Over the weekend, I had a thought that brought me both hope and sadness. My thought: just because something is legal does not make it right. This isn't a new concept, but we would do well to remember it.
Many people are falling prey to believing that if they can get something legalized it will become right. In some cases, I feel people are trying to find justification for something they know is wrong. In other cases, I believe people truly think that what they want is right. But either way, there is truth that will remain truth regardless of the legalization status in "the world of men."
For example, same-sex marriage. If it is legalized (and it has been in a few states), it does not change the fact that God forbids it and has since the beginning of man. Let us not forget Sodom and Gomorrah. The "truth" is that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Peace comes through following truth.
Another example is abortion. I believe this will become a very significant issue in the near future. Many states have legalized abortion. There are more deaths caused by abortion than by WWI and WWII combined ANNUALLY. 40 million a year. (Referenced in the article linked below.)Is this right? Absolutely not.
Each fetus is a potential child. By aborting it, we are taking away its right to life. Some pro-choice advocates shout that it is the woman's body, she can do with it as she desires. This is not true for a few reasons. But the one most relevant here is that once she has brought another life into the picture there are two bodies involved, two lives influenced. She is silencing one life for her own convenience.
There is an article written by Russell M. Nelson, a physician and cardiothoracic surgeon titled, "Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless." Here's a link to it: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=d11d88c617b9c110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
Read it. We cannot allow ourselves to be blinded by the craftiness of men or by our own ignorance.
I add that I am grateful there is truth to be found in this confusing world, and that God is anxious and willing to help us if we will ask and listen.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Can same-sex attraction be overcome?
A friend emailed me this link. It is a blog entry written by a former lesbian now active LDS member. I found it insightful and offer it for you to read as well.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://mrsbasilefrankweiler.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F11%2Fproposition-8-insights-from-previously.html"
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://mrsbasilefrankweiler.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F11%2Fproposition-8-insights-from-previously.html"
Monday, November 3, 2008
Vote
VOTE! I recognize that some of us live in states that generally go Republican or Democrat on a consistent basis, but we should still offer our voice in a personal vote.
Go McCain-Palin!
Go McCain-Palin!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Proposition 8: Q & A
I am 100% for Proposition 8. I firmly believe that marriage between a man and a woman brings the greatest happiness, and is the only type of marriage. I also believe that if Proposition 8 does not pass, it will have extremely devastating affects on individuals, society, my children and future generations. Marriage and marriage relations (if you will) are too sacred and precious to be messed with.
Recently my husband responded to the questions that a friend of his had regarding the issue. Here are the questions, and his response to one of them.
In trying to answer these questions, I am in no way pretending to be an expert or to have any knowledge beyond my own experience, which probably is not representative of society in general.
1) Can you, without resorting to hyperbole, "slippery slope" or making things up tell me any way gay marriage would effect your marriage.
No. But I believe it will affect my children. I believe that our thoughts and what we focus on have a significant impact on who we become, and I do not believe that same-sex unions are a common, natural occurrence.
The predominant natural human instinct is attraction to the opposite sex. Of course, it is okay to be different. Same sex attraction may occur naturally in uncommon instances. But I believe that it can also occur as a result of indoctrination, a conscious choice (maybe out of a desire to be different, or even rebellion), or, sadly, inappropriate sexual exposure during formative years.
As laws force a change in the traditional definition of marriage to include gay marriage, public policy and political correctness force society to accept same-sex unions as common and natural, and to deny possible underlying causes. After all, why must something “natural” have a “cause?”
As my children become a part of that society, they will be forced to consider whether their natural attractions are actually natural, or if they are learned from my wife and I. They will be forced to consider the possibility that maybe they are actually gay. These forced considerations, combined with the fact that it will be a controversial and therefore a common topic, will probably cause many children to develop same-sex tendencies where they otherwise would not have.
I’ll answer the question you would probably ask next. “So what? It is his or her choice.” Let’s face it. Parents want their children to follow in their footsteps. Nobody wants their children “converted.” But it is more than that. I am convinced that my children will have happier lives if they experience regular inter-gender relationships, if they have heterosexual marriages, and if they are able to experience the birthing and raising of children of their own. There is nothing I want more than for my family to be as happy as possible.
Recently my husband responded to the questions that a friend of his had regarding the issue. Here are the questions, and his response to one of them.
In trying to answer these questions, I am in no way pretending to be an expert or to have any knowledge beyond my own experience, which probably is not representative of society in general.
1) Can you, without resorting to hyperbole, "slippery slope" or making things up tell me any way gay marriage would effect your marriage.
No. But I believe it will affect my children. I believe that our thoughts and what we focus on have a significant impact on who we become, and I do not believe that same-sex unions are a common, natural occurrence.
The predominant natural human instinct is attraction to the opposite sex. Of course, it is okay to be different. Same sex attraction may occur naturally in uncommon instances. But I believe that it can also occur as a result of indoctrination, a conscious choice (maybe out of a desire to be different, or even rebellion), or, sadly, inappropriate sexual exposure during formative years.
As laws force a change in the traditional definition of marriage to include gay marriage, public policy and political correctness force society to accept same-sex unions as common and natural, and to deny possible underlying causes. After all, why must something “natural” have a “cause?”
As my children become a part of that society, they will be forced to consider whether their natural attractions are actually natural, or if they are learned from my wife and I. They will be forced to consider the possibility that maybe they are actually gay. These forced considerations, combined with the fact that it will be a controversial and therefore a common topic, will probably cause many children to develop same-sex tendencies where they otherwise would not have.
I’ll answer the question you would probably ask next. “So what? It is his or her choice.” Let’s face it. Parents want their children to follow in their footsteps. Nobody wants their children “converted.” But it is more than that. I am convinced that my children will have happier lives if they experience regular inter-gender relationships, if they have heterosexual marriages, and if they are able to experience the birthing and raising of children of their own. There is nothing I want more than for my family to be as happy as possible.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Rights of the individual
Trent discovered an idea that I think ought to be spread and understood. In a nutshell: the rights of the individual pertaining to taxes. Here are my thoughts on the idea.
Each individual has the right to earn money to provide for himself or herself and his or her family. Obama's, "For 95% of you taxes won't change," may fly for some, but not me. What about the other 5%? Consider this in terms of slavery. Would we support a movement that supported slavery of 5% of the population for the benefit of the other 95%? "For 95% of you, your lifestyle will not change." I think not.
Discrimination is defined as follows in the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently.
Can we apply this to Obama's tax increase proposal? Two families differing in the amount of income they generate are taxed differently...a higher or lower percentage. Yep, it fits. Allowing or supporting an increase in taxes to a specific group or social class of the population is discrimination.
Lets look at this in another aspect. Does it matter if the 5% whose taxes won't change are the poor, the middle class, or the wealthy? Does the amount of money someone has or does not have determine their rights? No. Of course, not. All of us have equal rights under the Constitution, and it would be a violation of individual rights to force 5% of our population to provide for others through heavier taxation. Giving to others should be a personal choice, not a governmental tax or imposition.
Here we have a democratic presidential nominee openly supporting discrimination toward one social class of Americans. Worse than that, we have Americans following his lead. We cannot support this. The rights of the individual are too important to allow them to be tampered with or destroyed.
Each individual has the right to earn money to provide for himself or herself and his or her family. Obama's, "For 95% of you taxes won't change," may fly for some, but not me. What about the other 5%? Consider this in terms of slavery. Would we support a movement that supported slavery of 5% of the population for the benefit of the other 95%? "For 95% of you, your lifestyle will not change." I think not.
Discrimination is defined as follows in the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently.
Can we apply this to Obama's tax increase proposal? Two families differing in the amount of income they generate are taxed differently...a higher or lower percentage. Yep, it fits. Allowing or supporting an increase in taxes to a specific group or social class of the population is discrimination.
Lets look at this in another aspect. Does it matter if the 5% whose taxes won't change are the poor, the middle class, or the wealthy? Does the amount of money someone has or does not have determine their rights? No. Of course, not. All of us have equal rights under the Constitution, and it would be a violation of individual rights to force 5% of our population to provide for others through heavier taxation. Giving to others should be a personal choice, not a governmental tax or imposition.
Here we have a democratic presidential nominee openly supporting discrimination toward one social class of Americans. Worse than that, we have Americans following his lead. We cannot support this. The rights of the individual are too important to allow them to be tampered with or destroyed.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
Dental care
Anyone heard the, "Why not have socialized healthcare? We already have long lines and high prices?" statement? Well, ours is nothing compared to what it could be.
I lived in Ireland for 1 1/2 years. I saw socialized healthcare firsthand (which IS what Obama is moving toward). Allow me to share a personal experience.
DENTAL (Sep '03): Having only been out of the country about a month (3 weeks in England, 1 in Ireland), one of my teeth began hurting terribly. As the dentist checked out my tooth, he told me there was decay under it. (I got it...I needed a root canal.) He suggested that he pull the tooth. I asked, "Oh, and what would be there?" He had me to look in the mirror and said, "See that tooth?" "Yes." "Where that tooth is, there would be a big hole."
I had to stifle a laugh, but soon realized he was completely serious. After blood returned to my face, I said, "No way." He then offered to write me a perscription for medicine that would take care of the infection for a little while, but told me it would inevitably come back before my stay in Ireland was completed. I decided to take my chances.
Long story short, I used the medicine for it's duration, offered a lot of prayers, and my tooth never began hurting again. Of course, one of the first things I did once back in the good ol' U.S. of A. was get a root canal.
So the point is not the outcome of the story, it is the outcome of Ireland's dental health system. Sure the dentist was young, charming, and good looking, but his expertise paled in comparison to ANY dentist trained in the United States.
The demand for dental care is monumental because everyone is ENTITLED to it. The government can't require dentists to learn all that they need to know to be proficient in their field (we're talking good dentists not excellent ones). It would take too much time and too much money from "the governement." In actuality, the PEOPLE have to pay for it all anyway (that would be you and me in the U.S.), and in Ireland the people cannot afford to pay for educating dentists sufficiently, to pay them if they choose to become proficient on their own, and the demand is so high they can't wait 6-10 years for a dentist to become available.
Lest you believe, "I can't afford healthcare, but some American living high on the hog should pay for mine," think again. When something becomes an "entitlement" issue, it becomes abused. This would happen. We would, in affect, "Rob the rich to healthcare everybody." Do you really think the extra money Americans have EARNED should and COULD pay for everyone's healthcare? Think again.
The true proposition of Obama is for all of us to become poor. Tax the rich until they're poor, do the same with the middle-class, etc. Where will we turn when our funds are exhausted? Quality would gradually be comprised, the lines would become 2-3 days for emergency care rather than the 6-10 hours we occassionally experience currently. And he'd be out of office, likely still hailed for his miracle working, and we'd be suffereing.
I lived in Ireland for 1 1/2 years. I saw socialized healthcare firsthand (which IS what Obama is moving toward). Allow me to share a personal experience.
DENTAL (Sep '03): Having only been out of the country about a month (3 weeks in England, 1 in Ireland), one of my teeth began hurting terribly. As the dentist checked out my tooth, he told me there was decay under it. (I got it...I needed a root canal.) He suggested that he pull the tooth. I asked, "Oh, and what would be there?" He had me to look in the mirror and said, "See that tooth?" "Yes." "Where that tooth is, there would be a big hole."
I had to stifle a laugh, but soon realized he was completely serious. After blood returned to my face, I said, "No way." He then offered to write me a perscription for medicine that would take care of the infection for a little while, but told me it would inevitably come back before my stay in Ireland was completed. I decided to take my chances.
Long story short, I used the medicine for it's duration, offered a lot of prayers, and my tooth never began hurting again. Of course, one of the first things I did once back in the good ol' U.S. of A. was get a root canal.
So the point is not the outcome of the story, it is the outcome of Ireland's dental health system. Sure the dentist was young, charming, and good looking, but his expertise paled in comparison to ANY dentist trained in the United States.
The demand for dental care is monumental because everyone is ENTITLED to it. The government can't require dentists to learn all that they need to know to be proficient in their field (we're talking good dentists not excellent ones). It would take too much time and too much money from "the governement." In actuality, the PEOPLE have to pay for it all anyway (that would be you and me in the U.S.), and in Ireland the people cannot afford to pay for educating dentists sufficiently, to pay them if they choose to become proficient on their own, and the demand is so high they can't wait 6-10 years for a dentist to become available.
Lest you believe, "I can't afford healthcare, but some American living high on the hog should pay for mine," think again. When something becomes an "entitlement" issue, it becomes abused. This would happen. We would, in affect, "Rob the rich to healthcare everybody." Do you really think the extra money Americans have EARNED should and COULD pay for everyone's healthcare? Think again.
The true proposition of Obama is for all of us to become poor. Tax the rich until they're poor, do the same with the middle-class, etc. Where will we turn when our funds are exhausted? Quality would gradually be comprised, the lines would become 2-3 days for emergency care rather than the 6-10 hours we occassionally experience currently. And he'd be out of office, likely still hailed for his miracle working, and we'd be suffereing.
Power of suggestion
The power of suggestion is extremely prevalent throughout Obama's website. "The problem" is stated before any statement about his "plan" on each issue. Our nation is not as broken as he makes it out to be. Even our economy is not as broken as he makes it out to be.
He is suggesting that he can "save" us, but we do not need to be saved. Power to the people. Our government is meant to be of the people--not of the president. "Vote for change"--much like the "vote for stupid" campaign on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy--is a flawed motto. Is it change for the better? Change for the worse? Change in who has power? Change in what? A catch phrase without substance.
He is suggesting that he can "save" us, but we do not need to be saved. Power to the people. Our government is meant to be of the people--not of the president. "Vote for change"--much like the "vote for stupid" campaign on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy--is a flawed motto. Is it change for the better? Change for the worse? Change in who has power? Change in what? A catch phrase without substance.
Election websites
Here are official websites (as far as I can tell) for each of the candidates:
McCain/Palin: http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/
Obama/Biden: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
Here is also a link to Obama's "plan to support working women and families." http://obama.3cdn.net/2e7cc8323be6bb7941_pam6bxkpf.pdf
McCain/Palin: http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/
Obama/Biden: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
Here is also a link to Obama's "plan to support working women and families." http://obama.3cdn.net/2e7cc8323be6bb7941_pam6bxkpf.pdf
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Why this blog?
Last night, I watched coverage of the Republican National Convention. I mainly wanted to hear Governor Palin speak, and judge for myself if McCain made a good choice in his Vice Presidential pick.
I was blown away. Governor Palin is confident, has experience in leadership and government, and speaks with honesty. I was impressed with her specific citations of how she decreased spending as Governor of Alaska and addressing specific issues; such as drilling for oil and nuclear power. Much of the talk was an introduction of herself as well.
To sum it up, she fired me up. I finally have a person I would like to put in Washington and believe that she will make a difference. As a team, McCain and Palin will be an awesome balance of what America needs right now.
So, I invite you to participate on this blog with a few requests. Please do not use vulgar or crude language. Be respectful to others...including political figures. If at all possible, blog using your real identity--the accountability factor of our words tends to be remembered better.
I was blown away. Governor Palin is confident, has experience in leadership and government, and speaks with honesty. I was impressed with her specific citations of how she decreased spending as Governor of Alaska and addressing specific issues; such as drilling for oil and nuclear power. Much of the talk was an introduction of herself as well.
To sum it up, she fired me up. I finally have a person I would like to put in Washington and believe that she will make a difference. As a team, McCain and Palin will be an awesome balance of what America needs right now.
So, I invite you to participate on this blog with a few requests. Please do not use vulgar or crude language. Be respectful to others...including political figures. If at all possible, blog using your real identity--the accountability factor of our words tends to be remembered better.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
