There is no Constitutional Right to Exploitation.
A Same sex couple wishing to have a family have to take someone else's child or hire a womb to make one. Definitionally at least one of the parents is not going to be the biological parent. The exploitation potential inherent in that is found in the poorest countries like Nepal where destitute women serve as rent-a-wombs. There are also men who leave their wives for other men and fight for the children with two male incomes versus the income of a housewife who gave up everything to have children. It is not true that there are no victims in homosexual unions always.
"There is a way that seems right to a man but leads to death." (google it.)
Would it be a recruiting tool for jihadi muslim extremists if all of America declared gay marriage a constitutional right? Not a silly question. Would it be such a mobilizing factor indicting the decadent west that it would be of National Security Concern? Apparently we now have to have a gay envoy at the State Department to assuage our allies that Obama is not the reincarnation of the Mayor of Sodom. Think what it does to our enemies.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
A repentant
Constitutional Lawyer
reverses his position on gay marriage:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417546/president-and-hillary-my-views-marriage-have-evolved-david-french?#_=_
reverses his position on gay marriage:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417546/president-and-hillary-my-views-marriage-have-evolved-david-french?#_=_
All Conduct is not Created Equal
And All States of Hormonal Balance Are Not Equally Healthy
We all should know now that everyone has male and female hormones to varying degrees and in varying balance. The balance is delicate and changes during menapause, manopause, and puberty. There are 'endocrine disruptors' which also alter the delicate balance. Flouride in water, chemicals in cleaning products, synthetic hormones in protein food sources (meat, chicken, etc.), birth control pill synthetic hormones passing through waste into the water supply all have been identified as endocrine disruptors. Stress can trigger hormonal reactions. Breakdowns of marriage affects small children who have trauma based stress levels that can alter the hormonal archtiecture of small children and perhaps fix their resultant orientation.
There are thousands and thousands of people who have recognized that their orientation and emotional life is hormonally triggered, as all transexuals know because they have to undergo hormone therapy to reorient themselves.
If something is reversible, healthy or not, should it have the same protected status as a human trait like race.
The nature/nurture debate is not over and it is not immaterial. If hormonal issues, endocrine disruptors create gayness that can be healed, does or should the Constitution make that condition equal to heterosexual procreative potential?
The issue of adoption and children of same sex units is problematic because the child has an interest in knowing for all kinds of reasons (emotional, medical, psychological) who their biological parents are and be afforded an opportunity to when possible forge relationships with both their biological parents, one of whom may have been forced for reasons of economic depression or lack to think they could not raise their own child.
Every human has a male and female biological parent by God's design. A same sex couple does not express that. A same sex couple deprives a child of one or the other of the gender exposure in the home.
Because same sex couples do not have procreative capacity to themselves create children, definitionally, when they want children they are taking someone else's. When a married hetero couple have children and the gay man leaves to marry another gay man, if that union has the same status legally as a hetero union, and the two male couple make more money than the stay at home unemployed biological mother, the court can rule that the child go where the affluence is in the 'best interest of the child' which has the capacity to emotionally destroy some women who gave up everything for their families only to be cheated on by seducing gay men.
Everything not expressly delegated to the Federal Government under the Constitution is and should be left to the States under basic 10th Amendment federalist principles. There is no better example of where the wisdom of that supports a moral outcome.
We all should know now that everyone has male and female hormones to varying degrees and in varying balance. The balance is delicate and changes during menapause, manopause, and puberty. There are 'endocrine disruptors' which also alter the delicate balance. Flouride in water, chemicals in cleaning products, synthetic hormones in protein food sources (meat, chicken, etc.), birth control pill synthetic hormones passing through waste into the water supply all have been identified as endocrine disruptors. Stress can trigger hormonal reactions. Breakdowns of marriage affects small children who have trauma based stress levels that can alter the hormonal archtiecture of small children and perhaps fix their resultant orientation.
There are thousands and thousands of people who have recognized that their orientation and emotional life is hormonally triggered, as all transexuals know because they have to undergo hormone therapy to reorient themselves.
If something is reversible, healthy or not, should it have the same protected status as a human trait like race.
The nature/nurture debate is not over and it is not immaterial. If hormonal issues, endocrine disruptors create gayness that can be healed, does or should the Constitution make that condition equal to heterosexual procreative potential?
The issue of adoption and children of same sex units is problematic because the child has an interest in knowing for all kinds of reasons (emotional, medical, psychological) who their biological parents are and be afforded an opportunity to when possible forge relationships with both their biological parents, one of whom may have been forced for reasons of economic depression or lack to think they could not raise their own child.
Every human has a male and female biological parent by God's design. A same sex couple does not express that. A same sex couple deprives a child of one or the other of the gender exposure in the home.
Because same sex couples do not have procreative capacity to themselves create children, definitionally, when they want children they are taking someone else's. When a married hetero couple have children and the gay man leaves to marry another gay man, if that union has the same status legally as a hetero union, and the two male couple make more money than the stay at home unemployed biological mother, the court can rule that the child go where the affluence is in the 'best interest of the child' which has the capacity to emotionally destroy some women who gave up everything for their families only to be cheated on by seducing gay men.
Everything not expressly delegated to the Federal Government under the Constitution is and should be left to the States under basic 10th Amendment federalist principles. There is no better example of where the wisdom of that supports a moral outcome.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Sunday, April 26, 2015
The Idolotry of Homo-Erotic Love
Otherwise titled "Sacred Golden Calves With Tight Asses"
I Want Therefore I Can
That is the syllogism that runs the homosexual marriage madness. The claim is- I am gay, I want to have gay sex, for a lifetime with a gay person therefore I can, I must, I have a right. The reference point for the 'rightness' of the action is the person desiring it. Its right because it feels right to, lets call him Fred.
Fred is gay, Fred falls in love with Steve, Fred craves Steve's anus. The longing, the craving for all of Steve and especially how his anus feels, says Fred is 'Sacred.'
Sacred has no other reference point there then than Fred and maybe Steve.
When there is no other reference point for what is Sacred than yourself, or the Right of something than yourself, you have made an idol of yourself.
Sacred references a deity by definition- it means holiness in the realm of Godly. If your reference point for Sacred is what you feel like you have made a Sacred Cow, an Idol of Yourself and your desires.
We are building the hugest Sacred Golden Calf in the history of mankind now and putting it in the middle of the Supreme Court with its tail swishing to reveal its hemorroidal anus.
I Want Therefore I Can
That is the syllogism that runs the homosexual marriage madness. The claim is- I am gay, I want to have gay sex, for a lifetime with a gay person therefore I can, I must, I have a right. The reference point for the 'rightness' of the action is the person desiring it. Its right because it feels right to, lets call him Fred.
Fred is gay, Fred falls in love with Steve, Fred craves Steve's anus. The longing, the craving for all of Steve and especially how his anus feels, says Fred is 'Sacred.'
Sacred has no other reference point there then than Fred and maybe Steve.
When there is no other reference point for what is Sacred than yourself, or the Right of something than yourself, you have made an idol of yourself.
Sacred references a deity by definition- it means holiness in the realm of Godly. If your reference point for Sacred is what you feel like you have made a Sacred Cow, an Idol of Yourself and your desires.
We are building the hugest Sacred Golden Calf in the history of mankind now and putting it in the middle of the Supreme Court with its tail swishing to reveal its hemorroidal anus.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Let them Eat Cake
Just Made By Someone Else, Part II.
You don't get a wedding cake typically at Safeway, Giant or the local Shoprite. A wedding cake maker is a specialty baker who knows how to tier large cakes and decorate them appropriately. There are wedding cake design contests, there are people who do nothing but wedding cakes. There are mom and pop bakeries who specialize in them.
A wedding cake is a custom service creating a custom product, which typically involves sitting down with clients/customers and discussing their preferences for flavor cake and icing, style of decoration and topper. They can run on average between $500 and $1,000 a cake, (or more) and delivery arrangements sometimes have fees attached to the wedding reception venue location. A baker uses massive amounts of labor, time and other resources to make a huge wedding cake. The baker knows its for a wedding (sometimes even where the reception is) and knows it is for a gay wedding.
Some Restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to people without shoes. Others without jacket and tie. Some at the beach insist you must wear a shirt to be served-no dining in your bathing suit. These are right of refusals based on objectionable conduct.
If a gay person wants to get a special custom cake for the behavior and the baker disapproves of the conduct should that baker have a similar right of refusal to reject service based on objectionable conduct. This is not the same as a public accommodation anti-discrimination based on race because there is no conduct involved in simply being black. Neither is this like where there a public accommodation problem if a gay person wanted to get a cake and they were being denied service because they self-identify as gay, like, for example, if someone refused to sell them a birthday cake. A baker disapproving of a gay wedding is disapproving of the CONDUCT of the gay person or two gay people, not disapproving of the person, qua gay person.
The constitution does not demand that all CONDUCT must be accepted by every public accommodation. Public accommodations like bars are all allowed to throw people out for being loud drunks who throw glasses against the wall. Public accommodations like restaurants can declare themselves "No Smoking" restaurants and refuse service to people who smoke. A bar can blatantly discriminate against all drunks who throw glasses against the walls. Restaurants can blatantly discriminate against people smoking.
Even public accommodations anti-discrimination state statutes which say you cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, can reserve the right to discriminate based on CONDUCT of those classifications. A restaurant can kick out a black person smoking or a female who comes in topless by refusing service.
A bar can discriminate against gender of a woman if she comes in topless and refuse service. A restaurant can discriminate against any black person if he comes in carrying firearms shouting he will kill someone by refusing service. Any bar or any restaurant can refuse service to a drunk disruptive patron who is a designated driver by refusing service and kicking them out.
To make any baker liable under the anti-discrimination public accommodation rules based on their refusal to cater a gay wedding is not legally supportable because they are not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in doing that. They are discriminating on the basis of the CONDUCT of
someone with a sexual orientation.
The difference between CONDUCT (or behavior) and generic traits- race, gender, gender- oriented, national origin, classifications is the difference that makes a difference. All laws are predicated on morality attached and imputed to CONDUCT, otherwise known as BEHAVIOR.
And all CONDUCT is not born Equally. That is not ANYWHERE in the Constitution.
You don't get a wedding cake typically at Safeway, Giant or the local Shoprite. A wedding cake maker is a specialty baker who knows how to tier large cakes and decorate them appropriately. There are wedding cake design contests, there are people who do nothing but wedding cakes. There are mom and pop bakeries who specialize in them.
A wedding cake is a custom service creating a custom product, which typically involves sitting down with clients/customers and discussing their preferences for flavor cake and icing, style of decoration and topper. They can run on average between $500 and $1,000 a cake, (or more) and delivery arrangements sometimes have fees attached to the wedding reception venue location. A baker uses massive amounts of labor, time and other resources to make a huge wedding cake. The baker knows its for a wedding (sometimes even where the reception is) and knows it is for a gay wedding.
Some Restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to people without shoes. Others without jacket and tie. Some at the beach insist you must wear a shirt to be served-no dining in your bathing suit. These are right of refusals based on objectionable conduct.
If a gay person wants to get a special custom cake for the behavior and the baker disapproves of the conduct should that baker have a similar right of refusal to reject service based on objectionable conduct. This is not the same as a public accommodation anti-discrimination based on race because there is no conduct involved in simply being black. Neither is this like where there a public accommodation problem if a gay person wanted to get a cake and they were being denied service because they self-identify as gay, like, for example, if someone refused to sell them a birthday cake. A baker disapproving of a gay wedding is disapproving of the CONDUCT of the gay person or two gay people, not disapproving of the person, qua gay person.
The constitution does not demand that all CONDUCT must be accepted by every public accommodation. Public accommodations like bars are all allowed to throw people out for being loud drunks who throw glasses against the wall. Public accommodations like restaurants can declare themselves "No Smoking" restaurants and refuse service to people who smoke. A bar can blatantly discriminate against all drunks who throw glasses against the walls. Restaurants can blatantly discriminate against people smoking.
Even public accommodations anti-discrimination state statutes which say you cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, can reserve the right to discriminate based on CONDUCT of those classifications. A restaurant can kick out a black person smoking or a female who comes in topless by refusing service.
A bar can discriminate against gender of a woman if she comes in topless and refuse service. A restaurant can discriminate against any black person if he comes in carrying firearms shouting he will kill someone by refusing service. Any bar or any restaurant can refuse service to a drunk disruptive patron who is a designated driver by refusing service and kicking them out.
To make any baker liable under the anti-discrimination public accommodation rules based on their refusal to cater a gay wedding is not legally supportable because they are not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in doing that. They are discriminating on the basis of the CONDUCT of
someone with a sexual orientation.
The difference between CONDUCT (or behavior) and generic traits- race, gender, gender- oriented, national origin, classifications is the difference that makes a difference. All laws are predicated on morality attached and imputed to CONDUCT, otherwise known as BEHAVIOR.
And all CONDUCT is not born Equally. That is not ANYWHERE in the Constitution.
Friday, April 24, 2015
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Let Them Eat Cake
Made By Someone Else
There are kinds of discrimination that are deemed acceptable. For example, the catholic church discriminates against anyone not officially a member in receiving the eucharist- this discriminates against Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and anyone who hasn't received catechal instruction and been confirmed in the faith or a correlate apostolic faith recognized as catholic enough. Should a Jewish Orthodox synogogue be forced to allow Non Jewish men to read the Torah at services on non-discrimination grounds? Clearly, religious convictions have to be honored in a free society.
Now imagine a state law saying the church must serve communion/the eucharist to anyone who shows up and wants it or be fined, sued for damages and bankrupted out of business. No one would abide such a law. Its deeply offensive.
So why does a Christian baker have to make a cake for anyone who shows up and wants one?
Its a private business enterprise- run by a person of a faith conviction who does not approve. To quote John Stossel- forcing a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake 'IS NUTS.'
That baker might make a cake for a gay person's birthday or his bar mitzvah or mother's day. But a WEDDING CAKE is something that entails a baker's blessing of sorts- or participation in a ritual he finds offensive. Baking a wedding cake is a special labor of love entailing meeting with the clients to determine what kind, what flavor icing, how many layers, etc. to make a wedding cake- and even if it were not and merely a business transaction, the art of making it for a wedding is different than for another occasion.
There are plenty of people who would not think twice about it and would want the business. There are other people who on principle wouldn't want to get near it. The state should not be in the business of forcing ANYONE to violate their conscience or principles by transacting a sort of business they find offensive on religious grounds.
Suppose a man wanted to marry his dog- should the state be in the business of forcing a baker to make a cake for the blessed union of Fred and Fido or be put out of business so NO ONE gets to eat cake?
It is perhaps tolerable that there are certain enclaves of sexual topsyturveydom- Fire Island, San Francisco, West Hollywood. But for the Supreme Court to force the entire country as a matter of universal law of the land to acknowledge gay marriage and force every enterprise to capitulate to its acceptance is beyond looney tooney, its obscene.
There are kinds of discrimination that are deemed acceptable. For example, the catholic church discriminates against anyone not officially a member in receiving the eucharist- this discriminates against Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and anyone who hasn't received catechal instruction and been confirmed in the faith or a correlate apostolic faith recognized as catholic enough. Should a Jewish Orthodox synogogue be forced to allow Non Jewish men to read the Torah at services on non-discrimination grounds? Clearly, religious convictions have to be honored in a free society.
Now imagine a state law saying the church must serve communion/the eucharist to anyone who shows up and wants it or be fined, sued for damages and bankrupted out of business. No one would abide such a law. Its deeply offensive.
So why does a Christian baker have to make a cake for anyone who shows up and wants one?
Its a private business enterprise- run by a person of a faith conviction who does not approve. To quote John Stossel- forcing a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake 'IS NUTS.'
That baker might make a cake for a gay person's birthday or his bar mitzvah or mother's day. But a WEDDING CAKE is something that entails a baker's blessing of sorts- or participation in a ritual he finds offensive. Baking a wedding cake is a special labor of love entailing meeting with the clients to determine what kind, what flavor icing, how many layers, etc. to make a wedding cake- and even if it were not and merely a business transaction, the art of making it for a wedding is different than for another occasion.
There are plenty of people who would not think twice about it and would want the business. There are other people who on principle wouldn't want to get near it. The state should not be in the business of forcing ANYONE to violate their conscience or principles by transacting a sort of business they find offensive on religious grounds.
Suppose a man wanted to marry his dog- should the state be in the business of forcing a baker to make a cake for the blessed union of Fred and Fido or be put out of business so NO ONE gets to eat cake?
It is perhaps tolerable that there are certain enclaves of sexual topsyturveydom- Fire Island, San Francisco, West Hollywood. But for the Supreme Court to force the entire country as a matter of universal law of the land to acknowledge gay marriage and force every enterprise to capitulate to its acceptance is beyond looney tooney, its obscene.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
What is Man
That you are Mindful of Him or Her.
What an astounding proposition that there is One God who is 'mindful' of or actually thinks about beings he created called humans.
So mindful in fact that he wants them to operate at maximal capacity reaching their potential.
Actions falling short of that potential and the immense human dignity of their person in God's image can be another word for 'sin.' A non-judgmental way of describing 'sin' might just be- acts against the God designed maximal potential diminishing human dignity.
When someone is murdered, it is an affront against the intrinsic dignity of the life of a person. When someone is prideful it diminishes potential because a spiritual law is that the meek shall inherit the earth and God despises the proud. If you think you are already something you don't try to become better maximizing your potential.
What of actions that are against what is called the natural "complementarity" of male-female conjugal unions? An adulterous act will diminish the dignity of the union. A gay act will diminish the procreative potential of the parties. Perhaps God isn't condemning so much as deeply sad at the loss of potential.
But maybe He is as condemning as in an Adulterous situation. Scripture classifies it as sexual immorality. It is scripturally considered condemned and chastised. It will be prolific in the 'end times'. People will call good bad and visa versa.
People can be deeply in love with people of the same sex, and people are who don't have sexual urges tied to their emotional feelings or desires. These are different things. When people argue that gay people have no choice over whom to fall in love with that may be true, but it is not true that they have no choice regarding whether they allow that to flourish into full sexual contact with the other person.
God clearly thinks people have capacity to resist Adultery or he wouldn't have outlawed it.
God clearly thinks that people can have renewed minds and not fall into what he considers a depraved state of mind in expanding emotional feelings into sexual acts with an inappropriate person. One of the same sex is deemed inappropriate. Just like someone married to someone else is inappropriate, someone under the age of consent, a close family member, etc.
The premise that people don't have any control over sexual direction of their bodies should insult the intelligence of every thinking person. An attraction is not a sexual act. Behavior has intrinsic moral value- one way or the other.
The law regulates behavior, and all behaviors are not created equal.
What an astounding proposition that there is One God who is 'mindful' of or actually thinks about beings he created called humans.
So mindful in fact that he wants them to operate at maximal capacity reaching their potential.
Actions falling short of that potential and the immense human dignity of their person in God's image can be another word for 'sin.' A non-judgmental way of describing 'sin' might just be- acts against the God designed maximal potential diminishing human dignity.
When someone is murdered, it is an affront against the intrinsic dignity of the life of a person. When someone is prideful it diminishes potential because a spiritual law is that the meek shall inherit the earth and God despises the proud. If you think you are already something you don't try to become better maximizing your potential.
What of actions that are against what is called the natural "complementarity" of male-female conjugal unions? An adulterous act will diminish the dignity of the union. A gay act will diminish the procreative potential of the parties. Perhaps God isn't condemning so much as deeply sad at the loss of potential.
But maybe He is as condemning as in an Adulterous situation. Scripture classifies it as sexual immorality. It is scripturally considered condemned and chastised. It will be prolific in the 'end times'. People will call good bad and visa versa.
People can be deeply in love with people of the same sex, and people are who don't have sexual urges tied to their emotional feelings or desires. These are different things. When people argue that gay people have no choice over whom to fall in love with that may be true, but it is not true that they have no choice regarding whether they allow that to flourish into full sexual contact with the other person.
God clearly thinks people have capacity to resist Adultery or he wouldn't have outlawed it.
God clearly thinks that people can have renewed minds and not fall into what he considers a depraved state of mind in expanding emotional feelings into sexual acts with an inappropriate person. One of the same sex is deemed inappropriate. Just like someone married to someone else is inappropriate, someone under the age of consent, a close family member, etc.
The premise that people don't have any control over sexual direction of their bodies should insult the intelligence of every thinking person. An attraction is not a sexual act. Behavior has intrinsic moral value- one way or the other.
The law regulates behavior, and all behaviors are not created equal.
Monday, April 20, 2015
To Be or Not To Be
Gay- that is the Question, Whether it is Nobler in the Minds to
Renew one's mind in the Spirit.
Alcoholism is a condition not a disease. A condition can be managed, a disease must either be 'cured' or it flourishes. Some claim alcoholism and other addictions cannot be entirely eradicated if a person possesses it- the biochemical make up is permanent. Others disagree and say the biochemical composition of an alcoholic can change so the person is not an alcoholic any longer. But both models agree it can be managed by not drinking alcohol. A person who self identifies as an alcoholic can manage their condition by not drinking any alcohol. Its the premise behind AA meetings-if you can recondition yourself not to take a drink you won't manifest the alcoholism. If they do not drink any alcohol they may still be considered in their minds an alcoholic but a sober one. In the state in which they are not drinking anything they can't be considered a drunk. The difference between an alcoholic and a drunk is in behavior. A gay person may always consider themselves gay but this is a condition. There should be two different terms as there are in for "alcoholic" and "drunk" because one connotes a condition and the other a manifestation of the condition under certain circumstances. "Same Sex Attracted" is a condition which some say is curable, some not. However, Doing -Acting Gay is not the same as Being Gay. Thousands of people attest to the fact that one can condition oneself to being Not Gay Acting by Not Acting Gay. It is a manageable condition. The difference between same sex attracted people and gay acting people is in the behavior. Its a manageable condition- worth repeating. The only reason one might not wish to manage it is because they do not believe it is wrong. So the Being Gay entails an implicit moral judgment that one is entitled to be Gay and this is not wrong. There is where the Constitution has a right to make a moral judgment as all laws are predicated on morality. To claim some civil right on equal protection grounds over something that is a manageable condition intrinsically unavoidably is loaded with the moral judgment that this behavior is moral. Neither the founders intent, nor The Constitution can support that conclusion.
Renew one's mind in the Spirit.
Alcoholism is a condition not a disease. A condition can be managed, a disease must either be 'cured' or it flourishes. Some claim alcoholism and other addictions cannot be entirely eradicated if a person possesses it- the biochemical make up is permanent. Others disagree and say the biochemical composition of an alcoholic can change so the person is not an alcoholic any longer. But both models agree it can be managed by not drinking alcohol. A person who self identifies as an alcoholic can manage their condition by not drinking any alcohol. Its the premise behind AA meetings-if you can recondition yourself not to take a drink you won't manifest the alcoholism. If they do not drink any alcohol they may still be considered in their minds an alcoholic but a sober one. In the state in which they are not drinking anything they can't be considered a drunk. The difference between an alcoholic and a drunk is in behavior. A gay person may always consider themselves gay but this is a condition. There should be two different terms as there are in for "alcoholic" and "drunk" because one connotes a condition and the other a manifestation of the condition under certain circumstances. "Same Sex Attracted" is a condition which some say is curable, some not. However, Doing -Acting Gay is not the same as Being Gay. Thousands of people attest to the fact that one can condition oneself to being Not Gay Acting by Not Acting Gay. It is a manageable condition. The difference between same sex attracted people and gay acting people is in the behavior. Its a manageable condition- worth repeating. The only reason one might not wish to manage it is because they do not believe it is wrong. So the Being Gay entails an implicit moral judgment that one is entitled to be Gay and this is not wrong. There is where the Constitution has a right to make a moral judgment as all laws are predicated on morality. To claim some civil right on equal protection grounds over something that is a manageable condition intrinsically unavoidably is loaded with the moral judgment that this behavior is moral. Neither the founders intent, nor The Constitution can support that conclusion.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Women in Peacemaking
NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US
The Vatican held another conference. This time women ran the show.
And a new meme is born: Nothing About Us Without Us.
Wach http://www.romereports.com/pg161114-women-in-conflict-resolution-progress-has-been-made-but-more-needs-to-be-done-en
The Vatican held another conference. This time women ran the show.
And a new meme is born: Nothing About Us Without Us.
Wach http://www.romereports.com/pg161114-women-in-conflict-resolution-progress-has-been-made-but-more-needs-to-be-done-en
Friday, April 17, 2015
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
DO NOT BE DECEIVED
Galatians 6:7
DO NOT BE DECEIVED. GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED. A MAN REAPS WHAT HE SOWS.
1st Corinthians 6:9
DO NOT BE DECEIVED
neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…
and another translation reads "men who sleep with men" in place of "homosexuals."
There were a lot of false teachers so it bore repeating: Do Not Be Deceived. What is the context of these sayings?
DO NOT BE DECEIVED. GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED. A MAN REAPS WHAT HE SOWS.
1st Corinthians 6:9
DO NOT BE DECEIVED
neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…
and another translation reads "men who sleep with men" in place of "homosexuals."
There were a lot of false teachers so it bore repeating: Do Not Be Deceived. What is the context of these sayings?
And do only backwoods backwater racist anti-gay KKK people believe these sayings from the bible to be true and not antiquated draconian mean sentiments that should be jettisoned like the prohibition on eating shellfish in the age of refrigeration?
Jews of the time of Jesus had a strict morality code. There were marriage contracts which were both sacred and legal. Men and women's conduct with regard to their interaction and their sexuality was regulated as a matter of religious piety and righteousness which was believed to exist as a holiness code external to their desires. This was fundamentally at odds with pagan Greek culture which reveled in excessive sexual exploration and had no prohibition of morally on any type of sexuality which was called 'hedonism' as a philosophy. In Jewish culture homosexuality was considered as unspeakably condemnable as it is in Muslim culture today. Large portions of the Muslim world live in the morality code regarding homosexuality that the Jewish ancient world lived in. It was considered so perverse a person could be stoned for it.
Paul founded a church in one of the larger cities in first century Greece called Corinth. He wrote three letters after he travelled from Corinth to the fledgling congregation there instructing them in the Faith of the Jews' Messiah Jesus (Yeshua) and giving them encouragement.
Corinth was on an Isthmus, it was a large trading port city. It was most famous for one thing: it had the enormous Temple of Afridite in it. The Temple was a building three times larger than the Supreme Court .People from all over the Greek pagan world came to importune this fertility godess by sleeping with the male and female Temple Prostitutes that lived in the Temple and fed off the offerings.
Like a lot of "hello Sailor" port towns it was a hotbed of sexual freeforalldom.
Paul, a very righteous Jew, a learned trained Pharisee who preached to the Gentile world wrote to the "Corinthians" (inhabitants of Corinth) and said in extremely firm, clear, strong terms- DO NOT BE DECEIVED. There was a lot of false teaching he was combatting.
DO NOT BE DECEIVED. Homosexuals, Men who sleep with Men WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD. They don't go to heaven. He clearly coupled conduct with belief or faith (the very definition of a religion) and said that there is a certain kind of conduct that is flatly not acceptable. By Jewish standards, which Jesus never changed, the Corinthians were a mess in their sexual promiscuity. This was not on for Paul.
Gays will often say (and even some gay false teaching so called theologians with high degree pedigrees teaching in prominent places) that Jesus never mentioned a word about gays or homosexuals and hung out with 12 guys (wink wink.) We should infer from the fact that Jesus never mentions homosexuality exactly the same thing that we should infer from the fact that he never says Do Not Throw Acid On Your Child's Face- because both things were considered so unmentionably disgustingly wrong to the Jews it went without saying. In the roughly three years we know of Jesus teaching it was predominantly to a Jewish audience (there are exceptions-syrophoenecian woman, samaritans, woman at the well, etc..). He lived in Galilee, mostly we think around Capernaum, and he travelled around what we think of as Israel, likely got to Jordan and Lebanon, still largely addressing Jewish congregations of people likely to have heard about the great Jewish healer and miracle worker. He simply would never have thought it remotely necessary to address a Jewish congregation about men not sleeping with men-because the Jews would have stoned on the spot such a person.
People who use the moral teachings of the bible (even cling to them as a matter of life and death) of every Christian denomination in the world still believe Saint Paul on the subject of homosexuality. People with Ivy League degrees (such as myself), people who run corporations, the vast majority of people who attend Mass every week (twenty percent of the United States).
This teaching is true.
For the Supreme Court to undermine it, nullify it, mock it or demean it would be in the eyes of some Mocking God even if it caters to a principle of anti discrimination or equal justice for all consenting adults. If "all consenting adults" were the non discrimination template we would have to forget that any religion said anything wrong with adultery. To others at least it would be the height of moral outrage. To others still it would be just plain cowardice.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Losing the Plot
How the Rule of Law is undermined by Gay Religion
The Supreme Court will have totally lost credibility if it rules in favor of gay 'rituals' akin to marriage as a national anti-discrimination mandate.
We can discriminate legally in a variety of areas. We discriminate when we treat anyone who is a sex offender differently by putting their name on a registry to warn people. I will discriminate against anyone I believe to be drunk by not giving them car keys. I will discriminate against anyone I think will have sex in the back of the car by not giving them car keys- and whether or not you approve of sex in the back of the car, I reserve the right not to do it in my car and few people would have a problem with that. People's morality in matters of their enterprise or private life should be honored.
Gay rituals they want to call marriage cannot be analogized to inter-racial dating or marriage and it is a borrowed shoe that does not fit. The conflation or confusion of the two as discrimination issues is what is motivating people like Obama to insist that the entire world has to accept gays together ritualized for so long as they both shall want it until their gay divorce.
The distinction is in conscious behavior, compulsions coupled with actions versus something that is a physiological trait. Gay is both an identity and an action. Being Gay and Acting Gay are two different things. We don't know enough to say that Being Gay is completely immutably an identity trait or not, and there are notable examples of people who once self-identified as gay and now are married to opposite sex people with children, so we know that it can change. Ellen DeGeneres' First Wife, the Mayor of New York's wife and Angelina Jolie all once were in gay relationships and are now happily married with children. They trained their minds not to go there. It is hubris to suggest that because the loudest contingent of gays thinks they were 'born that way' immutably that all gays are like them. Who is to say that gay is the same for everyone who at one time self identified that way?
What makes gay discrimination more like the example of not condoning having sex in the back of the car with not discriminating against inter-racial marriage? The difference is in what you allow yourself to think is moral or not. Is it a behavior that has been universally condemned by most major world religions and their scholars as a behavior that is not only not productive for social progress but against what is perceived to be the will of God? Inter-racial marriage never had this condemnation, but to the contrary scripture supports it. In Numbers 22 when Moses married someone of another race (we assume darker) his sister Miriam scoffed and was put out of the camp for a few weeks to chill out as punishment for her racism. God doesn't like racists-he made them all beautifully in his image. On the other hand, God wiped out two towns for flagrant homosexual debauchery and there are warnings after warnings in scripture regarding how sexual immorality of the same gender kind is an automatic bar from the kingdom of heaven. One of the defining features of early Christianity was that it separated itself from the greek pagan homo-erotic sexually exploring neighbors who were indifferent to homosexuality and in fact had pagan temple same sex temple prostitutes whom one could sleep with in order to get to pagan heaven. Don't you know, Paul and others warned that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom. This category is put right up there with drunkards in that regard.
So scripture is clear. Homosexuality for Christians and Jews was such a no-starter that it didn't have to be expounded upon much. "Don't you know" means- what! have you people been living under a rock?? Have you lost your minds? Don't you know that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom! How do you not know this?
So there are religions- ones that have been operable for thousands of years, who maintain as an intrinsic part of their moral code that homosexuality is not something that should be humored. It existed in the pagan world during Jesus' time. We don't have to guess about these things-scripture is clear enough.
So in modern America where the Supreme Court has to balance First Amendment interests of freedom of religion with individual liberties on equal protection grounds, how should it rule? First, it has to recognize that the gay rights movement is a religion also. The (non) establishment clause prohibits the imposition of one religion over another which is what the gay rights movement seeks to impose. A religion is a belief structure coupled with a behavioral code. The gay rights movement and agenda is a religion that is one hundred percent at odds with traditional Christianity and some say Orthodox Judaism.
Second the discrimination framework should be rejected as an equal protection matter because clearly some discrimination of immorality is permitted. All of law is predicated on moral norms that give preference to moral behavior over immoral behavior. To do what the gay religion is asking is tantamount to the Supreme Court declaring that homosexuality is not immoral. The Supreme Court would be thus institutionalizing a moral structure one hundred percent against what 80 percent of the country believes-that there is a moral law outside one's preferences or desire and this moral structure has spoken on the issue of homosexuality as dictated by the scriptures that guide their religion.
To nullify a moral code is nihilistic. In this case it seeks to favor the religion of hedonism and fleshly compulsion over the religion that says a mind can be renewed and regenerated into righteousness and that righteousness has a meaning ascertainable not merely by self referentially looking at one's carnal desires but exists as an objective moral code of behavior and such righteousness prohibits carnal acts of a same sex type. The religion that says self-restraint in fleshly matters is a fruit of the Spirit is something that has guided people trying to live righteously in this country since its puritan founding and that religion would be discriminated against if the court were to rule that all the demands of the gay ritualists prevail on equal protection grounds.
All laws are based on morality. When looking to say whose is more valid or should be preserved in legal codes, it is not wise to jettison two to three thousand years of wisdom of the sages.
The Supreme Court will have totally lost credibility if it rules in favor of gay 'rituals' akin to marriage as a national anti-discrimination mandate.
We can discriminate legally in a variety of areas. We discriminate when we treat anyone who is a sex offender differently by putting their name on a registry to warn people. I will discriminate against anyone I believe to be drunk by not giving them car keys. I will discriminate against anyone I think will have sex in the back of the car by not giving them car keys- and whether or not you approve of sex in the back of the car, I reserve the right not to do it in my car and few people would have a problem with that. People's morality in matters of their enterprise or private life should be honored.
Gay rituals they want to call marriage cannot be analogized to inter-racial dating or marriage and it is a borrowed shoe that does not fit. The conflation or confusion of the two as discrimination issues is what is motivating people like Obama to insist that the entire world has to accept gays together ritualized for so long as they both shall want it until their gay divorce.
The distinction is in conscious behavior, compulsions coupled with actions versus something that is a physiological trait. Gay is both an identity and an action. Being Gay and Acting Gay are two different things. We don't know enough to say that Being Gay is completely immutably an identity trait or not, and there are notable examples of people who once self-identified as gay and now are married to opposite sex people with children, so we know that it can change. Ellen DeGeneres' First Wife, the Mayor of New York's wife and Angelina Jolie all once were in gay relationships and are now happily married with children. They trained their minds not to go there. It is hubris to suggest that because the loudest contingent of gays thinks they were 'born that way' immutably that all gays are like them. Who is to say that gay is the same for everyone who at one time self identified that way?
What makes gay discrimination more like the example of not condoning having sex in the back of the car with not discriminating against inter-racial marriage? The difference is in what you allow yourself to think is moral or not. Is it a behavior that has been universally condemned by most major world religions and their scholars as a behavior that is not only not productive for social progress but against what is perceived to be the will of God? Inter-racial marriage never had this condemnation, but to the contrary scripture supports it. In Numbers 22 when Moses married someone of another race (we assume darker) his sister Miriam scoffed and was put out of the camp for a few weeks to chill out as punishment for her racism. God doesn't like racists-he made them all beautifully in his image. On the other hand, God wiped out two towns for flagrant homosexual debauchery and there are warnings after warnings in scripture regarding how sexual immorality of the same gender kind is an automatic bar from the kingdom of heaven. One of the defining features of early Christianity was that it separated itself from the greek pagan homo-erotic sexually exploring neighbors who were indifferent to homosexuality and in fact had pagan temple same sex temple prostitutes whom one could sleep with in order to get to pagan heaven. Don't you know, Paul and others warned that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom. This category is put right up there with drunkards in that regard.
So scripture is clear. Homosexuality for Christians and Jews was such a no-starter that it didn't have to be expounded upon much. "Don't you know" means- what! have you people been living under a rock?? Have you lost your minds? Don't you know that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom! How do you not know this?
So there are religions- ones that have been operable for thousands of years, who maintain as an intrinsic part of their moral code that homosexuality is not something that should be humored. It existed in the pagan world during Jesus' time. We don't have to guess about these things-scripture is clear enough.
So in modern America where the Supreme Court has to balance First Amendment interests of freedom of religion with individual liberties on equal protection grounds, how should it rule? First, it has to recognize that the gay rights movement is a religion also. The (non) establishment clause prohibits the imposition of one religion over another which is what the gay rights movement seeks to impose. A religion is a belief structure coupled with a behavioral code. The gay rights movement and agenda is a religion that is one hundred percent at odds with traditional Christianity and some say Orthodox Judaism.
Second the discrimination framework should be rejected as an equal protection matter because clearly some discrimination of immorality is permitted. All of law is predicated on moral norms that give preference to moral behavior over immoral behavior. To do what the gay religion is asking is tantamount to the Supreme Court declaring that homosexuality is not immoral. The Supreme Court would be thus institutionalizing a moral structure one hundred percent against what 80 percent of the country believes-that there is a moral law outside one's preferences or desire and this moral structure has spoken on the issue of homosexuality as dictated by the scriptures that guide their religion.
To nullify a moral code is nihilistic. In this case it seeks to favor the religion of hedonism and fleshly compulsion over the religion that says a mind can be renewed and regenerated into righteousness and that righteousness has a meaning ascertainable not merely by self referentially looking at one's carnal desires but exists as an objective moral code of behavior and such righteousness prohibits carnal acts of a same sex type. The religion that says self-restraint in fleshly matters is a fruit of the Spirit is something that has guided people trying to live righteously in this country since its puritan founding and that religion would be discriminated against if the court were to rule that all the demands of the gay ritualists prevail on equal protection grounds.
All laws are based on morality. When looking to say whose is more valid or should be preserved in legal codes, it is not wise to jettison two to three thousand years of wisdom of the sages.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
Thursday, April 02, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)