There have been two great SCOTUS decisions this week, with of course the one most worthy of celebration being the reversal of the Roe v Wade decision, returning to the states the authority to decide abortion law. This is a ruling a long time in coming, indeed since Roe was so unconstitutionally decided back in '73. It was based on the lie regarding privacy, the lie we don't know when life begins and the lie there is some difference between the born and unborn which negates constitutional protections against the taking of life about which we simply can't tell.
The wailing and caterwauling has begun as the poor, oppressed women seeking to murder their own children must now face the prospect their state may further restrict their ability to do so. Some may even have to travel out of state in order to commit the heinous act, and that has also been promoted as some dire assault on women's rights, as if there won't be plenty of murderous leftists willing to provide transport. (Of course, we're talking about lefties, so maybe they won't dig deeply to fund such transport after all.)
In time, we may see a reduction in abortions, or we may see an increase in the rate of reduction if it is indeed going down regardless. Either way, a reduction is a good thing...for those targeted for death mostly...and I don't much care if it's because people are forced to face their obligations regarding the care of the child they invited into this world, or because the character of people is rising (doubtful these days). All that matters is fewer innocent people being murdered by their parents.
In the long run, fewer states allowing abortion as it now is will...it is my hope...result in a cultural regard for life increasing, or at least cultural contempt for abortion increasing. Again, either way....
In any case, God bless those Justices who so ruled to reverse this travesty.
The other ruling concerns overturning a long-standing New York law prohibiting the carrying of firearms based on need determined by the state, not the citizen. From the NYPost:
"Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday that
the law’s requirement of New Yorkers who want a permit to carry a
handgun in public to show “proper cause” that the weapon is
specifically needed for self-defense “violates the Fourteenth Amendment
by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs
from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”"
It's absurd to think one's life must remain at risk until some government entity sees fit to allow one the ability to protect one's self. This ruling will affect other states who have similar restrictions against the right to defend one's self and will mean more people will be carrying and willing to step up the next time some punk decides to shoot up the place.
In any case, God bless those Justices who so ruled to reverse this travesty.
ADDENDUM: In yet another righteous manifestation of true American justice, we have this:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-affirms-religious-liberty-rules-in-favor-of-public-high-school-football-coach-punished-for-praying-after-games
60 comments:
A great week for the Supreme Court! Many thanks to Trump and his voters and to these judges.
Now the little people will be able to defend themselves. The bad guys will be less likely to attack knowing that their victims may be armed. The NY governor, who is always surrounded by guns, had the audacity to criticize the SC.
And the Molech-worshiping ghouls of the "Christian" Left are weeping today because fewer of the really little people will be killed. They know that fewer children will be slaughtered up to their first breaths, and that makes them genuinely sad. They are Satan's Cabana Boys and Girls. And people will be more careful about out-of-wedlock sex. Yeah, some will go out of state, and some companies will pay for the travel to have their employees' children killed so they can save a buck, but millions will be spared.
What a great weekend to celebrate!
These are baby steps. I hope they grow into adult steps and greater freedom to defend ourselves and for innocents to be allowed to live will result. God hear our prayer offered in the Name of Christ our Lord!
Trump is calling you all stupid for celebrating this and wanting to see this happen.
Your moron pervert con man recognizes this as a bad political move.
I get such a kick out of a pervert like Dan daring to accuse anyone else of being a pervert. I guess to shower with one's daughter isn't a problem for Dan.
The only hint that Trump responded negatively was a reference to something reported by a couple of NYT reporters, who we all know are not reliable in reporting anything. I tried to open a link, but I'm not about to spend a dime on the NYT, so that remains questionable at best.
But if I were to surmise, I would say that Trump likely sees the decision as problematic because of what immoral morons the leftists are and their response might sway weak-assed members of the GOP to back off. The only problem was that this ruling is not a political move. The majority joining the decision are not the most political of justices. Can't say the same for those who dissented.
The bottom line is that Trump's opinion on the ruling doesn't matter with regard to the justice this ruling represents. Moron pervert con men "progressives" haven't the moral spine to even understand such basic truths, much less stand for them. Any legal ruling making it harder for women to murder their own children is a good one. Now, if the left had any sense of morality at all, they'd explain to their women how it is incumbent upon to avoid succumbing to their sexual desires and should they fail that, to do the honorable thing and attend to their obligations to the child they invited into existence. Just as important, is for the left to encourage their men to do the same and to respect women enough to deny themselves when they'd prefer to use women to get their nuts off. Were either of these things be taken seriously by leftist men and women, abortions would never be necessary.
Damn.
I'm not going to re do the post I lost lost, but there are at least 9 choices that women have to make before they are in a position to "choose" abortion.
Rape, incest, risk to mother or child, account for less than 1% of all abortions.
It's interesting that the APL insists on trying to use tiny minorities (less than 1%) to make justify laws. What do they say about exceptions making bad rules?
Craig,
A more accurate way of describing what the left is doing is that they are exploiting the cases you mention to rationalize their demands to murder their children for completely selfish reasons. We know this is a fact because those three possibilities have been conceded by even the most fervent defenders of the truly oppressed...the unborn. While such people say to the wicked, "OK...take the one, but leave us the 99," the wicked say, "No. We want to kill them all."
I'm done with being "nice" about it. These people are vile and contemptible vermin. Those who pretend they're not complicit in the many thousands of killings every year by saying, "I'm just protecting women's 'right to choose'", are even worse for being such cowards about it.
As is so often the case, you all miss the point. We don't bring up the small percentage of cases such as rape or incest to "prove" the procedure for all. We do it to promote a principle that vast majorities of rational people can agree upon.
Reasonable, ration people of all parties should be able to and can agree that it would be monstrous to tell a 13 year old girl who was raped by her father that she MUST have that child. Likewise, if the life of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy, reasonable people of goodwill regardless of religion or political persuasion should be able to agree that these ARE tough choices to make and, given the lack of one definitive, authoritative, objectively "right" response, in such cases the woman/girl/family decide, with counsel from their medical experts.
Craig, you understand this much, right? Even if zealots like Marshal disagree, you are amongst the rational conservatives of good will who can see this point, right?
The principle being: Questions about medical concerns when it comes to the medical procedure of abortion are sufficiently complex in at least SOME instances that the choice should be left to the mother/family. Do we agree with this principle?
From there, it's not a question of, should abortion ever be legal and a reasonable, moral option not banned by law but decided by the mother. ..? It's a question of WHEN and under which circumstances should abortion be legal and WHO should be the decision-maker?
That's the point being made.
It's NEVER about murdering babies and people like Marshal are perverting difficult circumstances with abusive and oppressive lies.
At least start with the facts.
The facts are these and have been stated and medically supported for quite some time:
--Abortion is, 90% of the time, not only unnecessary for any reason related to harm to the mother of any kind, but merely a matter of convenience. The child is murdered for no other reason than it's existence, invited by its parents, is an obligation neither parent is honorable enough to undertake.
--Abortion is, even more often, never necessary to save the life of the mother.
--Abortion is, even in cases where rape or incest has occurred, still a case of two victims, not one, with the one murdered by its parents the least deserving of such a response.
--Abortion is, as defended in this allegedly advanced time in history, a political football in which the worst of our political class (not to mention of our kind)...Dems and other leftists...lie about what anti-abortion proponents are seeking, about what they are seeking and about pretty much everything else. The most obvious at this moment is that the proper and righteous reversely of Roe v Wade...a ruling even a good portion of their kind agreed was the case despite their pleasure in it's effect...greatly impacts those intent on murdering their own children for reasons of convenience. While many states were poised to more heavily restrict, or even outlaw abortion, there remains others who welcome the morally bankrupt with open forceps. That some might have to travel further to perpetrate the heinous deed is of little consequence or concern to those with compassion for their victims. What's more, this should now be a wake up call for such people to have some plan in place to make such a trip.
Dan said, in his typical, perfidious manner, "We don't bring up the small percentage of cases such as rape or incest to "prove" the procedure for all." and then goes directly to those cases to do just that, while claiming he's defending "a principle that vast majorities of rational people can agree upon." But he perverts...because that's what perverts do...the principle honest, moral people of character and virtue would defend. That is, to defend the right of ANY person to have sole discretion over medical treatments...such deciding whether or not to have an injection of an hurriedly and shoddily tested experimental drug with a track record so poor it would have been off the market within its first month were it not for the political theater surrounding it.
continuing...
But abortion isn't a "treatment", because pregnancy isn't a disease. Dan laments the plight of a 13 year old victim of incestuous rape, as if the rape wasn't the worst thing which happened to her, but carrying the resultant child to term absolutely is. This ignores how many children of 13 and younger deal with real maladies of a terminal kind which last far longer than nine months with various painful and otherwise discomforting treatments. But somehow, carrying a child to term is beyond the pale. This is what the morally bankrupt like Dan regard as "principle". There's still a second child in the picture. Dan says, "Rip it limb from limb...chemically scald it to death", because...you know...embrace grace.
A 13 yr old raped by her father should first of all be permanently separated from that father...though Dems don't like separating children from their criminal parents. That's job 1. From that point, care for the young mother, including guiding her to the truth of her situation...that she has been victimized by a scumbag and thus her situation is not her fault. It is also not the fault of the child she carries, and thus she can make a bad situation good by delivering that child when it's capable of surviving outside the womb. She can be counseled on the goodness in such a decision and how it demonstrates a true embracing of sacrificial love and service to another...something about which the typical pro-abort is "progressively" unconcerned.
It's ALWAYS about murdering babies, and scumbags like Dan are perverting already difficult circumstances with the most heinous of abusive responses and then lying about what they're doing. It's the most detestable example of putting lipstick on a pig by which the Democrat party and other leftists garner political support. One of the many ways they've destroyed out culture.
Craig... Any chance you'll take a stand for justice and decency and women and call our Marshal for his deeply oppressive perversions?
"Reasonable, ration people of all parties should be able to and can agree that it would be monstrous to tell a 13 year old girl who was raped by her father that she MUST have that child. Likewise, if the life of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy, reasonable people of goodwill regardless of religion or political persuasion should be able to agree that these ARE tough choices to make and, given the lack of one definitive, authoritative, objectively "right" response, in such cases the woman/girl/family decide, with counsel from their medical experts."
"Craig, you understand this much, right? Even if zealots like Marshal disagree, you are amongst the rational conservatives of good will who can see this point, right?"
Dan,
Not only can I see that point, I have repeatedly made that point. I agree that those in that tiny minority of instances should be treated differently.
Unfortunately, we continue to see people, who are using this tiny percentage of cases to justify unrestricted abortion for any reason up until birth. I'm sorry if this reality offends you, but it's time to acknowledge reality. There is a legal principle that seems applicable here. It says something like, "Making laws based on the rare exceptions, leads to bad laws.". In this case, legalizing all abortions, at any time, for any reason to "protect" this less than 1%, is absurd. The number of lies being told about this is astounding.
"The principle being: Questions about medical concerns when it comes to the medical procedure of abortion are sufficiently complex in at least SOME instances that the choice should be left to the mother/family. Do we agree with this principle?"
I agree that there is a small minority of instances where the questions might be this complex, and that that small minority doesn't justify a lack or restrictions on the large majority. I believe that this small minority can be dealt with separately from the large minority. Of course the fact that I've said this for years has apparently escaped you.
"From there, it's not a question of, should abortion ever be legal and a reasonable, moral option not banned by law but decided by the mother. ..? It's a question of WHEN and under which circumstances should abortion be legal and WHO should be the decision-maker?"
1. Legal and moral are not the same thing.
2. Yes it is. Unfortunately those questions are usually answered by our legislative system.
3. That is exactly what will happen now. Legislators at the state and federal level will make those decisions.
4. As Amy Klobuchar (D) MN said, "The only way to do it peacefully, responsibly, is at the ballot box.".
5. This is what you get for celebrating the judicial branch legislating.
6. For example, how abut we adopt the French abortion standards?
"That's the point being made."
By you, maybe, by the folks I'm seeing on my social media, no.
When one side is arguing for unrestricted abortion, at any time, for any reason, including post birth, where is the compromise with that?
"Abortion is, 90% of the time,"
According to Guttmacher (so we know it's as biased toward abortion as possible), it's over 99%.
Abortion to save the life of the mother accounts for .065% of all abortions. To say it's rare is to understate the reality.
Again, abortions in the case of rape are .085% of all abortions, and incest represents .001%. The fact that there is even an argument for not allowing "exceptions" in this minuscule number is cases is just stupid. The fact that this is one of the things the folks who want unrestricted abortion lead with is also stupid. Especially in light of the increasing acceptance of incestuous relationships.
The problem with Dan's claim is that my social media feeds demonstrate that he's wrong. It appears that he's trying to straddle the fence. He seems to know that abortion is wrong at some level, and at some point in pregnancy. So he clings to the microscopic numbers of these situations, ignores the voices advocating unrestricted, taxpayer funded, post birth, abortions, and ends up looking stupid. But denying reality can do that.
Just like with the growing number of "trans" kids who are telling their horror stories, I guess it's easier to ignore the number of women who've chosen to give birth to children of rapists and who talk about how healing it is. It's almost like we want women to undergo one type of trauma, as a way to avoid another type of potential trauma. Personally I know too many strong women who don't feel like they need to hide from hardship, but use it to become stronger.
9+ choices are made before abortion is even an option.
Art,
I know to goal is to eliminate abortion, but that's unlikely at this point in time. Could you accept common sense abortion restrictions such as the following as a starting point?
1. An abortion ban after 15 weeks of gestation.
2. Exceptions enumerated for miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, rape, incest, life of the mother, life of the child.
3. All oral contraceptives to be made OTC.
4. Increased funding for adoption. (Tax credits, subsidized care for mothers, etc)
5. Some form of paternal financial responsibility for their children.
6. Some form of increased paternal rights.
Dan,
Probably not, especially here, You should know by now that your attempts to shame people into doing what you want are rarely effective.
This is rich. Dan having the unmitigated audacity to pretend he stands for "justice and decency and women" while daring to accuse others of "oppressive" perversions. The gall of this rank scumbag is world class. Let's review:
Let's for now set aside Dan's love of homosexuality, lesbianism, cross dressing and sex-change operations, as well the grooming of kids to embrace all of this as normal and moral. We can ignore for now the president he described as a better man than Trump despite a variety of deviant behaviors and parenting two sexually perverse kids. We'll not deal in that for now, but rather focus on the righteous SCOTUS ruling in striking down Roe v Wade, and we'll see what for Dan constitutes standing for "justice and decency and women". We'll see what true "oppression" looks like...as if it hasn't been presented plainly so many times already:
To Dan, brutally and barbarically taking the lives of the most vulnerable and innocent of people...at least half of whom are female... who have done nothing wrong whatsoever, threatened no one's life whatsoever is taking "a stand for justice and decency and women".
Dan: "What did she do?"
Me: "Absolutely nothing."
Dan: "Tear her little body limb from limb and crush her little skull."
Me: "Yeah, Dan. THAT'S not oppressing females. Not at all. Asshole."
To Dan, taking a stand for decency and women means supporting the unnecessary taking of their child's lives while in the womb, despite the great harm physically, mentally and emotionally in the process. I get almost daily emails from Operation Rescue reporting on women rushed to emergency rooms due to massive hemorrhaging from botched abortions. The harm to women is documented, but Dan pretends it's a procedure done by professionals. This is perversion supporting this murder for hire operation.
Deep perversion is regarding those who care for the lives of the most innocent as "oppressors" , as if expecting parents to face their obligations is more "oppressive" than the brutal murder of their own children. Nothing could be more unjust, more indecent and more deeply and oppressively perverse. But that's Dan: Anti-Christian scumbag extraodinaire. Appealing to Craig...even if Craig agreed with him in any way...won't change that fact.
What people of Dan’s perverted and demented ilk fail to acknowledge is the horrid emotional and mental problems which follow abortions for most women, and especially those young women and girls who have been raped. For them the rape is just the start of the trauma and realizing they killed a life just adds to it.
When medically necessary in those infinitesimal women who are in danger of their own lives if they bring the child to birth, if a choice must be made between lives then is not considered “abortion” to save one life over another and is indeed a bonafide medical procedure for life-saving because usually in this situations both will die. On interesting case I read about a few years ago was the woman who was told by her doctor that her own life would be in danger if she carried the child and yet she refused to have the child terminated—guess what! She had the baby and she also survived.
With modern technology a fetus can be removed from the woman (in these life-preserving instances) earlier and earlier and still be saved.
But none of this matters to demonic LEFTISTs like Dan. They want to have unfettered sexual anarchy without the responsibility of preventing conception and use abortion as the response to the “OOPS - I’m pregnant!”
Craig,
"9+ choices are made before abortion is even an option."
I've no doubt I could come up with most, if not all of these with just a little effort. I'd much rather you listed them to save me from exerting it, if you please. ;)
"Art,
I know to goal is to eliminate abortion, but that's unlikely at this point in time. Could you accept common sense abortion restrictions such as the following as a starting point?"
I do so first insisting there's nothing about merely restricting abortion where the term "common sense" applies. It's like restricting most murder, which we'll never eliminate, either. Nonetheless...
"1. An abortion ban after 15 weeks of gestation."
I reject any abortion done for reasons of convenience. At what point of gestation is no different than saying we'll not murder anyone over 7 yrs old.
"2. Exceptions enumerated for miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, rape, incest, life of the mother, life of the child."
Miscarriages don't enter into the conversation. It's a natural process unless there's some alternate definition you have in mind.
Ectopic pregnancies: in the vast majority of cases, the child is already deceased. I've little doubt that can be determined once the problem is discovered. In those even rarer cases where the child still lives, I don't believe it's necessary to kill it in order to remove it and resolve the issues which the problem caused. The child at this point will most likely die regardless. Fine. But that's different than killing it when it's unnecessary. For those lefties who pretend to care about science, let science continue to learn how best to deal with the problem without pretending there's no alternative but to kill the kid.
Rape and incest: As has been stated, there are two victims in such cases. Why one victim gets to murder the other is beyond my ability to comprehend. Allowing that the mother should have that ability is more heinous than the abuse she suffered which led to the pregnancy. It is illogical to presume she is any more greatly impacted by not being murdered than the child who will be by using this excuse to do so.
Life of the mother: There are quite enough medical professionals, indeed those who specialize in difficult pregnancies, who insist there is never a need to kill the child in order to save the mother's life. Most say the prep for an abortion is more dangerous than the removal of the child by standard alternative means, such as caesarean delivery. However, as this is never necessary, I've no problem "compromising" on this issue. I accept that there could at some point be such a situation where there is no other way to prevent the mother's death than to rip the child limb from limb, but only on a hypothetical level. As such, no kid would be at risk. The real question here is how honest the doctor is.
Life of the child: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.
"3. All oral contraceptives to be made OTC."
So long as these drugs don't cause a miscarriage of a conceived child, I'm down with it.
"4. Increased funding for adoption. (Tax credits, subsidized care for mothers, etc)"
Without getting into details, I absolutely support this, beginning with all tax dollars now going to butchers like Planned Parenthood...who really doesn't need any subsidizing...being diverted to adoption and crisis pregnancy centers.
"5. Some form of paternal financial responsibility for their children."
This requires a mother naming those with whom she's had intercourse and some legal means of compelling the accused to submit to a paternity test. I can't see how that would be Constitutional, unless there's rape or incest, and still it would be tricky constitutionally. But assuming paternity can be confirmed, absolutely.
"6. Some form of increased paternal rights."
I don't know what you mean by this.
With much of the above, my position is there is a greater cultural need to be as strict as possible in opposing abortion due to the obvious dehumanizing of humans involved. Any toleration maintains that concept that some people aren't as worthy of having their lives respected as others, and it's always those seeking to do away with the other person who gets the respect. Again, it's like protecting the murderer rather than her victim. That makes no moral sense whatsoever, and incrementally altering it is not doing a damned thing for respecting those innocent lives. How lucky one isn't conceived in rape! That child gets to live, but the other doesn't simply "because". This is legitimately more "all or nothing" than "either/or", and I'm not willing to negotiate with evil.
Somehow in all this, there needs to be a cultural change, whereby teaching respect for life is more heavily indoctrinated into...not just our youth...but even more so adults. If adults can't agree on it, we'll never get the next generation on board.
"I've no doubt I could come up with most, if not all of these with just a little effort. I'd much rather you listed them to save me from exerting it, if you please. ;)"
1. Choosing to date.
2. Choosing to date men who aren't good potential husbands (bad boys)
3. Choosing to have sex.
4. Choosing to have sex with bad boys
5. Choosing not to avail oneself of the myriad of available female birth control methods.
6. Choosing to allow the dude to forgo a condom.
7. Choosing to allow the dude to stay in until completion
8. Choosing not to avail oneself of plan b
9. Choosing not to put the child up for adoption.
I think that was my original list. I'm sure there are more, but the notion that there aren't multiple choices made before abortion is simply absurd. The notion that women have no agency in these choices is also absurd.
1. I understand your position, but I'm trying to come up with a political compromise that could significantly reduce the number of abortions and allow pro life advocates to focus their efforts on persuasion. I'm not asking for your perfect scenario, but if this is a "lesser or two evils" situation.
2. Miscarriages where the child does not naturally leave the uterus, through the birth canal do. Further, given the ignorance of the pro choice crowd, it seems reasonable to enumerate these "exceptions" so as to remove the false arguments they are using.
Ectopic pregnancies. In some cases the child is still living when it's discovered and to allow it's continued growth risks serious injury or death for the mother. Again, minuscule number of cases, but by explicitly enumerating the "exceptions" it shuts up a lot of the ignorance.
Rape and Incest, I agree, but believe that given the tiny amount of cases (and the growing acceptance of incest), that it's better to allow the option while giving individual counseling to the mother rather than making it a legal matter.
Life of the mother. I'm not disagreeing, but am trying to preempt the arguments from the pro abortion side who want to uses the exceptions to support the unlimited abortion rules they hope for.
Life of the child. If the child is missing essential organs that will cause them to die immediately after being born.
The point is that all of these are so incredibly rare that it allows more opportunities for one on one interaction and persuasion instead of coercion. Do you really want to be the person who tells a rape victim that they are required by law to have the child?
I understand your hope for a world without abortion, but that's clearly not going to happen in this fallen, sinful world.
3. I was primarily referring to actual contraceptives, not plan B, but as long as it prevents not ends a pregnancy, I'm ok.
4. Agreed. We can start with the $600 million sent to promote abortion in Africa, and the $500 million that PP gets, look at tax cuts for both sides, reduce hurdles consistent with safety, etc.
5. Again, it requires some effort, and clearly the current child support system sucks, but I believe that a more balanced approach where the father isn't told to f### off except for his bank account is a reasonable goal. Obviously, there would need to be a rethinking of both sides of parenthood, and their rights/responsibilities, but it's a conversation worth having.
6. Currently men are told that they have absolutely zero say or role with their child if the mother decides to abort. It seems like we'd need to balance the system and give fathers some role beyond simply being a blank check. maybe some men will step up.
I'm sorry, but i the current state of our society, given the abject moral failings of Trump, I'm convinced that this all of nothing approach will simply lead to more abortion as the current version of compromise with the APL is "do what we want". I don't apologize for thinking that an early cut off, with some enumerated "exceptions" is better than unlimited, unrestricted, taxpayer funded abortion through or past birth.
I understand that it's not a perfect solution, politics never is, but it's better than most of the reasonable alternatives. Right now, as this goes back to the states, or to the next congress, we are in a good position to have significant influence in whatever laws are passed. If not, then this'll just fester until SCOTUS swings back to the left or a DFL POTUS expands it, and gives the pro abortion side everything it wants.
You list is indeed likely not comprehensive, but makes the point well enough. I would take issue with #5 & 7 depending on the details, but it isn't necessary to get into it unless someone decides to exploit that list to make a stupid argument. I don't know who would do such a thing, but...
I fully understand why it might be necessary to make these trade-offs. Whatever we can do to reduce the unjust taking of innocent lives until we can totally eliminate their blatant oppression by "progressives" is a better thing (can't quite bring myself to describe it as a "good" thing). Definitely need to step up the counseling in any case. No doubt crisis pregnancy centers would re-focus their message to be specific to those remaining situations.
" Do you really want to be the person who tells a rape victim that they are required by law to have the child?"
There are lots of things I don't want to do, but do nonetheless, which are far less serious and fatal as this. We generally refer to it as "doing the right thing, no matter the cost". The legal requirement, however, would not be expressed as the most significant point I would make to woman/girl in that situation. If a part of the legislature voting on such a bill, I would at the same time be doing exactly that. To refuse to vote on such a bill because some would be burdened by the law protecting lives is not a good reason to vote the other way. It's no more responsible than allowing abortion for any reason because of rape.
"I understand your hope for a world without abortion, but that's clearly not going to happen in this fallen, sinful world."
It certainly won't with that attitude, but that also plays no role in choosing to work toward that goal.
I'm not sure what you're issues could be. There are multiple inexpensive and readily available methods of birth control that are there for anyone with enough gumption to use them, including condoms. Look, I understand that in this society where the sexual expectations of far too many people are shaped by porn, the notion that a guy can't pull out is simply ludicrous. It may not be a pleasant conversation, and once you ride bareback it might be harder, but the reality is that every one of those is a unique and discreet choice that is made. Some of them may have been made long before an individual encounter, but those are all choices that are made.
"It certainly won't with that attitude,"
I'm not sure why you and Dan attribute so much power to my "attitude" or how I feel about things. I'm sorry to inform you that my attitude has nothing to do with the fallen sinfulness of the world, and I'm not prepared to think political advocacy is going to change people's hearts or deal with sin. That doesn't mean I'm not engaged, it does mean that I realize that God is sovereign, I'm not, and my best means to effect change is prayer. I don't buy the Matt 25 interpretation that says I can earn my salvation by doing good works. I do those things because of what Jesus has done for me, not so I can earn my way in. I'm also not buying the notion that holding tight to an unattainable goal to the point that we end up with a "compromise" that makes things worse will gain me anything. It's interesting that you're willing to compromise for such a morally flawed man as Trump and some his his failures on some policies, because he "won" on other things, yet aren't willing to even entertain a compromise that would theoretically eliminate over 2/3 of abortions. (a total wild ass guess) My question is, wouldn't that give your some responsibility if we end up with legal abortion, taxpayer funded, through and past birth because you wouldn't entertain a compromise?
Dan is weird. I mean, he is really weird. Dan is a pedo. Pea-dough-fill-ear.
David,
I'm always happy to welcome new guests, but your comment is not a good first impression, even if I'm don't totally disagree. Please keep this in mind if you plan on becoming a more regular visitor.
Craig,
"5. Again, it requires some effort...etc..."
Indeed it does. I just don't know how it can be improved. I also would have to think more deeply about how a woman can go about holding accountable someone who impregnated her without the dude being more like a husband or regular boyfriend. Many boyfriends bolt when the rabbit done died, and as contemptible as it may be, the chick is left to pony up the dough for legal action which might compel the dude to prove he is or isn't the father. I'm not familiar with how that works now, but I have think it's an innocent until proven guilty thing with very little change of proving guilt without the dude's willing participation.
In cases where the dude is willing, he should be involved financially as well as with regards to arguing for the child's life. Certainly if he must dig deeply, he should have some say in that as well. Like you say, he shouldn't be told to butt out if the girl will demand his money.
"6. Currently men are told that they have absolutely zero say..."
This would have to something the law must demand of the woman. At present, she has complete control. Perhaps if the law was pointed toward the woman, as in, no dough from Dad if Dad has no say. If a woman refuses input from the father, she can't have any financial claim on him, either.
Despite the fact that men need to control themselves and live honorably, where they succumb to their passions, I feel bad if they wish to have the kid but are denied any say. Some are willing to take the kid without the mother being any longer involved after birth, but aren't even given any chance in the matter. I at least give them props for that.
"...I'm convinced that this all of nothing approach will simply lead to more abortion..."
Re-reading my own comments, it's clear I didn't make myself clear. First of all, such a legal "all or nothing" would most definitely reduce abortion rates depending upon whether or not the ramifications are such that they have a significant deterrent affect. Given we're dealing with human lives being unjustly taken, what do we do now with such behavior when the victim is born?
But that's not what I was getting at, so it's neither here nor there. I was referring to our own intentions. We can never rest on any laurels. No trade-off to which we agree must be regarded by ourselves as all we'll ever get...which is only true if we accept the premise. In other words, we'll never get better with that attitude. Not just YOUR attitude, but the attitude of anyone who gives any consideration to the notion we'll never eliminate abortion. We'll never eliminate murder. Do we pretend any less than that murder should never be perpetrated and that it's a great wrong? No. We don't. We don't hang our hats on the fact assholes will always murder and abortion is just another manifestation of that reality. But MY attitude...which I insist is the only proper attitude to have...is that we have the goal of no more murder always job 1.
With this in mind, I was not rejecting the plan to make those trade-offs in order to reduce the rate of abortion to as low a number as possible, acknowledging it is the epitome of "lesser of two evils" thinking. It's not a good thing we have ANY abortions taking place, but we can be grateful there are fewer and fewer should we succeed in driving down the frequency. It's a balance between grieving over how many died and taking joy in how many were saved.
Dan, faithfully married to one woman, decent father (great, they'd say) to two children, one who works with and alongside and for the disabled, the mentally ill, immigrants, refugees, who is above reproach in his dealings with children, who opposed both Bill Clinton (for a harassing but consensual sex affair with an adult) AND Trump (who, well, you know, is a pervert and pedophile or pedophile-adjacent) because of their abuse of power and position, regular church attender, leader in his church, former Sunday School teacher for years with children and teen-agers... DAN who is a boy scout (literally, once upon a time, and figuratively)... DAN is a "pedo..." says some complete stranger who doesn't know what he's saying and is clearly making a deadly stupidly false claim - exposing HIS lack of moral wherewithal - because, in today's conservative movement, making stupidly immorally egregiously false and slanderous claims is just part of the movement.
There appears to be NO immoral and inane false claim that a vast majority of conservatives won't use, embrace, pass on and it doesn't matter who entirely empty and stupidly false it is, it's enough to say it.
You all are causing harm to the world and to the oppressed and to the conservative movement. You are an embarrassment. Shame on you all.
"I'm not sure what you're issues could be. There are multiple inexpensive and readily available methods of birth control..."
First, I made a mistake. It should have said "#5 & 8", as they are related. As such, my issue is with the term "birth control" which for me and many means contraception. Some of what is referred to as birth control methods are forms of chemical abortion. This was the distinction argued in the case involving Hobby Lobby. I support the use of contraception if it's actually preventing conception as the term is properly defined. The pro-aborts aren't that honest and thus one must be really clear and precise. At the same time, in the context of your list, the point being choices made by women who now want an abortion, they are all still among the choices she could have made, even though some of them are the same thing in reality. That's all that needs be said on that point.
"I'm not sure why you and Dan attribute so much power to my "attitude" or how I feel about things."
As I indicated in the previous comment, I wasn't suggesting you as solely possessed of that attitude. While I do think very highly of you, it doesn't extend as far as such an attribution. I think of the point as a given and as such unnecessary to mention. Better to focus on the end game, regardless of the chance of success. I liken it to the concept of reaching for the stars making it likely one will get to the moon.
" It's interesting that you're willing to compromise for such a morally flawed man as Trump and some his his failures on some policies..."
Uh...really, really not a parallel to this situation. But since you mentioned it, look at what compromise on Trump's character did. It got us this SCOTUS ruling. And the compromise I made had the added benefit of preventing the ascension of a hag would never have gotten us to this point. What's more, there's no perfect presidency so the fact that not all of his policies were golden doesn't mean he wasn't...and for many still isn't...undeserving of a second term. Put another way, compromising on Trump's character appears to have resulted in fewer deaths in more ways than just this, but in this way specifically.
However, as I stated, my firm position on the abomination of abortion does not mean I'm at all unwilling to make trade-offs (again, keeping in mind I reject the word "compromise" in this negotiation) to reduce the rate of abortion. Despite the truth that the rape/incest/life of the mother argument is an abject sham, I've always been willing to concede those situations in order to deny the selfishness which leads to the vast majority of abortions. I would say that I'd be willing to sign off on those concessions while debating some of the other potential concessions you proposed.
But the point remains. It's ultimately an all or nothing, and you even allude to it in how we deal with those women who weigh the options of those conceded situations. Except in the minutia of the details, I see us as in agreement.
As an aside, if we end up with legal abortion, taxpayer funded, through and past birth because I wouldn't entertain a compromise, it wouldn't be because of me, but because the "compromise" was a bullshit offering. But if it came to that, I may go off the grid and spend the rest of my life blowing up abortion facilities. God help us should the nation degrade so badly during what remains of my lifetime.
Dan,
I don't know this guy. He's never posted here before, and I don't know if I've ever encountered him on any other social media or comment forum. Maybe he'll end up being my feo. He'll have much work ahead of him to match both feo and you for egregious slanders and falsehoods.
In your auto-biography, you left off your devotion to and support of sexual grooming of children as has been most blatantly proven in these blog discussions. Perhaps that's what Mr. Peterson is referencing. It is child abuse and molestation. That's beyond any doubt. Not so much pedophilia, though I continue to anticipate your full support and defense of that in time. However, my expressing that anticipation publicly might be all that prevents you from supporting and defending it publicly. But your support of perversion is beyond ANY doubt whatsoever. But like so many who are in rebellion against God, you simply assert the perversion you defend is not perversion. Indeed, if Trump is a pervert, there is no doubt about those you defend, and thus yourself.
Lies are lies no matter how many times you repeat them Marshal. Teaching children to be respectful of all people IS NOT GROOMING. Teaching them false demonization of those who are different is the perversion.
Open your eyes.
You know what you needed in your childhood? A good Drag Queen Story Time.
You're bent.
June 27, 2022 at 8:00 PM
"Lies are lies no matter how many times you repeat them Marshal."
Incredible. That's exactly what I've been telling you about all of yours for years now. And now, you're repeating this lie:
"Teaching children to be respectful of all people IS NOT GROOMING."
You're lying about what those pervs are saying to kids as they are in doing it. THEY are not people deserving of respect while dressing up as slutty women. They're child molesters who are trying to indoctrinate those poor kids into believe what they do is somehow respectable. They are seeking to make those kids believe that perversion is moral. Being immoral yourself, I've no doubt this is hard for you to grasp. Thus, for kids to be taught to recognize clear and unmistakable perversion is not itself perversion. That's just something you perverts try to say. It's a perversion of reality which is what you perverts do.
I, on the other hand, prefer that kids grow up free from exposure to that unmitigated filth and degradation.
" “I have absolutely no idea why you would want that to influence your child” - drag queen on exposing children to drag https://t.co/1hUFgbKMFU
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 17, 2022
“Keep your kids at home or take them to Disneyland or take them Chuckie Cheese but if you need your child to be entertained by a big human in a costume wearing makeup—take them to the circus.” " ---Drag queen Kitty Demure
Clearly, even some pervs won't be as perverted as you, Dan. You're bent.
Dan the Pedo not only supports drag queen story hour, but would happily have subjected his own children to molestation by a drag queen had he an opportunity to do so. He would have the balls of his sons chopped right off. What does Dan suppose drag queens do? They do exactly what whores do in strip bars, dumbass!
What do drag queens do at Story Times? They read stories. To children. In my experience, they do so with a ton of love and humor.
Unlike you people who are acting in a perverted, hateful, bigoted and ignorant manner.
Peterson, you related to Jordan Peterson? You sound like an even more deranged version of him, without any sense of education.
Vulgar, disrespectful, hateful, bigoted, grace-less, humor-less, NO sense of honor or decency or purity or a commitment to facts: These are more and more becoming the hallmarks of modern conservatism.
Those are indeed logical conclusions based on Dan's comments. Based on all Dan's said over the years, it's hard to believe he would NOT have willingly, perhaps eagerly, exposed his kids to perversion at a young age. Based on all Dan's said over the years, it's hard to believe Dan WOULDN'T support his kids mutilating themselves in a vain attempt to "transition" and appease their delusions about their sexual identities. But of course that's child abuse or molestation...not definitionally pedophilia. Precision in word choice is important here. I try to leave the semantic games to Dan. His dishonest nature requires it.
I hope you weren't referring to me as a dumbass. Drag queens don't strip. At least I don't think they do, as that would spoil the illusion they're trying to create. Maybe Dan can fill us in on the details.
I've "exposed" my children to LGBTQ+ people. ALL their lives (well, for my oldest, he was living while I was still "transitioning" away from conservative bigotry learned in my younger years... but still).
What that means is that they were safely around all sorts of people. Gay people! (Gasp!!) Lesbians and their wives! Gay and Lesbian folks at their wedding receptions! (EGAD!) Church services led by transgender folk (oh noooo!!!).
I've "exposed" my children to all manner of folk. Hell, I'm so progressive, I've even let my children visit with ultra-conservative right wingers. (And then later, maybe spending time talking through any potential harmful messages they may have heard.)
And in ALL these situations, the ONLY times they were exposed to anything harmful was in the presence of some of these conservatives.
Pure. Noble. Loving. Caring. Compassionate. Profoundly decent. Christ-like. Kind. Giving. Gracious. Godly.
THESE are the characteristics my children and my church has been blessed by being "exposed" to LGBTQ folks - including drag queens.
You are calling "bad," that which is profoundly good. THAT is perversion.
I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about Dan. Drag queens do all the immoral stuff that female strippers/prostitutes do. But Dan is such a moron he probably thinks they do clownish circus acts.
Also, you may find this uplifting: Two of my beloved church members who were planning on getting married next year, had a surprise wedding this morning with my pastor conducting the ceremony. They did this rushed wedding because, sadly, they are living in fear that oppressive religious zealots will try to outlaw their right to get married.
What you all intend for evil, is turning out to encourage more LGBTQ folks to get married now, rather than later. Good coming from your evil oppression.
But just because this good news (which has happened for at least two LGBTQ couples I know of and is much more widespread) has turned out for a good, it is an awful shame that modern conservatives are causing so many people living in fear of how zealous they will get in forcing their religious views on others in this nation that used to be free.
And a question: Now that you're all giddy for making choices for women/forcing YOUR choice on others/on women, would you be glad to see the basic right to marry the person of your choice taken away from LGBTQ people? How about from black and white couples?
How far back in our nation's backward, oppressive history are you wanting to regress?
June 28, 2022 at 11:38 AM
"What do drag queens do at Story Times? They read stories. To children. In my experience, they do so with a ton of love and humor."
It's not necessary for pervs to dress like pervs in front of children. They do so for purposes of indoctrination and grooming. And what stories, in your experience, have they been reading to that perversely captive audience?
"Unlike you people who are acting in a perverted, hateful, bigoted and ignorant manner."
Says the pervert who approves of perverts grooming small children who have no choice in being present. There's nothing at all "perverse" about opposing such perversions you promote, celebrate and defend, you twisted f**k. In doing so, you prove your hated of children and morality. And it's not even a matter of ignorance, but rather intention. You're a God-hater.
"Peterson, you related to Jordan Peterson? You sound like an even more deranged version of him, without any sense of education."
Jordan Peterson is not in the least bit deranged. You can't hold a candle to the guy in terms of intelligence, morality and wisdom. And few are as deranged as you in your defense of perversity and depravity, as you prove constantly.
"Vulgar, disrespectful, hateful, bigoted, grace-less, humor-less, NO sense of honor or decency or purity or a commitment to facts: These are more and more becoming the hallmarks of modern conservatism."
"Vulgar" is exposing small children to pervert men dressing as slutty women.
"Disrespectful" is your attitude toward those of us who truly care about what's in the best interests of children...from allowing them to actually live, to shielding them from your sick depravities.
"Hateful" is your attitude toward God and His Will.
"Bigoted" is your attitude toward better people who revere God, the Constitution, common sense and what's in the best interests of children.
"Graceless" is your treatment toward better people who revere God, the Constitution, common sense and what's in the best interests of children.
"Humorless" is how lefties wet their panties anytime anyone dares mock or poke fun at anything in which the lefty believes. This is evidenced by how many comedians have been cancelled for jokes about homosexuals, the physical attacks on people like Dave Chappelle and how many no longer do gigs at universities because of all the little Danny Trabues who attend them.
"NO sense of honor or decency or purity or a commitment to facts" is only a partial description of the typical "progressive" and blatantly obvious character flaws we see in most everything Dan says and does with regard to questions of morality and human life.
"Projection" is an additional characteristic of sorry "progressives" like Dan who apply the above qualities to anyone who so justly opposes their push for perversion and depravity.
June 28, 2022 at 11:56 AM
"I've "exposed" my children to LGBTQ+ people. ALL their lives (well, for my oldest, he was living while I was still "transitioning" away from conservative bigotry learned in my younger years... but still)."
Real Christian parents don't expose their kids to immorality or immoral people. But when real Christian parents find proponents of perversion and depravity exposing their filth to kids at all, they properly point out why kids should not buy into the lie such people are not pervs and to flee from sexual immorality rather than wallow in it like Dan does.
You were never a conservative, Dan. Stop lying about that. You've never demonstrated the least understanding of conservatism, as your moronic words about "modern conservatism" confirms.
"What that means is that they were safely around all sorts of people. Gay people! (Gasp!!) Lesbians and their wives! Gay and Lesbian folks at their wedding receptions! (EGAD!) Church services led by transgender folk (oh noooo!!!)."
They're not safe at all from the influence of perverts to whom Dan exposed their kids. Now, it's likely Dan's kids believe as Dan does and as such Dan has led ostensibly Christian kids to sin. There's a millstone with Dan's name on it.
"I've "exposed" my children to all manner of folk. Hell, I'm so progressive, I've even let my children visit with ultra-conservative right wingers. (And then later, maybe spending time talking through any potential harmful messages they may have heard.)"
Here, Dan implies he straight up lies to his kids by telling them what conservatives say are in some way "harmful messages". There's no limit to Dan's corruption.
"And in ALL these situations, the ONLY times they were exposed to anything harmful was in the presence of some of these conservatives."
A stupidly false claim...to use Dan's pathetic words...he doesn't support in any way, nor could he give an actual example.
"Pure. Noble. Loving. Caring. Compassionate. Profoundly decent. Christ-like. Kind. Giving. Gracious. Godly."
None of this is inherent in any who reject the clear and unequivocal teachings of Scripture, such as Dan and his perverts.
"THESE are the characteristics my children and my church has been blessed by being "exposed" to LGBTQ folks - including drag queens."
You lie to yourself as well as to your children. God frowns on heresy and you spew it like vomit.
"You are calling "bad," that which is profoundly good. THAT is perversion."
Woe unto you who call evil good. THAT is perversion.
RE: "What books are being read at DQST?"
Some of the books being read have "deviant" messages like "All are Welcome" and "Be Who You Are!" and "The Little Engine who Could..." and "Good Night, Moon." In other words, nothing deviant at all. These are healthy, positive images and messages.
And in the real world where real bullies and oppressors have regularly mocked and oppressed real children who are LGBTQ and in that context of that real oppression, these story hours are literally life savers.
Look, you are entirely FREE not to attend a DQST, but beyond that, get the hell out of people's lives. Stop trying to tell them THEY are wrong for being who they are and wanting not to be bullied, oppressed, mocked or abused.
Stop siding on the side of the oppressors. People's lives are at threat and people like you all with messages like the ones you're offering are literally killing people.
Weren't you all complaining not too long ago about supposed liberals trying to supposedly "silence" conservative voices? So we can see that it's not enough for you all to have the right to say what you want (which you do), you ALSO are trying to tell other people what they can and can't hear/read, what events they can and can't do, who can and can't help children.
That is literally fascism, fellas. YOU decide for yourself whether or not you want an abortion or marry a guy or attend a storytelling time. Let other people decide for themselves. Not everyone agrees with your religious bigotry and harmful traditions.
Open your eyes.
Marshal...
""Hateful" is your attitude toward God and His Will."
But I love God and hope to follow God's will. You can't point to any words I've said that say anything about an "attitude" that is hateful towards God.
Once again: THAT I DISAGREE WITH YOU AND YOUR HUMAN TRADITIONS does not mean I hate God or God's will.
Stop conflating yourself with God.
June 28, 2022 at 12:32 PM
"Also, you may find this uplifting: Two of my beloved church members who were planning on getting married next year, had a surprise wedding this morning with my pastor conducting the ceremony. They did this rushed wedding because, sadly, they are living in fear that oppressive religious zealots will try to outlaw their right to get married."
Gonna go out on a limb and assume Dan's wallowing again. As we can easily tell, he's referring to a pair of pervs from his church...homosexuals or lesbians...or maybe a dude and his goat. Dan refers to those who revere the Will of God as "zealots". But he uses the term as a pejorative. While Paul spoke of his foolish zealotry before his conversion, one would have to be a Trabue...I mean, and idiot...same thing...to suppose Paul was not zealous in his devotion to Christ. Indeed, Christ was a zealot. A Christian "zealot" is one who is as devoted, or seeks to be. Dan is zealous in his rejection of God and rebellion toward Him, and in his promotion of sexual immorality.
"What you all intend for evil, is turning out to encourage more LGBTQ folks to get married now, rather than later. Good coming from your evil oppression."
There is no evil in reversing a bad SCOTUS ruling as Roe v Wade clearly was, and as even many abortion proponents recognized. And if this leads to the reversing of the equally bad Obergefell ruling, it too would not be "evil", but a correction for that which had no legitimacy in the first place. Both of these issues should have been a matter of democratic choice from a vote on referendums, which was the case with SSM before the pervs realized the vast majority of the nation would never vote for it. That's when they turned to sympathetic activist judges to overturn the will of the people...the most blatant example being the overturning of Prop 8 in California (of all places!).
Now, the pervs hope to continue their oppression in "warning" against their ill-gotten fictitious "right" being returned to the people to decide. A wild bit of pearl clutching by the gender confused, given they insist the majority of Americans favor their position on the corruption of marriage to their favor.
"But just because this good news (which has happened for at least two LGBTQ couples I know of and is much more widespread) has turned out for a good, it is an awful shame that modern conservatives are causing so many people living in fear of how zealous they will get in forcing their religious views on others in this nation that used to be free."
This is such a bullshit claim given how pervs have forced their irreligious views on better people! Dan's hypocrisy is on display once again. Most ironic!
"And a question: Now that you're all giddy for making choices for women/forcing YOUR choice on others/on women, would you be glad to see the basic right to marry the person of your choice taken away from LGBTQ people? How about from black and white couples?"
Here Dan's perversion manifests in more dishonesty...because lying is Dan. Dan mocks better people because Roe was justly and rightly...to say nothing of "righteously"...overturned. Again, it was a bad ruling not based on the Constitution in any way. It should never have been, but assholes who believe having sex is more important than the obligation to the children that sex might produce are adamant about sex without consequence or obligation and were giddy when they thought Roe gave them liberty to murder their own children in utero. If assholes wish to continue pretending it's about controlling women, they aren't honest and honorable people and who should give a flying rat's ass about their whining?
But I would indeed be "giddy" to see "marriage" redefined as it always had been throughout human history, and more specifically throughout American history, as the union of one man and one woman. It's not only God's way, it's nature's way and perversion should never have been given the time of day with regard to the legal definition of this too crapped-on institution. The pervs Dan defends were NEVER denied the ability to marry under the long-accepted understanding of the word, and no one was ever within their rights to "marry" under any other definition. The law was applied equally the whole time before morally bankrupt judges and legislators bent the knee to immorality and perversion. The "right to marry who one loves" is a misnomer and distortion. A perversion, if you will, and that's what the pervs do...they pervert everything to suit themselves without regard to anything else.
Then Dan dares to go on and bring up interracial marriage as if there's some honest, legitimate parallel to SSM. There isn't. There never was. Dan's a liar, so he's not above trying to push this well debunked crap-sandwich as he pretends to be moral.
"How far back in our nation's backward, oppressive history are you wanting to regress?"
This is a dishonest question, because denying deviants the right to pretend they're married hasn't been a legal thing since the also wrongly decided Lawrence v Texas decision. Just as a normal man with a normal girlfriend can live as a married couple without a marriage license, so too could a couple of homosexuals. Thus, "going back" is returning to reason. It's reversing the perversions of reason which should never have taken place and about which a low intellect like Dan...or any of his perv friends...could argue was a proper direction to take the nation and its culture.
So Dan will whine on about "oppression", which for the childish like Dan and his perv friends, means nothing more than not getting their way.
Marshal...
""Bigoted" is your attitude toward better people who revere God, the Constitution, common sense and what's in the best interests of children."
But it's not. I don't hate and am not bigoted towards conservatives. I used to be one. Many in my family and friend circle still are.
ALL I'm saying is that YOU can decide for yourself what you do and believe AND others can decide for themselves what they do and believe.
You don't get to dictate that/force your religious biases and bigotries on others.
That is not "bigotry" on my part. That's reason.
Marshal...
"Dan will whine on about "oppression""
The oppression is real and undeniable. It's objectively factual and demonstrable. LGBTQ people have been mocked, beaten, abused, suppressed, jailed and killed throughout our history. No denying that reality.
Churches have demonized LGBTQ and belittled them and treated them like demons. Churches and christian families have kicked LGBTQ out of their families and disowned them. This too, is just reality.
You can side on the side of oppressors in your mind, but you aren't free to implement it by law any more. God willing and if Justice wins out, your forcing your views on others will not become normalized. And hopefully, you're not out there grooming children into that sort of fascism.
"You don't get to dictate that/force your religious biases and bigotries on others."
You leftists shove/force your "religious" biases down our throats by abusing the judicial system.
"They did this rushed wedding because, sadly, they are living in fear that oppressive religious zealots will try to outlaw their right to get married."
I don't know why they would, since no one is really oppressing them. It is all a figment of your imaginations.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)
"That is not "bigotry" on my part. That's reason." Ahem, you are not making reasonable points at all. You are just being obstinate. You are making excuses to justify your godless, ugly, and soulless worldview.
P.S. I bet you sold your truck for a gallon of oil.
June 28, 2022 at 2:00 PM
"Some of the books being read have "deviant" messages like "All are Welcome" and "Be Who You Are!" and "The Little Engine who Could..." and "Good Night, Moon." In other words, nothing deviant at all. These are healthy, positive images and messages."
You seem to forget that you're not speaking with another moronic "progressive" like yourself. Only adult, mature, reasoned, supported and honest discussion is expected here.
To begin with, one, if not both, of the first two books you listed are on every homosexual's recommended books for the children who are so unfortunate to be placed in their care. I believe it's the second, though it might be another by the same author, speaks of "two mommies" or some such. It resulted in some parent organization righteously arguing for their removal from any school hoping to use it to groom little kids toward leftist perversion. And that's the problem. These two books, as well as the others, are used for that purpose specifically. It's the same as the bullshit as GLSEN's transparently pro-homosexual "Day Of Silence" and anti-bullying campaigns. Having pervs read these books to children is to groom them in the belief that perversion is no worse than morally benign, if not an outright moral good.
So the pretense of innocence in the books being read to little kids by blatant deviants is a blatant and highly transparent lie, even if the scum never lays a hand on the kids...which I'm told they too often do.
"And in the real world where real bullies and oppressors have regularly mocked and oppressed real children who are LGBTQ and in that context of that real oppression, these story hours are literally life savers."
You have no legitimate documentation to make the claim that pervs reading to little kids saves any lives, much less the lives of those little kids. What is documented is most harm to these reprobate people comes from within their community and by their own hand despite a growing environment of tolerance. So you lie once again intentionally.
Additionally, your continued use of the term "oppressor" and its variants is another lie you intentionally tell to overstate what harm you want the stupid to believe is ongoing from those who oppose the agenda those like you and the activists seek to force down the throats of fellow Americans. Again, you're not dealing with a moron here. I'm not at all moved by this routine dishonesty.
What's more, bullying amongst school kids is not unique those suffering from LGBT delusions, disorders and dysfunction. So you can stop that crap as well.
"Look, you are entirely FREE not to attend a DQST, but beyond that, get the hell out of people's lives."
As Charles Dickens reminds us through his character, Jacob Marley, mankind is our business. For a man of any degree of honor to become aware of sexual deviants indoctrinating small children into acceptance of deviancy, getting in the middle of that shit is a cultural good. I support anyone who disrupts such a scenario if it leads to its cancellation and children are spared the experience...which for more than a few of them must leave the same kind of trauma small kids often suffer from close exposure to circus clowns. At least the circus clowns aren't inherently immoral and perverse characters. If only you were that type of clown instead of the type you are!
"Stop trying to tell them THEY are wrong for being who they are and wanting not to be bullied, oppressed, mocked or abused."
This is more of your well known dishonesty. Mixing disparate aspects of an issue as if they are linked as the same fruit (pun intended). They ARE wrong for being who they are: grown men who should know better than to parade their perversion in front of ANY kids, much less such young kids, and seeking to groom them to the acceptance of and indulgence in their perversion. The rest of the sexually immoral alphabet people are also wrong for being who they are. One who feels compelled to steal is wrong for indulging that sinful compulsion. These people are wrong for indulging theirs.
To your second part, which is nothing like the first, no one...even normal, moral people...want to be "bullied, oppressed, mocked or abused", nor should anyone seek to put them through it (though your pervs are justly mocked for indulging their perversions...whatever it takes to get them to repent...should they ever have the courage to ask why they're being mocked).
"Stop siding on the side of the oppressors."
I don't support the murder of babies. So long as you do...and you most certainly do...then you're on the side of the worst oppressors mankind has ever known.
"People's lives are at threat and people like you all with messages like the ones you're offering are literally killing people."
This, again, is a lie and proven to be a lie. Liars like you say it to oppress moral people and push them into accepting perversion. That perversion is literally killing people.
"Weren't you all complaining not too long ago about supposed liberals trying to supposedly "silence" conservative voices? So we can see that it's not enough for you all to have the right to say what you want (which you do), you ALSO are trying to tell other people what they can and can't hear/read, what events they can and can't do, who can and can't help children."
You're doing it again. You're trying to color your perversion in goodness. You assholes are still seeking to silence conservatives and actual Christians as in the manner I've indicated above. In the meantime, there's a vast chasm of difference between promoting your perversion socially and politically among adults, versus indoctrinating and grooming children. We normal people...that is, we conservatives and actual Christians...are more than willing to have a good faith discussion about the moral quality of the behaviors in which you wish to indulge. You assholes don't. That's why you seek to silence us in every way you can conjure. So yet again, you're intentionally lying.
"That is literally fascism, fellas."
No. It's literally not. But you keep lying Dan. Maybe one day even you will believe what you say.
"Open your eyes."
Even at my age, they see clearly. The see you're a liar in rebellion against God and His Creation.
June 28, 2022 at 2:02 PM
""Hateful" is your attitude toward God and His Will."
But I love God and hope to follow God's will."
Your position on so many issues belies that statement. And by "belies", I mean, your positions "be lies". But you could start to love God and follow His will by actually seriously and prayerfully studying Scripture. You've never done that.
"You can't point to any words I've said that say anything about an "attitude" that is hateful towards God."
All your words in defense of those who willingly indulge their sexual perversions, as unequivocally described in the Scripture you reject demonstrates outright rebellion against God. Rebellion...hate...same thing.
"Once again: THAT I DISAGREE WITH YOU AND YOUR HUMAN TRADITIONS does not mean I hate God or God's will."
Another intentional lie. My positions are directly from Scripture. Yours are not. You use this term "human traditions" as if the traditions to which I adhere are somehow indistinguishable from God's Will or some kind of distortion of it. If they were, you could explain just how. You just lie and whine and reassert that which you never support with Scripture. Indeed, you can't.
"Stop conflating yourself with God."
Stop lying about repeating His clearly revealed Will as presented in Scripture is conflating myself with God. By your shallow and self-serving reasoning, all preaching stands as conflating one's self with God. I'd say you could not be more absurd, but you never cease to astound.
Marshal...
"As Charles Dickens reminds us through his character, Jacob Marley, mankind is our business."
You molest and twist the words of Dickens just like you do the words of the Bible. Dickens, the biblical authors and Jesus, his own Self speak of "caring for humanity" regularly, clearly, consistently and RELENTLESSLY in terms of helping the poor and oppressed, the marginalized and abused. NOT of stopping drag queens from simply reading to children and NOT of telling LGBTQ children that they're "deviant."
You read, but fail to understand.
Read more Dickens, but do it for understanding and self-examination.
June 28, 2022 at 2:13 PM
"""Bigoted" is your attitude toward better people who revere God, the Constitution, common sense and what's in the best interests of children."
"But it's not. I don't hate and am not bigoted towards conservatives."
Your words "be lies". Your constant insulting descriptions of those who defend truth and morality says otherwise.
"I used to be one."
Liar. You were never one. You've yet to demonstrate you have any understanding of what a conservative or conservatism is.
"Many in my family and friend circle still are."
I'm not concerned with those unfortunate enough to be in your circle. None of them visit here and your speaking about them is not considered truthful without them confirming any of it...and even then I'd retain great doubt. After all...they're in YOUR circle. That doesn't reflect well on them, unless they regard you as a project.
"ALL I'm saying is that YOU can decide for yourself what you do and believe AND others can decide for themselves what they do and believe."
Moot points don't win points, Dan. No conservative seeks to "decide" for others, except as concerns protecting children, in which case no one like you should have any right to be within 500 yards of them.
"You don't get to dictate that/force your religious biases and bigotries on others."
And yet you have no problem with you perverts dictating and forcing your irreligious biases and bigotries on better people. You bastards do it whenever you can.
"That is not "bigotry" on my part. That's reason."
It's both bigotry and homofascism. You're a chump for the "Gaystapo". "Reason" rejects it all. But then, "reason" is another word you don't understand.
Speaking of opening your eyes to the Truth, IF you were following the examination of Trump's villainy on and leading up to Jan 6 and his ongoing lies about a "stolen election" (that far too many useful idiots are swallowing hook, line and sinker), here's today's news:
"Cassidy Hutchinson — a trusted and familiar face to many GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill [her testimony]
Lawmakers and aides said they were particularly disturbed by an episode where former President Trump was allegedly so irate about not being taken to the Capitol on Jan. 6 that he lunged at his Secret Service inside the presidential limo and another episode where Trump allegedly expressed support for the “Hang Mike Pence” chants.
One GOP lawmaker said they weren’t able to catch the whole hearing, “but enough to make me throw my lunch against the wall” – a reference to how Trump allegedly threw his lunch against the wall in anger at one point.
“This does show how emotionally and personally involved Trump was in the Jan. 6 events,” the member said. “He really cared about what was happening at the Capitol. He wanted to be a part of it.”
...
Hutchinson testified that she overheard Trump saying that he did not care if his supporters had weapons — and suggested he had no issue with them marching to the Capitol armed. "I overheard the President say something to the effect of 'I don't F-ing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the F-ing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in, take the F-ing mags away."
Your Pervert Prince you keep defending who, if there is any justice, will be held accountable and soon.
June 28, 2022 at 2:18 PM
""Dan will whine on about "oppression""
The oppression is real and undeniable. It's objectively factual and demonstrable. LGBTQ people have been mocked, beaten, abused, suppressed, jailed and killed throughout our history. No denying that reality."
What's happened years ago is not at issue. To constantly bring up "the old days" is no more honest than race-hustlers bringing up slavery to justify their lies and agendas.
"Churches have demonized LGBTQ and belittled them and treated them like demons. Churches and christian families have kicked LGBTQ out of their families and disowned them. This too, is just reality."
Churches are right and obligated to demonize sinful behaviors and reprobates who refuse to repent of them, and worse, proclaim their sinful behaviors as moral. Churches are right, obligated and just to cast out unrepentant sinners. Allowing them to remain leads to acceptance of the sinful behavior. No proper church would allow a sinner to remain under such terms. You don't attend a proper church, so you wouldn't know.
The same is true of Christian families. If a member is struggling with a sinful compulsion, that's one thing. But the insistence by the sinner to some "right" to remain while indulging in sinfulness is just cause to cast out such a family member. Again, if you were a Christian, you'd know this.
As such, you purposely and willingly distort the reality, or haven't the testicles to grill the queer an his family for the true story. With you it's like both.
"You can side on the side of oppressors in your mind, but you aren't free to implement it by law any more."
There are no laws being sought which any honest person would regard as "oppressive", except that sinners wish total liberty to sin and anything short of that will be termed "oppressive", because that's what liars do. There is no just, honest and intelligent reason why "marriage" should have been redefined to include anything beyond one and one woman, and no such reason was used in ruling in favor of it. There was no just, honest and intelligent reason why abortion should be federally protected, and no such reason was used in ruling in favor of it. There was no just, honest and intelligent reason why any of the LGBTQSPCA+/?! people should be protected by law as if they're in any way akin to people of a different race, sex or ethnicity and no such reason was used to do so.
"God willing and if Justice wins out, your forcing your views on others will not become normalized."
All the while you're doing exactly that in your push for normalizing the abnormal and immoral. You lying piece of shit.
"And hopefully, you're not out there grooming children into that sort of fascism."
Oh, this is nice. Not you're perverting the concept of both "grooming" and "fascism" to demonize the moral upbringing of innocent children, rather than tolerating their being corrupted by God-haters like you. It never stops with you.
Let's talk about the oppreseion by the LGBTQXYZ+ people:
Don't want to bake our fake wedding cake, or floral arrangments for fake marriages, or designs for fake marriages, you will be sued until you lose your busines.
Tolerant people would just go elsewhere but oppressing bigots will brook no disagreement with their perverse life style.
Don't use a proper pronoun for mentally deranged people who want to pretend to be what they aren't? Lose you job, get kicked out of school or otherwise punished, etc.
Real tolerance from perverts, eh?
June 28, 2022 at 4:03 PM
""As Charles Dickens reminds us through his character, Jacob Marley, mankind is our business."
You molest and twist the words of Dickens just like you do the words of the Bible. Dickens, the biblical authors and Jesus, his own Self speak of "caring for humanity" regularly, clearly, consistently and RELENTLESSLY in terms of helping the poor and oppressed, the marginalized and abused. NOT of stopping drag queens from simply reading to children and NOT of telling LGBTQ children that they're "deviant.""
First, I like how you pervert the word "molest" in order to pretend I'm on the wrong side of this issue. Then you go on to again pretend what my side of the issue means for the perverts you support. Neither Christ nor Dickens abides the promotion of immorality as you do constantly, and they certainly don't abide the way you lie about it, with constant references "the poor, oppressed, marginalized and abused" in place of defending the immoral practices. Put it this way, what concern I've had for any queer who gets his ass kicked simply for being queer dissipates more and more as I hear you and those like you lie and distort and demonize good people in service of immorality and disorder. You exploit that crap to further your God-hating agenda. And here's still another egregious lie:
"NOT of stopping drag queens from simply reading to children and NOT of telling LGBTQ children that they're "deviant.""
As I explained above, they are not "simply reading to children". Indeed, "simply" isn't a word which applies even if they were actually circus clowns dressing up for the task, rather than deviant clowns grooming the kids to accept their deviancy.
And there are NO "LGBT children". There are only children learning about themselves being pushed by immoral assholes to believe it's morally good to accept their immoral and disordered urges. You're a child abuser.
"You read, but fail to understand."
It's that I understand so well which frightens you so.
"June 28, 2022 at 4:11 PM
The above comment is entirely off topic and was just an excuse for Dan to pretend his unChristian opinions of Trump are justified by the testimony of someone questioned by Trump haters without corroboration.
I will not post any such off topic comments, and I will not post any further ramblings on the topic of perversion by anyone from this point forward.
This post refers to two specific Supreme Court rulings. Be sure all further comments do as well.
Glenn,
It's true. The real fascists are those Dan defends. He's one himself.
Glenn... "Real tolerance from perverts, eh?"
Y'all are such incredible snowflakes. You compare expecting businesses to not discriminate is a lack of tolerance, but telling women what medical choices they can and can't make, telling LGBTQ folk who they can and can't marry, telling parents and children who they can and can't listen to telling stories, THREATENING VIOLENCE to Drag Queens for reading stories, kicking LGBTQ people out of your families and churches, that's just making room for "your rights..."?
You're confusing having your own liberties with deciding for OTHERS what they can and can't do and threatening jail and violence if they dare to disagree with your religious bigotry?
Theo-Fascists! Open your eyes.
This is just a great evil on your part. Stop it.
You make your decisions, we'll make ours.
"This post refers to two specific Supreme Court rulings. Be sure all further comments do as well."
Is anyone but Dan having trouble understanding what the above means?
Glenn,
I moved your comment to the newer post, as I want this thread to return from this tangent to its point. Sorry for the inconvenience.
They were maliciously lying about him, fabricating and contorting in order to portray him as illegitimately possessed of the presidency.
Oh my gosh! Not only did they lie about Trump: they maliciously lied about him. Wahh, wahh, wahh.
What was spent on the Benghazi hearings (poorly, I might add, as it led to nothing Clinton deserved) was intended to hold her accountable for her failings as US Secretary of State which resulted in the murder of a US Ambassador and three others, as well as to ascertain the details which left them unprotected.
You've got one thing right. The Republicans came up with nothing. They came up with nothing despite the fact that Hillary testified under oath for eleven hours, unlike the gutless Republicans who are pleading the Fifth and ducking subpoenas.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, except that you'll believe anything you're told:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tucker-carlson-owns-swanson/
I don't believe that Tucker owns Swanson and I didn't say that he did. I said he was an heir.
In the meantime, the link you clearly didn't watch lists all the people being attacked for two "horrors"...either being a supporter of Trump or for believing the election should be more deeply investigated given all the evidence it had been stolen. Then you dare question my regard for the Constitution and the rule of law! Incredible!
I actually did watch most of the video. I also googled some of the names he cited, and I found, as I expected I would, that Tucker lied about what they had done to draw the attention of law enforcement, just as he lied about why Jeffrey Clark was being investigated.
Post a Comment