Wednesday, April 27, 2011

More Hypocrisy

As this article illustrates nicely, hypocrisy is routine amongst supporters of abnormal sexual practice. Note the nasty things the author of the Gawker piece says about those with whom he disagrees.

Now, I understand the urge to mock those with different views. I'm not beyond that myself. But when the mockery comes from those who criticize those who mock them, it's hypocrisy. Worse, the mockery they lament is framed as hatred and bigotry, the worst thing in the world, and even God is guilty if what some Christians say is true about the Biblical prohibition against all forms and manifestations of their favored sexual practices.

At the same time, what choice to they have? They have no legitimate defense of their position. Pretending the other side is evil, stupid or backward and mocking them for it is about all they can do, short of acknowledging their problem and/or ignoring the truth.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Hypocrisy at its best

As this Americans for Truth article points out, groups like GLAAD aren't all that concerned about hate speech and bigotry after all.

After a recent incident on the court, wherein Kobe Bryant hurled a slur at a ref after the ref made a call with which Kobe disagreed, the skies darkened, the earth shook, and GLAAD and other pro-homo activists shrieked in dismay that Kobe would dare utter an eptithet they consider to be THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD!!!! How dare he? He needs a beating and severe psychological re-formatting!

So the Lakers and church groups (most likely liberally-leaning church groups) and GLAAD has gotten together to fight against such awful things.

Yet, as we see from the linked article, they don't much care about hate speech and bigotry really. What they care about is their idea of hate speech and bigotry, that anything that is opposed to their agenda be considered hateful and bigoted. It isn't hate speech that bothers them, but to whom the speech is directed and from whom it is spoken.

This is a typically leftist situation. At another blog I visit, I'm often warned against incivility, but recently compadres of the host have been given carte blanche to open fire upon me. (Don't worry---I can take it---no one there is clever enough in the art of insult to do more than make fools of themselves by attempting any)

GLAAD honoring such a scumbag as they have proves the point I'm making here. Because the left, and homo-enabling outfits like GLAAD, have decided that homosexuality is normal and equal morally to heterosexuality, they spend a lot of effort trying to convince the world that the least opposition to their cause is tantamount to hate. When such sad and pathetic people can successfully demonize those who are the right side of the issue being debated, it scares off the weaker among us from standing for truth and honesty, and makes their lame arguments and evidences easier to swallow. Well, not so much easier, but people have pretend it doesn't taste so bad.

Well, some of us know their nonsense is poisonous to our culture and are not content to simply let them take control of the debate without a fight. Their position is based on lies and lies must be opposed.

Continue to fight. Continue to pray for their repentence. Continue to provide avenues to address their condition so that they may learn to deal with their temptations like adults are supposed to. They're still people despite how corrupted they are and they need help.

Friday, April 08, 2011

How Many???

From the recent issue if National Review that arrived today

"An ABC/Washington Post poll found that 53 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage. But don't believe it. For one thing, respondents seem to tell interviewers that they favor same-sex marriage because they think it's what they are supposed to say. Their answers are more negative when voting or responding to robo-calls. The question was also flawed: "Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?" Of course nobody is proposing to throw same-sex couples in jail for getting a friendly Unitarian minister to hold a ceremony for them, or for calling themselves married is social settings. We do not think that this behavior should be "illegal" or, to use another misleading word bandied about in this debate, "banned". What we oppose is official recognition of these unions, since such recognition would undermine the core purpose of marriage law, which is to link procreation to stable households. The poll is not evidence that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. It is, however, evidence that its supporters have succeeded in setting the terms of debate."

...or as I like to say, they've succeeding in using their dishonesty to influence public opinion. Not a surprise since there is little that is honest that is used to support the agenda that doesn't exist.

Saturday, April 02, 2011

Poor Doggy!

Recently on Facebook, a plea was posted on behalf of an abused dog. This animal was found in a dumpster at the bottom of some building's garbage chute. It was suffering from lack of nourishment and barely alive. The person who had posted this sad story had begun a petition seeking justice for the animal through some action against the abuser, should he be found. Naturally, it was expected that readers sign the petition. The Facebook friend that posted this story was not the originator of the story, but was only passing it along. She says she is an animal activist and expressed her dismay and disgust at the animal's condition, as well as toward the person responsible.

Then things got a little dicey.

I offered my comment that I could not in good conscience sign the petition. Despite the fact that I oppose animal abuse, I do not believe the perpetrators of such behavior should be treated like they beat the crap out of another human being. Indeed, such behavior, as awful as it is for the animal, should provoke some level of concern, if not compassion, for the abuser. Such a person is obviously in need of help. But the person who started the petition wants revenge on behalf of the dog.

To me that's sick. It's just as sick as the person who did the abusing. It's a twisted and corrupted sense of compassion.

It's not an uncommon even showed up in a Lethal Weapon movie (I think the third one). Riggs is confronted with a snarling guard dog and is encouraged to shoot it. He won't, saying in not so many words, "Naw...I love dogs. It's people I hate." Funny stuff (sorta), but in reality a terrible attitude even if only mildly held.

The usual scenario: A burning building. You look up and see two windows and in each is a face hoping for rescue. In the left, a sorrowful and desperate puppy with it's sad, puppy eyes (which it has because it's a freakin' puppy) and in the other, homosexual cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer, who abused animals in his youth before turning to meatier victims. There's only time to save one, by golly! Who do you save? The answer is clear and simple: Dahmer. The poor little puppy dies. To let Dahmer burn is unconscionable. In fact, it's tantamount to murder. Not so if the puppy dies. Not even close.

Later in the conversation, I referred to a public service announcement with Sarah Mc-somebody (I can't remember how to spell her last name) begging for support for abused and neglected cats and dogs. I indicated my belief that the producers go out of their way to insure the animals look as pathetic as possible. I took a little heat for that, too. But in fact, I believe the same is done when seeking donations for ANY cause, even hungry kids. Here's the thing: While there are hungry kids, and abused kids, and aborted kids, I couldn't care less about the plight of animals. I don't think my God would like it.

Animals are great. I love 'em. Have one myself. Have had animals in my house for the last twenty-five years or more. But they're animals. Nothing more. Their deaths were sad due to the impact on my wife and kids. It's easy to get a new one. Do I miss any of 'em? A bit. But no sleep was ever lost. I'm tired right now, in fact.

Animals are a resource. They're like oil, gold, water. They're here for our personal use. They're fun, often a pain, but can be a friend and an emergency meal when things are really bad (except for whippets).

What they aren't is people. They should not be regarded as such. No. They should not be abused for any reason, except for grilling or making coats. But barring that, they should not be tortured for pleasure or if kept for any reason, neglected. Pets do deserve to be taken care of if one chooses to have one. I do not much care for the idea of getting a pet and then giving it away when one gets tired of having one. (Well, except for maybe the first time---but only once. Then, don't ever get another.)

But let's not get carried away. Keep it in perspective. They are, after all, only animals.