Well, the whole inspiration for this blog (perhaps not the whole, but the primary impetus) was another blog my sister pointed me to and I wanted to leave comments on, but couldn't because I wouldn't pay $5 a month to "upgrade". So, while it may be starting in the middle, I'm going to post my response to another post here. If you're interested, here's the link: http://www.pleonast.com/user/miklm.
Anyway, the comments I wanted to post are as follows:
I’m new to the whole “blogging scene” so I may be breaking a few rules here, but bear with me please. By the way, I’m Caribbeangirl’s brother, for what that’s worth. I have a few comments on your post and some of the responses. Quite a few actually… I’d be happy to discuss things further or leave it altogether. I would have posted on your blog, but I’m not “Gold” and didn’t feel like paying the $5 a month to do that…
1. “Anybody but a Republican”, huh? So you voted FOR the party that advocates abortion and advancing the gay agenda? You voted FOR the party that advocates for a pull-out from Iraq leading to the further destabilization of an already destabilized and dangerous region? That’s interesting. Why? I can’t believe no one has asked that question in the comments yet, so I’ll be the first. To a point, I understand your frustration with the Republican Party. I too am frustrated. On many issues, they have sold out. Immigration and Prescription Drugs come to mind. However, the Democratic Party is as bad and worse on most issues. I can’t think of an issue where my stance is closer to that of the Democrats than the Republicans. And I’ll be honest with you; this election, I was pretty close to a one-issue voter. We must “stay the course” in Iraq. Osama bin Laden and President Ahmadinejad (of Iran) have made it very clear that Iraq is central to their plan for the worldwide Islamic Caliphate. May I remind you this is the guy who prayed for Armageddon on the floor of the UN? These people are actively working to bring about the “end of the world” as they understand it. They are preparing facilities right now for the return of the Mahdi (their version of the Messiah). It doesn’t matter whether you believe in this stuff or not; they do. We ARE involved in a Holy War, even if it’s not one of our choosing. For that reason, I can’t support the Democrats.
2. Item by item on your gay marriage points.
“Government should not legislate morality.”
So you support giving children access to pornography at any age?
So you support allowing abortions at any time for any reason?
So you support allowing polygamy, marriage to the household pet, etc?
And of course you support the legalization of prostitution and “recreational” drugs, right?
Of course the government legislates morality. I don’t see how the passage from Romans that was posted previously couldn’t apply here. If God appoints government as his minister, you don’t think he’d want them to minister with morality?
“Knee-jerk constitutional amendments are a very bad idea, and are very seldom beneficial.”
Isn’t this a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk amendment? Just because something is “bad” some or even most of the time, doesn’t not mean it is always bad. I don’t know about you, but if there were a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, I don’t care if it was “knee-jerk” or not, I’d vote for it in a heart beat. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
“’Same sex marriage’ is not legal in TN now. We don't need language added to the constitution that is already handled by other legislation.”
The judiciary has demonstrated numerous times that it WILL legislate from the bench. The only way to keep existing laws from being struck down as unconstitutional is to add them to the constitution. It will be interesting to see how these [State Constitutional Amendments] stand up when they are appealed to the Supreme Court for conformance to the US Constitution, but it is at least an additional layer of protection. Especially with controversial and “hip” issues like gay marriage, the only protection we have is constitutional amendments. Existing laws have been demonstrated repeatedly to be inadequate.
“The amendment does nothing to "protect" existing marriage. Even if gay people were allowed to marry, it won't affect a straight marriage one bit. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce now already; its a misnomer to cast this initiative as ‘protecting families and marriage.’”
While it might be a BIT of a misnomer, I don’t really see it as inaccurate. Currently, marriage is basically defined by most common sense people as 1 man, 1 woman. There are those who would like to change that to 2 men; 2 women; 1 man, multiple women; 1 man, 1 dog; ad infinitum. So formally and legally defining the institution of marriage as 1 man, 1 woman, will protect marriage. How could it not? Do we need to strengthen marriage between 1 man and 1 woman? Yes. Does that mean we should allow further dilution in the process? Absurd. As for families, it does strengthen them. God has defined a family as 1 father, 1 mother and children. Legal marriage entitles a couple to a whole host of rights. Among those is the right to adopt children much easier. I realize this happens now, but it will become much more widespread if gay marriage is legalized. Not to mention, if you think the gay agenda in education is bad now, just wait till gay marriage is legalized and that becomes even more of an accepted lifestyle. Oh, and if you want to laugh at me for saying gay marriage opens the door for polygamy and other forms of marriage, don’t. What stops those people? Why don’t they have the same right to define marriage as they see fit? What legal standing do you have to deny them? None. The battle for cultural acceptance of polygamy has already started and will intensify in the near future. HBO started a series (http://www.hbo.com/biglove/) featuring a polygamous family and I would say within 5 years there will be at least one network show featuring such a relationship. The gay agenda was advanced in the same way. Remember all the controversy about Candice Bergen being an unwed mother on Murphy Brown? That was 1992, folks, 1992! Less than 15 years ago. Look how far we’ve come now. Gays were introduced into television shows and shown to be an “acceptable lifestyle choice”. If we cave on gay marriage now, we will have NO STANDING WHATSOEVER when polygamy and marrying nonhuman or inanimate objects comes up, and trust me, it will.
“Its restrictive legislation, and does not promote ‘life, liberty, and happiness’ for all citizens.”
I really think this is just a subset of #1. We have all kinds of “restrictive legislation” and I’m not in favor of getting rid of much of it.
Just a couple of other comments I wanted to respond to.
“ I think it is equally sinful of government to deprive someone of medical benefits because they are a homosexual... or worse, because their parents are homosexuals.”
What exactly does this mean? I’m totally lost on this one. How is the government depriving someone of medical benefits? Help me understand this, please. If you’re saying it’s a right to have medical insurance and somehow that’s a function of the government, I couldn’t disagree more…
“It is not the job of government to save souls.”
I don’t see how this law has anything to do with saving souls. I see it as protecting families and our society.
“And we will not save souls by alienating them and depriving them of their needs.”
How are we alienating them? Don’t you think we should tell them that their lifestyle is wrong?
“I don't think Christ would have denied someone of health insurance”
Is that really what this is all about? Wow… I always thought Christ had bigger fish to fry than health insurance…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for your comments. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't respond sentence-by-sentence at this time. I'll make some general comments.
1. I never said I voted for the democratic party. I'm still a registered republican, and I vote(d) for individual candidates; I don't vote for any party. Mainly, I consider myself a conservative libertarian, and I vote for libertarian candidates when that's prudent.
1b. As far as "staying the course" in Iraq, I'm absolutely, 100% against that position. We have utterly and completely failed there. Further, we have no business being there in the first place. However, that's beyond the scope of my previous post, and I'd really rather not get into a discussion of that -- chances are I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine, so let's not use that issue as a distraction at this point.
The "war on terror" is not the same as the "war in Iraq", and both are failing propositions, just like the "war on drugs"
2. You asked:
-So you support giving children access to pornography at any age?
I do not support the government involving itself in the afairs of private citizens. PARENTS should control children's access to pornography, and I further suggest there are a lot more harmful things that are LEGAL in our society that are much worse than children seeing naked people.
-So you support allowing abortions at any time for any reason?
-So you support allowing polygamy, marriage to the household pet, etc?
These should be state issues, not federal. Again, my point wasn't on abortion, polygamy, or beastiality so let's stick to a more narrow range of topics.
-And of course you support the legalization of prostitution and “recreational” drugs, right?
Unequivocably, yes. Locking people up for consensual acts has thus far proven to be a failure -- we're making criminals out of a huge segment of our population that simply isn't.
3. I haven't taken the position to support gay marriage. Please stop characterizing my position as that. I'm against ammending our consitution for "hip" issues like gay marriage, or for a more famous example, see the 19th ammendment on Prohibition. The difference is, one is state, the other is federal.
I don't really care that "gay" things have become more acceptable in our society. It doesn't affect me in the slightest bit. I'm straight. Seeing a gay character on a tv show doesn't make me a homosexual.
4. "I really think this is just a subset of #1. We have all kinds of “restrictive legislation” and I’m not in favor of getting rid of much of it."
There we differ; we have far too much restrictive legislation that criminalizes ridiculous things, and I'd be in favour of getting rid of a LOT of short-sighted silly laws we have these days. What happened to "the land of the free"?
5. "I don’t see how this law has anything to do with saving souls. I see it as protecting families and our society."
The government isn't in the job of protecting families from being offended. That's the job of parents and families. Part of freedom, a basic right in this country, is that EVERYONE has all the same freedoms -- even non-Christians, amazingly enough! Part of the large problem in today's society is we rely on the government to save us from everything, and we've become a dependent society. What a bad idea, and what a setup for utter failure of a society.
Society also doesn't need protecting from the government. Society by and large gets along just fine by itself. Remember that the morality of a tiny, tiny subset of Christians doesn't have to be forced on society at large to save it. Let the church carry out its mission independent of politics, and both would be better off.
6. "Wow… I always thought Christ had bigger fish to fry than health insurance…"
I always thought Christ had bigger fish to fry than a lot of petty arguments that Christians get all in a fluster about, but that doesn't seem to stop us. That's a non-argument.
How are bestiality and polygamy any different from gay marriage? My point was that legalizing gay marriage will de facto legalize these other forms of marriage as social pressure is applied.
Where have I once characterized you as supporting gay marriage? I just read quickly through my post and didn't see that insinuation anywhere...
You say cultural acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle doesn't affect you one bit. What about what Paul said in I Corinthians: "Do not be deceived: 'Evil company corrupts good habits.'"? I think we're often deceived thinking, oh, that won't bother me. I'm strong enough to not be effected. Seems Paul would beg to differ...
Post a Comment