

Very interesting (and sad):

There’s been a stunning increase in the suicide rate among middle-aged Americans. The finding is part of a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that spells out how much suicide is a growing public health concern in the U.S.

In 2010, there were more suicides in the U.S., 38,000-plus, than there were fatal motor vehicle accidents. Most disturbing, that spike among the middle-aged, a 28 percent rise overall, a 40 percent jump among white Americans, and among men in their 50s, suicides increased by more than 48 percent.

….

And what about abuse of non-prescription drugs, illegal or illicit drugs? Have we seen — do we know whether those deaths are intentional from things like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine?

THOMAS FRIEDEN: Well, one thing that’s quite striking is that, today, there are more people who die from prescription opiates than from heroin and cocaine combined, so a major problem.

And one thing that also isn’t always recognized is that alcohol is a significant contributor to depression and to mental health problems. That binge drinking and problem drinking can really exacerbate mental health problems. So for people to cut down, never more than four for men, never more than three for women at one sitting, makes a big difference.

 

Debate with pro-homosexuality agenda commenter “smrnda” at Patheos – example of a person being irrational and prejudist, and not aware of it

(I added stuff after I first posted and updated it more May 2nd)

Below is the copy of what was a very symbolic debate with a liberal with a homosexuality agenda in a thread at the Patheos site (a very mixed quality site). Not because of this person’s political ideology per se though.

(“smrnda” is the commenter nick of this person, and she writes like  a woman – so I’ll refer to her as such).

What is interesting is smrnda’s incapacity to be rational and simultaneously have no self-awareness of her irrationality concerning certain of her postulates about me. I always find this funny and frightening at the same time in people (well, in more or less harmless cases, in any case).

Related to this is how smrnda determines who has knowledge (in her view, it’s her, of course, because she got a degree in psychology! ). And if anyone disagrees with her, they must not have knowledge or a degree, especially one in psychology (although she tries to kind of ascertain this and tries to categorize her opponent using a very childish method).

But as it became apparent, for smrnda, it’s not that other people know differently or know things she doesn’t know anything about – they must not know (!). There’s only one set of things to know and she knows it – end of discussion. By such attitudes and “reasonings,” my guess is she’s under 25, maybe still even in undergrad; I have to look if she says she has graduated – but it’s a guess.

As you will clearly see as the debate progresses, smrnda is incapable of thinking critically about anything she was taught in school. So she is more like an ideological pull-string doll. I’m sure that’s how she got her degree – by being a parrot. It’s frightening that such young people then go work as counselors or whatever, but there’s nothing special in that sense about smrnda, there’s a ton of such intellectually-challenged people with their little liberal school psychology degrees working.

Returning to the topic here, when confronted with questions about the flaws in her thinking – which clearly, she never had to confront in school – she does not respond rationally and usually completely ignores the flaw that is pointed out.

What she displays then is an attitude that says: “I am right. I am right because I was told at my school that what they say is right. I never questioned it and neither did them. So I can’t be wrong. Therefore, anyone questioning any of my beliefs must a) be wrong, b) have no knowledge.”

And it becomes ludicrous just how irrational she displays herself to be, being completely incapable of refuting glaring facts where she is wrong. Blatant cognitive dissonance – and this was a written debate!

So her political views on homosexuality are quite hum-drum and the typical liberal homosexuality agenda idiocy. But that’s not what I wanted to point out here. It’s the fact that she has a “fanatical” and completely out-of-touch-with-reality way to label and see me: “I have decided your knowledge (or the selective and distorted way I interpret what you write) is from 1900. So I know much better than you -  and so you cannot be right about anything, independently if you prove it or support it, and I don’t.”

No matter how much I point out how irrational she is both with the label and certain flaws in her arguments, she simply ignores it all. I will point out specifically where this happens below. And she always comes back to state: you cannot know, because I have determined that you must think a certain way, that is, I have branded you with a certain stereotype that cannot have valid knowledge. Then she devises a test (like three or four questions in psychology) to evaluate how she will more precisely categorize and stereotype me. For some reason, doubts linger. Although she never stated it, I can bet her evaluation of “the test” would go like this: I repeat 100% of what she thinks, result: I am “very knowledgeable” and pass “the test.” It’s funny.

Since I refused to take “the test,” smrnda could only take this refusal as proof that her initial stereotype that I must not have any knowledge must be true, even though she regrets that I did not answer her. Perhaps her regret was due to the fact that she wanted “scientific proof” – as provided by her very scientific test – that I must be the stereotype she has branded me with.

The most hillarious part was where smrnda affirms that no one “who knows anything about psychology (like her, btw)” believes that the mind has an “unconscious” anymore! I don’t know how much you, reader, know about psychology (or its history), but this is the equivalent of someone saying that “no one believes the human body contains a stomach or a brain – anymore!” It makes me laugh even now.

The unconscious apparently has been discarded in smrnda’s understanding and psychology curriculum – it got in the way of the homosexuality agenda, I suppose, so they just chucked it.

The last time smrnda heard of such a notion was related to Freud’s time, I imagine – which for her is probably like at Jesus’ time. And not only is Freud dead, but he’s been “discredited” as well! Conclusion: Freud didn’t know anything about anything either. That’s another favorite label of young “homosexuality agenda” liberals – “discredited.” Anything that a liberal professor declares as having been discredited is taken as Provenly So, therefore it must be dis-considered without further thought. Ask any such liberal student why has it been discredited and by whom and then watch the disaster unfold. They don’t know – usually. And they can’t prove it to you that it has been discredited, because they simply heard it and believed it. Now to smrnda’s credit, she does try to explain why certain types of psychoanalysis theories and practices were discredited. But she does this – and here comes the spoiler – while not realizing I was not particularly defending any of the ones she refers to, and not realizing that I was certainly not using them in my argumentation. Moreover she entirely skips addressing the types of  psychology mechanisms that I was specifically referring to. In other words, she insists – irrationally – that I must be talking about what she deludingly assumed I was, and then, with great certainty, she trumpets they have been “discredited.” Strawman, beautifully.

Ah, there’s a lot of material in this exchange. Anyone who wants to study how people irrationally stereotype and brand others, and how this acts a major filter for everything they then interpret coming from the other, here’s a nice little study subject: smrnda!

(what kind of a nick is that, btw? ; -)

Now I have to say, that right at the offset of the exchange, smrnda said something that almost made my chin drop. She said she wanted to explain something to me regarding her views, so she was going to the library to get a few of the articles that had it detailed.

When, in “exchanging” with anyone on the Wild Wild West of the Internet, has anyone ever said to you they would actually pick a book, much less physically go to the library and get some articles, instead of just cutting and pasting the first thing they find on google or wikipedia?

Now I thought: this is a once in a lifetime experience. I’m never going to see this again, this looks very nice. smrnda really wants to discuss some things in depth.

Ah, spoken too soon. As it turns out, smrnda’s intention was not to go to the library to get material to discuss, she wanted to get the articles that represent  her ideological Bible (of beliefs) to her. She wanted to come back and say: See? This is a peer-reviewed article, which for people under 35 apparently translates as the Truth and Nothing But – and it is therefore set in stone. The article (note: peer-reviewed!) states X. There is nothing further to discuss. You must believe (like I do).

Now smrnda is a product of a certain school system that has been rewarding her not to think and to just accept and believe what they are told. That is what the system usually conditions students to do. And the majority do it. If she had been in a much different system, starting with high school, she would be thinking a lot more than she is now.

……………………

I’m editing the whole text in Word, because it’s too big for WordPress to handle…

Stay tuned!

Also, in reviewing this exchange from 3 months ago, I realize there is so much to say about how she thinks – more than what she thinks- even though the latter is symbiotically related to the former.

It will take some time. I’m thinking about posting the text in divided segments.

If you are curious though, go here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/01/not-impressed-with-the-boy-scouts-of-america/

(blogsome): Student expelled from program for her Christian (and ethical) views

blogsome 2010-07-29

There were many good comments on this recent, very frightening decision on the Julea Ward case. I thought M Warner summed it up nicely, using very plain language.

The judge said this in defense of his decision:

“The university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values.”

So whose values are we supposed to “impose?”  This is the ridiculous point at the heart of any argument dealing with the mixing of our values and any kind of public policy. It’s the same lame excuse made by pro-choice Catholic politicians who hide behind it in order to “not impose” their own supposedly pro-life beliefs on everyone else.

Well if you aren’t imposing your own beliefs or your own values….whose values are you imposing? And why are you allowed to impose those?  But not your own?

See, in this case, the leaders at Eastern Michigan were allowed to impose their own personal values.  And the judge seemed to be alright imposing his own personal values as well. The only person that couldn’t impose their own personal values in all of this was the Christian who listened to her more correctly formed conscience. Pretty whack if you ask me.

It’s all a ruse. People who make such arguments are playing tricks where they make an imaginary distinction between values that are okay to impose (like abortions and homosexual activity are healthy choices) and those that are not okay to impose (like anything that disagrees with them).  And they try to portray the things that disagree with their agenda as just your “personal values” that simply can not be imposed on others in a pluralistic society.  And on the flip side they implicitly portray their own agenda (their own personal values) as objective, reasonable rules to the playground – not their own personal values of course.

In the end, all judgments we make are personal judgments informed by our personal values. There is no escaping it. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a fraud. We’re really in sad shape now that we have federal judges making these kinds of arguments. Particularly while overlooking the individual rights of the student in question and her freedom to respect her own conscience.

=============

 

“The university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values.”

Rational? Orwellian.

 

‘,’Student expelled from program for her Christian (and ethical) views’,’0′,”,’publish’,'open’,'closed’,”,’student-expelled-from-program-for-her-christian-and-ethical-views’,”,’ http://www.ncregister.com/blog/student-booted-for-refusing-to-accept-homosexuality/ ‘,’2010-07-29 21:57:52′,’2010-07-29 21:57:52′,”,’0′,’http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/07/29/student-expelled-from-program-for-her-christian-and-ethical-views/’,’0′) ***60′,’1′,’2010-08-01 06:20:57′,’2010-08-01 06:20:57′,’

(blogsome): Catholic Church abuse scandal – why does the media use pedophile instead of pederast?

Blogsome 2010-07-28

A comment on why the MSM insists on using the term “pedophile” to describe priests in the Catholic Church abuse scandal, given that 80% of the cases brought to justice have been for pederasty or homosexual ephebophilia sexual abuse.

Firstthings thread comment:

“suek: However the press doesn’t want to “tar” homosexuals and it _did_ want to tar Catholic priests, so it uses the more objectionable term [pedophile over pederast].”

It’s not that the press doesn’t want to “tar” homosexuals. The press is actively lying about and covering up most cases of violence that involves a homosexual perpetrator, whether it concerns minor sexual abuse, sexual harassment, dysfunctional parenting, domestic violence or other types of adult violence. The press usually does not outright lie, although the case of calling priests “pedophile” instead of “homosexual” in just about every headline, is a considerably manipulative way of misleading the public, given the high number of homosexual abuse cases in the Church scandal.

What is much graver is the fact that the press is seriously lying by omission or trivializing data concerning violence and other harmful behaviors perpetrated by homosexuals (or bisexuals). Specially if the question involves heterosexuals or minors as victims, then the propaganda machine goes into full gear. In this way, they are coddling a large number of perpetrators.

In the media, and in popular and political discourse, we observe an emphatic reinforcement of a “victim” stereotype for homosexuals. To a large degree, concerning bisexuals, there is a different, largely popular attitude, an invisibility of the entire category of bisexuals, more than the hammering of the victim stereotype.

If you look at the mass media and popular discourses on homosexuals and homosexuality, homosexuals are often portrayed in an extremely simplistic way, as gentle, benign creatures, oppressed by the horrible conservatives who don’t accept and normalize their homosexuality.

“All they want to do is love each other,” is a very popular meme. Another one is that “homosexuals aren’t violent (in any way),” “most child abusers are heterosexuals (to the point of implying that homosexuals are thus practically incapable of abusing children), “homosexuals do not sexually harass anyone, specially heterosexuals,” “a large number of homosexuals are driven to suicide because their homosexuality is not accepted, (thus, not only are they are more at risk of death by suicide than other vulnerable groups),” “homosexuals are in considerable personal danger everywhere because of the threat of ‘hate’ crimes, (and not because of how violent they are themselves to other homosexuals)” “homosexuals are discriminated against, but do not discriminate against others,” etc.

In our society, we find that all three categories of sexual orientation (hetero, bi, homo) perpetrate all kinds of violence related to sexuality and personal relations. However, while society has come (after a long fight to crack its thick denial walls) to recognize that heterosexuals abuse children, batter spouses, rape and sexually harass women in large numbers, we observe an intense public misinformation campaign that suggests that homosexuals basically never commit such crimes and the bisexual category is never even usually mentioned in popular discourse.

Taking minor abuse as an example, how does this impact cases of real abuse against children? If it is already a nightmare to bring to justice any case of child abuse, and get justice for it, then it becomes even more dire if the perpetrator is held by the public to be basically incapable of committing the crime, and, furthermore, the propaganda reaffirms that any suggestion of such a violent incident is due to “homophobia.” The same is true for sexual harassment, rape, and domestic violence. For example, the Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project reports estimates of one in four homosexual men suffering domestic violence.

The graver consequence of reinforcing a stereotype of non-violent victims for a population that clearly includes a large number of perpetrators of aggression and crimes is that you victimize every single REAL victim of all this violence. The media and “gay” activists do form a profoundly irresponsible and damaging force in society, because as everyone knows, silence and denial about aggression and violence only further severely damage the victims, ensure the harmful dynamics continue unaddressed, and they give a green light to further violence by the perpetrators.

Given that public resources are limited, and are employed to deal with different violence problems in society in part due to a hierarchy of cultural values, this is another way that spreading lies and myths about violence can and often hurts the victims who have less power in society, less organized lobbies, less millionaire coffers to buy their influence, change laws that affect them, etc.

Isn’t there a compelling state interest to stop lying about who is violent in society? This systematic cover-up homosexual activists and the media engage in is profoundly corrupt.

 

‘,’Catholic Church abuse scandal – what’s in a word? A lot of propaganda.’,’0′,”,’publish’,'open’,'closed’,”,’catholic-church-abuse-scandal-whats-in-a-word-a-lot-of-propaganda’,”,’ http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/07/21/cultural-background-of-pedophilia/’,’2010-07-28 10:30:19′,’2010-07-28 10:30:19′,”,’0′,’http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/07/28/catholic-church-abuse-scandal-whats-in-a-word-a-lot-of-propaganda/’,’0′) ***56′,’1′,’2010-07-28 11:52:26′,’2010-07-28 11:52:26′,’

blogsome: Finally the Spaniards are becoming less cruel cads regarding the bull fighting stupidity

blogsome 2010-07-27

NYT - Bullfighting, seen by many Spaniards as an essential component of their cultural patrimony, could suffer its biggest setback to date on Wednesday when lawmakers in Catalonia will vote on whether to ban fights in their region.

Such a ban would be “the most important victory for animal rights that we’ve had,” according to Aida Gascón, the national director of AnimaNaturalis, an organization that has long campaigned against what it considers to be a barbaric and outdated practice.

===============

Good luck to the vote. I hate bullfighting, because of the senseless, vile cruelty to the animal.

 

‘,’A small, but growing chance to start ridding Spain of bullfighting’,’0′,”,’publish’,'open’,'closed’,”,’a-small-but-growing-chance-to-start-ridding-spain-of-bullfighting’,”,”,’2010-07-26 22:45:23′,’2010-07-26 22:45:23′,”,’0′,’http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/07/26/a-small-but-growing-chance-to-start-ridding-spain-of-bullfighting/’,’0′) ***54′,’1′,’2010-07-27 10:43:00′,’2010-07-27 10:43:00′,’

(blogsome) Sometimes hell does freeze over

blogsome 2010-08-06

Sometimes hell does freeze over. Never could I have expected that something even remotely related to Silvio Berlusconi could ever be good. Et voilà! I was wrong. Not withstanding the fact that he probably has nothing personal to do with any of this, we will never know if the idea for the scandal story came from the boss in the big office. If it did, he’s laughing all the way to the bank.

===============

Irish Times: ITALIAN NEWS magazine Panorama yesterday defended its current controversial cover story, containing undercover revelations about the highly active gay sex lives of some priests based in and around Rome’s Holy See.

Responding to accusations of scandal-mongering from unnamed church sources, editor Giorgio Mulé said those senior church figures who did not believe the report should be aware that Panorama has the names and addresses of the priest protagonists.

Last Friday, Panorama published a report by undercover reporter Carmelo Abbate detailing a month-long series of gay parties and brief encounters in and around the Holy See, featuring openly gay priests. Abbate claims he was introduced into this particular gay community by a gay friend who invited him to attend a party in the Testaccio area of Rome, a party hosted by a French priest, referred to as Fr “Paul”.

Supplementing the photographic documentary evidence published by the magazine, Panorama also posted a film on its web site (panorama.it) which features many of the episodes recounted by Abbate in his article.

In particular, Fr Paul is seen “dirty dancing” with two gay dancers, and then caught in a series of passionate embraces with a man while stretched out on a bed wearing only boxer shorts. Later, Fr Paul is seen wearing clerical vestments as he celebrates Mass, apparently in a private apartment.

Along with Church sources, Italian gays expressed their reservations about the article. Activist Aurelio Mancuso, a former president of the Italian gay movement, ArciGay, argued the news magazine, which is part of the media empire of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, wanted to use the gay issue as a way of attacking the church: “This is a squalid political and cultural operation; in order to attack the Catholic Church you propose a vision of the homosexual community that is stuffed with stereotypes . . .”

However, the Berlusconi-owned daily Il Giornale yesterday pointed out that the existence of a website, venerabilis.tk, dedicated to “homosexual Roman Catholic priests” provides incontrovertible proof that many Catholic priests not only have homosexual tendencies but are also sexually active. Dedicated to priests “who are neither gay nor homosexual but who are homo-sensitive”, this site appears to host a compromising chat room in which Il Giornale claims to have read messages such as: “I am a 33-year-old priest, I live close to Rome, I am very discreet but anxious to have a relationship.”

The Vicariate of Rome, Cardinal Agostino Vallini, has claimed that the article was clearly an attempt “to create scandal and to defame all priests”.

In particular, the cardinal pointed the finger at a remark attributed to another of the gay priests, Fr “Carlo”, who is reported as saying that 98 per cent of the priests he knows are gay.

Vatican observers point out, however, that the vicariate has been concerned about the behaviour of priests in Rome as evidenced by a sort of “moral screening” carried out in the last year on the 2,000 foreign priests and 1,300 Italian priests based in the Eternal City.

 

==============

The profit the tabloid (magazine?) Panorama made on this, if it sold well, is entirely deserved. Hopefully, it will encourage other publications to do more of the same.

UKToday: “The Magazine stated, that these priests need to be exposed consistently, and it would have been better they had never become priests.

I totally agree.

I am totally against obligatory celibacy for clergy. It cannot ever lead to any other result than the above, not to mention the recent, largely pederast abuse scandal in the Catholic Church (with its accompanying fewer cases of female homosexual, heterosexual, and pedophile abuse cases). Clergy should preferably be married, raising a family, and doing a good job at both. (And certainly lip-service doesn’t count, it should be equally denounced as these homosexual priests).

 

‘,’Something mildly related to Berlusconi is quite good! whodathought? ever!’,’0′,”,’publish’,'open’,'closed’,”,’something-mildly-related-to-berlusconi-is-quite-good-whodathought-ever’,’ ‘,’ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0726/1224275466275.html, http://uktodaynews.com/7438/the-catholic-church-falls-into-another-controversy-after-reported-gay-priests-revelation/ ‘,’2010-08-06 18:31:43′,’2010-08-06 18:31:43′,”,’0′,’http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/07/26/something-mildly-related-to-berlusconi-is-quite-good-whodathought-ever/’,’0′) ***53′,’1′,’2010-07-26 22:45:23′,’2010-07-26 22:45:23′,