Pages of interest

News that matters...

Loading...

Friday, July 1, 2011

In Defense of Morality.

By George:
(Published at www.unmitigated-truth.com)

In a previous post I have discussed the moral implications of New York State's homosexual "marriage" law. I would like to expand on the topic as an extension of the previous post, but before we continue with the scrutiny regarding issues surrounding the justification of public homosexual lifestyles, we first have to set certain parameters.

As human beings, we live in societies that have to conform to certain rules and regulations in order to be able to function. Failing this, we fall into anarchy, which is outside of the purview of this analysis. These rules, or "laws", have to be established, monitored and enforced. So then the question is, who will create these societal laws and who will monitor and enforce them? Since there needs to be two distinct levels of laws, the answer is multifaceted.

 One set of laws has to be inviolate throughout the lifecycle of society, and is not dependent on the whims and foibles of the inhabitants. These are laws that of necessity are accepted from a Higher Power, that we call God, and we classify these laws as Morality. The Ten Commandments would be a ready example in our Western Society. Without these baseline absolutes, no matter how socially and technologically advanced the society is, the stability of this civilization is balanced on a razor's edge. We still wince to recall the relative ease with which the highly advanced humanist society of Germany redefined the definition of a race of people from human to subhuman, and then calmly and methodically went about exterminating them. God was missing from the equation.

The other set of laws that govern society are man-made, and they are meant to change as the civilization evolves, for better or for worse. Taxation, financial dealings and transportation infrastructure laws would be some examples. The ebb and flow of the governmental ruling body will control these. Of course you must realize that by necessity I am over simplifying these points for the sake of this discussion, but you get the point.

Problems are engendered when either through ignorance or deliberate malfeasance, the line between God given and man-made is blurred. When God's heretofore Commandments are relegated to suggestions, when the human legislators feel that it is in their province to legislate human behavior "rights", then is when we hit the slippery slope of societal decline. It will not be long before it will no longer be "murder", but euthanasia, no longer theft, but redistribution of wealth, no longer adultery, but open relationship, and no longer homosexuality, but an honorable "life choice".

As mentioned above, in a previous post I have spoken out against changing the definition of "marriage" to now include homosexual couples. While most of my readers agreed with me and some have praised me for speaking out, there were those few who have castigated me for my stance, and more specifically one young woman who keeps me honest by being my foil. I will address the salient points of her "Comments" offered to the previous article, and hopefully they will answer most of the questions in contention for any other critics as well.


Comment.
Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?

Reply.
What you call Homophobia is a term invented by the P.C. Elite, to place guilt on people who don't buy into the whitewashing of a lifestyle that is contra to the preservation of humanity.

The fact that you quote the "450 species" statistic, only buttresses my argument that "Man is distinguished from the lower animals by his inherent and instinctive knowledge of right from wrong, and having the ability to overcome immoral and animalistic impulses." Man is the ONLY creature endowed with the power of speech as well as the qualities mentioned above and is therefore unique in nature.

If a person decides that he cannot contain his impulses, I will not judge that in the singular, because on his own anyone has the freedom of choice to emulate the "lower" animal species. What I will vehemently rail against is when these people with their "different" ideas now decide that I MUST be sympathetic to their cause of mainstreaming, and do whatever it takes to bring ME down to their level.

You see what really upsets me is the attitude that I MUST be understanding of their feelings, but they don't have to be understanding of MY feelings and Religious underpinnings.

Once again, I am not talking about individuals, because as I mentioned in the article, I get along with Homosexual friends and coworkers. When I speak out against the encroachment of the homosexual lobby on MY rights, I am referring to those whose organized militant stance is the stated conversion of Heterosexuals to their ideology or the acceptance thereof.

The Homosexual Marriage Issue is just that.


Comment.
... none of us *chooses* our sexual orientation. That is where you mistake "logic" of invented terminology and choice with something outside of your understanding.


..... It's *NOT* a choice of simply suppressing "lower" urges - that is a false equivalence that is VERY similar to the suggestion from 100 years ago that somehow Black people are "inferior" in some way to White people...I could use several different examples that have been used similarly. Sexual orientation has been shown to be (yes, biologically) as integral to most people as their skin color or eye color...as in, embedded in their DNA.


A hundred years hence, your arguments are going to be seen as ridiculous as the notion that interracial marriage is "abnormal"... you are on the wrong side of history.

Reply.
Although I always suspect research that was done for the purpose of validating a desired endgame, I will for the moment accept your statement that "sexual orientation is embedded in their DNA," as fact. So would you believe that the Rabbis in the Talmud (a compendium of Jewish commentators on the Oral Bible Traditions and Laws) have raised a form of this question.

The Talmud states that different people are born with different inherent proclivities, and for instance, some people are born with the "urge" to "spill blood." Well, there you have it, proof from the lore of Jewish Wisdom to your argument, and in fact this should give murderers and their lawyers great solace. But wait a minute. Let's continue with the Talmudic dialogue on this topic. The question is raised that if this is so, you should NOT be able to convict murderers since they were born with the "urge" and therefore cannot help themselves. The insight offered by the Rabbis is, that although God gives people challenges to overcome (to receive future rewards), God will not give anyone a challenge that he/she cannot conquer. The solution to their dilemma lies in finding a positive way of channeling their "urges" in a positive manner. You have the "urge" to "spill blood," become a butcher, a Mohel, or a surgeon etc... The only thing the Talmud does not offer are excuses.

Now I fail to see the relevance of your "Black people are "inferior" in some way to White people" argument, because people with Anti Social "urges" are actually given extra strength by God to overcome their challenges in a positive way. If they are not willing to expend the effort, or don't even try because they are told by the current crop of Atheistic Idiot Savants that their "lifestyle" is Normal and is in fact protected by a man-made law that supersedes God's law, then they have failed to live up to God's confidence in them and will eventually have to answer for that.

Incidentally, does the Talmud give us any insight as to God's reaction to homosexuality in general? Well, since you asked, Talmudic Scholars point out that as long as homosexuality is practiced in private, God is willing to abide with it. It is only when homosexuality is brought into the mainstream of society, and it is accepted and "glorified", that is when God will judge that Society. If after a series of warnings the populace does not "repent", God will then destroy that society, as He has done in the past to the Roman Empire, Greek Empire and others. So what form do God's "warnings" take? God works through Nature, and more specifically, God sends Natural Catastrophes with unnatural ferocity and unusual frequency. Think of fires, floods, earthquakes, Tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes etc... Boy am I glad that none of those things are happening to us yet (sarcasm intended).

And "yes", there are many topics "outside of my understanding," but this is not one of them, and History will vindicate me.


Comment.
(oh, and the argument that "because I have gay friends means I'm not homophobic" is the equivalent apologist language to "because I have Black friends means I'm not a racist"...in case you were unaware. Which was why I completely ignored that "shocker" ~ because it was not shocking at all.)

Reply.
So while you don't want anyone putting "labels" on homosexuals, you are quite comfortable placing the label of "Homophobe" on me in spite of the fact that you don't really know how I feel. This is a quite common device used by today's Liberals (which you are not - right?), to discredit an enemy with a label that has been pre-programmed with the proper venom. You are a Homophobe! You are a RACIST! It is not a matter of TRUTH or even relevance, but the 'Power" of the Label to demean.


Comment.
In a conversation with a family member, I mentioned some friends of mine & my husband's who have lived together for about four years now. They had a baby about 4-5 months after we had our youngest son. And they have no intentions of getting married. They are perfectly content with their current situation, both financially secure, deeply in love with each other, and have no plans of splitting up.


Now, the question that came to me (and this, from a very liberal family member) was, "then why don't they just get married?" The concern was less about societal standards, traditions, or religious reasons than it was about legal protections that even civil unions do not provide. And the questions have been posed to *them* as well by more conservative folks who see the tradition as being squandered - using the excuse "for the sake of the child" - and yet our friends have taken every imaginable precaution to ensure that their child is covered by insurances in both of their names, provisions made in the event that one of the parents dies, or -heaven forbid- should they split up for whatever reason.


Explain to me how people (on the conservative side) can justify the parallel arguments about legal provisions/traditional & societal expectations for the good to a straight couple who are happily in love with a child and no intentions of ever getting married - while simultaneously telling a same-sex couple that is just as in love and devoted (and sometime where children are also involved) that those equal protections provided by marriage don't apply to *them*, or that it really isn't about equality?


See, to me, if you call someone your *friend*, that implies that you see them as an equal...deserving of the same rights that you enjoy (not privileges, mind...but rights). If you view for *any* reason that they do not qualify for equality with the rest of society, then you do not consider them equal to you, and calling them *friend* is a bit dishonest. But that is a separate matter. My questions above are more about the glaring hypocrisies by the same people to two different categories of people that those in the conservative religious set seem more than happy to impose their ideologies on, whether or not society at large shares the ideologies.

Reply.
Don't you find it interesting that a heterosexual couple, for whom the institution of marriage was designed for the benefit of their offspring, will forgo the "rights" of the institution of marriage. Yet the homosexual community, who biologically are not in the offspring business, are all clamoring to enter into the institution of marriage. Forget about the "rights" offered by the marriage vows. They can name a law "The Hop-on-Pop Extravaganza" and give it the exact equal "rights" that traditional marriage has, and not have to call it marriage. This Marriage movement has NOTHING to do with "rights", and everything to do with the forced acceptance of their "lifestyle" into the mainstream.

As for your friends not choosing to embrace the traditional wedding route, I cannot speak to that since you gave no clue as to their reasoning. Of course their families would probably like to see them married, because they most likely have a Religious upbringing which proscribes marriage as the norm.

And finally, the allegations you make in your final paragraph are flawed. I have "friends" who practice a "lifestyle" that I cannot approve of, yet I do not judge them in that light as a "person". I agree that they should have all the "rights" that a society has to offer, as long as their "right" does not infringe on the "rights" of others. The problem is that these days everything that one can just imagine, suddenly becomes a "right". I have a right to burn the Flag. I have a right to take your Sacred Object and defecate on it. I have the right to lampoon the Prophet Mohammed in a cartoon. Oh wait.... I may not want that last "right" because some ideologue will kill me. So you see that "rights" are not really absolutes, but relativistic to the Society. And NO, you don't have the "right" to yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

And my dear friend and foil, Hypocrisy is alive and well in all facets of society, though in my opinion, it is by far more prevalent in the Liberal Democrat cause than anywhere else. Since you display intelligence and you seek the truth, I'm sure that you will agree that you have found it.

17 comments:

  1. George,

    First of all, I think that you are correct in your analysis - but I found a fatal flaw, which you will probably agree to as well.

    You said "These are laws that of necessity are accepted from a Higher Power, that we call God". The problem is that our society has become so 'Self' conscious that a good percentage of the population can't fathom, or agree in the concept of a greater power. My wife went to a secular college and there was a community of non 'religious' Jews that she interacted with. But there was a born again Christian who became the best of friends since they both shared the importance of god - even with different ways of expressing it. I don't think we can or should force Morality on society, but if there isn't a move towards that of some sort - there may still be issues....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
    Abraham Lincoln

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your problem, George, is that you are afraid. After reading your prose I suspect you fear and have long feared that you are homosexual. If you ARE homosexual, you shouldn't let that fear wreck your life. Everyone has some tendencies to the "other side of the fence." It DOES NOT mean you _have_ to go out and marry a guy. It only becomes a problem when your fear becomes a source of HATE. I am going to pray for you tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I have a right to take your Sacred Object and defecate on it."

    Do you have any idea how hurtful this is? To equate this to people who love each-other and want to spend their lives together? I HOPE you are not a religious person. If you are, you shall have some real 'splainin' to do come Judgment Day. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is amazing how the perverted mind works. I am quite certain that I was clear in defining what I was against. Yet I am being accused by Anonymous #2 of fear of being a homosexual and of hate. And Anonymous #3 is hurt by my example of "rights" gone wrong, and thinks that I am equating a specific example to homosexuals.

    The only way I see of coming to these conclusions is if they haven't read the whole article, or if the language was difficult for them to process. I'll try to clarify. I don't hate homosexuals, and though I personally believe that they are sinners, it is between them and God. What I don't want is anyone "legislating" that I have to believe that it is "normal" behavior, when the God clearly says contrary. NOT everything is a "right". Do you have the "right" to walk up to me and spit in my face? And if you do, that does NOT make it a "right".

    To answer the last question of Anonymous #3, if you had read the full article, you would know that I AM religious, and the only 'splainin' I will have to do at the final Judgement is, why I haven't spoken up earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have been on the road (and am in a hotel right now getting ready to sleep but will be home sometime tomorrow) and only saw this post today. I will read it in detail in a couple of days (need to rest), and will respond accordingly.

    Be well. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Watch this in detail before

    you read anything else I have to say. With an open heart. Look up the lyrics if you

    need help with context...but truly watch the video for its artistic components. Not

    the emotional pull, which is particularly easy to yield to with this song...the

    emotional pull is strong, because the song itself is beautiful...but open to the

    meaning of the song...the lyrics and the visual together. The blend. Take a step

    back. If you believe in God -and you do- take a BIG step back and LOOK through the

    eyes you insist that define morality. That is my first *very strong* suggestion for

    you before reading further in my response to you. Trust your heart and your mind to

    recognize the symbolisms, because they are *human*, not gay or straight or religious

    or non...they are "just" human. Trust your response first and foremost. Once you have

    taken the grand total of 10 minutes to do that, then move on to the next section of

    my reply to you.

    Okay.

    You said: "As human beings, we live in societies that have to conform to certain rules and regulations in order to be able to function. Failing this, we fall into anarchy, which is outside of the purview of this analysis. These rules, or "laws", have to be established, monitored and enforced. So then the question is, who will create these societal laws and who will monitor and enforce them? Since there needs to be two distinct levels of laws, the answer is multifaceted."

    My reply: I agree. Simply. I do not, however, agree to the how you divide the answers. Which I will get to.

    You said: "Problems are engendered when either through ignorance or deliberate malfeasance, the line between God given and man-made is blurred. When God's heretofore Commandments are relegated to suggestions, when the human legislators feel that it is in their province to legislate human behavior "rights", then is when we hit the slippery slope of societal decline. It will not be long before it will no longer be "murder", but euthanasia, no longer theft, but redistribution of wealth, no longer adultery, but open relationship, and no longer homosexuality, but an honorable "life choice".

    As mentioned above, in a previous post I have spoken out against changing the definition of "marriage" to now include homosexual couples. While most of my readers agreed with me and some have praised me for speaking out, there were those few who have castigated me for my stance, and more specifically one young woman who keeps me honest by being my foil. I will address the salient points of her "Comments" offered to the previous article, and hopefully they will answer most of the questions in contention for any other critics as well."


    My reply: Here, you chose to oversimplify. By creating an either/or, you opened up a false dichotomy. There are never simply two choices. Period. Real life dictates otherwise, George. To suggest that the mandates are dictated by "God" creates a brand of a priori argument that has not been established or justified. The moment you opened that argument (in your first sentence), you relegated the rest of your statement to irrelevance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You said: "Comment.
    Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?

    Reply.
    What you call Homophobia is a term invented by the P.C. Elite, to place guilt on people who don't buy into the whitewashing of a lifestyle that is contra to the preservation of humanity.

    The fact that you quote the "450 species" statistic, only buttresses my argument that "Man is distinguished from the lower animals by his inherent and instinctive knowledge of right from wrong, and having the ability to overcome immoral and animalistic impulses." Man is the ONLY creature endowed with the power of speech as well as the qualities mentioned above and is therefore unique in nature.

    If a person decides that he cannot contain his impulses, I will not judge that in the singular, because on his own anyone has the freedom of choice to emulate the "lower" animal species. What I will vehemently rail against is when these people with their "different" ideas now decide that I MUST be sympathetic to their cause of mainstreaming, and do whatever it takes to bring ME down to their level.

    You see what really upsets me is the attitude that I MUST be understanding of their feelings, but they don't have to be understanding of MY feelings and Religious underpinnings.

    Once again, I am not talking about individuals, because as I mentioned in the article, I get along with Homosexual friends and coworkers. When I speak out against the encroachment of the homosexual lobby on MY rights, I am referring to those whose organized militant stance is the stated conversion of Heterosexuals to their ideology or the acceptance thereof.

    The Homosexual Marriage Issue is just that."


    My reply: I do not distinguish "humans" from the rest of the so-called "lower" animals. That is the mistake of the bible. That is the mistake of people who have entitlement issues...those who strive to believe we are somehow "above" the rest of the animal kingdom...even while we continue to wage wars. It's a load of hogwash. It's not a matter of "controlling impulses", George. It's a matter of accepting that with which is a part of our very nature, and the demand to adhere to a false standard that creates the evil that the laws that you claim to adhere to warn against.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You said: "Comment.
    ... none of us *chooses* our sexual orientation. That is where you mistake "logic" of invented terminology and choice with something outside of your understanding.


    ..... It's *NOT* a choice of simply suppressing "lower" urges - that is a false equivalence that is VERY similar to the suggestion from 100 years ago that somehow Black people are "inferior" in some way to White people...I could use several different examples that have been used similarly. Sexual orientation has been shown to be (yes, biologically) as integral to most people as their skin color or eye color...as in, embedded in their DNA.


    A hundred years hence, your arguments are going to be seen as ridiculous as the notion that interracial marriage is "abnormal"... you are on the wrong side of history.

    Reply.
    Although I always suspect research that was done for the purpose of validating a desired endgame, I will for the moment accept your statement that "sexual orientation is embedded in their DNA," as fact. So would you believe that the Rabbis in the Talmud (a compendium of Jewish commentators on the Oral Bible Traditions and Laws) have raised a form of this question.

    The Talmud states that different people are born with different inherent proclivities, and for instance, some people are born with the "urge" to "spill blood." Well, there you have it, proof from the lore of Jewish Wisdom to your argument, and in fact this should give murderers and their lawyers great solace. But wait a minute. Let's continue with the Talmudic dialogue on this topic. The question is raised that if this is so, you should NOT be able to convict murderers since they were born with the "urge" and therefore cannot help themselves. The insight offered by the Rabbis is, that although God gives people challenges to overcome (to receive future rewards), God will not give anyone a challenge that he/she cannot conquer. The solution to their dilemma lies in finding a positive way of channeling their "urges" in a positive manner. You have the "urge" to "spill blood," become a butcher, a Mohel, or a surgeon etc... The only thing the Talmud does not offer are excuses.

    Now I fail to see the relevance of your "Black people are "inferior" in some way to White people" argument, because people with Anti Social "urges" are actually given extra strength by God to overcome their challenges in a positive way. If they are not willing to expend the effort, or don't even try because they are told by the current crop of Atheistic Idiot Savants that their "lifestyle" is Normal and is in fact protected by a man-made law that supersedes God's law, then they have failed to live up to God's confidence in them and will eventually have to answer for that.

    Incidentally, does the Talmud give us any insight as to God's reaction to homosexuality in general? Well, since you asked, Talmudic Scholars point out that as long as homosexuality is practiced in private, God is willing to abide with it. It is only when homosexuality is brought into the mainstream of society, and it is accepted and "glorified", that is when God will judge that Society. If after a series of warnings the populace does not "repent", God will then destroy that society, as He has done in the past to the Roman Empire, Greek Empire and others. So what form do God's "warnings" take? God works through Nature, and more specifically, God sends Natural Catastrophes with unnatural ferocity and unusual frequency. Think of fires, floods, earthquakes, Tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes etc... Boy am I glad that none of those things are happening to us yet (sarcasm intended).

    And "yes", there are many topics "outside of my understanding," but this is not one of them, and History will vindicate me."

    ReplyDelete
  10. My reply: Bullshit. Pure and simple. Your last sentence is the one I will answer to plainly. Let's revisit this in 10-20 years...and see who is vindicated. I suspect strongly you will be disappointed in the wager...and you won't be the first to bet against me to be disappointed. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. You said: "Comment.
    (oh, and the argument that "because I have gay friends means I'm not homophobic" is the equivalent apologist language to "because I have Black friends means I'm not a racist"...in case you were unaware. Which was why I completely ignored that "shocker" ~ because it was not shocking at all.)

    Reply.
    So while you don't want anyone putting "labels" on homosexuals, you are quite comfortable placing the label of "Homophobe" on me in spite of the fact that you don't really know how I feel. This is a quite common device used by today's Liberals (which you are not - right?), to discredit an enemy with a label that has been pre-programmed with the proper venom. You are a Homophobe! You are a RACIST! It is not a matter of TRUTH or even relevance, but the 'Power" of the Label to demean."


    My reply: I'm not calling you something you're not, George. That much is clear in your various justifications and rationalizations. If you were to call me a demeaning name that referred to my distrust of the neoconservative religious right-wing movement with which you presently appear to identify, I would not shy away from it. I would work to pull the parts out that do not label me...but I would probably just own up to it rather than make excuses like your response here seems content to do.

    Again, I'll come back to my reasoning on this shortly, because it is a central tenet to why I disagree with you so very strongly. *nod*

    ReplyDelete
  12. You said: "Comment.
    In a conversation with a family member, I mentioned some friends of mine & my husband's who have lived together for about four years now. They had a baby about 4-5 months after we had our youngest son. And they have no intentions of getting married. They are perfectly content with their current situation, both financially secure, deeply in love with each other, and have no plans of splitting up.


    Now, the question that came to me (and this, from a very liberal family member) was, "then why don't they just get married?" The concern was less about societal standards, traditions, or religious reasons than it was about legal protections that even civil unions do not provide. And the questions have been posed to *them* as well by more conservative folks who see the tradition as being squandered - using the excuse "for the sake of the child" - and yet our friends have taken every imaginable precaution to ensure that their child is covered by insurances in both of their names, provisions made in the event that one of the parents dies, or -heaven forbid- should they split up for whatever reason.
    [...]

    ReplyDelete
  13. [...] See, to me, if you call someone your *friend*, that implies that you see them as an equal...deserving of the same rights that you enjoy (not privileges, mind...but rights). If you view for *any* reason that they do not qualify for equality with the rest of society, then you do not consider them equal to you, and calling them *friend* is a bit dishonest. But that is a separate matter. My questions above are more about the glaring hypocrisies by the same people to two different categories of people that those in the conservative religious set seem more than happy to impose their ideologies on, whether or not society at large shares the ideologies.

    Reply.
    Don't you find it interesting that a heterosexual couple, for whom the institution of marriage was designed for the benefit of their offspring, will forgo the "rights" of the institution of marriage. Yet the homosexual community, who biologically are not in the offspring business, are all clamoring to enter into the institution of marriage. Forget about the "rights" offered by the marriage vows. They can name a law "The Hop-on-Pop Extravaganza" and give it the exact equal "rights" that traditional marriage has, and not have to call it marriage. This Marriage movement has NOTHING to do with "rights", and everything to do with the forced acceptance of their "lifestyle" into the mainstream.

    As for your friends not choosing to embrace the traditional wedding route, I cannot speak to that since you gave no clue as to their reasoning. Of course their families would probably like to see them married, because they most likely have a Religious upbringing which proscribes marriage as the norm.

    And finally, the allegations you make in your final paragraph are flawed. I have "friends" who practice a "lifestyle" that I cannot approve of, yet I do not judge them in that light as a "person". I agree that they should have all the "rights" that a society has to offer, as long as their "right" does not infringe on the "rights" of others. The problem is that these days everything that one can just imagine, suddenly becomes a "right". I have a right to burn the Flag. I have a right to take your Sacred Object and defecate on it. I have the right to lampoon the Prophet Mohammed in a cartoon. Oh wait.... I may not want that last "right" because some ideologue will kill me. So you see that "rights" are not really absolutes, but relativistic to the Society. And NO, you don't have the "right" to yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

    And my dear friend and foil, Hypocrisy is alive and well in all facets of society, though in my opinion, it is by far more prevalent in the Liberal Democrat cause than anywhere else. Since you display intelligence and you seek the truth, I'm sure that you will agree that you have found it."

    ReplyDelete
  14. My reply: No, I don't find what you define for the heterosexual couple designation anything particularly "special" that could not be extended to the homosexual couple. The intent to reproduce is not "limited" to heterosexuals -- but that is a topic that splits out beautifully in ways that dictate other separate arguments. It's not a television "reality show" that we're adhering to, George -- don't let the media fool you. What is "special" to us as heterosexuals is not particularly "sacred"... My friends who choose the path of matrimony is done for the same reasons I know them to have been for myself. A wholly chosen, individual path of sharing a lifetime full of all the trials and tribulations of being part of the human race, with all the good and bad that is entailed within it. It really IS that simple. Should heterosexuals be the only ones consigned to have "rules" for divorce...and all the nightmares embedded in that?

    I guess it comes to what I have a problem with overall...the lack of understanding that sexual orientation has anything to do with being anything OTHER than human. To stand by otherwise and claim some "God-given" justification is where I call out hypocrisy. You do NOT have the right to claim authority over "morality" (based on whatever definition YOU choose to live by) and demand that all of mortality abide by it...any more than any other religion or nonreligion can lay claim to the same (or similar) standards can.

    Morality is exempt from religious definition...just in case you fail to recognize that. Morals and ethics are not synonymous. I am an atheist...and have been subjected to morality test after morality test (I've failed them all) and ethics test after ethics test (and failed all those, too)...and YET, based upon the agreed-on morality and ethics definitions, I fit the requirements of a moral and ethical person.

    Hmmm. Imagine that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The comments to your blog entry are as follows:



    Comments:

    Aharon Fischman said...
    George,

    First of all, I think that you are correct in your analysis - but I found a fatal flaw, which you will probably agree to as well.

    You said "These are laws that of necessity are accepted from a Higher Power, that we call God". The problem is that our society has become so 'Self' conscious that a good percentage of the population can't fathom, or agree in the concept of a greater power. My wife went to a secular college and there was a community of non 'religious' Jews that she interacted with. But there was a born again Christian who became the best of friends since they both shared the importance of god - even with different ways of expressing it. I don't think we can or should force Morality on society, but if there isn't a move towards that of some sort - there may still be issues....

    July 1, 2011 7:40 PM
    Anonymous said...
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
    Abraham Lincoln

    July 2, 2011 8:34 AM
    Anonymous said...
    Your problem, George, is that you are afraid. After reading your prose I suspect you fear and have long feared that you are homosexual. If you ARE homosexual, you shouldn't let that fear wreck your life. Everyone has some tendencies to the "other side of the fence." It DOES NOT mean you _have_ to go out and marry a guy. It only becomes a problem when your fear becomes a source of HATE. I am going to pray for you tonight.

    July 4, 2011 10:12 PM
    Anonymous said...
    "I have a right to take your Sacred Object and defecate on it."

    Do you have any idea how hurtful this is? To equate this to people who love each-other and want to spend their lives together? I HOPE you are not a religious person. If you are, you shall have some real 'splainin' to do come Judgment Day. ;-)

    July 4, 2011 10:14 PM
    George said...
    It is amazing how the perverted mind works. I am quite certain that I was clear in defining what I was against. Yet I am being accused by Anonymous #2 of fear of being a homosexual and of hate. And Anonymous #3 is hurt by my example of "rights" gone wrong, and thinks that I am equating a specific example to homosexuals.

    The only way I see of coming to these conclusions is if they haven't read the whole article, or if the language was difficult for them to process. I'll try to clarify. I don't hate homosexuals, and though I personally believe that they are sinners, it is between them and God. What I don't want is anyone "legislating" that I have to believe that it is "normal" behavior, when the God clearly says contrary. NOT everything is a "right". Do you have the "right" to walk up to me and spit in my face? And if you do, that does NOT make it a "right".

    To answer the last question of Anonymous #3, if you had read the full article, you would know that I AM religious, and the only 'splainin' I will have to do at the final Judgement is, why I haven't spoken up earlier.

    July 4, 2011 11:18 PM
    Prosey said...
    I have been on the road (and am in a hotel right now getting ready to sleep but will be home sometime tomorrow) and only saw this post today. I will read it in detail in a couple of days (need to rest), and will respond accordingly.

    Be well. :-)"

    ReplyDelete
  16. WOW. You struck some nerves here...and I would suggest strongly you remove your ego out of the comments before respondeing again, because in the only comment you've made, you come out defensively unnecessarily.

    Read the comments carefully, stripping your tone out. You might hear something different than you first thought.

    ReplyDelete
  17. My apologies for the multiple posts. In Notepad, it was one big (series of) comment(s) that was designed to ensure you knew that I read all of what you wrote, as well as the comments that followed. Because I did.

    Ultimately, I guess my *point* is that - it's fine that you believe as you do doctrinally, and that your life is guided by your religious beliefs. What is not fine, in my personal opinion, is to say that your definition is what everyone around you should abide by, or that the laws and regulations of our country (even if "just" your state) should adhere to those definitions you live by.

    If we look at the religious aspect - if homosexuality (or any other thing defined) is a sin, then let it be answerable to god. On this earth, let there be equality for ALL, not for some. Equality is equality. Period. The same rights and privileges that we enjoy should be enjoyed by all. And if, in the final analysis, there actually is a god, let him/her determine what our eternal fate is. When you & I cross that veil, should we meet on the other side, we can debate then whether or not who of us was correct in this life. :-)

    ReplyDelete

Enter your Comment here...

StatCounter