Many arguements against same sex marriage include this one: children should be raised by a man and woman for the best results.
So I began wondering what is the best environment to raise a child. What will produce the best member of society?
First, I looked at whether or not it was the man, woman, two and a half kids with a dog theory. I used myself as an example.
The results: active member of society who will be attending college with a basis of morals and manners despite not being exposed to religion.
I am the complete contradiction to the "ideal family" theory. So what makes a child's upbringing successful? Family values.
Before you attack, I said family values. I did not say family quota (man, woman, two and a half kids with a dog.)
A person will grow up with morals if they are taught them. It requires the parent to have values to teach. For me, these values did not come from religion, but my parents. I will pass them on to any child I should raise. Who teaches these values best? Those with values. So one requirement for a successful upbringing is being raised by a parent with values.
Is that all? Maybe. Being active in the community is a good quality to have. Does this come from a parent who is active in the community? In my case, no. I developed it on my own it seems. My parents even discourage me occassionally (they think I do too much). So the values must extend a sense of duty to community.
What else? Why didn't I end up repressed and anti-social? I admit I was close at some points. I could easily distrust the world around me and isolate myself from pain that so many others have done. Why didn't I? My parents loved and cared for me so that when I entered those moments of anti-social behavior the urges for isolation were countered. Family values make helping those you love a natural instinct. If they hadn't had those family values, I could have ended up the wreckage so many other kids become.
I could go on with example after example but I think the reality speaks for itself. We want family values in this country, not quotas. It is a moral code that makes our society great, not a stereotype utopia.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Same-Sex Marriage - The Arguements Against
Simply any arguement on the basis of quotes from the Bible, or Qu'ran, or any religious text I will refute first: seperation of church and state.
If common sense doesn't give you the conclusion to that one, stop reading now and practice your abc's.
To those who say marriage is between a man and woman: not unless it isn't. Like in some European countries.
To those who say it is for procreation: what about the kids born outside of marriage? Marriage certainly wasn't required for them to procreate.
Gays are immoral: See first line.
It is an untried social experiment: Love between gays is nothing new. Giving them the same recognition for their love is the only new thing. No social experiment: only legal.
It will allow other forms of relationships (bestiality, polygamy, incest):
Bestiality: The animal can not speak and thus is unable to say "I do."
Polygamy: These relationships are often cult like in that it permits male dominance over many females. On such cultist basis, they can be refused.
Incest: The blood line boundary is a line that can not be crossed.
Pedophiles: Children are unable nor old enough to have the understanding an of age person does.
Giving gays marriage is a special right: Then if gays can't have it, why should straights? Special rights, if not givable to gays, shouldn't be granted to anyone else.
Churches would be forced to marry against their will: The law can be written so that religion has a choice. Seperation of church and state.
Homosexuality will be taught in schools: So is drug use. To say it would be promoted is simply ridiculous.
Undermine Western civilization: hasn't yet.
Lastly, same-sex couples are not the optimum environment to raise children: I was raised by two women. They are not lesbians, but still, I turned out just fine. This arguement is going to be the basis of my next post.
If common sense doesn't give you the conclusion to that one, stop reading now and practice your abc's.
To those who say marriage is between a man and woman: not unless it isn't. Like in some European countries.
To those who say it is for procreation: what about the kids born outside of marriage? Marriage certainly wasn't required for them to procreate.
Gays are immoral: See first line.
It is an untried social experiment: Love between gays is nothing new. Giving them the same recognition for their love is the only new thing. No social experiment: only legal.
It will allow other forms of relationships (bestiality, polygamy, incest):
Bestiality: The animal can not speak and thus is unable to say "I do."
Polygamy: These relationships are often cult like in that it permits male dominance over many females. On such cultist basis, they can be refused.
Incest: The blood line boundary is a line that can not be crossed.
Pedophiles: Children are unable nor old enough to have the understanding an of age person does.
Giving gays marriage is a special right: Then if gays can't have it, why should straights? Special rights, if not givable to gays, shouldn't be granted to anyone else.
Churches would be forced to marry against their will: The law can be written so that religion has a choice. Seperation of church and state.
Homosexuality will be taught in schools: So is drug use. To say it would be promoted is simply ridiculous.
Undermine Western civilization: hasn't yet.
Lastly, same-sex couples are not the optimum environment to raise children: I was raised by two women. They are not lesbians, but still, I turned out just fine. This arguement is going to be the basis of my next post.
Obama Fills The Template
I found a quote from Obama's campaign days. It is thus:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Excerpt over. Let us compare this to Hugo Chavez:
President Chavez has returned to speaking about the reserve or territorial force, proclaiming that the old model must end and revolutionary changes within the concept of integral defense deepened. The Bolivarian Militia, the President insists, must be the people-in-arms.
Everybody should be in the militia, Chavez continues, from commanders of the Bolivarian Armed Force (FAB) to leaders of community councils. "We must convert Venezuela into an impregnable country shielded on all sides, inside and outside ... it is necessary to give life and shape to the doctrine of the People’s War ... we are all soldiers." Outlining his policy, the President suggests that the militia should organized into combat units, logistical and intelligence units but he did indicate that not all were to have possession of weapons.
Excerpt over. What has Hugo Chavez used the forces under his command to do so far? Take a look:
National Guard troops in Curiepe, Venezuela, seized a police station controlled by a leading opponent of President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday, setting off clashes between troops and protesters that the police said left eight injured.
Excerpt over. Since such comparisons of Obama to Hitler would be completely out of line, lets compare Chavez' civilian military program to that of Hitler's instead. I refuse to quote Hitler on this blog, so I will simply let you know of the Waffen SS and the Hitler Youth. Secondary forces under control of Hitler, just like the National Gaurd is under the control of Chavez. In this country, our National Gaurd is controlled by states and the military jointly it seems.
So, since the states already have a force of their own that Obama can't control, he wants one of his own. I urge you to turn on the common sense sector of your brain and read everything except Obama's quote and then read Obama's quote.
Not only would this mean 500 billion for a new civilian army, but make a secondary force outside of control of the military. While this in premise is good if controlled by the states (like the National Gaurd is) it poses some problems. Obama said it would be the same as the military, in funding, size, and power. He didn't say who would control it. Americorps? ACORN? Obama? My money goes to Obama.
Those hard-liners will say "you support militias and gun rights." Yes, I do. When the states and the people have them with the purpose to defend their neighbors I support it. When it is used as a tool of competing power with the Armed Forces I oppose it.
Lastly, why does Obama doubt the ability of our forces? We have not been attacked since 9/11 so why does he believe our forces are failing to protect our security? If he didn't mean what he said, why did he say it?
Obama quote: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=69601
Chavez quote 1: http://www.pr-inside.com/venezuela-s-president-chavez-turns-r1384104.htm
Chavez quote 2:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/world/americas/16venez-floater.html
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Excerpt over. Let us compare this to Hugo Chavez:
President Chavez has returned to speaking about the reserve or territorial force, proclaiming that the old model must end and revolutionary changes within the concept of integral defense deepened. The Bolivarian Militia, the President insists, must be the people-in-arms.
Everybody should be in the militia, Chavez continues, from commanders of the Bolivarian Armed Force (FAB) to leaders of community councils. "We must convert Venezuela into an impregnable country shielded on all sides, inside and outside ... it is necessary to give life and shape to the doctrine of the People’s War ... we are all soldiers." Outlining his policy, the President suggests that the militia should organized into combat units, logistical and intelligence units but he did indicate that not all were to have possession of weapons.
Excerpt over. What has Hugo Chavez used the forces under his command to do so far? Take a look:
National Guard troops in Curiepe, Venezuela, seized a police station controlled by a leading opponent of President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday, setting off clashes between troops and protesters that the police said left eight injured.
Excerpt over. Since such comparisons of Obama to Hitler would be completely out of line, lets compare Chavez' civilian military program to that of Hitler's instead. I refuse to quote Hitler on this blog, so I will simply let you know of the Waffen SS and the Hitler Youth. Secondary forces under control of Hitler, just like the National Gaurd is under the control of Chavez. In this country, our National Gaurd is controlled by states and the military jointly it seems.
So, since the states already have a force of their own that Obama can't control, he wants one of his own. I urge you to turn on the common sense sector of your brain and read everything except Obama's quote and then read Obama's quote.
Not only would this mean 500 billion for a new civilian army, but make a secondary force outside of control of the military. While this in premise is good if controlled by the states (like the National Gaurd is) it poses some problems. Obama said it would be the same as the military, in funding, size, and power. He didn't say who would control it. Americorps? ACORN? Obama? My money goes to Obama.
Those hard-liners will say "you support militias and gun rights." Yes, I do. When the states and the people have them with the purpose to defend their neighbors I support it. When it is used as a tool of competing power with the Armed Forces I oppose it.
Lastly, why does Obama doubt the ability of our forces? We have not been attacked since 9/11 so why does he believe our forces are failing to protect our security? If he didn't mean what he said, why did he say it?
Obama quote: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=69601
Chavez quote 1: http://www.pr-inside.com/venezuela-s-president-chavez-turns-r1384104.htm
Chavez quote 2:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/world/americas/16venez-floater.html
Truce With Taliban A Reality
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSP509252
We will not attack the Taliban in one of Afghanistan's provinces. The Obama administration has not made a phone call that no truce with the Taliban is to be recognized. Al Qaeda was the radical wing of the Taliban and since our invasion merged into one entity. Regardless of the internal fractures of "moderates" in the Taliban to those who are hardline extremists, the Taliban should be recognized at all times as a terrorist organization and not be negotiated with unless it involves the laying down of arms.
This truce does not require the surrender, or even disbanding of the Taliban. It even allows them to vote in the upcoming election. Even when Pakistan agreed to allow the laws to be written by the Taliban the truces signed were broken every time. They used the truce to expand and support attacks in other areas. The truce has been tried, and they failed. Pakistan is now facing 8,000 more Taliban fighters than it would have at the time it signed the first truce.
This is a war of ideology. We need to talk to the people more, not the enemy. We get the support of the people, the enemy will lose. Iraq proved this, so why can't Afghanistan's leadership and Obama come to common sense? Letting these fighters vote in an election they want, vow, and fight to stop, destroy, and corrupt is the worst thing to do.
We will not attack the Taliban in one of Afghanistan's provinces. The Obama administration has not made a phone call that no truce with the Taliban is to be recognized. Al Qaeda was the radical wing of the Taliban and since our invasion merged into one entity. Regardless of the internal fractures of "moderates" in the Taliban to those who are hardline extremists, the Taliban should be recognized at all times as a terrorist organization and not be negotiated with unless it involves the laying down of arms.
This truce does not require the surrender, or even disbanding of the Taliban. It even allows them to vote in the upcoming election. Even when Pakistan agreed to allow the laws to be written by the Taliban the truces signed were broken every time. They used the truce to expand and support attacks in other areas. The truce has been tried, and they failed. Pakistan is now facing 8,000 more Taliban fighters than it would have at the time it signed the first truce.
This is a war of ideology. We need to talk to the people more, not the enemy. We get the support of the people, the enemy will lose. Iraq proved this, so why can't Afghanistan's leadership and Obama come to common sense? Letting these fighters vote in an election they want, vow, and fight to stop, destroy, and corrupt is the worst thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
