~Pearl
RISE OF ATLANTIS ลุ้นชนะรางวัลสูง 10,000X
1 week ago
Friday, September 11, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sabbatical
Pearl is taking one; a much deserved, much anticipated, much appreciated sabbatical. In short, I'm taking a summer vacation to reconnect with my family, my neglected hobbies, my favorite books, and my Heavenly Father.
Never fear, I'll still be hanging around various social networking sites and keeping up on the latest threats to family and freedom, but my posts will be few and far between and will most likely be quick blurbs with links or videos for your viewing pleasure.
Don't forget me! :0)
~Pearl
P.S. You may have noticed a random picture of a random bike in my sidebar. It's an experiment in luck. I never win anything, but thought I'd participate in this particular giveaway for two reasons: 1) participation is easy with the simple addition of html to my blog, and 2) I am REALLY curious to see how well that would perform with two mischievous and wiggly toddlers in back. I'm dubious (imagining many painful wipe-outs). :0)
Monday, June 15, 2009
A Father’s Day Plea
"Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there's no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses."
~ Pearl
P.S. Never forget: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the ultimate expression of equality as no gender is marginalized.”
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
“You Don’t Have to Yell” by Chris Rice
I happily stumbled upon this song, “You Don’t Have to Yell,” while listening to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Radio mixed with a bit of Jon Schmidt on Pandora. I love it. This guy, Chris Rice, has a soothing, mellow voice and blends those excellent vocals with wonderful, timely messages.
A message for those who yearn to see traditional marriage safely and permanently elevated for the sake of children and society.* We can do this quietly, respectfully, and firmly – without contention:
“Draw your lines and choose your side
Many things are worth the fight
But louder doesn't make you right
You don't have to yell
You don't have to yell”
It is my belief that such level-headed reasoning will some day prove victorious. Thanks to Chris Rice for lending his beautiful talent to such a beautiful message of peace.
~Pearl
*This is purely my personal application and interpretation of the message of the song. I do not know where Chris Rice “draws his lines.”
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8
This morning the Supreme Court of California ruled 6-1 in favor of Proposition 8. I am immensely relieved that this state’s judiciary was inspired to reaffirm the right of the people of California to amend our own Constitution as we see fit. I am relieved that my Nov. 4th vote didn’t come to naught. I am relieved that, at least for a time, marriage is as it should be in the great state of California.
Democracy has ruled the day here in The Golden State.
As per the 18,000 homosexual “marriages” performed between last year’s judicial ruling against Prop 22 and the November 4th vote approving Prop 8, they will remain valid. I will be curious to learn how that is justified.
~Pearl
Technorati Tags: California Supreme Court,California Supreme Court Justices,Proposition 8,Prop 8,Yes on 8,Vote Yes on 8,November 4th 2008,Homosexual Marriage,Gay Marriage,Same-sex Marriage,Traditional Marriage,Religion,Freedom of Religion,Free Speech,Freedom of Speech,Judicial Ruling,Democracy,Vote,Democratic Vote,Amendment,Constitution,Pearl Diver,Pearl
Monday, May 25, 2009
Mormons and Proposition 8: A PBS Episode
On May 22, 2009, PBS, at Religion and Ethics News Weekly, released a segment about Mormons and Proposition 8. A timely subject considering the impending Supreme Court decision. The twist, however, is that the Mormons interviewed are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who consider themselves active, but disagree with the Church on the matter of same-sex “marriage.” I didn’t actually watch the video, but I read through the entire transcript and was quite astonished at a certain number of the members' opinions. I wrote my thoughts into a comment, but since they are moderated I am not sure if it will be posted. (I promise I didn’t use any foul language or get mean or anything). :0)
Because I feel passionately about this particular subject, I’ve decided to give voice to my opinions here as well. The following are some of the thoughts shared by interviewed members of the Church that I happen to strongly disagree with. I can imagine that some of what I say here might raise the eyebrows of those not familiar with the finer tenets of my faith, but, as always, I hope that mutual respect and tolerance will dictate the tone of any discussion that may ensue.
That said, let’s begin.
“Dr. CHAN: Our church is the church of Jesus Christ, first and foremost, and my understanding of the Gospel of Christ is that it’s a Gospel of love and acceptance. So it seems like a policy that’s about discrimination, which often goes hand in hand with fear and hatred, not about love and acceptance, and that for me is really troublesome.”
I believe* that members of the LDS Church who are okay with homosexual "marriage" do not actually understand the eternal nature of marriage and family. They do not understand the Lord's gospel as He has delivered it to us through ancient and modern-day Prophets. Why would any active member of the Church ever vote for or promote a measure that would encourage any of God's children to abandon the ONE UNION that can offer them exaltation and life with their Father again? According to our religious beliefs, celestial marriage, between one man and one woman, is essential to achieving the Celestial Kingdom and becoming Gods and Goddesses like our Heavenly Parents.
“The subject of marriage is debated across the world, where various arrangements exist for conjugal living. My purpose in speaking out on this topic is to declare, as an Apostle of the Lord, that marriage between a man and a woman is sacred—it is ordained of God. I also assert the virtue of a temple marriage. It is the highest and most enduring type of marriage that our Creator can offer to His children.
While salvation is an individual matter, exaltation is a family matter. Only those who are married in the temple and whose marriage is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise will continue as spouses after death and receive the highest degree of celestial glory, or exaltation. A temple marriage is also called a celestial marriage. Within the celestial glory are three levels. To obtain the highest, a husband and wife must be sealed for time and all eternity and keep their covenants made in a holy temple.”
. . .
“We, as the Lord’s prophets and apostles, again proclaim to the world that ‘the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.’
We further proclaim that ‘all human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.’”
. . .
“That proclamation on the family helps us realize that celestial marriage brings greater possibilities for happiness than does any other relationship. The earth was created and this Church was restored so that families could be formed, sealed, and exalted eternally.”
. . .
“These truths are absolute. Members of this Church invite all people to learn them and to qualify for eternal life. We invite all to gain faith in God the Eternal Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ, to repent, to receive the Holy Ghost, to obtain the blessings of the temple, to make and keep sacred covenants, and to endure to the end.” [emphasis added]
[Celestial Marriage, Elder Russell M. Nelson, Nov. 2008]
So while these active members of the Church are promoting a belief that is directly contrary to the Lord's commandments as revealed through His Prophets and through "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," in truth, they are further facilitating and solidifying the sub-celestial or ignoble eternal existence of those who suffer from same-sex attractions. And this they are doing in the name of love and acceptance.
“Ms. COMPTON: This has not challenged my faith, no. My faith is independent of the morality or the politics of gay marriage. It’s deeper. My faith is in a Christ who loves everybody and wants everyone to come to him, and a God that loves the world no matter whether they are Mormon or Muslim or Jewish or Catholic, and wants all of us to be there and all of us to treat each other like we’re brothers and sisters and not like we’re them and us.”
Yes, Ms. Compton, Christ does want "everyone to come to him," but how can they when you and others are facilitating and promoting a union that, by it's very opposite-sex omission, actually takes them farther away from our Heavenly Father and our Savior?
“Ms. FAHEY: I even had some friends say that they still think that homosexuality is a choice. I don’t think the church leadership feels that way but members — some members feel that way, wrongly of course.”
To Ms. Fahey, who has decided that all those who believe homosexuality is a choice are wrong, I would suggest she read the latest statement from the APA on the nature of homosexual origins. No one can prove what causes homosexuality, though theories abound. Some say nature, some say nurture, and some say both. I believe the last, but my opinion cannot be proved as is the case with the other two opinions as well. That debate is beside the point, though, as is so well-expressed by Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman in the quoted interview excerpt following the APA’s statement below.
From the APA:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."
That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
[Source: A Guy in the Window]
And from the LDS Church:
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’
ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.
ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.
[Same-gender Attraction, LDS Newsroom]
Curious that the APA is backpedaling now, when liberal thought and homosexual marriage activists will spit upon them and sneer at them for it. I’d like to know the events and discoveries that led up to that statement.
“SEVERSON: As other states take up the issue of gay marriage, Mormon church leaders this time around have not asked members to get involved. Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court is once again considering the constitutionality of the ban on gay marriage. Their decision is expected soon.”
Severson, it is possible that Church leaders haven't asked members to get involved in other states because voters haven’t been given the chance to get directly involved in other states! It just so happens that California is the ONLY state in which the issue of same-sex "marriage" was put to a vote by the people. In all other states where it has been legalized, it has been pushed through by judicial fiat and sly legislatures meeting on the fly and giving little or no advanced notification to the people that the legislation was even being discussed. It's amazing what Tim Gill's money can buy. Amazing.
~Pearl
*All opinions expressed are my own. Doctrinal misinterpretations (if there are any), are my own and should not reflect poorly on the LDS Church. For official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please visit LDS.org.
Technorati Tags: PBS,Mormons and Proposition 8,Prop 8,Proposition 8,Mormons,LDS,LDS Church,The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,Mormon Church,Marriage,Celestial Marriage,Exaltation,Celestial Kingdom,God,Jesus Christ,Heavenly Father,PBS Episode,California Supreme Court Justices,Prop 8 Opinions,APA,American Psychological Association,President Spencer W. Kimball,Elder Russell M. Nelson,Dallin H. Oaks,Lance B. Wickman,LDS Newsroom,LDS.org,Same-gender attraction,Religion and Ethics News Weekly,Pearl Diver,Pearl
Friday, May 22, 2009
California Supreme Court to Issue Prop 8 Opinions Next Week
According to the California court info website, the Supreme Court will “issue an opinion in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 2009.”
Given that this final weekend before their decision just happens to be Memorial Day weekend, celebrating our country’s fallen heroes who died defending our Constitutional freedoms such as the Freedom of Religion and the Freedom of Speech, let’s hope that our esteemed Supreme Court Justices take time to reflect on the real-life threat that legalization of homosexual “marriage” poses to said freedoms.
Here’s to praying for the Court, the children, the future, and the future children of America.
Anxiously awaiting,
~Pearl
Technorati Tags: California Supreme Court,California Supreme Court Justices,Proposition 8,Prop 8,Opinions,Homosexual Marriage,Same-sex Marriage,Gay Marriage,Traditional Marriage,California,Voters,Constitution,Amendment,Freedom of Speech,Freedom of Religion,Memorial Day Weekend,Strauss v. Horton,Tyler v. State of California,City and County of San Francisco v. Horton,S168047,S168066,S168078,Pearl Diver,Pearl
Thursday, May 21, 2009
NOM and CPR Action Present: “I’m Confused” – A Pro-Traditional Marriage Video Featuring Children of the Homosexual “Marriage” Future.
This excellent sub-40 second commercial clip does an amazing job of bringing the entire marriage debate right back where it belongs – with the children.
Government regulates marriage for the benefit of society; to ensure the best possible emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual outcome for the potential posterity of the marital union. It doesn't matter that that union may be sterile or that it may end up in divorce. Just because the human execution is malfunctioning (sterility) or flawed (divorce) or even broken (abuse), does not make the divine institution flawed. Marriage is what it is and those who pretend otherwise are endangering not only themselves by exposing their tender feelings to more disappointment (marriage appropriation will not yield the acceptance they so yearn for), but our country's innocent future as well - the children.
~Pearl
Technorati Tags: NOM,Nation For Marriage,National Organization for Marriage,CPR Action,Cornerstone Policy Research-Action,nhcornerstone,YouTube,Bill O'Reilly,Fox News,Laura Ingraham,Homosexual Marriage,Traditional Marriage,Confused Children,Confused,Commercial,New Hampshire,I'm Confused,Pearl Diver,Pearl
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
True Gender Equality
“Marriage between one man and one woman is the ultimate expression of equality as no gender is marginalized.”
This is a thought I have recently adopted (and do eagerly disseminate) that was coined by my very good friend Pomegranate Apple (also writing now at Beetle Blogger). Ponder it. It is very profound.
Radical feminists would have us believe that the only way for women to achieve equality is to marginalize men. Some have even gone so far as to propagate the sentiment that true equality can only come as women embrace their supposed “inner lesbian” and categorically deny any need for the male gender.
- "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
- "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (National NOW Times, January, 1988).
- [Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny... " -- Cheryl Clarke, "Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance," in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color
(Source: Opine Editorials)
When approached thoughtfully, this quite easily becomes transparently illogical. How can we ever be equal to those we’re attempting to rise above? Yes, it’s great that women can vote, own property, and wear pants. Fantastic, actually. But, demanding that women can (and should) do all that men do, actually denies the unique nature and contribution of man and instead sets woman at a contrived advantage by the forced combination of her innate, feminine characteristics and her socially-driven, male character acquisitions.
Radical Feminism = woman on a pedestal; man subservient. Does that seem like equality to you?
Male chauvinism, on the other hand, demands the exact opposite. Instead of recognizing and appreciating the unique abilities and contributions of women, machismo demands that women walk behind men, serve men, and eternally submit to men.
Male Chauvinism = man on a pedestal; woman subservient. Still not equal.
Not surprisingly, the only situation in which true gender equality can be achieved is marriage between one man and one woman, where cohabitation, daily interaction, respect for marital vows (life-long commitment), and the mutual care of physical, spiritual, and family assets (aka children) demands a cooperation the likes of which cannot and will not be required in any other situation. Successful marriage relies heavily upon the equal contribution of both sexes. Women and men balance each other perfectly: testosterone to estrogen, physical strength to spiritual strength, adoration to admiration, justice to mercy. Where one is lacking, the other steps up. Where one excels, the other observes, learns, and grows.
In parenting, the same applies. Children need the influence of a father and a mother, as both contribute different yet vitally essential lessons to developing minors. Two lesbian partners cannot possibly provide the necessary contributions of the male gender as they do not posses the inherent male characteristics and abilities with which to deliver such lessons. Textbooks, research, and education can only take one so far. It is strictly in hindsight that an individual recognizes which lessons were most vital to his development, so it is logical to conclude that a teenager will not, in the midst of his character development, approach his two “mommies” and say, “I really need you to teach me, by example, how a man should treat a woman.” That is a lesson that a good father will teach his son unconsciously as he goes about the course of his days interacting respectfully with his son’s mother. For a lesbian mommy to teach the same lesson unconsciously, she would have to abandon her femininity in favor of masculinity, effectively illustrating the unique importance of a male role model in the home through imitation of male behavior. Additionally, for mommies to try to teach the same lesson consciously would very simply be less effective as it has been proven that children learn more by the example of those in primary proximity than they do by lecture from the same. Think, “Do as I do; not as I say.”
Homosexual marriage/parenting/relationships = marginalization (sometimes even derision) of opposite gender = two left feet = unnatural imbalance = discord, anxiety, depression, confusion, dissatisfaction. Definite inequality here.
More examples of essential lessons taught by the unique presence of an opposite-sex parent in the home:
- A little girl learns from her daddy (through observation) what to look for in a future spouse.
- Children learn to nurture and serve others by watching an inherently sensitive mother do just that.
- Kids know their own strength and its appropriate use through roughhousing with dad.
Incidentally, it is extremely interesting to note that more often than not, one individual in a homosexual partnership will take on the role of male (dominant, commanding, and butch) while the other adopts the role of female (emotional, meek, and effeminate) in an attempt to imitate and recapture nature where the natural has ceased to exist. And still more desperate attempts for the unnatural to imitate the natural include increasingly convoluted, gender-confusing actions and behaviors such as estrogen/testosterone injections, sex changes, and transvestite fetishism. On a greater level, this desperate imitation can be interpreted as lending profound importance to the institution of marriage as homosexuals demand the acquisition and redefinition of a uniquely heterosexual union which currently provides a protected platform for the essential blending of opposite genders and, therefore, healthy continuation of society.
Marriage between one man and one woman = true gender equality = balance = peace. Who wouldn’t want that?
Please note that bringing up skyrocketing divorce rates and spousal abuse does not provide a logical basis for abandoning the singular encouragement of the heterosexual marital ideal. It merely points out a problem with the humans involved in the institution, not the institution itself. And there are many ways to deal with such problems (counseling, elimination of no-fault divorce, beheading . . . just kidding) that do not include devaluation through redefinition.
~Pearl
Technorati Tags: Gender Equality,Gender Inequality,Homosexual Marriage,Traditional Marriage,Feminism,Male Chauvinism,Machismo,Parenting,Homosexual Parenting,Heterosexual,Same-Sex Marriage,Character Development,Appropriation,Imitation,Radical Feminism,Radical Feminists,Pomegranate Apple,Pearl Diver,Pearl
Saturday, May 16, 2009
What Has Happened to Public School?
With Harvey Milk Day sitting on the Governor’s desk and Alameda School District attempting to introduce homosexual acceptance education in kindergarten curriculum, I am left breathlessly wondering, “WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO PUBLIC SCHOOL?!”
(And I’m sure I am not the first person to so lament.)
Take a look at this . . . .
2009 Official California Public School Event Calendar
Race recognition in our schools:
January 19 – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
February 20 – Frederick Douglass Day
March 5 – Black American Day
March 21 – International Day for Elimination of Racial Discrimination
June 11 – Race Unity Day
September 25 – Native American Day
February – National African American History Month
May – National Asian Pacific American Heritage Month
September – National Hispanic Heritage Month
October – Filipino American History Month
November – National American Indian Heritage Month
Environmentalism in our schools:
March 7 – California Conservation, Bird, and Arbor Day
April 12-18 – National Environmental Education Week
April 21 – John Muir Day
April 22 – Earth Day
May 3-9 – Be Kind to Animals Week
June 5 – World Environment Day
Women’s rights in our schools:
February 15 – Susan B. Anthony Day
March 8 – International Women’s Day
August 26 – Women’s Equality Day
March – National Women’s History Month
Other Days of Note:
March 31 – Cesar Chavez Day
April 1-7 – Labor History Week(source)
Don’t get me wrong, nothing is inherently wrong with childhood awareness of each of these, but my goodness, what happened to the good old days of simple public instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic? Why are parents being steadily denied the opportunity to teach their children the essential moral lessons of all time? To honor women in a manner deemed appropriate by them whether that includes traditional roles or not? To teach about civil rights without mandatory instruction of newly contrived “rights”? To present the Constitution as our Founding Fathers designed it? To teach respect for the earth with whatever level of enthusiasm they wish to instill? To impart that true tolerance demands only respect for differences, not acceptance of them? What gives government the right to decide that parents are performing inadequately simply because children’s opinions do not align with those of popular culture, Hollywood, and Liberalism?
I think David Kupelian, author of The Marketing of Evil, hit the nail square on the head when he said:
“Today’s culture is so poisonous that your only hope is to literally create (or plug into) another culture entirely – a subculture. Just as today’s homosexual culture, for example, used to be a miserable subculture lurking in public toilets and seedy clubs, but today has become the sophisticated culture of the “beautiful people” and Hollywood, so must your true American culture – if it’s ever to come back – begin again as a subculture.
The best solution I know of for accomplishing this is to homeschool your children and network with other like-minded parents in your area. Trust me, it’s already being done, you’re not reinventing the wheel. Sports, music, drama, Scouts, 4-H, whatever extracurricular activities you want are all available to homeschoolers. You can literally pick and choose the culture in which your children grow up, and you can actively participate in its creation. I believe homeschooling today represents the single most important and promising avenue for the true rebirth of American Judeo-Christian culture. The real America is now being reborn in families where children are raised with real understanding and insight and protected from the insanity of the popular culture until they’re big enough and strong enough in their convictions to go out in the world and make their mark. May it only grow.”
He later goes on to say:
“Of course, the main factor keeping most American children in government schools is that they’re free. So isn’t free schooling a good thing? Sure. Free food is great too, but not if it’s been poisoned.
The government’s schools are free in the same way everything else the government does is free – you’re forced to pay for it with your hard-earned taxes or you go to prison. Still, it costs a lot to raise kids these days, and if you’ve had thousands of dollars extracted from you in taxes to pay for these schools, shouldn’t you get your money’s worth by sending your children there – for “free”? Although that’s a powerful magnet, there’s also a hidden cost, as John Taylor Gatto points out.
Beyond all the other reasons it might be unwise to entrust your children to the government, Gatto points to one more, which he considers the core problem. When all is said and done, he doesn’t dwell on the grotesque psychological experiments and failed pedagogic approaches, and school crime sprees that steal headlines. Rather, Gatto points to the subtle, soul-killing power of forced government schooling, the devastating effect on each child’s not-so-hidden genius of sitting at a desk in a classroom all day for one’s entire youth.”
. . .
“The net effect of holding children in confinement for twelve years without honor paid to the spirit is a compelling demonstration that the State considers the Western spiritual tradition dangerous. And of course it is.
The bottom line, says Gatto:
Spiritually contented people are dangerous for a variety of reasons. They don’t make reliable servants because they won’t jump at every command. They test what is requested against a code of moral principle. Those who are spiritually secure can’t easily be driven to sacrifice family relations.
Please understand. The people responsible for this disaster – both then and now – are not deliberately trying to hurt children. They are people who fervently believe, with a religious zeal, in a radically different world view than the one in which most Americans believe – indeed, radically different from the one on which this nation was founded.”
What is the moral of this story?
If you choose to enroll your children in public school education, don’t do it blindly. Don’t do it with a singular anticipation of the hours of free time it will afford you. Know what you’re up against. Stay involved. Be prepared to address any negative education from teachers and peers that your children may receive throughout the course of each 7-hour day. After extracurricular activities, you will most likely only have about three hours before bedtime in which to do damage control.
If you have a desire to homeschool, but don’t know where to start, just get researching. Yes, there is so much information out there that it is easy to get overwhelmed and give up. Just don’t. Empower yourself through education. Know your rights as a parent. Don’t get stressed out. You can do it.
Here’s to homeschooling and safeguarding the next generation!
~Pearl
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Sex Instruction Book Aimed at Toddlers
This shouldn’t even need any commentary, but I’ll forge ahead just in case you missed the obvious. “IN-DEPTH DESCRIPTIONS OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE” and it’s supposedly suitable for two-year-olds?! Under the guise of teaching about our origins, which, when it comes right down to it includes, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, one man’s contribution and one woman’s contribution, this author believes that she is well within “the appropriate.”
“A BOOK which teaches children about lesbian mums getting pregnant using sperm donors is being pitched at kids as young as two.
The controversial publication, Where Did I Really Come From?, also features a drawing of two gay men holding a baby in a chapter about surrogacy.
The publisher's marketing spruiks the book, which includes in-depth descriptions of sexual intercourse, as suitable to be read to two-year-olds."
Author Narelle Wickham defended the book, describing it as a mainstream publication which just went further about ways of conceiving children.Ah, okay, that makes it all better. Don’t worry, folks, she’s just trying to “normalise” sex for toddlers. Lovely. What do you think? Yea or Nay?
"It is just trying to normalise to children that there are many ways to conceive a child," she said.
[Read entire article here]
~Pearl
Friday, May 1, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Standing for Something – Defend Marriage Alliance, UFI, NOM, DNA
The late President Gordon B. Hinckley of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wrote a little book called Standing for Something. Of this book, President Hinckley wrote, “I hope to accomplish some good in reaching out to people who may not be interested in our theology but would be interested in our position and stance on some of these values that are of everlasting benefit to this nation and people across the world.”
I have this book.
I love this book.
On the inside flap it states:
“No nation can be greater than the strength of its individual homes or the virtue of its people. Sadly, many today would say ours is a nation in crisis. Families are splintering around us, our children are becoming alienated from their great cultural heritage, and our leaders seem increasingly out of touch. Yet, according to Gordon B. Hinckley, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one cannot lose hope. The solution lies not within our governments, schools, or symbols of popular culture, but rather within ourselves, our families, and our faith.”
Drawing on anecdotes from his own life, as well as from our nation today, he examines ten virtues that have proven through the ages to provide the most profound path to a better world: love, honesty, morality, civility, learning, forgiveness and mercy, thrift and industry, gratitude, optimism, and faith. He then shows how the two guardians of virtue – marriage and the family – can keep us on that path, even in difficult times.”
This book was published in 2000.
How timely a message for our day. So, without further adieu, I’d like to feature four groups who are doing just that – standing for something. These groups advocate for marriage between one man and one woman. They defend traditional, natural marriage in the face of increasing, and often virulent, opposition to such a message.
The first is the Defend Marriage Alliance. Reverend Brewer and his son are currently on a tour of Iowa, meeting with religious leaders and marriage proponents across the state to collect signatures on a petition to repeal Iowa’s new gay “marriage” legislation. They have worked tirelessly, creating Facebook groups and raising awareness for traditional marriage through the creation of marriage seals and wristbands, physical tours, and additional web outreach with Meetup groups, etc. The Defend Marriage Alliance is reputedly millions of members large and growing.
The second is United Families International who just recently launched their 25 for UFI campaign. Here’s what they have to say about it.
“For more than 30 years United Families International (UFI) has fought against the anti-family opposition. UFI representatives have traversed the globe defending the unborn and protecting the traditional family. Local UFI chapters watch state legislatures and work with pro-family lawmakers to ensure that the family has a voice inside statehouses across the country. Our ECOSOC status at the UN allows UFI to collaborate with UN delegates to insert pro-family language into UN treaties and resolutions. At times when others are weak, UFI stands their ground and protects the family values that we hold dear.
25 for UFI is your chance to join United Families International in the fight for the family. 25 for UFI seeks to find 1,000 individuals who will give $25 for the protection of motherhood, fatherhood, marriage, life, liberty and family. The 25 for UFI campaign has almost zero overhead, so you may rest assured that your donation will go directly to the international battle for the family. Join us, stand with UFI, and be a part of this worthy cause.”
CLICK HERE TO DONATE AT www.25forUFI.org
Your financial contribution keeps the work moving forward (and as a bonus, is 100% tax-deductible).
The third group standing for marriage is NOM. The National Organization for Marriage has recently gone out on a limb, provoking the ire of homosexual “marriage” advocates the nation over by releasing a commercial spot defending marriage and warning against the consequences of legalizing gay “marriage.” Unfettered by the vitriolic minority public opinion, they charge bravely forward in their fight to protect our nation’s most valuable assets – our future – our children.
Watch their newest ad focusing on the Carrie Prejean controversy, here . . . .
(UPDATE: This video has been removed due to copyright claims made by Mario Lavandeira, aka Perez Hilton *Go figure*. You can still view the spot at NOM’s website by clicking here.)
And the last, but definitely not the least, is the rag tag yet powerful organization which has brought so many of my fellow marriage bloggers and me together. The Digital Network Army was born during Proposition 8. Still in its infancy, the group has gained rapid popularity by its unofficial, power-to-the-people productivity. Virals are sent out regularly to inform members of the most recent attacks on marriage and family. A great list of independent bloggers then disseminates the information to the vast worldwide web and yet other members work in concert with those bloggers to Facebook and Twitter marriage updates. Still other members create YouTube videos, defend marriage apparel and bumper stickers, and graphic images for use on websites and blogs. All this is done completely by volunteers. How inspiring!
Go ahead, click around, join one or all! Marriage needs you. Children need you. The future needs you.
~Pearl
Monday, April 20, 2009
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, on Gay Marriage
So Miss California got baited and reeled in at the Miss USA Pageant. And, of course, now she’s being fried by the oh-so-neutral mainstream media we’ve all come to know and love. I am so proud to be a Californian right now! First, We the People speak our minds and establish that in California, marriage is between one man and one woman. Then, our “little Miss,” responds to a loaded question posed by gay blogger, Perez Hilton, with a very diplomatic, but firm response, “I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.”
It makes me laugh that she’s receiving heat over this as if she wasn’t asked the question in the first place. What was she supposed to do, tell a lie? Or not respond? Or apologize for her opinion? Yeah that’s tolerance for you. And gays in the audience responded so vehemently as if to suggest that by supporting the show they have some sort of dibs over all the opinions expressed by contestants, “I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are.”
How much do you want to bet Carrie Prejean gets impeached due to pressure from seething, gay activist mobs before the year is out? I wouldn’t be surprised.
GO MISS CALIFORNIA!
~Pearl
[Hat tip: A Banner is Unfurled]
Technorati Tags: Miss California,Gay Marriage,Proposition 8,Prop 8,Perez Hilton,NBC,Keith Lewis,Carrie Prejean,Pearl Diver,Pearl
Why Do I Defend Marriage?
I wrote this response to a friend on Facebook recently and felt that it was a fairly succinct summary of my reasons for defending marriage. The first part is clearly religious and has its roots in my faith and membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But the second part outlines my secular/social science reasons for defending marriage.
T:
"I'm suggesting that we debate the merits of this Initiative [Prop 8], given that it was NOT a commandment of God."
Pearl:
Marriage between a man and a woman is a commandment of God. Take a hard look at The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Are you suggesting that God vacillates? I think it is clear that while we fickle humans invent moral relativity and political correctness, there are still absolutes. God is absolute. While practices and rituals have changed over centuries and ages, principles have not. And never will, no matter what we mortals believe. Good is good, bad is bad, white is white, black is black, and people who choose black and then attempt to pass it off as white will always be upset and unhappy and disillusioned when the general population sees right through the guise.
Following the Prophet is the best defense we have against the confusion of moral relativism. The Prophet asked the Saints to defend marriage between a man and a woman. Seems pretty simple to me. We don't just follow the Prophet when it is convenient for us or when his mandates, commandments, and supplications align with our own thinking. We do it no matter what we believe and it is after the test of our faith that we receive confirmation of the truth. For whatever reason, this concept is harder for some to grasp than others. We see it in the scriptures all the time, people demanding that God show them a sign before they are willing to proceed with His commandments. And always the answer is the same; they are chastised for having so little faith. Yet for those who humble themselves and follow "blindly" (having God as a guide hardly makes us blind), the reward is beyond our limited comprehension.
I have digressed.
Your whole premise (in your post) that Proposition 8 is "cementing bigotry" into the California Constitution is based solely on the fact that you don't believe upholding marriage between a man and a woman is a commandment of God. But you fail to recognize the myriad social reasons for which we uphold marriage. One could debate against homosexual marriage all day and still never touch upon a religious argument. Research, experience, and history all defend the institution of marriage between one man and one woman. And all you can come back with is yet another emotional appeal, vividly ignorant of reason, "cause pain to millions of people and leave thousands of families in doubt." Yes, their pain is real, but what of their choice to pursue the lifestyle and seek special status in the face of illegality in the first place? Why are they being released from the responsibility and consequences of their actions? And why is blame for disillusionment and disappointment being projected onto the so-called "oppressors"? A little quiet introspection is in order here, I think. There is a pernicious sense of entitlement that flows through our society that has risen to such soaring heights that natural laws and Constitutional freedoms are threatened by it.
Marriage, when executed properly (let's get rid of no-fault divorce), benefits children, families, society, and government by being the most basic and wholesome springboard to the future. When marriage is undermined by senseless and selfish redefinition, that springboard falters and crumbles. In the case of homosexual marriage, children grow up in gender confusion denied, by design, access to one opposite-sex parent through which important life lessons and character traits would have been learned, and through the observation of which, future decisions of career, spouse, family, and civic involvement are heavily influenced. A mother is vitally important for different reasons than a father is vitally important, but it is amply clear that the absence of one or the other has a definite, negative development effect on children that no amount of love can compensate for. Love, T, contrary to popular belief these days, is not all you need. If love is all you need, why do we have boundaries, rules, and discipline for our children? If love is all you need, why do we have so many people divorcing even while they proclaim their mutual love for each other? I love my brother. I love my father. I love my cousin. But I cannot legally marry them (and thank goodness for that). Government regulates marriage for the benefit of society; to ensure the best possible emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual outcome for the potential posterity of the marital union. It doesn't matter that that union may be sterile or that it may end up in divorce. Just because the human execution is malfunctioning (sterility) or flawed (divorce) or even broken (abuse), does not make the divine institution flawed. Marriage is what it is and those who pretend otherwise are endangering not only themselves by exposing their tender feelings to more disappointment (marriage appropriation will not yield the acceptance they so yearn for), but our country's innocent future as well - the children.
~Pearl
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Marriage . . . it’s that simple.
~Pearl
Technorati Tags: Marriage,Family,Marriage Video,YouTube,Marriage . . . it's that simple,Pearl Diver,Pearl,Traditional Marriage,Same-Sex Marriage,Gay Marriage,Homosexual Marriage,Prop 8,Proposition 8,Yes on 8,No on 8,Equality California,EQCA,Digital Network Army,DNA,Mormon,LDS,Catholic,Evangelical,Freedom of Religion,Freedom of Speech,Freedom,Parental Rights,Husband,Wife,Bride,Groom
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Blessings of the LDS Temple – A Second Video Response to HBO’s “Big Love” Mormon Temple Episode
I hadn’t realized that the Mormon / LDS Church released a second, follow-up video showing images from inside Temples and presenting individual member testimonies of the importance of the Temple. I may be biased, but HBO’s got nothing on this. Attempted sensationalism and exposé fall far short of their intended result when one having authority comes right out and declares simply:
“No unclean thing may enter His hallowed house . . . yet . . . anyone is welcome who prepares well.” - Elder Russell M. Nelson, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So much for the sensational allure of “those secretive Mormons.”
~Pearl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
