Well we have a new government, but while all the attention has been focusing on John Key and the National party, the latest member of the Green party to make it into parliament has received very little attention.

His name is Kevin Hague, and he will be a concern for those of us who care about marriage and family issues in NZ.

Firstly, he is the former head of the NZ AIDS Foundation – a gay lobby group that has been responsible for some of the most immoral and obscene “safe” sex campaigns in NZ (one recent campaign even involved a website which gave tips on “cruising” – the practice of meeting strangers in public places for anonymous homosexual sex).

Secondly, in a recent interview with GAYNZ.com he stated that he considers the following issues a priority for his time in parliament…

1. Gay adoption
2. Full gay marriage
3. “Resourcing” for gay youth groups
4. Removing the right of NZ schools to say no to gay activist groups like Rainbow Youth

Remember the Greens already have Metiria Turei back again – the Green MP who has a bill to legalise gay adoption in NZ, and who lists “anarchist activism” as one of the aspects of her life experience over the last 20 years.

Make no mistake about it, Hague is an MP who is almost certainly going to be of concern to those of us who care about marriage and family issues in this country.

http://familylifenz.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/new-green-mp-likely-to-promote-very-worrying-policies/

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2007/10/the_impotence_p_2.html 

Sex therapists and pornographers have long prescribed pornography to correct male impotence and to “spice up” a couple’s sex life. However, the broader meaning of “potency” is “power, authority … a person or thing exerting power or influence.”

The proper contextual definition of modern impotence, then, is not the narrow classification of “erectile dysfunction.”

One is not “potent” if one requires little blue pills, sexy pictures, or immature victims for sexual satisfaction. It is more accurate then to define men as impotent when they are unable to be conjugally intimate with their chosen beloved.

Princeton University professor of psychiatry Jeffrey Satinover said, “The pornography addict soon forgets about everything and everyone else in favor of an ever more elusive sexual jolt. He … will place at risk his career, his friends, his family.”

Satinover compared pornography to heroin, saying, “Only the delivery system … and the sequence of steps” differ. Moreover, the sequence from potent to impotent is swift.
Professor Mary Anne Layden of the University of Pennsylvania compared pornography’s rapid effects to that of “crack cocaine.”

The impotent man replaces his “partner” with a fantasy. For, says neurobiologist Peter Milner, “unfamiliar stimuli have a rewarding component. It is even possible to become addicted to novelty and uncertainty.”

Indeed. French neuroscientist Serge Stoleru found that overexposure to “erotic” stimuli exhausted the sexual responses of normal, healthy young men.

Someone once dubbed pornography “the opiate of the masses,” an endogenous opiate high called “lust” that makes wholesome, loving sensuality feel ho-hum. Pornography triggers high states of fear-shame-lust arousal (“flight/fight/sex”), quite the opposite of a faithful love. No wonder even devoted couples confess dismay at finding pornography more arousing than their marital embrace.

Many wrongly assume their love is weak. Yet, the strength of love requires an absence of the shame, fear, (and even hate) that commonly defines lust. For a fuller discussion of the psychopharmacology of pictorial pornography, visit my website.

Says Milner, “[m]ost stimuli become less attractive … as they become familiar and predictable. … Thus, novelty has an effect similar to that of reward.” (Emphasis added.) By definition, when the libido depends on novel pictures, such men are dependent,they are “without power,” emasculated,their libido, their masculine power and authority hijacked by a steady stream of new paper dolls.

In December 1953, Hugh Hefner began marketing Playboy as “sexual liberation.” But, instead of emancipation, Hefner sold Joe College Pornographically Induced Impotence.

Pornographically Induced Impotence is evident in an August 1974 Playboy cartoon. A beautiful girl and a handsome lad are in bed. Across her nude body the grinning boy has laid a naked “centerfold” image. The girl under the paper doll asks, plaintively, “Are you sure you still love me, Henry?”

This Playboy lad – symbolic of millions of currently addicted Internet consumers – no longer commands his own natural-born masculine power to physically love. “Henry” and his young vessel are robbed of a vitally important human right; the right to fully experience love-based intimacy.

Urged on by Kinseyan “sexperts” to bring “erotica” into their marriage beds, millions of hoodwinked couples are now puppets, dangled by pornographic strings. Pornographically Induced Impotence is a national pandemic, raking in untold billions for pornographers and their satellite businesses as well as from marital discord and the despair it produces.

From the Playboy mansion to Capitol Hill, from thousands of prostituted Las Vegas girls and women to newlywed bedrooms, from Fortune 500 offices to Ivy League dorms, men and boys have habituated to the rewards of their own hand from the hand of Hefner et al.

Public policy analyst Shaunti Feldhahn recently launced a series of church lectures after counselors noted, “many families in our church are struggling with pornography and with infidelity.” Men are “visually wired,” Feldhahn explained. Their images of women stretch “back to his teenage years and any one of the pictures is going to pop up at any time in his brain without warning.”

In 1981, Hefner biographer Gay Talese wrote that “Hef’s” influence reached out to “the central nervous system of Playboy readers nationwide.” Men’s collective “central nervous system” includes “images” popping up and stretching “back to teenage years.” By 2005, some experts estimated that situational or total impotence was afflicting up to 50 percent of men.

Pornography (erototoxins) emasculate indiscriminately, castrating men of every race, religion, and “orientation,” atheist and orthodox, rich and poor, conservative and radical, young and old, svelte and paunchy, handsome and unappealing, scientist and sky-cap, the clever and the obtuse, en masse.

Pornographically Induced Impotence once kept men and boys anxiously awaiting each month’s “new” fantasy images. The Internet means they wait no more. Good news for The Sex Industrial Complex (Pornography, Sexology and Big Pharma)! Men conditioned by erototoxins since boyhood blame their wives and girlfriends for their vanishing libido.

Yet psychologist Bernie Zilbergeld long ago admitted that magazines like Playboy were implanting impotence in their consumers: “Humor is the basic source of education.…Cartoons that poke fun at impotence or other male inadequacies…would outweigh any supportive things said in the advice column. Cartoons are simply more compelling. Some things are.”

Thousands of Playboy cartoons “poke fun” at male impotence as well as virginity, wives, marriage, religion, sexual harassment, incest, “illegitimate” childbirth and child sexual abuse.

Feldhahan said the churched men she surveyed largely sought not “unlimited sex,” but “a feeling of wanting to be wanted.” Men must recoup their manhood to be wanted. Until “Henry” strides forth to purge fantasy, he will remain a vassal, his manhood controlled by pornographers, his Liege Lords.

Source:

The impotence pandemic
October 03, 2007

Published WorldNetDaily 
Thursday, September 27, 2007

About Dr. Judith Reisman

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html

Brief CV

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html#cv

THE CASE FOR MARRIAGE: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially.
by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher
(Broadway Books, 2000, 260pp, $29.90.Available from AD Books)

The Case for Marriage provides the solid research facts about why marriage is a social good, more than just sex – and why sex is better in marriage – and why marriage is good for men and women, as it is for children. The authors examine one of the most powerful myths in society today that marriage is good for men but bad for women. This myth, promulgated by feminists since as far back as the 1960s, and still rife in our universities today, is that marriage is crippling and destructive to women.The overwhelming evidence today, after allowing for the many variables, shows the contrary: marriage is good for women’s health and also good for their emotional, sexual, physical and economic health. And it is the same for married men. The old adage that women care more about marriage than men is also debunked. Researchers using a measure for personal dedication found men and women equally valued their spouse as the most important person in their lives and were both willing to sacrifice, invest and strive for their spouse’s well-being. While sex is a very important part of marriage, it is not (as with cohabitators) the defining characteristic of the relationship. When it comes to sex, rather than marriage being a “ball and chain” that dampens or ends one’s sex life, married men and women report greater sexual satisfaction than cohabitating couples and singles.

Cohabiters (especially those who are not engaged) typically define their relationship in principle as sexually open, even if neither has plans to have sex with anyone else. Married couples on the other hand define their relationship as sexually exclusive.Although cohabiters have as much sex as married couples, they do not report the same levels of satisfaction. According to Waite and Gallagher, the theory and research evidence suggests the secret ingredient which marriage adds to a better sex life is commitment.Married people also benefit from economies of scale, with two living as cheaply as one. Although cohabiters argue they also benefit from economies of scale, the married are better off because they are usually more careful with their money due to their greater responsibilities.
Also, only couples who are committed to the institution of marriage, not simply to each other, feel safe enough to be able to trust their resources to one another.

As for why marriage is in trouble, the authors give a very good critique of the feminist analyses. They also look at supports for marriage, work and women, divorce laws in America, and how to restore young people’s hopes in marriage.

Kerrie Allen is Research Officer for the Australian Family Association.

Book Review Reprinted from AD2000 Vol 19 No 2 (March 2006), p. 17

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2006/mar2006p17_2192.html

About the Authors:

Linda J. Waite is a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and the author of New Families, No Families. She lives in Glencoe, Illinois.

Maggie Gallagher is Director of the Marriage Program at the Institute of American Values, a nationally syndicated columnist, and the author of Enemies of Eros. She lives in New York City.

The Case for Marriage (New York, Doubleday 2000) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0385500858/ref=dp_proddesc_0/104-8245993-9667169?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

The Society is most grateful to the Wellington-based gay rights activist, Calum Bennachie, for producing a full transcript of the video – excerpts of which are reproduced below to address the question under consideration. Mr Bennachie prepared the transcript (in the public domain) as part of a voluminous submission to Film and Literature Board of Review (“the Board”), in which he successfully sought, on behalf of Human Rights Action Group (Wellington), to have this video banned.

Excerpts from Living Word Video Gay Rights/Special Rights

(Note: The video has now been classified “unrestricted” by the Board following a unanimous Court of Appeal decision to quash the flawed High Court decision that had upheld the ban by the Board).

Lou Sheldon: "Homosexuals have equal rights under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, (CUT TO A SCENE OF TWO WHITE MEN SEATED UNDER A TREE, HOLDING EACH OTHER. ONE IS DRESSED IN A SINGLET AND SHORTS, THE OTHER IN SHORTS ONLY) and the State Constitutions of every State in which they reside. (CUT TO A SCENE OF TWO WHITE WOMEN LINE DANCING WITH EACH OTHER). But the issue here today is special rights. A special category of protection. (CUT TO LOU SHELDON WITH BLACK MEN BEHIND HIM. THE TITLE SAYS "LOU SHELDON CHAIRMAN, TRADITIONAL VALUES COALITION"). They want to be elevated from a behaviour based lifestyle, to a true minority status that would then give them special rights."

Ralph Reed: [EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHRISTIAN COALITION]. "No one should (FADE IN TITLE "RALPH REED… ") have special rights or privileges, or minority status because of their sexual behaviour. (FADE OUT TITLE) We don’t have it for people who are polygamists, we don’t have it for people who have affairs on their wive’s or husband’s …"Peter Marshall: [CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORIAN]. Voice over: "If you give, homosexuals special rights in America, first of all you open a Pandora’s Box … to every deviant behaviour group logically being able to line up and bang on the same door, and insist on, special rights for themselves. You have totally destroyed, … really, … a realistic understanding of Human Rights."

Edwin Meese: [FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL]. "Homosexuals [in ordinary conduct] today, ah, should not be discriminated against, and generally are not. Ah, they’re entitled to the same constitutional rights of, ah, free speech; ah, if anything, ah, they have used, ah, free speech to the point, ah, where their conduct is [probably] offensive, ah, to most people."

For Full Transcript of GayRight/Special Rights video go to:

http://www.christian-apologetics.org/html/Gay_rights_Special_rights.htm

For Full Transcript of the other Living Word video AIDS: What You Haven’t Been Told go to:

http://www.christian-apologetics.org/html/Aids.htm

"A clear majority of the American public opposes same-sex marriage," says Stanley Kurtz of the Hudson Institute. "And yet this opposition, though real, is by-and-large silent. So striking is this general silence, that one cannot help but wonder about the reasons for it."

To read complete article go to:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/KurGayM.htm

Also see:

Gay Marriage — and Marriage
Sam Shulman

"…In a gay marriage, one of two men must play the woman, or one of two women must play the man. "Play" here means travesty–burlesque. Not that their love is a travesty; but their participation in a ceremony that apes the marriage bond, with all that goes into it, is a travesty. Their taking-over of the form of this crucial and fragile connection of opposites is a travesty of marriage’s purpose of protecting, actually and symbolically, the woman who enters into marriage with a man. To burlesque that purpose weakens those protections, and is essentially and profoundly anti-female."

To read complete article go to:

http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SchulmanGayMarriage.php

The results of the Youth Sexual Health report that was made public yesterday shows that years of tax-payer funded sex education classes organised by the Family Planning Association (FPA) and other like-minded groups have utterly failed to achieve any significant reduction in the high rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. The Society is not surprised that New Zealand now has the second highest rate of teenage pregnancy among OECD countries, second only to the United States.

The flawed philosophy that underlies FPA programmes needs to be exposed and replaced with one based on a sound conservative one and heads should role. The main emphasis should be on educating students about the virtues and benefits of chastity, marriage, fidelity and the benefits to society of sound, committed family life. Kids should be taught about the serious downside and repercussions of promiscuity and infidelity. Why should tax-payers continue to fund the implementation of the failed FPA policies and allow FPA to use the same unconvincing and outworn excuses for their ongoing failures to make any impact?

FPA continually puts parents in the firing line for these disastrous figures by claiming that they are ill-prepared and relucatant to talk to their children about sex and that more coordinated, better-funded sex education programmes by FPA will solve the problem. Parents get blamed while FPA shirks its responsibilities to deliver an effective and meaningful moral (or values-based) message to childrren and young persons.

With increasing numbers of pregnant single girls aged between 15 and 19 going on the DPB, why did the cross-party group of New Zealand MPs fail to bring this issue into the analysis? This option so many of them take, of economic dependency, is becoming more and more attractive it would seem as the Labour-led government rolls out its exconomic safety net.Among other things the report by MPs recommends is that sexuality education be about “contraceptives and condom use” and “sexual orientation” should be given to young children “before they become sexually active”; that there “must be a nationwide approval or monitoring system” for external agencies providing sexuality education, and it supports the current framework which allows children to have abortions without parental consent or notification.

This report is a damning indictment of the failures of the liberal agenda that underlies the FPA failed philosophy of: Hand out more condoms. Promote the homosexual and lesbian lifestyle as normal. Promote abortions as a reasonable and safe option for teenage girls to dispose of unwanted, unborn children.”

The report is woefully inadequate and its implementation will continue to deny young people knowledge of the full facts about human sexuality and the risks associated with the methodologies and ideologies being promoted by groups like the FPA.