Blogger Steve writes:
Oh boy! Prop 8 in Cali got overturned. I imagine most judiciaries will follow suit and laws against Gay marriage will begin to fall like dominoes. The judges language in the ruling is perfect and logically spells out the separation between church and state in legislative issues.
The arc of history is constantly shifting toward more and more inclusiveness and tolerance. Each passing generation is more accepting of others than the previous generation. I think we are on the edge of a new enlightenment. The world is worn out from war and hostility and hate. I think that we will still suffer more paroxysms of violence to be sure; Isreal is about to attack Lebanon again and will probably use that attack as a smoke screen to go after Iran and Syria. But the world is growing tired of armed conflict to resolve issues. What does the bible say about "wars and rumors of war" in the last days? But if you look at statistics.. the number and amount of heated armed conflict is steadily declining, victims of political violence is declining. One of the reasons for this steady decline - in my oppinion - is the empowerment of women around the world. The more women are empowered politically, the better the world will be. So who are the holdouts that are stopping the empowerment of women? Religions.. Specifically Christianity and Islam. Nobody should be treated a 2nd class citizen based on their race, gender, or what they do in private.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The number and amount of heated armed conflict is [sic] steadily declining, victims of political violence is [sic] declining."
HUH? I wonder about your so-called stats! Aren't you the bright-eyed optimist!! An American Christian mission team was in a restaurant in Uganda recently and Muslims happened to target it (not them but the general population) for bombing --76 dead but the mission team sustained injuries only--as body parts flew through the air.
One could go on and on and list the terrorist and other actions around the world which don't indicate we are becoming more civilized. Yes, women having respect and rights would help the cause of world peace because democracy brings such equality AND peace. However, Christianity is woman's friend, not foe. Democracy has thrived in our culturally Judeo-Christian nation. It is in Christian nations where women have the most freedom and opportunity.
I don't think women fare at all well under Communism, do you? with forced abortions, e.g. I read recently of a Chinese woman who tried desperately to escape abortion, without success. What carnage! What creepy totalitarianism is that!! Personally, I prefer America's freedom that came from its Christian faith --where children were valued and women were protected in divorce and custody situations, where adulterating husbands paid more than now for destroying their marriages. Where women were not expected to protect men from marriage, paternity and child support with abortion, where men were the primary bread-winners able to let the women stay home looking after children and house --or work if they wished, not because they had to.
So, I don't know what rose-colored glasses you are wearing, Steve --that you should see a coming utopia free of Christianity's moral and decency standards in the law in some misbegotten liberal opinion of church-state separation. Our moral standards come from religion --or atheistic ideology. Somebody's philosophical ideals inevitably must prevail in the law--I'll take the Christian ideals anyday.
I just read the Am. Family Practice News magazine or Journal of AFP --and noticed the diseases more common to MSWM (men who have sex with men) than anyone else --and to black youth who have 40% more of a type of STD, especially from bisexuality and down low activities. We can't seem to keep ahead of the flesh-eating bacteria which are on the increase and most prevalent in the gay population--and like HIV, spreading to others, particularly in hospitals.
So celebrate your coming utopia where your own children will be taught in school and media and even by you to feel just as free to explore same sex behavior with all its attendant risks, addiction, heartbreak, frequent promiscuity and broken relationships and childlessness --in order to find out if their self-perceived "difference" from peers (youth ALL feel odd and out of it at various times in development) that makes them odd or unpopular, might just be homosexual preference. There's a pop song out now about a girl kissing a girl and liking it. That's supposed to mean she's homosexual, no doubt. When in fact, it just means that lips on lips can feel good --barring bad smells and sloppiness that a clumsy, pimply-face, adolescent, first boyfriend (or girlfriend) might bring to the experience.
We're setting ourselves up for "the gaying of America." And in the long run, I predict you will rue the day and say, "Barb, you were right!!" when your kids announce their bisexual or homosexual experiences and proclivities. MARK MY WORDS. This is one time that I truly hope I am wrong!! The new rebellion against parental authority and society will become gay experimentation, as parents don't go along with the new official encouragement of gay marriage.
As for the courts --don't be so sure. This one is headed for the Supreme Court if democracy and the right of appeal are still alive in America. But of course, the liberals outnumber us on the court --though not yet in the country. We had better get a series of decent, God-fearing, principle-following presidents to appoint such justices after Obama --or "Gov't Of, By and For the people" will become, instead, "Gov't Of, By and For the Liberal Judges."
As for your privacy right --there is no such right as a right to do whatever you darn well please in private. After all, pedophilia and rape are carried out in private, along with most other crimes. A right to privacy was the twisted logic that produced abortion on demand in America --of which we can never be proud. "Privacy right" was also used to legalize sodomy behind closed doors between consenting adults, which I agreed with only because I don't want the police to barge in on same-sex adults, suspecting they are doing Back Door Boogie and Blow Jobs when they are just sharing expenses? I don't want to hear about their doings, except for educational info necessary to realize we should protect our kids from this mindset with its high-risk behaviors.
YOu are going to be amazed, Steve, if gay marriage is legalized, how fast the following will become legal: polygamy, close relatives petitioning to marry if they are willing to be sterilized or have any defective kids aborted, eccentric ladies marrying their pets, step-fathers marrying step-kids when they turn 18 --and ultimately, lowering the age of consent. All will follow gay marriage. All will be demanding perks for their various kinds of partners --like housing and spousal benefits in the military as Britain and other allied nations provide. Yet, we already have too much social expense due to divorcing heteros. Gay relationships are even more unstable and adulterous than hetero relationships. (On average, their couplings last 2 years, I read somewhere.) Gay spouses REALLY have no right to demand the financial benefits which heterosexual spouses get because of the obvious value to our national survival and health of procreating couples making and raising children.
Do you really want the gov't and business to pay for the maintenance, insurance, support and pensions of gay men and other same sex partners who can give us no children --same as for wives and mothers of children who deserve the perks for their labor and maintenance of homes for their spouse and kids whom they diligently and most healthfully raise with both mom and dad in the home? Just so these "couples" can give each other orgasms that are normally a part of potentially procreative/intimate male/female relationships? For which we are all designed --even the gays are designed for heterosexual intimacy and procreation.
That's just too much diversity for me to start paying for Adam and Steve to copulate anally and orally in the military --same as for Adam and Eve, father and mother of the future.
6 comments:
From another blog, a commenter said this re: prop 8's failure:
I’m still confused by the apparent assumption that if the logic of this decision would also cover consensual group and incestuous marriage, then this shows the invalidity of the decision.
My feeling is “So? Then we should allow those, too, but the failure to get the whole pie is no reason to decline this slice.”
See, what did I tell you, Steve? One pull of the thread, and the whole fabric of decency that gave preference to child-bearing mothers and fathers raising children together, is out the window. Everybody wants in on any benefits intended for married couples who have the potential and usually do make babies for our future survival, economically and in national defense --and in care for our old age, the poor, et al.
Just because some heteros don't stay married to raise their kids (which typically becomes a financial burden on society) and just because some heteros don't or can't have children, doesn't mean that our nation shouldn't give preference in the law to marriage defined as between one man and one woman for their child-bearing/rearing --thus giving us the next generation at considerable labor and expense to themselves, which gays can not do. As it is, they'll demand that we pay for their adoptions, next. They will inevitably spread their sterile sexual orientation --which is taught and caught --not inborn.
Certain groups of kooks already have consensual group relations and incestuous relations - those groups are not seeking to have the societal advantages open to them that are afforded to the institution of marriage / monogomous relationship. I don't think those groups ever would seek "marriage". Those types of activities are universally frowned upon because of the health risks associated with those activities. Monogomous homosexual relationships don't really have the same health risks and therefore are more accepted. As you know, I believe that homosexuality is a genetically caused drive and not a personal choice. Most gay people know they are gay prior to puberty - prior to experiencing any type of sexual activity.. it's not a learned behavior as you like to suggest, but a pre programming of their braines due to a genetic anomaly. So I don't fear a "gaying of America", because nobody would choose to be gay unless they had that desire preprogremmed into their brains. I realize that there are "trendy gays", but those people are probably less than 1% of the total gay population. Looking ahead - to the point in time in which they isolate the "gay gene", I'm more worried about the ethical dimensions of that discovery. Lets say that 10 years from now, they have isolated the gay gene, and parents - as part of the normal course of a pregnancy, can screen the unborn baby for the "gay gene". Now you have opened a whole new can of worms! What if the parents don't want a gay kid.. would they abort it? Would it be a violation of the unborn's human rights if the capibility exists to switch the gay gene off and parents choose to do that? Then if the gay gene can be switched on and off - does that make it a disease to be treated, or an accepted genetic anomaly like "handedness", or hair color?
Monogomous homosexual relationships don't really have the same health risks and therefore are more accepted. As you know, I believe that homosexuality is a genetically caused drive and not a personal choice.
There are STILL health risks to monogamous gay life: anal incontinence, fissures, problems due to fecal bacteria getting thru thin rectal lining, and prostatitis --chronic pain there.
So says hubby. Of course straights can experience some of these, too, but they are less likely to than homosexuals who have anal sex.
This genetic anomaly you believe in is not proven to exist so far. I really think all attractive people are attractive, male and female --and that orgasms are pleasurable no matter how they are obtained (Gay men manage to father children with women, I notice) --and that conditioning is all -- toward normal gender identity (normal self-image), normal attraction and desires --and moral choices. I believe anyone could have an incestuous thought pop in only from the awareness of the word and its meaning --and reject it as Yccch! right from the outset. No mulling it over or imagining it in one's mind. Giving no room for temptation such as drunks have. Rejecting the idea as disgusting, repugnant --UNTHINKABLE. And so it is with normal, sober people regarding homosexuality. I think anyone can be taught to reject the first thought of it --just as they can do with adulterous, incestuous, rapacious thoughts --despite the libido demanding available sexual experience, human contact, and release. I see no necessity for the homosexual's preference --no inevitability for it --except that he's missing something from mom or dad --or gotten into sexually addicting activities with his own sex (which affects self-image and orientation) --or feels repugnance for the opposite sex from some trauma --or just too much opposite sex parent with whom he/she identifies and too little affection from and for the same sex with whom he/she should've identified --thus a craving for the sex of the parent whose affection was denied to him/her.
People are helped with temptation if they have a normal sex life as in marriage in which to direct their desire for sexual release. (and if they don't have other factors like GID and previous gay involvement) (St. Paul said as much --better to marry than burn with lust or burn in Hell, whichever he meant.) But absent that, people need help by society, parents, teaching and chaperoning to avoid tempting situations and people.
I don't think those groups ever would seek "marriage". Those types of activities are universally frowned upon because of the health risks associated with those activities.
That's what we thought about gay marriage --inconceivable! Ridiculous! They wouldn't dare try! But look where we are.
There is no end to this slippery slope.
I fail to see how the judge's ruling on Prop 8 in California has anything to do with separation of church and state since many marriages are civil marriages.
The argument in this case should be the legal argument that one unelected judge has voided the votes of the majority of 7 million Californians who voted to ban gay marriage.
Every state that has had that issue up for a vote has rejected it, and don't try to fool yourself that they were all Christians.
It's something inborn that makes you feel disgust with the homosexual actions, and I was disgusted by it long before I was saved, so my religion had nothing to do with it. In fact, I never heard about it in church, but when I found out about it from friends talking it made me want to vomit.
So, Steve, if you can pull your head out of Mudrake's blog please tell us how this is a matter of church and state instead of a legal matter of the will of the governed being overturned by one unelected judge. That's the argument.
BTW, Jeanette --I wouldn't know Steve was still at Mudrake's --I never check on the old rake anymore. It's just too sad and mad over there. Bleak and mean.
However, go to www.rolandhansencommentary.blogspot.com and you will see something remarkable. Finally a couple of other bloggers have labeled the old Mudrake a troll --even a "flamer" and banned him from their blogs. He would have us think it was just us. See the definition for flamer linked at Roland's. --it's not what I thought it would be --though that definition exists also.
Post a Comment