I’m less bothered by Portman’s switch and his reasons for making it, than I am by his implication that love can exist without truth, and that those who oppose gay marriage believe in truth without love.
No matter where you stand on the issue (religion, atheism, etc.), it is inherently impossible for homosexuality to be “equal” to heterosexuality: heterosexuality is responsible for the existence of literally everything that is human, including homosexuals. The two can be no more equal than a leaf can be equal to the tree from which it hangs. Equating gay marriage with hetero marriage is a deliberate contradiction of what is universally known, in the hopes that that falsehood will not cost anyone anything. That’s the truth of the matter.
But it will cost, and that’s where the question of love comes in. Whether heteros have children or not, we all know where children come from. More importantly, children know where children come from. They grow up into adults who know where children come from. It is an intimate part of every human being’s identity (including orphans). Or, at least, it was. With abortion, we’ve already begun teaching those who survive into humanity that their survival was due SOLELY to the election of another; that their lives were optional. “From a mom and a dad? Why, no, I came solely from my mother’s free will, like Minerva splitting Zeus’s skull. I am little more than someone else’s idea of their own freedom.” But that’s abortion. With gay marriage, by implication we are teaching children (and they will learn it to their bones) that even their birth is negligible: it is connected to humanity by a relationship that is no more essential to humanity than homosexuality. Relationships in which fertility never comes into play are equal to those in which it does come into play. Consequently, fertility and infertility are the same thing as a-fertility. Life is the same as not-life. This is isn’t alarmism. These are the absolutely necessary and logical lessons we are teaching children, even at the same time that we say we “love” them.
So what is the cost, when we have taught this generation and those who come after that one may “safely” ignore the obvious connections between obviously connected things? Conception from birth, birth from live, conception from mom and dad, and therefore the child from mom and dad, and therefore ourselves from humanity? These connections are all there for a reason, whether you see that as religious or humanist. But we don’t want those connections anymore. Because some are orphaned, all are to be orphaned. Because some cannot beget children, all are to relinquish their children, to treat them as accidents. We are opting to take something of themselves from literally everyone, in order that a few might not be insecure. And how is that loving or compassionate–to anybody, including the homosexuals? We are busy taking away from folks the ability to make obvious connections between things that are obviously connected. Good lord. How can this not cost us? And how did reducing heterosexuality and childhood and birth and life, to things that they are not, grant anybody equality of any sort?
Bottom line: Portman and Cheney and their kind are wrong. Love and truth go hand in hand every single time. When you kill one, you necessarily kill the other. But, by all means, let’s all be “nice” about this and let people have what they want. What could possibly go wrong? We’ve got our hearts in the right place.
(Some folks will inevitably ask, “What about infertile couples?” Here’s the problem with comparing homosexuals to infertile heteros. The marriage contract is not a contract on goods to be delivered, but an agreement on what should be done if those goods (children) are delivered. The marriage contract does not say that heteros have to have children. It DOES say that in order for children to be born, they need to have heterosexual parents, one damn way or another, and that parents need to recognize the child’s dependency on them. For all the equation of infertile heterosexuals with homosexuals, in defense of gay marriage, the two are not the same. The POSSIBILITY of children is an absolutely essential and necessary and empirically verifiable part of marriage as it now exists, whether or not each couple produces children. That possibility does not exist for homosexuals. Even for those heterosexual couples who know they are infertile before getting married: 1) too many “infertile” couples have “miraculously” had children, and 2) even if they don’t have children, they still represent the relationship that produces children. Homosexual couples do not represent that relationship, even those that adopt. The reason they don’t represent it is because of something they themselves regularly insist on: that our lives cannot be divorced from our inherent biology. They say that they didn’t have a choice as to what they were born as. Very well. Then it also stands to reason that none of us has a choice as to how we came into the world. Why gay-marriage proponents can’t grant biological necessity (and all that that means) to all children, rather than just homosexuals, is beyond me. As is obvious for those of us who can still connect obviously connected things, it can’t really have anything to do with “equality”: it is mind-bogglingly elitist and undemocratic.)
I have been involved in many conversations over at Hot Air on the subjects of free choice, such as allowing same sex partners the ceromony and the respectability that comes with the term marriage as well as the freedom to consume drugs legally. We are a nation of laws and we are supposed to be a nation of freedom and liberty. So, why would I have problems with these things? Well, one reason is the lack of personal responsibility and individual self discipline and the resultant assault on the freedoms of the virtuous.
While it is possible to have free choice with out personal responsiblity the resultant society must be tyrannical in nature. It forces others to pay for the consequences of your personal choices.
The chain of responsibility follows Self, Immediate Family, Extended Family, Friends and Associations, Community and charity, Local Government, State Government, Federal Government, All of Humanity.
You must care for yourself if you are to be able to care for your immediate family. You and your immediate family must be functioning to be able to assist any extended family members. The extended family has to be functioning in order to be there for their friends and associations. The Family, Friends and associations have to function in order to support the community and fund and run the charities. That is the end of voluntary associations and thus begins the coercive nature of government. In order for the government to exist it must be funded and staffed by the people of the community it is empowered to serve. So Local governments functioning is a requirement to serving the state government which must be working to serve the Federal Government and our federal government must be functioning in order to work within the planet and all of humanity on it. This chain goes in reverse. All of Humanity has a responsibility to respect our Federal Government, else we will have war. The federal government has to ensure it is treating each of the state governments fairly. The state governments need to keep their house in order to allow the local government to function properly. Lastly the local governments need to function properly to allow all the associations, charities, communities, families and individuals to get along well enough to thrive.
What does this have to do with my intransigent nature to same sex partner marriages and legalized drugs? We do not live in a properly functioning society where the chain of responsibility is functioning to allow society to thrive. Thus adding additional burdens to a degenerating society is going to add burdens the society cannot handle at this time.
Today, and for the last 75 years, we have lived in a short circuited responsibility of ever increasing magnitude. 75 years ago it was social security and unemployment insurance. Instead of being responsible for insuring against old age infirmity and loss of a job, the government chose to force everyone else to insure it for you and themselves of course. This led to some obvious, at least to me today, consequences. The first was that the value of a child was reduced, as people would no longer have to look to their own children in their old age in order to be secure. It also raised the cost of a child, because the money you paid towards old people already in the system was no longer in your pocket to pay for the needs of children. With the value of children reduced while the price increased, it led to people demanding to be free from the child rearing family unit of marriage. Thus was easy divorce created. All these divorced women led to the creation of the welfare state to make up for the dead beat dads who refused to support the ungodly act of being divorced. This led to people not wanting to bear the cost of an unplanned child and the pressure for on demand abortion. Which led to even easier divorce and the complete severing in the minds of the people of the purpose of marriage all together.
Marriage is about creating a nurturing environment of stability to allow children to grow up and become contributors to the whole of society. This turning away from our responsibilities to our children did not end in the family, but metastasized into the whole society, schools becoming indoctrination centers rather than places of learning, marriage becoming a racket to get half of a man’s wealth and decades of alimony.
The welfare state once created expanded and is continuing to expand daily. All those divorced women with children began taking some of the stigma away from unwed mothers, and the welfare state took away the personal responsibility aspect of providing for said out of wedlock children and in fact gave the woman a source of her living standard. Each small item led to something more and something even more. Marriage has been so deteriorated as an institution that today people argue that there is no reason not to allow same sex marriages which have an absolute 0 probability in creating children which will need to be raised in a stable environment. Allowing same sex marriage moves us further away from the ideal two biological parent family and more towards marriage is all about the two consenting adults, who, since they are consenting adults, do not need a marriage certificate to make their relationship work. A more deteriorated marriage institution will only end with more people on welfare, and that does not include the increased numbers of people who will experiment with same gender sex and end up with aids on medicare and social security disability siphoning off the wealth created by the virtuous amongst us.
The welfare state once created expanded and is continuing to expand daily. Well over 8 million disabled Americans in our ultra safe society. I see the people this covers coming out of their cars at the local stores. Perfectly fine walking people on average, well to do by the consideration of the value of their cars. Many are likely drug users of the past or current ones, being addicted is a disability you know… So is being fat!
So, while I personally could care less what you put in your body, I do care about whether or not I am forced to subsidize it by insuring your lifestyle with my labor. I am already paying out of my labor about 25% of my wealth creation between all the taxes I pay just to subsidize and many times completely cover the lifestyle of other people who are outside of my chain of responsibility. This money is taken by force and handed out without any accompanying moral judgement on the recipient. Thus, my ability to use my labor to affect positive change in my community through judicial use of charity is destroyed. We have become a land where the tyrants are the degenerates and the slaves are the virtuous, and because of the subsidizing of degenerate behaviors, we cause more people to engage in such behaviors and punish the virtuous for their failures.
I do not take a potential presidents word on faith. It MUST be backed up with concrete actions that show he means what he says.
Reagan did not rebuild the Shining City Upon a Hill because the congress was at his back helping him do it. Instead, he inspired the American people with his words and his philosophy, and got them to force the changes through congress.
Newt did not get rid of the Welfare State with a president happy to do so and a congress that wanted to do it. He took the message to the people, and with their backing he forced Clinton and congress to do what was right.
Romney does none of this. In fact, I would argue that having an 80% Democrat congress in Massachusetts was a planned foil.
The only conservative thing he did in Massachusetts was veto progressive legislation line items that he knew would be over turned. When you look at areas where he did have power to accomplish conservative goals, what did he do?
The executive branch record shows that he supported the extreme environmentalists in all of their activities. From shutting down power generation, demonizing coal, Global warming, cap and trade, the RGGI, shutting down domestic energy production to save the view for rich people. He had control of that, and the results were progressive.
The executive branch record shows that he supported gay marriage. His defense was pathetic (some lawyer he is), and once the verdict came down he fast tracked gays to their nuptials, then squashed the constitutional amendment that was gaining steam to overturn the supreme court.
The executive branch record shows that he created the first in the nation politics free judge nomination process. I guess he did not want to really appoint conservative judges. Instead, out of 36 appointments all of 9 were (R) as in Massachusetts Republicans, not very conservative at all.
Where exactly are we going to find the records that demonstrate that when the rubber met the pavement, Romney was actually FOR conservative policies? We cannot.
In fact, Romney did not want people to know anything about the inside the office discussions taking place on taxpayer computers at taxpayers expense. He bought the hard drives and destroyed their content so that no one will have proof of what was going on. If he was acting conservatively, then you would have been able to find proof in the interoffice communications. Sadly you cannot.
What this tells me is that Romney is progressive to the core.
Lets imagine day one. Romney orders up a group to staff an apolitical judge nominating committee and announces it to the world. The media is all ecstatic, the justice in America will finally be politics free. That one thing right there would end any hope of ever getting a constitution admiring supreme court for the rest of America’s days.
I put them here with no changes so you have a baseline for what this blog is about.
Posted by A Stoner on Monday, February 21, 2011 10:45:12 PM
The traditional family, consisting of a mother a father and children of varying numbers, is the basis of a thriving society. Without strong families, a society is destined to become a piece of trash in the dustbin of history.
Easy divorce has dealt a heavy blow to the health of traditional families in our nation. Divorce, throughout history, has always been very difficult to get, difficult enough that King Henry VIII found it easier to kick the powerful Roman Catholic Church out of the country and support the Church of England in its stead as it was willing to grant him a divorce. The reason is that raising a family is more than a one man or one woman job. There are so many tasks in keeping a family strong, that a single adult is not enough to do it well enough that the children grow up to be morally good and productive for the whole of society. A society that does not have children, or does not teach them well is a society that will slowly fade away. A society that has many children, raises them with good morals and teaches them well will have a prosperous future. This is borne out in the history of the world.
Along with the easy divorce, there had to be reasons to get divorced. So victimhood was introduced to the family. Women began being portrayed was victims, they were abused, taken advantage of and any other reason available to the proregressive’s to turn women against their husbands and sue for divorce was used. If this was not enough, pleas to the welfare of the children were used, making children the next victim group. Men are aggressive; they drink; they yell, and they discipline children. It was not enough for the proregressive’s. they needed fewer and fewer healthy families to drive the morals of society low enough to get more political power, and soon they came up with false memory age regression hypnosis to prove that men are pedophiles and incestuous and women would never know, those women never did! Of course they never knew because it never happened, it was a planted memory by a professional obsessed with proving men are evil.
Who wants to get divorced when they will find it hard to make a living? Thus was born the divorce lottery. It is no secret that the judicial system serving families is more interested in breaking up families and is biased in favor of women when it comes to determining alimony and child custody and the child support payments. Many men did not earn enough money though for even the divorce lottery to keep women from remarrying, so in the “interest of the children” the welfare state was expanded to insure they could remain single and live pathetic sad lives dependent on the government dole.
Marriage was still too powerful a force in society, so then they made the child protective services with the intention of taking children away from families, usually with the ransom being, leave the “abusive” parent, and you can have your children back. Then, “interest of the state” found that what goes on behind closed doors is no longer sacrosanct, as if the government can take couples to court for arguments, they have a better chance of breaking them up.
If it is good to destroy marriages in order to gain more power and control, then it must be just as good to prevent marriages in the first place. You already have the welfare state paying mothers to stay dependently single and make babies, who are likely to grow up maladjusted and also dependent on the state do to the inability of a single parent to provide all the needs of children. You have the victim/abuser argument to scare prospective couples from getting married. The divorce lottery making men scared to be a victim of a gold digging woman. How about stopping a big reason to get married in the first place, something like pregnancy? So they pushed for women to use the pill, even advertised the benefits of it, such as lighter days and so forth. No baby on the way, no reason to get married just yet. Then what about those babies who still seemed to get conceived, we can just kill them off, and abortion became a “right”.
I will not go into much detail on religion, but the Christian Religion protects us from the enticement of the communist/socialist state. So long as we remain true to our Christianity, socialism cannot find solid footing. Our Christian faith has been significantly eroded through years of attack by the “unintellectuals” of the past 100 years.
Culture is the culmination of the beliefs, customs, practices and social behavior of a group of people. The United States of America as a whole has a culture, as well as each region with-in has its own sub-culture, all based on the same moral truths with only slight variances. Here moral is a statement of value to society as it progresses from generation to generation. It is behaviors which benefit society and the individual equally. Being faithful to your spouse is a good morality. Having children in wedlock is good morality. Teaching your children right and wrong and how to tell the difference between the two is morally good. Christianity is a bedrock of good morality. You will not find a better single source of morality than the bible. Even if you do not believe in god, you can believe in the bible’s teachings, as they are the lessons learned from thousands of years of societal struggle and experimentation on finding the best morality for society. For each sin, there is a moral story that demonstrates why it is a sin, for every virtue, there is a moral story that demonstrates why it is a virtue. The communists target the church and religion as well as traditional families for destruction, the reason is because a society with strong moral character cannot be conned into being good serfs for the “unintellectuals”. “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.”
Of course, these are not the only places where the proregressives work towards causing a decline in our culture. They target our values, they target the rule of law, they destroy the emerging new generations ability to self-determination.
They mainline deviant behavior by changing the meaning of our language. Judgment is no longer a useful skill built on wisdom, but a destructive evil that must be subdued and pushed down. They celebrate the use of profanity in song, in tv programming and literature. They twist the logic of the language to promote deviant behaviors such as pro-abortion to pro-choice, because who could be against choice. Redefine our institutions to include more and more deviant behavior, marriage should include gay relationships for example. They then try to mainline all of this through pop culture. They use actors and actresses as role models, athletes as role models, and then use the failings of those individuals to show that it is ok to do as they do, they are a part of culture and we celebrate them, so we should also celebrate what they do: High divorce rates, children out of wedlock, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, disdain for religion, embracing false religions like scientology, denigrating traditional anything as out dated and worthless.
They work towards the delegitimization of the rule of law. They use the courts to force social change onto the culture (Abortion, divorce lottery, gay rights.) Stack the courts with people who do believe in law so much as “social justice” based on feelings and then look at binding contracts as fluid (living documents to be interpreted by each new generation differently), finding penumbras between every line. Create laws that are so confusing and so contradicting that no one really knows what is legal or illegal. Create laws that have such broad language that they can be interpreted any way the judges, particularly those who look for “social justice”, want. Selective enforcement of laws in both which laws should be enforced and which citizens should be immune from certain laws (immigration, civil rights, hate crimes, racketeering, naturalized citizen requirement for the presidency.) All these activities and more are intended to not only help themselves and their allies today, but lay the groundwork for the complete disregard for the law in the future.
They work towards destroying the educational system. They rewrite history and selectively teach history frequently changing the evil doers into idols worthy of worship. They cut back on educating our children with skills of learning, but with skills of memorizing with no need to know the why. Change truths into subjective to the viewer, 2+2 may be 4 for me, but for another student, it may be 5. They do not grade, and if they do grade, they usually try to deform the grading system such that all kids feel proud of their achievement or lack of achievement. They teach kids that we are all equal, but some are more equal or less equal than others. They demonize the founders of our nations as evil racists and bigots and praise the founders of communism, fascism and socialism. They take god out of the school and replace with Darwin, Marx, Stalin, Moa and Che. They begin teaching studies of no value such as women’s studies, black studies and others that are meant to leave the children with no future of prosperity but with a future of hating others because of imagined wrongs or wrongs done in such a distant past that even the grandchildren of those who did the wrong are long dead and buried. Take away the critical thinking skills that would allow kids to see how bad the teacher’s educating them are and how screwed the politicians goals will leave them.
Informed citizens would make better choices in leadership, education and almost every other aspect of their lives. They certainly would not want that. So they destroy the educations of the children and leave them less able to see through the propaganda being thrown at them. They then infiltrate the media and use the redefined language to shut down dissent from anyone who would speak up in favor of keeping traditional values. They decide, they report and you do as your told peasants has replaced the We report (unbiasedly), you decide (using good critical thinking skills.)
Democrat in the news:
· Hide all negative information about. Minimize damage as much as possible when not able to hide.
· Hide party identity; do not let them pin the blame on the party.
· Redefine positions into positive goals. Pro-this, Pro-That, This-Choice, That-Choice etc.
· Revise positions to have values such as, inclusive, Tolerant, for the poor, for the worker, caring.
· When in power, emphasis to be on the positive, nothing negative in the news. If there is negative, then show them as working towards solutions and caring.
· When rumors are around, do not report, you need more information, they are likely false, bury the story as old news.
· When a known lie about a democrat hits the news, say it is a character assassination attempt by the republicans.
· When a known negative truth hits the news, bury the story, if not, then proclaim it is all rumor or lies, if that does not help then say it was an isolated incident that has no bearing on the Democrats a whole. One bad actor out of many.
Republican in the news:
· Emphasize all negative information; tie into culture of corruption of the whole party.
· Emphasize party affiliation; tie into culture of corruption of the whole party.
· Redefine positions into negative goals; Intolerant, anti-choice, anti- working man.
· Revise positions to have bad values; divisive, intolerant, for the rich (like that is bad), uncaring and heartless.
· When in power; emphasis to be on the negative, nothing positive in the news. If there is positive, then show that it had nothing to do with who is in power, just a fluke or something.
· When rumors are around, report early, report often, fill in all the information that is missing, always making it worse than it possibly could be, they are likely true, keep the story in the news as long as possible, resurrect as questions to those involved.
· When a known lie hits the news, say it might be true, if not true is certainly something to look for in the culture of corruption in the republican party.
· When a known negative truth hits the news, nonstop coverage for weeks and months, tie it to the whole party, insinuate that there is far more to the story than the evidence shows, add lots of rumors and lies because those will stay with the public mind too.
Is it a plot to destroy America or is it just a bunch of independent actors working alone to simply further their own wants and desires? Of course it is a plot. We have the long standing communist manifesto as the blueprint for bringing down our republic and capitalist society; we have the Cloward-Piven strategy for overwhelming our government institutions and the Alinsky Rules for radicals. It may not be a deep dark conspiracy trying to hide, but it is certainly a plot. We also have the money to look at. Barack Obama took millions of dollars from foreign accounts in his election for president. You have George Soros’ billionaire funding hundreds of groups like ACORN across the nation. Most of the people who are members of these groups likely have no idea that they are working to the destruction of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America with the eventual goal to be the replacement with a socialist society more resembling the old Soviet Union or some European country. The people who join these efforts have been propagandized to think that the behaviors society considers deviant really are not destructive to society and cannot understand why we would forbid certain activities that seem harmless to be practiced. They were never taught history well enough to understand that what they see as the “evil suppression” of individual freedoms is actually the upholding of virtues worth embracing because they allow a society to flourish and prosper beyond the current generation.
Posted by A Stoner on Friday, November 05, 2010 1:09:38 AM
Limiting congress to remain within it’s Constitutional Boundaries is impossible in today’s legislature where 2500 page bills are passed with no one having read. I propose the following.
The day of the never read bill passing through congress should end, and it will end if this is placed into effect. A yeah vote for legislation must be accompanied by one of the following: A hand written, by the representative or senator, exact duplicate of the bill to be passed or a voice recording of the full text of the bill as read by the representative or senator. Simple and to the point.
Posted by A Stoner on Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:51:34 PM
Response to Hyperbole at Obama health insurance requirement taken from GOP
“Does a hospital ER have a God-given right to kick you to the curb and LET YOU DIE when you show up with chest pains? Does an ambulance crew have a “God-given right” to pack up and leave you behind at the accident scene when they realize you don’t have health insurance?”
Actually they do, but an over reaching socialist government took that right away from them. Almost all large hospitals in this nation began under Christian and Catholic churches and were supported with patient fees and private charity. They would have the right to refuse service, but I seriously doubt ever did, until government stepped in and started to micro manage medical care providers.
“A simple fact is this. If you exercise your “God-given right” to not have health insurance, you are an irresponsible drain on society, no better than lazy welfare cheats who don’t work when they are more than capable to do so. And here is why.”
I do not have health insurance. I have been to the hospital. I go to chiropractors. I see the dentist. I get my eyes checked. I am not rich, but I pay for all my services with money from my work. While I am a disabled Veteran and have access to the VA regional medical centers, I rarely ever take advantage of it. Am I drain on the nation? Am I lazy welfare cheat?
“Therefore, if you are seriously ill or injured, you will get treated at whatever hospital you are taken to.”
Like the one in Chicago where Obama’s wife Michelle worked that had a special deal with officials that allowed it to dump patients, to the point that even unstable patients were not treated? Interesting…
“The medical industry calls this “uncompensated care” and it is largely the cause of both high premiums and the closure of many hospitals, especially ones in poorer or rural areas.”
We Americans are very charitable people. We give hundreds of billions of dollars to charity every year. Our government takes trillions of dollars from our pockets every year, preventing us from being even more charitable. The churches still run a significant portion of the hospitals in this country, and they would be far better off if the government stepped back and left them alone, and those who charitably give to them. Government steals 55% (not this year) of potential charitable gifts when people die and their estates are assessed the death taxes. It is not just simply the tax that steals money from these hospitals, but the disincentive to building even greater fortunes for which the government can steal that removes a likely even greater sum.
Forcing people to buy a product they do not want is simply evil and unethical. Insurance is a product, it is one for which people have no need of. It is a nice luxury item, similar to health care. I have a choice in what health care services I want. I get to tell the doctors that I do not want what they are offering, and I am legally allowed to do so. When I give my consent, I am agreeing to pay the cost of the service.
There have been many instances of usurpation of my god given right to live without health insurance over the years. Now, the right is being wholly stolen from me and others and for what purpose other than to subsidize other people’s health care? Why should I be forced to pay for other people’s preexisting conditions? (I have my own preexisting conditions, and for the most part, I chose not to treat them, it is my life, and my choice and frankly none of yours or the government’s business.) People who have preexisting conditions have choices they can make. One, they can beg for alms from the very generous and charitable Americans in their community to help them pay for their health care. Two, they can work very hard and pay for their health care, as far as I know, hospitals do not attach people’s pay checks to get their money, so a person can chose to pay off their life saving debt and maybe not buy another color tv, another vacation, another new car, a bigger home, eat luxury meals and other unneeded things. Three, they can simply not get treated if the other two choices are below them, that the only way they are willing to be treated is if some other person is held liable for their life giving treatments.
Unfortunately, our society is not one based on freedom and god given rights. It has been deformed into one of need and wish granted rights. I need food, give it to me, I demand it, it is my right. I need a house, give it to me, I demand it, it is my right. I need to have a luxury life, give it to me, I demand it, it is my right. You talk about ‘lazy welfare cheats’ while demanding that we provide more incentive for people to become ‘lazy welfare cheats’ by subsidizing their sloth, and that is repugnant and appalling!