Bigots Calling Christians Bigots
I don't know who did the UTUBE commerical that shows the Democratic Party does not share Arkansas Values, but the result is amazing.
Backers of homosexual marriage are on an aggresive campaign to change five thousand years of Western civilization by redefining marriage, and yet when normal people express a normal revulsion, the homosexual marriage advocates actually pass themselves off as the victims!
Let's grant for a moment that what you do in your own bedroom is your business, marriage is not only about what you do in your own bedroom, it is about what society gives its stamp of approval to. Your bedroom may be your business, but what I approve of is mine. Homosexual militiants are attempting to force societal acceptance of homosexual marriage on us against our will, and play the victims while doing it.
The Democratic party would love to help them out where they can, but whenever they get called on it they answer by juvenile name calling or changning the subject ("Why don't you focus on education?"). You know what, your ideas on education stink too, but we can have more than one opinion at a time. When you try to force your education ideas on us against our will, we will confront that. Right now, you are trying to force acceptance, even celebration, of homosexuality on us, so we are going to confront that.
Families, real families, are the best way to raise children. If a generation of children get messed up, the whole state will be messed up. Society honors real marriage because it is in its interests to do so. It is self-defense. Homosexual marriage, or civil unions, is not in the interests of society because of its inferiority in doing what families do for the state- birth, nuturing, and proper development of children. For that reason, the state has a vested interest in honoring real marriage and discouraging perversion that works contrary to these ends.
Backers of homosexual marriage are on an aggresive campaign to change five thousand years of Western civilization by redefining marriage, and yet when normal people express a normal revulsion, the homosexual marriage advocates actually pass themselves off as the victims!
Let's grant for a moment that what you do in your own bedroom is your business, marriage is not only about what you do in your own bedroom, it is about what society gives its stamp of approval to. Your bedroom may be your business, but what I approve of is mine. Homosexual militiants are attempting to force societal acceptance of homosexual marriage on us against our will, and play the victims while doing it.
The Democratic party would love to help them out where they can, but whenever they get called on it they answer by juvenile name calling or changning the subject ("Why don't you focus on education?"). You know what, your ideas on education stink too, but we can have more than one opinion at a time. When you try to force your education ideas on us against our will, we will confront that. Right now, you are trying to force acceptance, even celebration, of homosexuality on us, so we are going to confront that.
Families, real families, are the best way to raise children. If a generation of children get messed up, the whole state will be messed up. Society honors real marriage because it is in its interests to do so. It is self-defense. Homosexual marriage, or civil unions, is not in the interests of society because of its inferiority in doing what families do for the state- birth, nuturing, and proper development of children. For that reason, the state has a vested interest in honoring real marriage and discouraging perversion that works contrary to these ends.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Wednesday, September 13, 2006
18 Comments:
If society really HONORED marriage, there would not be a 50% divorce rate for first marriages, 67% for 2nd's, and 74% for 3rd marriages. Homosexuals are not the ones you need to defend marriage from, it's people like Rush Limbaugh who have destroyed the fabric of marriage in this country. Why don't you guys push a constitutional amendment to ban divorce? The family unit was destroyed long ago and there is no going back so quit grasping at straws.
The family unit was fine until marriage and divorce laws were liberalized. The statistics you reference were not the case until "no-fault" divorce became the law-of-the land.
There were many who argued against no fault divorce at the time and said it would lead to exploding divorce rates. However, wise liberals like yourself wrote off those concerns as nonsense.
Objective examining those liberals, we could say that they were either:
1. blissfully ignorant; or
2. intentionally fraudulant.
So the very ones who advocated the adoption of that distastrous policy today are the ones who now say "gay marriage will not harm the institution of marriage."
History is repeating itself. The liberals making that argument today are again either:
1. blissfully ignorant; or
2. intentionally fraudulant.
I happen to think it's the latter.
I agree with 7:02
"The family unit was destroyed long ago and there is no going back so quit grasping at straws."
Rob,
Please bud, that can't be your reasoning. There is a sub-culture within America where the family unit IS still working for the most part- conservative Christians.
Your point is analogous to saying "the house is burning down anyway, put down the water bucket and help that group start another fire".
If you don't mind, I am going to stay in the bucket brigade until I think it is over.
And 7:02 is correct. I don't think we can ban divorce, because not even the old testament law tried that. We can't even keep The Law, much less go beyond it, by government means. But we can restrict "no fault" divorce, especially when there are children. We can honor marriage.
We can do those things, and we should.
So why don't you rail against divorcees the same way you vilify homosexuals? Why not treat them as social pariahs? These are rhetorical questions,as I already know the answer... Hypocrisy. Many of the leaders of the conservative movement have been married several times and it would be counterproductive for the conservative movement to vilify its leaders as well as a large chunk of their contributors.
As for 7:02
I wasn't even born yet when the divorce laws were loosened, so I doubt that I am to blame. Furthermore, you can thank Ronald Reagan and the "greed is good" crowd for creating an economic environment in the 80's where mothers had to go to work just so the family could eat. Back when unions were strong and the middle class was not under attack, families could get by with just one income but that is not the case anymore and I would hypothesise that the double income necessity is more to blame for the divorce rate than easy divorce laws.
You have to get to the root of the problem before you can solve it. That's the problem with most republicans, no imagination in conceptual thought.
Mr. Starr, to borrow one of Rush's quotes: "You are a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance."
First, we don't "rail against homosexuals." We simply don't want to be forced to accept that lifestyle as being normal. It's that simple. If we change the definition of marriage we are implicitly endorsing the lifestyle. If you or anyone else wants to be a homosexual, be my guest. I couldn't care less. I've got enough problems to deal with. But don't expect my endorsement. And when you don't get my endorsement don't accuse me of "railing against homosexuality."
You are not to blame. Ok. Liberals with your viewpoint are, however.
As for the "greed is good" environment created in the 80's, I don't know where to begin with your false premise. But one thing for sure, like other liberals, your use of boilerplate language is tiresome (i.e. greed of the 80's, middle class under attack). Instead of boilerplate nonsense try using specific examples with substance.
Families used to not have to have two incomes when tax rates were not aprox. 50% of everything they earned. Massive government programs advocated by liberals of your ilk (in both major parties, unfortunately) are the reason we only get to keep approx. 50% of our income, thus making it necessary for two income earners.
You keep telling yourself that and I will continue to use real economic indicators to formulate my opinions instead of regurgitating something I heard from a drug addict with a microphone.
Good dialouge here, and who needs microphones when we have keyboards?
As to divorce, no one is trying to elevate the status of divorce. It is just something that comes with marriage of any kind. No one wants to celebrate it. I already said we shold eliminate no-fault divorce when children are present. If a campaign came along to elevate divorce, we would be against that too. I am against increasing legal rights for co-habiting couples too.
The state should discourage all that, but that is not what is in our face right now. The homo lobby is in our face right now, so we are reacting, which your side somehow manages to spin that we are the ones attacking. We are just trying to hold on to what vestigies of civilization we have here, and good families are essential for that.
And I assume that the Republican bashing was not aimed at me. I think we have to get beyond Republican and Democrat, and even liberal and conservative, to properly address these problems. We have to get back to deciding what good and evil are (first task is getting everyone to agree they exist!).
Then please educate me as to your "real economic indicators."
What opinions (specifically) do you have (i.e. not boilerplate nonsense) and what economic indicators help to formulate your view?
If you would like me to teach you economics, you'll have to pay like everybody else but just a few are:
1. Union busting
2. Real dollar wages are at a 50 year low in Arkansas
3. The fabricated housing boom (fabricated through variable interest rate loans) is bursting in a big way.
4. #3 has caused home forclosures to dramatically increase over the past year and a half
5. One of my favorites from the aforementioned era of Reagan: Reagan "cut taxes" for everyone according to republican folklore but in reality he cut income taxes for everyone but at about the same time, under the guise of "saving social security", he raised the FICA tax rate.
For real working people, the result of this slight of hand was a net increase in their taxes.
Now that is just some of the picture, for more you'll have to take some classes and do some studying. A good place to start is with Keynes.
Thank you for your generous education. I feel like I owe you something. Send me a bill.
Ok, seriously:
1. Unions are a drag on the economy. The fact that union power is decreasing is a stimulant not a detriment. Unions force up prices with excessive benefits and over valued wages. It's within their right to do so if they can get it but nonetheless they are a drag on the economy due to the effect they have on consumer prices. But since you think they are "good" for the economy, in what whey are they good? How do they stimulate economic growth?
2. What is your source for "real wages being at a 50 year low in Arkansas?"
3. The "fabricated" housing market bust is occurring by design. Due to the economy heating up (not to mention rising energy prices) the fears of inflation have caused the fed to raise interest rates. The raising of rates was done INTENTIONALLY to slow the economy. If it slows too much they will lower rates and the housing market will rev back up. This is a simple function of the market. Econ 101.
4. What is your source for point #4? You say "dramatically increase?" By what percent is the foreclosure rate increasing to make it "dramatic?"
5. You assert in point #5 that the Reagan years were, in effect, detrimental to the economy (since he pulled a "slight of hand" and rasied taxes). Before you make a yourself look rediculous in asserting that Reagan hurt the economy you should look up the following:
Did the GDP increase or decrease during the Reagan years? Increased "dramatically" to be the longest peace time economic expansion since WWII which was largely why he won 49 states in '84.
Did revenues to the treasury increase or decrease? Doubled
Were millions of jobs created during the 80's? Yes
Reagan cut the top marginal income tax rate from 70% down to 28%. He also lowered rates at the lower marginal rates. The effect was that the pie (the economy) started expanding. People who had money started investing because all of a sudden, thanks to Reagan, they didn't have to give 70 cents on the dollar to the government for them to waste. Thus jobs were created.
Your belief system is based on boilerplate mantras.
1. You think unions are a bad thing so I guess you would like to go back to child labor, slave wages, low standard of living, etc... you know kind of like the depression. It's good to know that at least some repubs will admit that they would like things turned back to 1935.
2. If you actually took econ. 101, you would know that Real dollars factor out inflation, only considering changing market conditions in order to determine buying power. Just do the math.
3 and 4. So the 50% rise in home forclosures that was announced yesterday was planned? You guys are even more sinister than I thought. Oh, and don't lecture me about Econ 101 when you sir, are ignorant of even the basics. By the way, the interest rate hasn't been bumped up that much so there must be another cause maybe even stagnant wages combined with inflation and gas prices or even over leveraging via home equity loans to stay afloat in the "robust" economy of GW.
5. I love the revisionist history but you are still avoiding the point. I am not talking about the top bracket, I am talking about the bottom and middle brackets that had their taxes increased under Reagan who at the same time ran up huge deficits and stole all the money from the social security trust fund to cover his ass. I agree that 70% is a ridiculous number but so is 15% which is what you would like to see.
Boiler plate mantras is a catchy phrase but that is not what I am about. I have grown weary of lecturing a mental midget so good day.
A good place to start is with Keynes.
Ack! cough... cough... gag... Keynes?!? Rob, how can someone of your [apparent] intellect say THAT name with a straight face? Nonetheless, both of you guys seem to be all over the place with respect to consistent and COHERENT economic theory. If you REALLY want to start off on the right foot learning about economic theory then I would suggest you start with the following fellows:
Adam Smith
Frédéric Bastiat
Max Weber
Ludwig von Mises
Friedrich Hayek
Murray Rothbard
Now THERE is a lifetime worth of fulfilling and challenging study!
...now, let me see... just where did I leave that bottle of Oxycontin? It's for my head. ache. My headache. Seriously... Get off my back, ya'll are beginning to remind me of my second wife! Why are you all looking at me like that? Okay, Okay... ya'll are right, perhaps a shot of Tennessee or Kentucky's finest would suffice. hmmmm... wonder how those would mix?
Dear Death,
Thank you for the slap to the face: "ya'll are beginning to remind me of my second wife!"
I temporarily forgot the undeniable truth that when you bicker with an idiot it is hard to tell who the idiot is.
But just for kicks I will list below (in his own words) his various boilerplate liberal mantras. And I will say this, he did a good job. He worked a lot of them in:
1. why don't you rail against divorcees the same way you vilify homosexuals
2. you can thank Ronald Reagan and the "greed is good" crowd for creating an economic environment in the 80's...
3. when unions were strong and the middle class was not under attack...
4. I guess you would like to go back to child labor, slave wages, low standard of living, etc...
5. You guys are even more sinister than I thought...
"Boiler plate mantras is a catchy phrase but that is not what I am about."
If it weren't for boiler plate mantras, Rob wouldn't have anything to add to the dialogue.
does seem like rob is try'n to change the subject.
I am very gratified that no one has challenged the substance of my argument, only pointed out that OTHER STUFF IS BAD TOO.
There really is no challenging it, all of us have negative desires that it is our obligation to fight, be it anger, greed, lust or whatever. One group now loudly demands that their own negative desires be lifted up and accorded the same celebrated status as Holt Matrimony or something close.
This is a false way. We are all obligated to wage war on the evil in us that wages war on our soul- instead the practitioners of certain types of evil want to wage war on us for our refuseal to honor and celebrate their evil. The average age of death of homosexual men is something like 54.
Sorry Mark, but you're a bigot who falsely claims to respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or you wouldn't have wrote what you just did. Furthermore, thanks to your public remarks here, history will judge you as such.
I'm no friend or foe to homosexuals, but your bigotry toward sexual preference is no different then if it were directed toward color of skin, religious preference or gender. So, now that you've made your bed alongside the KKK, Nazis and Stalin, I hope, for your sake, that you'll be happy lying in it.
In addition, you have about as much respect for the Constitution as an elephant does for an ant on a sidewalk. You're an insidious hypocrite for claiming to hold such high regard for the Constitution, while at the same time, refusing to adhere to it's most basic principles.
Mark, you can't take a dump on the Constitution and call yourself a stringent supporter at the same time. You either support it or you don't and you obviously do not.
Post a Comment
<< Home