The Intolerance of the Left Exemplified by Mary Cheney

Looking around the legacy medias landscape, headlines are predictable, my favorite however, is this one, “Liz Cheney attacks Mary Cheney’s marriage.”

What? Liz Cheney has said repeatedly this is a states issue… as the Constitution allows. And like many conservative libertarian gay people I know, they also want the courts to stay out of it. HotAir has these two excerpts where Liz explains her position, which the the above article says is “attacking her sisters relationship” .. believing the Constitution and its delegated rights to states is now bigotry.

The unmitigated nerve!

Firstly, it must be pointed out that Tammy Bruce (lesbian) supports Liz… a lot. Mizz’ Bruce likewise has written two books dealing with the militant tendencies of the Left to suppress differing opinions. In her books, “The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds,” and her later book, “The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values,” you are introduced to examples of how the Left tries to suppress not only speech… but thought as well. Two greatly recommended reads from Republitarian.

From the left there seems to be a militarizing of action against divergent thinking. On FaceBook people are unfriended for such thinking, and routinely those who stand for traditional marriage are called bigots. Another example of how this thinking is shoring up comes from The Daily Beast‘s Peter Beinart, who also teaches journalism at the City University of New York.

NewsBusters comments on the above video:

Beinart condemned all opponents of same-sex marriage:

“This has been the right wing’s kind of line for a couple of years now, basically that ‘we just happen to disagree with you about these issues, but of course we love you and respect you and we feel compassion.’ No. We get to a stage as a society which says if you don’t accept that people have the same basic rights as other people, African- Americans, Jews, Muslims, you don’t respect them.”

Liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan said Liz Cheney’s public opposition to same-sex marriage was a “kick in the gut” to her lesbian sister:

“[Y]ou can talk about political matters in an abstract way. But when it comes to your own family, something like someone’s marriage becomes pretty non- negotiable as a matter of respect. And for actually go out there and campaign to deny your sister the very institution that she belongs in, the very marriage that she has cannot but kick Mary in the gut.”

Jeff Toobin perfectly summed up the panel’s liberal New York bias: “And we all sit here on West 58th Street and think the world is changing so quickly. It’s not changing that fast in Wyoming.”

Not to mention that Beinart made a nonsequitur comparison between race and sex:

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. (Prager)

Another meme recently seen by myself on — you guessed it — FaceBook, is the following:

Really? Homophobia is defined today as anyone who is for traditional marriage… you know, the idea of male/female marriage that pervades every culture, religion, and time (history). The view that the historical status quo is extreme (read here: traditional marriage supporters)… is… well, extreme.

So this gay man explaining why he is against same-sex marriage is a homophobe?

——————————————————
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:

Foster the bonding between men and women
Foster the birth and rearing of children
Foster the bonding between men and children
Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
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.”

And then I posted this short video of another gay man explaining the importance of marriage and how same-sex marriage will undefine it:

Let us visualize what is being done in the name of “tolerance”

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:The "Sweep Under the Rug" Argument

  • Racist
  • Sexist
  • Homophobic
  • Islamophobic
  • Imperialist
  • Bigoted
  • Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

  • Peace
  • Fairness
  • Tolerance
  • The poor
  • The disenfranchised
  • The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.

Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal — essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal — they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.

Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself — by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.

Examples could fill a book.

Harry Reid, as noted above, supplied a classic one. Instead of grappling with the enormously significant question of how to maintain American identity and values with tens of millions of non-Americans coming into America, the Democratic leader and others on the Left simply label attempts to keep English as a unifying language as “racist.”

Another classic example of liberal non-thought was the reaction to former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers’ mere question about whether the female and male brains were wired differently. Again, instead of grappling with the issue, Harvard and other liberals merely dismissed Summers as “sexist.”

A third example is the use of the term “racist” to end debate about race-based affirmative action or even to describe a Capitol police officer who stops a black congresswoman who has no ID badge.

“Phobic” is the current one-word favorite among liberal dismissals of ideological opponents. It combines instant moral dismissal with instant psychological analysis. If you do not support society redefining marriage to include members of the same sex you are “homophobic” — and further thought is unnecessary. If you articulate a concern about the moral state of Islam today, you are “Islamophobic” — and again further thought is unnecessary. And if you seek to retain English as America’s unifying language, you are not only racist, you are, as the New York Times editorial describes you, “xenophobic” and “Latinophobic,” the latest phobia uncovered by the Left.

There is a steep price paid for the liberal one-wording of complex ideas — the decline of liberal thought. But with more and more Americans graduating college and therefore taught the liberal list of one-word reactions instead of critical thinking, many liberals do not see any pressing need to think through issues. They therefore do not believe they have paid any price at all.

But American society is paying a steep price. Every car that has a bumper sticker declaring “War is not the answer” powerfully testifies to the intellectual decline of the well educated and to the devolution of “liberal thought” into an oxymoron.

The lack of introspection from the left is A M A Z I N G !

Another Gay Man That Opposes Same-Sex Marriage #SSM

Here is what Doug Mainwaring has to say on the issue (see more at The Blaze):

I’m gay, and I oppose gay marriage

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.

…read more…

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.”

A Tale of Two Conversations w/Younger Persons On FaceBook (updated 9-24-2012)

I wanted to share my back-to-back experiences after being invited to two conversations by my Son on FaceBook. Almost the same attacks were used against Mitt Romeny, and almost the exact same information was used in my response. Yet, you had two different outcomes. The youngsters in the first example unfriended my son. The person in the second example admitted to hearing new information/positions he had not previously thought of, and as a result he said he will step-back and re-evaluate his own positions. Mind-you, he did not acquiesce fully, and I do not expect anyone to immediately change a long held belief about a position. All I can expect is that when new information is presented, these previously held positions are re-examined… and often times as one aligns oneself to new ideas that are true or closer to truth, they will overtime reject these previously held positions via reflection and introducing new ideals to one’s viewpoint. This is not how people work — immediate changes of thinking — even when accepting the free gift offered by God we still go through a maturing process and evolution of thought, as B.B. Warfield so aptly points out:

We are assured, indeed, that the leaven of truth, thus brought into the world and applied by the Spirit in a long process, shall in the end leaven the whole lump. Meanwhile, what is presented to observation is a conflict between the true and the false. This conflict goes on in each individual’s mind and heart. The Spirit of God does not at once so purify the hearts of those whom he visits that they may come to the knowledge of the truth, that they at once embrace the whole truth in perfect Comprehension, and live by it in perfect obedience. Their minds remain for long in partial darkness; their hearts only slowly acquire the powers of the new life brought to them. They need to cry over and over again, “0 wretched men that we are, who shall deliver us from the body of this death?” What has been implanted in them, however, is life, and it grows onward to the end appointed to it. As in the individual, so in the race the progress to the goal is slow, though sure. Little parties of those to whom the new life has come, spring up here, there, elsewhere. They see the truth more or less purely, and hold it more or less firmly, and cast it with more or less confidence into the caldron of the world’s seething thought, that it may join issue with falsehood, and in the end conquer. So we perceive a new humanity rising in the world, and by faith may see the day looming on the horizon when the whole world shall live in the full enjoyment of the true religion, practising in its completeness the true morality, which have been restored to man by God his Savior. Over this whole process, of course, God is presiding.

Below I will recreate both conversations and may even add to it as the second continues… if it goes in a congenial manner. This first conversation is the one that went sour (the graphics are enlargeable just a bit if you click them):

I was recently — today in fact, called by extension to a posting of one of my blog-posts, a “racist” and “homophobic.” So I wanted to know why and politely explained my thinking on the matter. Here is the first set of responses after my son linked to my blog:

So this is my response to the above:

(Papa Giorgio here… I will always put “(PG)” do designate my post.)

I just wanted to point out how easy it is for people to label (what is called S.I.X.H.I.R.B. ~ sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted), rather that engage in dialogue. A really good documentary made on this in academia is uploaded on my MRCTV account.

However, I do wish to ask you thoughtfully read my post and tell me your thoughts. Okay, so are you aware that monogamous/long-term homosexual couples would consider same-sex marriage a travesty for America. They stand either institution it, or want to be done on the state level, like almost every conservative I know. For instance, just today Well-known gay actor, Rupert Everett (“My Best Friend’s Wedding” and “Shakespeare in Love”), says he “can’t think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads.” Is his opinion racist? Homophobic?

Or another pro-choice/lesbian (and one of my favorite authors/columnists), Tammy Bruce is against same-sex marriage being rammed down our throats by the judiciary. She would agree with well respected gay sociologist and scholar, Paul Nathanson, who says this:

[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:

  • Foster the bonding between men and women
  • Foster the birth and rearing of children
  • Foster the bonding between men and children
  • Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
  • 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.”

PINK TRIANGLES

The above are marking — a pink triangle — that was given to homosexuals put into concentration camps. You see, when God is removed as the “Life giver” ~ the Founder of our human worth (as our Declaration posits) ~ then human worth is relegated to societal definition. Hitler stated as much in his book, this is what conservative homosexuals understand:

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all…. If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”

(Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy [New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942], pp. 161-162.)

By definition homosexuals cannot “mate.” So these “special rights” are shown to be just that, not equal, with a simple question:

“If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it. Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?”

(Dale A. Berryhill, The Assault: Liberalism’s Attack on Religion, Freedom, and Democracy)

Again, Tammy Bruce understands that rights do not come from government, but from something Bigger, and government only protects these rights. If government produces rights, then it can take them away. She says:

★ Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic. (Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values, 35.)

Why would she posit such a thing. She is a student of history, that is one reason. For instance, people think fascism lived in Germany… it did not. It did however live in Italy, and Mussolini wrote what fascism was/is:

★ “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, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist, by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.)

Some sort of ethic is needed to counter relativism, otherwise it is very easy for government to usurp rights that theism (the ethos that founded our countries documents). Here Hitler makes the point that “I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality…. We will train young people before whom the world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence — imperious, relentless and cruel” (Hitler, hung on the wall at Auschwitz; Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God, p. 23). So this is known well to many homosexuals… because as the government gets bigger, people’s rights get smaller.

I am curious, have you ever heard of gay people who stand against same-sex marriage? If not, the next question is, why not? Do you insulate your thinking/opinions to like minded people, books, and the like? Have you gone out of your way to ask yourself, “I believe “a” — a lot! Have I ever gone out and found a cogent, well-thought out book or person to discuss these deeper thoughts with… or should I just label them?” Granted, the latter is easier, but the former is worth it, even if the travel is a couple of years.

Take note as well that not only would the label “racist” and “homophobic” apply to a large portion of the gay community, but this type of tolerant thinking that infects the left would also apply to Buddha, Muhammad, Zoroaster, Confucius, Moses, Jesus, Plato, Socrates (i.e. the major religious founders and great secular and moral thinkers throughout time) are all wrong and bigoted. Only this generation is benighted to rise above the rest in a meta-narrative and judge absolutely the rest of history and their fellow compatriots. Just an after-thought.

These are the follow-up comments. Facts, reason, and humor got the best of them and they unfriended my son. Without an apology to me, or realizing that great dialogue/conversation could have taken place. What did happen however, is ingrained thinking that prefers “mini-me’s” surrounding themselves (with themselves) instead of being open-minded and tolerant. Here is the last posts:

(An “unfriend” soon followed that last posting.) Now, in the second conversation a young man intimated that Romney was a bigot. Not as harsh a use of language as “racist,” but, still part of the S.I.X.H.I.R.B. ~ sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted ~ that Dennis Prager so rightly talks about. Now, I used the above main response after Connor posted the following, with additional thoughts on his particular points. Which are that he is writing in on his ballot in November — Ron Paul — undermines his claim. Here is part of Connors post:

[T]he point being argued, is that I said [R]omney is a bigot. the retort was an example of the bigotry of other people, irrelevant to the topic, and a very good documentary about academia (which [I] agree with, mostly). [I] see [R]omney as a bigot because he opposes a woman’s right to choose, he opposes gay marriage, he wants to blend church and state, and he has stated that he is not concerned with the poor….

To which I responded with a translation, trying to stay on one topic rather than the many that followed his above except:

Translation for those that need it. Connor basically just called a majority of women (a higher percentage polled are pro-life than not — this number is growing by-the-way) and homosexuals (as well as every major religious founder and moral thinker) bigoted. This is the modern progressive thinking. If someone disagrees with your point, paint them as one of the SIXHIRBs… why debate the issues.

In other words… to belabor the point… calling more than half of the women in America, and about a third of the homosexual population, and every founder of the worlds great religions and moral as well as secular thinkers bigots… is a form … of… bigotry. You do not even have to be religious (for instance) to be pro-life (or against same-sex marriage):

If [to quote Connor] “opposing a women’s right to choose” makes one a bigot, then writing in Ron Paul’s name makes one a bigot as well. Why? Because Romney and Ron Paul have the same view of the issue. That is, returning the choice of the matter to the states.

I see many inconsistencies in these positions with the youth of today, and I wish they would look to some better argued positions that do not violate the laws of reason/logic — e.g., are internally self-consistent instead of self-deleting. Decisions based in our long history of of legal and moral thinking, etc., etc. I realize that Connor and the audience here is young and has some time to mature in their voting and thinking. But for God-Sakes, do not go around calling people names… because if Romney’s a bigot, then I am being called a bigot, my son is, as are others here (or their parents or family/friends, so is over half of America, as well as people who write in Ron Paul’s name. There is no way faster to lose friends and/or respect than by calling people names.

And much to the young man’s credit he responded thusly, and I will clarify a bit for him offering sincerity in my benefit of doubt:

Although I do not agree [on all your points], I retract my statement that Romney is a bigot. I feel very differently on these moral issues, but I will avoid sixhirb-ing in the future, thank you for pointing it out. Good video, but this issue hits too close to home for me to continue this discussion.

Id like to have more conversations with you in the future, it’s not often someone makes me rethink my entire approach to a topic. Caught me a bit off guard, because I usually talk circles around people. I’ve been hearing so much idiocy from people with opposing view points, that I’ve lost a bit of my receptiveness. Paul still has my vote, but thanks for opening my mind a bit more.

WOW! I was floored. This simple response showed a level of maturity I was getting use to not seeing in the younger generation. Here is my response to Connor:

Connor, you are a good man. You are head-and-shoulder above many! I do not say that because you complimented me, rather, I say it because in the face of a public dialogue you showed some humility when new evidence was presented. Kudos.

I would love to talk with you on any subject you wish in the future. I am always up for a cup-of-Joe at Starbucks (on me) or messaging me is fine as well. I did write a book that I would recommend reading the first chapter of when you get an urge to read something. I explain some crucial thinking that many do not learn about anymore.

http://tinyurl.com/3pck3pl

The first chapter is entitled, “Introduction – Technology Junkies.” You should note that this years platform for the GOP has been called the most libertarian in decades, and many libertarians have switched over or back to being Republicans. One example is the Libertarian Party’s Veeep choice from 2008, Wayne Allyn Root. If you want, I can upload his interview by Michael Medved about this switch back before November for you.

Also, a site, two actually, that I will recommend for you. One is Libertarian Republican. The blogger/owner was Ron Paul’s top aid for a decade:

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/

And another site is by a conservative homosexual, a great guy, called The Gay Patriot:

http://www.gaypatriot.net/

To his credit, he has already read my chapter. And although this is my busy season, I hope to share some coffee and conversation with this young man.

Changing Subjects a Bit In the Same Strain of Conversation

Continuing on in conversation with another gentleman in regards to the Ron Paul issue, Brett stepped into the end of the conversation and said this:

  • staying out of this one, go ron paul (waves flag)

To which I responded in my Religio-Political fashion:

@Brett How could you wave a flag for a guy [Ron Paul] who sent his voters to vote for a pro-Marxist/pro-Gaddafi candidate? Just a question. You are waving a flag in your statement but how can you reconcile your apparent patriotism, love of country and its ideals, with someone [Ron Paul] who sends his voters to Cynthia McKinney who hates everything about other races, this country, and would rather see Marxist ideals over our Founding ideals?

@Reader — a side-note. In my many discussions over time I have noticed something, which is this, people do not realize what someone stands for in total. They like one item, example, Ron Paul wanting to legalize marijuana. What he really wants to do is return this policing power to the states. He [RP] cannot by fiat make it so… but Ron Paul has a long history of making his politics known and there is a lot that would make any liberal young man cringe.

Another example is that often times people do not understand what one position stands for in total. So, a great example of this are people rioting in the streets of Greece, or the occupiers and their violence in our streets… many saying they are “anarchists,” but being violent for socialized health care, more benefits from the government so they [like in Greece] can continue to retire and collect benefits from the government at 55-years old, or more government control of private financial institutions, etc. etc. (A-minute-and-a-half)

What people need to do is really look inward and see if they are being consistent with what they profess. So when I took a philosophy class at COC — as a real life example — and the very first day the professor of philosophy wrote on the eraser board “There are no absolute truths,” I merely rose my hand and asked, “is that an absolute statement, if so, is it true?” She had a masters degree in poli-sci, and a masters in philosophy, and yet still showed that her particular take on things couldn’t stand its own test.

Whether in religious views or political, one needs to UNDERSTAND (caps for *emphasis*) what they are saying. People like buffet religion and politics and often conflate opposing ideas/ideals to make themselves feel good. Which is understandable… we are human and fail even meeting our own goals and ideals in life, let alone others. But this human frailty shouldn’t stop us from learning to know what WE believe, and to see if IT is able to stand on its own two feet.

This goes for my fellow Christians as well. You should be 1 Peter 3:15 believers (“…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you…”), and not in a “Blue Like Jazz” mindset.

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Take note that Brett’s response is low on substance and high in ad hominem attacks, name calling, non-sequiturs, and the like. Not only this, but many people will talk differently on line than they would with meeting a stranger, say, in a check-out line at a store, or in a bar… it is as if politeness and reasonable thinking is “checked” at the keyboard. Its the split-personality of the 21st century:

you have your views on his policy’s and i have mine – obviously they conflict; in parting, this is what’s going to happen – Romney is going to lose because he’s too far right wing and no Mormon has ever been president, Obama will win again and then everyone will complain for about 3 months afterwards and say they’re moving to Canada which is a crock of shit because no one ever does. Then people will forget about Romney and move on and just wait it out as the country slips further down the shitter. What should have happen is Collin Pall should have ran but he didn’t want – this election is all wrong – people are too vested in themselves and not the greater good of the country and are looking too much into what they can get out of their candidate; i.e. legalize marijuana, abortion, gay rights, and health care – while that shouldn’t be the focus of the election at all. it should be the current economic status of america – which isn’t really getting better and the fed is just printing money and creating inflation that is screwing us down to nothing. but our media is too good at distracting us with smaller minded issues such as the ones i stated before; those issues in due time will come to terms and i’m not worried about them – nor do i feel anyone else should be at this point in time either. R-money is another douche fag and Obezy is just pretty preempted puppet for everyone to look at.

Now, this is where the conversation currently ends, and I will only continue it if need be. But I think my response is adequate to all the “paulistinians” out there and instructive to Libertarians considering making their vote count:

@ BRETT pleased read and watch/listen to the following and again tell me how Ron Paul will get done what you say he wants to.

I agree 100% with you when you say “while that shouldn’t be the focus of the election at all. it should be the current economic status of [A]merica…” I agree, and Romney/Ryan have a deep understanding of our fiscal problems, more than “shutting down the Fed” could solve. The Republican platform calls for an audit of the Fed, which would be the first, ever, if this happens — as well as leaning heavily on Jack Kemp’s understanding of returning to the gold standard (http://tinyurl.com/965tbzn). Which is why this has been called one of the most libertarian platforms (for the Republicans) in decades, and why many Libertarians are switching their status to GOP. One example is the former Vice Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 2008, Wayne Allen Root.

Here is his interview via Michael Medved:

Scrubbing the Fed is too conspiratorial… a viewpoint I use to wholeheartedly endorse years ago. But having a party in power with young libertarian minded conservative who have the best chance at really auditing the fed, and having Ron Paul’s son head up the venture is a chance you may not get again (at least 4-years more).

I do beg to differ on Romney losing. You should be aware of the media bias and how this is working towards a narrative that fits the worldview of this same media. For instance, I deal with this a bit in my post on why Republicans should be optimistic.

Again, Ron Paul’s take on history is woefully wrong (as is yours)… something his son understands. Between 1800 and 1934, U.S. Marines staged 180 landings abroad. For instance, from the description of a book I highly recommend, “The Savage Wars Of Peace: Small Wars And The Rise Of American Power”:

★ From 1800 to the present day, such undeclared wars have made up the vast majority of our military engagements. Yet the military has often resisted preparing itself for small wars, preferring instead to train for big conflicts that seldom come. Boot re-examines the tragedy of Vietnam through a “small war” prism. He concludes with a devastating critique of the Powell Doctrine and a convincing argument that the armed forces must reorient themselves to better handle small-war missions, because such clashes are an inevitable result of America’s far-flung imperial responsibilities. (see also my post on the beginning of our NAVY)

Brett still hasn’t clicked yet with how he is tearing down his own arguments. Since he is a Ron Paul fan I presumed that he might be into the conspiratorial take on history and a secret cabal of financiers running the world. So I shared a bit on my past thinking on this matter:

…and my affinity to such theories even going as far as involving myself with the John Birch Society in the mid to late 90′s. Continuing, I explained three “events” that caused me to question these beliefs and spurred me to really investigate these claims, references, and quotes so often used with these theories. My eventual shidt in thinking were spurred by an article in the New American article (the magazine of the John Birch Society) blaming the Oklahoma bombing on the U.S. Government; the failure of predictions made about Y2K from many I listened to; and listening to radio talk show host Michael Medved’s “Conspiracy Show” where for one day each month he takes calls only from those who believe in conspiracies. These three things caused me to compare and contrast the positions previously accepted as fact. After a couple of years of wrestling with position after position, I eventually gave up my thinking on the NWO and embraced true history….

To which Brett replied:

  • …you are a fucking nut-job for believing that

To which I pointed out his flaw in saying this:

Okay, you made it seem like this when you said: “R-money is another douche fag and Obezy is just pretty preempted puppet for everyone to look at.” But you should really watch how you talk to people, You should talk to someone as if you are in a public place, politely — which you are, FB is a public place.

But, yes, I was not using all my faculties in looking at all the evidence years ago. But the problem is — for you — that Ron Paul believes these things (Bilderbergers, a Jewish banker $$ cabal, that America did 9/11, etc.). I looked at the evidence and changed my mind. Ron Paul has not… instead he tells voters to go vote for an avowed Marxist, black panther/racist [past Democrat Representative]. CRAZY HUH? But write in Ron Paul.

Ron Paul… attracting all the nuts.

Oooops!

Joy Behar vs. Homosexuals on Same-Sex Marriage

“We’re not married, Let’s get that straight. We have a civil partnership. I don’t want to be married! I’m very happy with a civil partnership. The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

~ Elton John ~

You may view my critique on same-sex marriages being the same, ontologically, as heterosexual marriages, this paper is entitled, “Epicurean Romanism: Natural Law & Romans.” Also see this case study, “Redefining marriage or deconstructing society: a Canadian case study,” by homosexual psychologist, Paul Nathanson (it is multiple pages and I must h/t Come Reason Ministries via there podcast for this study).

Tammy Bruce — a pro-choice lesbian, agrees with Elton John as explained in this article on her site, “Gay Marriage: Why Not?” (this article has disappeared [except for here], however, there is a more in-depth link that is connected with the article):

The political debate rumbles on, and we’ve heard the principle arguments repeated endlessly: On one hand, the right of gays to seek the same legal protections available to straights, and on the other hand, the mainstream desire to preserve an ancient and fundamental institution. Perhaps there’s a more appropriate way to look at this. Seems to me there’s an element of narcissism on both sides of the standard argument: On one hand, MY rights; on the other hand, MY tradition. But maybe it’s not about YOU. Marriage may make us happy (or miserable, as the case may be), but its primary purpose is to create a stable environment into which children will be born and nurtured through adolescence. Certainly both our statistics and common sense tell us that children do vastly better if they grow up with loving parents, a mother and a father. For this reason, I’d rather view the battle for marriage as a children’s rights issue, rather than a ME ME MINE issue.

Looked at from this perspective, the problem with gay marriage isn’t that it’s objectively any worse than (and it may actually be better than) the broken homes and single parents and all the other indications that modern marriage is a ruined institution. The problem with gay marriage is fundamentally symbolic: It’s the societal acknowledgement of how far marriage has fallen. If not for the specter of gay marriage, we could continue to pretend that we’re still functional. We could pay our hypocritical respects to our ideal, even if that ideal no longer translates into any semblance of reality.

If you get past the politics and the rants, you’ll hear many conservative Christians acknowledge as much. They understand that winning the battle against gay marriage doesn’t mean a thing unless marriage itself once again becomes respected and meaningful.

Just as the 2nd Amendment wasn’t adopted to protect your right to hunt, so the institution of marriage wasn’t created to deliver spousal health insurance and inheritance. Don’t let the politics distract you from the big picture. This battle is in one place but the war is elsewhere.

In ancient times before Abraham, pagans sacrificed their children to idols. This is a matter of historical record. Then, as our tradition would have it, God gave us the example of Abraham and Isaac to declare an end to ritual human slaughter. In our modern, enlightened era, it seems we’ve created a new form of child sacrifice. Children have become disposable. Most of us know this is our fundamental problem. Some say that the government must step in and pick up the slack with day care and the like. Others argue that the parental commitment must be enforced. The liberal/conservative divide forms roughly along these lines. This is where the war is.

Bottom line: If we’ve lost marriage, then it really doesn’t matter what becomes of gay marriage. Think about this before you jump back into the culture war.

Related Links:

  1. Tammy’s column from 2004 on the issue: Respecting Marriage and Equal Rights;
  2. The Tammy Bruce Interview,

…in this interview Tammy says the following:

….So it is a self-obsession based in victimhood. Now I was raised on the left to believe that in fact this was life and death, that we’re going to destroy you before you destroy us. Now that is almost non-existent on the right, if you will. I don’t see that kind of – there’s certainly some paranoia when it comes to the extreme right – but the level of paranoia and narcissism really drives all the decision making (on the left).

I’ll give you an example when it comes to gay marriage. If Christians are against gay marriage, the gay elite don’t believe that’s because the Christian is concerned about tradition, concerned about the future of this nation, or has a series of issues (with it) surrounding their faith, instead, of course, the gay elite says, “Oh, they’re homophobes.”

They’ve made a decision because they hate me, that they’re thinking this way because of me, that they’re making that decision because they want to hurt me – as opposed to, that they may be against gay marriage because, again, of faith, because of the importance of the tradition of marriage. In fact, God forbid should they ever consider that it might not have anything to do with homosexuals at all, but it has everything to do with (people’s) families, that kind of deeper thinking beyond one’s self, they’re incapable of….

Likewise, Al Rantel in his article entitled, “Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage,” makes the point that as a gay man, he opposes gay marriage [he has since changed his opinion, but these arguments still are valid as it shows one in the gay community can hold them]:

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling by four of the seven justices that the state must allow gays full marriage rights by May 17th raises a myriad of questions that some are afraid to ask in this time of political correctness run amok.

First and foremost of those questions is who said gays want to get married in the first place? Lets look at the numbers. The highest number of same sex households in America is ironically in Massachusetts, however even then it is under 2 per cent of all households. If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger.

As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no brake environment of male/male sexuality. I should know. I am a gay male.

To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition.

Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage on an unwilling public?

There is an answer.

Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall.

While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence.

The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone.

What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two men or two women, even for a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring.

And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else?

Al Rantel recently retired from radio hosting on Los Angeles’ KABC.

Paul Nathanson, a sociologist, a scholar, and a homosexual 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 (source):

  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.”