I am going to do my guide a bit different this year. I will have it as one jpeg here. So you can download it and use it from your phone (if you can figure out how to enlarge it for your screen… but the easiest way is to come to this post), or come here and simply scroll down. UPDATED, now includes Page 10 (full ballot now).
A couple reasons and some commentary on why I am voting Cox, besides the name. The first is that My President weighed in on the race. And while I was SUPER skeptical about Trump at first (hopping on the Trump Train about a month-and-a-half before the primary), I am a big fan of his — minus his tariffs policy.
President Trump endorsed Republican John Cox for California governor in a tweet Friday, backing that could pay dividends in consolidating the GOP vote in the June primary, increasing Cox’s chances to win a spot on the November ballot.
“California finally deserves a great Governor, one who understands borders, crime and lowering taxes. John Cox is the man – he’ll be the best Governor you’ve ever had,” the president said.
Cox said he was “honored and deeply grateful” for the endorsement.
“I am looking forward to working with [the president] to make California great again,” Cox said in a statement. “Like the President, I’m businessman who knows how to get things done. We’re going to secure the border, empower California small businesses, lower taxes, and make affordable.”
Trump overwhelmingly lost California to Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Clinton received nearly 8.8 million votes in the state compared to Trump’s 4.5 million votes, but if Cox receives anything close to Trump’s number, the votes should be more than enough to give him a second-place finish on June 5….
Some Democrats are backing Allen with MAILINGS designed to look like they come from Republican sources, in an attempt to split the GOP vote and allow Villaraigosa to squeak through. [Pictured below]
So, that is reason number one. Reason two deals with practicality. And I wish to note that I have read people saying they don’t trust the polls any more. I think they think that the polls and predictions regarding Trump’s loss to Hillary are now the norm. But in all my past dealings the RCP AVERAGE has been pretty damn accurate. So, I am using IT to make an informed choice (nay, logical choice) for California. In other words, I want to get a guy in who isn’t the ideal and stands a good chance at being one of two. (Click to enlarge)
(Put succinctly, Travis Allen is no Trump.) If my fellow conservatives think that Allen has a chance in California… right now in this one party state… they are using something recently legalized. If all the Travis Allen people voted for Cox, we could stand a close chance of winning. But, people don’t think politically but express their ideals too often.
Lieutenant Governor — Cole Harris
Secretary of State — Mark P. Meuser
Controller — Konstantinos Roditis
Treasurer — Jack M. Guerrero
Attorney General — Steven C. Bailey
Insurance Commissioner — Steve Poizner
Member State Board of Equalization (1st District) — Ted Gaines
State Senator — Arun K. Bhumitra
United States Representative — Steve Knight
United States Representative (38th District) — Dante Acosta
4 — Alfred A. Coletta 16 — Hubert S. Yun 20 — Mary Ann Escalante 60 — Tony Cho 63 — Malcolm H. Mackey 67 — Onica Valle Cole 71 — David A. Berger 113 — Steven Schreiner 118 — Troy Davis 126 — Ken Fuller 146 — Emily Theresa Spear
Superintendent of Public Instruction — Marshall Tuck
Assessor — Jeffrey Prang
Sheriff — Robert “Bob” Lindsey
68 — NO 69 — NO 70 — NO SHOULD HAVE BEEN YES! (I misread this and apologize) 71 — NO 72 — YES
If you think Russia spent money to get Trump in office, that was the biggest waste of money in history.
This admin reversed the policy of the Obama administration, which stood silently when Putin’s Russia annexed Crimea and attacked Ukraine. The Trump admin has sold the Ukrainians lethal defensive weaponry, including anti-tank missiles designed to destroy Putin’s Russian tanks in the hands of separatist rebels.
The Trump administration has expelled 60 Russians, labeling them “spies” pretending to be diplomats.
About 300 men working for a Kremlin-linked Russian private military firm (many were Russian special operatives) were either killed (about 200) or injured in Syria on orders from the Trump administration.
Now, President Donald Trump approved sanctions on 38 different Russian companies and entities in response to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, its presence in Ukraine, and support for the Assad regime in Syria. These entities include 7 Russian oligarchs, 12 companies they own and control, 17 Russian senior government officials, and a state owned Russian weapons trading company…. even sanctioning a member of Putin’s family.
If Putin paid for Trump, Trump is a smart mother-effer if you think the collusion story is legit. Why? Because he first used Russian interests to get the White House, and then immediately turned on Russias interests.
Putin –then — is an idiot, and Trump? A smart-as-hell-political-tactician.
[You can’t have it both ways Leftists, if your position is true, you have to say Trump is smart. But we know that you know this is just a means to get Trump impeached, and that you don’t really believe this stuff.]
(I am changing some of my “Pages” to “Posts,” so some of this info is older to my site)
I respond to an honest question about why I (RPT) support gay blogs.
This post was a response to a person asking why I post stuff by gays (like, Gay Patriot)? Saying that homosexual acts are deviant acts, therefore, intimating that my posting or supporting of such conservatarian gays would thus be myself supporting deviant acts. (A Rough quote of the question posed to me at my “Hit Pause on SSM” FaceBook Group: https://www.facebook.com/Pausessm)
A fair question by a fellow believer. And an important one, as, it leads to some issues conservative Christians shy away from. So I will respond in some depth here. To wit, one should note as well that I post videos by atheists like Pat Condell, who hates all religions (Christianity as well).
“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind.” ~ Plato
That being said, Pat has great insights put in well-pieced together “rants” against Islamo-Fascism that I think expand the importance in understanding and confronting this stark reality. In other words, Pat’s voice is needed! Not only that, but I would have a few beers with the guy to get to know him personally.
I use Reagan’s 80% Rule:
“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
Similarly, I do not think or believe Larry Elder is a Christian, and so, in his relations with women I would assume he may participate in “devient” acts. By posting audio of his show and believing him to be unsaved… am I participating in these acts? By posting Dennis Prager’s insights on culture am I also supporting his multiple divorces or his views on Noah’s flood being allegorical?
The answer to these rhetorical question is “of course not.”
Mind you, I am all for good -solid- sermon that calls the guilty sinner [ALL sinners] to repent before their angry Judge. I am thinking here of Jonathan Edwards sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Those types of sermons are always… will always… be needed.
I have mentioned for the audience of my old blog, but will again mention it here for any new readers: this is not meant to be an explicitly Christian blog. While I hold to and vehemently defend a particular worldview, I do not intend this site to be “rosy cheeked” — “pure as the driven snow” depot for faith. This site is meant for men and women who are confident enough in themselves, their faith, and their culture to know that the “holier-than-thou” lifestyle is best adhered to by those other than ourselves. So expect language and raw thoughts at times, in a respectful or satirical manner. In other words… CAUTION…
Religio-Poltical Apologetics ahead!
When Gay Patriot (GP) makes points that progress understanding of the American experiment [the Constitution and our Republic], I support their work. Especially in such a liberal sub-culture/environment that they find themselves in… they need all the support they can get.
I also know and have met some of these guys/gals that post on GP’s Twitter or Blog (or use to in times past. Some have stopped posting, others are newer to the blog. For instance, I have not met VtheK in personperson, but would have some beers with him). Dinner was somewhat a regular [monthly] event. At least the ” West-Coast faction” of GP.
Dinner was based on two restaurants that supported Mitt Romney for President (The Outback and Sizzler), and was always on a Monday b-e-c-a-u-s-e the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution saying that in order to help save the planet from anthropogenic global warming people should not eat meat on Mondays. Obviously then the meal included meat.
Bruce, GP’s founder, even came out once to see this “Motley Crew.”
One gentleman that is part of this “Motley Crew” works at The Answer and knows Prager. So when you hear Prager mention gay family members, co-workers, and friends he knows… one of those guys are in the mix.
What many do not realize is that the Constitution allows for the States to define — legally — what “marriage” can be defined as. In other words, what isn’t expressly enumerated in the Constitution as what the Federal Government can-and-cannot do are left for the states to decide.
And every time the states have decided they have decided on the issue, they have voted for heterosexual marriage. Gay Patriot notes and loves this understanding of the Constitution. As do I.
Some gay men-and-women as well support the idea that heterosexual marriage has a benefit for society that gay-marriage does not ~ intrinsically. But this is true of all liberalism… not “gayness.” For instance I love this truth mentioned by GP (VtheK) ~ I will highlight the most important portion:
“Don’t be ridiculous,” they said. “No way does same sex marriage lead to legalized polygamy. The slippery slope argument is a complete fallacy, because enactment of one liberal social policy has never, ever led to the subsequent enactment of the logical extension of that liberal social policy. Ever!”
Well, they may have been wrong about the coefficient of friction on that particular incline. Commenter Richard Bell notes the following: Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional.
Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined.
You see? Liberalism infects all aspects of life… political, religious, or common sense aspects of our lives. These men and women deserve the best in grace and love from us. Galatians 6:9-10 reads:
So we must not get tired of doing good, for we will reap at the proper time if we don’t give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, we must work for the good of all, especially for those who belong to the household of faith.
These two verses speak explicitly to “Christians” as they are the ones of the household of faith: “especially for those who belong to the household of faith.” Applying this general Biblical principle to the political realm… we end up back at what Reagan was getting at. Conservatives want to help all people [never tire doing “good”], and we think that conservative principles do this best in contradistinction to what liberalism offers people.
In this political realm we especially work with those of the same political “faith” (i.e., conservatives) ~ Gay or Straight!
Here is an example from a lesbian’s blog I visit here-and-there, called, “Gay, Conservative, and Proud” — this comes from the “about me” section to the right:
Things I care about: School choice and reform, free markets, Ronald Reagan, Ann Coulter, small government, conservative ideals, and snarky comebacks.
Before you ask, I’m probably supporting either Marco Rubio and Scott Walker in the 2016 primaries….
Right On! That “right-on” aside, I disagree with her viewpoint on marriage: “I truly think that marriage needs to be abolished from government and civil unions should take that place of them. Gay, straight, polygamous, etc….” This is a legitimate view, and shows the more libertarian viewpoint on it. But Christians need to be prepared to talk about why, polygamy [for instance], is bad for society as a whole as well as the individuals involved.
One last thought as well. Often times Christians get too use to applying Romans chapter one to “others.” When in fact it is a Declaration [of-sort] of all humanity, which includes us as well. We know this laundry list of pride and putting things before our God. As well as our proclivity to rebel against God.
Above Audio Description
In the second part of a lecture given at the Utah Mormon Tabernacle (the first Evangelical to do so since D. L. Moody), Ravi Zacharias explains well the fallen nature of man.
And God doesn’t just give over gays alone to their worshiping of the creature rather than the… He gives over ALL sinners who are not called because of their rebellion and only calls the elect because of their heeding the Holy Spirit. ALL those who practice rebellious acts of selfish-will against Him who are not forgiven and covered in the Lambs righteousness.
I know how easy it is for one to rebel with selfidh-pride and one’s own will… and how easy it is to delude oneself into thinking your choices are the right ones (speaking as a three-time convicted felon).
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool” ~ Richard P. Feynman (atheist).
I am aware that many of these “gay-patriots” know my position on homosexual acts. I also know that typically those I consider compatriots in the body-politic are adults and take these views with how I mean them, with care and concern for them as individuals.
My hope is that like them influencing me in small ways on liberty and our nations founding document, that my views may rub off them a bit and they truly consider what Christ is calling them to. I doubt someone who removes themselves fully from gay people can do so… and there are examples of persons living a Godly lifestyle who are gay. But if our position is correct… then a missing ingredient from these person’s lives is love… and how else to introduce the person to True Love (Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for them) than to rub shoulders with wonderful gay men and women?
Above Audio Description
During a Q&A with Ravi Zacharias and RZIM at Oxford, a homosexual man asks a question but really ends up encouraging those in the faith of the miraculous work of God in peoples changed lives.
Something said during this exchange that really clicks with my understanding of this very important issue. Love. Most often — as I note often in my debates and posts on this topic (see below) — there is abuse or some family issue that drives these young men and women into this lifestyle. While I am more of a political-animal/armchair-philosopher and I deal with this issue in a “cut-n-dry” fashion, love is the motivating factor of change.
Usually the Christian [at the time of conversion] has this immense connection with their Creator and what He has done for him/her and the depths of their depravity that has been covered. Dorothy Sayers says it best:
“None of us feels the true love of God till we realize how wicked we are. But you can’t teach people that — they have to learn by experience.”
There is love and change available to those who seek it. the problem has become a society that perpetuates the PC status quo (YouTube). To keep the quoting of Mrs. Sayers going, she comments well on tolerance:
“In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”
I also let people know (as loving as possible) that while society dissuades in schools, media, and lawsuits the lifestyle choices of smoking because it takes off [on average] of a person’s life about 10-years… so too do I think that society should dissuade the lifestyle that chooses same-sex. I am not saying making the choice illegal.
No. (For instance, smoking is not illegal)
BUT, what I am saying is do not teach that it is an exact carbon copy of heterosexual marriages in it’s benefits for society as a whole — or — for the individuals involved.
Telling a friend who is gay that if they have a partner whom they truly love and want to see live a long and healthy life, suggesting that they find other ways to be intimate IS the loving thing to do. If they are using their partner as a means to their end (a “tool” in other words… I discuss this in my chapter on the matter), then they do not truly love said person.
I go to some length to explain that I am approaching the issue with grace and love in my SSM-Page… but also that our countries ideals are leading the way. Dennis Prager has a good way in noting this struggle between the two (see Appendix). I also note that as Christians we should support the law as it is enumerated in the Constitution while still trying to change hearts and minds. I hope my site does this not only for the straight community, but for the “not so straight” community as well.
…Proponents and opponents [of same-sex marriage] ask two different questions.
Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?
Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples. And proponents rarely, if ever, acknowledge that this unprecedented redefinition of marriage may not be good for society.
That is why proponents have it much easier. All they need to do is to focus the public’s attention on individual gay people, show wonderful gay individuals who love each other, and ask the American public: Is it fair to continue to deprive these people of the right to marry one another?
When added to Americans’ aversion to discrimination, to the elevation of compassion to perhaps the highest national value, and to the equating of opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is no wonder that many Americans have been persuaded that opposition to same-sex marriage is hateful, backwards and the moral equivalent of racism.
Is there any argument that can compete with the emotionally compelling fairness argument?
The answer is that one can — namely, the answer to the second question, Is it good for society?
Before answering that question, however, it is necessary to respond to the charge that opposition to same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage and, therefore, the moral equivalent of racism.
There are two responses:
First, this charge is predicated on the profoundly false premise that race and sex (or “gender” as it is now referred to) are analogous.
They are not.
While there are no differences between black and white human beings, there are enormous differences between male and female human beings. That is why sports events, clothing, public restrooms, and (often) schools are routinely divided by sex. But black sporting events and white sporting events, black restrooms and white restrooms, black schools and white schools, or black clothing stores and white clothing stores would be considered immoral.
Because racial differences are insignificant and gender differences are hugely significant, there is no moral equivalence between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage.
Second, if opposition to same-sex marriage is as immoral as racism, why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage? Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker. Moses, for example, married a black woman, the very definition of Catholic is “universal” and therefore diverse and has always included every race, and the equality of human beings of every race was a central tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other world religions. But no one – not Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Aquinas, Gandhi, not the Bible or the Koran or any other sacred text, nor even a single anti-religious secular thinker of the Enlightenment — ever advocated redefining marriage to include members of the same sex.
To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker, and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral. About no other issue could this be said. Every moral advance has been rooted in prior moral thinking. The anti-slavery movement was based on the Bible. Martin Luther King, Jr. was first and foremost the “Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.” and he regularly appealed to the moral authority of the scriptures when making his appeals on behalf of racial equality. Same-sex marriage is the only social movement to break entirely with the past, to create a moral ideal never before conceived. It might be right, but it might also be an example of the moral hubris of the present generation, the generation that created the self-esteem movement: After all, you need a lot of self-esteem to hold yourself morally superior to all those who preceded you.
We now return to our two primary questions.
Is the man-woman definition of marriage fair to gays who wish to marry? No, it isn’t. And those of us opposed to same-sex marriage need to be honest about this, to confront the human price paid by some people through no fault of their own and figure out ways to offer gay couples basic rights associated with marriage.
But whether a policy is fair to every individual can never be the only question society asks in establishing social policy. Eyesight standards for pilots are unfair to some terrifically capable individuals. Orchestra standards are unfair to many talented musicians. A mandatory retirement age is unfair to many people. Wherever there are standards, there will be unfairness to individuals.
So, the question is whether redefining in the most radical way ever conceived — indeed completely changing its intended meaning — is good for society….
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.
For additional information on this last portion, see:
Your absentee (vote by mail) ballot has to be postmarked NO LATER than the 8th as well.
Okay, let’s get started. In this voter guide I will have links to supporting stories, but in my DOWNLOADABLE PDF, it will be just the guide for Santa Clarita Valley (SCV)/Newhall area. Of course this is a contentious season. Many do not like the choices we were dealt. I even started a political site to help defeat Trump in the primary season… but here we are. So, here are some links to help the person on the fence consider why voting for “The Donald is the best choice. Following are reasons to vote for Trump and reasons to defeat Hillary:
If those do not give you pause, then so be it. On to the ballot:
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
Trump and Pence – #11
UNITED STATES SENATOR
Loretta Sanchez – #37
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE
Steve Knight – #41
Scott Wilk – #45
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY
Dante Acosta – #48
(Office #11) Steven Schreiner – #63
(Office #42) Efrain Matthew Aceves – #66
(Office #84) Susan Jung Townsend – #68
(Office #158) David A. Berger – #71
(Supervisor 5th Dist) Kathryn Barger – #76
My vote will be in MAROON.
I will note John & Ken’s Voter Guide recommends (they lean libertarian)…
compared to the California Republican Party Voter Guide recommends.
Proposition 51: NO
(J&K) Let’s stop spending money we don’t have huh? How about we try that for once? NO
(GOP) $9 Billion general obligation bond to fund school construction projects. The Measure is sponsored by the Building Industry Association and supported by the California Republican Party. This will not result in a tax increase. YES
(Dennis Prager) Schools Bonds – NO. More money (borrowed, with interest) won’t fix the problem.
(J&K) It looks like a tax money shell game involving Medi-Cal, but there are federal matching funds involved so let’s keep it. YES
(GOP) Uses existing hospital fees paid to the state to fund Medi-Cal, uninsured patients and children health care. Saves State from spending for this purpose. YES
(Dennis Prager) Medi-Cal Fee Program – YES. Very complicated, but yes vote will ensure Feds continue to share in cost of medical care for illegal immigrants (which they allow in) and other non-payers who overtax our health care facilities.
Proposition 53: YES
(J&K) This gives back the power to the people to approve state-revenue bond measures. California voters would get to vote on any large scale project that costed more than $2 billion (High Speed Fail anyone?) YES
(GOP) Requires statewide voter approval on any state revenue bond projects exceeding $2 Billion. Only involves State bond issues, not local governments. YES
(Dennis Prager) Voter approval for large bond offerings – YES. Sacramento needs as much supervision as possible.
Proposition 54: YES
(J&K) Again, time to keep the crooks in Sacramento responsible! Vote yes to make any bill that the legislature wants to pass, available online for the public to review for at least 72 hours before the Legislature can pass it. The Legislature would also be required to ensure that its public meetings are recorded and make those videos available on the internet. YES
(GOP) Requires any bill to be printed and published online for 72 hours before the legislature can vote on it. Requires legislature to record and post video of all legislative proceedings other than closed session proceedings. YES
(Dennis Prager) Legislation Transparency – YES. Contrary to Nancy Pelosi’s recommendation on ObamaCare, give the people a chance to find out what is in bills the legislature wants to pass before our lawmakers vote.
Proposition 55: NO
(J&K) A no vote on this would allow the ‘temporary’ income tax increase passed in 2012 to expire in 2018 as it was designed to. Let’s make sure that ‘temporary’ still means something in Sacramento. NO, NO, NO!
(GOP) Extends the temporary personal income tax imposed by Proposition 30 in 2012 by an additional 12 years. Money to be used for K-12 schools and for healthcare programs. NO
(Dennis Prager) Tax Extension – NO. More money for politicians to waste.
Proposition 56: NO
(J&K) Another attempt to raise your taxes, this time on cigarettes. You may not smoke them, but do we really need to give more money to the Legislature? Plus, the $1.6 billion tax gives $1 billion to health insurance companies and special interests. Total giveaway. NO
(GOP) Would increase the cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack. Funding goes to healthcare and tobacco use prevention programs. Supported by Tom Steyer. Benefits insurance companies and special interests. NO
(Dennis Prager) Cigarette Tax – NO. More money for politicians to waste.
Proposition 57: NO
(J&K) We’ve already seen the fallout from prison realignment and proposition 47, this is just Jerry Brown doubling down on that. 57 would allow early release for violent criminals, including those who rape unconscious victims. NO, NO, NO!
(GOP) Gives prisoners convicted of nonviolent felonies to be given early release. Sponsored by Gov. Brown. NO
(Dennis Prager) Criminal Sentences and Parole – NO. Not interested in coddling criminals or releasing them from prison early.
Proposition 58: NO
(J&K) Prop 58 wouldn’t do much to modernize how we teach English to students. It would be pointless to try and change it. Immigrant kids are learning English faster than ever and record numbers of immigrant students are being admitted to California universities. NO
(GOP) In 1998 California voters approved an initiative requiring that children be taught English in our schools unless parents disagreed. This measure would modify that initiative and allow children to be taught in other languages. This measure from 1998 has resulted in children learning English at a much faster rate than in a bilingual environment. NO
(Dennis Prager) Multilingual Education – NO. Terrible idea. We voted this failed practice out in the ‘90s with Prop. 227. This would put it back in place.
Proposition 59: NO
(J&K) They’re trying to overturn Citizen’s United at the state level, the problem is, they can’t! The proposition even says this for Yes voters. All the measure says is that voters are asking elected officials to seek increased regulation of campaign spending and contributions. No specifics are offered. No suggestions on how they could effectively limit spending. It does nothing at all. NO
(GOP) Asks voters to decide if there should be a federal Constitutional Amendment to overturn the ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC. This Proposition has no real effect other than sending a message to Congress. NO
(Dennis Prager) Political Spending – NO. It’s called free speech.
Proposition 60: NO
(J&K) Do you want to see the adult film industry chased out of California? Do you really care if there are condoms in adult films? NO
(GOP) Requires the use of condoms for adult films. This proposition is opposed by both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. It is proposed by a special interest group. NO
(Dennis Prager) Condoms for Adult Movie “Actors” – NO. They’re adults, and they have chosen to work in an adult industry where they know their risks. Let them make their own decisions.
Proposition 61: NO
(J&K) It’s a limited price control attempt on some drug purchases. It could lead many other drug costs to increase. NO
(GOP) Establishes pricing standards for state prescription drug purchases. The proposition would increase drug costs to veterans, would result in a new bureaucracy costing taxpayers millions. Was written by an individual who stands to benefit financially if it passes. NO
(Dennis Prager) Pricing on Prescription Drugs – NO. More government meddling will only raise costs.
Proposition 62: NO
(J&K) This gets a bit confusing as there are two death penalty initiatives on the ballot this year. This one wants to repeal the the death penalty entirely. The Death Penalty might not be used that often in California, but we shouldn’t get rid of it. Repealing the Death Penalty means allowing brutal killers to live the rest of their lives on the taxpayer’s dime. NO, NO, NO!
(GOP) Repeals the death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to prisoners already sentenced to the death penalty. Opposed by most law enforcement agencies. NO
(Dennis Prager) Repeal Death Penalty – NO. We should strengthen the death penalty.
Proposition 63: NO
(J&K) A Gavin Newsom special. If we can’t stop the guns, let’s stop the bullets. Crazy. NO
(GOP) Requires a background check to purchase ammunition and bans large-capacity ammunition magazines. Requires ammunition purchases be reported to the Department of Justice. This proposition is opposed by the law enforcement community. Sponsored by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. NO
(Dennis Prager) Register and Undergo a Background Check to Buy Ammo – NO. We don’t need more gun control. All this measure will do is make ammunition sales/purchases hard and more costly for lawful dealers/gun owners while creating a black market in ammo for those who can’t pass a background check. It won’t stop a single criminal from getting bullets.
Proposition 64: NO
(ME) I will vote yes on this when they can tell if a driver is under the influence using some sort of breathalyzer. This will be available soon. NO
Just some of my posts on or related to the matter — for the curious:
(J&K) It’s inevitable. People want to smoke weed legally? Fine. Whatever. Don’t bother us with the smoke and we’re all good. It’s about time to legalize it anyway, and California may as well get all that sweet sweet revenue from taxing the devil’s lettuce. So vote yes and toke up Cheech! YES
(GOP) Legalizes marijuana. Imposes a 15% excise tax on retail sales of marijuana. A marijuana legalization initiative was on the ballot in 2010 but was defeated by voters. Would allow marijuana ads on TV. This proposition is designed to benefit special interests in the marijuana business. NO
(Dennis Prager) Legalize Marijuana – NO. Dangerous in every respect. States like Colorado and Oregon where recreational use has been made legal are seeing big problems.
Proposition 65: NO
(J&K) So the money either goes to the grocery companies or to the state for vague environmental projects. Just vote NO on Prop 67 and kill the whole thing. NO
(GOP) Redirects money collected by grocery and other retail stores for carry-out bags to a special fund managed by the Wildlife Conservation Board to support environmental projects. NO
(Dennis Prager) 65 — Proceeds from Grocery Bag Sales – This is very confusing, but here’s how it seems to work out best: NO on 65 65 hands those fees over to environmental groups. We don’t want that. We want to keep the money out of the hands of leftist environmentalists.
Proposition 66: YES
(J&K) The second of two initiatives on the death penalty, A Yes vote on this measure would reform the death penalty appeal system. Nowadays, an inmate sentenced to death could spend years wading through appeals. Proposition 66 would speed this up, and help bring closure to victims’ families and justice to brutal murderers. No brainer here. YES, YES, YES!
(GOP) Shortens the time for legal appeals to a death penalty conviction. Requires habeas corpus petitions be held in trial courts instead of the State Supreme Court. YES
(Dennis Prager) Shorten time for Death Penalty Appeals Process – YES. Long overdue.
Proposition 67: NO
(J&K) Bag litter is minimal, kill the bag ban! NO, NO, NO!
(GOP) A referendum to overturn the plastic bag ban passed by the Legislature. The language here is tricky. If you want to overturn the ban on plastic bags, vote No. A yes vote retains the ban on plastic bags. A No vote would allow stores to once again provide single-purpose plastic carry-out bags. NO
(Dennis Prager) YES on 67. 67 leaves paper bag fees with retailers who are forced to buy them.
Measure A: NO
(J&K) Money for parks is basic. No special new tax increases should be needed. NO
Measure M: NO
(J&K) It’s for the subway to the sea and will last forever. NO
An open letter to friends and those I respect… depravity vs. permanence.
I feel I have to write this as an open letter to my Christian friends who do not want to vote for Trump based on a sense of loyalty to their Christian convictions. I wish to thank a friend (Shane) for aligning this last piece of the puzzle for me. I wish to thank as well Dennis Prager for challenging my position on this as well.
So Gary Johnson is out. And do I really need to show the resume of the Green Party candidate? So Jill Stein is out as well.
At a men’s Bible study a friend noted something that brought together all the pieces of a puzzle for me. He mentioned that Donald Trump’s heart is not “seared” fully. This brought to mind the story of Pharaoh and the working together of Pharaoh and God in hardening Pharaoh’s heart:
“But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he did not listen to them…” (Exodus 9:12a. See also: Exodus 4:21, 7:3; 7:13, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, 14:8, and 14:18).
Yet we also see Pharaoh taking part in this depravity that the first chapter of Roman’s speaks so clearly to:
“But when Pharaoh saw there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them.” (Exodus 8:15. See also: 8:32, 9:34; and 1 Samuel 6:6).
In other words, to put it bluntly, Pharaoh was a lost cause. He was not only what the Reformers would call, totally depraved, but also permanently depraved.
And it is this permanence I wish to address in our choice for the Presidency.
There is a lot of hub-bub lately about what Trump did 11-to-30[+] years ago. And I agree, it is horrible. But unlike Hillary Clinton who says many people are irredeemable, is this true of Trump? Do we see moral positions bubbling up in him? Stuff to show his heart is not seared fully as Romans chapter one states?
For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened.Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles. Therefore God delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves. (vv. 21-24).
Many may not know that Trump had a somewhat recent “Born Again” moment, mind you, I am not a fan of the person who led Trump in this repentant moment of his life, but you can at least see a need in Trump to proclaim his sinfulness and ask God for forgiveness. Even if as a baby Christian (if his conversion is authentic) he does not express his depravity well, yet. Here is another thought in conversation I expressed today (10-28):
Also, another point, if one thinks Trump is depraved totally and irrevocable (without redemptive characteristics as Hillary says), this calls to mind Nebuchadnezzar, who was a pagan but surrounded himself with Godly people.
Hillary is going to surround herself with all the same people in the emails released by Wikileaks… we already see Trump wanting to surround himself with people like Pence, Ben Carson, and the like.
GRANTED, I am not saying Trump is a model of theological archetype for the Christian faith. Only Jesus can be that. AND Paula White is not the ideal person to lead someone to theological purity. But he did say the sinners prayer…
➤ James Dobson, the founder of the group Focus on the Family, claimed Trump recently “[accepted] a relationship with Christ,” adding, “I know the person who led him to Christ.”
The point is that he has not become totally and permanently depraved.
There are other hints that morality exists in the macro sense in Trump. A friend said that by supporting Trump I become “one of them.” And trust me, for those that love Hayek and Sowell and Smith, these are moral positions:
Stopping 20[+] years of anti-Constitutionalist judges is not becoming one of them;
Reducing taxes is not becoming one of them;
Border control is not becoming one of them;
Reducing regulations is not becoming one of them;
Fighting and pushing back the worst of the Islamic faith is not becoming one of them;
Supporting law enforcement and putting in a DOJ head that supports them as well is not becoming one of them;
Rejecting climate change legislation is not becoming one of them;
Rejecting cultural Marxism is not becoming one of them;
In other words, my Christian principles are not in play for my vote. In fact… having studied the issue of economics and free-markets, if-anything, my Christian principles want to increase freedom in the markets as well as slow the progress in other areas of progressive growth. These ARE moral positions. (I say slow by-the-by because Trump does not have ideal views in every area. And?) Another friend notes that “we must realize that a private vote for someone is not the same as a public endorsement.” Yep.
You see, God can (and has) used the most depraved men to conquer evil. Eric Metaxas notes this in two person’s he has studied over the years:
…Two heroes about whom I’ve written faced similar difficulties. William Wilberforce, who ended the slave trade in the British Empire, often worked with other parliamentarians he knew to be vile and immoral in their personal lives.
Why did he? First, because as a sincere Christian he knew he must extend grace and forgiveness to others, since he desperately needed them himself. Second, because he knew the main issue was not his moral purity, nor the moral impurity of his colleagues, but rather the injustices and horrors suffered by the African slaves whose cause he championed. He knew that before God his first obligation was to them, and he must do what he could to help them.
The anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer also did things most Christians of his day were disgusted by. He most infamously joined a plot to kill the head of his government. He was horrified by it, but he did it nonetheless because he knew that to stay “morally pure” would allow the murder of millions to continue. Doing nothing or merely “praying” was not an option. He understood that God was merciful, and that even if his actions were wrong, God saw his heart and could forgive him. But he knew he must act.
Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer knew it was an audience of One to whom they would ultimately answer. And He asks, “What did you do to the least of these?”…
You can at least SEE in Trump pulses of conscience and morality welling up in wanting smaller government (less legislative rules from the EPA for instance and reduction in impact on many departments). You can SEE this in wanting to protect life by appointing Justices who are pro-life as well as for honoring the 1st and 2nd Amendment. You can SEE he is not completely hardened ethically because he believes in nation states, which are God ordained. You can SEE this in his wanting to protect the GOD GIVEN RIGHT for self-defense.
To say one cannot be blamed for their not voting for Trump because he is a horrible candidate will have to face 20-years of Supreme Court Justices allowing sexualized materials in schools as well as a radical redefining of concepts and words [by fiat] and the radical agenda for culture the Left has publicly made their goal ~ to proceed unchecked for their daughters and granddaughters to grow up in and contend with. It is not about hoping for 2020… it is about 2017.
Dennis Prager makes a great point in regards to God using broken men to get His way.
Oskar Schindler was a serial adulterer, yet, God used this broken man to save Jews. Not only did God choose an adulterer, but King David murdered to cover up his sin — God used him to save Israel. Martin Luther King, Jr. Was an adulterer as well, he very probably stopped a civil war and united this nation, surely a Godly goal. ~ PRAGER ADAPTED
So too I believe God is greater than Trump, and can use the hints that he has not buried completely his conscience, something we cannot say for Hillary Clinton.
A judge on Friday dismissed a wrongful-death lawsuit by Newtown families against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting massacre, citing an embattled federal law that shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products.
State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion by Remington Arms to strike the lawsuit by the families of nine children and adults killed and a teacher who survived the Dec. 14, 2012, school attack, in which a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six educators with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle made by Remington.
The families were seeking to hold Remington accountable for selling what their lawyers called a semi-automatic rifle that is too dangerous for the public because it was designed as a military killing machine. Their lawyer vowed an immediate appeal of Friday’s ruling.
The judge agreed with attorneys for Madison, North Carolina-based Remington that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005 and shields gun makers from liability when their firearms are used in crimes.
Here is Hillary Clinton’s response:
And note that this choice really is as simple as Prager puts it:
Having been a student of human nature, and the theology involved in the economic systems catering to the two: mankind is fallen and tends toward selfishness |OR| he is inherently good and society corrupts him… causes me to say, YES, Trump is truly the lesser of the two evils. Not permanently or totally depraved, like his counterpart.
…I have a prediction. I know exactly what November 9 will bring. Another day of God’s perfect sovereignty.
He will still be in charge. His throne will still be occupied. He will still manage the affairs of the world. Never before has His providence depended on a king, president, or ruler. And it won’t on November 9, 2016. “The LORD can control a king’s mind as he controls a river; he can direct it as he pleases” (Proverbs 21:1 NCV).
On one occasion the Lord turned the heart of the King of Assyria so that he aided them in the construction of the Temple. On another occasion, he stirred the heart of Cyrus to release the Jews to return to Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar was considered to be the mightiest king of his generation. But God humbled and put him in “detention” for seven years. “The kingdom is the Lord’s, and He rules over the nations” (Psalms 22:28).
Understanding God’s sovereignty over the nations opens the door to peace. When we realize that God influences the hearts of all rulers, we can then choose to pray for them rather than fret about them. Rather than wring our hands we bend our knees, we select prayer over despair.
Jeremiah did this. He was the prophet to Israel during one of her darkest periods of rebellion. He was called “the weeping prophet” because he was one. He wept at the condition of the people and the depravity of their faith. He was so distraught that one of his books was entitled Lamentations. But then he considered the work of God. Note the intentionality of his words:
This I recall to my mind,
Therefore I have hope.
The LORD’s lovingkindnesses indeed never cease,
For His compassions never fail.
They are new every morning;
Great is Your faithfulness.
Imitate Jeremiah. Lift up your eyes. Dare to believe that good things will happen. Dare to believe that God was speaking to us when he said: “In everything God works for the good of those who love him” (Romans 8:28).
Many years ago, I spent a week visiting the interior of Brazil with a long-time missionary pilot. He flew a circuit of remote towns in a small plane that threatened to come undone at the slightest gust of wind. Wilbur and Orville had a sturdier aircraft.
I could not get comfortable. I kept thinking that the plane was going to crash in some Brazilian jungle and I’d be gobbled up by piranhas or swallowed by an anaconda.
I kept shifting around, looking down, and gripping my seat. (As if that would help.) Finally, the pilot had had enough of my squirming. He looked at me and shouted over the airplane noise. “We won’t face anything I can’t handle. You might as well trust me to fly the plane.”
Is God saying the same to you? If so, make this your prayer:
You are perfect. You could not be better than you are.
You are self-created. You exist because you choose to exist.
You are self-sustaining. No one helps you. No one gives you strength.
You are self-governing. Who can question your deeds? Who dares advise you?
You are correct. In every way. In every choice. You regret no decision.
You have never failed. Never! You cannot fail! You are God! You will accomplish your plan.
You are happy. Eternally joyful. Endlessly content.
You are the king, supreme ruler, absolute monarch, overlord, and rajah of all history.
An arch of your eyebrow and a million angels will pivot and salute. Every throne is a footstool to yours. Every crown is papier–mâché to yours. No limitations, hesitations, questions, second thoughts, or backward glances. You consult no clock. You keep no calendar. You report to no one. You are in charge.
Just a small political not. I did a search this morning on an idea I have had for about a week now. I have posited the idea that Donald Trump could be suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer’s. I found out his dad, Fred Trump, suffered from it late in life… and we know this disease can be passed on through a mutation in the genes:
Some diseases are caused by a genetic mutation, or permanent change in one or more specific genes. If a person inherits from a parent a genetic mutation that causes a certain disease, then he or she will usually get the disease. Sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease are examples of inherited genetic disorders.
I merely wanted to divorce the crazy leftist blather from the more reasonable assertion that this may be the case. I can see the headlines now… “the GOP nominated a man in the throes of dementia.” To which I would respond that that is still a better choice than Hillary. (Like the similar response regarding Rush Limbaugh: “even on drugs Rush is right.”)
The leftist ideology of “multiculturalism” is dividing Europe. Europe as well has become more secular over the decades… so you have generations of people removed from a “conserving” Western cultural advances via a Grecian/Judeo-Christian history and worldview. So with the rapes and violence (see a recent post of mine where there is video of women being forcefully drug into a subway — yes — to be raped [2nd video]) caused by an ideology that rejects the advances of Western society and a religious tradition that even Richard Dawkins says Christianity is a “bulwark against something worse.”
And so, this something worse includes Islam, of course, but, it also is a harbinger to other ingredients in a civilization headed towards a world war. And it is the children living in the vapors of freedom created by the Judeo-Christian “bulwark.” These secular believers want freedom… but do not know how to retain or advance it — outside of how Mussolini says to:
“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 (1924) pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
This energy is seen in movements ~ reactions to [rightly so] ~ these animals living by and wanting to impose on civilization an ideology from 600 A.D.
So we will see more headlines like these:
➤ Anti-Immigrant ‘Soldiers of Odin’ Raise Concern in Finland: HELSINKI, Finland (Reuters) – Wearing black jackets adorned with a symbol of a Viking and the Finnish flag, the “Soldiers of Odin” have surfaced as self-proclaimed patriots patrolling the streets to protect native Finns from immigrants, worrying the government and police. (http://tinyurl.com/jlr5up6)
➤ …Finnish Government Condemns ‘Extremist’ Anti-Migrant Street Patrols: Volunteer street patrols linked to neo-Nazi groups have emerged in several Finnish towns in recent months claiming to protect locals from what they call “Islamic intruders”, a trend the Finnish government condemned on Thursday. (http://tinyurl.com/gq47w5b)
➤ Cologne Sexual Assault Victim Called a Racist and Harassed After Identifying Her Attackers: A woman, who came forward and told her story of being sexually assaulted in Cologne, Germany, on New Years Eve, was victimized a second time after an Internet video gave out her identity and suggested her account of the attack was anti-Muslim propaganda. (http://tinyurl.com/j38lorv)
➤ Germany: Migrant Crime Wave, Police Capitulate: …According to the President of the German Police Union, “In Berlin or in the north of Duisburg there are neighborhoods where colleagues hardly dare to stop a car — because they know that they’ll be surrounded by 40 or 50 men.” These attacks amount to a “deliberate challenge to the authority of the state — attacks in which the perpetrators are expressing their contempt for our society.” (http://tinyurl.com/oxtjras)
➤ German police spray anti-migrant protesters, Merkel toughens tone: Migrants who commit crimes should lose their right to asylum, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said today, toughening her tone as police in Cologne confronted right-wing protesters venting their anger at mass assaults on women on New Year’s Eve. Police in the western city fired water canon to disperse protesters from the anti-Islamic PEGIDA movement, which has seized on the alleged involvement of migrants in the New Year attacks and stepped up its calls for a halt to the influx. (http://tinyurl.com/zy47ylh)
The secular man’s growing response to this growing threat will be — in the end — vicious, animalistic, based on a neo-Darwinian approach to ethics in survival…
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), 161-162.
and the rest of the world will be brought along for the ride. Tennyson said it best:
…Who trusted God was love indeed And love Creation’s final law Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw With ravine, shriek’d against his creed…
…So runs my dream, but what am I? An infant crying in the night An infant crying for the light And with no language but a cry…
…Are God and Nature then at strife, That Nature lends such evil dreams? So careful of the type she seems, So careless of the single life;
That I, considering everywhere Her secret meaning in her deeds, And finding that of fifty seeds She often brings but one to bear,
I falter where I firmly trod, And falling with my weight of cares Upon the great world’s altar-stairs That slope thro’ darkness up to God,
I stretch lame hands of faith, and grope, And gather dust and chaff, and call To what I feel is Lord of all, And faintly trust the larger hope…
…If e’er when faith had fallen asleep, I hear a voice ‘believe no more’ And heard an ever-breaking shore That tumbled in the Godless deep;
A warmth within the breast would melt The freezing reason’s colder part, And like a man in wrath the heart Stood up and answer’d ‘I have felt.’
No, like a child in doubt and fear: But that blind clamour made me wise; Then was I as a child that cries, But, crying knows his father near…
Brace yourselves… with Russia, Islamo-Fascism, Anarcho-Left Fascists, Obama [may be] running for General Secretary of the U.N. later in his career, and the current Pope… we may — I stress may — be living in a very violent age for the eschatology watchers. Keep in mind that I am not saying this is right or wrong… I am merely supplying how I see the cookies falling. R.J. Rummel’s work on what he terms “Democide” is that as a government gets larger [socialist, communist, fascist], there is a correlation in history to more of that governments people dying at its hands. This is what I see growing as well in the world… these large secular governments trying to implement a border-less Utopian ideal that will backfire in soo many ways. It will pit citizens against their government and governments against the reality of the world.
Gay Patriot has a post worth reading, here is a snippet from his slightly larger post:
Today, a white progressive university president and Chancellor resigned because a group of spoiled special snowflakes had their feelings hurt by his insufficient supplication to the idol of racism.
The Left is learning they have built a monster; one that will be impossible to appease or placate. The more they surrender, the more emboldened the monster becomes. The Democrat Party *cannot* say no to these radicals. They have constructed this trap that all #BlackLivesMattergrievances and demands must be given absolute legitimacy no matter how radical. No matter how they look to the sane part of America, they have to cater to the radical #BLM left.
Update: David French: Missouri’s Lesson: the Campus Wars Are about Power, Not Justice: “This is a movement built from the ground up around power and coercion. They hate free speech because free speech represents nothing but a threat — a chance for dissenters to expose the bankruptcy of their ideas. They hate due process because due process stands in the way of class-based justice, of identity-based jurisprudence.”
University of Missouri president Tim Wolfe resigned yesterday after the school’s football team threatened to go on strike. The threatened strike was in support of student protests over alleged “systematic oppression” of blacks at the school.
As at Yale, I have seen no reports of violence directed at any African-American at the University of Missouri. The “systematic oppression” appears to consist of a few incidents of racial slurs directed at a couple of black students (as I understand it, the main offender who was identified, a drunken student, was removed from campus pending formal disciplinary action).
Approximately 35,000 students attend the University’s Columbia campus. How can the University guarantee that no student will ever utter a racial slur?
Rich Lowry argues that the black students are really complaining about not being sufficiently coddled. I haven’t been on campus, but Lowry’s claim finds support in complaints like this one from the Student Association: “In the months [following the Michael Brown shooting], our students were left stranded, forced to face an increase in tension and inequality with no systemic support.”
Why the shooting of a thug who attacked a police officer required the University of Missouri to provide “systemic support” to students is unclear. What was the University supposed to do,postpone exams?…
Gay Patriot notes at the top that the left has “created a monster and It’s turned on them… the campus wars are about power, not justice” ~ This is something I have said for some time, and I see it as having two outcomes:
A conservative think tank had to have their yearly meeting in an undisclosed place due to threats of violence, Michael Steele had Oreo cookies thrown at him, conservative speakers like Ann Coulter need body guards when going on to a campus when speaking (the reverse is not true of liberal speakers), eco-fascists (like the above) put nails in trees so when lumber jacks cut through them they are maimed, from rapes and deaths and blatantly anti-Semitic/anti-American statements and threats made at occupy movements, we are seeing Obama’s America… divided, more violent, forcing Christians to photograph, make cakes for, and put flower arrangements together for same-sex marriage ceremonies… to pro-choice opponents with jars of feces and urine taken from them after chanting “hail Satan” and “fuck the church,” a perfect storm is being created for a real culture war… all with thanks to people who laugh at terms like “eco-fascists” and “leftist thugs.” The irony is that these coal unions asked their members to vote for Obama. Well, the chickens have come home to roost.
My other thoughts for here is something I have said for quite a while now: “leftism” eats itself. It always has. We have seen socialist groups fight for their agenda to be paramount (thinking of Russian and German historical hegemony that led to many deaths to accomplish this goal… before the end result of the power structure and well-known leaders took power — which caused even more deaths).
Because of the flag issue, already there is talk of the Jefferson Memorial (the founder of the party running around from activist issue-to-issue ~ they do this because they replace the God shaped vacuum with politics)… banning Gone with the Wind (even though a black woman [the first time in our history] won “Best Supporting Actress)… etc.
The hubris of the left can be seen as well in thinking that they [politicians] can control weather (the sun) by legislation. Or changing gender by the stroke of a pen. Pride predates the fall.
ALL THAT BEING SAID… there is a dangerous aspect to this. As the left eats itself, they have historically looked for scape-goats. Jews and Christians are typically the fall-guy… especially in the 20th and 21st Century.
The left “KNOWS” its goals are well meaning, and so find acknowledgment that they are true and society “NEEDS” them ~ again, based on the “well meaningful’ness.”
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severley, because we have deserved it, because ‘ought to have known better,’ is to be treated as a human persons in God’s image.”
So, in the West as these “well-meaning” ideals works themselves out, expect more legal, cultural, and violent expression against those who hold to a historical, conserving theology and expressing this in public life…
Video Description and links to article on this topic:
★ In 1964, fewer than 7 percent of births were outside marriage. Two decades later, the nonmarital-birth ratio was 21 percent. By 2004, it had climbed to 35.8 percent. In 2012, it was 40.7 percent. Those numbers represent a social catastrophe (Independent Women’s Forum)
This was a response to a friend writing a letter to me via FaceBook mentioning that I wasn’t showing a Godly compassion in my dealing with the “Gender Wage-Gap“.
This letter served as an opportunity to also respond to a few mentions to me over the years about my seeming heartlessness in talking about rape (https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/evolutionistsatheists-on-evil-ethics-like-rape-for-instance/).
The main point is that when talking about meta-ethical issues, religious worldviews (which include atheism), political philosophies, and the like, demand that a person remove their emotive responses to a particular in the discussion and look reasonably at the issue being raised. OTHERWISE, serious discussion would never happen… something the Left would love, BTW.
This is a short, 6-point reason why I believe same-sex marriage should not be “normalized” by society as a whole — THAT IS, gay-unions should not be placed in importance, culturally, as equal in its benefiting society. Gender differences are important and have a great and lasting benefit to society. It always will. THIS should be celebrated and understood in the meaning of marriage. All while not chasing gays to the outskirts of society or denying them civil-unions. (My positions below would not be against civil unions, to be clear.) Again, this is not meant to be an in-depth expose, but merely a statement, or cumulative case against “normalizing” this type of relationship. Gay men and women are people who deserve love, respect, AND God’s grace from his believers (some of which are in fact gay). At the same time we can practice that while standing firm against having government authorizing something that is not the bedrock of its foundations, that is, relationships wrought by nature or God as the ideal for producing AND raising offspring in.
➊BECAUSE JESUS SAID — I start out with this because every Christian should. We have a reference point, a guide, and it should be consulted — first, along with Natural Law and biology/nature (see my chapter on this in my book), as well as other great moral and religious thinkers (see some responses to ancient Greece and other non-sequiturs, here):
✞“Without guidance, people fall, but with many counselors there is deliverance” (Proverbs 11:14);
✞“Plans fail when there is no counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15:22);
✞“…for you should wage war [culture war] with sound guidance—victory comes with many counselors” (Proverbs 24:6).
Before reading the following, when I posted the points below originally, I got this response from one reader:
➳ ➳ J.M.
I don’t have time to read this right now but it’s very telling that you started your reasoning with the word Jesus. People aren’t going to agree with you just because Jesus does.
➳ ➳ ME
And that is why most of my points are non-Biblical. But if people argue from the Bible, they should argue [from it] correctly… which was my main point with J.S.’s cousin.
There is a deeper issue at work in this discussion, and it is this:
“… I was riding in a cab in London and happened to mention something about Jesus to the driver. Immediately he retorted, “I don’t like to discuss religion, especially Jesus.” I couldn’t help but notice the similarity of his reaction to my own when the young Christian woman told me that Jesus Christ had changed her life. The very name Jesus seems to bother people. It embarrasses them, makes them angry, or makes them want to change the subject. You can talk about God, and people don’t necessarily get upset, but mention Jesus, and people want to stop the conversation. Why don’t the names of Buddha, Muhammad, or Confucius offend people the way the name of Jesus does? I think the reason is that these other religious leaders didn’t claim to be God. That is the big difference between Jesus and the others.” (Josh and Sean McDowell, More Than a Carpenter [Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2009], 9.)
Jesus Himself claimed to be the great “YHWH” (Hebrew), or, the “Ego Eimi” (Greek) of the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14; John 8:48-59). So not only was Jesus referring (Matthew 19:4-6) directly to the ideal of the biological union (two becoming one) in Genesis 2:24, AS-WELL-AS the ideal God wanted all nations to follow, He was in a sense “quoting Himself.” So Jesus spoke very publicly about the homosexual “relationship.” HE spoke in Leviticus as well when mandating actions for all nations (mankind) in Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13. As well as being involved in inspiring Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10. One last example from a previous dialogue, someone mentioned to me that, “Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the bible.”
➳ ➳ To which I respond:
You are wrong, Jesus specifically mentions the ideal in Matthew 19:4-6 (see a more accurate translation – HCSB):
He answered, “Haven’t you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female? And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh—no longer two bodies but one. Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart.” (The Message Bible ~ Red is Jesus)
Jesus was making note of gender and gender importance in this union, which should be celebrated as the ideal for a healthy society. In a Constitutional Republic, which can compromise and debate, civil-unions are what should be allowed. That does not mean I or others will cease in our moral case and concern for those we love, but it means a gay man or woman can know that any well-thought-out opposition comes from a place of love and not bigotry. My goal as a Christian is to be persuasive enough to change hearts and minds, all while being a friend and confident. That is a tough line to walk. But as a member of the larger American “body-politic,” I need to recognize our form of government and keep IT safe against progressive attacks. In this endeavor I count many gay friends and acquaintances.
Again, to be clear, much like some atheists taking proselytization as a bigoted attack against their non-faith, others (Like Penn Jillette’s example to the right) can choose to realize that it is done out of love and concern. Similarly, the LGBT community can choose to take this concern (above and below) as a personal attack against them, or, choose to realize it is done from a place of love and concern. Approaching life as one of the other as well will dictate in a small way if one is happy and has a wide variety of friends/acquaintances, or a miserable life — the “woe is me” complex, or “victicrat” mentality Larry Elder refers to often — surrounded by a small group of “mini-me’s” regurgitating thoughts in a sound-room. This last thought should be seen as a challenge to believers as well.
➋GENERAL HEALTH — To explain why I end a couple of points with “THIS is the loving thing to do,” is because I was challenged by a parent of a gay man — with Scripture — to “love my neighbor.” The person was equating acceptance of same-sex marriage with love. So I responded with the really loving thing to do.
If one of my boys came up to me and mentioned they were gay, my first concern would be their physical health. The death rate and the passing of bacteria directly into the blood stream in the gay relationship is very high. The CDC, to use one example, says that In 2008, “men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States.” The gay population of men is about 1.6% of the U.S. population. “… [N]ature designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body. It is built of a thin layer of columnar cells, different in structure than the plate cells that line the female reproductive tract. Because the wall of the rectum is so thin, it is easily ruptured during intercourse, allowing semen, blood, feces, and saliva to directly enter the bloodstream. The chances for infection increases further when multiple partners are involved, as is frequently the case: Surveys indicate that American male homosexuals average between 10 and 110 sex partners per year (L. Corey and K. K. Holmes, ‘Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men,’ New England Journal of Medicine; and, Paul Cameron et al., ‘Sexual Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease,’ Nebraska Medical Journal). Not surprisingly, these diseases shorten life expectancy” (http://tinyurl.com/8jr3tt2). (Other diseases of course include HIV, and also: gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis A and B, a variety of intestinal parasites including amebiases and giardiasis, and even typhoid fever at much higher rates.)
The chasm between the obvious and extreme health risks associated with “gay” male sex and the CDC’s politically correct, pro-homosexuality mindset reflects public policy malpractice on an Orwellian scale. “Gay” activist ideology and assumptions — including intrinsic (many would claim innate) “gay”/bi/transgender identities — go unquestioned at the CDC. Ironically, the most direct answer to the HIV-youth crisis — teaching young people NOT to practice unhealthy homosexual sex — is the one thing that is essentially forbidden. (CCV)
An in-depth study by a large insurance company which provides quotes from more than 200 insurers to people across the US, pointed out that gay men have a life expectancy 20 years shorter than heterosexual men (http://tinyurl.com/bnuspjv). An ALL POINTS BULLETIN going out to the Left: the gay lifestyle takes more years off of one’s life than smoking. Where are all the campaigns trying to save lives? Do you not care about gay men and women?
Here is a graph from the CDC tracking Syphilis from 2007-2011, something NARTH says that the newest 2012 report “finds that STDs continue to threaten the health and well-being of millions of Americans, particularly gay and bisexual men and young people.”
Click to enlarge
“Trend data available for the first time this year [speaking about the updated 2012 CDC report] show that primary and secondary syphilis cases – the most infectious stages of the disease — are increasing among gay and other men who have sex with men, who now account for more than 70 percent of all infections. If not adequately treated, syphilis can lead to paralysis, dementia and death. Syphilis infection can also place a person at increased risk for HIV infection. Given the high prevalence of HIV in the gay community, increasing syphilis infections among gay and bisexual men are particularly troubling.” (NARTH)
So if a homosexual male truly loved his partner, he would abstain from any sodomy type acts (this includes hetero sodomic acts as well). If someone has a true friend who happens to be gay, they will in moments of friendship, counsel them to do the same — that is, curb gay sexual acts. In other words, society allows people to smoke, but it doesn’t encourage the action. AGAIN, the latest from the Washington Times:
The nation’s HIV rate has fallen by a third in the last decade, the federal researchers said in a new report released Saturday.
While many population groups shared in this welcome decline in new HIV cases, one group — young gay or bisexual men — saw a 133 percent increase over the time period.
Around 62 percent of HIV cases in the United States are due to MSM [men who have sex with men] sexual contact, the report’s data showed.
(Remember, gay men make up 1.7% of the entire population.) I grew up in an era where “Marlborough” was on Formula One cars, TV shows had smoking, etc No more, and the truth about the consequences of smoking is passed on to young people. The homosexual lifestyle is not a healthy choice, and it isn’t an alternative lifestyle. And it shouldn’t be held up to young minds as being equal — talking health wise — to the hetero lifestyle.
This holds true as well if my own son came to me and announced he was gay. While showing my son love, I would lovingly challenge him to curb his desires, as society should as well.
In another recent debate of mine Paul Cameron’s work on obituaries was called into question (I quote his work in an old post), to which I noted the following, really a redux of the above, but repeated below for clarity:
1) …Gay and bisexual men are at significant risk for developing anal cancer, and testing them for the disease would save many lives, says a new study in the American Journal of Medicine.Anal cancer in gay men is as common as cervical cancer was in women before the use of the Pap smear…. (WebMD)
2) …An in-depth study by a large insurance company which provides quotes from more than 200 insurers to people across the US, pointed out that gay men have a life expectancy 20 years shorter than heterosexual men (http://tinyurl.com/bnuspjv). An ALL POINTS BULLETIN going out to the Left: the gay lifestyle takes more years off of one’s life than smoking. Where are all the campaigns trying to save lives? Do you not care about gay men and women?
3) …primary and secondary syphilis cases – the most infectious stages of the disease — are increasing among gay and other men who have sex with men, who now account for more than 70 percent of all infections. (CDC) [That is less than 1.7% of the population that accounts for this LARGE percentage]
4) The nation’s HIV rate has fallen by a third in the last decade, the federal researchers said in a new report released Saturday. While many population groups shared in this welcome decline in new HIV cases, one group — young gay or bisexual men — saw a 133 percent increase over the time period….. Around 62 percent of HIV cases in the United States are due to MSM [men who have sex with men] sexual contact, the report’s data showed. (Washington Times)
All of the above [and much more not cited] lends to the following being confirmed:
WASHINGTON, DC, June 6, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study which analyzed tens of thousands of gay obituaries and compared them with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has shown that the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public. The study, entitled “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS”, has been published in Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).
In an interview with lifesitenews.com, Dr. Paul Cameron, the President of the Family Research Institute and the scientist who headed the study, indicated that he was not at all surprised by the findings. Rather he said that it only served as further confirmation for what had long been known and other studies have already shown.
The Vancouver study was conducted by a team of pro-gay researchers, who, upon finding that pro-family advocates were using the results of their research as confirmation for their beliefs about the risks of the homosexual lifestyle, issued a statement trying to curb this unintended after-effect. “The aim of our work,” said the research team, “was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”…. (LifeSite News)
The bottom line is that the lifestyle DOES shorten life… dramatically
I let people who are friends that happen to be gay know the above, and encourage them to change their lifestyle within their same-sex relationship.
THIS is the LOVING thing to do.
➌SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS AT ODDS WITH THE CONSTITUTION — Same-sex marriage as pushed by liberals is in direct conflict to enumerated protections in the Constitution. In Massachusetts, and now it is happening in Illinois. The oldest (in the nation), most successful foster and adoption care organization has closed its doors because they would be forced to adopt to same-sex couples. Lets peer into who this would affect:
“Everyone’s still reeling from the decision,” Marylou Sudders, executive director of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (MSPCC), said yesterday. “Ultimately, the only losers are the kids,” said Maureen Flatley, a Boston adoption consultant and lobbyist. (http://tinyurl.com/a5ypfle)
So these marriages hurt many heterosexual persons as well as children in finding families. And “religion/religious institutions” are specifically protected via that founding document, the Constitution — gay marriage is not. Which is why many of the conservative gay men and women I know rejects the agenda by the Left in this push. There are other areas this affects the heterosexual, as do all “special rights” and not “equal rights.” But the above example should show this is not a neutral idea.
The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.
A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext. 1
When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. 2 At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations. 3
Now, the above examples do not have to be the case. Civil-unions can co-exist alongside marriage and religious institutions if the Left isn’t in control of the culture war. Which is also why many gay men and women stand arm-and-arm with people against same-sex marriage and exploitation or twisting of nature (the “genderless” agenda). Gay Patriot eruditely points out that it has been done, and when done correctly, can be a wonderful thing:
In New Hampshire, for example, then-Governor Lynch vetoed a bill passed by the legislature recognizing same-sex unions in his state. He was personally opposed to gay marriage. After the veto, responsible voices reached out to him and helped craft a religious liberty clause to tack on to the legislation. With that amendment in place, the legislature voted again; the governor signed the new law. Same-sex couples would get the benefits of marriage. And religious groups had a guarantee that they could continue to define marriage in accordance with the dictates of their faith.
This understanding and firm stand against the progressive agenda is needed, especially from the gay community. One astute post on the matter points out that the views of what constitutes marriage within the LGBT community are varied and wide:
The reasons for gay objections to same-sex marriage are varied. Some are moral, some political, some religious. Some gay individuals believe that marriage should not be state-sanctioned at all; that it should be a purely civil matter. Others believe that if the government subsidizes marriage with financial benefits, it should subsidize marriages that promote the traditional nuclear family with a mother and father. Still others take a more stereotypical view, and claim that homosexual relationships are more about sex and lust than love.
Whatever the rationale, it’s important to note that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a social or political group – opinions among LGBT individuals are as varied as LGBT individuals themselves. As same-sex marriage becomes more commonplace across the U.S., don’t automatically rely on gay men and women to support it.
Which is why many gays are against this relation being celebrated as equal to that of the heterosexual underpinnings of society, see number six for some more examples.
➍MUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS — Homosexuality is often times due to trauma early in the person’s life. So, for instance, my mom knew quite a few lesbians throughout her life as a hippie/druggy, who now loves Jesus. In her mobile-home park living experience she has become friends, acquaintances with and met quite a few lesbians over the years. She told me that most had been abused by some older man (often a family member) when they were young. Also, the men I have known well-enough to intimate to me their early lives also have corroborated such encounters (one was a family member, the other not). Which brings me to a quote by a lesbian author I love:
✿“Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood — molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the ‘coming-of-age’ experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS” (Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values [Roseville: Prima, 2003], 99).
You see, much like this man who had a sex operation, lived as a woman for 8-years, and then was forced to deal with his early life after taking some courses to get a degree in counseling via U.C. Irvine, his gender problems came because of trauma at a young age (http://tinyurl.com/b5c9elj). To put a stamp of approval via society on a “choice” that is caused by anothers “choice” in making these relationships equal, is doing more harm to the individual that good (as Walt Heyer also points out in his book, mentioned in the link). Many have changed their sexual orientation from gay to hetero, as shown above. But if this is the case, then it is very UNLIKE ethnic origins (an ex-gay tells his story: http://tinyurl.com/anrvm64; a man raised by lesbians and who’s own early sexuality was in flux tells his story: http://youtu.be/MeNrPJ42Xoo).
`Ex-gays outnumber actual gays` ~ Dr. Neil Whitehead
Alan Shlemon talks about the mutability of homosexuality (via STR):
…One study followed approximately 10,800 adolescents between the ages of 16 and 22 years old. Of the 16 year-old males who had exclusively SSA, 61% had opposite-sex attraction at age 17. For same-sex attracted females, 81% changed to opposite attraction in just one year.
The study also compared sexual attraction at ages 17 and 22, with similar results. For example, 75% of adolescent males with SSA at age 17 had opposite-sex attraction at age 22.
Dr. Neil Whitehead, a research scientist who worked for the New Zealand government for 24 years and the United Nations for another four years, analyzed this study. He notes that although a small percentage of heterosexual adolescents developed homosexuality, the vast majority transitioned in the opposite direction. Based on the data, 16 year-olds with SSA are “25 times more likely to change towards heterosexuality at the age of 17 than those with a heterosexual orientation are likely to change towards bi-sexuality or homosexuality.” That means that heterosexuality is 25 times more stable than homosexuality. It also seems to suggest that heterosexuality is more of a “default” orientation…
THE LOVING thing to do is to allow society to not make the private actions of individual illegal, but not to normalize these actions when there is another root cause, or a combination of root causes, other than genetics.
A liberal society might, then, find it prudent to ignore homosexuality. It might well deem it unwise to peer into private bedrooms. However, this is not the issue before us. Today the demand is that homosexuality be endorsed and promoted with the full power of the law. This would require us to abandon the standard of nature, the one standard that can teach us the difference between freedom and slavery, between right and wrong. (Source)
➍ⓐDECADES OF TWIN STUDIES — This next bit of info comes by way NARTH, in an audio posted the “genetic” aspect of this debate has been prevalent… so this is a rejoinder to it:
Identical Twin Studies Demonstrate Homosexuality is Not Genetic
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.
Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”
Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”
Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other. For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.
The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead. “Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”
A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.
In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be. “Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual. Sexual orientation is not set in concrete.”
This is the first generation to want to legalize gay-marriage. “Marriage,” has been defined a certain way for eons (man + woman or women). Changing the definition in a society for the first time in world history is the EXTREMIST position. In fact, GayPatriot points out the Native-American tradition and how it does not support full acceptance:
…As perhaps the only gay person on this thread, I must note that I have long been decidedly ambivalent on gay marriage, in part because many gay marriage advocates seem more interested in winning the culture wars than in promoting the institution and in part because of my studies of myth, psychology and anthropology and the longstanding human recognition of the importance of sex difference. And marriage rituals of every culture (see van Gennep) are based upon bringing together individuals from different groups.
In my grad school paper for my Native American class, I researched the legends of the berdache, or two-spirit. Many cite the berdache tradition as an example of cultures which accept and embrace homosexuality and same-sex relationships. And while many American Indian tribes recognized same-sex marriages, they all required one partner in such a union to live in the guise of the other sex. Thus, if one man married another man, one would wear men’s clothes and go hunting with the “braves” while the other would have to wear women’s clothes and live as a “squaw.” The one who lived as a woman could not go hunting with his same-sex peers nor could he participate in activities, rituals etc reserved for his biological sex.
Sex difference in short has long been inherent to the notion of marriage…
Do you understand? The left has done a bang-up job in making those who want to keep the definition as “one man one woman” as the extremists. Persons — hetero and gay — who want to keep marriage as “one man one woman” are not the extremists.
As an aside to this section, I was challenged with the Mosuo people in China, but this likewise supports the point above:
…To set the record straight; while promiscuity is certainly not frowned on like it is in most other cultures, most Mosuo women tend to form more long-term pairings, and not change partners frequently. It might be better described as a system of “serial monogamy”, wherein women can change partners, but tend to do so relatively rarely; and while with one partner, will rarely invite another. I’ve personally met many Mosuo who have had a “walking marriage” relationship with the same man for twenty or more years….
Marriage, then still seems to be universal in this regard. The walking-marriage is similar to no-fault divorce in our culture, they just don’t have lawyers and judges.
➏ NATURE WROUGHT THIS RELATIONSHIP FOR SOCIETAL MEANS (WHETHER GOD OR BY NATURE) — The male and female are two separate organisms that are the only species in humankind (“Homo sapiens”) that have the potential in becoming a completely different organism. Matrimonial law in the West has recognized this and realized that this organism is the basis and bedrock to society and to raising children. Whether God instituted this fact, or nature, it doesn’t matter. Natural Law (capital “N” and capital “L”) whether in the Hayekian or the Lockian formulation (without God or with God) both settle on State being involved in making this relationship the bedrock to raising healthy children — all things being equal. Which is why 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
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.
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.”
Here is the crux of the matter in regards to “nature’s order:”
✪ “…take gold as an example, it has inherent in its nature intrinsic qualities that make it expensive: good conductor of electricity, rare, never tarnishes, and the like. The male and female have the potential to become a single biological organism, or single organic unit, or principle. Two essentially becoming one. The male and female, then, have inherent to their nature intrinsic qualities that two mated males or two mated females never actualize in their courtship… nor can they ever. The potential stays just that, potential, never being realized…..
✪ “….Think of a being that reproduces, not by mating, but by some act performed by individuals. Imagine that for these same beings, movement and digestion is performed not by individuals, but only by the complementary pairs that unite for this purpose. Would anyone acquainted with such beings have difficulty understanding that in respect to movement and digestion, the organism is a united pair, or an organic unity?”
So you see, the two heterosexual organisms that join in a sexual union cease being two separate organisms for a short time and become one organism capable of reproduction. This is what the state and the church are sealing in a marriage, this intrinsic union. The homosexual couple can never achieve this union, so “natures order” has endowed the heterosexual union with an intrinsic quality that other relationships do not have or could never attain. Both the atheist and theist [gay and straight] can argue from this point, because either we were created this way or we evolved this way. Either way, nature has imposed on the sexual union being discussed. (http://tinyurl.com/8unujfs)
So the optimal design by nature or God for the rearing of children is found in this organic union. Many gay men and women realize this, people like Doug Mainwaring (in the video above), Al Rantel (was a radio personality), and Paul Nathanson (Canadian sociologist quoted above), Tammy Bruce (a favorite author of mine), Rupert Everett (actor), and someone like Walt Heyer (who had an operation to become a “woman,” is now living as his birth gender [a man] and is married w/kids). When talking about this subject and a person says you are a bigot or intolerant for not wanting to support Same-sex marriages, mention the above.
See a few others who do not agree with Same-Sex Marriage (#SSM) being brought up to an equal plain with hetero-marriage HERE.
➐ RESOURCES — I have written extensively on the natural law aspect of this topic (actually, I compile others thinking on the matter), and even have a chapter on it in my book.
Must See Excerpt
See excerpts of a few pages that challenge the idea from conservative leaning libertarians that marriage has no public value.
A link to it (my chapter) and other writings (mine as well as others posted to my blog) can be found in this “link-fest” from one of my “Notes” from my Facebook: