Daily Archives: April 17, 2009

Christians can’t be foster parents in the United Kingdom of Apostasy

A woman in England, who has been a foster mother for 10 years and has cared for over 80 children, has been removed from the foster list because a 16 year old Muslim girl under her care voluntarily investigated and converted to Christianity.

This is in a country that is supposedly ruled by a Queen, who is supposedly the head of the Anglican Church.

Why doesn’t Queen Elizabeth II do her job?

American Stem Cell Therapy Association: Your Cells are Not Drugs

I’ve noted before that the main reason the medical establishment in the US is against adult stem cell research is not the efficacy of the research but the profit motive. There’s not much profit potential in extracting a patient’s own cells, culturing them (possibly making a few genetic tweaks) and then re-injecting them.

A lot more ability to trademark and charge for the complicated engineering involved in embryonic stem cell research.

Well, the Food and Drug Administration, which is always more concerned about money than health, has found a way around this: declare that adult stem cells are drugs, and need to be regulated as drugs. So a person’s own cells are drugs. That makes a lot of sense.

With this precedent, they could say that breastmilk needs to be regulated by the FDA. What about reproductive cells?

Great way to establish Brave New World: declare reproductive cells and breast milk to be “drugs,” requiring everyone to conceive their children through IVF.

First, as for that prediction: watch. One of the reasons I started this blog is that I got sick of saying something was going to happen, see it happen, and then not having any proof (more on that later).

Anyway, a group of physicians are fighting for this, and fighting for full approval of adult stem cell therapy in the US: the American Stem Cell Therapy Association (ASCTA). They’ve also started a sister group for patients and medical laity: Safe Stem Cells NOW.

Follow the links above to learn more about these two groups and sign up for whichever one you’re eligible for.

Is it "sexual orientation" or "sexual preference"

Two commentors the other day made presumptions about comments I made regarding Clay Aiken, accusing me of calling him a “disappointment” because of his professed homosexuality.

He was on American Idol 6 years ago. He announced his homosexuality 1 year ago (though it was rumored since he was on the show). I decided he was a disappointment in 2004. Why? Because when his first album came out, it was very shallow and boring. I listened to samples online and didn’t hear anything particularly stunning. His performance on the recording wasn’t nearly as good as what he did on American Idol, and there he probably just stood out in a crowd of postmodern whiners as one of the few people who had a modicum of talent.

Yes, I was further “disappointed” when this “devout Southern Baptist” who advocates for people with disabilities “came out of the closet”–but, again, that was commonly rumored and someone obvious if you pay attention to stereotypes. Also, even more disappointing than his homosexuality, as far as that goes, is his support for UNICEF.

Anyway, one of the commentors, “Lillian,” said,

What a shame that someone in this day and age should be chastised for their
sexual preference.

That struck me–both as an example of what C. S. Lewis calls “Chronological Snobbery” (“in this day and age”). Secondly, it struck me because advocates of Same Sex Attraction use two terms which are really contradictory: sexual preference and sexaual orientation.

There is a difference. A sexual orientation (will someone ever suggest that the term “orientation” is offensive to Europeans, because it implies preference for Asia?) means that the person is inclined a certain way, it implies a direction. Usually, when we say “sexual orientation,” we mean That’s how the person is. Camille Paglia recently argued that arguments about a genetic basis for same sex attraction creates a potential grounds for discrimination in its own way. As she intuits, the argument that homosexuality is “genetic” is perfectly consistent with the Catholic view: it’s a consequence of Original Sin. It is a “disordered inclination.”

Like, I have an inclination to Dairy Queen Peanut Buster Parfaits. Now, I can’t just eat Peanut Buster Parfaits all day long: I would very shortly be fat, malnourished, and financially ruined.

All of us have inclinations that are sinful: whether tehy be inclinatoins towards venial sin or inclinations to mortal sin. Whether it’s the desire to skip Mass on Sunday, or the desire to kill somebody, or the desire to steal, or the desire to commit adultery, or the desire to see what happens if we dabble in the occult. There are all sorts of *inclinations* or “orientations” that are spiritually unhealthy.

The inclination is not in itself sinful. It’s just concupiscence. But just as we can overcome our “orientation” towards eating chocolate sundaes all day, we can get over an inclinations towards sexual immorality, in spite of what liberals want us to believe.

I never understand how a guy can be married, and conceive children, and then leave his wife because “I’m gay, and I’m tired of lying.” If he’s lying, where did the kids come from??

How is that any different than a 40 year old man leaving his wife and kids for his 22 year old secretary? Why is it more noble because he’s supposedly “gay”?

Now, let’s look at the *other* term: sexual *preference*. Preference is a much less strong term than orientation, though slightly synonymous. “Preference” inherently undermines the homosexualist agenda much more than “orientation.” I have a preference for chicken, but I’ll eat beef. I have a preference for peanut buster parfaits when I go to Dairy Queen, but I sometimes eat a Blizzard or a strawberry sundae if I’m in a slightly different moood or I don’t want to spend that much. Or maybe I’ll opt for Chick Fil A at the Food Court instead of Dairy Queen and just have an “Ice Dream” instead of a more expensive DQ.

Marriage and sexuality are supposed to be about self-donation. By talking of “sexual preference,” the Left inherently rejects the idea of “self-donation.”

The point is not whether a “homosexual man” (or woman) can “function” in a marriage. They obvoiusly *can* function, though I’d imagine it’s much harder for a lesbian than a homosexual man (since lesbianism is usually the result of abuse by men). And, yes, there is definitely a need for therapy.

But an “attraction” can be overcome, just as a married heterosexual man can overcome his “attractions” to other women. An “orientation” can be redirected. A “preference” can be set aside for what’s available, or what’s more objectively healthy.

Liberals routinely tell us of all sorts of “preferences” we need to overcome for a greater personal or social good: smoking, owning firearms (which isn’t even a preference but a matter of self-defense), owning SUVs, throwing away garbage in one big bin, actually earning income from our jobs, etc. In many ways, Liberals are far more Puritanical than the average evangelical conservative.

But in this one case, they say that “preference” or “orientation” cannot be overcome. A liberal talking about homosexuality is like Joe the Plumber talking about making $200,000 per annum by bilking householders who don’t know how to shop at Lowe’s. “I deserve to satisfy my every desire!” “I deserve to be fully sexually gratified!” “I deserve to make $200,000 a year!”


Self-Donation. That’s what it’s all about. Did the Immaculata deserve this? Did Her Son?