Author’s Archive: Nathan Cherry
Are you a he,” or a “she”?
Do your gender and your sex agree?
These might seem like odd, almost absurd questions. And yet they are the very questions that many college students are wrestling with. For example, Skylar Crownover is a female attending Mills College in California, an all-girls school. She is the president of “Mouthing Off!” a campus group for LGBT students seeking to vent their frustrations. Each week when they meet they being by stating their name and the preferred gender pronoun they would like to be identified with throughout the meeting.
Remember when things like reading, math, science, and history were the primary focus of a well-rounded public school education? If I didn’t know better I would conclude that today the primary focus of a public school education was sexual indoctrination.
When I was in school sex-ed week was just that, a single week in the school year when the school took one class period each day to teach some basic aspects of human sexuality. It was an optional class that parents had to sign a waiver in order to approve their child attending. Except for that one week I can’t recall hearing anything about human sexuality during my time in public school.
Today, however, it appears that human sexuality is a central figure in public school education as those with a liberal agenda seek to indoctrinate students into a worldview that includes casual sex, sexual experimentation at a young age, approval for homosexuality and other alternative lifestyles, and of course abortion. It seems say someone read Lenin’s comments on children and transforming the world. Lenin once said:
Planned Parenthood officials are officially “disappointed” by the results of Plan B on the unintended pregnancy rate. They believed this abortion drug would be the answer to their perceived problem but it has not had an impact on the rate, which has stayed steady at 50% of all pregnancies. Planned Parenthood recently said: “While there’s a lot of data to show it can prevent pregnancy in individual women, we’ve all been disappointed that on the population level, it just hasn’t had the effect we hoped…The unintended pregnancy rate hasn’t changed at all.”
It’s almost as if Planned Parenthood cannot understand that many people are pro-life, and taking a drug that will kill a living human being is simply not an option. So whether the pregnancy is unintended or not, Plan B will not be considered. This is a simple way to explain the steady unintended pregnancy rate. It might be too simple for Planned Parenthood to understand. Click here for original article.
Planned Parenthood vehemently opposes any laws requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Abortion advocates often refer to such laws as TRAP laws – Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers – and say their sole purpose is to put undue burden and stigma on abortionists. But is that the truth behind these laws?
First, let’s be clear about what laws requiring admitting privileges are. These laws simply require that any medical professional that performs any type of invasive surgical procedure hold admitting privileges at a hospital close to the clinic where the procedures are being performed. Admitting privileges simply means the medical professional is allowed to attend to the needs of their patient should something go wrong and the person need to be admitted to the hospital.
So, in essence, all these laws are doing is to require a person performing medical procedures be allowed to serve their patient at a local hospital should something go wrong. That seems like an easy to understand, common sense requirement for any medical professional; one that a doctor would gladly endorse in an effort to serve his or her patients.
One of the most deceptive attacks on religious freedom has taken place and you might not have even heard about it.
I briefly touched on this subject last week just a couple of days after it happened, but I want to spend a little more time unpacking how a recent decision by a federal judge could significantly impact religious freedom across the nation.
On Friday, November, 22, 2013, federal district court judge Barbara Crabb issued an order declaring the minister’s housing allowance in the IRS Code unconstitutional. Siding with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, judge Crabb agreed that the housing allowance exemption violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
The Washington Times posted an article highlighting the push to end a federal ban on gay men from giving blood. The article states: “Supporters of the policy say politics, not science, is driving the proposed change, which would heighten the risk of spreading HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, when the medical demand for blood donations is decreasing. Under Food and Drug Administration rules, men who have had sex with men (MSM) since 1977 are ineligible to donate blood. An acknowledgment of having male homosexual relations at any time in one’s life is enough to disqualify a potential donor.”
Is it time to end this ban and allow the group primarily responsible for the spread of HIV and AIDS to add their blood to the nation’s blood supply? The one fact that homosexual men cannot deny or overcome is that they are primarily responsible for transmitting HIV and AIDS; a fact even the CDC confirms. So is it wise to allow this group to donate blood? Would such a decision open the nation’s blood supply to contamination and risk infecting others? Those difficult questions must be addressed before a decision is made. Click here for original article.
Either the number of people claiming to be “gender confused” has dramatically risen over the past few years, or scores of confused people from the past few decades have a secret. One thing is for sure, gender confusion is now front and center in our culture.
Personally, I think the number of gender confused people has risen dramatically over the past few years. Not because people did not face such confusion in the past, but because in the past their confusion was met with compassionate counsel that encouraged them to embrace their biological gender. Today, however, such counsel is labeled “intolerant” and “bigoted” and all but outlawed.
I have a great amount of respect for Doug Mainwaring. His life is interesting for a number of reasons; perhaps most intriguing to me is that he is a same-sex attracted man, married to a woman, fighting against marriage redefinition. Doug has been in homosexual relationships before, but his faith helped him understand that being gay was not who he was.
Mainwaring has written a response to a book by Jonathan Rauch in which Rauch claims that only marriage can make gays and lesbians whole. Mainwaring response is not only an articulate critique of Rauch’s book, it is an intellectual disarming of Racuh’s entire premise. I highly recommend you read this fine piece of writing.
Jonathan Rauch’s Denial
by Doug Mainwaring
Jonathan Rauch, in his memoir Denial, argues that only access to the institution of marriage can make gays and lesbians whole. In doing so, he purposefully suppresses the truth that there are many other options available to those who are attracted to persons of the same sex.