We hear the The Star-Spangled Banner played many times during the year, and it always amazes me how many people don't know the words or meaning of our National Anthem. I'm even more shocked when someone is chosen to sing it and muffs the words. How do you not look up the lyrics and study them before singing in front of thousands or even millions of people?
Our anthem celebrated its bicentennial recently, but I hear that some people think we should dump it because they say it glorifies war and violence. This notion is completely false! Don't people listen to the words? Have they ever read the whole song beyond the first verse? How do you hear and even sing this great song and not know what it means?
First there's the story behind the anthem. It was written during the only war in which the US was invaded and under attack. Francis Scott Key wrote it while watching the British attack on Fort McHenry in Baltimore harbor during the War of 1812. The lyrics mention "rockets" and "bombs", but these explosives were being shot at us, not by us. The composer was expressing gratitude and amazement that the flag still waved after the fort suffered a bombardment that lasted all through the night. It doesn't glorify war, it glorifies bravery in the face of opposition, the resilience of our nation, and the pride of seeing our flag-- that ol' star-spangled banner-- and knowing that she stands for bravery and freedom in spite of opposition from tyrants.
The first verse basically says this: "Look... it's dawn... can you see if the flag is still there? All through the battle we watched for it and through the night by the light of exploding bombs and the fire of rockets we saw it, but does it still wave over its brave defenders and this free land?" It is a song about the hope for the reassurance that the flag gives us that our land of liberty is still there
The second verse answers the question. In essence it says "We see it! It catches the light and there it is! May it long wave over this land!" The third verse then gives sympathy to the battle weary soldiers who fought in defense of the fort. But the fourth verse is the verse that I wish we would sing more often. It is this:
O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation.
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
There's a movement among the so-called progressive (aka politically correct) crowd to make America the Beautiful our national anthem. I think it's a great song, too, but this song is also misunderstood by many. I'm sure they think it's a peaceful song about the environment... purple mountains, amber grain waving in the wind, shining seas... aaah... Well, it starts out that way, but then it gets very religious, something I'm sure they would hate! The first verse calls upon God to be merciful and to "crown our good"-- in other words, exercise the grace to bless us for obedience, seeing our good and granting us a reward of unity as a nation.
The second verse glorifies pilgrims and explorers who beat a path across the wilderness, the third glorifies war heroes. and the fourth patriots who foresaw urban development. But all verses inject a prayer to God to bless America-- to mend our flaws and to refine our golden goodness ("till all success be nobleness and every gain divine"). In other words, we are beautiful as a land, but God bless the USA for being beautiful in the eyes of God as well!
While I think it's a great song and I would love to have a national anthem that called upon God in the first verse and not the fourth, I still stick by the simple message of the anthem we've had for all these decades which reminds us that the flag we face, place our hand or hat over our heart and pledge our allegiance to is a symbol of our nation's brave defenders (the 13 stripes) and unified freedom (the 50 stars).
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Six truths for the "gay rights" debate
I'm getting tired of the daily homosexual news feed. It's seemingly
in the news every single day! This politician now realizes he is for
"gay marriage", this state now allows homosexual marriages, over there's
a "pride parade", over here is a Supreme Court case and here we have a
Boy Scout council and in that city a homosexual teacher is fired from a
Catholic School, in another a lesbian is fired from a Diocese position
for the same reason... It's a daily drum beat that just won't stop! And
yet the editorials and media debates seem to always end up with the
same maddening circular arguments which go nowhere.
It's frustrating to see conservatives spin their wheels and even sometimes convert to the pro-homo agenda when discussing these issues. Why does this happen? Because they fail to recognize and dismiss the fallacies perpetuated by homosexuals and the media upon which most discussion of this topic is based. Even the most sound reasoning collapses under the weight of false premises. In other words, if the playing field is slanted, you are doomed to lose. You just can't come to a convincing, logical conclusion if the basis of the whole argument is founded on myths.
So instead of addressing individual homosexual issues such as those affecting boy scouts or marriage or court cases at this time, I wish to present some points that no one seems to ever address. I call them:
1. Homosexuality and Bisexuality is a self-determined choice.
This is the first and biggest hurdle. The fallacy that people "born gay" or "are gay" and that there somehow exists in humans alone a third gender leads any debate down the wrong path from the start. A so-called "sexual orientation" such as homosexuality is, in fact, a sexual preference. A proclivity. A choice.
Unlike race, physical capabilities or gender, a preference--sexual or otherwise--is self-determined. Period. You can't test for it. You can't determine it in the womb. It is not genetic or hereditary. That is why sexual preferences have to be announced and demonstrated with actions and behaviors. One can argue "why would I choose to be homosexual?" or "I was born this way", but there is no proof whatsoever of homosexuality being anything but a preference and preferences are self-determined, not in-born.
But sexual preferences are not unique. Everyone has some form of sexual preference! Maybe you like dark-eyed brunettes more than blue-eyed blondes. Maybe you like feet. Maybe you like leather... whatever it is, you were not born with that attraction. In fact, you aren't born with any sexual attractions. Through your experiences and your chosen reactions to those experiences, you determined what was attractive to you and what was not. Again, no one is born with a fetish or destined to be a pedophile, necrophiliac, homosexual or any other form of sexual deviant. As a result, one is not born to be anything other than male or female.
To answer the defense "why would I choose this?" my answer is this: You probably didn't just one day choose your turn-ons like you chose your shoes or your hairstyle. But then again, to play the role of the Goth or the Prep or the Jock or the Lesbian, you may have done just that-- chose shoes and hair and make-up or whatever necessary to play that role. Those are indeed choices! But other preferences, sexual or otherwise, may not have come in an instant like your choice for combat boots and pink hair dye. Most often there are subtle influences in your life that lead you to have favorites and proclivities, to have certain likes and dislikes, to have certain turn-ons and turn-offs, even the most fundamental ones such as sexual attraction.
As a personal example, I sexually-prefer brunette women. Why? I can't pinpoint the exact moment in time, but I can look back at a number of potential influences in that direction. My first "girlfriend" in 2nd grade was a brunette. The first girl to break my heart was a blonde. I grew up in the 70's when brunettes were rare and blonde bombshells were all over TV, but I found Farrah to be vapid, and Kate and Jaclyn to be intelligent and interesting. Brunettes seemed real yet exotic, while blondes seemed fake and a dime-a-dozen. Then came other bright 70's brunettes like Lynda Carter, Dorothy Hamill and Valerie Bertinelli, and I was hooked.
I'm sure these are only a few of the many reasons why I ended up liking brunettes more than blondes, and there are other things that which I find attractive which I won't go into... but I can't pinpoint a certain incident or experience that "turned me" to like this or that, to be attracted or aroused by one thing or the other.
Now for someone who was sexually abused, sexual issues can be pinpointed in time to those events. and for such individuals I truly feel badly. But for most people, influences for any preference or trigger (sexual or otherwise) is not so easy to nail down, and most likely came on with gradual trial and error, environmental influence or lack of exposure to an opposing option. I'm not a psychologist or expert on sexual deviancy, but I firmly believe all people are born innocent and free, and most definitely not predisposed to be homosexuals any more than anyone is born to be thieves, saints, liberals, murderers, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, or any such thing. In the end, we are the sum of the choices we make and we choose favorites, attractions and sexual partners all by ourselves.
2. A sex partner choice is not a legitimate basis for special classification and group protection.
The Constitution specifically protects the free practice of religion and speech by saying the government will not infringe upon the free practice of either. As such is the case, one should not be discriminated against for their affiliation with religions and political parties (hello, IRS?). Other laws make it clear that "all men are created equal" regardless of race, ethnicity or physical abnormalities. As those conditions are not choices, that is completely logical, and I support such laws.
However, outside of religious or political groups, no group of individuals should be protected regardless of how organized they are, especially groups of sexual deviants. For instance, there's a group of pedophiles called NAMBLA which lobbies for recognition and equality rights. I'm sure they use the same arguments that homosexuals use to lobby for acceptance of their lifestyle choices and sexual proclivities. Perhaps there are also other groups by unabashed practitioners of other forms of sexually deviant practices as well. Should all form of self-determined sexual attraction be recognized as "special" and worthy of protection and even promotion by the government? I don't think so. So why single this one group out as being acceptable and protected?
Just as many of the various sexually deviant practices (or "alternate lifestyles" if you will) are repulsive to the majority of the general public, there was a time when homosexuality was considered to be just as repulsive. But through the last couple of decades a vast propaganda campaign has taken hold and now, almost suddenly, sodomy has gone from disgusting and unacceptable to none-of-my-business-so-I-won't-ask-don't-tell to ooh, it's all the rage... do tell! and with that comes the fallacy that it's no longer a deviation, but somehow part of the norm and even somehow sweet, innocent and natural.
I'm sorry, but public tolerance or even acceptance of deviancy does not make it normal and government protection does not make it natural and healthy. However, the real argument against granting status is not about violations of nature's laws or even God's laws... the real issue is we are talking about protection of a group based on a self-determined status that is not related to free speech like religious or political stance. If you begin classifying every group that claims "I'm special because I say so" and "I was born this way" (without the ability to prove such and with the only criteria being behavioral choices) as having special, protected status, then there are no boundaries whatsoever! No one is special if everyone is special and everyone is part of some minority in their own way. Simply self-classifying oneself as such does not make one special.
If such were the case, I could say I am a Canine-American and I was born that way, and you could not argue. When I lobbied for equal rights for me and my fellow dogs to be given equal access to have our own restrooms in public places, you could not argue. You'd say "we could test for dog DNA", but I'd say no, I'm a special breed and more research needs to be done on my kind to find conclusive proof. Besides, I have others who say they too are like me and we make up more of the population than you think. Case closed. Grant me my rights. Now I want to marry my dog. Now I want financial aid. Now I want us to get tax status. Now I want him to go wherever I go because we are a couple. Etc.
Seems ridiculous, but I could give any number of scenarios where just "coming out of the closet" to announce yourself as being X-American or Y-American or Z-American based solely on behavior and psychological make-up, and all of them would be just as reasonable as coming out as saying "I am attracted to ____ and want to be recognized for it." There is no sane reason to condone one form of sexual deviancy and not another and even less reason to give it legal status on par with sexual normalcy. The bottom line is this: protect groups based on gender, race, religious belief and physical capability, but not sexual or other self-determined criteria.
3. Sex is not love.
There's a very clever new strategy to equate homosexuals with heterosexuals by using the phrase "love is love". First off, no one is discriminated against based on "whom you love". There are lots of guys that I love, many of whom are in my family. Does that make me homosexual or incestuous? No. The issue is wanting to be classified as some special group because of who you have sex with.
So love who you want. I'd even say shack up and be a roommate with whomever you want! There are no laws against that. Also under the law, it is legal to have sex with whomever you want as well (even if it is not moral to do so outside of traditional marriage). But don't come demanding a hand-out or special privileges because of who you have sex with, and don't equate the union of souls that is male-female marriage with sexual partners (of either hetero or homo forms) who want financial and social benefits granted to them.
Yes, I also bring heteros into this as well because there are many who selfishly equate sex with love as well. The divorce rate reflects the results of building on such weak and temporary foundations. Marriage overall has become cheapened though the years because unchecked lust led to unfettered sex and commitments were forced to be formed out the aftermath due to couples marrying out of obligations formed in beds instead of out of more chaste and level-headed circumstances. The immorality and bad examples set by recent generations have led to the modern acceptance of falling-in-lust as a substitute for true love, true courtship and true commitment. Is it any wonder then that sexual gratification has become a basis for movements such as abortion-on-demand and homosexual marriage?
4. Homosexual marriage issues are not truly about "love is love" but about "money is money" and "sex is sex".
Let's recognize something up front: the government has used the tax code to promote certain lifestyles. Every tax break is there for a reason. They would like us all to "go green", so they give you a solar power credit. They want to encourage farming and investment, so they give breaks for that. They want you to reproduce and raise a family, so they give you a child credit. At one time they wanted to encourage marriage over "immoral living", so they gave a break for that. (I also believe this was political pandering to groups such as families, couples, farmers, etc, but that's another topic) But the idea is that if something benefits society, the government will not tax it as much.
Agree or disagree with that form of governmental social engineering, the result is that married couples enjoy some tax and other benefits that people who merely live together don't. Such financial benefits also exist in the private sector as well. Roomies can't get special loan consideration. Roomies aren't recognized as legal guardians or as "kin" by a hospital. Why do these rules exist? Because the legal contract of a marriage gives credence to one's commitment. In the eyes of the government and other institutions, two people under a legal contract are considered to be committed beyond just verbal or financial arrangements. So to reap certain benefits, one has to have a license.
In today's gimme-gimme society, it was only a matter of time that those on the outside of these benefits would want a piece of the pie. As a result, a few states have granted civil unions as a legal equivalent and gateway to obtaining these benefits. Problem solved, right? No, apparently not. So why is homosexual marriage the next big goal? While money is a big factor, there's also something more-- homosexual sex acceptance. In other words, it's not about equal rights, it's about equating, and thereby validating, "lifestyle choices".
After all, how can you be considered "normal" if you don't imitate the norm? In the fight for the acceptance of homosexual sex, settling for a civil union would seem to be getting runner-up and a consolation prize. There is no doubt fear that if it's not called a marriage, it might not be recognized in the same way in all instances, regardless of the law. They want both the crown and the title. Nothing less will do.
But I once again cite the erosion of the institution of marriage as the root cause of this issue now being before us. When marriage was a religious ceremony with a higher purpose (commitment to God and "multiply" through procreation) recognized by government as a legally binding contract, it had a purpose beyond benefits. Then the non-religious wanted access to the contract and its benefits too, so "civil marriage" was instituted. Then came "common law" marriages where one didn't even have to make a commitment and get the official license. From there, civil unions made it so any two people could contract and be beneficiaries. Now it is such that the once most sacred of commitments in religious practice has become nothing more than a title to be sought for the sake of reaping benefits from the only provident higher power many worship-- the U.S. government.
So why not? How does it hurt the heteros you ask? Why should marriage be only between a man and a woman? Here are some reasons:
- if marriage is redefined as being any two people based on claims of discrimination and inequality, then why stop there? Why not grant such rights to just one person? Isn't there discrimination for the asexual as much as the homosexual? Or how about three? Why is polygamy a crime, anyway? Is that anyone's business? How does that hurt monogamists? What about partnering a human with an animal, mineral or vegetable? I love my dog! Why must you be such a non-human bigot and deny my dog and I the benefits you and your lover enjoy!? Why draw the line here and not over there? If love is love and sex is sex, why not drop all exclusion created by traditional, judgmental and discriminatory standards? You might say such extrapolation is silly, but how are these not the same arguments against discrimination and exclusion and how are these non-traditional lifestyle choices any less valid? So in effect, as soon as you begin on the non-exclusivity anti-discrimination path, the benefits in question will soon no longer be granted at all. Again, if everyone is special, no one is special.
- the financial benefits granted would actually come from heteros' tax dollars.While many heteros might not mind it, there are many who morally oppose supporting that lifestyle or who feel no need to give benefits to yet another special interest group. Again, the more inclusive a tax break becomes, the less such a break becomes for that group.
- granting such rights would give more legitimacy to homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. Just as legalizing drug use and subsidizing abortion normalizes and increases the numbers of those participate in such practices which were once taboo, many do not want to have homosexual practices become accepted norms. We have already seen the ill effects of drug use, rampant sexuality and other forms of carnal behavior has had in destroying family life and social structure. Such a societal stamp of approval would just add one more straw to the back of morality. Many, myself included, believe that laws based on ethics and morality should be the prime consideration in governing, and condoning immoral practices, sexual or otherwise, weakens families and, as a result, the nation.
- granting marital status also grants, in most cases, parental status which serves to further influence future generations to embrace sexually deviant lifestyle choices (homosexual or otherwise). In some States parental status was already granted previous to marital status, but both serve to do the same harm. While no family is without some dysfunction and sexual deviancy still spawns in traditional homes, it would be prudent to seek for ways to build traditional, balanced mother-father-child units rather than to bypass the opportunities for such relationships with open adoption laws.
5. In this argument, it doesn't matter what the Bible says about homosexuality.
Threw you a curveball, didn't I? In arguing against homosexuality, many people will often cite the Bible as if that should end the argument. That works to convince the choir, but the people on the other side of the issue don't care about God and will laugh that argument to scorn. It would be like a Muslim telling you, Mr. Biblethumper, that you should believe or do this or that because the Koran says so.
I believe in the Bible, but that doesn't help my argument with someone who doesn't. I also believe in legislating morality and using one's personal religious beliefs to determine one's choices on political issues. Now before you Libs go shouting "separation of church and state" at me, let me explain that all laws are someone's morality and all choices are based on one's own personal beliefs, be they rooted in religion or science or randomness. Even trying to please all people by being the most milquetoast middle-of-the-road don't-offend-anyone tightrope walker is following some form of a belief system that dictates non-judgementalism and pacifism somehow gets results.
So I stand up to say "I believe that homosexuality is immoral" and do so with a belief and faith that I am not alone in that statement, I believe many, many millions agree. I encourage others to say the same... or to say the opposite if that is their belief. But either way, be prepared to defend that belief with more than just a Bible verse or a Wiccan Handbook verse or whatever. Let everyone know you made a self-determined lifestyle choice to follow your beliefs just as your opponents did.
6. Being against "gay rights" does not mean you hate gays or are "homophobic".
A phobia? Really?? Look, I'm not afraid of homosexuals or homosexual feelings. This is just yet another myth that the media loves to perpetuate. It's the ol' "name game". Label your opponent, make it stick, and somehow you can rise above them because they are wearing the dunce cap you made for them. It's also the "shame game". Deflect the shame that others pour on to you by saying "I know you are, but what am I?"
Smart strategy, though... by making others believe that they are the ones with the problem (a phobia), everything said will be tainted with the idea that it's not rational thought and they will be silenced out of fear of fear itself! People are so afraid of that label that they will do whatever it takes to avoid it. I would submit that you could just as easily turn that argument around and say "you aren't homosexual, you're just heterophobic!" Try that and see what happens. The whole "phobic" label is yet another widely accepted fallacy that sadly has become an undisputed rubber-stamped lexicon term. Regardless of childish name-calling tactics, recognizing and rejecting the homosexual agenda is not phobic, it's logic.
Then there's the "hater" label. Hate is such an extreme word, but you have to go to extremes to deflect shame on to others. Hate denotes a bitter resentment, obsession and anger which I do not want to be a part of my life, and would certainly not waste on a political group or issue. Why should I? People with opposing views or lifestyles I disagree with pose no threat to me. Just like the "you're a homophobe" accusation, the hater implication is that I feel threatened or scared by someone different and that is the sole reason for not accepting their behavior or agenda. I'd have to be pretty insecure in my own self and personal belief system to feel threatened by mere opposition or disagreement and to turn that into hate. Trust me, I'm not.
No, actually I expect opposition as a healthy part of life! I actually would think something was wrong if everyone agreed all the time! I create my world view based on spiritual laws and reasoning, not by fear or hate. I would argue that it is actually the other side is more likely to be influenced emotions and passions, and create such labels for their detractors out of fear and hate.
On the contrary, I believe that all people, regardless of sexual choices, have value because they are children of God. I also believe God is perfect and therefore does not make mistakes. I believe we are born equal, not born this way or that way, but I do believe that we all have been given by God a set of circumstances, problems and temptations to overcome in life in order to test us. One person may be tempted to have sex with someone of the same gender while another might be tempted to have sex with his neighbor's wife. But being attracted to a neighbor's wife does not make one an adulterer any more than attraction to another male makes a man a homosexual. So the issue is not our temptations, but our reactions to them. Those that succumb to sexual temptations excuse their actions by citing their emotions and calling it love. In other words, the biggest problem, I believe, is that people confuse love with sex. As previously stated, sex is not love.
But the biggest problem with the whole "anti-gay" accusation is once again that first hurdle false premise. The assumption of "you hate/fear gays" is that "gay" is a class of person. It's not. Homosexuality is a sexual practice, not a gender or a class. Even if you commit the sin, you are not forever and henceforth that sin. You can change your ways and not be a thief or a liar or a "gay". You should do all in your power to overcome desires to do wrong, but those desires don't define you. Your actions and choices do. Label the act as immoral, not the actor as being the immorality incarnate. In other words, condemn the sin, not the sinner.
So there you have it. Six truths that I believe would bust the myths upon which most arguments are based and would radically change the discourse. As usual, this is my modest opinion and your feedback (agree or disagree) is welcome but only if done with reason and civility.
It's frustrating to see conservatives spin their wheels and even sometimes convert to the pro-homo agenda when discussing these issues. Why does this happen? Because they fail to recognize and dismiss the fallacies perpetuated by homosexuals and the media upon which most discussion of this topic is based. Even the most sound reasoning collapses under the weight of false premises. In other words, if the playing field is slanted, you are doomed to lose. You just can't come to a convincing, logical conclusion if the basis of the whole argument is founded on myths.
So instead of addressing individual homosexual issues such as those affecting boy scouts or marriage or court cases at this time, I wish to present some points that no one seems to ever address. I call them:
Six truths to dispel the myths
behind the pro-homosexual agenda
1. Homosexuality and Bisexuality is a self-determined choice.
This is the first and biggest hurdle. The fallacy that people "born gay" or "are gay" and that there somehow exists in humans alone a third gender leads any debate down the wrong path from the start. A so-called "sexual orientation" such as homosexuality is, in fact, a sexual preference. A proclivity. A choice.
Unlike race, physical capabilities or gender, a preference--sexual or otherwise--is self-determined. Period. You can't test for it. You can't determine it in the womb. It is not genetic or hereditary. That is why sexual preferences have to be announced and demonstrated with actions and behaviors. One can argue "why would I choose to be homosexual?" or "I was born this way", but there is no proof whatsoever of homosexuality being anything but a preference and preferences are self-determined, not in-born.
But sexual preferences are not unique. Everyone has some form of sexual preference! Maybe you like dark-eyed brunettes more than blue-eyed blondes. Maybe you like feet. Maybe you like leather... whatever it is, you were not born with that attraction. In fact, you aren't born with any sexual attractions. Through your experiences and your chosen reactions to those experiences, you determined what was attractive to you and what was not. Again, no one is born with a fetish or destined to be a pedophile, necrophiliac, homosexual or any other form of sexual deviant. As a result, one is not born to be anything other than male or female.
To answer the defense "why would I choose this?" my answer is this: You probably didn't just one day choose your turn-ons like you chose your shoes or your hairstyle. But then again, to play the role of the Goth or the Prep or the Jock or the Lesbian, you may have done just that-- chose shoes and hair and make-up or whatever necessary to play that role. Those are indeed choices! But other preferences, sexual or otherwise, may not have come in an instant like your choice for combat boots and pink hair dye. Most often there are subtle influences in your life that lead you to have favorites and proclivities, to have certain likes and dislikes, to have certain turn-ons and turn-offs, even the most fundamental ones such as sexual attraction.
As a personal example, I sexually-prefer brunette women. Why? I can't pinpoint the exact moment in time, but I can look back at a number of potential influences in that direction. My first "girlfriend" in 2nd grade was a brunette. The first girl to break my heart was a blonde. I grew up in the 70's when brunettes were rare and blonde bombshells were all over TV, but I found Farrah to be vapid, and Kate and Jaclyn to be intelligent and interesting. Brunettes seemed real yet exotic, while blondes seemed fake and a dime-a-dozen. Then came other bright 70's brunettes like Lynda Carter, Dorothy Hamill and Valerie Bertinelli, and I was hooked.
I'm sure these are only a few of the many reasons why I ended up liking brunettes more than blondes, and there are other things that which I find attractive which I won't go into... but I can't pinpoint a certain incident or experience that "turned me" to like this or that, to be attracted or aroused by one thing or the other.
Now for someone who was sexually abused, sexual issues can be pinpointed in time to those events. and for such individuals I truly feel badly. But for most people, influences for any preference or trigger (sexual or otherwise) is not so easy to nail down, and most likely came on with gradual trial and error, environmental influence or lack of exposure to an opposing option. I'm not a psychologist or expert on sexual deviancy, but I firmly believe all people are born innocent and free, and most definitely not predisposed to be homosexuals any more than anyone is born to be thieves, saints, liberals, murderers, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, or any such thing. In the end, we are the sum of the choices we make and we choose favorites, attractions and sexual partners all by ourselves.
2. A sex partner choice is not a legitimate basis for special classification and group protection.
The Constitution specifically protects the free practice of religion and speech by saying the government will not infringe upon the free practice of either. As such is the case, one should not be discriminated against for their affiliation with religions and political parties (hello, IRS?). Other laws make it clear that "all men are created equal" regardless of race, ethnicity or physical abnormalities. As those conditions are not choices, that is completely logical, and I support such laws.
However, outside of religious or political groups, no group of individuals should be protected regardless of how organized they are, especially groups of sexual deviants. For instance, there's a group of pedophiles called NAMBLA which lobbies for recognition and equality rights. I'm sure they use the same arguments that homosexuals use to lobby for acceptance of their lifestyle choices and sexual proclivities. Perhaps there are also other groups by unabashed practitioners of other forms of sexually deviant practices as well. Should all form of self-determined sexual attraction be recognized as "special" and worthy of protection and even promotion by the government? I don't think so. So why single this one group out as being acceptable and protected?
Just as many of the various sexually deviant practices (or "alternate lifestyles" if you will) are repulsive to the majority of the general public, there was a time when homosexuality was considered to be just as repulsive. But through the last couple of decades a vast propaganda campaign has taken hold and now, almost suddenly, sodomy has gone from disgusting and unacceptable to none-of-my-business-so-I-won't-ask-don't-tell to ooh, it's all the rage... do tell! and with that comes the fallacy that it's no longer a deviation, but somehow part of the norm and even somehow sweet, innocent and natural.
I'm sorry, but public tolerance or even acceptance of deviancy does not make it normal and government protection does not make it natural and healthy. However, the real argument against granting status is not about violations of nature's laws or even God's laws... the real issue is we are talking about protection of a group based on a self-determined status that is not related to free speech like religious or political stance. If you begin classifying every group that claims "I'm special because I say so" and "I was born this way" (without the ability to prove such and with the only criteria being behavioral choices) as having special, protected status, then there are no boundaries whatsoever! No one is special if everyone is special and everyone is part of some minority in their own way. Simply self-classifying oneself as such does not make one special.
If such were the case, I could say I am a Canine-American and I was born that way, and you could not argue. When I lobbied for equal rights for me and my fellow dogs to be given equal access to have our own restrooms in public places, you could not argue. You'd say "we could test for dog DNA", but I'd say no, I'm a special breed and more research needs to be done on my kind to find conclusive proof. Besides, I have others who say they too are like me and we make up more of the population than you think. Case closed. Grant me my rights. Now I want to marry my dog. Now I want financial aid. Now I want us to get tax status. Now I want him to go wherever I go because we are a couple. Etc.
Seems ridiculous, but I could give any number of scenarios where just "coming out of the closet" to announce yourself as being X-American or Y-American or Z-American based solely on behavior and psychological make-up, and all of them would be just as reasonable as coming out as saying "I am attracted to ____ and want to be recognized for it." There is no sane reason to condone one form of sexual deviancy and not another and even less reason to give it legal status on par with sexual normalcy. The bottom line is this: protect groups based on gender, race, religious belief and physical capability, but not sexual or other self-determined criteria.
3. Sex is not love.
There's a very clever new strategy to equate homosexuals with heterosexuals by using the phrase "love is love". First off, no one is discriminated against based on "whom you love". There are lots of guys that I love, many of whom are in my family. Does that make me homosexual or incestuous? No. The issue is wanting to be classified as some special group because of who you have sex with.
So love who you want. I'd even say shack up and be a roommate with whomever you want! There are no laws against that. Also under the law, it is legal to have sex with whomever you want as well (even if it is not moral to do so outside of traditional marriage). But don't come demanding a hand-out or special privileges because of who you have sex with, and don't equate the union of souls that is male-female marriage with sexual partners (of either hetero or homo forms) who want financial and social benefits granted to them.
Yes, I also bring heteros into this as well because there are many who selfishly equate sex with love as well. The divorce rate reflects the results of building on such weak and temporary foundations. Marriage overall has become cheapened though the years because unchecked lust led to unfettered sex and commitments were forced to be formed out the aftermath due to couples marrying out of obligations formed in beds instead of out of more chaste and level-headed circumstances. The immorality and bad examples set by recent generations have led to the modern acceptance of falling-in-lust as a substitute for true love, true courtship and true commitment. Is it any wonder then that sexual gratification has become a basis for movements such as abortion-on-demand and homosexual marriage?
4. Homosexual marriage issues are not truly about "love is love" but about "money is money" and "sex is sex".
Let's recognize something up front: the government has used the tax code to promote certain lifestyles. Every tax break is there for a reason. They would like us all to "go green", so they give you a solar power credit. They want to encourage farming and investment, so they give breaks for that. They want you to reproduce and raise a family, so they give you a child credit. At one time they wanted to encourage marriage over "immoral living", so they gave a break for that. (I also believe this was political pandering to groups such as families, couples, farmers, etc, but that's another topic) But the idea is that if something benefits society, the government will not tax it as much.
Agree or disagree with that form of governmental social engineering, the result is that married couples enjoy some tax and other benefits that people who merely live together don't. Such financial benefits also exist in the private sector as well. Roomies can't get special loan consideration. Roomies aren't recognized as legal guardians or as "kin" by a hospital. Why do these rules exist? Because the legal contract of a marriage gives credence to one's commitment. In the eyes of the government and other institutions, two people under a legal contract are considered to be committed beyond just verbal or financial arrangements. So to reap certain benefits, one has to have a license.
In today's gimme-gimme society, it was only a matter of time that those on the outside of these benefits would want a piece of the pie. As a result, a few states have granted civil unions as a legal equivalent and gateway to obtaining these benefits. Problem solved, right? No, apparently not. So why is homosexual marriage the next big goal? While money is a big factor, there's also something more-- homosexual sex acceptance. In other words, it's not about equal rights, it's about equating, and thereby validating, "lifestyle choices".
After all, how can you be considered "normal" if you don't imitate the norm? In the fight for the acceptance of homosexual sex, settling for a civil union would seem to be getting runner-up and a consolation prize. There is no doubt fear that if it's not called a marriage, it might not be recognized in the same way in all instances, regardless of the law. They want both the crown and the title. Nothing less will do.
But I once again cite the erosion of the institution of marriage as the root cause of this issue now being before us. When marriage was a religious ceremony with a higher purpose (commitment to God and "multiply" through procreation) recognized by government as a legally binding contract, it had a purpose beyond benefits. Then the non-religious wanted access to the contract and its benefits too, so "civil marriage" was instituted. Then came "common law" marriages where one didn't even have to make a commitment and get the official license. From there, civil unions made it so any two people could contract and be beneficiaries. Now it is such that the once most sacred of commitments in religious practice has become nothing more than a title to be sought for the sake of reaping benefits from the only provident higher power many worship-- the U.S. government.
So why not? How does it hurt the heteros you ask? Why should marriage be only between a man and a woman? Here are some reasons:
- if marriage is redefined as being any two people based on claims of discrimination and inequality, then why stop there? Why not grant such rights to just one person? Isn't there discrimination for the asexual as much as the homosexual? Or how about three? Why is polygamy a crime, anyway? Is that anyone's business? How does that hurt monogamists? What about partnering a human with an animal, mineral or vegetable? I love my dog! Why must you be such a non-human bigot and deny my dog and I the benefits you and your lover enjoy!? Why draw the line here and not over there? If love is love and sex is sex, why not drop all exclusion created by traditional, judgmental and discriminatory standards? You might say such extrapolation is silly, but how are these not the same arguments against discrimination and exclusion and how are these non-traditional lifestyle choices any less valid? So in effect, as soon as you begin on the non-exclusivity anti-discrimination path, the benefits in question will soon no longer be granted at all. Again, if everyone is special, no one is special.
- the financial benefits granted would actually come from heteros' tax dollars.While many heteros might not mind it, there are many who morally oppose supporting that lifestyle or who feel no need to give benefits to yet another special interest group. Again, the more inclusive a tax break becomes, the less such a break becomes for that group.
- granting such rights would give more legitimacy to homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. Just as legalizing drug use and subsidizing abortion normalizes and increases the numbers of those participate in such practices which were once taboo, many do not want to have homosexual practices become accepted norms. We have already seen the ill effects of drug use, rampant sexuality and other forms of carnal behavior has had in destroying family life and social structure. Such a societal stamp of approval would just add one more straw to the back of morality. Many, myself included, believe that laws based on ethics and morality should be the prime consideration in governing, and condoning immoral practices, sexual or otherwise, weakens families and, as a result, the nation.
- granting marital status also grants, in most cases, parental status which serves to further influence future generations to embrace sexually deviant lifestyle choices (homosexual or otherwise). In some States parental status was already granted previous to marital status, but both serve to do the same harm. While no family is without some dysfunction and sexual deviancy still spawns in traditional homes, it would be prudent to seek for ways to build traditional, balanced mother-father-child units rather than to bypass the opportunities for such relationships with open adoption laws.
5. In this argument, it doesn't matter what the Bible says about homosexuality.
Threw you a curveball, didn't I? In arguing against homosexuality, many people will often cite the Bible as if that should end the argument. That works to convince the choir, but the people on the other side of the issue don't care about God and will laugh that argument to scorn. It would be like a Muslim telling you, Mr. Biblethumper, that you should believe or do this or that because the Koran says so.
I believe in the Bible, but that doesn't help my argument with someone who doesn't. I also believe in legislating morality and using one's personal religious beliefs to determine one's choices on political issues. Now before you Libs go shouting "separation of church and state" at me, let me explain that all laws are someone's morality and all choices are based on one's own personal beliefs, be they rooted in religion or science or randomness. Even trying to please all people by being the most milquetoast middle-of-the-road don't-offend-anyone tightrope walker is following some form of a belief system that dictates non-judgementalism and pacifism somehow gets results.
So I stand up to say "I believe that homosexuality is immoral" and do so with a belief and faith that I am not alone in that statement, I believe many, many millions agree. I encourage others to say the same... or to say the opposite if that is their belief. But either way, be prepared to defend that belief with more than just a Bible verse or a Wiccan Handbook verse or whatever. Let everyone know you made a self-determined lifestyle choice to follow your beliefs just as your opponents did.
6. Being against "gay rights" does not mean you hate gays or are "homophobic".
A phobia? Really?? Look, I'm not afraid of homosexuals or homosexual feelings. This is just yet another myth that the media loves to perpetuate. It's the ol' "name game". Label your opponent, make it stick, and somehow you can rise above them because they are wearing the dunce cap you made for them. It's also the "shame game". Deflect the shame that others pour on to you by saying "I know you are, but what am I?"
Smart strategy, though... by making others believe that they are the ones with the problem (a phobia), everything said will be tainted with the idea that it's not rational thought and they will be silenced out of fear of fear itself! People are so afraid of that label that they will do whatever it takes to avoid it. I would submit that you could just as easily turn that argument around and say "you aren't homosexual, you're just heterophobic!" Try that and see what happens. The whole "phobic" label is yet another widely accepted fallacy that sadly has become an undisputed rubber-stamped lexicon term. Regardless of childish name-calling tactics, recognizing and rejecting the homosexual agenda is not phobic, it's logic.
Then there's the "hater" label. Hate is such an extreme word, but you have to go to extremes to deflect shame on to others. Hate denotes a bitter resentment, obsession and anger which I do not want to be a part of my life, and would certainly not waste on a political group or issue. Why should I? People with opposing views or lifestyles I disagree with pose no threat to me. Just like the "you're a homophobe" accusation, the hater implication is that I feel threatened or scared by someone different and that is the sole reason for not accepting their behavior or agenda. I'd have to be pretty insecure in my own self and personal belief system to feel threatened by mere opposition or disagreement and to turn that into hate. Trust me, I'm not.
No, actually I expect opposition as a healthy part of life! I actually would think something was wrong if everyone agreed all the time! I create my world view based on spiritual laws and reasoning, not by fear or hate. I would argue that it is actually the other side is more likely to be influenced emotions and passions, and create such labels for their detractors out of fear and hate.
On the contrary, I believe that all people, regardless of sexual choices, have value because they are children of God. I also believe God is perfect and therefore does not make mistakes. I believe we are born equal, not born this way or that way, but I do believe that we all have been given by God a set of circumstances, problems and temptations to overcome in life in order to test us. One person may be tempted to have sex with someone of the same gender while another might be tempted to have sex with his neighbor's wife. But being attracted to a neighbor's wife does not make one an adulterer any more than attraction to another male makes a man a homosexual. So the issue is not our temptations, but our reactions to them. Those that succumb to sexual temptations excuse their actions by citing their emotions and calling it love. In other words, the biggest problem, I believe, is that people confuse love with sex. As previously stated, sex is not love.
But the biggest problem with the whole "anti-gay" accusation is once again that first hurdle false premise. The assumption of "you hate/fear gays" is that "gay" is a class of person. It's not. Homosexuality is a sexual practice, not a gender or a class. Even if you commit the sin, you are not forever and henceforth that sin. You can change your ways and not be a thief or a liar or a "gay". You should do all in your power to overcome desires to do wrong, but those desires don't define you. Your actions and choices do. Label the act as immoral, not the actor as being the immorality incarnate. In other words, condemn the sin, not the sinner.
So there you have it. Six truths that I believe would bust the myths upon which most arguments are based and would radically change the discourse. As usual, this is my modest opinion and your feedback (agree or disagree) is welcome but only if done with reason and civility.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Independence Day
What does Independence Day mean to you?
First off, I'm tired of it being called "The Fourth of July". Yes, that's the date, but why does no one call it Independence Day anymore? That's like saying "Happy 25th of December" instead of Merry Christmas.
I wonder how many people under a certain age (40?) know what we celebrate on that date. I'm sure some think that's when the U.S. became a country. It's not. Some might think that it's when the Revolutionary War ended or began. Nope. I'm sure a lot of young people think that it's just a day to celebrate America with fireworks and picnics. That's just sad.
It's a day the colonies officially declared independence from the oppressive rule of the King of England and became united states. In a written Declaration of Independence (that's what the document was called), representatives of all 13 colonies (which they, for the first time, called "states") signed a document written by Thomas Jefferson listing their specific grievances against King George III of England.
Do you know what's in the Declaration, besides the phrases "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" and "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? Perhaps it's a good time to review it and see that there is more to it than that.
As you read the words of this declaration, realize that it can be applied to today's government just as it was to that of the former government which ruled this land. There are similarities in the way the current administration is violating basic rights and liberties just as King George did. To make it easier to read, I will provide a translation to more modern English.
This is how it begins:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Translation:
Now and then it becomes necessary to break political ties with one's rulers and assume the equality granted by God and natural law and respectfully give the reasons for this separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Translation:
We believe the following truths are obvious:
-all men are created to be equal
-they are granted by God undeniable rights such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
-to make these rights secure, governments are instituted and given their power by the consent of the people whom they govern
-if a government (in any form) seeks to destroy these rights, it is the right of the people to alter the government or to dismantle it and put in place a new government that respects these rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness in such a form where Safety and Happiness are preserved.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Translation:
It's not prudent to change a government on a mere whim, and it's been shown that people are more likely to just put up with government oppression as much as possible than to oppose it and overthrow their government. But when the tyrannical abuses get so bad that it can no longer be tolerated, it is the right and duty of the people to overthrow such a government and create "new guards for their future security".
"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
Translation:
The Colonies are at this point of suffering, and so it is now seen as a necessity to change their own system of government. The King has a history of repeated violations to our rights with the purpose of establishing absolute tyranny over us. Here is the list of his offenses:
They then go on to list 26 examples of his infringing upon their rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. After pointing out the King's offenses and how they have tried to redress them with him, they mention how they also petitioned the legislature as well:
"We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
Translation:
They reminded them that they left England and settled this new world in order to be more free from British rule, and have tried to appeal to their sense of justice and family ties (as most of the colonists were of British descent) to denounce the King's power grabs. However, the Parliament was also deaf to their pleas and must reject them and separate themselves from them as well.
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Translation:
We are no longer British colonies in America, but the United States of America, and relying on God to support and protect us, pledge to each other "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
It's a noble, indispensible document, and it should be noted how government is viewed as ideally being as Lincoln said "of the people, by the people and for the people" and the role the Founders saw God to have in the creation of man's equality and liberty. They took the overthrowing of the government as being a last resort, done after multiple attempts to change from within, but seeing that it was of no use and had to be done to alleviate suffering and injustice.
This Independence Day, I hope that you and I will remember the true meaning of the holiday and what the true purpose of the Declaration of Independence was: to denounce the tyranny of an overbearing government or leader and to "let freedom ring".
First off, I'm tired of it being called "The Fourth of July". Yes, that's the date, but why does no one call it Independence Day anymore? That's like saying "Happy 25th of December" instead of Merry Christmas.
I wonder how many people under a certain age (40?) know what we celebrate on that date. I'm sure some think that's when the U.S. became a country. It's not. Some might think that it's when the Revolutionary War ended or began. Nope. I'm sure a lot of young people think that it's just a day to celebrate America with fireworks and picnics. That's just sad.
It's a day the colonies officially declared independence from the oppressive rule of the King of England and became united states. In a written Declaration of Independence (that's what the document was called), representatives of all 13 colonies (which they, for the first time, called "states") signed a document written by Thomas Jefferson listing their specific grievances against King George III of England.
Do you know what's in the Declaration, besides the phrases "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" and "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? Perhaps it's a good time to review it and see that there is more to it than that.
As you read the words of this declaration, realize that it can be applied to today's government just as it was to that of the former government which ruled this land. There are similarities in the way the current administration is violating basic rights and liberties just as King George did. To make it easier to read, I will provide a translation to more modern English.
This is how it begins:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Translation:
Now and then it becomes necessary to break political ties with one's rulers and assume the equality granted by God and natural law and respectfully give the reasons for this separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Translation:
We believe the following truths are obvious:
-all men are created to be equal
-they are granted by God undeniable rights such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
-to make these rights secure, governments are instituted and given their power by the consent of the people whom they govern
-if a government (in any form) seeks to destroy these rights, it is the right of the people to alter the government or to dismantle it and put in place a new government that respects these rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness in such a form where Safety and Happiness are preserved.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Translation:
It's not prudent to change a government on a mere whim, and it's been shown that people are more likely to just put up with government oppression as much as possible than to oppose it and overthrow their government. But when the tyrannical abuses get so bad that it can no longer be tolerated, it is the right and duty of the people to overthrow such a government and create "new guards for their future security".
"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
Translation:
The Colonies are at this point of suffering, and so it is now seen as a necessity to change their own system of government. The King has a history of repeated violations to our rights with the purpose of establishing absolute tyranny over us. Here is the list of his offenses:
They then go on to list 26 examples of his infringing upon their rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. After pointing out the King's offenses and how they have tried to redress them with him, they mention how they also petitioned the legislature as well:
"We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
Translation:
They reminded them that they left England and settled this new world in order to be more free from British rule, and have tried to appeal to their sense of justice and family ties (as most of the colonists were of British descent) to denounce the King's power grabs. However, the Parliament was also deaf to their pleas and must reject them and separate themselves from them as well.
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Translation:
We are no longer British colonies in America, but the United States of America, and relying on God to support and protect us, pledge to each other "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
It's a noble, indispensible document, and it should be noted how government is viewed as ideally being as Lincoln said "of the people, by the people and for the people" and the role the Founders saw God to have in the creation of man's equality and liberty. They took the overthrowing of the government as being a last resort, done after multiple attempts to change from within, but seeing that it was of no use and had to be done to alleviate suffering and injustice.
This Independence Day, I hope that you and I will remember the true meaning of the holiday and what the true purpose of the Declaration of Independence was: to denounce the tyranny of an overbearing government or leader and to "let freedom ring".
Welcome to My Modest Opinion
I don't know how many people will read this blog or care about what I have to say. I don't even know if I will talk about myself or even reveal my identity. I just feel the need to put my thoughts and opinions in writing. To express myself in words. To get some stuff off my chest....
Most of my opinions will be about political issues but I have other thoughts about media, music, religion, products and society at large. My opinions are deeply rooted in my own beliefs, some of which I may share, some I may not. I feel very strongly about my beliefs so I'm usually not very easily convinced to change an opinion, but I do listen to what others have to say and consider their viewpoints even if I ultimately disagree.
I don't affiliate myself with one party. I consider myself an Independent because I have a real distaste for both of the major parties and don't see any of the minor parties that reflect my views. Most of the time I hold my nose and vote for Republicans only because of their stance on certain social issues or because their opponents usually have a more radical position on social issues that I disagree with strongly. I actually hate politicians and politics because I think much of it is pandering for popularity instead of governing and leadership.
I hope that people will read this blog and respond to what I have to say. I enjoy discussion and debate, but I won't engage in flame wars (ad hominem attacks and name-calling) and arguing for the sake of argument. If you have a question or want to offer a reasoned opinion, I would love to interact with you. If you can disagree without being disagreeable, I will try to do the same.
So.... here we go. Let's get started!
Most of my opinions will be about political issues but I have other thoughts about media, music, religion, products and society at large. My opinions are deeply rooted in my own beliefs, some of which I may share, some I may not. I feel very strongly about my beliefs so I'm usually not very easily convinced to change an opinion, but I do listen to what others have to say and consider their viewpoints even if I ultimately disagree.
I don't affiliate myself with one party. I consider myself an Independent because I have a real distaste for both of the major parties and don't see any of the minor parties that reflect my views. Most of the time I hold my nose and vote for Republicans only because of their stance on certain social issues or because their opponents usually have a more radical position on social issues that I disagree with strongly. I actually hate politicians and politics because I think much of it is pandering for popularity instead of governing and leadership.
I hope that people will read this blog and respond to what I have to say. I enjoy discussion and debate, but I won't engage in flame wars (ad hominem attacks and name-calling) and arguing for the sake of argument. If you have a question or want to offer a reasoned opinion, I would love to interact with you. If you can disagree without being disagreeable, I will try to do the same.
So.... here we go. Let's get started!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)