WhiteHouse.gov Bleeding With “Change”

Painting the Roses Red

Obama’s Change Begins by Force–

Painting the Roses Red

Updated just minutes after the inauguration, the new Obama White House website declares “We need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), instantly jeopardizing the marriage laws of 45 states, including constitutional amendments in 30 states where voters have recently acted to give marriage the greatest protection possible at the state level. Instead of protecting the will of voters all across the country, President Obama’s policy would allow a handful of judges in Massachusetts and Connecticut to force same-sex marriage on the entire nation.

Obama’s support of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), threatens to nullify every state protection and limitation on abortion, because he personally believes there should be no limitations, not for underage girls, not even for late term pregnancies.  “Freedom of choice” is above all, as long as it’s a choice Obama believes in.  All other choices must be painted over to match his like the dripping red roses of the Queen of Hearts’ garden.

There are divisions on issues in this country for a reason.  We are not all of one mind on these hotbed issues. We all have separate voices that ought to be heard.   What leader of the people fights to overturn their votes, their laws, their state’s rights?  Why must all our differences be painted over in the same shade of federal red?

The way to unity is not by brute force.

The cry from the grass roots is all that stands in the way of Obama’s radical change unveiled, so cry!  Make your voice heard!  This brand of “change” is a moral bloodletting that our country cannot stand.

—Beetle Blogger

Obama Reveals the ‘Change’ He Will Bring

by Jennifer Mesko, editor CitizenLink

‘ This is the most bold and comprehensive pro-homosexual, abortion-friendly administration agenda we’ve ever seen.’

obama

“President Obama is no friend of family values, and that is made perfectly clear on the White House Web site,” said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus on the Family Action. “This is the most bold and comprehensive pro-homosexual, abortion-friendly administration agenda we’ve ever seen.  And this is no time for Christians to remain silent.”

On marriage

WhiteHouse.gov: “President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.” (The Defense of Marriage Act is the federal government’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.)

Focus on the Family: Four key points.

On abortion

WhiteHouse.gov: “He has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration.”

Focus on the Family: Every human life has inherent value and should be protected, from fertilization to natural death.

On destructive embryonic stem-cell research

WhiteHouse.gov: “Obama is a co-sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which will allow research of human embryonic stem cells derived from embryos.”

Focus on the Family: Supports and encourages stem-cell research using non-embryonic sources of stem cells, including umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow and various adult tissues. No human lives are destroyed in harvesting stem cells from these sources. Tax dollars should not be used to encourage the destruction of living human embryos for research .

On special rights for homosexual employees

WhiteHouse.gov: “President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Focus on the Family: The government should not tell employers whom they can hire based on a category of protection that is not based on an immutable characteristic, but on a changeable sexual attraction, behavior or identity. The goal of laws like this is to silence religious free speech.

On a new class of crimes based on the victim’s sexual orientation

WhiteHouse.gov: “President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation (and) expand hate crimes protection.”

Focus on the Family: Everyone should receive equal protection under the law.   Hate-crime laws threaten the free-speech rights of people of faith who speak out on the issue of homosexuality. These laws also make it possible that pastors could be prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality, as they have been in other countries.

On same-sex adoption

WhiteHouse.gov: “President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Focus on the Family: Children deserve the best chance to have both a mother and a father. Same-sex adoption increases the likelihood that a child will be denied a mom or a dad.

On homosexuals in the military

WhiteHouse.gov: “President Obama agrees we need to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.”

Focus on the Family: Federal law states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Meanwhile, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a practice put in place during the Clinton administration prohibiting the military from asking about sexual orientation. The Department of Defense must be allowed to set its own requirements for military service.

Cry Against the Change!  Start With the Save DOMA Petition

Sign Here

Advertisements

34 Comments

  1. Mike said,

    January 21, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    This country will be so different in four years from a cultural perspective you won’t even know what hit you.

  2. Euripides said,

    January 21, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    Obamamization at its best. Let’s hope Congress doesn’t see things the same way. But alas, I don’t hold out hope for Congress either. They haven’t shown any real courage in years.

  3. Raytmimer said,

    January 21, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    I signed the petition. Thanks for the link. I had intended to sign it before, but put it off. I have to admit, I was thinking that Obama wouldn’t be so bad, but it looks like he is going to be most of what we feared.

  4. Emissary said,

    January 21, 2009 at 11:19 pm

    I’m afraid that too many people were caught up in the euphoria of having a change. They wanted a new president, and having a black one would be a new thing for our country. I wonder how many people actually looked into his politics instead of just listening to his rhetoric….

  5. Liberty Belle said,

    January 21, 2009 at 11:22 pm

    This list of changes really rubs me the wrong way. It’s so in-your-face homosexual agenda. As if most of the country hasn’t already voted on this! The idea of taking choice away from the states and giving it to the feds is like overturning ALL THOSE ELECTIONS. For what? So the coast states can rule over “flyover” country once and for all?

  6. Liberty Belle said,

    January 21, 2009 at 11:23 pm

    I signed the petition too. I wish I knew how to do more.

  7. James R. said,

    January 21, 2009 at 11:27 pm

    I’d like to see a nation wide DOMA rally, like the proposition 8 rallies they did in California. The streets were paved with yellow shirts and signs. It was so great to see all those people all at once. It makes a vote so much more than just numbers to see the faces of the issues.

  8. debbie said,

    January 21, 2009 at 11:29 pm

    Can’t really add anything else, but it is really frustrating that a decision that was left to the states is now being take away. Aren’t there like thirty states that have voted on marriage and left it the traditional way? Did we want to disconnect from England because we were frustrated with what England was tellling us to do. Go read the Declaration of Independence about taxes. We are there again, and doing nothing. What this tells me s thate this administration is going to have no problem telling you and me how to think, what is right or wrong(oh yeah, moral relativism) and I do not want to think of where else this could lead.
    On another tangent, I was discussing the Obama book, and my brother-in-laws comment was that Moses wondered throught the wilderness for thirty years and never set foot in the Promised Land. We all got a good laugh.

  9. beetlebabee said,

    January 21, 2009 at 11:35 pm

    Almost all the states have spoken one way or another on the issue, and only two currently have same sex relationships that they label “marriage” and those were by force of the judiciary. Other states and other courts have ruled just the opposite. It isn’t right to give such a small minority such power to influence the morality that this country was founded on, and that most of us still choose to strive for.

    James, a DOMA rally would be awesome! There was nothing as energizing as participating in the P8 rallies and feeling like you were part of something bigger than you knew.

  10. January 22, 2009 at 3:33 am

    You can send an email to Obama via the AFA website, here, to let him know how you feel about all this. I just did.

  11. Mel said,

    January 22, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    WhiteHouse.gov: “President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation (and) expand hate crimes protection.”

    Right. So, that means they are going to start speaking out against the hate crimes that are being committed against US, our churches, and temples? Hmmm….I’ll be waiting!

  12. Mel said,

    January 22, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    By the way, another thing that really bothers me about this, is that Obama claimed that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. And he tries very hard to present himself as an unwavering man of principle. So, where are those principles, now? Already, the first day, the first HOUR into his presidency and he is supporting taking down DOMA? How does that correspond with being a man of principle? Either he was not being truthful when he said he believes in traditional marriage, or he still believes it personally but is caving to pressure from his cohorts politically. Regardless, it has me totally disgusted.

  13. James R. said,

    January 22, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    The whole hate crimes angle really bothers me, what makes a “hate” crime worse than an “evil” crime? It seems to divide people into classes. If you hurt one class, it’s one thing, if you hurt a protected class, it’s a whole different arena. That doesn’t seem like equality.

  14. screemin_stevin said,

    January 22, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    Taking the limitations off abortion after people have voted on it is not how a “leader” of the free world should lead. Abortion should be rare, not a common cure for stupidity.

  15. { Lisa } said,

    January 22, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    screemin steve,

    you are exactly right. I was talking with my sister today about how many things in the constitution that are completely ignored, so many rules and laws that they break for their own ends. It’s scary.

  16. Zoey said,

    January 22, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    I’m certainly not feeling the “hope” in his “change”.

  17. busywithconviction said,

    January 22, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    I must say I am not that right winged politically speaking. Sure I don’t think people should have late term abortions, but the reality is if someone wants an abortion they will get one legally or illegally. I got involved with the Prop 8 stuff because I wanted to defend the family. I saw the gay agenda and saw how that would hurt the family and so I stepped up. Many of the stances Obama is taking could also be connected to hurting the family, but I am going to stick to the gay marriage thing.

    I don’t like what Obama is doing in connection with the DOMA. I will work to spread the word that people need to take a stance. Signing a petition is so easy, contacting my representatives takes a bit more time, but doable. Spending hours on line trying to get the word out in main stream media….Now that is an idea that could really impact things.

    So regardless of how right winged we each might or might not be we each can help spread the word. Many of you are doing just that. Keep it up!!!

  18. beetlebabee said,

    January 22, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    I think you’re right BWC, regardless of what you think of other aspects of Obama’s administration, we can and should band together on the parts we do agree on. It’s important to be able to have a coalition of people who are willing to act. It doesn’t mean we’re all cookie-cutter the same in all our beliefs, but that is the beauty of people, we’re all different, ages, races and religions. The key is to value common ground where we find it and stand together to get things done.

  19. January 22, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    The key understanding where you should stand on abortion is to realize it’s roots in Marxism: namely that 1) families “enslave” women, and 2) Marxists, exactly like the Nazis, believe that it is okay to eliminate a human life if they perceive their death to be in the “best interest” of society. This is known as eugenics. It is the sole doctrine that Planned Parenthood was begun on.

    BWC, why don’t we legalize everything, then, using your notion of “they’re going to do it anyway?” That attitude is what put sex ed in schools, and now we have out of control problems with underage pregnancy and children with single parents. The correct way to deal with it would be to make it HARDER for people to do things that are incorrect, so that FEWER people will do them.

  20. busywithconviction said,

    January 23, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    Sure it would be nice to make it harder to do certain things I personally am morally opposed to, but I think you have to pick you battles and chose what you really want the government to be involved in.

    In no way am I trying to argumentative, just pointing out that I personally have a cause for protecting the traditional definition of marriage and the impacts of the gay agenda. Like Beetle said,

    “We can and should band together on the parts we do agree on”

  21. January 25, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    “Obama’s support of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), threatens to nullify every state protection and limitation on abortion…”
    No. FOCA clarifies Roe v Wade, and only “nullifies” laws inconistent with that decision (and the others around it). In other words, it nullifies illegal (but unchallenged) laws.

    “On destructive embryonic stem-cell research…Tax dollars should not be used to encourage the destruction of living human embryos for research .”
    Instead, the unused blastocysts that “took” from fertility treatments will simply be tossed in the biohazardous waste bin after they expire. If you’re for banning research on them, are you also for making their implantation into available uteruses (uteri?) mandatory?
    So, you’re for the “will of the people” when it’s something you agree with (like protecting your marriage from the gays), but against it when most of your elected representatives (less Bush’s veto) are for it.

    “The government should not tell employers whom they can hire based on a category of protection that is not based on an immutable characteristic, but on a changeable sexual attraction, behavior or identity.”
    Because, “the gays” are clearly just faking it. They’re going through a rebellious phase, those nutty kids, like wearing baggy pants or getting a tattoo.

    “The goal of laws like this is to silence religious free speech.”
    You can speak out against them all you like, but if you don’t hire them because they’re “fags”, then your free speech has become discrimination.

    “Hate-crime laws threaten the free-speech rights of people of faith who speak out on the issue of homosexuality.”
    Notice the mismatch between the start of the sentence and the remainder? “Hate-crime laws threaten the free-speech rights…” Hate speech is already covered under incitement laws (free speech = “I believe that homosexuality is wrong”, hate speech = “I have a book here where the main character tells us to kill fags”).
    Hate-crime legislation is a bad idea, too, because it’s generally so nebulously defined. An ill-defined law casts too wide a net.

    “These laws also make it possible that pastors could be prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality, as they have been in other countries.”
    I guess it depends on how much the pastor emphasized the “put to death” bit from Lev20:13 (and whether or not he’s a theonomist).

    “On same-sex adoption – Children deserve the best chance to have both a mother and a father. Same-sex adoption increases the likelihood that a child will be denied a mom or a dad.”
    No, adoptees deserve the best adopters. Complementary genitalia has nothing to do with it. Applicants should be assessed on the basis of their abilities to successfully parent a child needing family membership and not on their race, ethnicity or culture, income, age, marital status, religion, appearance, differing lifestyles, or sexual orientation.” Further, applicants for adoption should be accepted “on the basis of an individual assessment of their capacity to understand and meet the needs of a particular available child at the point of adoption and in the future.”
    The point is not that some hetero-couples might not get a child, the point should be that children get adopted. That gay couples are as good parents as hetero couples is just icing on the adoption cake. This means that more kids can be adopted by competent, caring parents.

    Federal law states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.”
    Oddly, other nations with gays in the military don’t seem to have that much of a problem with it. Amazingly, it turns out that gay soldiers are just as good at pointing rounds downrange as their hetero compadres.

    “The Department of Defense must be allowed to set its own requirements for military service.”
    So, it repeatedly lowered recruting standards, to the point that effectiveness is potentially reduced, but it won’t let in out-of-the-closet gays because…?

    Mike “This country will be so different in four years from a cultural perspective you won’t even know what hit you.”
    God, I hope so. If I never see Hagee again, it will be too soon.

    debbie ” Go read the Declaration of Independence about taxes.”
    Try “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Programs that attempt to keep abortion “safe, legal and rare” (through education/harm reduction – cheap contraception, effective comprehensive sex-ed – that includes an abstinence-only component, and poverty reduction – “Levels of contraceptive failure vary widely by method, as well as by personal and background characteristics. Income’s strong influence on contraceptive failure suggests that access barriers and the general disadvantage associated with poverty seriously impede effective contraceptive practice in the United States.” fm guttmacher study) minimize the infringment on the first part, and not oppressing “the gays” minimizes the infringment on the latter two.

    We are there again, and doing nothing.”
    Did you miss out getting called “traitor”, “freedom hater” and “unAmerican” for protesting BushCo’s shredding of the Constitution? Ah, good times…

    D. Rolling Kearney “That attitude is what put sex ed in schools, and now we have out of control problems with underage pregnancy and children with single parents.”
    No, the idea is that we should minimize the harm caused by the voodoo that we do. “They will do it anyway” is not a good excuse behind comprehensive sex-ed, but the fact remains that they will do it anyway. Having sex wrong is easy. In fact, it takes no education at all. Comprehensive sex-ed does not work well, but abstinence-only sex-ed does not work at all.

    “The correct way to deal with it would be to make it HARDER for people to do things that are incorrect, so that FEWER people will do them.”
    Chastity belts? Anti-hormone injections? Star Trek conventions? Nunneries? Cars with no back seat? Banning Bolero?

  22. { Lisa } said,

    January 26, 2009 at 1:53 pm

    Modusoperandi,

    Are you convinced now?

  23. January 26, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    modusoperandi:

    1)

    FOCA clarifies Roe v Wade, and only “nullifies” laws inconistent with that decision (and the others around it). In other words, it nullifies illegal (but unchallenged) laws.

    You may want to read up on states rights. Here are some quotes from the Wikipedia entry:

    States’ rights refers to the idea, in U.S. politics and constitutional law, that U.S. states possess certain rights and political powers in relation to the federal government. A commonly cited source for states’ rights is the Tenth Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights. The states’ rights concept is usually used to defend a state law that the federal government seeks to override, or to oppose a perceived violation by the federal government of the bounds of federal authority…

    Current states’ rights issues include the death penalty, assisted suicide, gay marriage, physician-assisted suicide in Gonzales v. Oregon, and the medicinal use of marijuana, the last of which is in violation of federal law.

    These issues are tied up in legislation because the federal government wants ultimate power and the citizens of the individual states want to have some degree of control over their own lives and society.

    BTW, if you want to discuss “illegal (but unchallenged) laws” you may want to read up on “executive orders:”

    Article II, section 1 of the Constitution reads, in part, “The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, “The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…” Since the Constitution does not specifically define executive power, critics of Executive Orders argue that these two passages do not imply Constitutional authority. But, Presidents of the United States since George Washington have argued that they do. [Source]

    The Constution states that the president is supposed to make sure that laws get executed, not make up his own new ones, be they Bush or Obama.

    2)

    Instead, the unused blastocysts that “took” from fertility treatments will simply be tossed in the biohazardous waste bin after they expire, blah blah blah…

    Many people are concerned that allowing stem-cell research on human embryos opens the doors for embryos to basically farmed for this purpose. Given the history of eugenics, and other examples of rueful disdain for human life among the Socialists that push this agenda, it cannot be expected that this will suddenly change. Plus, there are other means of scientifically doing this type of research without using human embryos, that are equally viable.

    3)

    Because, “the gays” are clearly just faking it. They’re going through a rebellious phase…

    No, no one believes that they’re “faking it.” But, they are being told that they are “born that way,” which has been scientifically proven to be incorrect; they are being told that they cannot change, which is scientifically and statistically untrue since it happens every day; and they are not being told the scientifically proven causes of homosexuality, which would help them come to terms with their feeling, and even decide whether or not they want to continue on the gay lifestyle.

    4)

    You can speak out against them all you like, but if you don’t hire them because they’re “fags”, then your free speech has become discrimination.

    Generally speaking, most people who are against homosexuality do hire gays. Marriott is owned by a Mormon family, to name only one, and they have an exquisite history of supporting their homosexual employees, according to gay sources. Also, have you ever noticed those signs at restaurants that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason”? That’s called freedom. We still have that in America, last time I checked. You don’t have to do that at your business, and you don’t have to support those who might discriminate, but it is their right! Private businesses can hire whoever they want! Ever notice how they always have Asian employees at Panda Express? That’s discrimination! Does anyone care? NO!

    5)

    No, adoptees deserve the best adopters. Complementary genitalia has nothing to do with it.

    The professional research on the subject disagrees with your statement in many, many ways. Homosexuals have a higher… Ah, read it for yourself (I’ve posted this before): Review Of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting [NARTH].

    5b)

    That gay couples are as good parents as hetero couples is just icing on the adoption cake.

    No, it’s a lie.

    6)

    Oddly, other nations with gays in the military don’t seem to have that much of a problem with it. Amazingly, it turns out that gay soldiers are just as good at pointing rounds downrange as their hetero compadres.

    First of all, we don’t govern our country by what other countries do, and we don;t know how the people feel about those laws; they don’t get a say in the matter, because their governments are Socialist!

    Second, it is not the effectiveness of gays that hurts the military, it is the sexual nature of their desires. Why do we have separate barracks for men and women? For the same reason that straight men don’t want to shower with gay men.

    7)

    Try “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

    “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was never intended to be an excuse to allow “anything goes.” Our Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christian, and never would have accepted abortion, gay marriage, or any of the other things that people nowadays claim will make them “happy.”

    8)

    No, the idea is that we should minimize the harm caused by the voodoo that we do. “They will do it anyway” is not a good excuse behind comprehensive sex-ed, but the fact remains that they will do it anyway. Having sex wrong is easy. In fact, it takes no education at all. Comprehensive sex-ed does not work well, but abstinence-only sex-ed does not work at all.

    You may be interested in this paper from CitizenLink.com, entitled ” Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence” from 2008 (NOTE: This is a pdf file). The abstract states:

    This paper discusses 21 studies of abstinence education. Fifteen studies examined abstinence programs that were intended primarily to teach abstinence. Of these 15 studies, 11 reported positive findings. The other six studies analyzed virginity pledges, and of these six studies, five reported positive findings. Overall, 16 of the 21 studies reported statistically significant positive results, such as delayed sexual initiation and reduced levels of early sexual activity, among youths who have received abstinence education.

    You’re supposed to believe that abstinence education is ineffective, but the research proves otherwise.

    9)

    Chastity belts? Anti-hormone injections? Star Trek conventions? Nunneries? Cars with no back seat? Banning Bolero?

    No one is advocating extreme behavior here. But, as this blog has pointed out in the past, we need to have an ideal that we hold up in society so that our children know what is the best thing for them to aspire to. If they choose otherwise, so be it, but then we can hold them responsible for their own actions, just like we used to in this country, instead of trying to help them find ways to avoid the consequences of their actions, up to and including the murder of babies that they created, just so that they won’t have to suffer any encroachment on their lifestyle. “I don’t want to ban abortion,” says Mr. Obama, “because I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby.” Excuse me, punished?!? Hmmm.

  24. January 27, 2009 at 12:30 am

    I’m also not sure why some people think it is the government’s responsibility to protect them from themselves. You had sex, now you raise the baby! Buy your own condoms! Many people will learn to have responsible relationships after they are allowed to screw up a few. And if we can convince them not to screw up in the first place, then job well done. People only started having unbridled, unprotected sex, in the numbers that they currently are, after they started being told that it was okay and that they were going to do it anyway so we’d better help them! When we, as a nation, taught that these behaviors were unacceptable, and we were allowed to socially shun people who participated in them, people were far less likely to participate in them. Oh, yeah. We also taught the truth to our children more often back then, instead of activist homosexual revisionism.

  25. January 27, 2009 at 4:14 am

    { Lisa } “Modusoperandi, Are you convinced now?”
    Of what?

    D. Rolling Kearney “You may want to read up on states rights. Here are some quotes from the Wikipedia entry:”

    According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. (fm wikipedia

    The 14th Amendment to the US Consitution applies to all the States, right?

    “These issues are tied up in legislation because the federal government wants ultimate power and the citizens of the individual states want to have some degree of control over their own lives and society.”
    The States can and should fight for their rights, and as long as those rights don’t conflict with the federal Constitution they should win. Should I mention again that they can make laws that don’t conflict with Roe V Wade? What they’ve been doing is making ones that do. That’s the problem that FOCA is supposed to deal with.

    “BTW, if you want to discuss “illegal (but unchallenged) laws” you may want to read up on ‘executive orders:'”
    So, 2001-2007, then. In theory, if executive order X brought something in, then executive order Y should be able to cancel it. It sounds like an awful lot of power for one man to have.
    If we’re still talking about FOCA, then doesn’t he have to wait until the legislative votes “yea”? My knowledge of US politics is hazy (and the last two terms haven’t helped clear up the mess. Apparently, Bush Jr could do what ever he wanted, and Cheney didn’t fall under anyone’s juristiction).

    “The Constution states that the president is supposed to make sure that laws get executed, not make up his own new ones, be they Bush or Obama.”
    Did you tell Bush Jr or his legal team that? Did they call you a traitor? UnAmerican? That seemed to be a common theme when he was the head dude.

    “Many people are concerned that allowing stem-cell research on human embryos opens the doors for embryos to basically farmed for this purpose. Given the history of eugenics, and other examples of rueful disdain for human life among the Socialists that push this agenda, it cannot be expected that this will suddenly change. Plus, there are other means of scientifically doing this type of research without using human embryos, that are equally viable.”
    I’m not saying that I’m for it. I’m just saying that to be consistent, you have to be against both embryonic stem cell research and artificial insemination (for mandatory use of all the ones that “catch”).

    “No, no one believes that they’re “faking it.” But, they are being told that they are “born that way,” which has been scientifically proven to be incorrect; they are being told that they cannot change, which is scientifically and statistically untrue since it happens every day; and they are not being told the scientifically proven causes of homosexuality, which would help them come to terms with their feeling, and even decide whether or not they want to continue on the gay lifestyle.”
    I’ll be sure to tell the lesbian that I work with that. She’ll have a good laugh (you should’ve heard her laugh about Hagard. He’s still gay, you know. Miserable, too. But at least he’s not “continuing the gay lifestyle”. Utilitarianism be damned, that’s what’s important).

    “Generally speaking, most people who are against homosexuality do hire gays.”
    Good for them. As long as my tax dollars aren’t subsidizing

    “Also, have you ever noticed those signs at restaurants that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason”? That’s called freedom.”
    Yes. It’s a tricky balance between the freedom to be you and liberty of others to deny you that freedom based on their liberty to be very small inside.

    “We still have that in America, last time I checked.”
    Open a restaurant with a “no Negroos” sign and see how far your freedoms really go.

    “Ever notice how they always have Asian employees at Panda Express?”
    I don’t eat panda. They’re pretty rare, so I hear.

    “The professional research on the subject disagrees with your statement in many, many ways. Homosexuals have a higher… Ah, read it for yourself (I’ve posted this before): Review Of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting [NARTH].”
    Now read the studies that conflict with your study (including the big Canadian one that raised such a ruckus when it was released).
    Adoption is on a case by case basis (and the big question left is mostly from a lack of study of male homosexual couples who want to adopt. The females are apparently pretty good at it, to the point that their kids end up about the same as ours). The best cases get to adopt. Excluding all members of a group because some members of that group are dangerous…well, try substituting in “Catholic priest” or “left handed” and see if the argument holds up.

    “No, it’s a lie.”
    No, it’s not. It’s merely a fact that has the audacity to get in the way of how you’d like things to be. “Applicants should be judged on their qualifications, not sexual orientation”.

    ”First of all, we don’t govern our country by what other countries do…”
    And thank God for that. If you did, you might have mediocre healthcare that you can afford rather than excellent healthcare that you can’t.

    ”…and we don;t know how the people feel about those laws; they don’t get a say in the matter, because their governments are Socialist!”
    You’re adorable. I can practically see the spit come out when you say “Socialist”. That’s cute. “They”, if my experience is any indicator, have this thing called “human rights”. If it applies to one group, you see, it applies to all.

    ”Second, it is not the effectiveness of gays that hurts the military, it is the sexual nature of their desires.”
    Did you use your sexy voice to say that?

    ”Why do we have separate barracks for men and women? For the same reason that straight men don’t want to shower with gay men.”
    What you’re saying is that you don’t want the most effective military because some dudes might feel ooky in the shower. Well, let me let you in on a little secret, when I was in boot camp we all felt uncomfortable. Not because someone there could be a homosexual next to you (and even with a gay ban, there still very well could be), but because of the mass nudity. Lots of eye contact and conversations about baseball. By the end of boot camp, when we’d bonded as a group, nobody cared anymore.

    ”“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was never intended to be an excuse to allow ‘anything goes.’’
    FOCA (with the unfortunately ill-defined “health”, which itself would be clarified when it hit court…and it will be challenged) isn’t “anything goes”. FOCA codifies Roe v Wade.
    Nobody’s trying to marry their dog. Gay people are trying to marry other gay people.
    Nobody’s trying to force the military to be filled with fabulous gayness. Patriotic homosexuals want the right to not have to hide who they are when they’re fighting for the freedom of others.

    ”You may be interested in this paper from…”
    And you may be interested in all the studies that aren’t from The Heritage Foundation.
    .
    ”You’re supposed to believe that abstinence education is ineffective, but the research proves otherwise.”
    Try the non-partisan studies, like here, here, et all). In those, they vary from no better than placebo to much, much worse (apparently the percentage of kids who take ab-only sex ed exclusively who engage in unprotected anal intercourse, easily the most dangerous kind, is staggeringly high).
    Comprehensive + ab-only is the only way to cover all the bases. Protecting kidsvia ignorance is the least effective method of birth control.

    ”No one is advocating extreme behavior here. But, as this blog has pointed out in the past, we need to have an ideal that we hold up in society so that our children know what is the best thing for them to aspire to.”
    Waiting until marriage is the ideal. Unfortunately, the real world doesn’t work as though it was the ideal. As such, it requires pragmatic solutions (that work imperfectly as harm reduction) rather than idealistic ones (that were perfectly as harm amplification).”

    ”If they choose otherwise, so be it, but then we can hold them responsible for their own actions, just like we used to in this country,”
    Yeah, back when the girl in grade 10 started putting on weight, went to the grandparents for six months, then reappeared looking old and shamed. What an ideal.

    ”…instead of trying to help them find ways to avoid the consequences of their actions,”
    It’s called “harm reduction”. It’s not perfect, but works pretty well, mostly. Indoctrinated ignorance is the opposite of that.

    ”…up to and including the murder of babies that they created, just so that they won’t have to suffer any encroachment on their lifestyle. “I don’t want to ban abortion,” says Mr. Obama, “because I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby.” Excuse me, punished?!? Hmmm.”
    So, you’re first in line to adopt them all, then? The “crack babies”, too? The fetal-alcohol syndrome babies? The ones with various terrible conjenital defects that lead to short, pain-filled (or never conscious) lives? Are you willing to subsidize the mothers’ healthcare/diet/housing for the duration of the pregnancy if they can’t afford it (and, in numerous cases, they can’t), too?

    ”You had sex, now you raise the baby!”
    Do you remember when you were little and your mum said not to touch the stove, but you did anyway? Imagine if that stove got you pregnant.
    This is why God didn’t kick Adam and Eve out of the garden when they made a mistake. He was smart enough to realize that people make mistakes, and that it would be foolish to overreact.
    Oh.

    ”Many people will learn to have responsible relationships after they are allowed to screw up a few.”
    And we should be there to help minimize the fallout. People will be people. That’s why we call them “people”.

    ”And if we can convince them not to screw up in the first place, then job well done.”
    Yes. And screw those who fall outside the lines! Take that, fourteen year-old girls! Take that, fifteen year old boy with HIV!

    ”People only started having unbridled, unprotected sex, in the numbers that they currently are, after they started being told that it was okay…”
    Yeah. The pill was a revolution in a bottle.

    ”and that they were going to do it anyway so we’d better help them!”
    …minimize the consequences of their actions. You’re so close to being a humanist. Just add that last bit in!

    ”When we, as a nation, taught that these behaviors were unacceptable, and we were allowed to socially shun people who participated in them, people were far less likely to participate in them.”
    I’ve always found the push-pull between moralism and the free-market fascinating. It appears that the free-market (which sex’s everything up because sex sells) is winning. But that’s probably on a tangent.

    ”Oh, yeah. We also taught the truth to our children more often back then, instead of activist homosexual revisionism.”
    And back then, you could beat a fag, and nobody would do nuffin’ about it. It didn’t make them any less gay though. Odd, considering that it’s a lifestyle choice.

  26. January 27, 2009 at 4:20 am

    Pah! I lost a sentence.

    “Generally speaking, most people who are against homosexuality do hire gays.”
    Good for them. As long as my tax dollars aren’t subsidizing their “right” to discriminate, and my own dollars aren’t supporting it, there’s little else that I can do.
    Try opening up a shop with a “no negroes” sign out front (or, if you’re of the mind that homosexuality is a choice, then hang a “no Protestants” one instead).

  27. { Lisa } said,

    January 27, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    Modusoperandi,

    ARE YOU CONVINCED WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. YOU SEEM TO BE GOING TO THE EXTREME TO EXPLAIN AWAY EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE THAT ANYONE IS SAYING THAT YOU DONT AGREE WITH. KINDA SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE YOURSELF THAT ITS NOT THE TRUTH AS WELL… JUST MY OPINION.

  28. January 27, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    So, me disagreeing with you is really me trying to convince myself that the world is the way you’d like it to be, rather than the way it is?

    And what’s with the allcaps?

  29. January 28, 2009 at 10:28 pm

    modus, If you really support “the way it is,” then why are you referring to us as people who are convinced “that homosexuality is a choice,” when that is exactly what all existing scientific research has proven? You wanting homosexuality to be innate does not make it so. Take your own advice, and accept “the way it is!” That’s pretty much what this blog is about.

  30. January 29, 2009 at 7:22 am

    “…’that homosexuality is a choice,’ when that is exactly what all existing scientific research has proven?”
    Clearly it must be a choice. That’s why their brains are different…because they chose to wire it differently. While I doubt that genetics plays a big role in their development, early life experience, hormone exposure while still in the womb, and the epigenome do. (“Epigenetic variations are known to result in markedly different phenotypes in genetically identical animals. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that humans may also vary in their behaviors because of epigenetic, in addition to genetic, differences. [fm Nova]). On a side note, genetics is cool, but epigenetics is awesome.

  31. { Lisa } said,

    January 31, 2009 at 1:19 am

    “So, me disagreeing with you is really me trying to convince myself that the world is the way you’d like it to be, rather than the way it is?

    And what’s with the allcaps?”

    Not disagreeing with me alone, disagreeing with what is right period. There is an old saying that makes pretty good sense “He who talks loudest ahem writes longest, is usually wrong.

    I dont type while looking at the screen, I look at the keyboard. It was in caps and it was gonna stay that way!

  32. January 31, 2009 at 2:02 am

    { Lisa } “There is an old saying that makes pretty good sense “He who talks loudest ahem writes longest, is usually wrong.”
    Well, at my small number of posts (generally with fact-centric links, like the one to the actual text of FOCA), that saying means that I’m way down the list of wrongness. If saying “I disagree, here’s why, and here are the studies to back me up” means that I’m usually wrong, then I must’ve hopped over to bizarro world somehow.

    “I dont type while looking at the screen, I look at the keyboard.”
    I had a boss who was a two finger typist, but the second finger kept getting in the way of the first, so he downgraded to one. The weird part was that typing was involved in virtually ever task the job required, and he’d been doing it for twenty-plus years already.

  33. Lillian said,

    February 3, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    I love the queen of hearts metaphor BB. It’s completely appropriate here as we see these activists tantrum, intimidate and barge their way in through the states.

    I read that several countries were also strong armed into supporting gay marriage. It’s never a free choice.

  34. Jalina said,

    February 9, 2009 at 3:52 am

    This comes from a short part of the vice-presidential debate

    IFILL: Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

    BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

    Maybe when Obama and Biden say change and that they bring change, it a change of mind from what they said before they were elected…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: