Polls

2 new polls up in the sidebar. Whaddayathink?

Why I am Against Prop 8 (but not for gay marriage)

Well, sometimes I have problems keeping things respectful, and I am very opinionated, but here's my go at the issue, following the examples of Laini, hwalk (who commented on Laini'sm post), and Anilee.

First, I would like to point out that discrimination is not always bad. We essentially discriminate against criminals: murderers and thieves. We treat them differently. Now I want to be very clear that I have not drawn a parallel between homosexual couples and criminals, and if anyone takes this out of context, or tries to quote me, be assured that If I find out I shall spam and flame to my heart's content with no qualms. One thing I absolutely despise is distortion of what someone else has said like that.

First a little rant on morals: The whole "your discrimination is crude, unamerican and inhuman" is ridiculous. I'm going to discriminate. Who's going to stop me? Do you say that my discrimination is wrong and that I can't force my morals on someone else like that? Congratulations! You've just tried to shove your morals on me, but since no-one can tell anyone else that what they are doing in wrong, I'm free of any guilt you've just tried to place on me. Forgive me for being blunt, but that's dumb.

Now for the issue: I oppose Prop 8 not on the grounds that discrimination against them is unconstitutional, but because the government has no right to mess with "marriage" at all. Civil Unions are the government equivalent of marriage, and is all the government has the right to issue. The basic "marriage" license. Marriage, whether you believe it should be or not, is a church function. Not a religious function, but a church function. Whether it be Mormon, Protestant, Muslim, or Hindu, marriages are nearly always church affairs, with religious leaders preforming ceremonies. That is essentially how I would define marriage; a ceremony preformed outside the legal process and not for legal recognition, but for social recognition and acknowledgment. Government has no place in that. Government should not be deciding who has the right to be socially recognized or not. Government decides what goes into their own records and policies dealing with the legal realm. Social concerns and recognitions are outside their jurisdictions. What would we Christians think if suddenly the government stepped in and said "no more baptism". We would be pretty stinkin mad don't ya think?

Now for my own personal views: Gay marriage = bad. God says so. I believe that as my creator, God's word is law, and that the laws He makes are because He cares what happens to His creation. That being said, even though I do believe that secular government has no role in prohibiting social actions like marriage, it is up to Christians to oppose it socially and not legally. We should not go to the government to complain about what is going on, we should try to go to the people who we believe are in the wrong and present to them what harm we think is happening to society and the world we live because of their actions. For Christians, I think that is the right way to act.

Now it looks very much like I am connecting morals with religion. I am. I pointed out earlier that without standards, there can be no morals period. It just doesn't work. So morals must be connected to some set standard, or you can't have them; whether your morals are based on religion, or science you base them on something.

Now I'm going to say some disrespectful stuff.

~Laini
"Homosexuality is not "a behavior" any more than heterosexuality is, any more than race or gender are. It is part of who a person is, and you are setting yourself up to decide who can be allowed to BE, and who cannot. That's scary stuff, and in the extreme it leads to very bad outcomes, like genocide."

Prove it.


your time would probably be better spent helping people who really need help, say, domestic abuse victims, child abuse, etc...It is fascinating to me how many so-called religious people get so up in arms about unborn children, but yet actually do so very little to help people after they are here, whether they are straight or gay, poor, etc. I think Jesus would be horrified at what people spend their lives focusing on and doing in his name. Jesus hung out with prostitutes, was a community organizer (the very thing Palin tried to demonize in her convention speech)..meanwhile the Republican party, which has been hijacked by the Christian Right, fights against paying more taxes even in a time of war, when btw, the Bible itself states you are supposed to give a whole lot of alms and all. Hwalk, if you are so deeply religious, wouldn't your time be better spent volunteering at a domestic abuse shelter than further stirring the pot of discrimination and human abuse laws?
-Alexandra

Um... well, apparently according to the viewpoint Alexandra is agreeing with, homosexual couples don't need help. Let me put this in perspective for you. When you kill a unborn child, you are denying him/her the right to choose to be gay or straight. Chew on that for a bit. Jesus did hang out with prostitutes, and He loved them, because they were people, just as we should do, but he did not condone them or encourage them to keep doing their stuff. I have met openly gay people, and I can honestly say that I treated them with as much respect and love as I would any other person. Their lifestyle disgusted me, but as a person, they were just as kind and friendly as anyone else regardless of what I view as "their mistakes." As for the Republican party, it proposes reforms before taxes. And, The Bible says to give for God's work, but also to "render to Caesar what is Caeser's", meaning to pay taxes. One refers to what you give back to further what we view as "God's work here on earth", the other refers to what you give to the government what it demands whether good or ill that he has placed over you. Republicans pay taxes too. That doesn't mean that we can't appeal to Caesar to lower taxes. If you don't like the law, try to change it, and if you can't change it obey it or leave. Well, Republicans try to change tax laws they don't like, same as Democrats, and if they can't chagne it, they still pay the taxes.


~Laini
Hwalk, thanks for your comments. I see you are deeply indoctrinated in a worldview of intolerance, and you feel good about yourself for it. It makes me sad when people who don't sound evil or cruel embrace intolerance with a smile and a chest thump of moral rectitude. Your beliefs aren't "trivial" to me; they are disheartening.

I'm sorry Laini that you have been too biggotted to go beyond you ant-christian "bubble" and accept that someone else's "opinions" may be just as valid as your own unfounded ones. You have nothing to base your morals on, so you can't have anything but opinions. You, Laini have been indoctrinated by the world. You use the word to sound like brainwashing, as if she didn't have a choice, and you did. Well, if Hwalk has been indoctrinated, then you have too. She by her church, and you by your world and your liberal education.

I am proud of Hwalk for standing up to what she beleived was wrong, whether you. Laini believe her stupid or not. I think that she made very good points and presented what I consider to be Truth so that any open minded person could understand. I guess you and your readers aren't of that type. I'm truly sorry. It saddens me. I can still love you as a person, but I can not respect you opinions.

~Somnite
If you find it offensive, I'm probably doing a good job.

Disgusting

Oh, this indeed embodies the American ideal of a color-blind non-racist vote. If a white person votes for McCain, its racist, but 96% of the African-American population can vote for Obama and nobody thinks anything of it.

Interesting Chain Mail

This just popped into my inbox this evening. Yet to be verified as true, but from what I've seen personally, this is all accurate.

TO ALL MY FRIENDS....LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE...FYI only.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine. A little over one year ago: 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%. 4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 + 5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises,vacations overseas, living large !... But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR: 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ; 2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!; 3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase); 4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices are still dropping; 5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. 6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS ! YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT ! .... REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS. AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS !!!! JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND ?

More

Another interesting article

Several Issues Not Related to "Race"

Economic Crisis

From the end of this article

In the new Obama ad, an announcer says: "Our financial system in turmoil. And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy."

The ad, slated to start running Monday on national cable, alludes to McCain's response to the nation's financial crisis. He briefly suspended his campaign, called for a White House summit meeting that ended chaotically, and showed varying degrees of support for the massive rescue bill Congress passed Friday.

Republicans say McCain's actions showed leadership.

"In the midst of it all, I think you saw Sen. McCain, unlike Sen. Obama, come off the campaign trail, because that's John McCain in the middle of a crisis," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent-Democrat who backs McCain.

Well, well, well, and what did Obama do during our financial crisis? Campaign. Use the crisis to point out another persons weaknesses. Really, don't you think if there was something that Obama had done that had magically solved everything, don't you think it would have been mentioned? McCain suspended his own personal struggle to try to accomplish something better for the country that he saw was falling apart. He suspended what was important to him for what was important to his country.

Fundraising

This is a touchy issue, especially after Obama promised to accept public funding and then turned it down, an incident which every reporter has seemed to forget. (McCain made the same promise, and please notice that he kept his and is therefore limited in his funds)

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the McCain campaign has had to return over $1.2 million to donors who potentially violated the law with their contributions, including money from foreign nationals. "Our campaign has shattered fund-raising records with donations from more than 2.5 million Americans. We have gone above and beyond the transparency requirements," Burton said.

I beg pardon. I this guy now claiming, because Mr. Popular has come along with a brand new way of getting money that is harder to manage and keep legal that he is above accountability? McCain has somehow been able to figure his own financial records out and return $1.2 million. Obama should be able to keep track too shouldn't he? The article points out that Obama must return at least $11,000 from two donations alone. How many more are there that are being hidden? A different article I was reading mentioned that come companies have given company money to their employees to donate to Obama. Hardly ethical I say.

And now I shall post only headlines from two articles...

Obama slams McCain for sordid attacks amid economic peril

Campaigns get personal, McCain called 'erratic'

Now tell me that is being consistent.

And again...

I am sorry to keep coming back to this subject of race, but I am determined to respond to every stupid article that Google Reader presents me with. On this article, I think I will take separate paragraphs and comment on them individually.

The whole article should you wish to read is Here.

"The Illinois senator, 47, earlier this year said racism was an issue the United States could not allow itself to ignore. But in the White House race it has been deliberately and carefully addressed in a limited way."

Limited? It has come up at every turn! true: Obama doesn't need to mention it, because he has his pets the media doing a grand job of it without him dirtying his reputation with cheap-shots that are not based on fact.

"'Race is a factor for those who would vote for and against him,' said Gary Weaver, an American University professor who leads its Intercultural Management Institute."

But it take it that it is not an issue for those that would vote for him? Do you deny that there are people that would vote for him simply because of his "race"?

"In California, for example, there is no one majority, but rather a mix of hefty minority groups of Asians, Hispanics, whites and blacks."

And California is the perfect community where everyone is sensible and rational about things, because they have a balanced population to make it see things clearer.

"They (young people) went to schools that were integrated and learned that the US is supposed to be a multicultural, pluralistic society where everyone is equal. Thus, they view Obama as the obvious representative of this society."

This made me downright stinkin, punchin people mad!!!! This implies that if you were private, Christian, or homeschooled that you were not integrated, and didn't learn about the nature of our culture, and that you therefore must be racist and ot thinking clearly in the election. This also presents the conclusion that Obama is the only reasonable representative of this society BECAUSE HE IS BLACK!!!! Tell me that is not racist! I am a homeschooler. I am proud to call many black people my friends. I grew up right outside what most people would call "the ghetto". I went to art classes at a vocational school in said "ghetto" every day. Here at college I have black friends who are some of the most outgoing and friendly people here! I guess because I did not go to these schools where you are taught about integration that I must be a racist jerk who is too blinded by my prejudice to vote clearly! Obama, it is true, does represent very much what young people have been taught is socially and politically acceptable by their liberal schools. He is the dream of all liberals. But he is not the man who will lead our country. Take him as your Mother Thereasa, take him as your Al Gore, but don't leave him in fontrol of a country he has no clue how to run. Let him inspire you to dream bigger, let him represent the new generation, but until he gets experience and a better idea about how to keep our country both safe and sovreign, leave it to someone else.

"Although the US government has made reparations to groups harmed on the basis of race -- such as ethnic Japanese held in detention camps in the United States during World War II -- it has not done so to the descendents of African slaves.

Some argue against the idea saying slavery was not the fault of the current leadership; others argue the government perpetuated slavery and denied millions civil rights for centuries, with longlasting social and economic fallout."

Thank you for the little head nod, but those "some" are darn right! We owe African-Americans no reparation for the period of slavery. This makes me sound mean, racist, whatever, but its true. This is the country where we judge you on the basis of what you have done, not on what your father was or did. Now it is one thing to restore property and make reparation to first generation recipients of abuse like that, but it is far too late now. I mean, of course it is still possible to repay the detainees of WWII, because they were still alive. Back to the earlier statement about being equals that they made: does past injustice justify the inequalites attempted to be forced on us today? A little story: My sunday school teacher back home once told us about his experience in middle-school. There was one class where "race" decided your rankings, but it wasn't what anybody would call racist, and nobody could sue for it, because it did not violate what is socially or politically correct. My teacher would have to work "his butt off" to get a C in that class, while being African-American guarunteed you an A however much work you did. These students saw this, and did absolutely nothing in that class. When my sunday school teacher asked ahbout this, he was told it was because "we owe them for all the years of slavery and injustice." Is this the kind of society I want to grow up in without attempting to change? Where I cannot attend the elite black only schools? Be on BET? Have my future children recieve fair grades in schools? I say it again: Does past injustice justify the inequalites attempted to be forced on us today?

I will proudly state that I will not vote for Obama. It is not for the reason that I am racist, it is because I truly and sincerely believe that this is not the man capable of leading our country.

McCain Defends Himself!!!!

This is an excerpt from an article, of which the headline said:
"McCain turns irritable, sarcastic in interview" (my commentary at the end)

Meeting Tuesday with the editorial board of The Des Moines Register, McCain was asked why he picked the Alaska governor, someone "who doesn't have a lot of experience."

"Thank you, but I disagree with your fundamental principle that she doesn't have the experience," McCain replied before citing Palin's work as a PTA member, city council member, mayor and governor. "You and I just have a fundamental disagreement, and I am so happy the American people seem to be siding with me."

When it was suggested that Palin's lack of experience worried voters, McCain turned sarcastic.

"Really? I haven't detected that in the polls, I haven't detected that among the base," he said. "If there's a Georgetown cocktail party person who, quote, calls himself a conservative who doesn't like her, good luck. I don't dismiss him. I think the American people have overwhelmingly shown their approval."

At another point, McCain was asked if he's strayed from his "straight talk" image with advertising that some have labeled deceptive. McCain dryly responded, "It would be valuable if you gave some examples for an assertion of that nature."

He went on to say: "I have always had 100 percent, absolute truth, that's been my life and putting my country first. I'll match that record with anyone and an assertion that I have ever done otherwise, I take strong exception to."

As examples, a questioner at the Register noted a McCain commercial that suggested Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergartners and assertions by his campaign that a "lipstick on a pig" comment Obama made was a reference to Palin. News media fact-checking the sex education ad deemed it deceptive and a distortion of Obama's position.

"It certainly is your opinion and I respect your opinion, but it's not the facts," McCain said in the interview. "I respect your opinion. I strongly disagree with your assertion."

Finally the man who thinks he can lead our country is sticking up for himself in an interview. He doesn't need teleprompters, a cheat sheet, easy questions or any other stuff like that. He stated with force what was factually true, instead of a media distorted image. Please notice that even the liberal new reporter could not come up with a way to spin the story and show that McCain was proven wrong with solid examples. The writer pointed out that he was irritable and sarcastic and moved on. A reporter tried to make McCain stupid, by asking him opinion questions, then when that didn't work turned him into a mean old man who can't get along with anyone.

Do we really need four more years of liberal media and reporting like this? Maybe before we can bring change, we need to break the grip of the media and present "just the fact ma'am."