Apologetic no more: A defense of Social Conservatism

Those of us who believe in traditional American values are facing the challenge of a generation. The High Court has to decide such a basic issue as what is marriage. A CNN Poll shows that for the first time that a majority of Americans surveyed do not think the job of government is to defend traditional values. We are told that we are out to impose our morality on everyone else. We have no respect for liberty. We are religious zealots who need “to keep our rosaries off other people’s ovaries” and other such nonsense. We are expected to stay silent when our tax money is used for things which are anathema to us while some working families among us go with out basic needs, children lack health care, and homelessness is a growing problem. We have a choice, stay silent, act apologetic for holding our views and let the land we know fade into the past or mount a defense. I choose to stand up and defend the values that made us great. My father was a DAV from WW2 who spent 50 years in the ministry right up to his passing. He and my mother taught me American exceptionalism, anti-communism, and traditional Christian values. Just as importantly, they taught me never to apologize for what is right. Our values are what is right and they need to be defended. Here is my defense of my 7 pillars of social conservatism. Let the debate begin. I believe abortion on demand is the bloody slaughter of pre-born children. Therefore, I do not believe that sweeping it aside as an issue is virtuous. The abortion procedure is nothing less than brutal and the abortion pills are nothing more than human pesticide. Now if that is what I really believe, what kind of scum would I have to be to say, “I don’t believe in abortion, but it is not my place to say you can’t have one”. I don’t like coffee, but I will get you a cup. I don’t like to drink anti-freeze, and I promise I will never give you a cup to drink. Abortion is anti-freeze not coffee. Every abortion stops a beating heart and sacrifices a little piece of the heart of all those involved. I have been friends with post abortive women; most would not wish the aftermath on anyone. Every abortion has three victims, the child, the mother, and the father. America can do better than defend such a travesty. I believe that the only “gay” marriage is a happy marriage between a man and a women. Marriage is not a social construct that we recently invented to be amended by some guy in a black robe who thinks he is wiser than God. Marriage predated government, business, schools, farming, and other fine institutions. It is the very tool which civilized humanity. We tinker with it not only at our peril, but that of all future generations. I believe that science should be subject to basic human dignity. Science is one of the greatest tools humanity has ever exploited. Like any powerful tool it can amplify our vices as well as our virtues. Destroying helpless human beings and cloning them for body parts is a objectionable as using atomic weapons as population control. We can not use our superior position in life to make the vulnerable among us some sort of slave race to be used at our whim whether it is the embryo, a disabled person, or a genetically engineered clone. I believe God should be as much part of the public square as any one else. Ms. Murray-O’Hara gave us a religious apartheid in which it became acceptable to talk about any thing in the schools but GOD. It was a censorship of traditional values which has leaked into every sphere of public life and we are paying a very heavy cost with our youth. Despair, substance abuse, domestic abuse, crime, and suicide are a way of life for too many. Families are broken. Lives are shattered. We sowed the wind of secularism and reaped the whirlwind of disenchantment. I believe that Liberty is not license. Liberty is the freedom to fulfill one’s destiny not the right to self destruct. People need to free to achieve and contribute. People need government off their backs and out of their wallets. People don’t need teenagers being fed dope. We don’t need drunk drivers and children who never know family. I believe that children should be protected from the worst of humanity. The ACLU is currently challenging Councilman Lynn and my law to give the same protection to daycare children that we give to school age children. They don’t stop there. The ACLU would tell us that child porn is somehow covered under freedom of speech. No WAY. The only things enduring about humanity are posterity and tradition. The attack by popular culture on are children and our tradition will destroy this country if not stopped. It is said that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Yet, we are told that endless streams of violence, illicit sex, and disrespect for fellow humans should be celebrated. We do so only if we are fools. I believe that the dignity of human spirit is the basis for civilized society. We are created in the image of God. This God who gave us life also gave us a hope for our betterment. The God who gave us life gave us liberty. When we operate within the ideal that each person has innate value, we behave better. We don’t kill, steal, covet, or bare false witness (pervert the system of justice to get what we want). We love the down trodden, respect the disabled, and reach a hand out to those who are fallen. We see the best of humanity within ourselves. We have a society worthy of cherishing. That is the goal of social conservatism–can anyone debate that?

94 thoughts on “Apologetic no more: A defense of Social Conservatism”

  1. Are you invigorated enough to try to respond rationally now? Freedom of religion means you don’t get to dictate to others based on your God’s orders, because other people’s Gods don’t necessarily agree. You can base your OWN positions on that, but the First Amendment guarantees that none of the rest of us are obligated to follow along.

    The point is that appeals to the authority of God have no authority to those who do not recognize the god. You have to convince people by the content of the argument, not who’s making it.

  2. True, but GOD established and encouraged one man and one woman. The Scripture showed societies as they were not just the principles as they should be. GOD never endorsed Abraham having Hagar on the side, in fact it caused problems. GOD specifically told the kings not to take unto themselves many wives, they did it anyway, just as GOD predicted through Samuel. The exception was to marry your brother’s or cousin’s wife if she were widowed especially without children, you wouldn’t be penalized from your choice for an act of selflessness to ensure his heritage didn’t disappear and she wasn’t left without support. In an agrarian society based upon tribal culture, that made sense. Once again, a cultural accommodation.

    GOD tolerates (even in the New Testament) polygamy, but strongly discourages it.

    I love how you keep arguing for polygamy. I won’t ask if you have any particular person in mind. 🙂

    I concede that it does not change the fundamental structure of marriage and has a legitimate claim globally and by history. It is a minority view of marriage. I would say for good reason. It is fine if you or I have 2 wives. The problem is what happens if 50 million men have two wives? Then 50 million men can’t have fulfilling relationships. Societies where men are detached from women tend to be more violent and less stable. They tend more to wars and crime. On a societal level most men need women and the reverse is true. A nation is only as civilized as it treats and values its women.

  3. I agree with you that no one is obligated to follow anything because it is in someone’s holy book. We have a nation based upon persuasion.

    Sure most of my arguments are secular, but I have no obligation to aim all of them at 35% of the population when 65% to 70% claim that their Christianity is important or very important to their lives. Some people brought up the Bible, I will engage in that discussion just like I would any other. It doesn’t imply that is the sole or main basis for my argument. There would be nothing wrong if it were. I just have many reasons that are relevant to the argument with that being one.

    We have a right to legislate based upon agreed upon principles regardless of the source. The First Amendment doesn’t change that. It is met to keep you from being forced to worship or practice a faith not yours.

  4. mynym on March 27, 2013 at 10:32 said: “[GEEZER] You can’t even acknowledge your own contradictions. Old Testament societies under Yahweh’s guidance practiced polygamy.” [mynym]: They practiced it, yet it never seems to have been sanctioned.”

    That is correct. The Bible is filled with things that people did that were wrong. First, correctly analyzing the Bible requires separating stories about what happened from teachings on what is right and wrong. Second, MORE of the incidents in the Bible depict BAD behavior than good behavior.

    Cain killed Abel in the Bible. So murdering your brother is okay? It’s in the Bible, right?

    But there are many, many EXPLICIT teachings that (a) God’s plan for marriage between a man and a woman is an essential part of God’s plans for humanity, (b) marriage between a man and a woman has many supremely important purposes in God’s spiritual plans. And (c) sexual relations among the same sex or even outside of marriage are explicitly condemned as sin. And the reason they are sin, it is made clear, is to defend the institution of marriage.

    The God of the Christian Bible is NOT against sex. God is FOR the essential soicial building block of marriage. The reason it is sin to have sex outside of marriage is specifically to protect the marriage relationship. God is not against sex. God is trying to encourage marriage and protect the marriage relationship.

    Most people are unaware of it. But the New Testament is explicitly clear that God has created marriage as a deep spiritual example and lesson of God’s relationship to people. That is hard to understand, especially with our ignoble attitudes in society. It is hard to even say that without hesitation. Yet that is what the New Testament explicitly says…. God created a picture of humans’ relationship with God.

    So it is a high priority of Satan to corrupt that pattern so that we will not be able to understand what God wants us to understand about God.

  5. Geezer on March 27, 2013 at 13:06 said: “Freedom of religion means you don’t get to dictate to others based on your God’s orders, because other people’s Gods don’t necessarily agree. ”

    That’s absolutely true. But freedom of religion means that others don’t get to dictate back in return based on rejecting God’s orders, either.

    So how do you have freedom of religion (and speech and association) without it degenerating into one group or view driving all others out?

    The best way is to keep the government out of it entirely. The smaller and more narrow and more limited the government, the easier it is for people to do their own thing. The more the government sticks its noise into everything, the more difficult it becomes for anyone but the majority to have freedom of religion or speech or association or anythign else.

    In terms of the debtae now, the only reasons that religion should play a role are: (1) the prupose of the push for homosexual marriage is *NOT* to gain anythign that homosexuals don’t currently have but to force society to abandon its religious and moral beliefs, and (2) the definition of marriage that has prevailed for thousands of years is firmly grounded in strong reasons. It would be a very different story if this were a new idea.

  6. Geezer on March 27, 2013 at 09:08 said : “You’re entitled to say it. And the rest of us are entitled to point out that you are excusing your bigotry by an appeal to authority that is not recognized by the government.”

    And if I want to express an opinion that you view as bigotry, I still have the right to say it, don’t I? Remember that the ACLU defended the Nazi’s right to march in Skokie, Illinois, on the grounds that if anyone can be censored than everyone can be censored.

    I am glad to hear you say that, just as I will freely acknowledge that homosexuals are free to do whatever they want, whether I approve of it or not.

    But you konw that (what you said) is not how it works out. RIght now, people are taking the word “Easter” out of social discourse because someone might be offended.

    I truly wish it were possible to offend no one. Especially for those whose feelings I have hurt, I strongly wish we all could get along in perfect harmony and never hurt anyone.

    But if that comes at the cost of depriving everyone of their freedoms, that isn’t the right way to go about it.

    In fact, I strongly believe that if we EXPECTED more strongly that everyone has differences of opinion IT WOULDN’T BOTHER US so much.

    If I say something you don’t agree with and I counter with an opposite opinion you don’t agree with, the result should be we both shrug our shoulders and think “SO WHAT?” It doesn’t (shouldn’t) bother me if Geezer doesn’t agree with me. Life will go on. Geezer and I hold opposite opinions. The world will keep turning.

    But the liberal attitude is that dissenting views cannot be tolerated. The New Left attitude demands uniformity and the eradication of all differences of opinion.

    So if my family’s old friends Bartis and Partington who lived next door to us wanted to call themselves married, and I want to say they are not, WHO CARES? The world will go on turning.

    But the gay marriage movement is all about DEMANDING that everyone else agree with the homosexual lifestyle, and stamp it with a Good Housekeeping seal of government approval.

    And the result will be to piss people off and create a backlash: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still,” as my Swedish Grandfather used to love to quote.

  7. We have not even gotten to the attack on Freedom of Religion that will be coming if they get a critical mass.We see the groundwork laid down with the attack on people who speak to churches that hold Biblical beliefs. We already see the attack on Democracy. The hearing on the vote in CA was absurd on its face. The High Court had to take it to overturn the absurdity. The DOMA case concerns me. The Court could have left that one alone.

  8. “But the gay marriage movement is all about DEMANDING that everyone else agree with the homosexual lifestyle, and stamp it with a Good Housekeeping seal of government approval.” – Moseley

    Why are you so fearful of the impossible ? The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval is issued by the Good Housekeeping Research Institute for household products, not the government for lifestyles.

  9. The freedom to practice one’s religion is not absolute. Parents who believe it’s sinful to provide medical care to their children have their children taken away and given medical care. People whose religious beliefs preclude their wearing clothes are not allowed to walk around freely. Religious beliefs that permit or require sex with minors is not allowed to do so on the basis of religious rights.

    Where there is potential or real harm to others in the practice of one’s religion, the law and the courts have not had to deal with a plethora of cases where the degree of harm is at the crux of the situation.

    Consider a situation where to the only grocery store in a town is owned by an ultra conservative Christian who refuses to serve anyone but Christians. A black, gay, couple with a toddler comes in to buy some baby food or pediatric cough syrup. Can the owner refuse service? Disregard whether it is the Christian thing to do (which of course it is not). Consider just the owner’s freedom to practice their religion. Freedom of religion has limits and those limits are generally where someone else is harmed by that freedom.

    In fact, all freedoms have limits, where there is a real or potential harm to others that occur because of the practice of that freedom. It is this absolutism that gets you in trouble. Binary thinking in a non-binary world will always create conflict.

  10. Most people are unaware of it. But the New Testament is explicitly clear that God has created marriage as a deep spiritual example and lesson of God’s relationship to people. That is hard to understand, especially with our ignoble attitudes in society.

    Seriously…. may as well just have two Capital Domes and raze Washington’s Monument at this point, given the “leadership” typical to Obama Inc.

    Agreement or disagreement aside, there’s a ridiculous lack of leadership these days.

    But attempting to raze the monument will only lead to a lack of balance, the rise of monuments to masculinity one last time… and then no monuments at all in the end. Just saying. Because if nothing else, the “illuminated” Founders knew what they were doing with respect to building a civilization. Many were great men, if not good men…

    It is hard to even say that without hesitation. Yet that is what the New Testament explicitly says…. God created a picture of humans’ relationship with God.

    You mean that people were created in the image of God? Imagine that.

    So it is a high priority of Satan to corrupt that pattern…

    But imagine things from the perspective of Lucifer the dark “light bearer” of God seeking to be the equal of the Light. Because then it would seem important to corrupt and degrade the image, yet ultimately imitate it too. It would all be a bit paradoxical, in an imaginary and mythological world of that sort that has nothing to do with reality.

    I was reading the writings of a transexual and they wrote, “I’m tired of being treated like an anagram for the apocalypse.” I know… seriously… but don’t expect it to stop anytime soon, as the show must go on. So let’s just focus on entertainment (Here we are now.) and let Lady Gaga (goo, goo) entertain us by dancing around the temple with Baphomet symbolism like some sort of heavenly hermaphrodite. It can never be a ritual or an initiation, if it’s entertaining.

    It turns out that Gaga can support people changing their sex, while others are totally born Gay©. Surprise. Funny how the endpoint of random brain events emerging from the void never seem to be headed toward upholding the singular nature of the marriage between male and female that gives birth to life and therefore everything else as we know it. (My own aren’t either…)

    Anyway… singularity incoming… and you too, can be an American idol and a famous star like Gaga© too! But there again, why would you want to be a star?

    Shrug. Maybe I’m being too cryptic.

  11. Dave on March 28, 2013 at 08:14 said:
    “The freedom to practice one’s religion is not absolute. Parents who believe it’s sinful to provide medical care to their children have their children taken away and given medical care.”

    Your statement is not absolute either. The Christian Science religion does not believe in modern medical care, they believe in prayer over the ill, so do many other religions. Their children are not taken away. Many religions do not believe in inoculations any child can attend a public school even if they have not been vaccinated PROVIDED the parents sign a waiver stating their decision is based on their religious beliefs. The First Amendment protects the rights of parents concerning their children’s medical care based on their religious beliefs. That is one of the basic tenants of separation of church and state.

  12. Dave on March 28, 2013 at 08:14 said: “The freedom to practice one’s religion is not absolute.”

    And yet you want to argue that concerns about a CHANGE to the law impacting religion are over-blown and should be disregarded. Your arguments are not reassuring.

    Dave on March 28, 2013 at 08:14 said: “Where there is potential or real harm to others in the practice of one’s religion, the law and the courts have not had to deal with a plethora of cases where the degree of harm is at the crux of the situation.”

    That depends on what you mean by “harm.”

    Because the whacky Left strenuously insists that hurt feelings are “harm.”

    If I want to say “Merry Christmas” or talk about the Easter Bunny, the Left is horrified that someone’s feelings might be hurt.

    Guess what? The probabilty of 100% of everyone on Earth’s feelings being hurt is 100%. THAT’S LIFE. That’s a shame. That is unfortunate. But living with people who have their own opinions and their own goals means that everyone will offend everyone else sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later.

    In other words: Join reality. Grow up. Liberals, meet the Real World.

    If someone says Happy Holidays, I am offended that they are disrespecting Christmas.

    If I say Merry Christmas, someone may be offened because… well. beats the hell out of me why, because if they don’t want to celebrate Christmas, they don’t have to. I am simply saying HAVE A GOOD TIME. Wow. That’s offensive. I should have wished them a miserable day???

    But someone is going to be offended.

    Anyone who is not being offended sometime about someone is in a casket 6 feet under.

    Yet liberals cannot figure that out.

    The task at hand is to work every day on GROWING UP and getting used to it, gaining maturity, and learning how to deal with the realities of life.

    But the Liberals believe that if I stand on a steet corner and preach what the Bible says about homosexuality, that htis is the kind of harm Dave suggests can be prohibited.

    So it is okay to take a pair of scissors and cut pages out of the Bible. NO HARM THERE, RIGHT?

    But if a homosexual discovers that there exists someone somewhere on the planet who doesn’t agree with them, RED ALERT! “EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!” (for fans of Dr. Who)

  13. “And yet you want to argue that concerns about a CHANGE to the law impacting religion are over-blown and should be disregarded.”

    Nope. Did not say that. Once again, I’ll ask you to point out where I’ve said that, which you can’t do because I did not. Will you ever learn to read what someone writes without reimagining what they wrote to suit your world view?

    I simply said, the freedom of religion, like other Article I freedoms are not absolute. You cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. The limits of that freedom come into play when what you do to exercise your freedoms, causes harm to others.

    Now you can argue about whether there is harm in the case of refusing service, but stop presuming I said something I did not. Instead try to argue the freaking merits of what of I said Just.This.One.Time. ok Jon?

  14. “you want to argue that concerns about a CHANGE to the law impacting religion are over-blown and should be disregarded.”

    The change to the law does not impact religion, yours or anyone else’s. “No harm, no foul” might not be the legal way to say it, but I am not aware of anyone showing harm to anyone’s actual marriage from allowing same-sex marriage.

  15. Geezer, while there is harm to marriage generally, and therefore every marriage individually, that was not my point.

    If it is ruled that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, THAT change in the law will justify censorship of churches and Christians who teach the Bible.

  16. “there is harm to marriage generally, and therefore every marriage individually”

    Show it then.

  17. “If it is ruled that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, THAT change in the law will justify censorship of churches and Christians who teach the Bible.”

    Censorship? In what regard? Any censorship of religious speech would violate two separate parts of the First Amendment.

  18. “THAT change in the law will justify censorship of churches and Christians who teach the Bible.”

    You could explain what you mean by “justify” such as whether you are referring to public reaction or state action and what kind of action. You could also explain what you mean by “censorship” Who will censor them? How will they be censored?

  19. ….but I am not aware of anyone showing harm to anyone’s actual marriage from allowing same-sex marriage.

    Where did that standard come from? Marriage was never sanctioned by the State because it’s harmless. There are many pattern of behavior that are harmless.

    In fact, the point to having marriage “licenses” in the first place was the idea that the State could promoted the general welfare in a rational or objective way, which is why licensing was advocated to prevent interracial couples from marrying…. which was consistent with what was thought of as a progressive and “scientific” eugenics movement later.

  20. Geezer on March 29, 2013 at 12:06 said: “Censorship? In what regard? Any censorship of religious speech would violate two separate parts of the First Amendment.”

    Liberals only recognize the first prong of the First Amendment, Free Speech clause.

    That was the whole point about when Christine O’Donnell wupped Chris Coons’ liberal socialist rear end, but most people were so unfamiliar with the US Constitution that they didn’t even recognize it.

    NOTICE:

    NOW, when trying to change the law and claim there won’t be an problem, a liberal acknowledges that there are two prongs to the Free Speech clause, including that there shall be no law restricitng the free exercise of religion.

    But once the change in the law goes through, the liberal will turn right around and argue the opposite and pretend the second prong doesn’t exist.

    Yes, censorship in EVERY form. I do understand that you don’t keep up on the news, Geezer. You might listen to local radio in Wilmington, but you aren’t up on what is going on around the world or around the country.

    But there is already censorship NOW, even right to our North in Canada.

    If the Left is trying to call it a hate crime NOW to preach the Bible, of course it will get worse if the US Supreme Court calls homosexual marriage a constitutional right.

    Dave on March 29, 2013 at 12:15 said: “You could explain what you mean by “justify” such as whether you are referring to public reaction or state action and what kind of action.”

    ALL of the above.

    Dave further writes: “You could also explain what you mean by “censorship” Who will censor them? How will they be censored?”

    Dave, EVEN NOW, wedding photographers have been sued for refusing to cover a gay wedding based on their religious convictions.

    In EVERY sense they will be censored by both government and others.

    RIght now, Christian radio cannot broadcast into Canada without avoiding certain parts of the Bible, or come up on charges by the government of Canada for hate speech against homosexuals.

    I am sorry if you are way, way, way behind the times, yet while you scoff, I am laughing at you for being so uninformed (while trying to posture as being more informed).

    I keep telling you: Gay marriage has nothign to do with rights for homosexuals but with forcing society to approve of them, backed up by government force.

  21. The limits of that freedom come into play when what you do to exercise your freedoms, causes harm to others.

    You may be underestimating the ability of effeminate men and others to organize and go around and flop down on the floor to cry about how they are being “harmed” in order to gain control and power over others. The need for control that people insecure in their identities often have isn’t simply going to go away if they get civil laws about inheritance and so on changed. It’s not as if they have the same psychological dynamics as polygamists who usually tend to go off to their own compounds and so on without going around trying to reorient all of society (and the world) around their desires and orientation. (Although once the precedent is set, other people are going to get in on the act too… it’s almost too bad that the theatrical production of it all and the marketing is probably bound to have lower production values though. Polygamists…. they’ll probably have to hire marketing consultants.)

    You seem to be acting like perceptions are not reality or that “harm” is supposedly objective these days. But it’s a world where the Boy Scouts can be framed as essentially beating people to death and having blood run in the streets if they try to uphold an ideal of being “morally straight” to boys and young men. Meanwhile, back in reality… perceptions are reality(???)… so let’s not play pretend that “harm” is the standard for the law these days when it’s the perception of it that matters. If some sort of objective form of harm was the standard then men who have sex with men probably would have been quarantined when the HIV epidemic began due to hysteria caused by the mainstream media sensationalizing it.. instead of being protected from “harm” by the mainstream media while others suffered and died.

  22. “RIght now, Christian radio cannot broadcast into Canada without avoiding certain parts of the Bible, or come up on charges by the government of Canada for hate speech against homosexuals.”

    Last time I checked Canada and the United States are different countries. Though considering that you still support the moronic decision to spend over half a decade in Iraq you probably have some brilliant argument drawn up as to why we should start a holy war with Canada.

  23. “I keep telling you: Gay marriage has nothign to do with rights for homosexuals but with forcing society to approve of them, backed up by government force.”

    So you’re fine with Homosexuals entering Civil Unions with the same financial and legal benefits as a anybody else? Awesome!

  24. Falcor on March 29, 2013 at 17:53 said: “So you’re fine with Homosexuals entering Civil Unions with the same financial and legal benefits as a anybody else? Awesome!”

    Homosexuals have had the same financial and legal benefits as anybody else for decades.

  25. Taking it from the top for Jon’s benefit.

    You said ““If it is ruled that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, THAT change in the law will justify censorship of churches and Christians who teach the Bible.”

    I said “You could also explain what you mean by “censorship” Who will censor them? How will they be censored?”

    You said “Dave, EVEN NOW, wedding photographers have been sued for refusing to cover a gay wedding based on their religious convictions.”

    I leave it to others to figure out what’s wrong with that exchange. But seriously Jon, there is some disconnect in your thought processes. I wonder if it might be that you are in too much of hurry to respond or perhaps you don’t read what you actually write/said. It’s not a one of because honestly you consistently do this. It’s as if every comment you make is brand new thought completely disconnected from any previous thought/comment you made.

    Of course if you are aware of wedding photographers who teach the bible, then I’ll stand corrected but it still doesn’t explain how so-called censorship of wedding photographers constitutes censorship of a church.

  26. “Homosexuals have had the same financial and legal benefits as anybody else for decades.”

    Really? So they could serve openly in the military?

    Can they file joint tax returns? Do they have the same benefits in terms of decision making power when one of the members of the couple is medically incapacitated?

    No. No.

    No. No.

  27. It is many times less beneficial to file a joint return except that married filing separate really penalizes you. Look at the marriage penalty for high income earners under the Obama tax hike. Look at the fact that Single and head of household is better than married. for middle and lower income. You wonder why they don’t flock to marry where they can? It is because the supposed gravy train is not there.

  28. Falcor on March 29, 2013 at 18:36 said: [quoting me] ““Homosexuals have had the same financial and legal benefits as anybody else for decades.”

    FALCOR: Really? So they could serve openly in the military?

    They can serve in the military, but they need to be doing their job. If they are openly sexual, heterosexual or homosexual, no, they should be kicked out for conduct unbecoming.

    REMEMBER “TAILHOOK” FALCOR? Those were heterosexual men being openly heterosexual.

    It was a scandal for men in the military to be “OPENLY” heterosexual at a convention of off-duty military.

    When you are in the military you are there to be in the military, not to have orgies or broadcast your sexuality.

    Tailhook was off the job.

    REMEMBER the Secret Service having sex parties with prostitutes? They were heterosexual. But when you are doing something as important as protecting the President, you don’t get to be “OPENLY” heterosexual or homosexual. You have a job to do.

    So if you want to be “openly” homosexual or “openly” heterosexual, get a job on Wall Street or business.

    FALCOR: Can they file joint tax returns?

    Why would they want to? They would pay MORE taxes if they do.

    But if they really want to, they can form a legal partnership. But why would they want to?

    FALCOR: Do they have the same benefits in terms of decision making power when one of the members of the couple is medically incapacitated?

    HELL, YEAH! I have the documents right here in my computer that will allow you to appoint ANYONE, family or not, to cover every possible contingency.

    The fact that this falsehood keeps getting passed around is amazing.

    I can appoint anyone to have those powers, in about 5 minutes of filling out some paperwork, and visiting a Notary Public and getting 2 witnesses.

    A family member DOES NOT automatically have those rights. You still have to document those issues.

    FALCOR, suppose you are in the hospital. I don’t know your sex but let me guess male.

    So a woman shows up and claims to be your wife.

    How does the hospital know that she actually is your wife? They don’t.

    So even if you are married, unless your wife carries your marriage certificate around in her purse, being marreid DOES NOT give her any automatic rights with regard to medical care.

    Heterosexual married couples STILL need to get a durable power of attorney and advanced medical directive.

    When my mother had a massive stroke, we followed her instructions to avoid being in a persistent vegetative state because she had executed all the proper paperwork, NOT because my father was her husband.

    So let’s imagine that Adam West and Steve South are married as a gay couple.

    Adam West falls off a building.

    Steve South shows up at the hospital and CLAIMS to be his spouse.

    Will the hospital allow Steve South access to Adam West’s hospital room and medical records? HELL NO!

    There are strict privacy laws called HPPA.

    The hospital has no way of knowing if Adam West is married to Steve South or not.

  29. Jon said “If it is ruled that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, THAT change in the law will justify censorship of churches and Christians who teach the Bible.”

    And still has not explained how they will be censored or even by whom.

  30. Because, Dave, it need not be explained what is plastered all over the place. The fact that you willfully cover your eyes does not impose upon me an obligation to educate someone who refuses to listen. You can drag a horse to water, but you cannot make him think.

    If gay marriage and/or homosexuality in general is a CIVIL RIGHT, then it will be argued that a CVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION to chill or discourage it or speak out against gays.

    You know this. We all know this. To question it is absolutely preposterous. You would have had to be living under a rock or on another planet not to know it.

    But you PRETEND not to know it because truth, facts, and logic have nothing to do with your poltiics.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-preacher-censored-for-discrimination-back-on-air/

    Canadian preacher censored for ‘discrimination’ back on air
    TORONTO, Ontario, June 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A prominent Canadian evangelical minister is back on TV after having his show dropped in December 2010 after industry watchdogs targeted his show for what they said was discrimination against homosexuals.

    “After being attacked by big government censors for speaking the truth and removed from TV, we are back,” said Dr. Charles McVety, former host of Word TV and new host of The Canadian Times, in a press release last week.

    McVety’s show Word TV was forced off the air after the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council (CBSC) rebuked the preacher for claiming that the homosexual movement was driven by a “conspiratorial” agenda, suggesting homosexuals prey on children, and labeling the annual Pride events “sex parades”.

    McVety believes that Crossroads Television System, which carried his program, was pressured by the CBSC to cancel his show for his preaching against what he called “the radical sex agenda of the elites,” according to the press release.

    A CBSC panel ruled at the time that McVety was “utterly wrong” to claim that Ontario’s failed sex-ed curriculum, which was pulled in April 2010 after outcry from parents, was meant to “teach” homosexuality. The panel pointed out that the “proposed curricular revisions are intended to teach tolerance.”

  31. You say that is Canada. EXACTLY. The quesiton on the table is should we or should we not follow suit?

  32. The church teachings tell us homosexuality is wrong and an abomination of G_D. If the government passes a Constitutional law allowing same sex marriages it infers the teachings of G_D are incorrect. With that being said there are a number of people including myself who’s personal belief is anyone should be able to marry who these choose. Making it law no longer makes it a matter of personal acceptance, (despite our religious teachings) but that we MUST accept same sex marriage because it IS law.

  33. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/7849
    [NEW BOOK]
    Uncensored: European ‘hate speech’ laws exposed
    Alliance Defending Freedom attorney publishes new book revealing dangers of criminalizing speech
    Friday, December 14, 2012

    Pastors are being arrested for preaching sermons from the Bible, journalists have been routinely fined, and even private conversations between citizens have resulted in criminal investigations. The state continues to censor speech it considers ‘dangerous.’ In Censored: How European ‘Hate Speech’ Laws are Threatening Freedom of Speech, I have sought to challenge such laws by arguing that criminalizing speech is intolerant and dangerous and leads to a culture of censorship anywhere such laws are adopted.”

    (click on link to read more)

  34. Obviously, for the “Can’t happen here” Pollyannas, the question on the table is should we follow European socialism’s example?

    Christine O’Donnell once said on national television that if we have our head in the sand another part of our body is sticking up in the air.

    http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/05/christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin/

    NOW, DAVE, YOU KNEW ALL THAT ALREADY, DIDN’T YOU?

    WHY IS THAT YOU KEEP PRETENDING YOU DON’T KNOW THINGS THAT WE ALL KNOW TO BE TRUE?

  35. In the United States, brought to you by Concerned Women for America, where Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell was the Press Secretary:

    The school also discriminated in limiting members of the panel to religious leaders who endorsed homosexuality, refusing to permit access to the panel for any clergy who would express another view.

    a high school’s refusal to let a Christian student express her views on homosexuality.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1253363/posts

    Panel discussion bans traditional Biblical viewpoint on homosexuality.

    A federal district judge has ordered Michigan’s Ann Arbor Public Schools to pay $102,738 in attorney fees and costs in a case involving a high school’s refusal to let a Christian student express her views on homosexuality.

    In March 2002, at Pioneer High School’s “Diversity Week” program, Elizabeth “Betsy” Hansen, then a senior, was told she could not express her Roman Catholic viewpoint at the school’s “Homosexuality and Religion” panel discussion. The school also discriminated in limiting members of the panel to religious leaders who endorsed homosexuality, refusing to permit access to the panel for any clergy who would express another view.

  36. The culture matters. We are not a some special people that can defy reality. What makes us special is our culture of goodness, liberty, human rights, work ethic, morality diversity, justice, and faith.

  37. Geezer on March 30, 2013 at 11:49 said: “Your example indicates clearly that it won’t happen here: The court found AGAINST the censors, not for them.”

    Yes, in only that one example.

    But we are now talking about CHANGING the law at the Constitutional level.

    That particular incident shows that officials in the USA WILL TRY to censor the preaching of the Bible in what it says about homosexuality. They already have tried — even before any recognition of a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. What do you think will happen if the US Supreme Court declares taht fake marriage between homosexuals is a civil right?

  38. Sorry Dave, what you state in your post is nothing more than a list of what you believe. That is fine. But I should not be required to believe the same beliefs as you. And that is where you err. Your list is perfect for a wayward Conservative’s self improvement plan. It is horrible for a society.

    The problem with Conservatives is that they can’t get around this basic problem. They are weird. There are fewer and fewer of them each day. They are what we call shallow preachers. Preaching, and preaching, and preaching; yet delivering nothing.

    Democrats deliver. They give help to women. They give help to gun victims. They give help to oppressed minorities. They give help to people being forced to work below their worth…. They give help to big business. They give help to little business. And Democrats rarely preach. They are too busy making changes to better American’s lives…. And Democrats are like the real America. Not those who isolate themselves from reality, hiding in their storm shelters, preaching gloom and doom.

    Throughout history , there will always be people who stand up and declare they believe in the old ways of what they always did, and despite all overwhelming evidence, they will continue. We call them fools because of their insolence yet we recognize they have the right to continue to do so.

    As for your speech, it describes only your beliefs. The country has moved on, seeing conservative ideas don’t work.

    Your vision is broken. The rest of us want no part of it.

  39. kavips on March 30, 2013 at 23:18 said: “Democrats deliver.”

    No, they don’t. The groups that depend upon Democrats never improve and are suffering disastrous cricumstances. Look at the cities run by Democrats. Look at Detroit.

    If what is done by Democrats to the American people were doine by a foreign country we would call it an act of war.

    kavips on March 30, 2013 at 23:18 said: ” They give help to women.”

    No, they don’t. Their only hope to a woman in the risk of rape, for example, is well, you can have an abortion after you are brutally raped, if you are still alive.

    kavips on March 30, 2013 at 23:18 said: ” They give help to gun victims.”

    No, they don’t. Their policies will do absolutely nothing for gun victims before or arfter.

    kavips on March 30, 2013 at 23:18 said: ” They give help to oppressed “minorities.”

    They most certainly do not. Republican policies help them achieve scuceess in life. Look at Dr. Ben Carson, Herman Cain, and and on on. The only successes in teh Black community are those who reject liberalism.

    Under Democrat governance, minorities STAY oppressed.

    HOW are any minoriites oppressed in America today?

    ONLY by Democrat policies.

  40. kavips on March 30, 2013 at 23:18 said: “And Democrats rarely preach”

    Democrats do nothing but preach. Preaching is all Democrats do. What do you call the Democrat National Convention last year? It was all about social issues and all about preaching.

    However, Kavips, you do show us the kind of passionate defense of your (false) beliefs that conservatives are failing to offer with regard to our (true) beliefs.

  41. The left is bent on using the government to remake society. When you say stop, they act like you are the one trying to change things. They are a little warped in their perspective.

  42. “The left is bent on using the government to remake society. When you say stop, they act like you are the one trying to change things.”

    Nice try. Tell me, in what way has gay marriage in the states that allow it weakened your traditional marriage? How has it “remade society”?

  43. http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2013/04/01/university-compares-prolife-students-to-white-supremacists-n1554389/page/full/

    the senator wrote. “I understand people’s right to freedom of speech, but this is a private university, and as such, we have the right to protect our students from things that are uncomfortable.”

    The Student Government Association at Johns Hopkins University compared pro-life students to white supremacists and denied them official club status at the school.

    “They were denied status because the students on the student council felt being pro-life violates their harassment policy,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America.

    Hawkins told Fox News the student group, called Voice for Life, is searching for an attorney and they plan on fighting the ban.

    The SGA at Johns Hopkins voted March 12 to deny Voice for Life the right to become an official student club. That vote was affirmed on March 24 by the SGA’s senate.

    SGA representatives did not return calls seeking comment.

    “We were pretty shocked when the students showed their bias toward the pro-life students,” Hawkins said.

    According to emails obtained by Fox News, members of the SGA compared the pro-life students to white supremacists.

    “And this is why we don’t approve groups like Voice for Life,” one SGA member wrote, linking to an article about a white supremacist group at Towson University.

    Hawkins said the comparison was particularly offensive to African-American members of the pro-life group.

    “To compare pro-lifers with white supremacists – it’s unreal,” she said.

    Another SGA member said they objected to pro-life displays at Johns Hopkins, saying she “felt personally violated, targeted and attacked at a place where we previously felt safe and free to live our lives.”

    An SGA senator said “we have the right to protect our students from things that are uncomfortable. Why should people have to defend their beliefs on their way to class?”
    Andrew Guernsey, a student at Johns Hopkins and president of Voice for Life, said they simply want to exercise their right to free speech and association.

    “It is inconsistent with the JHU’s motto ‘The Truth Will Set You Free’ for the SGA to try to hide its students – many future doctors and nurses – from the truth about abortion and how it hurts women, families and most of all, innocent preborn babies,” he said.

    Dave and Geezer will now, of course, admit they were wrong. You think?

Comments are closed.