The Breach in The Wall
Our blogosphere opposite-numbers at the Arkansas Times blog are fixated against Christians again, this time hurling the accusation that we have a "fixation on gay people". This is in reponse to our push for SB959 to block homosexuals from using the power of the state to gain access to other people's children through adoption or foster parenting. It's not because of a "fixation on gay people". We have a fixation on protecting innocent children and defending civilization from nuevo-barbarians who are waging a war on morality. The same people rail at us for having "a love affair with the fetus" (Joclyn Elders I quote I believe) when we try to save innocent children from abortion. Whatever we do to try to protect our culture, it's institutions, and the defenseless among us from the mad polices of the debauchery lobby, it somehow get's interpreted as if we are the ones carrying on about nothing. It's always "a love affair with the fetus", or "a fixation on gay people".
It is frustrating how, with media air-cover, they can attack us on every front, then make it seem like they are the victims whenever we put up the least resistance to their cultural aggression. They are not the victims. They are the aggressors, the polluters; and if they are not stopped, the ruiners and destroyers of our culture.
The truth is just the opposite of what the Times portrays. Just the opposite. It is the debauchery lobby that is fixated on getting the state to force the rest of us to pretend that whatever they want is normal and healthy. It is the debauchery lobby that is trying to ram the gay agenda down America's throat, and they are far more fixated on doing it than Christians are with stopping them. That's how they keep winning despite their low numbers.
The reason we are rallying around this issue, is that this is the current breach in the wall. If we lose , ten years from now, they will be angrily demanding we cease our "fixation" with stopping man-boy love or some other abomination. Where the battle is, that is where the defenders must stand. Do not delude yourself into believing you are a guardian of the innocent and a defender of our civilization if you let it's enemies cow you with words that "it would be more tolerant of you to go stand somewhere else."
To the breach I say! To the breach. Let no mocks or insults from the enemy dissuade you. Brush off their fiery darts and get yourself to the very place in the wall that is breached. To the very heat of battle. There is no other place for a defender to stand.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Thursday, March 29, 2007
14 Comments:
That slippery slope argument is ridiculous. We are talking about relationships between CONSENTING ADULTS. To imply that it will lead to child molestation is absurd.
Let's see, what past so-called "breaches" have conservatives rallied against claiming that it will destroy the fabric of society:
integration
women's sufferage
bi-racial marriages
civil-rights
Did these changes destroy society? No.
Practising homosexuality is not the same as being black, or being a woman. YOU are the one that is making a false argument by attempting to equate our desire to protect children from being screwed up by deviants with equal rights for blacks or women.
Worse, you falsly label us Christians as the oppressors when we were the ones leading the charge for justice. The movie "Amazing Grace" chronicles the journey of William Wilberforce from skeptic to believer to the man whose faith compelled him to led the fight which ended slavery in England. In America, the Republican party led the fight to end slavery over here, humming the religious "Battle Hymn of the Republic" as they went.
Your revisionist history merely adds more lies and slanders to the heaps of them that misguided individuals have hurled at the church.
THOSE changes may not have destroyed society, but those are not the same changes that we are fighting here, in fact, my spiritual forebears where leading the charge on those changes. On the other hand, sexual debauchery HAS destroyed plenty of societies, since you ask.
Please note that in my earlier post I did not say "Republicans" or "Christians." I said "Conservatives."
Actually, I said "conservatives." Little c.
When liberal go on a rant they use the same buzz words NO MATTER WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT.
Key buzzwords from our liberal poster:
"CONSENTING ADULTS"
"integration"
"women's sufferage"
"civil-rights"
As long as you throw those words around you can justify anything (if you are a liberal that is) including allowing innocent children to be adopted by homosexuals, gay marriage, YOU NAME IT.
How about you stick to the issue at hand, GAY ADOPTION.
Why don't you tell us why it is beneficial to society for gay adoption to be allowed (if you can - and no buzzwords). Try to muster up a logical intelligent argument for you side.
Ok, I will tell you why I think gay adoption and fostering should not be banned. I consider myself a good person. Not a devient. I don't associate with pedophiles, sex offenders, or any other kind of lawbreakers. I do associate with gay people. Among my gay friends and relatives, I have an aunt who is gay, a best friend who is gay, a college roommate who is gay, a professor who is gay. None of these people are "sickos" or "molesters" or "pollutors." They are Wal-mart vendors, attorneys, high school teachers, and stay-at home mothers.
I trust them to take care of my children. They are all educated, responsible, and cultured. They act properly, go to church, and take pride in their community and neighborhoods.
I don't know what how some people think that gay people live, but they're homes are what most people would consider "normal." They don't talk about inappropriate topics in front of children.
I am a married woman (to a man) and in all honesty, when I do talk about mine and my husband's bedroom antics, they are a lot wilder than my gay friends. Am I a deviant? I teach my children that it is ok to be gay if that is who they are. Am I a devient? I have a traditional marriage with my husband, but I think it is ok to be a homosexual. Should I be allowed to foster parent or adopt? If you think the slippery slope argument is ok, then when will you demand a litmus test for adoption? Will you ask me what I teach my children on the application?
One of my friends that I referred to earlier, who is a Wal-mart vender in a 15 year, stable, gay relationship has a younger sister is battling breast cancer. She has small children. The father is no-good and out of the picture. Eventually, my friend, their uncle, will be responsible for the children. If Womack's bill would have passed, he could not adopt them. Sure, he can be their "guardian." But that isn't the same.
I tried to convey why I think DHS should look at every individual who wants to adopt or be a foster parent on a case-by-case basis without excluding anyone outright. Unless, of couse, they are a criminal. Last time I looked, homosexuality is not a crime.
One more thing, Womack's bill made no sense. How do you define homosexual? What if someone is celebate but classifies themself as a homosexual?
What if someone is married to a person of the opposite sex, but had a gay relationship in college?
I mean "their homes." oops. I'm sure there are more typos. Please don't let them distract from my message. Thank you.
No, you are not a deviant, you have just been sucked in by the lie that "all tolerance is good". The truth is that the tolerance of evil is itself evil.
As far as you raising kids- since you are the parent Womack's bill would have no effect on you even if you were homosexual. Anyway, what you model is a lot more important than what you say, so telling them that "gay is OK" does not much matter. What young children need to SEE and to HAVE is a mommy and a daddy who love one another, and model healthy interaction between the sexes.
For all of that and more, your friend's brother is not the best choice for his sister's children, and if he is as decent as you let on, I suspect even he will admit it.
There is NO WAY what you and your husband do is "wilder" i.e. more depraved, than common practices in the homosexual community. I DON'T want to explore this topic in depth though!
DHS employees had a BAN in place for a reason. If you looked hard enough, you might be able to find a drug addict, or even a "non-practiasing" pedophile that to all outside appearance would make a decent foster parent. Still, there is no way they can REALLY know which few members of these high-risk groups would be the rare exception.
Finding the few theoretical good ones who they are confident would remain good was just so hard that DHS put in a ban. In economic terms, the "sorting costs" of those groups is too high to be worth the risk. The same thing applies with homosexuals.
DHS does not have a crystal ball that allows them to know it all when looking at every former drug addict, or porn dealer, or child beater or wife beater "on a case by case basis". They just have to go by the odds. They have to use checklists. That is what they were trying to do here. What you are asking for, while perhaps for noble reasons, is not realistic. They are only human and they have to screen by risk factors.
The "case by case basis" is an invitation to lawyers to come 2nd guess every call they make. So they are gonna buckle and give a child to someone who should not have one. Then it is gonna hit the papers and we are gonna wonder why those people are not more careful. This is putting DHS in a no-win situation.
Self-identification as a homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts is good enough a definition for me. I am not going to waste time talking about what the meaning of "is is".
"Unless, of couse, they are a criminal. Last time I looked, homosexuality is not a crime."
Well, it WAS a crime until the courts usurped the legislature and threw out the law in Lawrence v. Texas. The court over-ruled themselves from only 17 years before on that one when they ruled that states COULD make it a crime. All fixed standard for law is being tossed out in a mad rush to be PC, and that is terrible for a civilized nation.
At any rate, you can't argue that an "exception" to your "no ban" proposal be allowed in the case of criminals, because usurpacious courts have de-criminalized what would otherwise be crimes.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.
EXCEPT, how dare you say that my friend is not the best person to raise his sister's children. You have no idea who they are or what is best for them.
Hmmmmm. I was just saying the same thing all the child advocacy people at DHS were saying, until the courts put the duct tape over their mouths. I guess you better have plenty of outrage to go around.
And I suppose someone convicted of a crime could level the same righteous indignation at YOU for trying to ban them on THAT basis.
Are you against drinking? Are you against women wearing gold and pearls? Some say both of those are sins. Should people who drink or women who wear pearls not be able to adopt?
A gay person has not broken any laws. Many of them live within the legal bounds of society. How is that the same as a criminal trying to adopt?
You can't be the same person I have been typing to. Have you even read the thread? Your comments are so out of context that there is no way to repsond to them.
Well in as much as the socio-fascists claim Christians have some kind of "gay fixation", the socio-fascists have a fixation on all that is indecent, immoral, unethical, and just plain evil! In fact, they EMBRACE this lifestyle. They even thrive on it because it is these kind of people that elect them to office (e.g. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dian Feinstein, Henry Waxman....heck, ALL liberal Democrats). This would explain why they are so intent on pushing the ERA down our throats. Among other things, it would ensure that abortion on demand is forever embedded into the Constitution. This is also why the socio-fascists that make up Congress now are pushing to restrict how everyday citizens lobby their own government, something we are guaranteed in the first amendment of the Constitution. Of course, one would have to actually read the Constitution to know this, something liberals refuse to do because it would declare their policies DOA (dead on arrival) and as every conservative knows, you don't dare tell a liberal they're wrong (even though they 10 times out of 10 they are).
Post a Comment
<< Home