Trans-Kids Are Abused by Their Parents

                                                                 +AJPM+

THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:


For those not hip to the recent slang, trans-kids refers to a child who insists on living as the other gender; sometimes this is a girl who wants to live as a boy but most times it's the other way around.
In one of the most bizarre cases of parents being confused on who the boss in their house is, children set the terms on their gender at an age when they're not even old enough to have lockers in school and still believe in cootie shots.

If you're like me and wondering whether the parents are on drugs or smoking something and not sharing, there's proof to justify your grief.

The American College of Pediatricians has come out with a study focusing on the trans-agenda and its effect on children. What were some of their conclusions?

-For those who think "the kids will just outgrow it"...you're right. Statistics show the vast majority of children will get over it and accept their birth gender by age 15.

-Sex really IS biological. The norm for humans is to be BORN as either male or female and the study shows that should be the end of it; feeling like you're the other gender does NOT logically or scientifically constitute a third gender.

-A healthy boy or girl insisting they are the other gender is at best a sign of confused thinking and at worst a sign of delusion. If the latter, delusions must be treated to reconcile with reality, not fed by mainstream trends.

-Use of puberty blocking hormonal therapy in children carries many medical risks, including (but by no means limited to) stunted developmental growth, future infertility, high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.

-Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ – affirming countries

This last one from the report is so critical, it needs to be posted in its entirety:
Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Oh, you can just hear the trans-gender blood boiling, can't you?...as if I care, which I DON'T!

Now if you're still not convinced and think gender is just a social construction invented by "un-enlightened" society, consider this:

An unrelated study was done on the behavior of ape children as to what human toys they'd be more drawn to. Now keep in mind apes do not have the mental capacity to understand human societal norms or customs...yet the boy apes were drawn to toy trucks, and anything mechanical related whereas the girl apes were drawn to dolls.

So there you have it: men are men, woman are woman and there's nothing really that can, should or ought to be done about this.

One by one, gender identity advocates and other LGBT fellow travelers need to told to sit down and shut up. If we have to get right in their face and force them to do it, then so be it. After all...

Don't they do the same to spread their message?

Man, they are such idiots, aren't they?

Born that way? You're Joking, Right?

                                                          +AJPM+

THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:

I want people to consider every word being said in this video. Let the story sink into your mind; let it wash over you. If after viewing it, you still think people are born gay....

then you're even more brainwashed than I thought.

Reason Rally Goers Say the Stupidest Things!!

                                                                 +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

Question: why is it that secularists and atheists seem to be the only people in the world who speak on a subject they are not qualified to talk about, yet claim to have a monopoly on reasoning said topic?

I want you to deeply consider that question as I go on.

For those fortunate enough to not know about this, the Reason Rally was a gathering of atheists, secularists and so-called "freethinkers" in Washington DC in 2012. According to their own website, the event is meant for those who "know they can be good without God, that policy should be based on scientific evidence but not beliefs, and supports church/state separation".
 I put freethinkers in quotation marks because if said thinkers were truly free and by proxy promoted freedom, they wouldn't be so hostile to religious faith or any other opinion dissenting from atheist thought. Likewise, they wouldn't be spouting such idiotic and "unreasonable" notions like the ones I'll disclose here, who said them, why they're so dumb and where applicable why they should have done better.

"We're not here today to bash anyone's religion… but, hey, if it happens it happens.”
Who said that? That was Paul Provenza, the host of the event. 
Why is it so stupid? First, it doesn't show how one is good if you're wishy-washy about whether it's okay to bash someone's beliefs. Second, how are you being reasonable by stating a misconception about a religion? Worse, what if no one calls them out on it? How is that promoting free thought?

 "The American Constitution is a precious treasure, the envy of the world"
"Mock them, ridicule them in public. Don't fall for the convention that we're all too polite to talk about religion. Religion makes specific claims about the Universe which need to be substantiated and challenged."
Who said this? That was the babbling atheist limey himself Richard Dawkins. 
Why is it so stupid? Well, I'm actually glad Dawkins admits the American Constitution is the envy of the world, but that's odd coming out of his mouth since it states it was written "in the year of our Lord." 
Furthermore, it's okay to ridicule religious beliefs in public? I wonder how he'd feel if someone ridiculed atheism in public. After all, fair's fair, right? 
(As a quick side note, I have ridiculed atheists in public and in many cases right to the atheist's face. You know what they did? Oh, they tried to shout me down…but it never worked and in the end, I always put the atheists in their place. I guess challenging religion is fine, but don't you dare challenge atheism, eh?)

"Everything that we have that makes our lives possible exists because human beings have... made predictions based on those tests and then improved upon them. This is reason: the human capacity to make sense of the world."
"through careful empirical analysis and much thought that someone is looking out for me... I have concluded that this person keeping score - is me."
This was spoken by Adam Savage, one of the co-hosts of Mythbusters. The first one is dumb because although he is in a nutshell talking about the scientific method, and parts of it date back to either ancient Greece or Persia (neither area having much if any atheists), the current form (which includes inductive reasoning) was put together by Roger Bacon, a Franciscan monk. 
So let me make this clear in no ambiguous terms:

You cannot say or imply your group has sole claim to scientific discovery and a group in ideological contradiction to your own does not have claim when a) the other group created a key tool you use for your discoveries and b) said other group has won the majority of Nobel prizes for scientific discovery. 

And as far as this "the only one keeping score is me" bull…who told him to have two kids by a woman he never married? What score would he give himself for that? How would he feel if someone says he deserves a much lower score?

"What I did can be done by anybody."
Who said this? This came from a delusional young woman named Jessica Alhiquist, whose father sued her high school over a school prayer dating back to 1960. Even though there were no complaints from anyone else at any time, her father won in court and the prayer was removed.
Let me count the ways this one is idiotic:
1. No..she did not do anything because she was a minor at the time. Her father filed the suit.
2. Even if she could file the suit herself, how is she being good to other people by making a case out of it?
3. What exactly did she do? Looking at the case, it seems like all she did was badger and annoy people into compliance. Do we honesty want anyone to think this is how things should be done?
4. Contrary to her claim, no…NOT everyone can do this. There's legal standing, there's precedence, and there's just common sense. Anyone with a working frontal lobe and fire in their gut can stand up to lawsuits like this.

"Atheists are angry because we see millions of people being terribly harmed by religion, and our hearts go out to them, and we feel motivated to do something about it"
This is according to atheist blogger Greta Christina, a raging femi-nazi (a term I don't use lightly but I am willing to say that right to her face) who authored a book called (not making this up) Why Are You so Angry? 99 Things that Piss off the Godless. While I don't own a copy of it myself, I was able to get a sample read off Amazon that lists the first 45.
Don't bother with it: all 45 mentioned are either grossly exaggerated, missed the point, or overly-simplified. 
But what does she mean exactly by "doing something about it" and why is that so stupid? Does she mean use the state to curb religious influence? If so, then screw that: I've seen the consequences of that action. 
And who are these millions terrorized by religion? Does she mean those living in Mexico prior to the Cristeros War? Does she mean the religious people terrorized by homo-fascists who never think to go hire a different caterer or photographer? 

"If the atheists weren't closeted, it would be harder to hate us, because in the end, you can't hate what you already love"
OH YES…you can. This is stupid because either you hate something or you love it. You can't do both at the same time. Besides, love can turn into hate. Thinking people call that betrayal. 

"I can make the argument...that the only ones with true morality are us, the atheists. We are doing good because it's good and are doing right because it's right, and not for reward or punishment. We have love for each other, we have community, we have charity."
Who said this? It was spoken by magician Penn Gillette, someone who doesn't seem to know all the multiple atheist thinkers who would disagree with everything he just claimed. 
What's even dumber is his blindness to how circular his reasoning is. Then again, what can we expect when the two episodes of his old show on Showtime either got banned or only aired once because of his inaccurate claims about religion?

"Your stuff [religion] has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus, and Thor, and the Kraken. With the stuff that is not evidence based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens."
Who said this? Bill Maher, a man who has never met a foam-at-the-mouth statement he never liked.  And pretty high talk from him: despite the fact he's been proven wrong so many times, Maher just keeps going with his anti-religion nonsense yet has the gall to state his is the reasonable side.
Therefore, couldn't an equal and better case be made Maher's atheism needs to go on the same shelf as a flat earth, or the barter system, or the USSR? 

"We'll have millions more at our next rally!"

Okay, no one actually said this but their nastiness did come back to bite them. Although no official attendance figures exist, most believe at best 15,000 people showed up--about half the amount Reason Rally 2012 received.  Even a campaign on the event's official website only reached 25% of their target goal.

Atheists scrambled to come up with excuses, but I think the answer is obvious:

People are sick of atheism and want it gone one way or another.

Why even bother with rallies or events when even atheist group actions won't matter anyway?

But that's atheist idiocy for you!

Guide for June 2016

THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER

It's the time of year again to fight back against the homo-fascist stranglehold on people's minds. All posts for June (except for June 3rd and Father's Day) will focus on the true horror of the LGBT (or whatever idiotic, alphabet soup, non-sensical acronym they've come up with) movement. Their lies will be exposed and it will be made clear to them their brainwashing wont work with me or any other thinking person.

It dawned on me today that speaking out against gays is no different than what war protesters went through in the Iraq War's early days. Recall how patriotic everyone claimed to be by being for the war but if you spoke out against it, you were quickly silenced.

Well, I would love to see anyone try to silence me. And to show you how serious I am....

Obamacare is Socialism (and the Free Market is Better)

                                                               +AJPM+

THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:

Since I revealed something about myself in my last post, I figured I'd do it again in this one:

I have sold health insurance after Obamacare was passed. In fact, I had health insurance licenses in 8 states and in DC. I cannot begin to tell you the endless amount of customers who were ticked off that a) they had to buy health insurance and b) how expensive it was per month.
Yet we're supposed to applaud the law because now everyone can get medical treatment--even though they could before and those who can't afford it by themselves get to mooch off those who can.

Before anyone complains about how it was before, can you honestly say to anyone this law was the only way to fix things?

Profile Change

                                                                +AJPM+


THE CATHOLIC HTOWNER:

Sorry to do this yet again, but I've decided to change my online handle again as well as promote my own city. Why?

1. I found out there was already a blogger using the name Millennial Catholic before I came along.

2. A recent story revealed if trends continue, my home city--Houston, TX--will surpass Chicago in population.

This one comes as no surprise since there are far more job opportunities in Houston than in Chicago.

3. All the religious opportunities in Houston.

This archdiocese has a cardinal, a college with the Cardinal Newman Society seal of approval, and serves as the hub for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Peter, has a chapel run by Opus Dei, and even has at least two parishes run by an Eastern Catholic rite. In addition, a whole religious order is moving their training grounds from Canada to Houston.  Even the FSSP is building a parish in the area.

4. Apart from some obscure TV shows and one Academy Award nominated film (Boyhood), there are not many outlets focusing on locations or food spots in Houston.

To be fair, Andrew Zimmer did make a Bizarre Foods episode about the food culture in Houston, but more needs to be done.

5. I have also decided to change my profile pic.

The reason here is because the cathedral in Houston is named after the Sacred Heart; as a side note, mine was the first graduating class to have commencement in the newly finished cathedral.

6. I am still working on putting videos together.

While I still think the art of writing should be kept alive, I'll concede the fact visuals are more useful in evangelizing.

6. Despite the changes, my attacks on atheism won't change a bit.

The good news is that most now know where I'm coming from with this, and if you lived here, you too would have a front seat of why atheists are idiots and why the Catholic way is better.

Atheist Thought Experiments Debunked #9

                                                          +AJPM+  

               
                                                       "Jesus was a socialist"

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

No matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, the idea that Jesus was socialist just will not go away. Sadly, this comes from a poor or little understanding of the Gospels themselves and what they are teaching people.

The crux of this whole stand comes from a particular set of verses in Acts:

And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. (Acts 2:44-45)

Let's point out a few key problems with the verse:

1. There is NO indication this is supposed to be a teaching that would stand for all time.

    While there have been people who did sell all they had and lived as either hermits or in a holy community (more on this later), this verse doesn't say, show or imply every Christian is supposed to do this. 

It's no different than when Paul tells people he would prefer they live as he does, but acknowledges not everyone can do that.

2. Right before they talk about holding things in common, they talk about the "breaking of the bread." 

     To a non-Catholic ear, that phrase makes no sense but it makes perfect sense if you believe in the Real Presence. Combine that with the distribution of goods and one could argue this is talking about an early form of the Catholic Mass, NOT socialism.
And really, when was the last time socialism has ever been paired with religion--besides as an effort to mislead people?

3. The goods went to the Church, NOT the State.

I find it odd that those who are the most gung-ho about separating the State from any Church influence are always the first to say we should take a principle better suited to Church and give it to the State.

There's a word for that; it's called statolatry, a combination of statism and idolatry. In short, socialists worship the state as if it was a god, and therefore want you to pay tribute to their false idol. Maybe they won't phrase it in those words, but that's what their polices boil down to.

(By the way, in case anyone thinks I made that word up, it actually dates to 1931 but gained traction when then Pope Pius XI used the word to denounce the Fascists for their "pagan worship of the state.")

Furthermore, shouldn't we find it odd they use that verse to show Jesus being a socialist--even though it's not a quote from Jesus--but ignore this exchange, even though it DOES have several quotes from Jesus?

Tell us therefore what dost thou think, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites?Shew me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny. And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this? They say to him: Caesar' s. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar' s; and to God, the things that are God' s.

There are two main teachings from these verses to consider, one obvious and the other less obvious. Obviously, Jesus is saying Caesar isn't God; this might not be important until one considers citizens of Rome were expected to pay tribute to Caesar as if he were a god. So, Jesus is objecting to this, and thus committing blasphemy--at least in the Roman's eyes. Today we would call this making a false idol out of the state.
Not so obvious is the implication of separating church and state...but before idiot atheists jump for joy at this, by this I mean there are two separate entities but the state is answerable to the church, not the other way around.

    

Sometimes one will even hear this line of reasoning (albeit phrased a little differently):

"But monks and nuns live in community, they share things in common and they make it work. Why can't we try that on a larger scale?"

We can't try it for the same reason we can't try particular family dynamics on a national scale:

Once you go past a certain number of people, it starts getting impersonal and stops working.

That's why only a certain number of monks and nuns live in one place, with other monasteries.


Finally, Revelation tells us we are children of Jesus if we follow His commandments...two of them make no sense if we assume we are to hold things in common across the board but they make perfect sense if we assume individual property rights.

This is yet another example of atheists trying to scam people into buying their nonsense. Why take the word of idiots like that?