Thursday, November 6, 2008


What did McCain do to energize the so-called "base" of the party? He nominated Sarah Palin, a pro-life, Christian, conservative woman --committed to reform in her state. And she had the IT factor --enormous charisma. Her whole family has it!

Many said he did this to attract the Hillary voters. I knew she wouldn't get many of them, because Hillary voters are pro-choice on abortion --and Sarah obviously is not. I think he really knew that he was nominating an evangelical who would energize evangelicals. And she did that.

If you listen to Ann Coulter, you do get another impression of what it is to be conservative. She's a bit more hard-line --and some of that is good. But there is a bit of difference in how she perceives the term "conservative" and how I believe Pastor Rick Warren would perceive it--or even Bush. E.g. I think there is a hard-edged kind of conservativism --that would APPEAR, or be INTERPRETED to be uncompassionate to illegals, the poor and unconcerned about the environment.

We need to get out the message of what environmental remedies may do to the poor in the short run that are worse than global warming.

WE of the evangelical right do believe in "spreading the wealth" through opportunity, public education, voluntarily sharing what we have, and social gov't AND charity programs to help the truly needy, the disabled, ill and elderly. But we also believe that self-reliance is a virtue to promote in the culture rather than dependency on others to do what we can do for ourselves. Why should we reward those who've been indolent, goofed off in school, chosen drugs and promiscuity? We do need to help their children --but we ought not make it of no consequence, perpetuating irresponsibility when one elects to ruin his own life. We need a little TOUGH LOVE in the gov't --and yet, we can't let people starve or live in squalid 3rd world conditions.

The church needs to reach out to all--as the Gospel of Christ is the best force for good in a culture. It draws people into Community --weekly --and this, at its best, is a family --for people whose families may have disappointed them or died off. This family challenges us to life rightly, to love, forgive, and give.

Like the hard-right, Warren (and Coulter) would be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. But Warren is also emphasizing compassion for those with AIDS (as Bush did) and I bet he isn't a hard liner against amnesty for illegals from Mexico-- which Ann is.

I don't agree with affirmative action as forced official policy --but I understand the value of diversity in our schools, churches and our workplaces and think we should voluntarily seek to be diverse racially --and seek peace with other religious groups --not through doctrinal compromise, but through intentional peace-making while maintaining our differences in beliefs and convictions. We don't have to believe we are both on the path to Heaven in order to be kind.

I was in the doctor's office yesterday for a test and another lady and I were quite chatty and friendly on the elevator. And then I asked if her candidate won; she said, he did. And I smilingly said, "Mine did not." And then she started to look at me warily and give me the social chill. Clammed up. REAL PEACE DOES INVOLVE CARING FOR PEOPLE DESPITE OUR DIFFERENCES IN VIEWS. HEAR ME, MUDLY!? THAT'S WHY I AM WILLING TO BREAK BREAD AND DRINK COFFEE WITH DEMOCRATS. PEACE MUST NOT REQUIRE AGREEMENT, BUT TOLERANCE.

Tolerance is not APPROVAL of all things or agreement. Homosexuals want us to approve sodomy by granting marriage to those relationships. Even liberal California voted against such approval. Sodomy is against nature and gives us no children. It starts with a first thought and/or action and it SHOULD be shunned at the first thought --just like adultery, pedophilia, rape, and incest should be barred from one's brain at the first thought.

Gay marriage teaches our children that gay is ok, that they may consider it for themselves, that they may mull thoughts of sodomy around in their heads, and experiment to find out what they prefer. We have enough sexually confused and dysfunctional people without encouraging them and stimulating the mind toward immorality by official endorsement. We have a long list of pragmatic and secular reasons (in addition to religious) why sodomy is unhealthy and counter-productive to our national well-being--and not a matter of equal rights at all. AFter all, they have the same rights to marry persons of the opposite sex. There is no RIGHT to do wrong and same-sex sodomy is simply wrong --and this view is the traditional one, not new. So don't anyone say the Christians are trying to CHANGE a nation to suit themselves in their stand on sodomy. It's the homosexuals who are trying to change the nation--and succeeding.

WE MUST WORK FOR A DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION --AS OUR YOUNG PEOPLE, EVEN YOUNG EVANGELICALS, ARE STARTING TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT "NICE" TO OPPOSE HOMOSEXUALITY. They are being brainwashed by TV and liberals in all our schools and online. The NEA (our teachers) actually have in their list of political goals the approval of homosexuality and women's right to choice (abortion.) There is this fear that if we disapprove the lifestyle, homosexuals will stay away from God and Church. We have disapproved adultery, and still adulterers will come into church when they really want forgiveness and a relationship with the Lord. We can't pretend to approve homosexuality to get them into a church that will teach them homosexuality is a sin. And woe to the church that doesn't teach them the truth.

To revive the GOP, we need leadership from the religious conservatives like Rick Warren. We need a clear agenda that we are FOR the environment but for people, first --that we are FOR compassionate works, including faith-based institutions getting federal monies wherever secular institutions are doing so with inferior results (prisons, schools, rehab clinics, mental health centers, and work among the poor, the ill and the homeless.)

We must promote awareness of America's Christian heritage and its positive effect on our culture, civil rights beliefs, abolition of slavery, and on our prosperity --with the protestant work ethic and the value of self-reliance, individual initiative, and freedom without licentiousness, freedom with personal responsibility.

We must demand equal monies for religious schools --like the GI Bill used to be. We need choice in education. Yes, I fear the Islamic Wahabi schools that might rise up. I would say any school receiving vouchers should promote kindness and peace --and prove that they are doing so. They don't have to water down doctrinal differences, but there should be no suggestion of paradise for suicide bombers --support for any kind of murder--or their schools can be closed. I believe in the public school for promoting diversity and peace among people of differences --BUT some of our schools have become agents of the LEFT--or just ineffectual because of dysfunctional homes in the district. So we rightly ask for our tax monies back, to be used for schools of our choice.

In conclusion, if the GOP sticks to the values of its religious, pro-life, pro-family, conservative base --the Ronald Reagan Republicans and Reagan Democrats, the party will revive. But we must shed any impression that we are hard-line against the illegals, against the poor (deserving or otherwise). We need to toot our own horns about the good done in Iraq, the accomplishments of GW Bush --instead of all this misinfo about how everything bad was his fault.

We need united campaign leadership who understands and appreciates the religious right-- who knows how to combat the negative press --who knows how to inspire people about the superior party's superior beliefs and values.

The McCain-Palin speeches seemed to stay away from our core values --to stick to lowering taxes, being mavericks, reforming, bringing change. Give me the old Ron Reagan speeches anyday--where he said things that resonated with people of faith. I noticed that was missing from all 4 candidates this year at their conventions--as they tried to appeal to the "middle" --those people without clear direction for themselves. We've been listening to our critics --as Ann Coulter said --and trying to appease them. Not a good idea at all.

Locally, we need an outstanding candidate to oppose Marcy --say, a black conservative Christian? Or just some young dynamic candidate with charisma who mounts a huge campaign and gets tons of young workers. I'll telephone!

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


mud_rake said...

How to revive the GOP- purge the Fundamentalist Christians.

Barb said...

No, there would be no party then, Mudly. I think you mean pro-lifers --and they are the majority of the party. So you've got it wrong. You are one of our critics that we must not listen to. You WANT to marginalize the fundamentlists/evangelicals/
religious right/pro-family/pro-decency/pro traditional values voters. You are obsessed with us, like your father before you was obsessed with protestants and hated them.

You lamented on line once the way he died so miserably as a man obsessed against this group of people -- you are following in his footsteps! STOP IT before it's too late for you to find some joy in life --some freedom from this vitriol that poisens --not just you, but your blog!

Rick the Blogger said...

How about purging the socialists out of the Democratic Party?

Barb said...

Yes, the democratic party is xtreme on many issues --Anne Coulter called them "Godless" and from what some bloggers say who claim to speak for their party, we might suspect this to be true. Haters of God in that party --and haters of Christians, in particular --haters specifically of "fundamentalists" who really believe and apply the Bible to modern life.

Healthy fundamentalists are not haters. I see that some democrats are not --but so many are, I think because they are less governed by spiritual principle than the religious of the GOP.

Mudly thinks nothing will happen to him if he hates. I think I will not make Heaven if I don't forgive those who hate me. I feel forgiven by God --I joyously pass that on to Mudly and Microdot. The Bible says, in fact, that if we don't forgive, we'll not be forgiven by our Heavenly Father who demands forgiveness of us.

crusader09 said...

Barb, I'd like to ask you about your comment that we need to fight for a definition of marriage in the constitution:

I want to propose that, perhaps, we don't want the government telling the population who it can and cannot marry. Maybe I'm still young and naive and don't get it: but I would really like the Federal Government having as little to do with my life as is possible. (For goodness' sake, don't bring up abortion here. It doesn't apply to abortion because that's NOT just MY life, it's someone else's life I would end...)

I think that, IF the government is to define marriage in some way, it should be done on a state level. And that's a huge IF. Because, if the population of a state wants homosexual marriage legalized, the integrity of our governmental system DEMANDS that it be so.

I don't want to start a fight here, just to find out what you think about that. And whether you've read the book 1984, which would help you see my paranoia about government involvement regarding the personal lives of the citizens.

Barb said...

No fight --just discussion. I will try to persuade you to share my opinion and you are welcome to resist and disagree.

First of all, gov't never really defined marriage,but just accepted the definition as it always was. We don't need a LEGAL definition of tree or house or dog. They just ARE what they are. Marriage just "is what it is." Since the beginning of recorded history. It has to do with the family unit, headed, most always by one male with 1 or more women--whose children were his and hers or theirs. He was responsible for his children and his wife or wives.

Of course, Jewish history starts out with God making one woman for one man--and we've found that arrangement to be most respectful of women's equality --and most economical so that a man wouldn't have more mouths to feed than he could afford.

There was no such thing as marriage for people of the same sex. It was considered perversion, an abomination, unmentionable and "queer". And there wasn't near as much of it, as a result.

so what we are being asked to do today, by gays, is create a new definition of marriage as a sexual union of any two people, regardless of sex or potential to build a family by biological means. Why are we being asked this? Because homosexuals want approval for their perversion. Approval means they can seek relationships with any men they choose --not just men who are already sharing in the gay lifestyle --but perhaps your straight son for whom they lust.

Ultimately if they are considered the same as a race or a disabled person, we must hire practicing gays in our religious schools and churches and let them into the scout tents and dorms and barracks sleeping with and lusting after your sons--and say nothing against their lifestyle or lose tax exemption --a big blow to religious institutions which typically get no gov't subsidies and only the benefit of our tax exemption. They will call it hate speech and penalize the church for teaching the Bible on this topic.

Gays try to liken the church's view on sodomy to the church's historical view of slavery. The latter was wrong, in light of the Golden Rule and the fact that we are all equal and made in God's image. But there is no Biblical right to sodomy or a new definition of marriage -- any more than there is a right to adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, or incest. All are sins to reject at the first thought.

Gays are the people by which AIDS came to America, because of their extreme promiscuity --documented. They don't crave monogamous relationship as evidenced by the propensity of homosexuals to seek encounters with strangers. It's a known fact that gays (the male homosexuals) typically don't expect marriage to mean monogamy --what's a little sodomy among strangers in a bathroom?? Geo. Michael, the singer, demonstrated this, getting arrested for soliciting an undercover policeman in a park bathroom known for such encounters. He had a live-in partner --who wasn't fazed in the least by George's infidelity. He didn't expect faithfulness from George. It's just sex, after all! He and George were just disappointed that Geo. got caught. George's excuse? the policeman was so "hot" and coming on to him.

To legislate state by state is to have the confusion we now have --where some got married in California --but for the 2nd time, Calif. voted to NOT recognize marriage between same sex-persons. And they've seen more of it in their state than anywhere else.

There is something stomach-turning about two men kissing on the lips. But even worse is to think about what they do to have intercourse. It's not a natural desire. They lure the young into the addiction of orgasms gained in these bizarro ways. As far as I know, they still have a much shortened life expectancy --or as the Bible says, "They receive the recompense for their error in their bodies." AIDS and syphillis are both epidemics still in San Francisco --despite condom availability.

I don't want anyone to ever sodomize a son or grandson of mine --and we need to be disgusted with people for wanting to have this kind of sex. NOt treating them badly, but not respecting what they want to do --like sitting with each other naked in a hot tub at parties as I heard about here locally. We are pressured to see gay couples as the same as hetero lovers.

All promiscuity is sin, and hetero promiscuity is just as sinful as homosexuality --which is most always promiscuous.

So, we DO need a federal constitutional amendment to define something for every state--something that previously had an inherent definition. NO ONE THOUGHT marriage was anything other than a union of man and wife. But today's gays are muddying the waters and want a new definition to approve their perversion.

If we do this, it's on a par with abortion as a sin in God's sight --for which He may remove HIs hand of blessing from our nation.

God made the male organ to feel good in intercourse with a woman. It was inevitable that there would be other ways to give pleasure to that organ --but that doesn't mean all those ways are legit --so God forbade sex with one's own sex and sex with animals --He forbade sex with anyone but one's hetero spouse.

There is no healthy reason why a man can't find pleasure in a normal way with a woman. His COMPLETE turn-off to women is a result of some kind of developmental damage --or worse, the sin of loving self more than God as St. Paul wrote. For sure, if one knows that God forbids such lust, then one ought to bar such thoughts from the door of his mind at the first inkling --in love for God. Hetero marriage is fulfilling God's plan to multiply and replenish the earth --or as Jesus said, to leave parents and cleave to an opposite sex spouse --as with Adam and Eve from the beginning, made in God's image.

If gays are so unable to perform with women --well, they aren't. Many have had sex with women and fathered children. So their desire for male with male orgasm is just a desire for something forbidden and perverse --sex in ways that women don't typically like to participate --quick orgasms with men who know what men like to feel --and no risk of pregnancy. But the risk of AIDS and alienation from God ought to give them pause to reconsider their futures.

Male and female, created He them --in the image of God He created them. And the two will become one flesh. Not male and male --male and female.

The laws of nature and Nature's God trump even the U.S. Constitution --and our founding fathers thought this.

Barb said...

One more thing --so many states have put the definition of marriage as between a man and woman into their state constitutions. To have a change of the U.S. constitution, every state must vote to approve it by a significant margin, I believe. We need to work for that now --before all our young people are brainwashed by TV and educators to believe that homosexuality is equal to hetero --and not strange --no longer perverse or sinful.

My generation almost never heard of homosexuality when we were young. This generation has been brainwashed into believing homosexuality is inborn and also a right --and it is neither. It is not inevitable, immutable, natural or healthy. Nothing you want your son or daughter to crave or experience --EVER! But education and media and politicians are pushing and pushing --to make this lifestyle appealing.

kateb said...

I think, if I understand Crusaders comment, that once we PERMIT government dissection of the religious definition of marriage - well then it's on the table.

If we would protect our religious covenants and disallow our government to become involved in the dialogue - since it is forbidden in the Bill of Rights - we wouldn't have to 'defend' marriage.

We fell for a red herring.

mud_rake said...

kateb- May I ask you two questions?

1. How long have you been married?

2. For how many of those years has your marriage been threatened by a gay couple?

crusader09 said...

Mud Rake: Are you alright? Kateb didn't mention anything about being threatened by gay marriage... I just wonder if there is someone there to check on you in your apparent state...

That's exactly what I'm saying, KateB... I have more to say, but should sleep, so Barb, I'll respond tomorrow...

mud_rake said...

Of course she didn't, wise guy, but apparently you are so dim that you don't understand the nuance of my question.

crusader09 said...

Nope, I get it. It is also part of my concern... you're usually a little quicker than that. Mean spirited, but not usually dumb.

crusader09 said...

Mud Rake: I’m sorry. I know better than to poke the troll… I just couldn’t resist.
Barb said: “Approval means they can seek relationships with any men they choose --not just men who are already sharing in the gay lifestyle --but perhaps your straight son for whom they lust.”
I think this line of thinking is unrelated to the issue of the legality of gay marriage. Legal or otherwise, it would not stop gay people from trying to “pervert” other people (not that I’m convinced on the legitimacy of that claim either. I have never known a gay person who felt like they needed to “convert” others to be gay). Also, this principal is equally disturbing in heterosexual marriages: just because a man is married, they may choose to seek relationships with anyone they choose.
“Ultimately if they are considered the same as a race or a disabled person, we must hire practicing gays in our religious schools and churches and let them into the scout tents and dorms and barracks sleeping with and lusting after your sons--and say nothing against their lifestyle or lose tax exemption --a big blow to religious institutions which typically get no gov't subsidies and only the benefit of our tax exemption. They will call it hate speech and penalize the church for teaching the Bible on this topic.”
As far as being considered as a race or a disabled person: that’s not the issue we’re discussing here. I don’t think that anyone legitimately suggests that homosexuals be categorized as disabled. And it is already dangerous for anyone to ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals. I’m not sure that legalizing the marriage contract for gays will do much to change that situation. The churches need to fight for their right to practice their religion, and if that includes not hiring gays because of their lifestyle, then go to the plate for that.
“They don't crave monogamous relationship as evidenced by the propensity of homosexuals to seek encounters with strangers.”
I have not found this to be true; at least no truer than the propensity of college-aged heterosexuals to seek encounters with strangers and be promiscuous. I think this is an unfair generalization. As far as the AIDS claim: it is true that the first documented cases of AIDS happened in the homosexual community and that is one of the largest risk factors for contracting the disease. But it’s not just a gay man’s disease anymore. The epidemic in Africa is NOT among only gays or sexual deviants.
“So, we DO need a federal constitutional amendment to define something for every state--something that previously had an inherent definition. NO ONE THOUGHT marriage was anything other than a union of man and wife. But today's gays are muddying the waters and want a new definition to approve their perversion.”
I understand this reaction. But the arguments preceding this conclusion is almost completely unrelated to the issues I brought up (and don’t lead to this conclusion logically). Why is the government concerned with what kind of sex its citizens are or are not having? Why should it be? Marriage, to the government, is a legal contract. I am uncomfortable with the government telling consenting, competent adults they can’t enter into a legal contract of any kind. And I, most certainly, do NOT want the government to start legislating personal lives and/or morality. This is an issue between the people involved, their spiritual leaders, and God.
I don’t want any of my nephews, for instance, to grow up and declare themselves gay. And our family would have issues with that, I am sure. But that should be handled by us and our pastors, NOT by the federal government. The federal government is far too strong as it is today, giving them the power to decide on my bedroom activities (I am NOT gay, by the way, I’m just saying) would be a huge step in a very bad direction.
Now, if there were overwhelming support in the states for this kind of action, then they should push their legislatures to take action. I still think that would be wrong, but not in principle the way it would be wrong to put it in the US Constitution would be.
So that’s my feeling, being a small-government moderate-leaning-conservative…

As far as editing goes, I'll make my apologies now: I typed in Word so I could see everything I was tying, and it messed up my formatting when I pasted :( Sorry!

Jeanette said...

Where did we get the word "sodomy"? From the town or city of Sodom. What happened in Sodom? Men were sleeping with other men as wives.

God sent the angels and Jesus to give the message to Abraham that Sodom and the other city doing that, Gomorrah, would be destroyed because they were such a filthy society and were an abomination. (I know Mudrake doesn't like the word "abomination", but it's accurate).

Abraham bargained down to ten righteous men found in the cities and they would be saved. There weren't even ten righteous men in the cities.

The angels, having been left by the physical presence of Jesus, had found themselves in Lot's house under seige by those who lusted after them. Lot offered his daughters, but it was the angels who appeared to be male they wanted. They and their cities were destroyed.

Does that sound like God condones homosexuality? You can call me a homophobe, but it is what it is. I didn't make the rule.

If homosexuality is so normal, why is it other people are repulsed by the very thought of it?

Mudrake asks kateb how long she's been married and how many times she has been threatened by homosexual people.

I will give you a true, first-hand account: On December 16 my husband and I will celebrate 41 years of marriage.

On December 18, two days after our marriage, my husband was working his college part-time job and my best childhood friend came to visit me.

She didn't attend our wedding, but when she got to my apartment she started telling me she loved me and trying to caress and kiss me on the mouth. I kept fighting her off and telling her I loved her as a sister but not as a lover.

Finally, the girl who was my maid of honor also showed up and between the two of us we got her into a car and drove her back home, all while she was trying to crawl all over either of us. Yes, she was drinking, but she makes no bones about her sexual orientation now.

I have infrequently seen her since and only with a group of people present.

So I can answer your question, Mudrake. How many have tried to take you on?

The constitution should not be amended to define marriage. The states can amend their constitutions and not allow homosexual marriage or not. We can be Sodom and Gomorrah or not. If we choose to be them then we can expect the same punishment from God. He will not be mocked and He has never changed "with the times".

That's what Mudrake hates about Christianity. We cannot give on things we are commanded not to give on because then we are deliberately disobeying God. God didn't give us rules for the 21st century and rules for other times, except the law of Moses was disposed of when Jesus shed his blood.

I am much more concerned about the government I will have for eternity than any government on earth, or what anyone who disagrees with me on this issue thinks.

So, Valérie, if you're reading you can report to the people at PP that I, too, oppose homosexuality upon the Highest Authority ever. HE...DOESN'T CHANGE! Ponder that while you admire the architecture in your church. Try prayer for a change.

This is not said in hate but time is short and we don't have the luxury of waiting for you to decide you will follow Christ when you are sixty. He may return before that and it will be too late for you and all the others at PP and elsewhere.

Barb said...

We ARE threatened by homosexuality as a nation/culture. Gay behavior (if not orientation) really does become more prevalent as stigma is minimized among young people. As it becomes trendy. There are lots of reports of teen girls doing a lot of this experimenting in order to impress guys who just like to see girls doing anything sexual.

Boston Sex Educators like SEICUS and Planned Parenthood have held conferences for sex education --in which they teach youth how to use various prophylactics and experiment with various kinds of sex activities that won't make them pregnant or diseased -dental dams, and the like --and recommending various mutual masturbatory and orgasmic activities. No waiting for marriage, no esteem for chastity and virginity --but "everybody does it --it is fun--and we'll show you how to do safe activities safely and give you the tools and toys."

Reality for the secular concerns: when kids (or any age persons) get into sexual situations, they cannot necessarily control a partner. Passion makes people throw caution to the winds. Mix with alcohol or drugs and they REALLY don't have control of themselves.

SEICUS and PP have said that GUILT is an unnecessary aspect of sexual activity which inclines kids to get into trouble because they WON'T prepare to use prophylactic aids--knowing they should remain chaste.

REALITY: there is no prophylaxis for people's emotions when they are rejected, exploited, ridiculed, dumped, called "sluts" and other names by those people who are unkind but also unfooled by those who try to de-stigmatize sexual promiscuity. You can't sanctify slutty and gay behavior in everybody's mind with any amount of sex ed. So while "everybody does it" may be true, there is an element of teen opinion-shapers who will still call a spade a spade --in derogatory ways--even though they have done the same things.

There is no sex activity with other people outside marriage that isn't potentially high risk for emotional damage, reputation damage, regret, exploitation, disease and for the heteros, risk for pregnancy. That's what we need to teach: Chastity, waiting for marriage, are best.

Christian colleges and high schools would expel --or at least deal with-- students involved in homosexual activity if they found out about it --and maybe hetero pre-marital behavior, if they knew. But In our public colleges, anything goes.

Try to raise counter-culture kids in sodom and Gomorrah. Peer influence is so strong on all youth. God said HIs people should not dwell in such places --or they should at least separate themselves from those walking in darkness. That's what the founders were doing when they came here for religious freedom -the freedom to worship and have laws consistent with their moral/religious beliefs.

America has always tried to keep the culture wholesome for children's healthy development. But liberals say we cannot constitutionallly stem the creation and spread of porn --(except kiddie porn) and so many Chrsitian young boys and men have been enticed by compuers, indulged and gotten hooked. They have lowered the bar to the brain --and let in things they would not pursue if the porn had not pursued them.

I think the same is possible with unfettered homosexual approval in the culture.

A culture CAN become more and more licentious. God tells us in both testaments to shun and avoid any who would draw us into moral temptation, compromise and degradation. The Hebrew men were tempted by the pagan Philistine women to their detriment.

The gays are trying to influence mainstream culture with their promotion of gay marriage. They want approval and the right to pursue anyone. The right to cross dress and transgender without any negative stigma. And the right to take their perverse attributes into any work situation--including religious. These behaviors have historically been considered perversions --and they still are --and they are not inevitable --they are sinful self-indulgence.

Marriage law exists for the protection of women and children--so that men couldn't just make oodles of babies with different women and abandon them financially. A father could say, "What are your intentions?" to a young man --and expect that marriage was the goal --or he could hit the road.

As it is now, the main thing gays want from gay marriage is respectability and acceptance for their difference. And they want the benefits that were created to aid families and children --not singles who have only themselves to support. A nation that is righteous must not give them what they want --any more than we would give approval to the adulterer, the pedophile, the incestor, the rapist.

Without a shared cultural definition of marriage, then anything sexual becomes acceptable if it is consensual. This is not the kind of situation in which to raise children and perpetuate stable families.

The young say, "Why not? hath God said?" Well, yes, indeed, He has spoken on this quite clearly.

Marriage is not 2 men together or 2 women together but male and female unit. Nature and common sense affirm the traditional definition--and we need the LAW to AFFIRM that definition --since we no longer seem to know when a spade is a spade.

the NARTH website would have better reasons than I've given for why we don't want gay marriage recognized in culture or law. I'm sure there are articles out there on why we should have marriage as a legal institution.

It's not the feds who currently regulate marriage; it's the states, I believe. But to have a uniform standard for our nation that marriage is the union of one man and one woman --we need that constitutional amendment. Then a court can't strike it down as "unconstituional."

Barb said...

I wrote “They don't crave monogamous relationship as evidenced by the propensity of homosexuals to seek encounters with strangers.”

Crusader: "I have not found this to be true; at least no truer than the propensity of college-aged heterosexuals to seek encounters with strangers and be promiscuous. I think this is an unfair generalization."

NO, it's a fact, Crusader. Go to NARTH and Family Research Institute and the Center for Disease Control --and dig up some stats self-reported by gays in many different surveys--if memory serves me, the least promiscuous reported 2 stranger encounters per week on average --for over a 100 partners a year. That's why they get AIDS. AIDS is a consequence of promiscuity--but particularly anal sex --because the lining of the rectum is only 1 cell thick. They aren't all seeking relationship --but sex. And marriage doesn't mean monogamy to many of them. The first gay couple to marry on the east coast said they didn't intend to be monogamous by marrying. I think they have since "divorced."
Geo. Michael and his partner don't expect monogamy.

I knew one gay who seemed so moral that we didn't think he would have sex with anyone--but he was the first one into the hot tub without a suit.

A black man wrote a book about being "on the down low" --about black men who don't consider themselves gay but they have sex with men --recreationally-- easy and quick to get with out the complications of women and kids and emotional considerations of women, etc. He said the reason that black women in America are the ones getting the most new cases of AIDS --other than gays and Men who Have Sex with Men (MSWN?) --is because of their men on the down low.

So lately the CDC refers to Men who Have Sex with men--instead of homosexual --in their stats --since some of the Mwhswm say they are not primarily attracted to men--but to the activities.

I remember a guy on Oprah who told how when he was a boy (white family) the uncles took the nephews to the woods on the farm and inducted them into gay activities. I think he managed to stay straight in orientation. We might find that story in the Oprah archives. I dont' remember his conclusion--except that he knew it was wrong and abusive.

Barb said...

Crusader --I don't expect the fed or state gov't to prohibit homosexual orientation (impossible) and activity --though sex activity should be illegal for minors same as for heteros.

I don't think there are many people around anymore who want the gov't to prosecute private sodomy behind closed doors --public parks? yes. They still do that --round em up in sting operations. Many gays go to public parks for sex --and certain airport bathrooms as Larry Craig can attest and the Ohio State U. library used to be a meeting place --making a mess.

But I don't think the gov't has any business re-defining marriage and sanctifying gay partnerships and calling them marriages. Do you think any two housemates should have the benefits of husband and wife? or just people having a sexual union? and should hetero shacked up couple get domestic partner benefits? In toledo, the gay couple has to say they have a sexual relationship in order to qualify for domestic partner benefits. WHY? THEY CANNOT MAKE CHILDREN _-and that's what marital benefits and breaks are about. NOt about sex, per se. Yes, the childless by choice couples have the same benefits --but it's no one's business if a hetero couple is childless by choice or by inability to procreate.

The marital union IS a sexual union--one flesh. Gay sex is abnormal, perverse union of "strange flesh" --abomination in God's sight. He forbade man to lie down with man and woman with woman.

"the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" --even for secular nations founded by Christians and Deists and natural law adherents.

Barb said...

Why a constitutional amendment --because then our Supreme Court has to uphold it. The definition of marriage is constitutional if the majority of the whole nation puts it in the constitution. Courts plan to call the California state constitution on marriage "unconstitutional" by the U.S. Constitution. So the only way to settle the issue is to define it in the U.S. constitution --then no judge or court can call a state's hetero marriage definition unconstitutional on this issue --as the courts do now in California --despite the people's vote.

Barb said...

One vote on these divided courts should not have power over the majority of the voters in a state. NOt even all 9 on the Supreme court should be able to nullify the will of the people. That's why a majority of voters in a state CAN change the Constitution so that the Supreme court can't undo it and make law from the bench --as they did with 5-4 vote result legalizing abortion.

Court legislation will legalize gay marriage by a 5-4 vote with Obama appointments --or even the current court. if we don't get our definition of marriage into the U.S. Constitution. It won't be easy with even the Christians saying "O we don't want a revision to the constitution!" Why not? We need to work for it on two issues --marriage and abortion--we need a statement in the USC that says a fetus is a person with a right to life except in cases of rape, incest and life of mother --and that marriage is between a man and a woman only. then those statements become "constitutional" no matter what any judge thinks.

It's a massive education effort to change the constitution to stand for basic decency and rightful rights. So far, the other side has even influenced the Christians to frown on consitutional change.

mud_rake said...

WOW! Look at all of this VERBIAGE!!

Tremendous quantity of 'stuff.'


And so meaningless, too.

[interesting: my word verification is YAKOOKS] How sweet.

Rob R said...

And you can't delete it.

Barb said...

That was funny --Yakooks! How did it know the kook was posting???

microdot said...

Jeanette, I guess your friend must have been really that what they mean by beer goggles?

Barb said...

Hey, Microdot --you have no idea how hot jeanette was in her youth! You, on the other hand --call me Big Babe --and then get mad if I call you a "scrawny ol' dude" in return, which is accurate.

We need a little "fairness doctrine" here!!

Someone else i know well was pursued by a lesbian --it's annoying when others assume the pursued is also lesbian. That sort of thing caused that one boy to kill the cross-dressing classmate --because the boy classmate dressed as a girl was pursuing him, so he shot him. Someone on a tv show was pursued by a gay --and he shot the gay.

Straight people are really bothered when homosexuals chase them. I know a boy who committed suicide because he was drawn into gay activity and didn't want to be --but was weak when tempted. It's not always about attraction for someone who gives in when pursued, it's about the temptation to sexual touch and experience, sometimes with a charismatic person.

mud_rake said...

Barb- so when was it that you realized that sex became an obsession with you? Was it after menopause? Or have you been 'concerned' since you were a little girl?

It seems obvious to me and to others that there is some sort of sexual malfunction with you. A healthy woman does not obsess on sex, sexual preference, sexual rules, sexual litigation unless there is something quite wrong with the person.

I know many, many women and never in my conversations do these healthy women choose to bring up the sexual topics that constantly foul this blog.

You need therapy.

microdot said...

I didn't get mad at you for the scrawny old dude comment, I said, "that might be an improvement", I responded with humor.

My comment to Jeanette is humor, sarcastic, but she's a big girl.
I called you big have to admit, now that's an improvement!

But, reality has never stood in the way of your perception and you again have demonstrated that you believe only what you choose to believe.

by the way, my word verification code for this post is "backywo"...
Can you come up with some kind of mystical justification for this?

Freaky, huh? It's kinda like your blog is possessed.

Barb said...

Mudly, always glad to come over to your blog like a ray of light! But I had to delete your one comment here --just too vulgar for my readers.

Gee Microdot --almost an olive branch of a post!
I don't think I saw your response with humor, Microdot. Maybe that's when Mudly went crazy again and deleted all the comments.

"Big Babe," an improvement? Over what??

You are right, reality has never stood in the way of my perceptions --for my perceptions are based on reality.

Yes, I do believe what i choose to believe. Who wouldn't? What do YOU believe --things you choose NOT to believe?

Barb said...

Microdot, "backywo" --what does it mean to you??? even if it WERE evidence of possession???

Mudly, your musings about my sex life are amusing.

I can say I never had any childhood traumas --no salacious scandalous immorality -- always a healthy interest in the normal romantic and marital relationship --mine. I got interested in knowing about homosexuality and trying to understand it as an educator and a mother. Philos. of ed. runs in my family --thinking about how best to raise kids to help them keep their faith and their morals intact all their lives. I don't think a sick culture helps parents do that very well. And the children whose parents are not protecting and guiding them are especially vulnerable to culture's downside.

kooz said...

If gays hate Christians and the church so much....why do they want to partake in marriage which is a religious institution? Why do they so desire our approval?

Barb said...

I don't know that it's OUR approval, the Christians' approval, that gays seek, but societal approval in general. And they see us Christians as standing in the way of that approval --withholding it, with our religious condemnation of sodomy.

Perhaps they want to FEEL normal and they think that "marriage" will help. Perhaps they think it will help them feel better about themselves if people from kindergarten up take it for granted that men and women can marry either sex --just like they can choose to live in ohio or Indiana --or choose to be Catholic or Presbyterian --or choose to be firemen or teachers --just alternative lifestyle choices --perfectly normal and unremarkable.

They want that --but it also gives them legitimacy in pursuing anyone they wish to pursue --they hope--and complete societal approval might increase their numbers of potential partners --as men and women swing back and forth as though one's sex should make no difference as to whether or not you could consider romance, partnership, sex and marriage.

They want a church and a God and a BIble that says gay is ok. Especially those who feel they just ARE gay and never had a choice.

what the Bible does say is that all sin can be repented of and forgiven. And we all have sin and need the cleansing blood of Christ to justify us with a Holy God.

Antipelagian said...

If gays hate Christians and the church so much....why do they want to partake in marriage which is a religious institution? Why do they so desire our approval?

For some sodomites it may be about getting "approval"...but really, it is about *destroying* marriage. For many, marriage has become meaningless (consider how often people divorce and live in fornication)...sodomite marriage is the last nail in the coffin, so to speak.

crusader09 said...

In everything that you've said, Barb, you have not yet given a reason for the Constitution of the United States to be altered to reflect a federal definition of marriage. You've told me why homosexuality is a sin (which it is, and I knew that), what is perverted about the lifestyle associated with homosexuality (where you made wildly unfair generalizations, but I can even give those points to you), but amending the Constitution is a BIG FREAKING DEAL! And I have yet to hear reason one why it should be done in this case.

What would be less effective about states defining marriage based on the will of their populations? Sure, one state could recognize gay marriage and another could not recognize it, but its much the same with common law marriages... Not every state will legalize a common law marriage, but all states will recognize a common law marriage that was contracted in a state where it was legal. So there's a solution for the problem of inconsistency between states.

I'm a small-government conservative. I'm also a huge fan of the democratic republic we live in and how it is set up: to do the will of its people. If it is the will of the people of Ohio to only recognize marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, then so be it. BUT, if it were the will of Ohio (against my own beliefs) to legalize gay marriage, then the State must do exactly that, because that is how this whole 'elected official,' democratic republic thing works. And the integrity of the system is more important than me getting my way in the policies of the government.

mud_rake said...

I've been married 41 years and our marriage has never been 'threatened' by gays or the concept of gay marriage.

Why do all of you homophobes think that heterosexual marriage is 'threatened' by gay marriage?

You are really way to amusing. Just admit it: you hate gays. Go ahead and say the words. You will feel much better for having purged yourself from all of that backed-up shit you've been retaining.

Now, go ahead and say the words: I HATE GAYS!

Ahhhh, cathartic!

kateb said...

There is no logical reason crusader, to change the constitution. Just as men and women of faith have a covenant with God in marriage and the associated life style and fought for benefits - anyone wishing a separate life style is welcome, in my opinion, to set up a tradition of their own choosing and fight for their own benefits.

But the term 'marriage' is already taken.

I'm reminded of the time I took my two youngest children to see the Grand Hotel on Mackinaw Island. (Many people have erroneous ideas of self-entitlement - the sense that because someone wants something, it should just magically be 'theirs'), and the two of them stood by the billboard with the dinner menu - and the last line or so read, women will wear evening dresses and men shall be attired in Tuxedo's or dinner jackets.

My two kids chimed together, "they can't do that. They can't tell people how to dress".

So I explained that this hotel was OWNED by someone else. It wasn't theirs. And that party was entitled to make the rules for the hotel that they own.

IF the kids didn't agree with the dinner dress policy - that was fine. So long as they go and buy their OWN hotel - they could establish any rule they wish for dress.

But for people to say, hey - we aren't a man and a women wishing to covenant in Holy Matrimony with God - but we really like the life style, the benefits etc. so we'll just force the change in marriage to fit what we'd like to do with it - is just crap.

Get your own, marriage is and has been for centuries - TAKEN.

Barb said...

Crusader wrote "Not every state will legalize a common law marriage, but all states will recognize a common law marriage that was contracted in a state where it was legal. So there's a solution for the problem of inconsistency between states."

Your "solution" is what gays want that respectors of God & Bible usually do not want --to have gay marriage recognized in states where it is NOT legal because their "weddings" took place in states where it IS legal. that's just a back door to getting gay marriage recognized everywhere --which is their goal.

the reason for the U.S. constitutional amendment is so that the Supreme Court and other courts cannot rule against marriage being defined as the union of a male with a female -As it is, the Supreme court of the US can strike down these state consitituions, calling them "unconstitutional" --though it ought not.

The traditional definition of marriage provides the foundation of every family (granted there are families that are broken by divorce, but they still started --as every child does -- with the union of a man with a woman.)

We have no societal gain from seeing more and more people experiment with and swing between gay and straight (It's high risk for STD's no matter what) --or choose the gay life (also high risk for promiscuity and disease, married or not) --a life which gives society no children for the future --we need kids --and we need them properly and emotionally-healthfully raised --and the ideal is a mom and a dad without divorce --as these children tend to do better overall on the social indicator stats of economic stability and emotional well-being, educational success, staying married themselves, staying out of trouble in school and staying out of jail --granted there are ways to compensate for the single parent (church can help) and exceptions to the average on the social measurements.

but so far, the social indicators show a definite edge, on average, for kids raised in intact nuclear families.

we need adults who commit to future generations through traditional marriage instead of their own pleasure and desires. We are under no obligation to view gay marriage as a civil right. It certainly is not a moral obligation or a Christian kindness from the Bible to sanctify gay relationships with "marriage."

We need kids for social program support like social security --for national security (troops to defend our nation and its freedoms against the beheaders and extemist terrorists of the world) --for the consumers who keep businesses afloat --and the workers who pay the taxes, the entrepreneurs who invent and provide jobs, for care of elderly and family members --for the social support network that family IS --usually, ideally.

Barb said...

It is because our future survival nationally depends on children for the future that "marriage" is so important. It is an enormous expense to bear and raise kids, educate them, clothe,feed, house them --and a lot of unselfish time,effort and maturity are needed on the part of parents --and the rewards of doing it well are very satisfying emotionally.

I have a social niche with a neat bunch of people (matters not if I'm prejudiced to think so.)
Being a cared-for child, teen, college student was good --but I was SATISFIED socially as an adult by parenting and marriage. No more adolescent angst about popularity, acceptance, wondering if I'd ever find a husband to love. Kids with 2 parents supporting them in various ways have a social, economic, emotional safety net as they grow up--and the parents do, too, as they grow older.

Homosexuals cannot make children by any normal means. They are not meant by God or nature to be together as spouses or parents. they have no need for any employee or state advantages and benefits of marriage, because they are only supporting themselves.

Yes, some homosexuals would like to adopt, but the data isn't in that proves that 2 dads or 2 moms can be as good for kids as having both a mother and a father. The data IS in that both sex parents in the home are an advantage to children, providing things that only a mother or father can provide to the children of either sex. Granted, the lunatic and other exceptions who make divorce necessary. It STILL is always optimal if a man and wife can unselfishly model domestic tranquility with fidelity and love for the sake of themselves and their children.

I'm not, however, really against 2 single women with or without children pooling resources to share expenses and childcare tasks. The shame is that society would tend to assume them to be lesbians.

Usually such "blended families" be they headed by straights or gays, would have inherent difficulties --concerning each others' children, boundaries between the children, authority issues ("you're not MY mom!") , and division of duties, etc. Whereas the functional couple who is raising just their own children will have some of those stresses, blended families are known to have such problems--despite positive TV portrayals like the Partridge Family.

Barb said...

Yes, antipelagian --i agree that gay marriage is the last nail in the coffin of marriage--and another nail is the 1000 per cent increase recently of couples shacking up (cohabitating without marrriage.)

this IS the result of our divorce culture. The kids are disillusioned about the possibility of lifetime love and monogamy with marriage.

There are far fewer couples today like yourselves --who were never sleeping around with anyone else before the spouse.

TV has probably set the pace --so that too many think "marriage" is irrelevant. We all see movies and don't bat an eye about the premarital sex. I saw Good Will Hunting the other night with all the F words deleted by he station -- and thought "what a great story" --and I'm sorry to say that I didn't bat an eye at the pre-marital sex --at least they did presumeably end up together.

There is strong support in that movie for traditional marriage in the psychologist's discussion of his wife as his soulmate --who died of cancer. And he didn't regret a moment of time with her. It's interesting in that film how the marriage discussion seemed to be a major part of hope in Will's therapy --hope for lasting love for an abused child --as both will and the Psych. were.

Barb said...

Crusader wrote "As far as being considered as a race or a disabled person: that’s not the issue we’re discussing here. I don’t think that anyone legitimately suggests that homosexuals be categorized as disabled. And it is already dangerous for anyone to ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals."

I believe the law states now that any schools wanting their students to be elegible for state or federal help --and any school or religious institution that wants tax exemption (and tax deductions for its donors), -they must promise not to discriminate on the basis of race, handicap or sex in admissions --but can discriminate about creed in their hiring, at least. Homosexuals want the law to include "sexuality" as a protected category. I dont' think it includes that word yet --but that's a goal --and it would affect our Christian institutions and our religious freedom to hire people who don't share our beliefs --to admit students who don't share our beliefs and aren't willing to abide by our school rules on sexual behavior.

Some religious schools don't require that the students hold their beliefs. They are willing to witness to people who don't share their beliefs by including them in their schools as students --but they wouldn't want to hire non-believing faculty or gay faculty --because these would teach against the school's beliefs.

WE now must not discriminate against handicapped, people of either sex, and people of certain races or religions, and homosexuals want to be included as such a protected minority. But that will conflict with our religious liberty.

Jeanette said...

Mudrake and Microdot possibly, It's great you have never been threatened by homosexuality.

Mudpuddle, I've also been married 41 years and I can still remember the fear of that attack while I was alone with that woman. You'll never know the relief I felt when my straight friend arrived and the two of us managed to get that weirdo into the car and drop her off 14 miles away.

If you haven't experienced it then you don't know the shivers that go up and down your spine because she was stronger than I was.

And yes, Microdot, I was a very good looking woman 41 years ago. Good figure, pretty face, virgin until I was married and quite unused to the ways of the world.

For someone who is preaching hope so much on the other blog you certainly have a way of showing hatred. I would have thought you and the rake would be beaming with joy and dancing in the streets. Instead you are just as bitter as before.

The rake deletes comments and makes up what they said and calls us the crazy ones. You really need to get back to your shrink, Rake, ASAP.

Barb, you are more tolerant that I am. I would have banned them both a long time ago. Rakey has set the precedent.

Oh, and Microdot, I wonder how the European friends of yours would like it if they knew you were jive-talking on the site. They might even think you were a {shudder} racist!

crusader09 said...

Barb: I'm still not hearing compelling reasons for amending the Constitution.... I hear what you're saying about the immorality of homosexuality, and I agree (for the most part) with you on those points. I just don't think that the Federal Government belongs in the private business of others... I'm really ready to agree to disagree because I believe our disagreement arises from a fundamental difference in our understandings (and preferences) for the working of the Federal Government.

As far as discrimination based on sexual preference: it is becoming increasingly common for Universities (with which I am familiar) and, I make an assumption based on those experiences, corporate enterprise to include "sexual preference" in the "we will not discriminate based on x, y and z" clauses they abide by. Just in my personal experience.

Barb said...

Exactly right --our universities are liberal and they would include "sexual preference" or "sexuality" as protected against discrimination in hiring, admissions, treatment, etc. But I don't know if the law demands that distinction yet, or not, or if it is just uni policy.

If the LAW demands it, they will demand it of the religious institutions and that will be against the "free exercise of religion" because we do not want to hire practicing homosexuals in Christian institutions --as a matter of conviction. The liberals of gov't will try to force hiring of gay faculty on religious schools by denying Pell grants, etc. to their students and tax deductions to their donors,

This view of the Constitution being unchangeable regarding marriage definition --is an example of history about to repeat itself.

Rome fell because they became licentious about sexuality. No civilization that embraces homosexuality can survive.

I don't agree that marrriage is just the "private business of others." There is all kinds of marriage law designed to protect women and kids.

We have let good marriage law go --such that a woman whose husband abandons the family, has to pay child support, but not usually alimony any more--so the family income drops even further. And No- fault divorce means the adulterer or abandoner may get custody because he has a girlfriend (or his mother) to watch the kids and more money than the wife he dumped --who will have to go to work and have childcare which she probably can't afford.

IN former times, not so long ago, the adulterous party would NOT get the children --and he would have to pay support to the ex as well as the child support. In fact, by the old stricter divorce laws, he might decide he should be faithful and stay married because he couldn't afford to divorce.

Sodomy used to be viewed as against nature, obscene, at best a mental illness. They wouldn't accommodate it by official recognition like we're doing today.

The only way to stop gay marriage will be a change in the U.S. consitituion. And I think we should do it --but won't. The roadblock now is people's tolerance of sodomy and the growing public nature of such relationships. If they wanted to stay in the closet with their sodomy, that would be a private matter. By seeking "marriage" for gay couples, they are asking to be a very public matter.

crusader09 said...

"such that a woman whose husband abandons the family, has to pay child support, but not usually alimony any more--so the family income drops even further."

I'm not sure why a judge would award child support to a man who doesn't have custody of his children... what you've said here would mean that the man left his wife and children and SHE is paying HIM child support? I don't see that happening...

I agree that traditional family values are being erroded, my argument is that the solution does NOT lie in a constitutional amendment. You're preaching to the choir with regard to perversion and sin...

mud_rake said...

Ah, poor Jeanette. That attack! Imagine that. No wonder you ran to the Fundamentalist church to be protected from those nasty gays and lesbians!

Perhaps we should corral them all and bring in the box cars, load them up and take them off to the showers?

What numskulls all of you are! Righteous numskulls!

Barb, you are more tolerant that I am. I would have banned them both a long time ago. Rakey has set the precedent

Ban me? Go ahead, barb, ban me.

[I heard that somewhere before, didn't I}

Funny stuff. Always a hoot on the right side of the political and social spectrum.

Barb said...

Mudly writes: "Funny stuff. Always a hoot on the right side of the political and social spectrum."

Then why don't you enjoy us more? Why delete us or moderate out what gives you such pleasure??

"Funny stuff" is one of your trademark comments like "pathetic." They conjure up that Truman Capote image I have of you in my mind.

Of course, I was delighted to see that Sepp called you on your hatred for fundamentalists. It's about time someone said something besides me.

Barb said...

granted, bloggers here have noticed and called you on it--but your own bloggers have only recently challenged you on your focus on fundamentalists and the fact that you don't "muck-rake" in the classic sense. You just insult with no concrete basis--no explanation --just skewed viewpoint with libel.

Barb said...

BTW, Mudly, your "Numskull" should be "numbskull."

Barb said...

Crusader, I was referring to a man breaking up the family and leaving his wife by his choice--and then getting the custody and the child support from the wife. You are correct to note that abandonment, per se, would usually imply he had no interest in custody.

A constitutional amendment defending marriage while most of the states have made one for themselves, IS needed to prevent the higher courts from overturning the state constitutions. It would put an end to the controversy for a long time --though the gays would work for an amendment to the amendment --but it would not be easy to get once the definition of marriage was in the u.s. constitution. Just as it has not been easy to overturn Roe vs. Wade since the Supreme Court legislated from the bench and made the whole country think abortion was a right because it was LAW.

We need a law in the highest document of the land defining marriage as between a man and a woman --to teach the public and put the issue at rest.

Barb said...

Mudly --to you-- gays and their proclivities and marriage aren't any direct threat to me and my marriage --but they are a threat to future generations who will grow up thinking sodomy is normal. They are a threat to sexually volatile youth who can become addicted to illicit sexual behavior of many kinds, if pursued by aggressive, sexually voracious predators of any age.

They are a threat to public health because of their proven promiscuity overall, and the high rates of STD's among them --married or not.

they have afflicted many people with their HIV through hospital accidents and blood transfusions, marital relations, prostitution. I'm not supposed to blame homosexuals for AIDS in America --but they brought it here --and took it to the blood banks and their homes because of their abnormal proclivities and promiscuity. they ARE the leading spreaders of HIV in America.

That doesn't make me unsympathetic or hateful to them--but it makes me think that I don't want my grandkids to even HEAR about homosexuality --much less see it legalized and paraded in public weddings.

Barb said...

Furthermore, for Crusader --if we don't get the constitutional amendment, a case will go to the supreme court --and the activist liberals on that court will rule that marriage should be between any 2 consenting adults -they may even rule to allow polygamy. This is really not good public policy--we Christians will see what's wrong with it after it's too late to change easily--as with legal abortion. We won't like the new "culture" of politically correct civil rights we get when sodomy is recognized as a civil right and sodomite relationships are called "marriages." We won't really like the gay scoutmasters in the tents with our adolescent boys --and the gay soldiers on the make in the barracks, indulging their attractions, offering to make our sons "feel good."

I have a teacher friend who said he was chased by an officer in the Navy. He was not gay, so he resented having a gay guy try to put the moves on him --especially a superior officer.

There is too much at stake with this cultural approval of sodomy.

They don't have to be gay. There is a time of first thought to bar the door.

crusader09 said...

If you want to call it something other than "marriage," fine. But Barb, the Federal government cannot, and I will be will not, bar people from joining in a marriage-like union because Christians are afraid of the erosion of family values. It should not be done. The only purpose of the Constitution is to ensure the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of its citizens and set up the running of the Federal Government. The argument is strong that preventing homosexuals from "marrying," (or whatever term we can come up with) would interfere with their pursuit of happiness as American citizens. I wish they would choose not to be gay, as a Christian. As an American, I cannot encourage (or daresay LET) my government do such things.

The real issue is activist judges. I don't know how to solve that problem, but that is the real core of your desire to amend the Constitution, I think.

The abortion issue is a COMPLETELY different one, as it involves one depriving another of life... can't even talk about them with the same principles in mind.

crusader09 said...

If promiscuous homosexuals are a risk to public health, why not apply the same principles to promiscuous heterosexuals: make a law so that you can't sleep around and spread disease.

Barb, I just think you're so wrapped up in the immorality of homosexuality that you're confusing it with the law. We are NOT a theocracy. The founding fathers did found our nation on Christian values, but the government is set up to do the will of the population (or the majority). And the US Constitution is NOT a place to legislate where the state should have the right to legislate on such matters.

We are the United STATES... a union of separate entities, as well as one entity... My opinions go to my deeper Philosophy of Politics... I won't be convinced otherwise, and I think, now, that you won't be convinced otherwise, but I hope you at least understand and have considered what I have to say as I have your view!

After all, we're both Christians :) Serving the same King :)

Antipelagian said...

I'm not sure if you saw this...but I know you'll be interested to know: Some left-wing sodomite/trannies stormed into an evangelical worship service.
Here's a snippet:
Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Here's the story:

Barb said...

O dear --why am I not surprised that it would come to this! referring to antipelagian's link. (Say, couldn't you find a shorter screen name to type? )

Crusader --does the pedophile, sexual predator have a right to pursue happiness any way he wishes?? Or the thief? or the polygamist? or the rapist or the fetishist who wants to steal underwear from your house, or the disease-prone prostitutes who try to lure men in for their business, or the kiddie porn maker or trader? If no to any of these pursuits of happiness, then why do people have a constitutional right to sodomy, disgusting, unhealthy practices which are disease-prone, as a way to pursue happiness? Both adultery and homosexuality are compulsive, self-indulgent practices that are legal --but not sanctified. We do let adulterers try again to marry. But there is no obligation to redefine marriage to include same sex sodomy practitioners.

As for polygamy, consider that it entraps girls, teaching them that they are doing God's will to marry some old gink instead of the guy they like who is their age --no equality or freedom for young women in polygamy-- just brainwashing to indulge the lust of men --and the result is more kids and wives than one man can support --so some of them get the foodstamps, etc. --not consistent with American morals, values like equality of women, self-reliance and personal responsibility, etc.)

ALL laws inhibit someone's pursuit of happiness. Why, suddenly, in the 21st century, has this, unnatural, horribly promiscuous and diseased, counter-productive lifestyle gained equality under the law with normal, procreative, healthy marital relations --in which children come, needed for the future survival of each nation?

there is a limit to the pursuit of happiness. The common good is a consideration. A culture wholesome for children is a consideration. And the Christian should consider God's view of homosexual relations.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" --for individuals and nations. Even if we are not a theocracy, the nation gets its views of fairness, civil rights, equality of persons, freedoms within parameters of decency and goodness --from their beliefs --their world views. It's proper that the world view of the nation's majority would affect our laws --our constitution --as it did from our nation's beginning. They never thought they needed a marriage definition in the constitution. It was as clear as "a tree is a tree." "marriage is between a man and a woman." They would think we had lost our minds today on this topic.

mud_rake said...

Hey you religious sots: MSNBC's Keith Olberman will speak to you tonight at 8:50 about your oh-so 'religious' stance on gay marriage. No doubt he will ream you from one end to the other.

Bend over!

mud_rake said...

For the oh-so righteous 'teacher' Mrs. Barb:

num·skull [ núm skùl ] (plural num·skulls) or numb·skull [ núm skùl ] (plural numb·skulls)


an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody's intelligence ( insult )

[who's the numskull now?]

crusader09 said...

"here is a limit to the pursuit of happiness. The common good is a consideration."

A commonly accepted idea about the limits of pursuit of happiness is this: (it includes, but is not limited to what you've said) Your rights extend so far as to not infringe upon the rights of someone else.

The pedophile, rapist, thief, home invader (fetishist) and so forth that you mentioned are violating others' rights. Married homosexuals would be doing no such thing. This is a weak argument.

Barb said...

This is the link that worked for your story, Antipelagian. The other didn't work for me.

RE: NUMBSKULLS --Sometimes popular usage by the ignorant gives us new spellings, Mudly. The original meaning is NUMB --skulls. I believe (I think--heh heh) your spelling would be derivative by people who didn't know better.

I said the "I think" because mudly condemns me for the phrase. "I think" is appropriate for a humble person --as is "In my opinion."

It takes a lot of certainty--and sometimes arrogance --to say, "I KNOW" about everything.

I tried to find the history of the word "numbskull" on line and couldn't. I would think the numbskull is older than "numskull."

But I could be wrong --and Mudly's version could be the original. And what would that prove? --that Mudrake got lucky and there is some word "num" that I've never heard of. That's all.

Barb said...

Crusader, I'm not for prosecuting the act of sodomy as they used to --though God might favor that. they can get in their closets and go at it, pursuing their unhealthy practices.

BUT, we end up paying for their backdoor boogie and the complications and diseases thereof. Even AIDS exposes us to the 2ndary diseases that their immune deficiency gives them --such as their vulnerability to TB.

WE have no business sanctifying their unhealthy, childless, sex relationships by legal status of marriage for the first time in world history. Who do we think we are??? They can pursue their happiness some other way. As it is they have equal rights to marry people of the opposite sex and do something constructive for society --make babies.

Rob R said...

Crusader, I really don't think that government should be in the habit of sanctioning and officializing what are intrinsically psychologically damaged relationships.

As for the notion that their marriages should be permitted because they supposedly aren't affecting anyone else is based upon an individualistic morality that exalts personal autonomy. and takes it as basic. And although we place an explicit value on individualism, it actually has effects that we take for granted, such as the notion that if something someone chooses to do does not obviously and immeadiately hurt anyone else (and I emphasize that it is mere immeadiacy here because we are not fully aware of the damage that may take root and come to fruition as a result of the social expiriment that acceptance of homosexuality may bring.

As for your concern about theocracy, I just don't buy the myth that we can completely seperate the matters of government from religion. The establishment clause in the first amendment did do something good, but to be an absolutist about it is to embrace the myth that we can thoroughly seperate our religion from our civil lives. And as far as myths go, the founders didn't completely manage to seperate religion from what they did anyhow and it's revisionist history to think that they were consistent secularists. The "deist" Ben Franklin was the one who started the tradition of having a clergy lead congress in prayer.

Surely all theocracies will fail because God doesn't use government as his means to bring about his kingdom, but whether they like it or not, governements, as any other human institution are still responsible to God, and when they reject that responsibility, then they are in rebellion (and the fact is, most if not all governments, including our own are in rebellion against God).

crusader09 said...

Barb: The purpose of the First Amendment was NOT to prevent the church from doing anything but to prevent the GOVERNMENT from telling the church what to do. It tells the government it can't make any laws "respecting an establishment of religion." (among other things, I know). It was established because of what had happened to cause the American Revolution, and to prevent a situation like the one with the Church of England. Not that that is the way it is used/abused today, but that is the CLEAR intent of the language.

I understand what you all are saying, and I hope I've been clear. I have been thorough in developing my opinions and must leave this conversation for now because my academic schedule is particularly demanding at this point in the semester.

I enjoy the debate, so ya'll know :)

kateb said...

I think everybody is actually agreed, barring theological (and Pharisaical, as in made by Pharisees, oops sorry - religious) discussion (which Jesus despised), that the covenant of marriage is one between God and a couple. (Male and female, made he).

Crusader has raised a much more simple and timely question - should we, as a Christian Nation, be expected to change our founding documents which govern to the desires of the majority, to entertain the desires of a select and obscure few?

What say you? Yes or no. And why?

Easy to deflect to another conversation - but try to take this one head on. Some may say, honestly?

Barb said...

I agree, Crusader. That while the first amendment does restrict the gov't from establishing a national church per se, and while it does provide for religious freedom for all religions, it also protects the churches from gov't control and restrictions --it does NOT say we can't pray or use public property same as secular groups --or have religious music in schools, etc. as the ACLU thinks. It does not restrict Christians or any other religion from influencing the gov't or establishing laws that happen to be consistent with our religious convictions. That's why the IRS ruling that threatens tax exemption of churches if they speak freely on campaigns is wrong.

Church policy should decide how active the church can be in campaigns. With both political parties in their congregations, they may wish to avoid the hot button preaching.But they should preach the Bible on matters of life and morals --and encourage voting according to their convictions --more than for their pocketbooks --seeing as how voting the pocketbook just means voting for the candidate who promises the most freebies. Like the lady in Antipelagian's video link (a few comments back.) She said Obama's victory meant she wouldn't have to pay for her mortgate, etc. She really believes that Obama's going to take care of her with someone else's money.

I see where Obama is declaring himself as an abortion president right off the bat --planning all sorts of exec. orders on the subject. His first order of business he says: federal funding of abortion overseas and stem cell research on embryos. (Unnecessary research.) and no offshore drilling --which will keep us vulnerable to enemies in the middle east. Interesting after hearing young evangelicals say Bush didn't do enough for life --and that the GOP isn't sincere about pro-life --to hear Karl Rove, Bush's right hand man, criticize Obama on the abortion issue. Where was he before the election? Well, he's tied with Bush, so all the Bush people and their agenda were told to stay on the back burner --because the party moderates thought the social issues would keep the moderates out of their big tent. Instead, their silence lost them the ignorant young prolifers who didn't seem to realize what Obama was, what he could do to abort millions more around the world on our tax dollars.

Our youth also listened to the peacenik rhetoric --and bought the lie that Bush had lied about WMD --when, in fact, everybody believed that Sadam had them. And Sadam did kill thousands of his own people before our invasion killed any--and before the Muslims turned on each other. There is no freedom gained from tyrants without sacrifice of life.

Just like there is no freedom from sin and death without Christ's gruesome sacrifice on the cross.

My terminex guy told me today about a girl from Iraq who says she visited back home and was so moved by the improvement in her shanty town--that there was even a hospital! water and electric more than before.

Wait until all the blacks and Hispanics who voted for Obama hear what Obama wants to do for abortion and gay rights. Those issues were under the radar --thanks to the GOP notion that they had the evangelical vote and had to appeal to the center. Obama got the center and even some young evangelicals --because they don't know the abortion history --or what Bush did for life. We let the other side bamboozle our young people into thinking that all we did was cause death in Iraq. We needed a much better publicity machine for conservatism. And maybe we needed to give more money.

It was interesting to hear OReilly with Donahue tonight -- noting that 2 million so. vietnamese were slaughtered because we pulled out of Viet Nam when we did and let them fall to the NOrth, the Viet Cong. He made a good case for why we need to stay in those middle eastern countries --and he noted that Bush got rid of Sadam & Sons AND the Taliban's control. We cannot leave these vulnerable nations until they get up and running and can secure the peace and become prosperous --like we stayed in Germany and Japan after WWII.

God bless you in your school work, Crusader. Blogging can be addictive, I hear! a distraction you probably don't need.

Barb said...

point of correction--I referred to Antipelagian's link -- to an article about a church vandalized and assaulted this last Sunday by a gay group --in lansing, michigan. Can we expect this in Toledo???

I meant to refer you to this link about a woman who says she won't have to worry about her mortgage or putting gas in her car now that Obama is elected. She's probably right! She may lose her house and car! There may not be any affordable gas --as he is forbidding the drilling. Cut and paste this in:

This lady is just one more evidence of how ignorant the voters were about Obama.

mud_rake said...

By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
updated 9:13 p.m. ET, Mon., Nov. 10, 2008

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."

mud_rake said...

"Love one another as I have loved you."

- Jesus

[or was he too radical, too liberal for you, barb?]

Barb said...

Mark 10:6-8 (New International Version)


6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one.

Mudrake, AS YOU KNOW, gay marriage is not about race. And refusal to redefine marriage to include same- sex relationships is not about withholding love to anyone.

the Bible says clearly that we are not to participate in same-sex acts. You can love your same sex buddy, but don't lie down with him as with a woman. "It is an abomination." St. Paul said it is "exchanging the truth about God for a lie." It is the devil's own deception to make us think that same sex relationships are the same as interracial marriage.

You are deceived and I hope you get your Damascus Road experience soon --before you die. I wish Jesus would speak to you as to Saul --so you could someday say, "I once was blind, but now I see."

Barb said...

Kateb and Crusader: Our constitution does not say anything about the Pursuit of Happiness as a definition of rights. I believe the phrase was in the Declaration of Independence --which talks about "the consent of the governed."

The governed do not yet consent to a new definition of marriage --nor should they.

The Bill of Rights was a list of Amendments to the Constitution. Our founders didn't know that marriage would come under assault without a stated definition of marriage. They would be increduluous to see what our so-called western enlightenment has led to! We need an additional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in order to preserve society's stability and future. We need another amendment to state that life begins at conception and deserves protection by the state --consistent with our stated constitutional "right to life." That the only exceptions left up to a woman's choice should be for her life or for pregnancy due to rape.

The governed ought not consent to perversion, making the perverse and the unnatural legally equal to Nature's design for men and women to marry one another.

This isn't a lack of love but a realization that not everything we want to do is legal or good or justifiable as a civil right --just because we want to do it.

mud_rake said...

So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you."

- John 20:21

[way too radical for barbara]

Barb said...

We have a song based on that verse:

"So send I you, to labor unrewarded --so send I you...."

that's all I remember.

It's a verse to inspire missionary service for all of us --"Everybody has a seed to sow" Michael W. Smith said. "Rescue the perishing, care for the dying..." is another song that comes to mind on this theme.

So why is this too radical a concept for me, mudrageous?

So what does this verse mean to you, Mudly? It seems a bit out of context here....are you feeling a call to preach the Gospel of Peace to the gay community? That's a good thing!

"Love Wins Out" is a ministry to gays that goes to different major cities to hold conferences for those who may wish to leave the bondage of the gay life.

I've participated at a forum where there were several homosexuals participating, to preach Christ's Gospel of wholeness in Him.

What do you want to do for them? Keep them in the dark about the true Light that has come? increase their numbers with the approval of "gay marriage" and sex ed that tells kids they can swing back and forth either way --just as they would go to McDonald's one day and Burger King the next --just life options? Never mind the high risk for STD's, the self-image issues, the addictive quality of perverted behaviors, the other addictions that go with the life.

We need to do everything we can to fortify children in their resistance to perverse thinking and action --not by teaching hatred --but by teaching God's right way for their sexuality. male and female created He them --to become one flesh --to be fruitful and multiply.

You do inspire the muse in me, Mudly!

Barb said...

Regarding the mixed up Keith Olbermann:

Keith quotes Darrow quoting a Persian poet --a very appropriate quote --about preferring the Book of Love to having his name in the Book Above.

The Bible clearly says that the Book Above is the Book of Love and the Book that counts --for Eternity. It is God's love for us that writes our name in the book above --the Lamb's Book of Life. Jesus sacrificed His life by God's will --that we may be in that book by believing in Him. There is no greater love than His for us.

He is calling homosexuals to wholeness --to truth --to his purpose for their bodies --not this sham half-life and imitation marriage that produces nothing but death --eternal death if they miss "the book above" --temporal death by the risks inherent in the lifestyle.

Satan is the great deceiver and he uses people like Keith Olbermann --obviously --because there is no real Book of Love --except The Book Above.

There is a maudlin sentimentality and compassion that is disingenous and misplaced when we think homosexuals really want and really need to have their couplings sanctified by "marriage." It won't help them be less lonely --or help them feel more normal and legitimate. Sin brings guilt and estrangement from God and nothing they can do will fix it --until they repent and see that they have exchanged the truth about God for a lie.

Barb said...

Actually, the Book of Love would be the Bible --but our names are not written therein --but in the Lamb's Book of Life --a record of all who have confessed their sins and trusted Christ for salvation.

mud_rake said...

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.

(John 3:16-17)

Barb said...

Great verse choice, Muddlelicious. You think this is the way to revive the GOP? So do I! Get everyone to believe in Jesus and we'll have fewer arguments on the social issues!

17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Jesus will be the judge, according to more than one passage --on Judgment Day. But that's not why He came. He came to teach love and to save us, as you rightly point out with your scripture choice.

matthew said...

How to Revive the GOP?

Here's the answer.

Jeanette said...

Mudpuddle is off his meds again. Thanks to him we finally know the person who actually watches Keith Olberman.


You can't seem to get it through your numskull or numb skull that we are not interested in overtaking this government with a theocracy. We know our real government is in heaven and we are just passing through here. But you haven't figured that out in spite of looking at bible verses that should bring you to your knees in repentance.

All we want is the freedom to practice our religion without having kooks like you barge into the services to ram gay rights down our throats. We don't go to your meetings, whatever they are, and try to push our agenda.

The most hate-filled people in this country come from your side and you and Microfingers are the leaders of some of them. You are so left you couldn't stand up straight if your life depended on it.

Give your man two years and let's see how far the mighty fall. With a complacent congress and an unknown president it should be interesting to see you turn on your own when you don't get what you want. Or to see the American public come out of their hypnosis of this past election and see Obama as the empty suit of a man with no background. He will be in a job that won't allow him to hide any longer, and present won't be an option. It will be interesting to see him try to duck responsibility for making decisions.

Don't worry about the republican party as they already know we have to return to what we have always believed and we will be elected.

Barb, excuse me for using your space to say this but I refuse to contaminate myself and allow Mudpuddle to delete my comments and then distort them 180 degrees from what I said. The problem is I have a program that saves those comments for future reference.

Barb said...

Ron Paul's ideas can't get the support of the masses who are on the government dole. Cutting the entitlement programs loses too many votes. His lack of pro-life and pro-marriage concern loses me --as does his isolationist policy.

We have to emphasize our more noble ideals --and pro-life is the best of these --evidence that we do value every individual conceived --and the state votes show that the people care about marriage, also.

we have to be the party of compassion for the unborn, for the sexually confused (without kowtowing to their demands), with concern for the environment and suggesting ways to care for the planet without starving the people in the process. We need to DARE to tell the truth.

We forgot to be the party of vouchers and educational choice. We made progress with the charter school idea and some faith-based institutions got vouchers in Ohio.

We are to be the party of religious liberty which respects american faith heritage. We didn't tell about the constant ACLU threats to religious liberty and heritage --nor make those political issues regarding judges --which they are.

The values that were important when Reagan ran for office are still important. We just don't articulate them well anymore --having gotten gun shy with a vitriolic democratic party beating us up to get in power again. They played the race card, the planet card, the war card, the religion card --accusing us of every violation under the sun.

Some Republicans lost confidence in the sincerity of the GOP's values platform because we couldn't accomplish all our ideals with stout opposition in the media and not enough majority in courts and congress. But we should try harder to make our case public for those issues we value.

We should have stood up louder and with more advertisement for our action in Iraq, the evils of Sadam, our pro-life progress and support for the humanity of the fetus, our work on African AIDS.

we need to do more education of the younger generations as they seem politically, historically ignorant to me --unaware of what Obama courts and exec. orders could do to us--and the unborn--and the centuries-old, normal definition of marriage.

as for economy, we let the dems say it was the GOP's fault --when in fact I know Bush and McCain expressed concern about lack of oversight for Freddie Mac (at least) and Barney Franks and the dems wanted hands off --no regulation.

There has been too much greed at the top of corporate ladder --obviously --but it's true on the liberal uni campuses, too --so it's not a GOP issue --or even unique to the rich. The poor can be greedy, too --and dependent on others when they could do more for themselves.

We have to articulate better (we need comedians and cartoonists on the Right!) --the trouble is that we are just not as mean and ruthless a party as the dems --so it's not a level playing field.

Barb said...

You made me laugh, Jeanette! Sometimes we just have to tell it like it is!

But aren't you encouraged that Mudly is steeping himself in the Word? over and over again --on love. I expect a breakthru any day now.

steve said...

Cutting the entitlement programs loses too many votes.

What entitlement programs are you talking about? The Republicans have spent the last 40 years since Barry Goldwater reversing the new deal and reversing business regulation and anti-trust laws that REPUBLICAN Teddy Roosevelt championed. And the economy we have today is the ultimate result of extreme laize fare policy.

People need some sort of economic backdrop to help them when times are tough. I just don't understand how you can be a Christian and at the same time champion economic exploitation of the great mass of people. Jesus would not be for that. I agree that the government should not be in the hand out business. But that type of welfare went out with Clinton when he reformed welfare to please the Gingrich congress. (I'm sorry if my spelling is messed up, I've been working on my nursing care plan for 3 days straight now). But anyway I feel that if the government helps some one out, say with unemployment, or with welfare, or a jobs program, then that person owes the rest of us something, maybe some kind of public works internship, or maybe agreeing to retraining in a badly needed job sector like nursing or something. you see what I'm saying? But we need social and economic backstops for tough economic times, otherwise you get Revolution and then the pendulum REALLY swings the other way. Do you want that? It almost happened post the great depression. The country was on the verge of a Bolshevic revolution. Starving people have nothing to lose. Read about the bonus march incident.

Antipelagian said...

Barb said:
Ron Paul's ideas can't get the support of the masses who are on the government dole. Cutting the entitlement programs loses too many votes. His lack of pro-life and pro-marriage concern loses me --as does his isolationist policy.

At first, that is how I looked at Ron Paul...but then I found out more info.

Ron Paul would veto *any and all* spending on abortion, family planning, etc that would go toward abortion funding...thereby eliminating 70% of planned "parenthood's" income.

Besides this, he sponsored a bill that would define personhood as beginning at conception...had it passed, it would have made abortion illegal.

In regards to isolationism, Ron Paul is all about free trade and having economic relationships with other nations...he sees military invasion as a bad approach to foreign policy, and I'd agree with him on that.

Barb said...

I'm not against entitlement programs --but do we agree about what they are? They are the biggest chunk of the budget pie --HUGE and by themselves, I think they exceed gov't income. These programs include social security, disability, medicare, medicaid --public ed --pell grants -- meaning the people are considered "entitled" to the freebies and in the case of the elderly, they have paid into the system with the understanding that it would always take care of them in old age.

We must strenghthen economy and entrepreneurship --and yes, don't begrudge the rich; give them tax incentives to provide jobs and healthcare, retirement pensions, etc. -- People's help must come from a robust economy --and not a socialistic gov't that runs all the businesses (or taxes them out of the country)--because they aren't good at it! They just keep giving away what they haven't got. (Including the bail-outs --but the reason for that was all the jobs depending on those companies and all the pensioners and investors depending on them, as well. They're hoping those companies will prosper again and pay back the taxpayers --but they had better do something different! )

Gov't has no profit incentive built in --"just give me lots of money and gov't holidays and let me put my feet up!" Where does the money come from if you destroy American business with its profit incentives--or if American business destroys itself? The problem is that CEO's and boards have said the above: "just give me the money" --and companies have lost their competetive edge with the glut of MBA's looking to get rich without being creators of new products, etc.

Free enterprise is the best --it has made us the richest most comfortable of nations --but we've been living beyond our means. And we do have too many on the public trough. And no one begrudges our Seniors (which I almost am) a comfortable life and all the knee transplants they can get (our mothers were "lower middle class" in income --if not upper low. And they've had very expensive hip and/or knee surgeries. People like them winter in Fla and travel. (Not our mothers, but I mean people of similar modest or low incomes, blue collar incomes) There is no way they ever put into the system what they are taking out --even if you consider what they might have amassed on their own with interest, without social security taking it out.

Social security is the endless gravy train--and yet it isn't that much money right now --with the bigger chunk of healthcare they are asked to pay --and various other belt-tightening measures that just may force all of us to take in our elderly parents and make them give up their homes.

We baby boomers are living longer, requiring more expensive drugs and procedures, and the gov't is sinking under the expense. The war doesn't begin to compare to the entitlement programs in cost. National defense is the one priority function of fed. gov't --the entitlements came later.

YES, I KNOW, we can't let people starve. But don't think that all the poor people were exploited by the rich. That's not necessarily so.

That's why Christian values and ethics are so important. OF COURSE, we need to be compassionate and do all we can to provide jobs and be ethical in our business dealings and pay fair wages and care about our employees.

I do think the American days of wealth are over --with so many living beyond their means and beyond the gov't's means.

We may just have to go back to living with our elderly, being responsible for them in our own homes --not in assisted living, etc. Because the money sustaining them is actually all borrowed by our gov't --non-existent. We can't afford our relatives' high tech health care; but we could afford to take them in --and eliminate their need for as much social security to live on.

My mom always said FDR was wrong --that we couldn't sustain Social Security in the long run.

But again --you can't get elected saying you will stop ANYbody's gravy train. We are USED to it --and nobody will vote against it --but we can't afford it

UNLESS we really unleash our businesses to make hay! and also, DRILL --so we can get off mid eastern oil.

This year, we paid plumbers and carpenters and electricians and their supply houses to remodel a bathroom and put in a new floor at the lake --much needed improvements in an old-style cottage. We provided a living for those guys this summer. Because we could. With higher taxes, we may hesitate to hire such work done.

Barb said...

Still antipelagian --we can't get get a guy elected anymore who looks like Ron Paul! You have to be telegenic now!

steve said...

the government's profit incentive is to stay in office. So their incentive is to provide the best possible service efficiantly and cost effectively, or they get voted out. Most governmet waste comes from all the billions of earmarks that go toward specific congressional districts dependent on how savvy that congressperson is at "bringing home the bacon". It's not necessarily because of broad government services, that up untill the Bush administration were VERY effective at doing right by the American public.. like the FDA, and the EPA, ect...

The gov is really effective in enacting huge projects, projects that the private sector just don't have the resources, or the profit motive to do, things that are intangeble, like going to the moon, or providing health services to all citizens, things that may not be profitable in the short run, but that are HUGELY benificial to society in the long run. We pretty much owe everything we take for granted in modern society, technology wise, to NASA! Think how easy it is to drive from here to Cincinati thanks to the Eisenhower expressway system.. another huge government program. Just think how awesome the United States would be if every person had a college degree and contributed to society in some benificial way. The "rugged individual" is an anachronism from the pioneer days, we are all dependent on one another in our modern technological society.

mud_rake said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Barb said...

Yes, some things the feds do are good. I WANT social security and Medicare to thrive. I want BUSINESS to help people with health insurance. I know a national health system will disappoint --but everyone should have decent care --but fathers should work to provide it --and get supplementary help when needed.

Eisenhower's highway system was a boon to the nation. (he was a republican, you know.)

The Feds have probably helped schools some with the No Child Left Behind Act. I know that when states started to impose standards and testing --the local schools worked it out --headed at the time by Maumee's leadership, as I recall --in this area --maybe with Perrysburg. And AW got on the band wagon -- they tried to decide what their grade level goals should be --rather than just letting text books dictate the content. Teachers didn't feel obligated always to FINISH the text books --and couldn't --but if they had specific grade level objectives, it held them accountable for their class content --and gave them something to measure that went beyond the individual teacher's choices.

Parents were a little sick of the social engineering of the 70's-90's --the time spent on drug ed --such that the kids knew all about drugs and how long their effects would last --and what it meant to be "high" or "low" --and so on. They passed around the bong in jr. high counseling session. just a lot of junk education inappropriate for the kids. Nancy Reagan got the message right with "Just Say NO!" And the DARE program was pretty straightforward. But Springfield's Project Charlie was abysmal --so we 3 mothers on the board dumped it --and the whole AW board voted with our analysis.

We researched and I talked with the evaluator of the program hired by Project Charlie who said kids who went through the program probably were no better and maybe worse at making good and right decisions. the program tried to be non-directive --and student centered, having students brainstorm about problems and solutions --without teacher input --just teacher facilitation. Later programs focused on how to have kids say no without being unpopular for it --how to say no without seeming like "goody 2 shoes."

Yet, when I was a kid, we learned at church, 'Dare to be a daniel --dare to stand alone --dare to have a purpose firm --dare to make it known." The courage to do right. The professional counselors and sex and drug educators, etc. really didn't believe in that --I'm not kidding! I think most sensible people would not believe the nonsense of the professional educators in the areas of values and drug and sex ed.

I have loads of examples.

Barb said...

So you think Bush changed the EPA and the FDA's work?

Barb said...

Your last post a good one, Steve.

Barb said...

Do you think, Steve, that every person has the ability to get a college degree? The other end of the work spectrum are the service jobs --that don't necessarily require academic ability or achievement.

but the manufacturing jobs that used to take care of the non-academic folks --are gone --priced out of the market, largely by union aggression or gov't taxation.
Surely, our companies overseas do help to raise the standard of living in other countries --but we need work here --and workers. We abort our workers --and bring in the Mexicans.

And all these high tech people and college grads can't find jobs!