I was out of town over the Memorial Day weekend and was not able to salute those who have given their lives for the principles upon which this Republic stands.
My son, however, took part in our local community's Remembrance celebration at our local cemetary. As a first year Webelo, his pack, along with other Cub and Boy Scouts, were asked to stand at attention during the entire ceremony. They stood at attention through the speeches by the mayor and by a couple of the veterans. They stood through the 21-gun salute and other symbolism of the ceremony.
When I asked my son about it, he stated, "We just stood there and did nothing."
My wife and I explained that it might seem like nothing to him but it wasn't nothing to those veterans that were at the ceremony. They had fought in these past wars and probably watched their fellow soldiers and friends die.
We explained that standing at attention is to place honor on that which the attention is paid. These old veterans saw young scouts standing at attention, honoring them and the principles for which they fought and died.
These old veterans watched, as the next generation that will be responsible for defending liberty, honored those who came before; those who have taken up, and laid down their lives for, that cause.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
California's Top Court Legalizes Polygamy
Breaking news out of California as reported by major news outlets, the California Supreme Court declared that multiple people "in the nation's biggest state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the polygamy rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of (group) matrimony."
"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case.
What you say? The Court didn't legalize multiple partner relationships but rather legalized same-sex marriages. But if, as Robin Tyler states, it all "boils down to love" on what grounds does the Court deny people who want to have multiple spouses? Yet, same-sex marriage advocates adamantly claim that only two individuals are allowed to enter into a marriage relationship.
Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion, promotes the lie that grounds same-sex marriage:
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
Wrong. There was nothing stopping homosexuals from establishing "a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person". In fact, abcnews reports that "Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, 'Pali, will you marry me?' " Was Rizzo and Pali not in a loving and long-term committed relationship for 19 years? And they did so without marriage!
Yet, even that is not the big lie. The big lie is the claim that homosexuals do not have the right to marry. Wrong. Homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage as every other citizen as long as they adhere to the criteria to which that every other citizen, that is, everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not too closely related and to which both meet any age requirements.
But homosexuals say this criteria discriminates against them because they cannot marry whomever they wish. But no one has the right to marry whomever they wish. You cannot marry a nine-year old. You cannot marry your sibling.
In fact, same-sex marriage advocates do not want those types of relationships to be recognized as marriage. In other words, they are perfectly fine with promoting marrying whomever one wants as long as it is only applied to a same-sex relationship. Once the argument is applied to other types of relationships, same-sex marriage advocates suddenly have no problem discriminating.
Unrepentant lawbreaker and San Francisco "mayor" Gavin Newsome stated, "It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California". No word yet from Newsome on why he has yet to stand up and break the law for the human dignity and human rights of those who want multiple spouses.
We have rights and dignity because of the type of beings we are, i.e. human (for a more in-depth analysis, see The Foundation for Human Rights). We are made a certain way. But the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M) - of which Newsome and George belong - can't argue that way rationally as evidenced by the "we are born that way" argument.
If one is born with a sexual orientation for the same gender they are also born with the physical sexual organs that are designed for the opposite gender. GET 'M never acknowledges the latter because to make that fundamental observation of nature is to admit that there is an inherent contradiction for the homosexual. It recognizes that homosexuality is NOT the natural design of the human being.
Same-sex marriage advocates say we cannot appeal to nature to determine the purpose of marriage. But then they say we must limit marriage to two people. The concept of two in a marital relationship goes to the very heart of our natures in sexual union - the idea of coupling. If it is discriminatory to appeal to the way our sexual organs are designed to fit together with the opposite gender then on what grounds do we say that those organs have to fit together between only two. Why not a threesome? Why not one man and multiple wives which has been recognized as marriage throughout history?
Same-sex marriage is an arbitrary concept. Advocates want to do away with only that criteria that keeps their relationships from being affirmed. This isn't about human rights and dignity. The is rights language GET 'M uses to create the necessary emotional response to their cause.
It is about elevating same-sex relationships to the same level as opposite-sex relationships. If any relationship was allowed then all relationships would be equal and then same-sex relationships wouldn't be elevated and special. It would be just one of many types of relationships.
Same-sex marriage is, by definition, a bigoted and discriminatory concept.
"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case.
What you say? The Court didn't legalize multiple partner relationships but rather legalized same-sex marriages. But if, as Robin Tyler states, it all "boils down to love" on what grounds does the Court deny people who want to have multiple spouses? Yet, same-sex marriage advocates adamantly claim that only two individuals are allowed to enter into a marriage relationship.
Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion, promotes the lie that grounds same-sex marriage:
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
Wrong. There was nothing stopping homosexuals from establishing "a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person". In fact, abcnews reports that "Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, 'Pali, will you marry me?' " Was Rizzo and Pali not in a loving and long-term committed relationship for 19 years? And they did so without marriage!
Yet, even that is not the big lie. The big lie is the claim that homosexuals do not have the right to marry. Wrong. Homosexuals have always had the same rights to marriage as every other citizen as long as they adhere to the criteria to which that every other citizen, that is, everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender who they are not too closely related and to which both meet any age requirements.
But homosexuals say this criteria discriminates against them because they cannot marry whomever they wish. But no one has the right to marry whomever they wish. You cannot marry a nine-year old. You cannot marry your sibling.
In fact, same-sex marriage advocates do not want those types of relationships to be recognized as marriage. In other words, they are perfectly fine with promoting marrying whomever one wants as long as it is only applied to a same-sex relationship. Once the argument is applied to other types of relationships, same-sex marriage advocates suddenly have no problem discriminating.
Unrepentant lawbreaker and San Francisco "mayor" Gavin Newsome stated, "It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California". No word yet from Newsome on why he has yet to stand up and break the law for the human dignity and human rights of those who want multiple spouses.
We have rights and dignity because of the type of beings we are, i.e. human (for a more in-depth analysis, see The Foundation for Human Rights). We are made a certain way. But the Gay "Equality" Totalitarian Movement (GET 'M) - of which Newsome and George belong - can't argue that way rationally as evidenced by the "we are born that way" argument.
If one is born with a sexual orientation for the same gender they are also born with the physical sexual organs that are designed for the opposite gender. GET 'M never acknowledges the latter because to make that fundamental observation of nature is to admit that there is an inherent contradiction for the homosexual. It recognizes that homosexuality is NOT the natural design of the human being.
Same-sex marriage advocates say we cannot appeal to nature to determine the purpose of marriage. But then they say we must limit marriage to two people. The concept of two in a marital relationship goes to the very heart of our natures in sexual union - the idea of coupling. If it is discriminatory to appeal to the way our sexual organs are designed to fit together with the opposite gender then on what grounds do we say that those organs have to fit together between only two. Why not a threesome? Why not one man and multiple wives which has been recognized as marriage throughout history?
Same-sex marriage is an arbitrary concept. Advocates want to do away with only that criteria that keeps their relationships from being affirmed. This isn't about human rights and dignity. The is rights language GET 'M uses to create the necessary emotional response to their cause.
It is about elevating same-sex relationships to the same level as opposite-sex relationships. If any relationship was allowed then all relationships would be equal and then same-sex relationships wouldn't be elevated and special. It would be just one of many types of relationships.
Same-sex marriage is, by definition, a bigoted and discriminatory concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)