That's the Halloween spirit....not.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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
