It is not news to say that one of my favorite stops is AmericanThinker.com. I find it to be a wonderful source of conservative thought. My purpose in linking to an AT article, when I do, is generally two-fold.
First, the article articulates a point I wish to make, and why, I ask myself, should I go through the trouble of finding the words to say what is already well said by someone else? Then, all I have to do is add a bit more to further focus the point of offering it at all. After all, time is limited. The downside of doing this is that some of my liberal visitors seem to think it means that I have no thoughts of my own but rather allow AT to tell me what to think. This is the same as when such idiots say "Ditto heads" wait for marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. Pretty stupid.
Secondly, and more often than not, when I do choose to offer a link to an AT article, it is because the author cites other sources, usually gov't sources, to support the point he is trying to make. Unfortunately, most of the lib visitors don't understand how to use reality to form an opinion, so the value of doing this is lost on them.
I recently visited Geoff's blog and one of his extremely intelligent *cough* visitors made a typical condescending remark about AT (and World Net Daily) and AT readers. He and Geoffie had a big laugh because they just crack each other up like crazy. Oh! how silly we conservatives are!
AT isn't the only right-wing trove of treasures I follow. There is Townhall.com, HumanEvents.com, IntellectualConservative.com and many others, not to mention my subscription to National Review. Some of the writers appear in several of these mags and sites. In addition, I also listen to conservative talk radio on occasion, though not as much as I used to due to my job. Great minds think alike.
I don't have any regular lib sites or stations that I visit. As my time is limited, it is far too precious to waste on nonsense, though I read almost all of the links my liberal blog visitors and hosts provide, and I get my laughs that way. I guess the lefties think the way their lefty pundits tell them to think, right? More likely, weak minds think alike as well.
But the point of all this is that condescension I mentioned. I don't quite get it. I mean, I get that they don't like what they hear from the right wing, where truth and facts and logic reside, but to pretend as if it doesn't exist there is so incredibly common place. And that itself wouldn't be so bad if it could be argued in some manner.
Instead, all we get is the derision presented in a manner that suggests the reason for it should be plain to see. In other words, the right-wing pundit is wrong simply because a lefty blogger or blog visitor assumes it. No reason is given. If we on the right are the buffoons they wish we were, one would think such elevated personages would like to prove it somehow. But they don't.
One of the strangest bits is the mere mocking of AT as if it is simply the site of one or two dudes. I don't think any of the lefties realize just how many people contribute to that site. A look at the list of authors in the archive area reveals literally hundreds of contributors. Sure, not all of the contribute with great regularity. Some have their stuff presented quite often. But the hosts draw on the thoughts of many people.
But still, such things don't matter. The lefties will cite pundits of their own and expect that we be swayed as if their pundits have won the day merely by printing their opinions. "See? Glenn Greenwald says...!" and that's all we need to know. So I'll read what they've offered of Greenwald and then check further to see if Greenwald knows what the hell he's talking about.
But it seems the lefties don't have it in them to really discuss the other side like they say they do. One or more might say they once were conservative. Others will say they never were. But none of them will give a conservative opinion piece the time of day. Open-mindedness is only something about which they give lip service. True open-mindedness can't help but offer a counter opinion if an opinion in agreement isn't possible. It's no secret these lefties don't much care for conservative/right-wing opinion. It's a waste to say nothing more than how little they think about it. It's a given. How about some of that deep thinking and nuance we hear so much about instead?
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
It's So Hard To Be Humble...
...when I'm perfect in every way.
I like to show off. I like to take the risk of failing to complete the tricky play, to make the instantaneous grab of hot shot screaming between 2nd and 3rd, to carry a difficult split when the money's on the table. I like to sing lead and be the guy in the middle of the stage. I like to wear the nice threads while walking with my beautiful wife. And you know why? Because it's damn funny.
Yeah. Funny. It cracks me up to pretend that I am that pro-athlete doing what so many pro-athletes do routinely as if so many others aren't equally capable, if not more so. It's funny to think that I have just made someone look stupid by doing what he obviously thought I was not able to do, and what even I wasn't sure I could do. Loads of fun. Showing off is a gas.
Does this imply incredible pride and conceit to you? Does this smack of some vile lack of humility? Who cares? All those grand stages of pick-up sports and bar bands are so incredibly insignificant diversions. Part of the fun is the IN YOUR FACE/DIG ME aspect of doing it.
But guess what. I have fun when I fail to impress. Just participating is what it's all about for me. I've sung where it seemed absolutely no one in the crowd gave a flyin' rat's ass that there was a live band even present. But I still got to sing. I've played a variety of sports where I've not made the big play, not logged that turkey in the final frame to win the game, and even taken shots from a fighter who was clearly superior and making ME look stupid. I've enjoyed every minute. It's just a gas.
That's been the bottom line. Just having a good time regardless of the outcome and being prepared to be shown up.
I was on a bowling team one year that was amongst my most enjoyable years bowling. Everyone on the team was capable of doing damage and we competed more against each other than we did as a team against others. We didn't even think of the other team as our money was wagered against each other and it was the most fun taking each others' money over taking the money in the league pots (though that was indeed a serious goal). And when you took the other dude's money, you mocked him mercilessly. We had a blast and if we didn't win it all that year (I don't think we did), we were definitely in contention.
Humble wasn't a factor. Didn't need to be. Our averages were posted and it was clear who the best was.
Humble. Humility.
The subject of humility comes up a lot around here and was the subject of a blog post not too long ago. It is apparently considered by some to be lacking in humility to be confident in what one knows about Scripture. The line is that we are fallible and capable of being wrong on anything. While this is true, we being imperfect beings and all, it simply does not mean that we can't be totally right on specific things, especially if those things are directly revealed.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Pretty clear that. Can I not be confident and convicted in the knowledge that adultery is always sinful and not to be practiced? Is there any way in which I might be understanding this commandment improperly? I can't think of any, can you? So, knowing what the term "adultery" means, and knowing that it is clearly prohibited, am I acting in a manner lacking in humility to insist the behavior is sinful? Am I speaking for God?
Well, as a bit of a sidebar, any expression of what Scripture teaches us to another is to be speaking for God. So what? It is suggested by some (or one in particular) that to insist that one is confident in what Scripture teaches is to somehow speak as if one IS God, or equal to Him to the extent that one's "understanding" is equal to His Will. Again. So what? Are we not supposed to reflect His Teachings and His Will in the manner in which we live our lives?
The pitch is that what one person believes to be the Will of God might be different than the understanding of another person. Still once more, so what? This only means that one of the two is wrong or at least that one of the two is further from the truth than the other. But if both believe and are convicted in his belief, is it prideful to state the case as such? Does one lack humility in preaching what one believes to be the truth?
No. Not that I don't think so, but that my answer is "NO" in no uncertain terms. Stating that 2+2=4 and refusing to accept any alternative possibility is NOT a sign that one lacks humility. To state at the same time that the other guy who believes it isn't always the case is more than just wrong is also not a sign that one lacks humility. What it does show is two possibilities:
1. The one stating the fact cares enough about the wrong person to encourage a change of opinion.
2. The one stating the fact cares enough about anyone in the sphere of the wrong person's influence to continue to speak out against the fallacy the wrong person insists on preaching.
(There's also a third, that the one stating the fact thinks the other guy is a complete idiot or liar or both.)
Neither (and even the third) indicate a lack of humility on the part of the person defending the fact. Not in the least.
Indeed, to submit to God's authority and His mandates as clearly revealed in Scripture is a sign of humility of the type Jesus modeled for us. He was totally subservient to His Will. He was not acting pridefully when He cast out the money changers. He was not acting pridefully when he accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites and vipers. He was not being false or prideful when He taught that we be humble, like He is. In that sense, defending God's Will is not lacking in humility at all, but being humble in the manner that Jesus modeled in that we are exposing ourselves to heat from those who disagree with us for His sake. Our "suffering" at taking that heat is to put God before our own comfort.
"Agree to disagree" is not humility. It is milquetoast. I do not dismiss the possibility that I might have some notions of Biblical understanding wrong. Of course I can be wrong. But only when I am so proven to be. To "agree to disagree" gives tacit permission for the other person to carry on as if that person was not wrong. Why would any sane person agree to that? "Oh yeah. Let's agree to disagree. You go ahead and believe setting yourself on fire won't hurt." Am I serving that person to agree to allow such a destructive belief to go unchallenged? Is that humility, or cowardice?
Another person in the same discussion brought up this weird crap about learning new things that open him up to a better understanding of God. This after a post that mentions 1 Cor 13:12, as if a perfect understanding of God Himself is the point. I am already quite humble before the Lord. I could not be more unworthy of His Love. How much more need I know to make this more true? How much would it make a difference to know exactly how unworthy I am? He is Everything. I am nothing. There's not a whole lot more one needs to know.
Yet though His exact nature is unknowable to a living person, though His exact ways and thoughts are beyond us, He did not leave us with no clear understanding of how we are to live on this earth. He did not leave us without any "clues" as to what constitutes righteous behavior and what is sinful. What we need to know is crystal.
In that discussion, to get to a more clear explanation of a convoluted point being made, I offered this: "I saw a chair today and realized how little I understand God." It was an attempt to get this dude to explain his earlier comments that were no clearer than this. He went on to talk about how just seeing the chair from one angle doesn't tell us all we can know about the chair. Seeing it from the other side tells us something different, but then we cannot see the first view anymore, and, we cannot tell how comfortable it might be or if it can support our weight. He is humbled by such lack of knowledge apparently. I would simply sit in the damned chair. Even without doing so, I still know that it is indeed a chair and it is made for sitting.
In any case, that part of the discussion did not provide anything useful except to allow him to wax poetic (he hates when I say this) about that which did not enlighten in the least. I sought the connection between his "examples" and how they humble him more than merely acknowledging the vast chasm between who we are and who He is. But it has something very much in common with the poster and his thoughts on "humility". Both serve to dismiss what is clearly revealed for whatever reasons they wish to preserve and before which they insist on humbling themselves.
I like to show off. I like to take the risk of failing to complete the tricky play, to make the instantaneous grab of hot shot screaming between 2nd and 3rd, to carry a difficult split when the money's on the table. I like to sing lead and be the guy in the middle of the stage. I like to wear the nice threads while walking with my beautiful wife. And you know why? Because it's damn funny.
Yeah. Funny. It cracks me up to pretend that I am that pro-athlete doing what so many pro-athletes do routinely as if so many others aren't equally capable, if not more so. It's funny to think that I have just made someone look stupid by doing what he obviously thought I was not able to do, and what even I wasn't sure I could do. Loads of fun. Showing off is a gas.
Does this imply incredible pride and conceit to you? Does this smack of some vile lack of humility? Who cares? All those grand stages of pick-up sports and bar bands are so incredibly insignificant diversions. Part of the fun is the IN YOUR FACE/DIG ME aspect of doing it.
But guess what. I have fun when I fail to impress. Just participating is what it's all about for me. I've sung where it seemed absolutely no one in the crowd gave a flyin' rat's ass that there was a live band even present. But I still got to sing. I've played a variety of sports where I've not made the big play, not logged that turkey in the final frame to win the game, and even taken shots from a fighter who was clearly superior and making ME look stupid. I've enjoyed every minute. It's just a gas.
That's been the bottom line. Just having a good time regardless of the outcome and being prepared to be shown up.
I was on a bowling team one year that was amongst my most enjoyable years bowling. Everyone on the team was capable of doing damage and we competed more against each other than we did as a team against others. We didn't even think of the other team as our money was wagered against each other and it was the most fun taking each others' money over taking the money in the league pots (though that was indeed a serious goal). And when you took the other dude's money, you mocked him mercilessly. We had a blast and if we didn't win it all that year (I don't think we did), we were definitely in contention.
Humble wasn't a factor. Didn't need to be. Our averages were posted and it was clear who the best was.
Humble. Humility.
The subject of humility comes up a lot around here and was the subject of a blog post not too long ago. It is apparently considered by some to be lacking in humility to be confident in what one knows about Scripture. The line is that we are fallible and capable of being wrong on anything. While this is true, we being imperfect beings and all, it simply does not mean that we can't be totally right on specific things, especially if those things are directly revealed.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Pretty clear that. Can I not be confident and convicted in the knowledge that adultery is always sinful and not to be practiced? Is there any way in which I might be understanding this commandment improperly? I can't think of any, can you? So, knowing what the term "adultery" means, and knowing that it is clearly prohibited, am I acting in a manner lacking in humility to insist the behavior is sinful? Am I speaking for God?
Well, as a bit of a sidebar, any expression of what Scripture teaches us to another is to be speaking for God. So what? It is suggested by some (or one in particular) that to insist that one is confident in what Scripture teaches is to somehow speak as if one IS God, or equal to Him to the extent that one's "understanding" is equal to His Will. Again. So what? Are we not supposed to reflect His Teachings and His Will in the manner in which we live our lives?
The pitch is that what one person believes to be the Will of God might be different than the understanding of another person. Still once more, so what? This only means that one of the two is wrong or at least that one of the two is further from the truth than the other. But if both believe and are convicted in his belief, is it prideful to state the case as such? Does one lack humility in preaching what one believes to be the truth?
No. Not that I don't think so, but that my answer is "NO" in no uncertain terms. Stating that 2+2=4 and refusing to accept any alternative possibility is NOT a sign that one lacks humility. To state at the same time that the other guy who believes it isn't always the case is more than just wrong is also not a sign that one lacks humility. What it does show is two possibilities:
1. The one stating the fact cares enough about the wrong person to encourage a change of opinion.
2. The one stating the fact cares enough about anyone in the sphere of the wrong person's influence to continue to speak out against the fallacy the wrong person insists on preaching.
(There's also a third, that the one stating the fact thinks the other guy is a complete idiot or liar or both.)
Neither (and even the third) indicate a lack of humility on the part of the person defending the fact. Not in the least.
Indeed, to submit to God's authority and His mandates as clearly revealed in Scripture is a sign of humility of the type Jesus modeled for us. He was totally subservient to His Will. He was not acting pridefully when He cast out the money changers. He was not acting pridefully when he accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites and vipers. He was not being false or prideful when He taught that we be humble, like He is. In that sense, defending God's Will is not lacking in humility at all, but being humble in the manner that Jesus modeled in that we are exposing ourselves to heat from those who disagree with us for His sake. Our "suffering" at taking that heat is to put God before our own comfort.
"Agree to disagree" is not humility. It is milquetoast. I do not dismiss the possibility that I might have some notions of Biblical understanding wrong. Of course I can be wrong. But only when I am so proven to be. To "agree to disagree" gives tacit permission for the other person to carry on as if that person was not wrong. Why would any sane person agree to that? "Oh yeah. Let's agree to disagree. You go ahead and believe setting yourself on fire won't hurt." Am I serving that person to agree to allow such a destructive belief to go unchallenged? Is that humility, or cowardice?
Another person in the same discussion brought up this weird crap about learning new things that open him up to a better understanding of God. This after a post that mentions 1 Cor 13:12, as if a perfect understanding of God Himself is the point. I am already quite humble before the Lord. I could not be more unworthy of His Love. How much more need I know to make this more true? How much would it make a difference to know exactly how unworthy I am? He is Everything. I am nothing. There's not a whole lot more one needs to know.
Yet though His exact nature is unknowable to a living person, though His exact ways and thoughts are beyond us, He did not leave us with no clear understanding of how we are to live on this earth. He did not leave us without any "clues" as to what constitutes righteous behavior and what is sinful. What we need to know is crystal.
In that discussion, to get to a more clear explanation of a convoluted point being made, I offered this: "I saw a chair today and realized how little I understand God." It was an attempt to get this dude to explain his earlier comments that were no clearer than this. He went on to talk about how just seeing the chair from one angle doesn't tell us all we can know about the chair. Seeing it from the other side tells us something different, but then we cannot see the first view anymore, and, we cannot tell how comfortable it might be or if it can support our weight. He is humbled by such lack of knowledge apparently. I would simply sit in the damned chair. Even without doing so, I still know that it is indeed a chair and it is made for sitting.
In any case, that part of the discussion did not provide anything useful except to allow him to wax poetic (he hates when I say this) about that which did not enlighten in the least. I sought the connection between his "examples" and how they humble him more than merely acknowledging the vast chasm between who we are and who He is. But it has something very much in common with the poster and his thoughts on "humility". Both serve to dismiss what is clearly revealed for whatever reasons they wish to preserve and before which they insist on humbling themselves.
Friday, January 27, 2012
FYI
Just a note about the comments not viewable. I don't know why that is exactly, but if you click on the post title, it will enable you to select "newer/newest" comments, though once in the comments section, the same problem happens. I was in the back office and probably clicked on something when going back to comment moderation. OR, Blogger is just lame.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Agenda Lies Update
The title of this post refer to the original, introductory Agenda Lies post, wherein I discussed the lie that there is no homosexual agenda. It seems that when I decide to leave the topic of homosexuality alone for awhile, something comes up that trumps that decision.
In this case, an email newsletter from Illinois Family Institute led to this site, and I just had to post on it. I'd like you, gentle reader, to note two things: first, look at the sub-title of the site. It appears that the homos that run this site are not aware that there is no homosexual agenda. They didn't get the memo from HomoCentral that no homosexual is to mention an agenda of any kind.
But it gets worse! The second thing of note is the text of the linked piece itself. Apparently these guys don't realize they are not supposed to actually say that they want to indoctrinate kids! What could they have possibly been doing to miss the edict against expressing this publicly? And check this out:
"Remember, Prop 8 passed along age lines with the very old voting largely in favor of it. The younger generation doesn’t fear homosexuality as much because they’re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school."
This quote is important because I've often been told by enablers who visit here that our (that is, those of us who support REAL marriage and Scriptural notions of human sexuality) days are numbered and soon all the world will embrace the notion of homosexuality as normal and healthy as normal and healthy heterosexuality. They say the the world is changing and seeing things their way. But the quote demonstrates what my response has always been to such a claim, that any trend in favor of their depravity is the natural result of good men doing nothing. Each generation becomes more and more immoral because of the actions of the immoral among us now, and the lack of virtuous people standing against the agenda for immorality.
Is this site indicative of the general homosexual population? I have no idea. But I would wager it is so. One thing is certain: an agenda exists and always has existed. The site to which I've linked is only one piece of evidence, but it does show that which is not the least bit surprising.
I had been working on a different Agenda Lies piece, but I'm going to let it lie for now. I don't really want my blog to be totally focused on homosexual lies, but sometimes they just crop up and need to be addressed by someone. However, this blog will always tell the truth to counter those lies and stands ready to do so at the drop of a hat.
In this case, an email newsletter from Illinois Family Institute led to this site, and I just had to post on it. I'd like you, gentle reader, to note two things: first, look at the sub-title of the site. It appears that the homos that run this site are not aware that there is no homosexual agenda. They didn't get the memo from HomoCentral that no homosexual is to mention an agenda of any kind.
But it gets worse! The second thing of note is the text of the linked piece itself. Apparently these guys don't realize they are not supposed to actually say that they want to indoctrinate kids! What could they have possibly been doing to miss the edict against expressing this publicly? And check this out:
"Remember, Prop 8 passed along age lines with the very old voting largely in favor of it. The younger generation doesn’t fear homosexuality as much because they’re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school."
This quote is important because I've often been told by enablers who visit here that our (that is, those of us who support REAL marriage and Scriptural notions of human sexuality) days are numbered and soon all the world will embrace the notion of homosexuality as normal and healthy as normal and healthy heterosexuality. They say the the world is changing and seeing things their way. But the quote demonstrates what my response has always been to such a claim, that any trend in favor of their depravity is the natural result of good men doing nothing. Each generation becomes more and more immoral because of the actions of the immoral among us now, and the lack of virtuous people standing against the agenda for immorality.
Is this site indicative of the general homosexual population? I have no idea. But I would wager it is so. One thing is certain: an agenda exists and always has existed. The site to which I've linked is only one piece of evidence, but it does show that which is not the least bit surprising.
I had been working on a different Agenda Lies piece, but I'm going to let it lie for now. I don't really want my blog to be totally focused on homosexual lies, but sometimes they just crop up and need to be addressed by someone. However, this blog will always tell the truth to counter those lies and stands ready to do so at the drop of a hat.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Agenda Lies 4: "Uglyass"
The title refers to a comment made at another blog when a parallel was suggested by a commenter between homosexuals and the incestuous. Note that I used the term "parallel" rather than "comparison". This is very important considering the sensitive nature of the homosexual activists and their enablers. You see, any "comparison" between homosexuals and anything not sweetness and light is derided as hateful and bigoted. Laurie Higgins, with Illinois Family Institute, notes this in a recent piece speaking on the heat Cardinal Francis George received by daring to suggest similarities between the "gay liberation" movement and the KKK. Oh, the horror. At the end of her column, she concludes in this manner:
"The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists."
And we who visited Dan's blog recently had another taste of this very tactic. It is from there the "uglyass" comment came.
I say all this to set up this installment of Agenda Lies. The lie is that there is something vastly different between the argument for same-sex unions and the argument for adult consentual incestuous unions. The lie is that one is perfectly fine and the other a manifestation of some mental disorder. One healthy, the other not.
Of course, all Dan does is to assume the best of his favored class and compares it to the worst of that which he does not favor. He assumes that because he claims most incestuous affairs are oppressive, usually rapes I guess, that to imagine a person having a committed, loving and monogamous relationship with a sibling or parent is not possible. Or that it is mentally disordered. Funny. There's far more "disordered" about sexual attraction between two of the same gender than a male and female of the same family as far as I'm concerned.
And as far as I'm concerned, incest is just wrong. Sure, most people would be turned off by the thought of hooking up with a parent or sibling. But that's a cultural thing, and one that is from the same source as the cultural revulsion toward homosexual behavior: Scripture.
Yes, I know. Biologically bad things can happen should a dude hook up with his mother, daughter or sister. But that's only a risk if both carry similar defective traits, like hereditary things. If all parties are perfectly healthy, the child that might result from their union won't automatically suffer from defects.
However, as I recall, having children isn't necessarily the point of marriage, if the new age secular bozos are to be believed. So assume children aren't in the cards. One or both parties has strategic snips made by medical professionals and that issue is now in the "non" category.
The attraction itself can't be "weird". What is more weird than one dude pining after another dude? But one dude hot for his hot sister is weird? Imagine a 16 yr old Angelina Voight giving up her baby boy for adoption, never to again have contact with him. Then, in 2012, a 20 yr old young man has a nasty crush on Angelina Jolie. The fact that he is her son (without knowing it) would not likely play any part in his attraction, nor would it hinder his crush. And considering just how hot she is, had she not given up the kid at all, but raised him herself, what makes anyone think he would not appreciate her hotness just because he's her son? Enough to "want" her? Who knows? But what if he did and she reciprocated? They are both adults. Who's to say that they should be denied simply because of their biological relationship? On what basis?
Sure, people don't generally think of their family members as good looking (not counting parental bias), and generally come to agree, if that is the case, begrudgingly at first. But if it is plain to one person that his/her sibling or parent is a stud/babe, are they "disordered" for admitting it? Of course not. (Only uncomfortable) Hot is hot.
But we're to take the position that such unions are wrong (and they would be), but homosexual unions are not. And we're to take the position that such unions are SO wrong, that to dare draw any parallels or comparisons to homosexual unions is itself heinous, evil, "uglyass". On what basis?
Such unions cannot be less healthy than homosexual unions. (Keep in mind that unlike Dan, I am comparing in as much a one-to-one manner as I can. All subjects are physically healthy before entering their respective unions and none are capable of producing children. This is just about "people in love".) We can pretend that all unions of either group are platonic, but then, who would we be kidding? In this day and age? No one. So we must consider how they would express their "love" for each other and that, of course, is through sexual contact. And if acting in the least risky manner possible while still engaging in sexual contact, the incestuous would not risk at all, considering their sexual equipment would be used according to the owner's manual. They would not have to use any body part in a manner against its purpose or intent in order to engage in sexual contact. The homosexual cannot say the same thing without limiting themselves severely to handshakes and tongue wrestling.
But then, it's not really a question of healthy sexual practices at all, or whether one group's desires (homosexuals) more obviously constitutes some mental disorder. It's about the definition of marriage and who qualifies. Clearly the homosexuals do not as the definition requires one man and one woman. Clearly the incestuous do not, because the definition requires one man and one woman who are not close relations. And of course, the polygamous do not because of the numbers involved. But in each of these groups are those who feel as if their desires are true, natural and deserving of the same rights and privileges the state and culture bestows upon one man and one woman. In that manner, each of the three groups are exactly identical and the distaste Dan and those like him have for the incestuous is as irrelevant as what Dan and those like him find irrelevant about the opinions of honest people who find homosexual relationships distasteful, sinful, abnormal.
And for Dan and others like him to regard the incestuous as disordered is as hateful and bigoted as he accuses honest people of being for their understanding of the abnormal attractions and sinful desires of homosexuals who insist on pursuing their agenda (that doesn't exist). There is simply no difference between the homosexual and the incestuous except for the specifics of what floats their boats. Support the demands of one, and you must support the demands of the other. And then you must support the demands of any other who insists their "love" is equally worthy. And then "marriage" will be totally meaningless.
"The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists."
And we who visited Dan's blog recently had another taste of this very tactic. It is from there the "uglyass" comment came.
I say all this to set up this installment of Agenda Lies. The lie is that there is something vastly different between the argument for same-sex unions and the argument for adult consentual incestuous unions. The lie is that one is perfectly fine and the other a manifestation of some mental disorder. One healthy, the other not.
Of course, all Dan does is to assume the best of his favored class and compares it to the worst of that which he does not favor. He assumes that because he claims most incestuous affairs are oppressive, usually rapes I guess, that to imagine a person having a committed, loving and monogamous relationship with a sibling or parent is not possible. Or that it is mentally disordered. Funny. There's far more "disordered" about sexual attraction between two of the same gender than a male and female of the same family as far as I'm concerned.
And as far as I'm concerned, incest is just wrong. Sure, most people would be turned off by the thought of hooking up with a parent or sibling. But that's a cultural thing, and one that is from the same source as the cultural revulsion toward homosexual behavior: Scripture.
Yes, I know. Biologically bad things can happen should a dude hook up with his mother, daughter or sister. But that's only a risk if both carry similar defective traits, like hereditary things. If all parties are perfectly healthy, the child that might result from their union won't automatically suffer from defects.
However, as I recall, having children isn't necessarily the point of marriage, if the new age secular bozos are to be believed. So assume children aren't in the cards. One or both parties has strategic snips made by medical professionals and that issue is now in the "non" category.
The attraction itself can't be "weird". What is more weird than one dude pining after another dude? But one dude hot for his hot sister is weird? Imagine a 16 yr old Angelina Voight giving up her baby boy for adoption, never to again have contact with him. Then, in 2012, a 20 yr old young man has a nasty crush on Angelina Jolie. The fact that he is her son (without knowing it) would not likely play any part in his attraction, nor would it hinder his crush. And considering just how hot she is, had she not given up the kid at all, but raised him herself, what makes anyone think he would not appreciate her hotness just because he's her son? Enough to "want" her? Who knows? But what if he did and she reciprocated? They are both adults. Who's to say that they should be denied simply because of their biological relationship? On what basis?
Sure, people don't generally think of their family members as good looking (not counting parental bias), and generally come to agree, if that is the case, begrudgingly at first. But if it is plain to one person that his/her sibling or parent is a stud/babe, are they "disordered" for admitting it? Of course not. (Only uncomfortable) Hot is hot.
But we're to take the position that such unions are wrong (and they would be), but homosexual unions are not. And we're to take the position that such unions are SO wrong, that to dare draw any parallels or comparisons to homosexual unions is itself heinous, evil, "uglyass". On what basis?
Such unions cannot be less healthy than homosexual unions. (Keep in mind that unlike Dan, I am comparing in as much a one-to-one manner as I can. All subjects are physically healthy before entering their respective unions and none are capable of producing children. This is just about "people in love".) We can pretend that all unions of either group are platonic, but then, who would we be kidding? In this day and age? No one. So we must consider how they would express their "love" for each other and that, of course, is through sexual contact. And if acting in the least risky manner possible while still engaging in sexual contact, the incestuous would not risk at all, considering their sexual equipment would be used according to the owner's manual. They would not have to use any body part in a manner against its purpose or intent in order to engage in sexual contact. The homosexual cannot say the same thing without limiting themselves severely to handshakes and tongue wrestling.
But then, it's not really a question of healthy sexual practices at all, or whether one group's desires (homosexuals) more obviously constitutes some mental disorder. It's about the definition of marriage and who qualifies. Clearly the homosexuals do not as the definition requires one man and one woman. Clearly the incestuous do not, because the definition requires one man and one woman who are not close relations. And of course, the polygamous do not because of the numbers involved. But in each of these groups are those who feel as if their desires are true, natural and deserving of the same rights and privileges the state and culture bestows upon one man and one woman. In that manner, each of the three groups are exactly identical and the distaste Dan and those like him have for the incestuous is as irrelevant as what Dan and those like him find irrelevant about the opinions of honest people who find homosexual relationships distasteful, sinful, abnormal.
And for Dan and others like him to regard the incestuous as disordered is as hateful and bigoted as he accuses honest people of being for their understanding of the abnormal attractions and sinful desires of homosexuals who insist on pursuing their agenda (that doesn't exist). There is simply no difference between the homosexual and the incestuous except for the specifics of what floats their boats. Support the demands of one, and you must support the demands of the other. And then you must support the demands of any other who insists their "love" is equally worthy. And then "marriage" will be totally meaningless.
Accomplishments?
I've recently engaged in two separate discussions upon which the notion of Obama's "accomplishments" was touched. I've come across two articles that also deal with his "accomplishments". They are both from one of my liberal visitors' favorite sites, American Thinker. Let us see if they will address the points being made by either, or, in their usual dismissive and cowardly manner, pretend that AT is simply too biased to even give a cursory look. Odds favor the latter.
In the first piece, we can easily note that each statistic is a link to its source for the article. The sources (provided since the lefties likely won't take the time) are greatly varied; from CNN, LA Times, NY Times, The Heritage Foundation, and several others. No in depth analysis if given by the author, but only a comparison of before Barry took over to now, with a suggestion that further support of Obama makes no sense, which is easy to see. Of special interest is the title of the author Neil Snyder's book, which is priceless: "If You Voted for Obama in 2008 to Prove You're Not a Racist, You Need to Vote for Someone Else in 2012 to Prove You're Not an Idiot" With a title like that, I'd buy it just to display it on my bookshelf.
An important consideration that always bears repeating, since the left insists on pretending it isn't relevant, is that one must also take into consideration the years from 2006 forward as that is when the Dems won control of Congress and had all sorts of opportunities to begin improving things. Guess who was a part of that wasted time. Barry O'Bummer!
This second article isn't just about Obama, but the Democratic party in general. Right now, Obama IS the Democratic party and is supported fairly unanimously by the Democratic boobs in Congress, even though they voted down his budget.
Anyway, though the author doesn't cite any sources or provide any links, as a CDL holder, I've heard about some of what is discussed in the article from employers and customers in the shipping industry. Plus, all mentioned is easy enough to track on line if anyone wants to dress up the moves in which Obama has played a roll.
Barely's defenders like to bring up this talk of "accomplishments". OK. He's accomplished a few things. But shouldn't "accomplishments" improve things and benefit the nation? And if any of his "accomplishments" have indeed improved things and/or benefited the nation, should there not be some evidence of these improvements and benefits?
Some will say that he needs another four years before we can see them. None of these people would have dreamed of giving a Republican another term for that purpose. In fact, they would have screamed for a replacement, and they do whenever a Republican is in office. The question is, upon what basis do we gamble? The thinnest of arguments, that things would have been worse had he not acted? I'm sorry. That doesn't work for me because there is no way to measure what might have been, especially since I don't believe it would have been worse. I counter that argument by saying that his greatest accomplishment is that things aren't worse than they are. It's not for lack of trying.
In the first piece, we can easily note that each statistic is a link to its source for the article. The sources (provided since the lefties likely won't take the time) are greatly varied; from CNN, LA Times, NY Times, The Heritage Foundation, and several others. No in depth analysis if given by the author, but only a comparison of before Barry took over to now, with a suggestion that further support of Obama makes no sense, which is easy to see. Of special interest is the title of the author Neil Snyder's book, which is priceless: "If You Voted for Obama in 2008 to Prove You're Not a Racist, You Need to Vote for Someone Else in 2012 to Prove You're Not an Idiot" With a title like that, I'd buy it just to display it on my bookshelf.
An important consideration that always bears repeating, since the left insists on pretending it isn't relevant, is that one must also take into consideration the years from 2006 forward as that is when the Dems won control of Congress and had all sorts of opportunities to begin improving things. Guess who was a part of that wasted time. Barry O'Bummer!
This second article isn't just about Obama, but the Democratic party in general. Right now, Obama IS the Democratic party and is supported fairly unanimously by the Democratic boobs in Congress, even though they voted down his budget.
Anyway, though the author doesn't cite any sources or provide any links, as a CDL holder, I've heard about some of what is discussed in the article from employers and customers in the shipping industry. Plus, all mentioned is easy enough to track on line if anyone wants to dress up the moves in which Obama has played a roll.
Barely's defenders like to bring up this talk of "accomplishments". OK. He's accomplished a few things. But shouldn't "accomplishments" improve things and benefit the nation? And if any of his "accomplishments" have indeed improved things and/or benefited the nation, should there not be some evidence of these improvements and benefits?
Some will say that he needs another four years before we can see them. None of these people would have dreamed of giving a Republican another term for that purpose. In fact, they would have screamed for a replacement, and they do whenever a Republican is in office. The question is, upon what basis do we gamble? The thinnest of arguments, that things would have been worse had he not acted? I'm sorry. That doesn't work for me because there is no way to measure what might have been, especially since I don't believe it would have been worse. I counter that argument by saying that his greatest accomplishment is that things aren't worse than they are. It's not for lack of trying.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Had To Steal This!!!
I stole this from a dude on my Facebook friends list. It's just too good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colonoscopies are no joke. But a physician claimed that the following are actual comments made by his patients (predominately male) while he was performing their colonoscopies:
1. Take it easy Doc. You‚re boldly going where no man has gone before.
2. Find Amelia Earhart yet?
3. Can you hear me NOW?
4. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
5. You know, in Arkansas, we're now legally married.
6. Any sign of the trapped miners, Chief?
7. You put your left hand in, you take your left hand out...
8. Hey! Now I know how a Muppet feels!
9. If your hand doesn't fit, you must quit!
10. Hey Doc, let me know if you find my dignity.
11. You used to be an executive at Enron, didn't you?
And the best one of all:
12. Could you write a note for my wife saying that my head is not up there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colonoscopies are no joke. But a physician claimed that the following are actual comments made by his patients (predominately male) while he was performing their colonoscopies:
1. Take it easy Doc. You‚re boldly going where no man has gone before.
2. Find Amelia Earhart yet?
3. Can you hear me NOW?
4. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
5. You know, in Arkansas, we're now legally married.
6. Any sign of the trapped miners, Chief?
7. You put your left hand in, you take your left hand out...
8. Hey! Now I know how a Muppet feels!
9. If your hand doesn't fit, you must quit!
10. Hey Doc, let me know if you find my dignity.
11. You used to be an executive at Enron, didn't you?
And the best one of all:
12. Could you write a note for my wife saying that my head is not up there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)