It was not my intention to do a post based on that treasure trove known as Geoffrey's blog, but I was wasting time on the computer and thought I'd take a look there, not having done so in a while.
Now, it isn't really possible to visit his blog and not find something goofy. It's almost like it's his purpose in life to provide fodder. But this post has a special charm. The great joy is in the title alone and the lone comment posted by one for whom the luster of Geoffrey's intellect is now diminished.
While we're at it, you'll also find the usual nonsensical understanding of right-wing sentiment regarding abortion. First, that we have any confusion regarding what the laws say about it, and secondly, that it is our side that is confused about what abortion is and what a fetus is. We have no problems understanding the moral bankruptcy of people like Geoffrey who try to pretend there is some line that separates the unborn from the rest of humanity. The only real confusion on the right is whether positions like Geoffrey's should be cause for laughter or abject sorrow.
Sunday, June 09, 2013
Sunday, June 02, 2013
The Cornucopia Delivers
I haven't been over to Geoffrey's blog lately, thereby reducing his readership by almost half, but that doesn't necessarily deprive us of good stuff.
It all began with a post at Dan Trabue's blog wherein he charges Stan with "whining" in a post at his blog. The extreme irony of Dan accusing Stan of "whining" in regards to the issue of which he speaks is so obviously lost on Dan, that I plan to point it out for him in a later post. But for now, suffice to say it is where Geoffrey makes his own special delivery of his usual good stuff.
And it comes within this paragraph from one of his last comments on the thread (which is within the last dozen or so comments of the thread for anyone who cares to read it firsthand). I emboldened the "good stuff" in question:
"That legalizing same-sex marriage makes it binding upon everyone? Last time I checked the country was chock-full of people, some of them working at the Heritage Foundation, who think that people of other races are inherently inferior in some way. That doesn't mean the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws aren't still in force. Passing a law, even nearly fifty years ago, hasn't changes at least some minds. I'm quite sure there will be folks like you who refuse to admit that a married gay couple is really married."
Naturally, I questioned him on this wacky assertion:
" Really." says I. "When did your last check occur, and who at the Heritage Foundation did you find that held people of other races as inherently inferior in some way?"
So then Geoffie provides this link to the Daily Beast with the laughable suggestion that it is not a liberal source.
Now, it's bad enough that he tries to trash Heritage by citing this article and the article's many weak links to weaker validations of their charges (Heritage's assessment of the economic impact of the current "comprehensive immigration reform" proposal is the only one available at this time as far as I can tell), but he's really keen on the accusations leveled at one of the authors of the analysis, one Jason Richwine. It seems that the Washington Post "revealed" the "racist ideology" of Richwine by referring to a thesis of his while at Harvard. This would be humorous if it wasn't so downright deceitful. But as I told Geoff, reporting a charge of racism does not equate to actually finding racism. To that, Geoffie responded in this way:
"If you took some time to read, you'd notice that (a) the whole thesis is racist (Hispanics are stupid because they're Hispanics); and (b) it was so blatant the Heritage Foundation fired the guy.
So, obviously, I'm just repeating a charge of racism rather than actually finding out what's going on, unlike you who can't even be bothered to Google the story in the first place."
Note point (a). As I've begun reading the thesis, I have yet to find anything that suggests Richwine is arguing that Hispanics are stupid because they're Hispanic. Only about 30-40 pages into it, I've found that Richwine makes specific comments that indicate no racism is behind his work. He states categorically that regardless of how one group compares to another, every individual should always be treated as an individual. He even presents an example of an early study on IQ that was racially motivated to both illustrate the distinction, as well as to expose the flaws of methodology. So Geoffie is lying here. Then he lies again with point (b). Heritage accepted Richwine's resignation because of the liberal whining about racism, not because his thesis was indeed "blatantly" racist.
Michelle Malkin writes about the situation here, and shows much better journalistic integrity in doing so. She presents the three Harvard big shots who signed off on Richwine's thesis:
"Richwine’s dissertation committee at Harvard included George Borjas, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy. The Cuban-born scholar received his PhD in economics from Columbia. He is an award-winning labor economist, National Bureau of Economic Research research associate, and author of countless books, including a widely used labor economics textbook now in its sixth edition.
Richard J. Zeckhauser, the Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy at JFK, also signed off on Richwine’s dissertation. Zeckhauser earned a PhD in economics from Harvard. He belongs to the Econometric Society, the American Academy of Sciences, and the Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Sciences).
The final member of the committee that approved Richwine’s “racist” thesis is Christopher Jencks, the Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy at Harvard’s JFK School. He is a renowned left-wing academic who has taught at Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and the University of California, Santa Barbara. He edited the liberal New Republic magazine in the 1960s and has written several scholarly books tackling poverty, economic inequality, affirmative action, welfare reform, and yes, racial differences (The Black White Test Score Gap)."
All in all, what Geoffrey and the leftist whiners lambasting Heritage and Richwine are doing is typical of their ilk. Simply because one dares to compare races or ethnic groups, by golly, racism is afoot! This is weak sauce and childishness. It is also extreme cowardice to cower from the prospect of making such comparisons as if no true benefit can be possible.
So imagine for a moment that some liberal hero decides to prove that there are no differences between the races or ethnic groups. He wants to show up the Richwines of the world and intently reviews all Richwine did, runs tests, researches minutia and goes well beyond Richwine, hitting the subject from every possible angle. Imagine he comes up with exactly the same results as Richwine. Does that make the liberal hero a racist villain? Should he lose his job and/or standing in the public square? Should he resign?
Here's the thing: how can anyone get upset to find that when comparing races or ethnic groups they might not score equally? Where's the problem here? Does it seem impossible that the most intelligent and wisest might be from the group that scored the worst? I don't see how it's possible that all groups could be absolutely equal in abilities. One group might have the strongest, another the smartest, another the fastest. It's what we do with this information that matters. In the case of Richwine, he proposed merely that we consider IQ in immigration policy. He gives reasons why that might be beneficial. And while his work suggests that Hispanics demonstrate the least potential for assimilation, I haven't found any suggestion that no Hispanics can assimilate and be a welcome addition to our population.
So many insist that our immigration situation is in dire need of improvement. Richwine has one possible way to do that. And whether or not one agrees with his findings, one needs to be able to refute them before dismissing them out of hand. If the findings are accurate, then they deserve consideration in any discussion of immigration reform. It isn't racist no matter how people like Geoffrey and some politicians want it to be.
It all began with a post at Dan Trabue's blog wherein he charges Stan with "whining" in a post at his blog. The extreme irony of Dan accusing Stan of "whining" in regards to the issue of which he speaks is so obviously lost on Dan, that I plan to point it out for him in a later post. But for now, suffice to say it is where Geoffrey makes his own special delivery of his usual good stuff.
And it comes within this paragraph from one of his last comments on the thread (which is within the last dozen or so comments of the thread for anyone who cares to read it firsthand). I emboldened the "good stuff" in question:
"That legalizing same-sex marriage makes it binding upon everyone? Last time I checked the country was chock-full of people, some of them working at the Heritage Foundation, who think that people of other races are inherently inferior in some way. That doesn't mean the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws aren't still in force. Passing a law, even nearly fifty years ago, hasn't changes at least some minds. I'm quite sure there will be folks like you who refuse to admit that a married gay couple is really married."
Naturally, I questioned him on this wacky assertion:
" Really." says I. "When did your last check occur, and who at the Heritage Foundation did you find that held people of other races as inherently inferior in some way?"
So then Geoffie provides this link to the Daily Beast with the laughable suggestion that it is not a liberal source.
Now, it's bad enough that he tries to trash Heritage by citing this article and the article's many weak links to weaker validations of their charges (Heritage's assessment of the economic impact of the current "comprehensive immigration reform" proposal is the only one available at this time as far as I can tell), but he's really keen on the accusations leveled at one of the authors of the analysis, one Jason Richwine. It seems that the Washington Post "revealed" the "racist ideology" of Richwine by referring to a thesis of his while at Harvard. This would be humorous if it wasn't so downright deceitful. But as I told Geoff, reporting a charge of racism does not equate to actually finding racism. To that, Geoffie responded in this way:
"If you took some time to read, you'd notice that (a) the whole thesis is racist (Hispanics are stupid because they're Hispanics); and (b) it was so blatant the Heritage Foundation fired the guy.
So, obviously, I'm just repeating a charge of racism rather than actually finding out what's going on, unlike you who can't even be bothered to Google the story in the first place."
Note point (a). As I've begun reading the thesis, I have yet to find anything that suggests Richwine is arguing that Hispanics are stupid because they're Hispanic. Only about 30-40 pages into it, I've found that Richwine makes specific comments that indicate no racism is behind his work. He states categorically that regardless of how one group compares to another, every individual should always be treated as an individual. He even presents an example of an early study on IQ that was racially motivated to both illustrate the distinction, as well as to expose the flaws of methodology. So Geoffie is lying here. Then he lies again with point (b). Heritage accepted Richwine's resignation because of the liberal whining about racism, not because his thesis was indeed "blatantly" racist.
Michelle Malkin writes about the situation here, and shows much better journalistic integrity in doing so. She presents the three Harvard big shots who signed off on Richwine's thesis:
"Richwine’s dissertation committee at Harvard included George Borjas, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy. The Cuban-born scholar received his PhD in economics from Columbia. He is an award-winning labor economist, National Bureau of Economic Research research associate, and author of countless books, including a widely used labor economics textbook now in its sixth edition.
Richard J. Zeckhauser, the Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy at JFK, also signed off on Richwine’s dissertation. Zeckhauser earned a PhD in economics from Harvard. He belongs to the Econometric Society, the American Academy of Sciences, and the Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Sciences).
The final member of the committee that approved Richwine’s “racist” thesis is Christopher Jencks, the Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy at Harvard’s JFK School. He is a renowned left-wing academic who has taught at Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and the University of California, Santa Barbara. He edited the liberal New Republic magazine in the 1960s and has written several scholarly books tackling poverty, economic inequality, affirmative action, welfare reform, and yes, racial differences (The Black White Test Score Gap)."
All in all, what Geoffrey and the leftist whiners lambasting Heritage and Richwine are doing is typical of their ilk. Simply because one dares to compare races or ethnic groups, by golly, racism is afoot! This is weak sauce and childishness. It is also extreme cowardice to cower from the prospect of making such comparisons as if no true benefit can be possible.
So imagine for a moment that some liberal hero decides to prove that there are no differences between the races or ethnic groups. He wants to show up the Richwines of the world and intently reviews all Richwine did, runs tests, researches minutia and goes well beyond Richwine, hitting the subject from every possible angle. Imagine he comes up with exactly the same results as Richwine. Does that make the liberal hero a racist villain? Should he lose his job and/or standing in the public square? Should he resign?
Here's the thing: how can anyone get upset to find that when comparing races or ethnic groups they might not score equally? Where's the problem here? Does it seem impossible that the most intelligent and wisest might be from the group that scored the worst? I don't see how it's possible that all groups could be absolutely equal in abilities. One group might have the strongest, another the smartest, another the fastest. It's what we do with this information that matters. In the case of Richwine, he proposed merely that we consider IQ in immigration policy. He gives reasons why that might be beneficial. And while his work suggests that Hispanics demonstrate the least potential for assimilation, I haven't found any suggestion that no Hispanics can assimilate and be a welcome addition to our population.
So many insist that our immigration situation is in dire need of improvement. Richwine has one possible way to do that. And whether or not one agrees with his findings, one needs to be able to refute them before dismissing them out of hand. If the findings are accurate, then they deserve consideration in any discussion of immigration reform. It isn't racist no matter how people like Geoffrey and some politicians want it to be.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Two New Right Ones
Just a note to announce the addition of two blogs to my Right Ones blog roll. The Watchman's Bagpipes is Glenn's blog, and Timothy J. Hammons posts at Neil's and other places as "Pastor Timothy". I've been meaning to add them for some time, and I apologize to them both for my procrastination. Both are worthy additions indeed. Check 'em out.
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
But Hey! What Do We Know?
According to a new Pentagon report, sexual assaults within the military have gone up. This AP report, posted on ABCnews.go.com, gives some numbers:
"The report says that of the 1.4 million active duty personnel, 6.1 percent of active duty women — or 12,100 — say they experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, a sharp increase over the 8,600 who said that in 2010. For men, the number increased from 10,700 to 13,900. A majority of the offenders were military members or Defense Department civilians or contractors, the report said."
Gosh. Who could possibly have predicted something like this ever happening? I mean, these are professional soldiers who only think about doing their jobs. They could easily maintain discipline whilst working closely with members of the opposite sex, right? Who could possibly have foreseen this?
I don't know. Maybe rational and reasonable people who deal in the real world without regard to nonsensical political correctness and the fools who champion it. It was totally obvious to them that such a consequence was more than mere potential. It was bound to happen.
And what of those men who experienced unwanted sexual contact? Who was applying the pressure? I wonder. (No I don't) I'm sure it was all women officers abusing their authority. (No I'm not) No way could lesbian officers have done so to subordinate women, or homosexual men toward men.
Yeah. Let's just mix all these people together, men, women, homosexuals, lesbians. What could go wrong?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two reports released this week show gun homicides in the U.S. are down since the 1990s. One is a study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics. It showed gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in2011. A reduction of 39%.
Another report by the Pew Research Center found a similar decline. It found that the number of homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in '93 to 3.6 in 2010. A 49% decline.
Even non-fatal crimes involving guns shrank by about 70% over that period. But the Pew group polled people in March and found that 56% thought that the number of gun crimes is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% thought the opposite.
Just think about all those blood-thirsty gun owners out there. Aren't they trying hard enough? One would think with the increase in gun purchases recently that we'd see an increase in such numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both of the above stories seem to indicate that the leftists don't know what the hell they're talking about. If they did, we'd not see increases in sexual assaults in the military. If they did, we'd not see a decrease in gun crimes while gun ownership increases. These realities will be ignored by them.
"The report says that of the 1.4 million active duty personnel, 6.1 percent of active duty women — or 12,100 — say they experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, a sharp increase over the 8,600 who said that in 2010. For men, the number increased from 10,700 to 13,900. A majority of the offenders were military members or Defense Department civilians or contractors, the report said."
Gosh. Who could possibly have predicted something like this ever happening? I mean, these are professional soldiers who only think about doing their jobs. They could easily maintain discipline whilst working closely with members of the opposite sex, right? Who could possibly have foreseen this?
I don't know. Maybe rational and reasonable people who deal in the real world without regard to nonsensical political correctness and the fools who champion it. It was totally obvious to them that such a consequence was more than mere potential. It was bound to happen.
And what of those men who experienced unwanted sexual contact? Who was applying the pressure? I wonder. (No I don't) I'm sure it was all women officers abusing their authority. (No I'm not) No way could lesbian officers have done so to subordinate women, or homosexual men toward men.
Yeah. Let's just mix all these people together, men, women, homosexuals, lesbians. What could go wrong?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two reports released this week show gun homicides in the U.S. are down since the 1990s. One is a study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics. It showed gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in2011. A reduction of 39%.
Another report by the Pew Research Center found a similar decline. It found that the number of homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in '93 to 3.6 in 2010. A 49% decline.
Even non-fatal crimes involving guns shrank by about 70% over that period. But the Pew group polled people in March and found that 56% thought that the number of gun crimes is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% thought the opposite.
Just think about all those blood-thirsty gun owners out there. Aren't they trying hard enough? One would think with the increase in gun purchases recently that we'd see an increase in such numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both of the above stories seem to indicate that the leftists don't know what the hell they're talking about. If they did, we'd not see increases in sexual assaults in the military. If they did, we'd not see a decrease in gun crimes while gun ownership increases. These realities will be ignored by them.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Agenda Lies 6: Danny's Story
I have such limited time these days. So much is happening in the world, but deciding on topics for the blog is difficult when only so much time is available. It's far easier to visit other blogs and comment as the mood strikes me. Lately I've been visiting Dan Trabue's blog to engage in a discussion regarding the harm caused by the legalization of same-sex marriage (SSM). At least that's what I thought the topic was. Hard to tell, because when one provided another example of the harm, Dan had taken to deleting it if it did not meet his undefined criteria for what constitutes harm. So not only was that hard to understand, but by his actions, we are also more confused on the issue of grace in discourse, a tone Dan so often demands.
A little background: Dan Trabue supports SSM. He has a very twisted understanding of Scripture upon which he bases his opinion. In his contorted world, God is pleased by two committed, loving and monogamous homosexuals, just as He is pleased with a man and woman committed to each other in marriage. Despite several years of trying, I have yet to get Dan to fill the many gaping holes that perforate his position. In the above mentioned blog thread, I had again offered a link that provided a list of about half a dozen pro-homosexual Biblical scholars that also contradict Dan's position. But Dan holds fast to his heresy. He loves his heresy. Thus, it's no surprise that he supports changes to our laws that would result in SSM being treated as equal to normal, REAL marriage.
So, he posts his thoughts on the current situation regarding this debate. His point revolves around his belief that we who defend marriage as an institution based on the union of one man and one woman are in fact losing the debate, and that we are flummoxed as to why.
He says that we "are now on the losing side of history". Who came up with that idiocy? "Wrong side of history". "Losing side of history". It's inane. I know what is meant by it's use, but it's really meaningless. How can anyone determine the right side of history, or the winning side? Especially as history is still unfolding.
But I digress.
Dan's first mistake (for the purpose of this post) is to define winning or losing as "when one side makes the case in a way that appeals to those listening as the most rational and/or moral argument." The mistake is in asserting that his side has even established a rational and/or moral argument. They just take it for granted.
He then goes on to explain our problem:
" For many out there, the reasons they lost are clear (in their mind) and include...
1. The devil always wins out in the short term
2. Pro-marriage-equity types have "controlled the language"
3. Pro-marriage-equity types have taken over the media
4. Pro-marriage-equity types have subverted our public schools
5. Our side is willing to do anything to win, including lie, cheat and twist facts
and, the ever popular...
6. The public is too dam dumb!"
This constitutes the most honest bit I've ever heard from a pro-homosexual proponent. Each of those points is rather accurate, even if the order is not. (#1 is not a driving reason that anyone puts forth, demonic influence being a bit too tricky to support)
Points 2-5 are absolutely accurate. Take #2. The very term "pro-marriage-equity" was composed to tap the emotions of those to which Dan refers in #6. There is no "inequity" now and never was since interracial marriage was no longer prohibited. That's because homosexuals don't qualify for recognition by the state (nor by God) because they are two of the same sex. Marriage requires one of each gender. Always has. It's never been different. It is what marriage is. Now, the activists and their enablers regard marriage in a manner that has not been historically accurate. To them, it is only a union of two people who love each other. But legally, the feelings of the two being married were not of consequence in order to gain legal recognition and/or license.
And as the media and public school system are heavily influenced by (if not totally controlled by) leftists, often of the hard-core variety, they have indeed influenced an entire generation into regarding homosexual behavior as morally benign or no worse than equal to heterosexual behavior within a marriage.
Then, I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize the absolute FACT that is point #5. A close look reveals that even those few arguments from the activist/enabler that sound like truth is itself based on lies, distortions & falsehoods. Take a look at the polling to which they rely to support their claim of shifting cultural sentiments. Our youth has been inundated by pro-homo propaganda for the last 40 years or more. To say that our young polls high in support for SSM is really just a self-fulfilled prophesy. Train the kids to believe what you say and then ask them what they believe. "See? Even the kids know!"
The real issue here is not that we've lost the debate. That's not possible. All the truth and facts are on our side of the issue. We hold the moral high ground because we understand the clear truth regarding what constitutes moral behavior in the area of human sexuality.
Even more importantly, their side has never debated the issue at all. Despite what Dan falsely claims is true about how we debate, his side has jumped to demonize all who disagree with the Agenda That Doesn't Exist. They don't deal with the issues presented to answer the question of harm at all. Indeed, our side has been very adamant in listing the many ways tolerating homosexual behavior is harmful to the culture, as well as to those involved in the lifestyle.
And we've hit the issue from every imaginable angle. No one can hope to go toe to toe with Robert Gagnon from the Biblical perspective. They just dismiss him. No one can tangle with people like Jennifer Rorbach Morse on the cultural side. And considering how many of our laws, policies and customs are based upon the traditional understanding of marriage, it will be a legal nightmare.
But the Dans of the world will continue to ignore the fact and logic based arguments defending real marriage. No argument will be good enough as a result. It's not that the anti-SSM arguments fail. It's that Dan fails to give them the respect they deserve. Doing so would make his position untenable (as if it isn't already).
As one progresses through the over 130 comments that followed the post (not counting those of mine and Craig's that Dan ungraciously deleted---he claims they didn't answer the question, when he should have left them for others to decide if they did or not), one will see that Dan doesn't really explain what he was seeking. His question morphs throughout. He speaks of the debate in the post and then finishes with the question he thinks we haven't answered "what's the harm?" What does that mean to you in light of the context? I was pretty damned sure he was referring to the debate about legalizing this immoral idea of SSM. So when I responded with a few examples of the harm legalization would present, he altered the question to simply, "What if two rational, healthy adults love each other and want to marry - committing to faithfully love, support and respect each other - and they're causing no one any harm, what possible reason would there be for stopping that marriage?"
Well, obviously I wouldn't be looking to stop two rational, healthy adults if they were comprised of one man and one woman. And I certainly wouldn't waste my time trying to stop two of the same gender who wished to commit to each other. But the question assumes that two of the same gender who wish to marry each other are both rational and healthy. The fact that two of the same gender wish to marry each other does not imply "rational" at all. It suggests something quite unhealthy psychologically.
Nonetheless, there's a big difference in the question if it isn't connected to the debate he claims we're losing. Aside from the harm they do to themselves, both physically and, most importantly, spiritually, I don't care if homosexuals or lesbians wish to play house. I'm concerned with the problems legalizing it will inflict upon our culture, our children and our economy.
So here's a question: Where's the harm in NOT legalizing SSM? There is none. There would only be an incredibly tiny percentage of the general population that would be put out. (Only a small percentage of homosexuals have gotten married in states and countries that legalized this selfish demand.)
A little background: Dan Trabue supports SSM. He has a very twisted understanding of Scripture upon which he bases his opinion. In his contorted world, God is pleased by two committed, loving and monogamous homosexuals, just as He is pleased with a man and woman committed to each other in marriage. Despite several years of trying, I have yet to get Dan to fill the many gaping holes that perforate his position. In the above mentioned blog thread, I had again offered a link that provided a list of about half a dozen pro-homosexual Biblical scholars that also contradict Dan's position. But Dan holds fast to his heresy. He loves his heresy. Thus, it's no surprise that he supports changes to our laws that would result in SSM being treated as equal to normal, REAL marriage.
So, he posts his thoughts on the current situation regarding this debate. His point revolves around his belief that we who defend marriage as an institution based on the union of one man and one woman are in fact losing the debate, and that we are flummoxed as to why.
He says that we "are now on the losing side of history". Who came up with that idiocy? "Wrong side of history". "Losing side of history". It's inane. I know what is meant by it's use, but it's really meaningless. How can anyone determine the right side of history, or the winning side? Especially as history is still unfolding.
But I digress.
Dan's first mistake (for the purpose of this post) is to define winning or losing as "when one side makes the case in a way that appeals to those listening as the most rational and/or moral argument." The mistake is in asserting that his side has even established a rational and/or moral argument. They just take it for granted.
He then goes on to explain our problem:
" For many out there, the reasons they lost are clear (in their mind) and include...
1. The devil always wins out in the short term
2. Pro-marriage-equity types have "controlled the language"
3. Pro-marriage-equity types have taken over the media
4. Pro-marriage-equity types have subverted our public schools
5. Our side is willing to do anything to win, including lie, cheat and twist facts
and, the ever popular...
6. The public is too dam dumb!"
This constitutes the most honest bit I've ever heard from a pro-homosexual proponent. Each of those points is rather accurate, even if the order is not. (#1 is not a driving reason that anyone puts forth, demonic influence being a bit too tricky to support)
Points 2-5 are absolutely accurate. Take #2. The very term "pro-marriage-equity" was composed to tap the emotions of those to which Dan refers in #6. There is no "inequity" now and never was since interracial marriage was no longer prohibited. That's because homosexuals don't qualify for recognition by the state (nor by God) because they are two of the same sex. Marriage requires one of each gender. Always has. It's never been different. It is what marriage is. Now, the activists and their enablers regard marriage in a manner that has not been historically accurate. To them, it is only a union of two people who love each other. But legally, the feelings of the two being married were not of consequence in order to gain legal recognition and/or license.
And as the media and public school system are heavily influenced by (if not totally controlled by) leftists, often of the hard-core variety, they have indeed influenced an entire generation into regarding homosexual behavior as morally benign or no worse than equal to heterosexual behavior within a marriage.
Then, I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize the absolute FACT that is point #5. A close look reveals that even those few arguments from the activist/enabler that sound like truth is itself based on lies, distortions & falsehoods. Take a look at the polling to which they rely to support their claim of shifting cultural sentiments. Our youth has been inundated by pro-homo propaganda for the last 40 years or more. To say that our young polls high in support for SSM is really just a self-fulfilled prophesy. Train the kids to believe what you say and then ask them what they believe. "See? Even the kids know!"
The real issue here is not that we've lost the debate. That's not possible. All the truth and facts are on our side of the issue. We hold the moral high ground because we understand the clear truth regarding what constitutes moral behavior in the area of human sexuality.
Even more importantly, their side has never debated the issue at all. Despite what Dan falsely claims is true about how we debate, his side has jumped to demonize all who disagree with the Agenda That Doesn't Exist. They don't deal with the issues presented to answer the question of harm at all. Indeed, our side has been very adamant in listing the many ways tolerating homosexual behavior is harmful to the culture, as well as to those involved in the lifestyle.
And we've hit the issue from every imaginable angle. No one can hope to go toe to toe with Robert Gagnon from the Biblical perspective. They just dismiss him. No one can tangle with people like Jennifer Rorbach Morse on the cultural side. And considering how many of our laws, policies and customs are based upon the traditional understanding of marriage, it will be a legal nightmare.
But the Dans of the world will continue to ignore the fact and logic based arguments defending real marriage. No argument will be good enough as a result. It's not that the anti-SSM arguments fail. It's that Dan fails to give them the respect they deserve. Doing so would make his position untenable (as if it isn't already).
As one progresses through the over 130 comments that followed the post (not counting those of mine and Craig's that Dan ungraciously deleted---he claims they didn't answer the question, when he should have left them for others to decide if they did or not), one will see that Dan doesn't really explain what he was seeking. His question morphs throughout. He speaks of the debate in the post and then finishes with the question he thinks we haven't answered "what's the harm?" What does that mean to you in light of the context? I was pretty damned sure he was referring to the debate about legalizing this immoral idea of SSM. So when I responded with a few examples of the harm legalization would present, he altered the question to simply, "What if two rational, healthy adults love each other and want to marry - committing to faithfully love, support and respect each other - and they're causing no one any harm, what possible reason would there be for stopping that marriage?"
Well, obviously I wouldn't be looking to stop two rational, healthy adults if they were comprised of one man and one woman. And I certainly wouldn't waste my time trying to stop two of the same gender who wished to commit to each other. But the question assumes that two of the same gender who wish to marry each other are both rational and healthy. The fact that two of the same gender wish to marry each other does not imply "rational" at all. It suggests something quite unhealthy psychologically.
Nonetheless, there's a big difference in the question if it isn't connected to the debate he claims we're losing. Aside from the harm they do to themselves, both physically and, most importantly, spiritually, I don't care if homosexuals or lesbians wish to play house. I'm concerned with the problems legalizing it will inflict upon our culture, our children and our economy.
So here's a question: Where's the harm in NOT legalizing SSM? There is none. There would only be an incredibly tiny percentage of the general population that would be put out. (Only a small percentage of homosexuals have gotten married in states and countries that legalized this selfish demand.)
Monday, March 25, 2013
From the Cornucopia: A Lesson To Learn
As Geoffrey can tell you, I'm one of his biggest fans. That might mostly be by default because it's quite possible he has fewer readers than I. But his is one of the blogs I visit regularly for a host of reasons. OK. A "host of reasons" might be an overstatement, but certainly curiosity is one of them.
I get a lot of heat when I visit Geoffrey's blog. He likes to say that I visit just to argue and he's not about to argue with me, that he doesn't need to explain himself and that I don't understand anything he writes anyway and on and on and on. He also likes to say my comments are like a flaming bag of poop some kid leaves on someone's porch. Ironically, I am often accused of being the hateful one by people like the intrepid Parklife.
But recently, Geoffrey has posts on the subject of "God is love". This one in particular I initially found quite hypocritical. It doesn't jibe with his overall attitude when one considers his posts about members of the right-wing or his responses to my comments. He's really a nasty-assed kinda guy.
But that's what really got me. Those posts of his against the nasty he feels justified in putting out on the world wide web. And I got to thinking about the manner in which I often deal with particular visitors to this, my own blog.
Now, I could defend myself, and I think quite well, in that I give back only what's been given. I don't, for example, just jump down Parkie's throat except that he has proven incapable of posting a thoughtful comment of substance that provides something that could compel true reflection or consideration. And Feodor also enjoys tainting every comment of his with condescension and derision and thus, I often leave a little for him as well, especially when his crap is directed to other visitors.
And while I can also defend myself by repeating that I don't pretend to be one of Christ's twelve, I am more than a little concerned after re-reading Geoffrey's post and realizing that I might be as hypocritical as he is. Sure, he's better at it than me, but degrees of asshat don't enter into it.
I often feel that some people exist as a test. God puts them in our lives so as to see if we really live His second greatest commandment. We all have these people in our lives and usually in far greater numbers than we feel is fair. It really is how we treat those who treat us poorly that matters. And some of these people can be examples to us of how we should NOT treat those we don't like. For this I owe Geoffrey thanks for the lesson learned. May I be granted the strength to put it into practice.
I get a lot of heat when I visit Geoffrey's blog. He likes to say that I visit just to argue and he's not about to argue with me, that he doesn't need to explain himself and that I don't understand anything he writes anyway and on and on and on. He also likes to say my comments are like a flaming bag of poop some kid leaves on someone's porch. Ironically, I am often accused of being the hateful one by people like the intrepid Parklife.
But recently, Geoffrey has posts on the subject of "God is love". This one in particular I initially found quite hypocritical. It doesn't jibe with his overall attitude when one considers his posts about members of the right-wing or his responses to my comments. He's really a nasty-assed kinda guy.
But that's what really got me. Those posts of his against the nasty he feels justified in putting out on the world wide web. And I got to thinking about the manner in which I often deal with particular visitors to this, my own blog.
Now, I could defend myself, and I think quite well, in that I give back only what's been given. I don't, for example, just jump down Parkie's throat except that he has proven incapable of posting a thoughtful comment of substance that provides something that could compel true reflection or consideration. And Feodor also enjoys tainting every comment of his with condescension and derision and thus, I often leave a little for him as well, especially when his crap is directed to other visitors.
And while I can also defend myself by repeating that I don't pretend to be one of Christ's twelve, I am more than a little concerned after re-reading Geoffrey's post and realizing that I might be as hypocritical as he is. Sure, he's better at it than me, but degrees of asshat don't enter into it.
I often feel that some people exist as a test. God puts them in our lives so as to see if we really live His second greatest commandment. We all have these people in our lives and usually in far greater numbers than we feel is fair. It really is how we treat those who treat us poorly that matters. And some of these people can be examples to us of how we should NOT treat those we don't like. For this I owe Geoffrey thanks for the lesson learned. May I be granted the strength to put it into practice.
Monday, March 04, 2013
Even More Goofiness--Cars More Regulated Than Guns?
The goofiness to which I referred was the last comment Parkie posted to the previous discussion. This fool often makes cracks accusing me of never researching anything. While that is an idiotic claim considering the many links in both my posts and comments, here and elsewhere, it is clear that he did no research before parroting the goofy claim that cars are more regulated than guns. In response, I offer this insightful article. Maybe regulating guns the same way we do cars is not such a bad idea after all. Thanks Parkie!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)