First of all, let me say that it is flattering that, as one commenter on another site (self-described as that of a "godless liberal") put it, my latest poll required "immediate attention." I am not sure why he (and those who followed his lead) felt it was so important, but I found it interesting nonetheless.
Secondly, on the same site, someone mentioned that the lack of comments on the last post meant that I had rejected all of them, due to my guidelines at the conclusion of my last post. Well, to be honest, only two people tried to get comments through, and I posted both of theirs. Honestly, folks, my blog is not all that popular when a post isn't being voted up on Real Clear Politics.
Thirdly, another commenter mentioned that her stand for "individual rights" must be "intellectually dull" to me. No, not at all. I didn't intend to insult anyone's sensibilities who opposes my view. But this is exactly the type of groundless reframing of the debate that I was expressing my distaste for. So, since I'm for traditional marriage, I'm obviously a hateful bigot, and she's obviously a great beacon for freedom and rights. That's not self-evident truth; that's political propaganda.
It's funny; on her blog, she pointed out that she decided not to comment because of the end of my last post. Apparently, she couldn't think of a worthwhile comment that didn't include calling me a bigot or a hater.
She goes on to insinuate that my vision of a "God-fearing democracy" would leave people of all other faiths and beliefs "without representation." What I want to know is, what doesn't she understand about the word democracy? What doesn't she understand about, "All men are created equal, and endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights." But I digress...
In conclusion, she takes a shot at my analysis of Barack Obama's elitist comments about people "clinging" to guns and religion. Allow me to apologize, I did not mean to suggest that all secular humanists are for big government. But I'm not going to retract the point I made in my post.
Finally, I'd like to point out once again that I think that, if anyone takes a comprehensive and coolheaded approach to what I'm saying on this site, they will find that I have thoughtfully and sincerely considered my positions, and they are not a result of bigotry or hatred.
Alasan Bermain Judi Kasino Online
-
Perekonomian agen bola terpercaya dunia tidak berjalan dengan baik. Biaya
hidup semakin tinggi setiap harinya. Oleh karena itu, setiap individu[...]
6 years ago
12 comments:
History is no friend to liberals. Nothing is new under the son. As a conservative I choose to head the warning history has given us regarding liberal social and economical policies. Thanks for this blog KA!
God is the One who defined marriage. "Male and female created He them." It is His right as Creator. However, there are people who want to usurp His authority.
The government does not allow counterfeit money to pass as the real thing, because its acceptance then devalues the real money. So a "counterfeit", perverted relationship cannot be granted the same status as marriage.
Kingdom Advancer, a soldier doesn't get shot at before he enters the battle. Your armor will only get shinier!
Individual rights? It amazes me what people will come up with to try to validize thier claims. If marriage can "legally" be anything, then it's nothing. God does want marriage- he created a woman for Adam for companionship. But he wants it the right way. Oh, and not to get off-topic, but did you know that a survey showed that seventy percent of all professing christians said that thier religeon is not the only way to God? It's sad. Anyways, I'm glad this blog is taking a stand for christianity. God bless you.
So, since I'm for traditional marriage, I'm obviously a hateful bigot, and she's obviously a great beacon for freedom and rights. That's not self-evident truth
It's self-evident to me ... or at least it's certainly evident combined with the other things you say.
that's political propaganda
How is a sincerely held opinion "political propaganda"?
Simple question, how does allowing two people, regardless of gender, getting married effect anyone other than the two people and their immediate families. I've been reading: "If we let gays get married then the institution of marriage is doomed!" However, nobody claiming this has given any evidence of how this pending catastrophe will actually happen.
Whatever else we might say about Fred Phelps, at least the man is honest. He admits, at the top of his lungs, that he hates homosexuals. I'd appreciate it if the rest of your homophobes would be as honest as Phelps. God hates liars, so please, stop lying.
Then by all means, HAVE a traditional marriage! No one wants to stop you. We're all happy for anyone that has found love in their life and wants a stable committed relationship.
I haven't read any of your writing beyond this post, but you don't sound hateful. But no matter how calm and thoughtful you are, if you are against gay marriage, you are a bigot simply by the definition of the word.
Some people, through no fault of their own, nor anything they can even control at all, are attracted to and feel more comfortable around their own sex. And because of how they were created, you would deny them a privilege you'd give anyone else. No matter how you make excuses or how nice you try to be about it, that's bigotry. Denying homosexuals a happy marriage is to treat them as less than human.
And for what? How does gay marriage hurt you? Does it make you less happy to be with your wife if you know that someone somewhere is happy with their same sex husband? Just so you don't have to feel queezy, they should just hide under a rock, live a lie, never be happy?
The problem I see with your stance on what a christian president should be is that it's a denial of reality. Homosexuality isn't a disease, you can't catch it, you can't be tainted by it. The only thing a heterosexual person can become by interacting with a homosexual is tolerant and cognizant that both of you are just people. So making it an issue for your holy nation, you'll always be standing on the throats of millions of people.
What is that but bigotry?
If God's against gays, let God mete out his punishment in due time. But as far as we can tell, he didn't give them a choice. You might want to consider that you've misinterpreted his will.
TROX, MELISSA, GOD'S ADVENTURER,
Thanks!
TRUTH MACHINE,
Because it's used to influence people's opinions without factual or logical backing. Of course, you are right, if it's sincerely held by a given person, then that person has been influenced by the political propaganda, or is simply misguided (in my opinion).
MICHAEL,
Point proven. I hate homosexuals...because I disagree with you. Right.
GTMOOGLE,
I would disagree that a person's sexual behavior is beyond their control. I think homosexuals who have been delivered from homosexuality would differ, as well.
I also don't think that preserving marriage somehow makes homosexuals less than human. Redefining marriage would, in fact, make marriage less than marriage.
I believe that marriage is something that isn't up to man to be defined. I believe that the state should not sanction, legitimize, endorse, encourage, etc., immoral behavior (homosexuality, for instance). I believe that, once marriage is redefined, there will be no sufficient basis to reject further redefinitions and the institution will lose its sacredness. I believe that the family is too valuable to be toyed with in a great societal experiment.
I don't think those beliefs make me a bigot, especially in the connotative sense (which implies irrationality and hatred), but even in the denotative sense. At some point, we began to equate "tolerance" with being a pushover, with accepting everything, and with giving in to other political views. Homosexual activists are not at all tolerant of my vision for the country and family, but I'm a bigot for not being tolerant of their vision for the country. How's that? Why can't we just disagree? How can liberal activists try to tear down our whole Judeo-Christian, moral, traditional philosophy without ever being accused of bigotry, yet, when I stand up to say something for godliness and the family, screams of "Bigot" rain down?
I should add:
Although in the short term, it may seem like gay marriage wouldn't hurt anybody, it would have an impact on the whole of society, on children, on the institution of marriage, and it could very well open up the floodgates to a whole slew of "discrimination" issues (for instance, a wedding photographer who refuses to photograph gay weddings).
At Traditional Wedlock, you can find all sorts of articles explaining why the family needs to be protected.
traditionalwedlock.org
I've removed Lover of Truth's comment by her own discretion.
However, Lover of Truth, I thought you had good input, and if you would like to simply re-word your comment, you could re-post it.
I've saved your original comment, so, if you'd like me to e-mail it to you, you can contact me at wewantachristianpresident@gmail.com.
I just reread all the comments here, and I think KA did a fine job in his replies. I'm just more longwinded and enjoy using examples.
There are a few things I would like to emphasize. It seems that two strong arguments for homosexual marriage are:
1. They cannot help it, because they were born that way.
2. How does it affect you?
I would mainly like to address the first. Let's assume for a moment that homosexuals were born that way. I would like to compare them to two examples of people born with uncommon traits or characteristics: Being left-handed and being prone to lcoholism. Those born with these
abnormalities try to lead normal lives. They do not ask us to change our laws to suit them. I am left-handed, and I don't expect the government to require stores to sell notebooks with spirals on the right side. It would make writing in one much easier for me, but I don't expect that kind of
special treatment. Instead, I have learned to write in a notebook with spirals on the left.
Alcoholism has been traced to genetics. You can be born with genes that will increase the likelihood that if you ever take that first drink, you may get hooked. An alcoholic could say, "I was born this way. Therefore I should not be forced to abide by any laws that will make it inconvenient for me to drink." On the contrary, we would advise such a person to stay away from alcohol completely.
Every one of us has weaknesses. Some may be genetic and others not. My point is, we can't write all of our laws to compensate people for every weakness and problem known to man. If homosexuals are born that way, they should make an effort to be normal, not ask everyone else to change for them.
Granted some boys exhibit very feminine characteristics from a young age and girls very masculine traits. This does not mean that they were born with the wrong gender. Many of these people have no homosexual inclination and go on to have healthy, normal heterosexual relationships.
Now what if homosexuals aren't born that way? What alarms me is that some children who would have been perfectly happy being heterosexual might actually be turned into homosexuals if not given the right teaching. Children are taught gender identification. It is critical that a boy have a
good masculine role model for him to learn how to b a man (and a girl needs a good woman role model). Children are known to experiment with sexuality, and if they are not taught what it means to be a man or woman, they could
get confused. If someone told a boy, "You might really be a girl. We're not sure. Don't fight against it if you think you might be a girl or if you are attracted to boys." I think a child could get confused and convince himself he is gay when he isn't. Then, he could go on to train his body to be attracted to boys.
The human body can be trained to be sexually stimulated by almost anything. This is where all of the heinous crimes related to sex have their origins. I read an interesting article sometime back about a famous serial rapist who
tortured and murdered his victims. They asked him how he came to be that way, and he said that when he was a young boy, he accidentally got hold of a pornographic magazine where women were portrayed as victims. It started a seed growing in his mind that led to fantasizing which in turn led to crime. Did he have to travel down that path? I would argue no. I would say that if he had immediately dismissed it as the trash it was and did not dwell on it or think about, he would never have succumbed to perverse sexual desires. We should not condone sexual perversions, because we know it is not healthy or natural and leads to various problems.
Studies go both ways on whether homosexuals are born that way. It is difficult to pin any one study down as being accurate or reliable, since they are often backed by an agenda. We do know that many (not all) gay men were molested by a male sometime in their youth, and we know that many (not all) did not have a healthy relationship with their father. There is a theory that those without a loving father figure may be craving masculine love in a way that manifests itself as a perverse sexual attraction to men and a desire for love from men.
I think we can agree that homosexuality is not normal or natural given the small percentage of them in the population and the fact that they cannot procreate. We also know children do best when raised by one mother and one father devoted to each other in a loving relationship. Unfortunately, homosexuals want to adopt children, they want to tell children that they might be homosexual and not to fight against it, and they want to
discriminate against Christians. This brings me to how it affects me.
I could probably write a book on this one, but I'll just say that it isn't fair for homosexuals to force Christians to support their lifestyle. We should not be forced to rent to them, photograph their weddings, and perform their marriage ceremonies. My children should not be taught in public school that homosexuality is normal, natural, and not to fight against it. We should have the religious freedom to follow or own conscience. There are already cases of this discrimination happening both in this country and elsewhere. If they can marry, then they are more likely to sue Christians. I fear that we are headed toward a time when minister's cannot preach against homosexuality or even read their Bibles because of hate speech. Christians are losing rights in this homosexual battle. There are many hateful bigots who cannot stand Christians and have zero tolerance for our beliefs. This is one reason I fight against the homosexual agenda. I am fighting for my religious freedom.
"...if anyone takes a comprehensive and coolheaded approach to what I'm saying..."
It's easier and more natural to jump to conclusions and call name.
Post a Comment