Its dizzying trying to think of the vast number of issues that the left of America supports where any disagreement or noncompliance means you are some kind of bigoted, sexist, close-minded, intolerant, or even a stupid person. Its impossible to unravel all the layers of arguments and accusations just to get to the root of each issue. Ironically it is that very tactic that has closed the minds of those on the left. Unbelief in their views disqualifies any possible counter argument that you might have, not because your argument isn’t valid but instead because you are (to them) one of the previously mentioned labels and are not worth arguing with anymore. When you disagree, you will be shouted down ignored, dismissed, called names, or even threatened.
It is one of the great wonders of our time that a culture so paranoid of government takeover “big-brother” is in-fact that which they fear. They are a group where dissenting expels you from not only their group but also worse, from consideration. Worse still, we see conservatives kowtowing to these paranoid and misguided perspectives of humanity and politics. And we allow this without an answer back. Partly because we have no answers we have only our intuition or conscience and we sit by hoping someone might be able to give an answer… For the next couple weeks I plan to write about most of these issues and ask honest questions… This entry is about homosexuality…
I have had my share of college courses with anthropology, biology and zoology professors, all of which refuse to even discuss that evolution might not be correct. In fact my Anthropology professor started every new semester with the same tired speech “…evolution is fact any discussion otherwise is a waste of time…” This man defined Evolution as “genetic change through time”… it is upon that definition and the current beliefs of evolution that I come to my first question.
Putting aside whether or not homosexuality is moral or immoral for this and any further discussion, how can there be any homosexuals in the modern era? If they cannot reproduce and are in fact a minority in any given population what reproductive vehicle does the homosexual gene use to insure its expression in future generations?
If we are to assume that all men have evolved from a common ancestor and all varieties of physically visible attributes were within that ancestor’s DNA, including a homosexual gene why is it that red heads are predicted to be extinct by the year 2060 due to the increasingly reducing likelihood of two red heads reproducing yet homosexuals are in every generation and have yet to reproduce ever? Maybe because the homosexual gene doesn’t exist… That or Evolution is mistaken in the process of how traits are handed down by those who reproduce most effectively so they intern subtly change each generation by way of excluding those creatures who reproduce least effectively.
Whether or not anyone takes that argument seriously I can’t say I really care. However I cannot deny that I have seen young children display behavior that is more like the opposite sex than their physically expressed sex. That fact isn’t evidence to qualify homosexuality as much as it just proves that people are dynamic creatures and have as many varieties in their behavior as they do in their appearance. Further it raises another question for me.
Are some of these children young homosexuals in the making because of some unrealized innate desire for same sex relations or are they instead inclined to homosexual behavior because society says their behavior differences are explained better through their unrealized need for same sex relationships? If homosexuality is natural and innate, I’d imagine evidence of innate homosexuality would in fact manifest an even number of male homosexuals and female homosexuals. Yet the two populations are vastly disproportioned in numbers. Homosexual behavior is far more accepted between two women than two men in our culture, yet there are far more homosexual men than women. Still, we need to draw a distinction between behavior and proclivity. Regardless, this (to me) proves homosexuality proclivity is neither innate nor curbed by society.
Could one’s libido or sex-drive (characteristics far more prevalent in males than females) be the catalyst of homosexuality? I do not think it is any coincidence that men in general have (by far) a stronger libido. How many men are in prison for sex crimes compared to women? How is it that this correlation would not suggest that homosexuality is less about genetics and more about psychology? And if it is psychology why would there be favoritism of homosexual psychology over other psychological dispositions in regards to changing societies understandings of traditions? That might always remain unanswered.
In 1973 through political pressure (by a vote) the A.P.A. (American Psychiatric Association) declared homosexuality to no longer be a mental disorder of normal sexual deviation. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM (The Diagnosis Statistical Manual or Mental Disorders). That vote, from a psychological standpoint affirmed homosexuality as “normal” and “natural”. From that event any inquiry of homosexuals psychological origins became an admission of bigotry and hate, ending all discussion.
My disclaimer. I do not condone or agree with any past treatment of homosexuals by psychologist or anyone else for that matter. I believe all homosexuals are just as human and deserving to rights as any heterosexual. However, marriage is not a right. I most definitely believe that any child no matter what age who displays homosexual behavior should get only love from his family. Still, none of this means that there are no questions about homosexuality.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Liberals aren't for liberty
I’m not sure if there is any etiquette in writing blogs. I don’t know if there is a certain amount of fact-finding, fact checking that needs to be done before posting anything… Maybe the best blogs are a collection of thoughts and opinions you have while writing them… No matter what the answer is the point is that it doesn’t matter… I have the liberty to do what I decide… And the reader has the liberty to decide if it is thought provoking or a waist of time.
It’s ironic that there is a party that represents a large portion of this country who call themselves Liberals when liberty is not their priority…
Standing in New York harbor is a statue that is the beacon of hope to the world… every design in it was with purpose, the seven diadems on her crown represent the seven continents, the torch represents the enlightenment of liberty held high for the world to see, she has one foot moving forward with the other stepping on chains, she hold tablets that represent knowledge and a glair that stares unblinking toward the horizon.
She is a symbol to the world but a nuisance to Liberals… maybe not directly but what she stands for. Liberals feel oppressive tyrannical regimes have a sovereign right and that the free democratic process is a cultural thing, not for everybody. They don’t believe that the United States is exceptional in any way further it is more heinous that most other countries. They think that spreading freedom throughout the world is arrogant and have called for retreat in almost every war within the last 75 years.
At home in the U.S. they refuse to allow any vote for vouchers to let parents decide how state money for education is spent, ignoring where the parent feels their child will get a better education. Instead they force you to go to your local public school no matter how inept. They support legislation to change the definition of marriage against the people’s will and worse campaign against the right to vote on that amendment calling those who disagree with them “haters” and “bigots”. They’d rather adoption agencies close down completely than give them the right to act within their freedom of religion and prioritize heterosexual homes over homosexual homes. They cannot compete with conservative talk radio so they create a law that they want to implement with the inauguration of Obama that will making it illegal to speak against someone politically unless there is equal time given to the opposing side. Yet they do not apply that law on TV, media, or our universities. They refuse to allow a vote to lift the ban on OCS drilling to permanently decrease gas prices because they want to instead decrease fuel consumption by forcing you with high prices. Liberals have made it illegal to smoke in some public places, on any California Beaches, and in some entire cities. They have just passed a law in California making it illegal for restaurants to sell foods with trans-fats, and outlawed peanut butter in schools because 1 in every 3000 kids are allergic. They passed a law that says how hot or cold your house can be, as well as tax you 48% of any inheritance money you get. They want to increase taxes generally so that you do not have the freedom to spend your money they way you want. Further they tell you that they know how to spend it better yet have no available examples. They have passed a federal law that states that any non-profit organization (churches) cannot appear to endorse any political candidate, or they will lose their non-profit tax exemption. Liberals have legislated whom you can hire, and now how much you pay them regardless of your assessment of their individual habbits… They support union extortion of money from its members and have made it so that union members have no legal right to demand to know how the union dues are spent. Further that Union heads are allowed to know how union members vote for local and federal elections as well as tell them whom they “should” vote for. Last year liberals campaigned against the right for union workers to be able to opt out of the dues paying if they did not agree with the political affiliations of their union. Further garnished more dues during that campaign from union members to help fund the fight against union member’s rights to opt out of dues. More recently more than half of Californians voted to define marriage as man-woman yet 100% of all teachers paid into “No on Prop 8” since the teachers unions were the biggest contributors to that campaign…Liberals have put a gag on speaking out against sexual misconduct in public and have protected sexual predators under the freedom of speech act. They have legislated abortion “rights” and refuse to allow it to be put on any ballot. They try to ban any military recruiters from federally funded university campuses. Finally, Liberals have even tried to block military votes from the last presidential election because of their date of delivery but worse were the cause of those specific votes being entered late.
Why are they called Liberal again?
Below is the engraving on the statue of Liberty, please read it…
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows worldwide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she with silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
It’s ironic that there is a party that represents a large portion of this country who call themselves Liberals when liberty is not their priority…
Standing in New York harbor is a statue that is the beacon of hope to the world… every design in it was with purpose, the seven diadems on her crown represent the seven continents, the torch represents the enlightenment of liberty held high for the world to see, she has one foot moving forward with the other stepping on chains, she hold tablets that represent knowledge and a glair that stares unblinking toward the horizon.
She is a symbol to the world but a nuisance to Liberals… maybe not directly but what she stands for. Liberals feel oppressive tyrannical regimes have a sovereign right and that the free democratic process is a cultural thing, not for everybody. They don’t believe that the United States is exceptional in any way further it is more heinous that most other countries. They think that spreading freedom throughout the world is arrogant and have called for retreat in almost every war within the last 75 years.
At home in the U.S. they refuse to allow any vote for vouchers to let parents decide how state money for education is spent, ignoring where the parent feels their child will get a better education. Instead they force you to go to your local public school no matter how inept. They support legislation to change the definition of marriage against the people’s will and worse campaign against the right to vote on that amendment calling those who disagree with them “haters” and “bigots”. They’d rather adoption agencies close down completely than give them the right to act within their freedom of religion and prioritize heterosexual homes over homosexual homes. They cannot compete with conservative talk radio so they create a law that they want to implement with the inauguration of Obama that will making it illegal to speak against someone politically unless there is equal time given to the opposing side. Yet they do not apply that law on TV, media, or our universities. They refuse to allow a vote to lift the ban on OCS drilling to permanently decrease gas prices because they want to instead decrease fuel consumption by forcing you with high prices. Liberals have made it illegal to smoke in some public places, on any California Beaches, and in some entire cities. They have just passed a law in California making it illegal for restaurants to sell foods with trans-fats, and outlawed peanut butter in schools because 1 in every 3000 kids are allergic. They passed a law that says how hot or cold your house can be, as well as tax you 48% of any inheritance money you get. They want to increase taxes generally so that you do not have the freedom to spend your money they way you want. Further they tell you that they know how to spend it better yet have no available examples. They have passed a federal law that states that any non-profit organization (churches) cannot appear to endorse any political candidate, or they will lose their non-profit tax exemption. Liberals have legislated whom you can hire, and now how much you pay them regardless of your assessment of their individual habbits… They support union extortion of money from its members and have made it so that union members have no legal right to demand to know how the union dues are spent. Further that Union heads are allowed to know how union members vote for local and federal elections as well as tell them whom they “should” vote for. Last year liberals campaigned against the right for union workers to be able to opt out of the dues paying if they did not agree with the political affiliations of their union. Further garnished more dues during that campaign from union members to help fund the fight against union member’s rights to opt out of dues. More recently more than half of Californians voted to define marriage as man-woman yet 100% of all teachers paid into “No on Prop 8” since the teachers unions were the biggest contributors to that campaign…Liberals have put a gag on speaking out against sexual misconduct in public and have protected sexual predators under the freedom of speech act. They have legislated abortion “rights” and refuse to allow it to be put on any ballot. They try to ban any military recruiters from federally funded university campuses. Finally, Liberals have even tried to block military votes from the last presidential election because of their date of delivery but worse were the cause of those specific votes being entered late.
Why are they called Liberal again?
Below is the engraving on the statue of Liberty, please read it…
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows worldwide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she with silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
everything is new and improved
Somewhere between kindergarten and high school I learned to read. This skill was cultivated by something that is rarely used anymore…books. These “books” as they are called, vary in accuracy but collectively have a bountiful reward in vicarious living and experience in any given subject. Now, I am in no way an historian nor am I even a history buff but one of those countless subjects coincidently has to do with history. Specifically 18th century history…
While America was figuring out its new independence from England, France was starting a their own revolutionary war… There was a great many factors contributing to the French Revolution however one in particular was one that the not-yet united-states shared which was the aristocracies. The aristocracy was a privileged social class that governed the surrounding lands. This elite class was rarely achieved through entrepreneurial endeavors but instead only acquired mostly through heredity.
Even today much of Europe ceremoniously keeps these unearned titles of nobility.
Now, in this great country (united geographically but divided morally) The United States we have qualified the old cliché of a dog returning to its vomit as we embrace and elevate a new aristocracy, better known as celebrities. This socially elite group finds all the graces of a tradition long since past in their ability to defy the laws without consequence, spend money as if there was no end, and create drama in their own lives that would make any ‘Victorian Era’ gossip circle blush.
Beyond just being socially inept, our new and improved celebrity aristocracies also share in common with their 18th century counterpart a complete lack of understanding of social and political issues. However, they insist on making their tirades about current topics from inside their close-minded bubble and relatively small circle of acquaintances; all the while accusing America of censorship or expounding on the growing concern over how we are losing our freedom of speech. Ironically, any celebrity who verbalizes anything contrary to these foundationless arguments is quickly ostracized from the celebrity rein deer games or even work. It is absolutely fascinating that a person like Sharon Stone can be asked to speak at the United Nations on geopolitical issues when all she is really famous for is flashing her hoo-ha in the movie Basic Instinct. Its nice to know that if enough people see your “special purpose” you are qualified to speak to the nations on world peace.
You can be sure that if you are ever undecided in any election, all you need to do is vote opposite of whatever “Hollywood” is pushing and you most likely will be picking the right one… I doubt that anyone is going to utter any phrases like “let them eat cake” as the late great Marie Antoinette supposedly did. But if history is a reflection of things to come we might see a growing resentment of today’s aristocracy with a collapse of the entertainment industry… maybe then people might dust off those books again…
While America was figuring out its new independence from England, France was starting a their own revolutionary war… There was a great many factors contributing to the French Revolution however one in particular was one that the not-yet united-states shared which was the aristocracies. The aristocracy was a privileged social class that governed the surrounding lands. This elite class was rarely achieved through entrepreneurial endeavors but instead only acquired mostly through heredity.
Even today much of Europe ceremoniously keeps these unearned titles of nobility.
Now, in this great country (united geographically but divided morally) The United States we have qualified the old cliché of a dog returning to its vomit as we embrace and elevate a new aristocracy, better known as celebrities. This socially elite group finds all the graces of a tradition long since past in their ability to defy the laws without consequence, spend money as if there was no end, and create drama in their own lives that would make any ‘Victorian Era’ gossip circle blush.
Beyond just being socially inept, our new and improved celebrity aristocracies also share in common with their 18th century counterpart a complete lack of understanding of social and political issues. However, they insist on making their tirades about current topics from inside their close-minded bubble and relatively small circle of acquaintances; all the while accusing America of censorship or expounding on the growing concern over how we are losing our freedom of speech. Ironically, any celebrity who verbalizes anything contrary to these foundationless arguments is quickly ostracized from the celebrity rein deer games or even work. It is absolutely fascinating that a person like Sharon Stone can be asked to speak at the United Nations on geopolitical issues when all she is really famous for is flashing her hoo-ha in the movie Basic Instinct. Its nice to know that if enough people see your “special purpose” you are qualified to speak to the nations on world peace.
You can be sure that if you are ever undecided in any election, all you need to do is vote opposite of whatever “Hollywood” is pushing and you most likely will be picking the right one… I doubt that anyone is going to utter any phrases like “let them eat cake” as the late great Marie Antoinette supposedly did. But if history is a reflection of things to come we might see a growing resentment of today’s aristocracy with a collapse of the entertainment industry… maybe then people might dust off those books again…
Monday, December 8, 2008
A "moral" crisis...
So the sky is falling… or at least it’s allegedly warming or cooling from the irresponsible behavior of humanity, more specifically the United States… There is a quote I love by GK Chesterton,
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
What is with this hysteria about Global Warming? Most the people you talk to really have no idea what it implies or what it actually means but they just go along with it as if whether or not you believe in it is some ultimate measure of what kind of person you are…
Chesterton couldn’t have been closer to the truth with the absolute abandonment of common sense in today’s pop culture… Does anyone stop to wonder how there were supposedly glaciers in the middle of North America for God knows how long and now there aren’t? I’m pretty sure the ice age was well before the industrial revolution… But that is just an inconvenient truth…
How is it that Cambodia Moscow, North America and countless other parts of the world have experienced record colds while we are somehow facing “the biggest threat against humanity –ever!” A.K.A. Global Warming? More like Global Stupidity… So, Al Gore wont debate anyone, attacks anyone who disagrees with him as “being paid off by ‘BIG OIL’…” and basically only shows purposefully misleading pictures of nature to back up his ridiculous assertions about the environment… There would be as much validity and a lot of similarity in someone campaigning around the country warning everyone of spontaneous explosions of pets and showing pictures of road kill. But really, how can he be wrong? So many experts agree with him… Like movie stars, and TV stars, MTV, agrees with him, most college student agree with him…But why?
The answer to that is so much deeper than the issue of Global Warming… We live in a world that has declared war on the idea that there is a God and we were created in his image… There is such a struggle in our society with morality and the recognition that humanity as unique beings made with a specific purpose out side of them selves and for God… But in a country who’s majority is so focused on Judeo-Christian Values and morality, how does a politician who has no sense of biblical morality find a moral common ground without this Religious majority without alienating his liberal existentialist constituency?
…He creates an issue that he calls a “moral issue”… Global Warming…
Oh wait… its called “climate change” now…
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
What is with this hysteria about Global Warming? Most the people you talk to really have no idea what it implies or what it actually means but they just go along with it as if whether or not you believe in it is some ultimate measure of what kind of person you are…
Chesterton couldn’t have been closer to the truth with the absolute abandonment of common sense in today’s pop culture… Does anyone stop to wonder how there were supposedly glaciers in the middle of North America for God knows how long and now there aren’t? I’m pretty sure the ice age was well before the industrial revolution… But that is just an inconvenient truth…
How is it that Cambodia Moscow, North America and countless other parts of the world have experienced record colds while we are somehow facing “the biggest threat against humanity –ever!” A.K.A. Global Warming? More like Global Stupidity… So, Al Gore wont debate anyone, attacks anyone who disagrees with him as “being paid off by ‘BIG OIL’…” and basically only shows purposefully misleading pictures of nature to back up his ridiculous assertions about the environment… There would be as much validity and a lot of similarity in someone campaigning around the country warning everyone of spontaneous explosions of pets and showing pictures of road kill. But really, how can he be wrong? So many experts agree with him… Like movie stars, and TV stars, MTV, agrees with him, most college student agree with him…But why?
The answer to that is so much deeper than the issue of Global Warming… We live in a world that has declared war on the idea that there is a God and we were created in his image… There is such a struggle in our society with morality and the recognition that humanity as unique beings made with a specific purpose out side of them selves and for God… But in a country who’s majority is so focused on Judeo-Christian Values and morality, how does a politician who has no sense of biblical morality find a moral common ground without this Religious majority without alienating his liberal existentialist constituency?
…He creates an issue that he calls a “moral issue”… Global Warming…
Oh wait… its called “climate change” now…
Communism vs. Capitalism
Have you ever stopped and wondered, “why was there so much of a witch hunt in the McCarthy Era for communist?” or what exactly the Cold War was… If you went to public school like me you didn’t have to know these things… extra credit was making sure you brought your history teacher some food from whatever fast-food place you ditched your last class to go to…
Not to change the subject, but sometimes it helps to get an idea of history when you quote certain people throughout history… For example: Ronald Regan was quoted saying, “Communism only works in heaven where they don't need it and Hell, where they already have it.”… But, what was communism supposed to do? The originator of the “ism” so to speak was Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles who wrote in the Communist Manifesto. Marx was quoted to sum up Communism, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
In all honesty that doesn’t sound that crazy… it says you basically work as hard as you are able and you earn only as much as you need therefore spreading out the earnings so that everyone is cared for… The founders of Communism on down the line to Lenin then Stalin realized that for this to function properly one (not them of course) would have to deny individualism as they work for the cause or “The Mother Land”… This lead to the belief in strict atheism, as people could not look to a higher power or purpose than the good of the whole…
Still despite these things, what could possibly motivate anyone to work harder if no matter what they accomplish or no matter what they don’t complete, their earnings will never increase or decrease…
Enter Capitalism… an economy that embraces free enterprise. Of course there is dues to be paid to the governing body known as “taxes” But those taxes pay for the defense of a country both internally in the ways of laws and internationally in the way of foreign affairs so that free country can continue to promote freedom and free trade… A government that is based on a capitalistic society realizes that the more a company makes within that country, the more their tax percentage allows them a share in its success… However, there are those politicians who demonize successful business and campaign to those in lower monetary classes.
These “Social Capitalist”, capitalize on the envy of the “have-nots” poking a sensitive nerve in them asking, “why should these large corporations or rich people have so much while you suffer?... if you only had child care, more grants, free schooling, free health care,… you can get on your feet and be successful…” Of course the propagators of these increased taxes are well protected from the laws that they are trying to force feed this country, as they are all filthy rich but not through industry but mostly by family inheritance. These Socialist, want to take by force, through legislation, the earnings of those who have earned it and give it away to those who haven’t earned it… And with most lower-middle class they are very persuasive but as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, Whether or not these politicians do it to help the common wealth or use the lower classes of America as a Trojan Horse to gain power that is yet to be seen…
Either way America has been made powerful because of its freedom and empowered by its free economy. Though Democrats want to villain-ize “the wealthy” to force them to share their wealth it might be best if these leaders lead by example and gave more to charities rather than just showing up at photo ops trying to further their cause…
Not to change the subject, but sometimes it helps to get an idea of history when you quote certain people throughout history… For example: Ronald Regan was quoted saying, “Communism only works in heaven where they don't need it and Hell, where they already have it.”… But, what was communism supposed to do? The originator of the “ism” so to speak was Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles who wrote in the Communist Manifesto. Marx was quoted to sum up Communism, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
In all honesty that doesn’t sound that crazy… it says you basically work as hard as you are able and you earn only as much as you need therefore spreading out the earnings so that everyone is cared for… The founders of Communism on down the line to Lenin then Stalin realized that for this to function properly one (not them of course) would have to deny individualism as they work for the cause or “The Mother Land”… This lead to the belief in strict atheism, as people could not look to a higher power or purpose than the good of the whole…
Still despite these things, what could possibly motivate anyone to work harder if no matter what they accomplish or no matter what they don’t complete, their earnings will never increase or decrease…
Enter Capitalism… an economy that embraces free enterprise. Of course there is dues to be paid to the governing body known as “taxes” But those taxes pay for the defense of a country both internally in the ways of laws and internationally in the way of foreign affairs so that free country can continue to promote freedom and free trade… A government that is based on a capitalistic society realizes that the more a company makes within that country, the more their tax percentage allows them a share in its success… However, there are those politicians who demonize successful business and campaign to those in lower monetary classes.
These “Social Capitalist”, capitalize on the envy of the “have-nots” poking a sensitive nerve in them asking, “why should these large corporations or rich people have so much while you suffer?... if you only had child care, more grants, free schooling, free health care,… you can get on your feet and be successful…” Of course the propagators of these increased taxes are well protected from the laws that they are trying to force feed this country, as they are all filthy rich but not through industry but mostly by family inheritance. These Socialist, want to take by force, through legislation, the earnings of those who have earned it and give it away to those who haven’t earned it… And with most lower-middle class they are very persuasive but as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, Whether or not these politicians do it to help the common wealth or use the lower classes of America as a Trojan Horse to gain power that is yet to be seen…
Either way America has been made powerful because of its freedom and empowered by its free economy. Though Democrats want to villain-ize “the wealthy” to force them to share their wealth it might be best if these leaders lead by example and gave more to charities rather than just showing up at photo ops trying to further their cause…
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Letter to Keith Olbermann
In response to this Keith Olbermann article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/#storyContinued
Like Keith Olbermann's statement, "This is a matter of the heart…" Is foolish. That statement over shadows the rest of his article. What great authority or tradition is he invoking? What beyond his own ideas of right and wrong can he measure his conclusion against? What common ground is he appealing to that all people agree?
Martin Luther King in his "I have a Dream" speech said. "…I have a dream that someday my four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character…" He was not advocating to a change the definition of what people recognized as a moral absolute. Martin Luther King instead reminding people of that moral absolute that all men are created equal.
To me it is extremely disingenuous for advocates of the homosexual community to associate their struggle for complete social endorsement of their practices with black Americans. Black Americans were denied basic human rights not because of their actions (like homosexuals) but because of the way they look. If someone cannot see the difference they are folling themselves...
The commercials and advertisements seem to understand this clearly which is why I imagine that EVERY commercial never once said "homosexual" or "same sex marriage"… All commercials were pictures of racial violence, ambiguous talk about the "importance of family", or had a heterosexual couple denied the right to be married. It is a form of bait and switch. We (the public) are shown pictures of moral absolutes that we universally agree on and then they attach their proposition without every identifying what their motive is.
It would seem that even the advocates of same sex marriage understand that what they want is radically against universal acceptance, so much so that they omit the very detail that their cause is for. If same sex marriage is a basic human right then why is it not more readily spoken about in the ads that support it? Dr. Martin Luther King readily talk about specifically white and black people coming together because he knew it was a rallying point not an agenda to be cleverly disguised.
Proposition 8 was not about equality. It is about radical change. Whether or not that change is good or bad for society I am not even arguing but it is radical compared to traditions for the last couple thousand years. It is dishonest act as if homosexuals are being persecuted unjustly when (unlike the black Americans before desegregation) they are in fact given every right that every American has. -What they are not given is the ability to have all their actions endorsed by the state. Marriage is not a right it is an institution defined by the society that endorses it and is ratified by the state that the society elects… It is not an endowment to be stolen or taken by force. Proposition 8 was half about the definition of marriage and half about the outrage over a court that has overturned (for the second time) the will of the people that has elected them.
It is sad to think that in this country words like "bravery" have been stolen from men on the battlefeild and given to people like Keith Olberman who only preach nonsense to his chior and never invites open debates of his tirades....
Sincerely,
Someone who is tired of being called a bigot by the real bigots
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/#storyContinued
Like Keith Olbermann's statement, "This is a matter of the heart…" Is foolish. That statement over shadows the rest of his article. What great authority or tradition is he invoking? What beyond his own ideas of right and wrong can he measure his conclusion against? What common ground is he appealing to that all people agree?
Martin Luther King in his "I have a Dream" speech said. "…I have a dream that someday my four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character…" He was not advocating to a change the definition of what people recognized as a moral absolute. Martin Luther King instead reminding people of that moral absolute that all men are created equal.
To me it is extremely disingenuous for advocates of the homosexual community to associate their struggle for complete social endorsement of their practices with black Americans. Black Americans were denied basic human rights not because of their actions (like homosexuals) but because of the way they look. If someone cannot see the difference they are folling themselves...
The commercials and advertisements seem to understand this clearly which is why I imagine that EVERY commercial never once said "homosexual" or "same sex marriage"… All commercials were pictures of racial violence, ambiguous talk about the "importance of family", or had a heterosexual couple denied the right to be married. It is a form of bait and switch. We (the public) are shown pictures of moral absolutes that we universally agree on and then they attach their proposition without every identifying what their motive is.
It would seem that even the advocates of same sex marriage understand that what they want is radically against universal acceptance, so much so that they omit the very detail that their cause is for. If same sex marriage is a basic human right then why is it not more readily spoken about in the ads that support it? Dr. Martin Luther King readily talk about specifically white and black people coming together because he knew it was a rallying point not an agenda to be cleverly disguised.
Proposition 8 was not about equality. It is about radical change. Whether or not that change is good or bad for society I am not even arguing but it is radical compared to traditions for the last couple thousand years. It is dishonest act as if homosexuals are being persecuted unjustly when (unlike the black Americans before desegregation) they are in fact given every right that every American has. -What they are not given is the ability to have all their actions endorsed by the state. Marriage is not a right it is an institution defined by the society that endorses it and is ratified by the state that the society elects… It is not an endowment to be stolen or taken by force. Proposition 8 was half about the definition of marriage and half about the outrage over a court that has overturned (for the second time) the will of the people that has elected them.
It is sad to think that in this country words like "bravery" have been stolen from men on the battlefeild and given to people like Keith Olberman who only preach nonsense to his chior and never invites open debates of his tirades....
Sincerely,
Someone who is tired of being called a bigot by the real bigots
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
