| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 5/24 |
|
| land-of-fruits-and-nuts.blogspot.com/2007/04/polipundit-fraud-of-gay-marriage.html misguided emotion guides their outlook on issues of the day. Outside of the war in Iraq, it seems nothing gets the left's dander up more than the issue of gay marriage. First, I want to point out that recently there was a bit of a kerfuffle offline regarding this topic and an openly gay blogger. I was singled out for my "very angry and hurtful comments" which were "stoking some very dangerous language about gays." That is not to say I think that sodomy should be illegal, but certainly changing the family structure of our society because a tiny, tiny minority feel the need to be part of an institution they used to despise is certainly not a good idea. Yes, most gays were against marriage before they were for it. Now these facts, inconvenient truths if you will, get me castigated as ignorant, mean, homophobic, and dangerous. Because they can't be answered, and they must be prevented from being openly talked about. When a gay blogger has to write emails saying he refuses to read your blog postings and can not speak to the comments, I've won. Having no response to facts demonstrates the weakness of your position. And I think just about anyone who has done just a bit of thinking on this topic realizes just how weak the position of gay marriage proponents actually is. Let's look at some of these "arguments": 1 "LOL, you want to run our society/laws based on the bible" Uh, no, actually I don't. Though those 10 commandments seemed to have been a pretty good guide, haven't they? Anyway, I want our society to reflect some common sense values. Since gay sex will never produce a single child, and since gay sex has no benefits and many risks, why should we encourage it and redefine our family structure? If one line of attack doesn't work, reverse course and lie. Well, Jesus never condemned me drinking a bottle of Cuervo Gold and getting in my car and hitting the beltway at 95 mph either. Anyone seriously arguing that any biblical references are "out of context" given the fact that God said man and woman will be joined as one in the flesh, and said "honor thy father and thy mother" (note: not "parents" not "2 mommies" not "dad and bob") is just being silly. Old and New Testament support the proposition that homosexuality is not looked upon favorably by God. Gay sex, which I've said shouldn't be illegal, isn't gay marriage. If anyone wants to legislate sexual activity, it is the Homocrat Left. Well, using this "logic" we can ignore the whole thing then I guess. Or, we can realize that changing the cornerstone of civilization for 2 millennium to appease a radical homosexual agenda may not be on par with shellfish, sweetheart. As noted above, God doesn't want us to engage in such behavior. I do as male and female parents are the best option for rearing offspring. " I reject this out of hand as a) it assumes you have a "right" to marry whomever you wish and b) it pretends that the government doesn't make discriminatory decisions each day. We as a society express a collective judgement on many behaviors deemed inappropriate and aim to prevent them through various laws all the time. As has been mentioned elsewhere, if you have the "right" to marry as two gay males, then I have the "right" to marry multiple women in polygamy, or even a cat. Your "happiness" can't trump mine, especially when the survival of the species is at stake. If we decide it is "constitutional" that 2 males marry, behavior which has no value in the continuation of the species, then so is any behavior I wish to engage in regarding marriage. A framework that demonstrates the preferred societal good is reflected each time males and females make that bond. But, it is the left that has brought us the idea of no fault divorce (and fought for welfare benefits for single mothers thus encouraging that behavior), through the feminist movement starting in the late 60's. In other words, they have succeeded in practically destroying marriage and now want to redefine it however the see fit which will put the nail through the coffin of it. See, these people don't revere or respect marriage all that much and have done everything to make it less valuable and meaningless over the last 40 years. Now, they must pretend it has some redeeming value to let gays in which will ultimately make it futile. Dennis Prager also has a very good article refuting the phony "high divorce rates justify gay marriage" crap. Now, while I don't think gay sex should be illegal, I do think we as a society need to better reflect a disapproval of homosexuality. Gays in movies and on TV are smart, witty, lovable, and wise. Well it's great that those people wish to portray themselves that way. However, I think we need to counterbalance that with some actual facts to encourage some critical thinking about just how important this issue is to our children and the future of our society. |
| land-of-fruits-and-nuts.blogspot.com/2007/01/domestic-partnerships-for-heterosexual.html For the Left's real endgame, you see, is simply to devalue the already beleaguered institution of marriage further. Lefty Carole Migden lets the proverbial cat out of the bag. SB 11 (Migden, D-San Francisco), introduced this week, would give unmarried heterosexual couples of all ages the right to register as domestic partners. Senator Migden, a lesbian activist, has reportedly introduced SB 11 to respond to the "growing trend of couples raising children out of wedlock." "This is a very practical expansion that absolutely reflects the new family unit today," Migden said. "We're trying to provide the proper benefits for the families that exist today." Migden's remarks reflect an unhealthy view of public policy. Public policy should not encourage and promote something simply because it happens to exist. Rather, it should encourage and promote what is good for California and healthy for families. SB 11 is yet another attempt to make marriage meaningless and to keep unmarried parents from entering a marriage covenant, pledging to take care of each other and stick with each other regardless of what may come. "Children deserve to be raised in stable homes, with a mother and father who are committed to each other," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "We are dismayed that such wrong thinking about families - that a marriage commitment is irrelevant - permeates our society and threatens children. CRI is committed to working against harmful measures like SB 11." SB 11 would grant domestic partnership rights to couples regardless of whether or not they have children. "Eventually there would be no distinction between parents with kids, and those people who are simply roommates who file for financial advantages," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Orange County). |
| dennisprager.townhall.com:80/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society?page=3Dfull&comments=3Dtrue John Howell and Cisco Cotto - 5/16/08 Hour 3 Americans seem mesmerized by the word "change." And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex. Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the US Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison. And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it's no big deal. Hey, it doesn't affect any heterosexuals' marriage, so what's the problem? This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate supporters -- allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex. That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, ie, become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side. Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion -- or to any past wisdom -- for one's values has died. The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him. Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals -- the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society's values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, "the Bible says" ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, "compassion says" ends discussion. If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine. Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming -- to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman. The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction -- until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is "heterosexism," a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society. Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law. View in descending order loveemae Location: CA Reply # 1 Date: May 20, 2008 - 12:46 AM EST Subject: gays today Recently I went to Michigan to be on a show called "30 Days" to air June 24th 10 pm on FX Network. I want you to know that I agree with you on so many levels, Dennis. The GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) community is gearing up as if it were an army. They are banding together to stand up for what we stand to fight. They are pushing legislation through various states houses and they are doing it quietly, so as not to ruffle feathers of opponents. We need to band together as moral citizens who cherish the divine nature of marriage between a man and a woman. If we are complacent at all, they will win, and all the things you mention will come to pass. I already have to worry that my kids will be learning about homosexuality, heck, any sexuality far earlier than I did, which is so sad. They are already hearing very complex sexual ideas at school, and they are in 2nd and 3rd grades. The gay community has groups for kids, COLAGE, Children Of Lesbians And Gays Everywhere, that seek to affirm the GLBT lifestyle and make that life completely normal. I want kids of all people to keep their innocence as long as possible. Gay people with kids have had to do this COLAGE thing because kids didn't know how to handle having gay parents. Kids should not have to defend against their parents choice in sexuality. I hope that by using this article, we can find people to stand strong to defend marriage for what it has always been, and hopefully will continue to be. May God bless you in your efforts to stall the effects of this judgement. Flag as Offensive Lost in Paradise Location: AK Reply # 2 Date: May 20, 2008 - 12:47 AM EST With such a high divorce and shack-up rate, what difference does same sex marriage make? Let's be realistic, if same sex marriage was available across the USA, would you even be aware, much less know any of these couples? Same Sex marriage is a new and scary idea, but allowing it will not change the life of any reader here in any way. Flag as Offensive JAG CA Location: CA Reply # 3 Date: May 20, 2008 - 1:21 AM EST Subject: Feminizing males Males raised strictly by femailes (one or two) is a disaster for society! The ideal for raising children is having a male and female role model in the home. Why cannot this ideal situation have the title marriage attached to it? If a majority of society choose to call the mating of a man and woman "marriage" why do four judges think that they have a morally superior position when they label any relationship a marriage? Flag as Offensive sherie Location: OK Reply # 5 Date: May 20, 2008 - 1:23 AM EST Subject: marriage has been cheapened Gays and lesbians... |
| online.wsj.com:80/article/SB122480597946864923.html A) Gay-advocacy organizations B) Civil-rights groups C) The California Teachers Association If you guessed "C," you understand the nature of modern liberal politics. And if you didn't, perhaps you're wondering what exactly gay marriage has to do with K-12 public education. The high school dropout rate is 1-in-4 in California and 1-in-3 in the Los Angeles public school system, odds that worsen considerably among black and Hispanic children. So you might think the CTA, the state's largest teachers' union, would have other priorities. Yet last week the union donated $1 million to the "No on Proposition 8" campaign. said Randy Peart, a public school teacher in San Juan who was contacted by a local television station. "Why not put that money into classrooms, into making a better place for these kids?" In fact, the CTA and its parent organization, the National Education Association, have used tens of millions of dollars in mandatory teachers' dues to advance all manner of left-wing political causes. In some years barely a third of the NEA's budget has gone toward improving the lot of teachers themselves. In addition to vigorously fighting school choice and other reforms that benefit underprivileged children but threaten the public education monopoly, the NEA has directly (or via state affiliates) bankrolled Acorn, the Democratic Leadership Council, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and, naturally, the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights." This editorial incorrectly stated that the CTA contributions represented the bulk of total donations. The Journal Community encourages thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between real people. We require the use of your full name to authenticate your identity. The quality of conversations can deteriorate when real identities are not provided. |