Disclaimer
My good friend Mad Cow and I have started a string of politics posts. To make sense of the posts, it’s probably better if you start at the beginning and work your way up to the latest. See that beginning here:
Start of the politicsMy responseRetort
Now to the fun
Starting with my claim that Mad Cow was making up crap. (“Malarkey without backing”) I said this because of his quote here: “Mr. Bush seems to misinterpret this notion [of small government] as meaning ‘Same amount of power, just less people’.” I again state that there’s not really anything I can see Bush doing today that shows him of this opinion. I again ask Mad Cow to clarify exactly how Bush is attempting to accomplish this supposed idea.
And, for those of you dumb enough (MC…) to still think Bush declared war on Iraq, HE DIDN’T! Stop trying to say he did. In fact, you say that he did here, then go on at the bottom to claim that Congress started it, just as it should be. He may have convinced them to do it, but that’s what part of his position as President is – to persuade Congress to take action. When it came down to it, it was their choice as much as it was his. If you’re going to blame someone in the government for the war in Iraq, blame all that helped HJR 114 go through, not just President Bush. Just because he’s a jackass doesn’t mean he’s the only one.
Abortion
I realize that my stance on abortion might be ridiculous to some. Heaven forbid I point out the logic that once conception occurs, a child WILL be born, and to kill that embryo is just killing a HUMAN BEING before it DOES (not might, does) fully develop. To argue against contraceptives is to take my argument and twist it out of context. Before conception, sex only provides a chance, not a certainty.
A child might be born, but it has not even happened yet. The components are not humans, and will never grow to become one on their own. To stop them from meeting is not to kill a child because it’s not a person until after conception. After conception, IT WILL BE BORN, and IT IS A COMPLETE HUMAN. Before that, it MIGHT BE BORN, and IT’S NOT YET HUMAN. This is in fact a great argument for contraceptives, because if you’re not ready for the conception of a human being, you’d better not let one come about.
Gays and Civil Unions/Marriage
If all civil union is to you is living together, gays already have that.
I’m not narrow-minded in saying gays also have the same right to be married as any others, because this is a simple statement of fact. Your analogy is off that where you say gays are asking for strawberry, they are in fact asking for sushi. When they complain about it, the ice cream man explains that he does not sell sushi, because that’s not his job. He goes on to tell them that he doesn’t want to make sushi ice cream because that is perverted and might make people sick. The person then complains to everybody that the ice cream man should sell sushi, because he wants sushi. People then agree because, hell, if he’s complaining so loudly, he must be right, ice cream men should sell sushi.
Giving civil unions to gays is saying that they are now, for all intents and purposes, the legal equivalent of married people, which basically means they are married without religious overtone. So, allowing civil unions for gays is the same as redefining marriage while giving it a different name.
Why not allow them to marry? Because, marriage has long been a beneficial aspect to society. When a man and woman joins there are marked advantages for society. To allow gays to do the equivalent, is it not fair to expect these unions to contribute to society? The simple fact is that by allowing civil unions for gay people, we’re encouraging them to be gay. Statistically speaking, this is harmful to our society.
Allow me to divert your attention now to some of those statistics. The homosexual male has a life-span twenty years shorter than an average person. Homosexuals are 6 times as likely to have and spread disease of all sorts. Nearly one out of every two gay men is hospitalized at some point for domestic abuse. Over 55% of lesbians experience violent domestic abuse from one of their partners. A study from 1999 shows that of the only 1317 so called ‘hate crimes’ toward a gay person because they are gay, 650,000 male homosexuals committed violence against their partners. 17% of young men are sexually abused before adulthood. Around 98% of those crimes are committed by gay men. An gay rights organization called NAMBLA distributes information on being a pedophile and getting away with it. (I have sources for all these claims, if you want them, just ask.)
That being established, if gays are going to be married or the equivalent thereof, they should at least show they can be faithful to one another. Yet studies have shown such to be near impossible for gay couples. The average number of gay sexual partners is 308, the high in that study was 18,000! Of the studies trying to prove that gays do stay together many proved ‘inconclusive’ because the gay couples always fell apart. In The Netherlands, where gays are allowed to marry, married gays have an average of 8 casual sexual partners… a year. In traditional marriage this kind of thing would be grounds for divorce, so obviously their definition of marriage is highly screwed up.
Since being gay is not exactly good for either the individual or society, we should probably not condone it. This doesn’t mean we should hate gay people or anything, but they certainly aren’t going to contribute positively.
It does not go against my beliefs in the Constitution to not want gays to have civil unions. This matter is simply up to each state to decide, and I feel they should all decide against it. Some people seem to not understand that the Constitution hands all matters it doesn’t cover to the states to do for themselves, allowing government closer and more responsible to the people. Actually abiding by the Constitution does not mean that anything not stated is not allowed by the government, it means that our national government can’t get its hands into everything. It is the job of the state to decide in what manner marriage is defined for legal intents and purposes, so it is obviously their job to regulate what it means to be married.
Real Charity and Forced Charity
Charity is giving to the needy. They shouldn’t have to pursue it, but our government is not and should not be a charitable organization. Our national government has no right to give our money to poor people. We give them our money to take care of our defense and other things that the government is supposed to provide in the Constitution. It is not their position (and thus it is illegal) for them to give our money to people that need it. That’s what there are charities for.
I find it odd that you have so little faith in humanity, when you yourself are willing to donate money to a church to help the needy in your own ward. The reason the founding fathers did not want to make our government a charity organization is because such a large power removes it from the realm of accountability.
At the local level, if we help our fellow neighbors then we know exactly who we help and they feel the need to actually get on their feet so they don’t have to depend on their friends any more. When the money’s raining down from on high, people don’t have to feel any accountability at all, any sense of trying to get back up. The amount of people dependent on our government since 1980 has doubled. If our system was working, we should see it lessening, not doubling. Welfare should be helping people to get out of hard times, not stay permanently in them.
Giving our money to other nations follows the same philosophy. It is not the duty of our government to provide a little of our greatness, but the people themselves. There are plenty of charities in our country that can and do make a difference. By donating to those, you can do something. There is already someone to oversee it, so stop saying the government needs to. As a nation, it is our responsibility to be our own nation. As a good people it is our responsibility to help other nations.
In closing of this subject, I turn to a quaint scripture story. God had a plan to send everyone down on earth to test and see if they’d listen to him. Satan suggested that if he were in charge, he’d force everyone to do the right thing so that they all passed the test. God was smarter than that though. If people are not free to make their own choices than they might as well not go through with it. They should have the opportunity to make their own choice. This is what made them good when they chose. So he told Satan that he was not so smart in his thinking and went with his plan. (Satan of course rebelled and became the bad guy of the story.)
Whether or not you believe in this as truth you can agree that the moral is true enough: once we are forced to make a choice, rather than asked to choose, we lose our freedom and might as well have not chosen at all. The real freedom is being able to choose what’s right and doing it because you want to.
Bush and Iraq
Without Bush, there very well could have been a war. Just because he went around screaming did not mean that half the Democratic party had to listen. In fact, you’d think them astute enough to have be able to make decisions for themselves. You know you’re reaching when you try to claim that Bush forced Congress to think exactly like him. Or does he have access to some secret mind control device. Come on. They thought how they wanted to think, now some regret it and want to pretend that it wasn’t their fault. I’m disappointed in your lack of any sense in this regard. It was their choice, not his. THEY chose to follow him. Don’t try to blame him for them making a choice.
Gitmo and those poor mistreated enemy combatants that were trying to kill our soldiers at some point
Regarding Gitmo, I’d love to see these reports that state the people were innocent, because that’s horrible. Find a source please. I’ve heard a lot of bologna from ‘respectable’ news sources, but nothing ever claiming that most of the people coming out of Gitmo are there without any reason.
Gitmo is a prisoner-of-war camp. People must be found on the field of battle to be enemy combatants to get sent there. Over 10% who were released were captured fighting against us again. It’s not like we storm into some innocent Iraqi’s house and say “You’re going to Gitmo!” We find them shooting at us and manage to force them to surrender. They’re not innocent. We have every right to hold prisoners in a time of war if they are the ones shooting at us. Would you prefer we executed all the prisoners-of-war?
And who said we have no what’s going on inside Gitmo? I don’t remember President Bush getting up and waving his hand in Jedi style saying “You will not look into Gitmo…” In fact, where are all these reports of abuse and errors coming from if people aren’t looking into it? Um, hello, you just caught yourself up in your own argument. Given that, it’s still an army prison for POWs so the army can and should conduct it in whatever matter it seems fit to, secrecy or not. (Barring breaking rules of engagement the US has agreed to, such as not torturing prisoners.)
Well, there’s the end of this part of the debate. Time to respond Mr. Cow.
Comments are closed.