Join the FaceBook Group
In posting this today, I have found that Cesar Chavez was not a radical’s radical. But much like history, the left warps people and event to fit their ideology. Obviously, however, he is not a match for the Holiday today. For instance, he agreed that the La Raza movement was racist and spoke out against it:
… while reading a memoir/history of the immigration-reform movement by retired historian Otis Graham… I find out that even Cesar Chavez rejected the “la raza” idea as inherently racist. Graham quoted a 1969 New Yorker profile by Peter Matthiessen:
“I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know,” Chavez told me. “Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ’la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there. Today it’s anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro, and the day after it will be anti-Filipino, anti-Puerto Rican. And then it will be anti-poor-Mexican, and anti-darker-skinned Mexican. … La raza is a very dangerous concept. I speak very strongly against it among the chicanos.”
And in Sal Si Puedes: Cesar Chavez and the New American Revolution, his 1970 biography, Matthiessen talked to Chavez deputy Leroy Chatfield:
“That’s one of the reasons he is so upset about la raza. The same Mexicans that ten years ago were talking about themselves as Spaniards are coming on real strong these days as Mexicans. Everyone should be proud of what they are, of course, but race is only skin-deep. It’s phony and it comes out of frustration; the la raza people are not secure. They look upon Cesar as their ‘dumb Mexican’ leader; he’s become their saint. But he doesn’t want any part of it. He said to me just the other day, ‘Can’t they understand that that’s just the way Hitler started?’ A few months ago the Ford Foundation funded a la raza group and Cesar really told them off. The foundation liked the outfit’s sense of pride or something, and Cesar tried to explain to them what the origin of the word was, that it’s related to Hitler’s concept.”
In other words, Cesar Chavez would have agreed that the Democrats keynote speaker (2012 DNC), Julian Castros, was a racist and would — I assume — speak out against this! FrontPage Magazine as well talks about Chavez’s faith and his views that were opposite of modern liberalism/the Democrat Party:
…. But Chavez’s faith, more than his ethnicity or his labor affiliations, informed his activism. Inspired by Christ’s example, Chavez became famous through fasting (and through boycotts of grapes). He held religious masses at the California state capitol in Sacramento. He even once used his union connections to keep a plane grounded so that he could make his flight to see the pope. Chavez told his biographer in the mid 1970s that “my need for religion has deepened. Today I don’t think that I could base my will to struggle on cold economics or on some political doctrine. I don’t think there would be enough to sustain me. For me the base must be faith.”
Fittingly, UFW’s headquarters bears a religious name. The president referred to Chavez’s Central Valley sanctuary as “La Paz.” Its full name is Nuestra Señora Reina de La Paz—Our Lady Queen of Peace. In making a national monument of a religious retreat named in honor of Jesus’s mother, the president risks irritating one constituency as he courts another. Surely the American Civil Liberties Union can’t be thrilled with a mystical Catholic, and his outpost named for Mary, receiving official recognition from the U.S. government.
Alas, there is an election to win. Disrupting the president’s fragile coalition over principles normally fiercely fought for on matters as unobtrusive as nondenominational graduation prayers and Christmastime nativity scenes just won’t do when it comes to nationalizing a religious leader’s religious retreat named for a religious saint. Here, activists, normally incapable of looking the other way, mute their objections.
“Cesar feels that liberals are liberal right up to the steps of the Catholic church,” explained Dorothy Huerta, co-founder of the UFW, during Chavez’s ’70s heyday. “Guys can be liberal about homosexuality, about dope, about capital punishment, about everything but the Catholic church. There the liberalism ends.”
However, I doubt Google knows this about Chavez, and buys into the Huffington Post or modern liberal interpretation of Chavez, like they do the Vietnam War (the Cold War), Reagan’s time in office, and the like.
In order to understand the differing views between Google and Bing, one has to realize that because religion is less practiced on the left, something has to take its place:
You cannot understand the Left if you do not understand that leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some left-wing Christians’ and Jews’ claims notwithstanding), but otherwise it has every characteristic of a religion. The most blatant of those characteristics is dogma. People who believe in leftism have as many dogmas as the most fundamentalist Christian.
One of them is material equality as the preeminent moral goal. Another is the villainy of corporations. The bigger the corporation, the greater the villainy. Thus, instead of the devil, the Left has Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, the “military-industrial complex,” and the like. Meanwhile, Big Labor, Big Trial Lawyers, and — of course — Big Government are left-wing angels.
And why is that? Why, to be specific, does the Left fear big corporations but not big government?
The answer is dogma — a belief system that transcends reason. No rational person can deny that big governments have caused almost all the great evils of the last century, arguably the bloodiest in history. Who killed the 20 to 30 million Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago — big government or big business? Hint: There were no private businesses in the Soviet Union. Who deliberately caused 75 million Chinese to starve to death — big government or big business? Hint: See previous hint. Did Coca-Cola kill 5 million Ukrainians? Did Big Oil slaughter a quarter of the Cambodian population? Would there have been a Holocaust without the huge Nazi state?
Whatever bad things big corporations have done is dwarfed by the monstrous crimes — the mass enslavement of people, the deprivation of the most basic human rights, not to mention the mass murder and torture and genocide — committed by big governments.
How can anyone who thinks rationally believe that big corporations rather than big governments pose the greatest threat to humanity? The answer is that it takes a mind distorted by leftist dogma. If there is another explanation, I do not know what it is.
See more ~
Professor Craig Hazen answers the question, “Is it reasonable to believe that Christianity is the only way?” at the Thrive Apologetics Conference, held at Bayside Church in Granite Bay, California.
Craig J. Hazen is the editor of the philosophy journal, Philosophia Christi. He is also the author of the monograph The Village Enlightenment in America, the acclaimed apologetics novel Five Sacred Crossings, and dozens of articles and chapters in various books and journals. He is a recipient of the Fischer Award, the highest faculty honor at Biola and has lectured across North America and Europe on key apologetics topics—including lectures on Capitol Hill and in the White House. He is a popular church and conference speaker and former co-host of a national radio talk program. He holds a PhD and MA from the University of California, Santa Barbara.
This conference was sponsored by Thriving Churches International (TCI). Ray Johnston, the President of TCI, is also the Senior Pastor of Bayside Church. You can learn more about us by visiting our website at www.ThriveConference.org.
As The Blaze points out, “Killing two birds with one stone, YouTube prankster Stuart Edge came up with an amazing magic trick that also ‘required’ college girls to kiss him.”
The same arguments that same-sex marriage advocates use here in the States were used in Canada to argue for polygamy. Using this same criteria, “love,” why couldn’t sisters be married? Brothers? Brothers and sisters? Three people? Doesn’t a number (one-man-and-one-man) seem an arbitrary thing to argue if it isn’t one-man-and-one-woman? You see, if you leave the wise counsel of all of human history, you end up with illiberal egalitarianism. Notice what’s missing? That’s because to say a child is better off with a mother-and-father is now a form of bigotry (http://youtu.be/
In all my discussions with people about the “hot-button issue” of today, same-sex-marriage, I see a theme. And that is, bias. Not an admitted bias, or a healthy bias, one flirting with fascism. “FASCISM! How can you say that Papa Giorgio!?” Easy, a position is taken not on the reasonableness of the argument taken, but by painting the other side as bigoted, in a sense, evil, one wields power (through legislation) over a person who disagrees with such a proposition:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.” ~ Mussolini
Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
(Moving on) I came across a great short post to start out my example of an actual discussion where I and others on my Facebook (gay or straight) are painted as bigots if they disagree with the liberal-progressive view of the debate. Here it is, and it comes from Kevin Halloran’s site:
The stubbornness of the other side can also be exemplified in a conversation with two young people “A Tale of Two Conversations w/Younger Persons On FaceBook.”
In this conversation, I tried to give examples, explain, analogize, and the like. Finally I just had to point out that the person involved was acting like a child in name-calling. I will post the two conversations going on with the same person, separately. Two separate issues engendered conversation via a linked article posted to my Facebook wall, “Gay Marriage Is the Media’s Vehicle, Destination Is to Destroy the Church.” I will post the shorter of the two conversations so one can get a feel for what I am dealing with.
The first subject challenged from within the article dealt with this sentence:
If anyone wants to argue that the same government currently forcing religious institutions to purchase the abortion pill through ObamaCare will not eventually use civil rights violations in order to attempt to force the Church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies — good luck with that. (emphasized)
Here is her first challenge:
What’s an abortion pill? The morning after pill is not an abortion pill- don’t be ignorant.
“Also known as mifepristone, mifeprex, RU486, or medication abortion, the abortion pill is an FDA-approved medication which results in abortion. In most cases, the abortion pill ends pregnancy safely and privately in the comfort of your own home…. Mifepristone, taken orally, blocks the action of the pregnancy hormone progesterone. This causes the pregnancy to detach from the uterine wall and stop growing. Misoprostol, a prostaglandin medication, is also used to cause uterine cramps which expel blood and the pregnancy tissue from the uterus.”
I will repeat: “…the abortion pill ends pregnancy…. This causes the pregnancy to detach from the uterine wall and stop growing.” It is the ending a boy/girls life during a stage of their growth.
The morning after pill is not an abortion- that is ridiculous
I quoted a medical website Deb in regards to RU486. It ends, in the beginning stages what is — IS — a viable human life.
Completely untrue- the medical site is not legitimate.
At this point I went to the makers website and grabbed from their “facts” section the following (again, directly from their website):
From Mifeprex’s own website Deb:
Q: Is Mifeprex used to prevent pregnancy?
A: No. Mifeprex is used to end an early pregnancy. It is not indicated for use to prevent pregnancy. Emergency contraception drugs are indicated to prevent pregnancy.
Q: At what point during pregnancy is Mifeprex approved for use?
A: Mifeprex is FDA-approved for ending early pregnancy. Early pregnancy means it is 49 days (7 weeks) or less since your last menstrual period began.
Okay, she didn’t respond after that. Maybe the corner seemed too tight, because she came out swinging on another issue. She basically used a tactic very popular on the Left nowadays. That is, paint your opposition as evil, or as Prager would say in his acronym: S.I.X.H.I.R.B. “Bigot” is the “B” in that acronym, in case you were wondering.
Here we go:
Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different
…just my opinion.
To be clear, she just equalized the belief in the traditional definition of marriage with prejudice and racism. (Moral equivalency is the track record of the Left.) Thus, the person removes the need to deal with a response. I mean, who would want to argue with a racist and a bigot? This has caused a laziness in the liberal community and interferes with the intellectual growth and learning curve. In fact, a liberal professor says this hurts the youth he see’s going through his class. Yet, this same harmful egalitarian name-calling is what is the bulwark of the Democrat Party.
Continuing with my response:
(Topic change. Like when I answer the challenge about the Bible not being changed over a 2,000 year period, and instead of camping out and seeing if their own challenge was correct… the skeptic will bring up how a good god could exists if there is so much evil around. Never doing the hard work of regulating their thinking to see if it comports to truth.)
Deb, you are using a non-sequitur argument (“an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises”). It is fallacious thinking, and whether it is your opinion or not has no bearing on the sloppy logic involved. In other words, your personal truth is incoherent.
Being black/white/asian/etc is immutable. A black man cannot cease being a black man, his characteristic is unchangeable, and thus fit under the 14th amendment. People change their sexual preference all the time, there are many cases of gays and persons who even have gone all the way through a sex change that deal with their core issues and renounce being gay, or the opposite gender. In other words it is a mutable characteristic.
The other point is that there is scientific differences between the genders (male/female). There is not between a male black man and a male white man….
The argument, repeated so often that it sounds incontestable, is this: Just as parts of American society once had immoral laws that forbade whites and blacks from marrying, so, today, society continues to have immoral laws forbidding men from marrying men and women from marrying women. And just as decent people overthrew the former, decent people must overthrow the latter.
But the equation is false.
First, there is no comparison between sex and race.
There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational;
On the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.
The second reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage — not Judaism, not Christianity, not Judeo-Christian values, not deism, not humanism, not the Enlightenment. Yes, there were religious and secular individuals who opposed interracial marriage, but by opposing interracial marriage, they were advocating something against all Judeo-Christian and secular norms, all of which saw nothing wrong in members of different races intermarrying (members of different religions was a different matter).
On the other hand, no religious or secular moral system ever advocated same-sex marriage.
But as objectionable as hubris is, false comparisons are worse. And there is no comparison between different races and the different genders. There are no inherent racial differences; there are significant differences between the sexes. To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man’s nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man.
The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another. We now know that even their brains differ. And those differences are significant. Thus, to oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us — society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called “marriage.”
Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is ultimately a way of declaring the moral superiority of proponents of same-sex marriage to proponents of keeping marriage defined as man-woman. And it is a way of avoiding hard issues such as whether we really want all children to grow up thinking it doesn’t matter if they marry a boy or a girl and whether we really want to abolish forever the ideal of husband-wife based family.
Geez- how great your opinions are and your quotes- you must be right? And those religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.
Hours before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Tuesday over California’s ban on gay marriage, hundreds of same-sex marriage supporters will gather a block away from the courthouse at an interfaith church service to ask for God’s “love and justice” and to pray for “the dignity of all souls as a religious value,” according to organizers. Afterwards, the coalition of Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons and Buddhists, among other religious and secular representatives, will march to the courthouse steps to rally in support of gay marriage, with thousands of attendees expected.
Again, I want to point out what Deb is saying. The logical conclusion of her above statement is essentially this: “religious people believe in same-sex marriage, therefore, either you are saying they cannot be religious [true Buddhists, true Christians, etc], or religion and same-sex marriage are not in conflict.” She has accused me, essentially, of judging whether someone is (of my faith) is saved or not. Truly religious or not. I have never said such a thing in this or previous conversations. Although, I can show the inherent self-refuting aspect of non-Christian religions. But that is neither here-nor-there. We continue:
I know religious gay people Deb? That has nothing to do with the conversation? What does a gay man or woman being a Christian have to do with anything? Please, answer this statement you made, that is — AGAIN — a non sequitur: “…religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”
How does the argument you made follow from the premise? Do you think that changing law and culture of all mankind and religious faith is followed from such an argument? An argument that is fallacious and emotionally rooted? Painting those who do not agree as calling others inauthentic? You really should spend a few minutes and listen to this whole 16-minutes. I mean listen — don’t verbalize out loud, walk away, etc. Sit down and listen, for 16-minutes: http://youtu.be/kDh4gZ2yaMg
You are saying if one is religious and supports something, then they must be authentic and what they support must be healthy for society. Have you connected the dots yet that this tact you use, like this from a previous conversation, “don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one,” is merely an emotional plea. “Religious” folk yell “God hates fags!!!!” ~ because they are “religious” they must also base their conclusions on the sound understanding of Scripture? Right? Your reasons that you have intimated as to how you vote are a great marker to how most vote:
“don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one,”
“don’t believe in slavery, don’t own one”
This does nothing to deal with the baby being human or not.
You seem to be saying that because religious people support SSM, it is therefore (ergo; walla; alakazam) good for society to put its stamp of approval on. So I can say, USING YOU LOGIC DEB, that,
“Because religious people smoke, society should accept it as a healthy lifestyle.” People who disagree with you you would deride thusly: “…religious folks who believe and support smoking?? They must not be real religious people.”
(Argumentum ad passiones: is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.) Do you see Deb? I am asking you a serious question right now. “Do you see how your appeal to emotion is not an argument at all?” It makes no sense. So when the media talks about “low-information voters” ~ well.
I expect you to be an adult and answer AT LEAST that last question Deb. At some point in one’s life, hiding behind the facade of adulthood doesn’t protect one from dealing with real, important, issues… and how one comes to conclusions and changes society with those resources. Jusssst mayybee… this is a clarion call for you to become serious with that thing rattling around up there. Move to “stage two thinking” in other words. Put down the romance or mystery novels, and pick up a book. This is class time here on my FB.
And for those reading this exchange, a good person can be against SSM: “Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage” (http://tinyurl.com/c7asq6u)
…. The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be; what Professor Thomas Sowell calls “Stage One Thinking.” That explains, for example, the entitlement state. It sounds noble and seems noble. But the long-term consequences are terrible: economic ruin, a demoralized population, increasing selfishness as people look to the state to take care of their fellow citizens, and more.
By redefining marriage to include same sex couples we are playing with sexual and societal fire. Just as the entitlement state passes on the cost of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren – unsustainable dependency and debt — so, too, same-sex marriage will pass along the consequences of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren – gender confusion and the loss of motherhood and fatherhood as values, just to cite two obvious consequences.
It is not enough to mean well in life. One must also do well. And the two are frequently not the same thing.
There are reasons no moral thinker in history ever advocated same-sex marriage.
Shaun [she misspells my name] – your comments and attitude are a bit rude and bully like- in my opinion. You are pushing me further away. Maybe it is just your superior brain? Lol
Deb, your arguments you make, here, are arguments that are fallacious. You chase yourself away.
Have you never…
… had your ideas challenged in a cogent way before? Do you think persons that understand proper thinking, argumentation internalize their hearing you talk about important topics in the manner you do and wag their head? You came here and expressed yourself, I cannot explain how this expression is incoherent? Would you just stop saying such loosey-goosey things here and continue to make them (non-sequitur/argumentum ad passiones) elsewhere to others. Maybe even in public? You should take the above as an opportunity to hone your arguments… or continue in non-thought/incoherence.
If being shown how your arguments are fallacious, and this angers you, I cannot help you in this. The onus is on you in how you respond or take correction. Taking correction well in our relativistic society is tough, granted. I applaud you for wading into my FB, but when you do come here ~ good, rational, linear thinking is often required… especially for changing the meaning of something for the first time in mankind’s history, and thinking there will be no societal consequences.
So you are saying correction to bad arguments chases you away? Making incoherent statements brings you closer?
I don’t want an argument… I would enjoy a discussion maybe that’s the difference
You have to make points in a discussion that are coherent. You are making statements that make no sense… literally? You are tugging on peoples heart strings without engaging their mind. People should vote with the later by-the-by. Too many people vote with their emotions.
You accused me (and others) of something, but you didn’t catch it apparently. Which is fine, when you talk in the language of post-modern thought, many do not realize what they are logically concluding. Maybe you can tell me what the logical conclusion of YOU (@Deb) were telling people (really, half of the United States citizens) they believe — tell me, please:
⚑ “Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different…. religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”
Please explain why I am being — how did you put it — rude and bully like — and you are not?
In other words, a discussion to you is calling me and other readers here “bigots,” and impugning the character of religious gays by creating straw-man arguments of what I (we) say/mean? And when I politely point this out by not pointing out how you name call and use “cards” (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ S.I.X.H.I.R.B.), you are being chased away?
Deb? Can you see how you are encapsulating discussion wrongly? You can answer with a simple “yes” or “no.”
So, Deb, calling me a bigot, and saying Jesus, Moses, Buddha, and other major world religious founders, texts, great moral thinkers are ALL bigots… is NOT rude. But me pointing out that in those statements are things learned your first semester in philosophy (how to think properly) at any university (non-sequiturs, straw-men, and argument from emotion) is rude and borderline bullying?! What a crazy world we live in. Talk about elitist thinking.
Take note as well that Deb is calling Tammy Bruce (a lesbian), Paul Nathanson (a gay man), and someone like Walt Heyer (a man who was surgically changed into a woman [mutilated], and now lives as a man again) bigots as well. Oh the twisted thinking involved in the left. (*Dramatic back of hand to the forehead pose*)
Maybe they (the gays mentioned above) just don’t know better and they need people like Deb and other elitist thinking progressives to change their mind for them… not with sound argumentation and linear thinking… just by calling them names. And painting them as bullies if they disagree.
Can you believe this?
What came to mind next is all the leftist clap-trap that Republicans are creating an atmosphere of dissent and polarization, which is my next point in the conversation:
In case you didn’t know Deeez, it is Republicans polarizing and dividing the American political landscape.
Main Entry: big·ot
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person who is or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb
It’s not for me to say… Everyone can decide for their self if the are or are not a bigot.
Again, you are calling gay men and women bigots, not me. You are calling the majority of religious people bigots, not me. No one is treating a race or ethnic group (immutable characteristics), or in this case gays (mutable characteristics) “with hatred and intolerance.” You are inferring this via fallacious — emotional — argument to win a point in your own mind and to paint the opposition because you cannot answer them.
Most of the people I have dinner with (that are gay) are ones who would want judges (all judges) to stay out of the decisions states make. And these gay men (and women) would want exceptions made for religious institutions and organizations. The Democratic Party does not.
Again, to be clear, YOU have called all major world religious founders and religious leaders and great moral thinkers as well as gay men and women BIGOTS, simply because they disagree with you.
If you had answered “Yes” earlier, you would have shown some humility in understanding what you have done // are doing.
I myself do not hang around with racists, bigots, or the like. Why on God’s green earth would you argue, call names to, discuss, anything with one? Deb? Unless you don’t believe your own rhetoric.
And to be clear Deb, you did call me, other gays, and a large swath of religious people bigots. You *DIDN’T* let others make up their own mind. So you were not truthful when you said, “It’s not for me to say.”
⚥ Again, you said: “Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different”
Ergo, people who disagree with you, are bigots. No wiggle room. And now I firmly believe you when you said, “I don’t want an argument…”, I know. You would rather paint others as bigots, racists, and ignorant. And if someone shows you how your “discussion” is fallacious with any semblance of intelligence, they are bullies.
Not sure why you care what I think since my ideas are so fluffy and I get them from romance novels or whatever. I think the people who protested inter racial marriages where bigots and the same can be said of those whose protest gays right to wed. My opinion… Which is not allowed is Sean’s world – right?
Just because you have a right to an opinion does not mean you have a right to whitewash people as bigots by making (*echo chamber noise effects to make the point clear*) NON-SEQUITUR, EMOTIONAL APPEAL, AND STRAW-MAN statements about people. It is fallacious thinking/speaking. So you are saying that your opinion is wrong (incoherent) and damn all others for even pointing that out.
Another analogy, it is like you are saying, “what does the color green smell like.” It doesn’t make sense. And, not only that, your opinion is a form of bigotry itself.
The conversation has effectively stalled here. She refuses to “discuss” any more the topic… just go on making statements that have nothing to do with the topic. Living in a bubble of rhetoric and opinion, with a flare for bumper sticker verbiage. Its sad, really, because you know this is how a large portion of the voters think. What is referred to as the “low-information” voter. There is no understanding of our great history, culture, and the like. Just how one feels at this moment. Again, sad.
Here is what Doug Mainwaring has to say on the issue (see more at The Blaze):
In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.
By the way, I am gay.
A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.
The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.
Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.
Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.
Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.
Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?
The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.
Don’t know that “nixing” gender comes with these cases that this brave gay man mentioned above when he said, “Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad.” Here is part of the bill from Minnesota, Doug’s home state, that attempted just this:
But a look at SF925 reveals that something much more insidious than advocates let on is underway. This bill would strip the words “mother” and “father” of meaning under Minnesota law. Henceforth, the bill states, these words — among the most beloved and culturally freighted in the English language — “must be construed in a neutral manner to refer to a person of either gender.”
For more on this, see my post linked in the picture above, as well as Massachusetts doing the same. This should engender ANY conservative or conservatively minded libertarian (gay or straight) to oppose this movement predominantly guided by the Left and the many low-information (young) voters.
“[The laws of any state rest on] the basis that the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.” — Supreme Court, 1885
Here is another gay man talking about what marriage IS:
One of the most respected Canadian sociologist/scholar/homosexual, Paul Nathanson, writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves–things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:
1. Foster the bonding between men and women
2. Foster the birth and rearing of children
3. Foster the bonding between men and children
4. Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
5. Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”
Going further he stated that “same sex marriage is a bad idea” …[he] only opposed “gay marriage, not gay relationships.”
In oral arguments before the Supreme Court Tuesday, Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly pressed Ted Olson, the attorney advocating same-sex marriage, over the issue of when exactly marriage, as it is defined in most states today, became unconstitutional:
“We don’t prescribe law for the future. We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?“
Olson countered that with a question of his own, bringing up two past high-profile cases involving discrimination: “When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?” Olson asked.
“Well, how am I supposed to decide a case, then, if you can’t give me a date when the Constitution changes?” Scalia said.