The company initially indicated it would not include content of this nature in its magazines in order to let parents discuss homosexuality with their children on their own terms, but reversed course after taking flak from homosexual activists.
You can’t make this stuff up. What’s next? Are people going to insist “Waldo” start wearing a red-and-white striped dress to be more gender-inclusive?
This simply further proves what we have said for years: Homosexual activists want to use children as pawns in their campaign to gain full acceptance of their lifestyles.
Photo Credit: Highlights for Children by Fuzzy Gerdes.
A new report analyzing a vast body of studies and research casts doubt on the prevailing notion sexual orientation and gender identity are biologically determined.
After analyzing decades of scientific data, researchers concluded,
“Some of the most widely held views about sexual orientation, such as the ‘born that way’ hypothesis, simply are not supported by science. The literature in this area does describe a small ensemble of biological differences between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, but those biological differences are not sufficient to predict sexual orientation, the ultimate test of any scientific finding. The strongest statement that science offers to explain sexual orientation is that some biological factors appear, to an unknown extent, to predispose some individuals to a non-heterosexual orientation. . . . .
“In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex.”
Writing at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, John Stonestreet notes,
Their report also tackles the transgender question, comparing actual research to the lofty claims of activists. Once again, there’s a yawning chasm. Only a tiny minority of children who experience gender dysphoria continue to identify as transgender when they’re adults.
McHugh and Mayer [the researchers] insist that subjecting children to hormone therapy or to so-called “sex reassignment” surgery is an act of sheer ideology, not medicine or compassion.
And, they add, adults who undergo sex-change operations (which the Obama Administration is pressuring health insurers to cover) are still—get this—19 times more likely to commit suicide than the rest of the population.
You may recall in 2012 the former president of the American Psychological Association stated sexual orientation could change, and in 2014 the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital explained in the Wall Street Journal why the hospital stopped doing sex-reassignment surgeries.
Homosexual and transgender activists often liken sexual orientation and gender identity to race, claiming they are biologically determined and unchangeable. The science behind that claim, however, seems to be far from settled.
You can listen to John Stonestreet’s full commentary on the issue below.
About a year and a half ago our friends at Breakpoint and Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview ran an excellent commentary on the unseen pain behind same-sex marriage.
John Stonestreet writes of one woman whose husband left her for his gay partner, saying,
For instance, USA Today, in its cheerleading for same-sex marriage, ran a photo section on her ex-husband, his partner, and her children without her consent or even notice to her. Darnelle wrote, ‘Commenters exclaimed at how beautiful this gay family was and congratulated my ex-husband and his new partner on the family that they “created” . . .,’ even though, she continued, ‘there is a significant person missing from those pictures: the mother and abandoned wife. That “gay family” could not exist without me.’
In an essay entitled “We Have No Right to Happiness,” [C.S. Lewis] told the story of two neighbors each of whom had divorced their spouses and then married each other. Another neighbor, with whom he was discussing the situation, replied ‘they have a right to happiness.’
Lewis noted that this neighbor would not say the same thing of a ruthless businessman who was happy when he made money by means fair or foul. Nor would she say the same thing about an alcoholic who was happy when he drank.
The happiness his neighbor was referring to was a right to ‘sexual happiness,’ which, according to Lewis, meant the freedom to act on our sexual impulses without restraint. And it doesn’t matter if such restraint is good for us or for the society as a whole.
You can read Stonestreet’s entire commentary here or listen to it below.