Featured Post

Abortion is The Evil of our generation

So yesterday I came across a rather  appalling article  that tried to make it sound like states having increased abortion restrictions were ...

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Why Ron Paul fanatics are annoying...

The irony of Ron Paul's followers is not lost on me.  While conservatives and republicans are waging a battle against the intolerance and media influenced bias the liberals wage toward them, Paulites are battling against republicans and other conservatives claiming the same intolerance and media influenced bias against them.  As what one might call a conservative closer to center than many Paulites, it's difficult to simply dismiss them as radical, hotheaded zealots when I'm in turn being called that by liberals.  Basically, what I'm saying is that this article isn't about bashing what many seem to see as "extreme" stances by Paul and his followers.  

I'll admit, on core principle, Ron Paul has a lot of things right.   Go back to the gold standard?  Definitely.  Audit the Fed? Damn right.  Limited government and a more Constitutionalist approach?  Yes please.  I believe these things will set our country back on the right path.  It's easy to see why so many people fervently follow him.  His ideas resonate heavily with the deep moral and emotional ties people have to this great nation.  

However, that's Ron Paul.  Not his followers.  One thing I've always thought about Ron Paul that I think many of his followers don't seem to get:  He never really believed he had a chance at winning the presidency.    I could be wrong on this, but here's how I see it.  He saw the insurmountable task at turning this country around.  He saw how politicians on both sides of the aisle were becoming addicted to government largess.  He had to affect a change, but knew he'd start out as just one small voice.  He knew the change he was talking about wouldn't come in his generation, but he had to do something.  And what was that something? Getting his ideas out.  You see, Ron Paul is an idea man.  He knew he never really had a shot at winning the presidency.  There's no way he could compete against the "mainstream".  But, what better place to get your ideas out than in a campaign for the highest office of the land?  It's the perfect context for someone wanting to talk about getting our nation back on track.   He's been laying the groundwork for future change (probably via his son Rand) in these elections so that his ideas become "mainstream".  Sure, if he ever had overwhelming support he'd go for the presidency, but I don't think that ever really was his goal.

This is where Paulites annoy me.  Many don't seem to get this.  They don't seem to understand that what Ron Paul is building is a path to change further down the road, not immediate and "radical" change.  Realistically speaking, the type of constitutionalist change Paul advocates for isn't going to happen over night.  It's going to take smaller, incremental victories as a means of "course correction" to get there.  By instilling this generation with the ideas, it can flourish further down the road.   They need to realize this.  And while Mitt Romney may seem like another "progressive" to them, that's who they got to work with.  They don't seem to realize that they can cling to their principles while still supporting a man they think is "too progressive".  How?  Because the alternative is far worse.  Remember, smaller, incremental steps.  But that can't happen if we can't even get our foot in the door.  

Because at the end of the day, the decision boils down to this:  Do you want a Democratic liberal president with a clearly radical, socialist agenda or do you want a moderate Republican that believes in American exceptionalism and free enterprise?   And no, neither is not a choice.  Sure, Paulites could just sit at home, pout and not vote.  But what good is that doing?  It's essentially taking away votes from Romney.  And what happens when votes get taken away from one candidate?  That's right, the other candidate (Obama in this case) benefits.

The "all or nothing" approach in this respect does no good and at this point is madness.  They need to recognize the legacy Ron Paul is leaving and realize that it's his ideas they'll carry forward for decades to come that will affect the change so desired.  But it takes stepping in the right direction for starters.  They shouldn't choose not to step because the step wasn't big enough for their liking.  

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Occupiers and Anonymous: The Liberals' Useful, Crybaby Idiots

This post is definitely a rant.  Even though I know I'm supposed to love everyone - especially those that deserve it the least, I cannot help but hold a special contempt for those that truly believe that this nation is oppressive, authoritarian, and evil to the point where they don the mantle of "resistance fighter" to fight back against the evil American regime.

It must suck to live in a country so free and prosperous that there is really no place for such radical activism. It must suck to grow up with all this pent up angst and being told you're a victim while you surf the readily, cheaply available internet on your incredibly slick and innovative mobile device, desktop computer, or tablet pc sipping your Starbucks latte, or  perhaps downing a Mt. Dew, or drinking Fiji bottled water and snacking mindlessly on readily available food from the conventiently, and cheaply, powered refrigerator.  It must suck to not find a productive outlet for this energy.  It must suck to not live in a truly oppressive country.  Maybe then, with a real opponent to direct such energy, can you feel at home resisting.

Oh wait, that's right.  If  you were living in a truly oppressive regime, you'd be tossed in jail and/or killed.  If you're truly living in a totalitarian or authoritarian country, there's a good chance you wouldn't be able to enjoy the things you take for granted, such as food and a warm, clean place to live, because that government's control of everything has killed the economy.  But hey, at least everyone's suffering equally, right?

America is the freest and most prosperous nation in the world.  Still is today, though thanks to liberal ideology dominating our political discourse as of late, that greatness is in decline.  This is why Anonymous and the Occupiers are the liberals' useful idiots:  They push their message of oppression, division, and hatred in the name of "social justice".  They're idiots because they think they're actually going to reap some bountiful utopian reward for finally "winning".  But I got news for these useful idiots:  In an ironic twist, YOU are being lied to...by the 1% you're evidently fighting against.  Because know who is going to reap the benefits of your labors?  The political elite liberals who would have all the power.  Oh, they'd say everyone is equal, but somehow they'd be able to justify their largess being "first among equals".

If you want to look at what's ahead for your anarchistic goals, all you need to do is look at Soviet Russia and Communist China.  Both regimes are responsible for killing millions of their own citizens via oppression, far far more than Nazi Germany did in WW2.  And up until recently, their economies were both horrid.  Most people lived in poverty and squalor while the Socialist political elites lived like kings.  And the funny thing is, the only reason China's economy has been to surge is because of capitalist free market policies being established.

People typically fled (and still do) those country to live ....where?  Yep, you guessed it:  "authoriatarian, oppressive" America and its greedy capitalist system.   Huh, why would they want to come here if it's so terrible here?

Futhermore, if you were really against fighting oppression, why aren't you fighting or protesting against those countries that oppress people just for choosing to be Christian or a religion that isn't Islam?  Or what about those socialist states where the government class lives in luxury while its citizen live in true poverty? Or those countries that imprison peaceful, lawful protestors and political opponents?

Quit being useful idiots and start being truly useful.  You should be fighting against the rising tide of the Leftist rhetoric that's destroying everything that's made this country great.  If you want to really be resistance fighters, fight against the violent protesters and anarchists that harm innocent people and destroy property.  Then you'll get a taste of what "real" resistance is like at home.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Making the case to vote this election

The other day  I saw a Facebook status update that said "I wish there was a 'No Vote' option for this presidential election".  And while I'm not picking on this person in particular (who might actually read this), I definitely felt like posting about it as this is a big concern for me this election:  apathy.  We've all experienced this in the past to one degree or another.  Neither candidate is inspiring.  They both come off as slick politicians just trying to say anything they can to get elected.  I totally get that.  I felt that way about McCain and Obama and the same about Clinton and Dole in 96.  And while I'm aware there's a certain irony in attempting to "lecture" against apathy, I still feel it's important to convey why apathy is a concern.

See, what concerns me isn't really the lack of enthusiasm in either candidate.  What's concerning is the apathy, particularly in this election, points to a general lack of caring or understanding for the situation we find ourselves in.   Normally, in an election between two candidates with perhaps a slight ideological difference in their approach to handling the government, the apathy makes sense.  As South Park so eloquently put it, the choice is between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.  I'm not going to repeat the importance of voting because it's been beaten to death.  What I am going to point out, however, is why THIS election is the most important election of a generation and how it's different from every election since 1980, and possibly even before that.

This election is more than just the presidency.   This election presents two clear and widely distinct ideological differences.  The choice is which path we want the country to follow.  It's commonly brought up that our political discourse as of late has been 'extremely polarized'.  And it's true. And while many people bring it up as a way to blame one side or the other, they miss the point that it's a natural occurrence.  Call it my (made up on the spot) law of political equilibrium.  If there's a widely perceived tendency of the country and/or government drifting too far one direction from center, there's going to be an equally strong opposite force to counter that drift.  It's polarizing because it's the natural reaction to getting our country back on track.  Thus, if the country is so polarized politically right now, this should be a huge warning sign that our country is at an ideological crossroads.

On one side, we have the Leftist path.  Do we want a bigger more "progressive" and "evolved" (I use these as terms leftists would use themselves - debating their merits is worthy of another article in itself) government that grows in power to take care of all our needs and solves all our social problems for us?  In order to do so would require we relinquish  a significant portion of the individual liberties we have today so the government could do what they think is best for us.

On the other side, we have the libertarian/conservative path.  Do we want a limited government and more personal liberty?  Do we want less government intervention in our lives allowing us to make the choices and also reap the fruits of our labor?  In order to do so would require we become more accountable for our own well being and possibly give up some of the "freebies" the government has given us.  It also means we'd be more responsible for ourselves than we are now.

Ideological crossroads aside, this is what's at stake:

  • Up to 3 Supreme Court judges could be retiring in the next 4 years.  And while it's noble to believe that a president will pick someone objective and fair, it's also naive.  Liberal appoint liberals and conservatives appoint conservatives.  In short, whose president will most likely determine which way the Supreme will lean for years, if not decades, to come.
  • Our healthcare system.  I've written extensively about Obamacare and how bad it is for this country.  While I agree healthcare reform is necessary, Obamacare is not the answer.  I believe it will make things worse.  The problem with Obamacare is that once it's fully implemented, repealing it will be significantly harder.  It must be done in 2013.  
  • A politically unconstrained leftist president Without a re-election to worry about, Barack Obama is free to pursue whatever policies he wants.  And if his record of executives orders and use of bureaucratic agency regulations to bypass congress and the constitution, in a term where he was constrained, is any indication, we can expect far more and worse.  
  • Our economy.  While those on the left conveniently like to blame Bush three and a half years after he left office, the fact of the matter is the economy has tanked on Obama's watch.  If the economic ploys and policies he enacted to right the economy are again an indication, we'll just be making things significantly worse.


It's no secret which side I'm on or which side I'm stumping for.  And while I'm in a battle to get people to see my side and turn this country away from its leftist path, I admittedly have a bit of contempt for those that are apathetic, especially when so much is at stake.  If there's ever a time to choose a side and get involved, this election is it.  Do not let people fool you into believing this is just "alarmist fatalism".  Remember, our political polarization is a sign of how important this election is, and as such, there's no room for those to sit on the fence in the middle.  Do your (thorough) research, pick a side and let this election's turnout be a greater representation of what this country wants.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

The brilliance (and utter repulsiveness) of the Chicago political machine...

Today I read John Nolte's Obama Camp's Top Ten Most Audacious Lies (And why they're working) article.  And while the 10 lies listed are nothing really new for me, the insight gained about how the Obama camp is running their campaign is both interesting and a little disheartening.  Maybe you've heard about Chicago politics.  Maybe you haven't.  Regardless if you have or not, their effect can be seen everywhere in this election's presidential campaign.

Chicago politics, in a nutshell, is quite simple:  use whatever means necessary to win.  While traditional campaigns will run on their message, attempt to highlight the differences with their opponent, and adhere to a rather loose, unspoken form ethics and civility, Chicago politics dispenses with all that.  Those things are factored into the campaign, but they're not the foundation.  In Chicago politics, truth doesn't matter.  What matters most is perception.  It's a very the end justify the means, Alinksy-esque style of thinking.  The perception of who is the most competent candidate is what matters.  What tactics that are  used to get there doesn't matter.  As the (I don't necessarily agree with) phrase goes, "It's better to beg for forgiveness than to ask permission", those practicing Chicago politics know that they can get away with numerous reprehensible acts to get their win, say "sorry!" afterward, and move on without being held accountable for anything they did on the way there.  All that matters is the win, anything else is permissible because it's ultimately forgivable.

Sounds pretty sleezy and shady, right?  Of course it does.  But that doesn't really matter.  Those sins are forgivable...even if those sins are how the election was won.  This is where the brilliance starts to show itself.  By hurling bald faced, easily disprovable lies about their opponent, they essentially deploy a simultaneous three pronged attack that:

  • Discredits the candidates through said lies.  Remember that the best lies are always the ones that sound the most convincing.  Chicago politicians are masters at this.  Whether what's being said is true or not, it plants the seed of doubt and fear in those that may not be savvy enough to know better (which unfortunately is most of the American public that doesn't follow politics closely and relies on 30 second ads and maintsream media outlets for their view into the political arena)
  • Distracts the opponent by putting them on the defensive by default.  With a complicit media, the narrative is set for the next few days as the opponent will be dominated with questions regarding the lie and have to spend resources refuting it, giving them less time and coverage to get out their own message
  • Worst of all, it makes the opponent look weak and incompetent in the eyes of the general public.  They look like whiners crying about the lies being thrown at them.  They look incompetent as they stumble from one lie to the next, spending most of their time defending themselves.   
In the end, when the public has two choices, they're never going to pick the guy who whines about the other guy playing dirty as it makes it look he's just making excuses for himself.  He's too weak.  The truth of the attacks don't matter as much as this.  Remember, in American culture, politicians are all considered liars.  Shady, slick individuals.  To the average American, there is no such thing as a completely virtuous candidate.  They all lie.  It doesn't matter if one's lies are ten times worse than the other.  Both are liars and not a lot of people will pick a candidate simply because the other candidate has far bigger lies.  The bigger liar will win, maybe spout something about his opponent not being able to handle the heat of the race, claim both sides are guilty of dirty pool to rehumanize himself, then go on to celebrate his victory.  

This is what Romney is up against.  While I think calling out the lies are important, it is not something to run a campaign on nor will it ever be enough to make someone choose the other guy.  Even though we may be right about the truth, all it takes for it to not matter is for someone to say "yeah, well Romney lies too!" even if they cannot cite any examples that are as huge and audacious as the Obama campaign's lies.  Therefore it's a huge waste of time trying to get people to vote for Romney simply because Obama lies.  The only time confronting lies becomes effective is if someone mentions a specific falsehood.  That's when countering it with truth can take away that bullet. 

So, how does one fight the Chicago machine's lies?  It depends on who you are.  Not that I have the answers, but this is my impression.  

If you're the Romney campaign, and Romney himself, you minimize your air time crying foul.  While he's done this in the past, he needs to get better at it.  I chuckled and appreciated his "Obamaloney" retort (in response to Obama's 'Romney Hood' jab), but the problem is it's painted him in the same name calling light as Obama.  He looks childish responding to name calling with name calling.  In essence, he failed to elevate himself, proving he's a dirty politician just like Obama.

In other instances, he's blunt in his deflections and refutations, which can make him look like he's lying himself.  The problem here is that simple, direct refutations with no follow up explanations can reinforce the idea that he is indeed lying.  Because if he weren't, he'd have a good alibi right?  Yet, if he provides a good alibi he's wasting his air time.  And he also looks like all he does is defend against accusations.  So even though he's debunking the lies effectively, he still loses because he's wasted time being on the defensive.  He has to get better at cleanly and concisely dealing with the lies when they're asked of him by the media (because they most certainly will) and then turning the conversation back to his own message.  

I think the effective way to do so is to make the Chicago political machine look childish and petty in their attacks while at the same time not avoiding any childish and petty attacks on his part.  It's a fine line to walk. Hopefully he'll hit his groove in the upcoming months and find an effective, decisive way to minimize the attacks' effectiveness.  He can't fight fire with fire in this case.  He needs to rise above the lies and expose them as petty attempts though subtlety while being more direct in getting out his own message.

If you're an everyday Joe like me that's in the trenches attempting to convince friends and family that voting for Romney is better for the country than voting for Obama, then you thankfully have the time to call a lie a lie.  The key is to make sure that's not the crux of your argument why someone shouldn't vote for Obama.  Using truth to refute lies that specifically come up is where it's most useful.  But if the debate never wades into those waters, they're better left undisturbed.  In fact, the best way to reinforce Obama is bad for America is to highlight his failed record.  He doesn't have a lot of pluses in his column that are backed by unadulterated fact.  The best way to stump for Romney is to point to his successes in the business and his executive experience as a governor.  

This insight is rather humbling and sad for me.  For those that value Christianity's moral code, lying is thoroughly reviled and rejected.  When we encounter them, it boils up a righteous, indignant ire that prompts us to vehemently oppose said falsehoods.  The sad part is while we place a high premium on truth, the sad truth is that truth isn't the most important measuring stick in an election.  And while we can (rightfully) claim that it should be that way, this isn't going to automagically change reality in our favor.  We can always and should pray for truth to matter, but ignoring the reality doesn't do us any favors.  

When the moral high ground of being more truthful is erased by conveniently labeling all politicians liars, we need to look elsewhere to get our points across, all the while not partaking in the same reprehensible tactics of Chicago politics that we so diametrically oppose.




Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Planting a firm foot in the Gay Minefield

As a conservative and Christian, one of the many "anti-{insert social issue here}" labels I have to contend with is homosexuality.  It's often presumed that due to my moral and spiritual beliefs that I'm anti-gay.  In a never ending irony highlight reel, liberals with their self proclaimed sophisticated and progressive thinking have attached that label without bothering to dig into the moral and intellectual weeds regarding a conservative and/or Christian's stance on gays.

Granted, there are a number of conservatives and Christians that have a hard time articulating their side that will satisfy a liberal (just as there's a large swath of liberals who rarely think on an issue beyond their emotions).  This doesn't mean that all conservatives and Christians are bigots and hate gays.  In an amusing twist, and I have no numbers to substantially back this up, but I'd posit to say that there are more liberals and leftists who hate conservative gays than there are conservatives who hate all gays.  Why do I say that?  Because leftists have a long standing and documented history of vehemently reviling anyone who opposes their ideology, even (or perhaps especially) if the person is of a minority status that's typically identified with the left (at least by the left's standards).  For example, look how vile leftists are to Clarence Thomas and Allen West, both prominent conservative black men.  Thus, I'd think the biggest haters of conservative gays (and yes, there's a large number of them) would ironically be leftists, including liberal gays.

Alas, I'm straying off topic.  The point above is that the stance of conservatives and Christians on gays is not as simple as stating that we "hate" gays.  In fact, I'd like again to point out that the reason leftists find it so easy to believe this is their own propensity to hate those that oppose their own ideologies.  To them, if you don't agree with them, then you must hate them, so they hate you back.  This is why I call it the Gay Minefield.  From a conservative and Christian standpoint, the stance is very nuanced and requires some clear and calm thinking.  It's very easy to make a misstep that blows everything up.  I'm going to do my best to navigate through this minefield, though I'm not sure if I'll get through it unscathed.

My relationship with Homosexuality


Before I get into my view on specific issues (namely gay marriage), I want to openly talk about myself and my relationship to this social issue.  I've been struggling to find a good way to navigate the minefield, and I hopefully have found it.  But only time will tell.

For starters I don't hate gays at all.  I have a few friends that are gay.  I work with gay people.  I'm perfectly comfortable around them.  They're good people and better than quite a number of heterosexuals I know.  I also have met some gays that I did not like.  Not because they're gay, but because they were rude and nasty people.


I'll openly admit that the thought of two males having sex or making out grosses me out.  And while it does, it doesn't mean I hate the people that might engage in such activities nor am I out to directly prevent them from doing that.  However, if the image was foisted upon me, I'd try to evade it as much as anyone whose grossed out by feet (which btw, I'm shocked at how many people are...they're just feet!) avoids having to deal with feet. What I'm saying is that being grossed out by male homosexual intercourse is not a factor in any of my stances on gay social issues.  It also does not make me a homophobe or make me hate gays.  The reason I admit to it is that the left, because of their penchant for basing their decisions and policy purely on feelings, wrongly assumes that this is why many conservatives oppose gay marriage.  


I'll also openly admit that I dislike the more flippant displays of gay activism.  Again, not because I hate gays or that I'm homophobic, but because I find many of the displays lacking in morality, respect, and taste.  For example, when some heads of gay activist organizations were invited to the White House, what did they decide to do?  Take pictures of themselves flipping off the portrait of Ronald Reagan (whom, ironically, did more for gays than most presidents) and them making out.  Both of these acts are disrespectful and show a lack of moral character.  This is the White House, one of our country's most venerated places (if not the most).  If I were a member of those particular activist organizations, I'd be thoroughly ashamed of my leaders and condemn such actions.  


Continuing on gay avctivism at a more general level, there are the gay pride parades.  While I agree someone should definitely have confidence to believe in oneself, the images from these parades always seems to indicate the parades are more of an excuse to flaunt their intimate sexual tastes and tastes in front of others.  Just do google image search of "gay pride parade" to see what I'm talking about. Is that what being gay is about?  Flaunting in public things that should rightfully be kept private (like normal people, including most gays, do)?  In fact, again irony rearing its ugly head, I'd say that these parades probably do more damage and cause more division than they do help because it sends the message to the public that the gay community has no respect for public decency or morality.  One does not need to publicly flaunt their sexual tastes in order to not feel ashamed of them.  Some things should always remain private.  Not because one's gay, but because no one, regardless of sexual orientation, really wants to know what kind of kinky stuff you like to do in the bedroom.  That's a more intimate interaction between individuals and should be kept that way.


I'll also admit that there was a time not too long ago that I wasn't opposed to gay marriage.  That, much like Vice President Biden, I believed if you loved someone, you should be able to marry.  I talked about how you can't "legislate salvation".  I also had a more liberal mindset about many issues.  So what changed?  I believe God has convicted me on these.  He's shown my arrogance in believing that I know better.  He's shown me how shallow my perceptions were when they're based on my feelings and that there is importance in these morals that progressives continually mock as outdated and nonsensical.  In sum, I was humbled.  Being someone who thinks on things alot, it's easy to have confidence in my own logic and reason.  It's an easy trap for someone to fall into such arrogance.  Like a teenager who believes they know everything, spiritual maturation and conviction have shown me the folly of my shallow views.  


I mention the above as a measure of disclosure to again dispel any accusations of hate.  I dislike many forms of leftist activism (which does include many parts of gay activism) because of their typical open hostility to social norms and lack of morality.  Also, they're generally ineffective.  Take a look at the Occupy movement, which has done nothing aside from leaving trashed and damage property in its wake wherever it marches.  Do you see their rabble rousing effecting electoral changes in this country? Nope.  Yet, take its conservative counterpart, the Tea Party, which mobilized and was instrumental in the historic 2010 mid term elections.  They accomplished something real and did it without breaking the law or being disrespectful.


We're not inherently good, a preface


 Before I start delving into my views, I think it's worth mentioning a basic tenet of Christian faith:  people are not naturally good people.  Our nature, our tendencies are to commit sinful, bad acts.  It's not a person's nature that determines whether they're good or evil or somewhere in between, it's their choices that make the difference.  It's important to understand that because while we all have natural sinful urges, that's not what makes us 'bad' people.  It's indulging in those desires that makes someone "wrong" or "bad".

The above is a preface to my views on the morality of homosexuality.  Because while I believe that participating in homosexual ativities (lying with another man as one would lie with a woman, for example) is immoral, it doesn't mean the person having homosexual urges is a "bad" person because of those urges.  It's bad when they choose to indulge those urges.  It's noble when they're able to resist their sinful nature.  So yes, I believe engaging in homosexual activities is a sin.  Note that I'm not condemning the person to eternal hell fire.  It's a sin, just as much as adultery is a sin and viewing pornography is a sin.

But why do I think it's a sin?  Personally, I think this is where many conservatives and Christians step on a mine.  Many will fall back on the Bible, say "God said so" and be done with it.  And while there's nothing wrong with having absolute faith in God as one's moral authority, there's a couple problems it poses.

First, while having faith in God as one's moral authority is great, I also think blindly following any precepts in Christianity does not make one a strong Christian.  It is my personal belief that every Christian should attempt to reconcile their personal feelings and thoughts on every moral judgment in the Bible.  By doing so, one becomes tempered to the inevitable skepticism and cynicism from exterior forces.  Many beliefs will ultimately loop back to faith, but I firmly believe God wants us to take that journey of self exploration so we can be stronger for Him.  He's blessed us with curiosity and an inquisitive mind knowing fully well that true faith only really comes after it's been tested in the flames of doubt and skepticism.

Second, it's not just a convincing argument to a non believer.  If these people are the people we're trying to convince and/or win over, "because God said so" just doesn't seem very effective.  While it's possible God could work something in someone from that argument, expecting God to do all the heavy lifting as opposed to relying on him to give you the right words to say just seems lazy.   Consider the argument the equivalent of expecting God to dispense a free "spiritual conversion handout".  While it's something he's been known to do, I just don't believe it's something we should expect.  We should expect to have to work for our converts and persuading our naysayers, which involves being more articulate than just "Because God Says So".

The morality of homosexual acts


So back to my beliefs.  Obviously "Because God Said So" isn't enough for me.  It took a bit of searching to reconcile my feelings on this.  Why would God consider it a sin?  It can't because he's grossed out at the image of homosexual acts like I am.  Is it because it's "not natural"?  Yes, and no.  If by "natural" you mean His intent, then yes.  However, as mentioned, we have a sinful nature.  And a person's natural tendencies can range all over the place.  So to say it's "not natural" in that sense isn't right because someone might fully well be naturally inclined to commit homosexual acts.

So what is it?  I believe it's because the act is in direct opposition to his intent for humanity's elevation above the natural and closer to the divine.  One of  Christianity's greatest gifts to mankind is its emphasis and value placed on the family unit.  The family is the nuclear unit which has helped elevate humans above just being animals with bigger brains. Through the family, values are instilled, love is shared, and the sanctity of life is cherished.  Every family unit has a mother and a father.  The mother is female and the father is male.  Aside from the obvious natural ability to produce offspring together, it isn't coincidence that these roles are gender specific.  While Leftists try to eliminate any differences in gender, the fact of the matter is there is a base difference between males and females.  Males are naturally more inclined to be father figures and females mother figures.  While this isn't to say that a gay person couldn't be a good parent, it just means that when it comes to familial unit, having two male or female parental figures is not an ideal situation for a child to be raised.  While one can point to a large array of dysfunctional traditional families, it is not an indictment of the traditional , and intended, family unit having the greatest capacity to produce morally strong and loving individuals.  It just means people are flawed, but doesn't invalidate that the traditional family unit is the best chance at producing individuals with strong moral character.

To distill it down some, God made the traditional family unit humanity's best chance at elevating itself to be more like him, which is another tenet of Christianity - to be more Christ like.  The practice of homosexuality not only hinders the formation of these units (since a homosexual relationship cannot naturally create offspring on its own), it can also form flawed units that are either missing a key component role or have actors of the opposite gender performing a role to which they're not naturally suited.

Again, this isn't to say that there aren't any good gay parents or any good single parents (lacking a key component).  It's saying that the traditional family unit is the best chance in producing the best kind of human beings.  God built us that way.  Practicing anything less than that is inviting moral decline, just as practicing any other immoral act does.  Adultery leads to breaking the familial unit and reduces the chances of producing strong moral individuals.  Viewing pornography degrades the sanctity of sex between a married man and woman.  They all contribute to moral decline.

And while yes, I'm pretty much saying engaging in homosexual acts invites moral decay, this indictment isn't exclusive to just homosexual activity.  Pretty much any immoral activity invites moral decay and there's no one that isn't guilty.

Now the one argument that's come up alot lately is that being gay is genetic.  That they were "born that way".  While that point in itself is under contention  (they've not found the "sexuality gene" despite looking for it and some studies have shown that a large majority of lesbians become so due to psychological influences), let's just pretend that it is true.  This means that they can't help their nature, their homosexual tendencies.  As I mentioned earlier, there's a distinction between one's natural inclination and the choice to act on those inclinations.  So even IF they're born that way, they still have to decide to engage in homosexual activities.

Remember, humans are naturally not good.  It's a constant struggle to fight against our sinful nature to elevates ourselves to be more divine.  And if people cannot be held accountable for indulging in their immoral natural inclinations, then that means you can't blame the pedophiles for being attracted to children or men being unfaithful to their wives because it's their nature to have sex with multiple partners or murderers that have an almost unstoppable desire to kill.  And while a number of homosexuals succumb to their natural desires, it still doesn't mean they're bad people and doomed to eternal hellfire.  It just means they're committing an immoral act which is something we all have done and will do.

Gay Marriage


If you've read this far, it's probably quite clear what my stance is on gay marriage given my views of how important the traditional family is to Christianity and humanity in general, so I'll try not to repeat too much of it.  But while I believe homosexuality is immoral based on primarily familial reasons, the specific issue of gay marriage today covers more than just a debate on homosexuality's morality.

Marriage is the institution from which the core family unit forms.  A man and a woman bond, dedicating themselves to each other and the raising of a family.  And yes, marriage isn't exclusive to just making babies and a family, but that's always been its intent.  The nobility in Europe would arrange marriages for the primary purpose of forging alliances between the two families so they could produce blood linked heirs.  Many cultures where arranged marriages were the norm did so to form a strong coupling that could produce and sustain a good family.  And since forming a family and marriage are so closely linked, I believe it's important to enshrine the definition to represent the traditional family unit (male husband, female wife) that is so important to the elevation of humanity and society.

If marriage is the inroad to forming a strong family and the traditional family gives the best chance to producing moral and good people, then holding the definition of marriage to that standard is highly important.  Just because two people love each other, doesn't necessarily mean they should be married.  Now while I believe homosexuality is immoral, I'm not out to keep homosexual couples from forming and I definitely do not hate them.   If they love each other and want to be together, then I'm not going to stop that.  I just don't believe they should be married.  Marriage should be exclusive to a man and a woman to become husband and wife respectively.

Now some might say it's not fair that a gay couple where both people are good people are not allowed to marry while a hetero couple where both people are "bad" can get married.  I agree.  It is not fair to them.  But when it comes to such an important institution as this, a line needs to be drawn.  If we expand marriage beyond the traditional sense, then we run into a problem.  If we take Vice President Biden's rationale and that it's "all about who you love", then in opening up ourselves to gay marriage, we're also opening ourselves to other forms of "love" and marriage.  Going by the VP's remarks, what if someone really loves their sister?  They should be able to get married, right?  Sandusky reportedly loved those boys, so he should be able to marry them, yes?  What if someone loves their cow?  Basically, if you only put an "all you need is love" stipulation on marriage, then it turns into a union between anything and the sanctity of marriage as an institution for creating a family is lost among the ambiguity of "all you need is love".  So a line has to be drawn.  And given we have thousands upon thousands of years of precedent supporting traditional marriage, drawing the line at traditional marriage makes the most sense.  Civilization has largely considered marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Furthermore, gay marriage also represents a threat to the distinction between genders, a common goal of the left.  The left refuses to acknowledge that there are hard wired difference between men and women.  Redefining marriage would be considered a victory in this area since anyone could be husband or wife, mother or father.  And why is this distinction important?  Because when that distinction disappears, society will continue to morally decline as more flawed and broken familial units form.  Of course, with those on the left, this isn't a concern because moral relativism allows them to escape recognizing immorality and wrong doings.  As long as everyone is "equal", that's all that matters.

But why legislation?

This is probably the part I struggled with the most.  I can believe gay marriage isn't right.  But how can I condone making it a law that only a man and woman can get married?  Separation of church and state, right?  It's a common misconception that the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the 1st Amendment.  In fact, it isn't.  Here's what the 1st Amendment guarantees: 
  1. The state will not adopt an official religion
  2. The freedom for people to practice religion however they see fit
What the 1st Amendment was never intended to do is remove religion from government.  It's evident just by looking on our money or reciting our pledge of allegiance.  You see, the Founding Fathers knew in order for a nation to succeed, it had to have a strong moral foundation.  That foundation was the Bible and Christianity.  As smart as the Founding Fathers were, do you really believe that if they intended for government to not be influenced by religion that they'd make the mistake of printing their currency with "In God We Trust" or have our pledge of allegiance indicate "one nation, under God"?  It's folly to believe so.  This country's founding and its laws are heavily based on Judeo-Christian morality.  And this influence is not in conflict with our 1st Amendment right.  

So why legislation for gay marriage?  Why not legislation for pornography? Why not laws for outlawing swearing?  While yes, all those things are considered wrong and immoral, marriage has a singular importance above swearing or pornography or even just the act of homosexuality.  As described above, it's the institution through which humanity elevates itself through formation of the core family unit.  As legislation, I see it a measure to keep the traditional core family unit intact.  Marriage should have a unique, special, and legally recognized status that honors its importance by signifying it's only between a man and a woman.  

This legal definition isn't mean to punish gays.  It's not meant to be an exclusionary club.  It's meant to act as recognition to the importance of the traditional family unit a traditional marriage forms in American society. 

In Closing


God, morality, and the family unit are the keys to elevating humanity above just being animals.  It enables us to become more like Him, the divine.  If we don't place the highest premium on those and hold them sacred, then we risk slipping back to the animal that just indulges in its natural tendencies.

While maybe the foot I'm planting is firmly on top of a mine, I'm sticking to it.  I know I've said some controversial stuff here.  But know that ultimately I am not judging or condemning gays.  There is a difference between believing something to be wrong and judging someone.  I can believe a homosexual act is wrong and not judge the person committing the act to be bad, evil, or beyond salvation.  I know plenty of people, some really close to me, that smoke marijuana.  I think it's wrong, but I don't judge them to be morally devoid or brain dead futureless pot heads.  I cannot emphasize this enough.

There you have it.  I might incense some readers,particularly friends and family, that read this.  I'm well aware of the possibility.  But I feel it must be done.  Part of taking a stand is having courage to say what you believe.  And I felt it's the time to make that stand.