Probably the most famous argument for gun control was born of scraps of film pieced together by master manipulator Michael Moore. Bowling for Columbine, two hours of drippy emotionalism, witch hunting, character assassination, misrepresentation, race-baiting and wrong conclusions, received Hollywood’s highest commendation, The Oscar.
Moore spends the entire movie trying to get an answer to his question: What makes two young men walk into their school armed with automatic weapons in order to murder their peers?
Of course, nobody [except maybe Marilyn Manson] gives him a decent answer. Moore seems to conclude that the availability of guns, Charlton Heston, racism, and the Welfare Reform Act of 1994, are the cause for the violence. [When asked what he would say to Dylan and Eric if we could go back to the day before the Columbine Massacre, Manson said he would say nothing. “I would listen…which is what nobody did.”]
Probably the most cynical and dishonest thing Moore did in making his argument against guns, was the back slap he laid on the Framers. Moore chose James Nichols, the moron brother of Oklahoma bomber Terry Nichols, to be the voice of the Framers. It is Nichols who tries to quote John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, who argued correctly that a free people have a right to revolution against an unjust government. With a lot of help from the moron, himself, Michael Moore successfully renders anything coming out of James Nichols’ mouth idiocy. And that’s it! That’s the only time during the entire movie the intent of the Framers is discussed. People leave Moore’s film thinking America is the land of the blood-thirsty depraved and that guns are the principle cause for all the violence.
Our right to bear arms has nothing to do with crime fighting. In a civil society individuals give up the right to apprehend and punish criminals. Protection “from enemies foreign and domestic” is government’s responsibility. Government has a monopoly on the use of force. Self-defense is the only exception to this rule. That means, if somebody is getting ready to kill you, you can stop them with lethal force; however, if you come home and find your loved-one slain, you can’t legally go door to door looking for the culprit. You call the police. It’s government’s responsibility to apprehend, try, convict, and punish criminals. Individuals do not have a right to vendetta or vigilante justice. The Second Amendment is not about individuals protecting themselves from criminals.
Because government has a monopoly on the use of force, government is very dangerous. Throughout history the greatest violator of the rights of individuals has been government. The Framers read history. They knew this. They fought a war against an unjust government. They wrote the Second Amendment to insure that such a just revolution may be fought again, if need be. Don’t take my word for it. Here are the words of the Framers.
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Gun Control: The Problem
The problem with the gun control debate in this country is that nobody seems to understand the Second Amendment. Every time I listen to or read a debate on the subject, I find absurdity on both sides. Invariably, supporters of the amendment argue that guns are legal so that citizens may protect themselves against home invaders and armed robbers, that the Framers allowed us to keep our weapons to save us the trouble of having to dial 911…Oh, and so we can all hunt to provide our families with those all-American, Sunday dinner favorites venison burgers and hasenpfeffer. Gun control advocates are no better. They ignore the Constitution entirely, recounting the horror show of the last school shooting, blaming guns for insane behavior, making emotional appeals to stop the violence.
Neither side ever mentions the reason for the Second Amendment right to bare arms.
The following is an excerpt from a debate aired on ABC's "The View," October 2006. This is a good example of the pre-school debate referenced above.
Rosie O’Donnell: "I think the horror of imagining six to thirteen-year-old girls handcuffed together and shot execution style, one by one [O’Donnell is referring to the shooting at an Amish school in Pennsylvania] is perhaps enough to awaken the nation that maybe we need some stricter gun control laws."
Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "So you can’t- You can't take way the right to, to bear arms."
O’Donnell: "Well, it’s not really a right. There’s debate as to what that-"
Hasselbeck: "It is a right. It’s in our Constitution. It’s the Second Amendment."
O’Donnell: "Well, let’s talk instead of yell."
Hasselbeck: "I’m not yelling."
O’Donnell: "I know that the Constitution has been interpreted many, many times. In our country the president puts his hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the Constitution. In the United States there is debate over whether or not the right to bear arms includes the lobby organization of the NRA, allowing no rules and no registration and absolutely, sort of, carte blanche, to make guns available to Americans in a way they're not in the rest of the world."
Hasselbeck: "There should be- There should be a middle ground. There should be a middle ground."
Barbara Walters: "Well, there are some gun controls. I mean, without guns-"
O’Donnell: "Well, what about this? The firearm death rate among children in America 0 to 14 is 12 times higher then all 25 other industrialized nations combined. Combined."
Hasselbeck: "What about the fact that firearms- Well, firearms are used 60 times more to defend people then they are to take a life in this country, too. That’s another statistic. This is why we have the debate."
O’Donnell: "I know, but maybe-"
Hasselbeck: "These things confuse us as, as Americans, but, in, in the results of children dying kind of bring it to a front, they bring it right to a boil. And that's why we have this discussion. That should not happen. But you have to remember that people protect themselves. In the times of segregation, when there were bigoted officers out there trying to just rule over and have government tyranny, people had to defend themselves somehow and they did it with guns."
O’Donnell: "If the man had a knife and he walked in there [the Amish schoolhouse] and there were adult women there and the man said I would like the women to leave because I'm going to keep the girls, I guarantee you, if that man did not have a gun, the mothers who were the teachers in that school would never have left those children alone in that room. Never."
Hasselbeck: "What if they had a gun? What if- Hang on, let's just flip it. I’m saying, let’s discuss all sides. What if, What if those women had guns on them and were able to defend themselves?"
O’Donnell: So you’re saying, you think we should arm teachers?"
Hasselbeck: "I'm not saying teachers should be armed. I'm just giving you the flip side of this situation-"
O’Donnell: "But the flip side is you’re saying-"
Hasselbeck: "-that is a lot of times guns are used to protect people, so we can’t be so extreme."
Joy Behar: "I think people want to hunt, that's a right as you’re describing with their rifles. Why do they need an AK--47? Are these deer in the Israeli army? What is the purpose of a machine gun to hunt with? Now that should be outlawed. Do you agree?"
Walters: Most people do not hunt with-"
Hasselbeck: "I would agree with that. And if you're a good hunter, you don't need that type of weapon."
Walters: "They don't hunt with machine guns."
O’Donnell: "But Barbara Walters. In America, it’s shocking that one is able to purchase an AK-47."
Walters: I’m agreeing with you."
Behar: "Why do they have them?"
O’Donnell: "Right. Because it is a $6 billion industry. And they have way too much power in a democracy, if you ask me."
Wow! This is the sort of debate “informed” American voters are exposed to daily—loud mouth, know-nothings tossing bromides and statistics at one another, spitting up arguments about the Constitution without once citing the intent of the Framers. What did the authors of the Constitution think they were doing when they wrote and ratified the Second Amendment?
Believe it or not, Elisabeth Hasselbeck almost stumbled on the answer when she brought up the civil rights movement.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Gay Marriage: Part 2
What better way to present my views on gay marriage than to debate Christian fundamentalist, Dr. James Dobson, a man who thought the issue important enough to write a whole book about it, Marriage Under Fire. In the book Dobson makes 10 arguments against gay marriage. I will take them one at a time. [See June 8, 2008, post for Arguments 1-5.]
Argument #6
Dobson: Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.
Good. Everyone should be encouraged to rid themselves of irrational biases. Everyone should know that two people who love each other should be able to live their lives together in any way they wish, that there are no rules regarding the behavior of two consenting adults in a bedroom or anywhere else, as long as nobody is being harmed. Toleration is not affirmation.
Argument #7
Dobson: How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?
This is just plain silly.
Argument #8
Dobson: Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind… If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution. What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.
Acknowledging the right of individuals to love and spend their lives with whomever they choose will not result in more people choosing a gay life-style. It will only insure that those who do will not be persecuted by irrationalists like you Doc.
Individual rights were not created by the Bill of Rights: The Bill of Rights was created to protect individuals from government abuses. The U.S. Bill of Rights is neither finite nor a complete list of the rights of individuals. While I agree with Dobson, the U.S. Supreme Court should not be referencing the laws of any other country when drafting their opinions, acknowledging rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is certainly a function of the courts. The Framers acknowledged this when they wrote the 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Argument #9
Dobson: Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.
I wish I could just say “good” here, too. But this buffoon needs an education in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Imagine that, an atheist teaching an evangelical leader about Jesus’ message!
Jesus taught—if nothing else—tolerance. He hung out with the worst kind of people, prostitutes and tax collectors. He disarmed stone-throwers, like you Doc, in the name of love…unconditional love. And don’t tell me you love gay people when your mission is to deny them their right to pursue their own happiness.
You’ve made spreading Jesus’ teachings your life’s work. So do it! Stop throwing stones.
Argument #10
Dobson: The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.
This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.
The only culture Americans should be working to define and defend is that spelled out by the Framers in our founding documents, particularly the part about each individual having the right to their life, their liberty, and to pursue their own happiness. The culture you’re trying to preserve, Doc, is polluted with Neolithic sensibilities: mysticism, superstition, authoritarian governments, intolerance, and persecution. The fear your arguments attempt to generate is as baseless as your faith in the existence of supernatural forces who respond to your wishes. The apocalypse you and Shirley are praying to mitigate is your own. A new Age of Reason is on the horizon. The future is a place where each individual will be free to pursue their own happiness free from persecution and your message of hate and intolerance.
Perhaps Robin Williams said it best responding to viewer mail at the end of the film, Mrs. Doubtfire.
"Dear Mrs. Doubtfire, Two months ago my mom and dad decided to separate. Now they live in different houses. My brother Andrew says that we aren't a real family any more. Is this true? Did I lose my family? Is there anything I could do to get my parents back together? Sincerely, Katie McCormick.”
“Oh, my dear Katie. You know, some parents get along much better when they don't live together. They don't fight all the time and they can become better people. Much better mommies and daddies for you. And sometimes they get back together. And sometimes they don't, dear. And if they don't, don't blame yourself. Just because they don't love each other doesn't mean that they don't love you.
“There are all sorts of different families, Katie. Some families have one mommy, some families have one daddy, or two families. Some children live with their uncle or aunt. Some live with their grandparents, and some children live with foster parents. Some live in separate homes and neighborhoods in different areas of the country. They may not see each other for days, weeks, months or even years at a time. But if there's love, dear, those are the ties that bind. And you'll have a family in your heart forever. All my love to you, poppet. You're going to be all right. Bye-bye.
Argument #6
Dobson: Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.
Good. Everyone should be encouraged to rid themselves of irrational biases. Everyone should know that two people who love each other should be able to live their lives together in any way they wish, that there are no rules regarding the behavior of two consenting adults in a bedroom or anywhere else, as long as nobody is being harmed. Toleration is not affirmation.
Argument #7
Dobson: How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?
This is just plain silly.
Argument #8
Dobson: Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind… If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution. What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.
Acknowledging the right of individuals to love and spend their lives with whomever they choose will not result in more people choosing a gay life-style. It will only insure that those who do will not be persecuted by irrationalists like you Doc.
Individual rights were not created by the Bill of Rights: The Bill of Rights was created to protect individuals from government abuses. The U.S. Bill of Rights is neither finite nor a complete list of the rights of individuals. While I agree with Dobson, the U.S. Supreme Court should not be referencing the laws of any other country when drafting their opinions, acknowledging rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is certainly a function of the courts. The Framers acknowledged this when they wrote the 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Argument #9
Dobson: Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.
I wish I could just say “good” here, too. But this buffoon needs an education in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Imagine that, an atheist teaching an evangelical leader about Jesus’ message!
Jesus taught—if nothing else—tolerance. He hung out with the worst kind of people, prostitutes and tax collectors. He disarmed stone-throwers, like you Doc, in the name of love…unconditional love. And don’t tell me you love gay people when your mission is to deny them their right to pursue their own happiness.
You’ve made spreading Jesus’ teachings your life’s work. So do it! Stop throwing stones.
Argument #10
Dobson: The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.
This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.
The only culture Americans should be working to define and defend is that spelled out by the Framers in our founding documents, particularly the part about each individual having the right to their life, their liberty, and to pursue their own happiness. The culture you’re trying to preserve, Doc, is polluted with Neolithic sensibilities: mysticism, superstition, authoritarian governments, intolerance, and persecution. The fear your arguments attempt to generate is as baseless as your faith in the existence of supernatural forces who respond to your wishes. The apocalypse you and Shirley are praying to mitigate is your own. A new Age of Reason is on the horizon. The future is a place where each individual will be free to pursue their own happiness free from persecution and your message of hate and intolerance.
Perhaps Robin Williams said it best responding to viewer mail at the end of the film, Mrs. Doubtfire.
"Dear Mrs. Doubtfire, Two months ago my mom and dad decided to separate. Now they live in different houses. My brother Andrew says that we aren't a real family any more. Is this true? Did I lose my family? Is there anything I could do to get my parents back together? Sincerely, Katie McCormick.”
“Oh, my dear Katie. You know, some parents get along much better when they don't live together. They don't fight all the time and they can become better people. Much better mommies and daddies for you. And sometimes they get back together. And sometimes they don't, dear. And if they don't, don't blame yourself. Just because they don't love each other doesn't mean that they don't love you.
“There are all sorts of different families, Katie. Some families have one mommy, some families have one daddy, or two families. Some children live with their uncle or aunt. Some live with their grandparents, and some children live with foster parents. Some live in separate homes and neighborhoods in different areas of the country. They may not see each other for days, weeks, months or even years at a time. But if there's love, dear, those are the ties that bind. And you'll have a family in your heart forever. All my love to you, poppet. You're going to be all right. Bye-bye.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Gay Marriage: Part 1
What better way to present my views on gay marriage than to debate Christian fundamentalist, Dr. James Dobson, a man who thought the issue important enough to write a whole book about it, Marriage Under Fire. In the book Dobson makes 10 arguments against gay marriage. I will take them one at a time.
Argument #1:
Dobson: The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound… half of today's children are born out of wedlock. It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes. Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements… Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.
It sounds to me, Dr. Dobson, that the problem here is divorce, not gay marriage. If you’re concerned about single-parent homes, it seems to me you should be preaching to heterosexual couples. It is marriages “between a man and a woman” that are producing children. It is these marriages that end in divorce over 50% of the time. It is the heterosexual relationship that results in children and single-parent homes.
I personally don’t think a single-parent home is a terrible thing. My five whole-siblings and four of my six half siblings were all raised in single-parent homes, and we’re all decent, moral, professional people with children and step-children of our own. Just because our experience does not follow your narrow model of perfection, does not at all mean that our families are not as valid and loving as yours.
Argument #2:
Dobson: The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey?
Let’s cross that “man marries donkey” straw bridge if and when we get there, hey Doc? The issue here is the right of two people—grown, consenting adults—who love each other having the right to share their experience here on Earth free from persecution. Aside from your irrational fear that such acceptance would result in widespread polygamy and incest, by what right do you deny two consenting adults their happy union? Your biblical values are yours. You have no right to force your faith and its ancient decrees on Americans any more than Islamist hate-mongers and bigots in Tehran have a right to execute homosexuals.
Argument #3
Dobson: An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.
Back in 1951, my newlywed parents moved to Madrid, Spain, where my father began medical school. Upon their arrival they met and befriended a young couple Harvey and Camile. Harvey was a medical student, like my father. Before the two men had graduated medical school, Harvey had left his wife Camile for his gay lover, Leo. My parents divorced in 1969, and my father married his second wife. Harvey and Leo were still together in 1969. My father’s second marriage ended in divorce in 1984. Harvey and Leo’s 30-year “marriage” was going strong. My father’s third marriage was celebrated in summer, 1985, and when my father died in 1992, the family of Harvey and Leo was still going strong.
The pursuit of happiness is every man’s unalienable right. There is no guarantee of happiness, and there is no prescription for achieving happiness. Nobody’s answer to the question “How should I live my life?” can be forced upon others. Individuals are free to choose their lifestyle. As long as nobody is harmed, there is no wrong-doing, there is no crime. There is no role for government to play.
Argument #4
Dobson: With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.
All gay individuals have one thing in common: heterosexual biological parents. An individual’s sexuality is not determined by the will of, nor the example set by, their parents. It is not learned in school, either. An individual’s sexuality is determined [more or less] by two very human functions: 1. Biology and 2. Choice. If a person’s homosexuality is primarily a function of biology, Dr. Dobson is condemning these “perverts” for characteristics beyond anyone’s control. That’s like persecuting ugly people…not very Christian of you, Doc. If educating young people about legal, gay marriages does anything, it will demystify the life-style and result in greater tolerance across the board. There’s no reason to believe this tolerance will result in more people choosing homosexual relationships. Knowing about the heterosexual relationships of their parents and the wide-spread acceptance of heterosexual relationships in society did not cause gays to grow up straight.
I’m not gay. I never have been. I have always believed choosing my friends and lovers is a choice that belongs to me and the subjects of my affection. If I found some girl attractive and decided to ask her out, for example, I did so. If she didn’t share my interest and said “no,” well…that was that. I moved on. Made other friends. I’m an adult. The company I keep is mine to keep and nobody’s business but mine. The same must be true for all individuals regardless of whether or not their choices would be mine.
Argument #5
Dobson: From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.
There is a shortage of loving couples and individuals qualified, willing and able to adopt, not the other way around. Nothing could be more irrelevant to a child than their parents’ sexuality. Do you have any idea what your parents did in the privacy of their bedroom, Doc? Shudder to think of it.
I thought everybody knew this: All any child needs is one, loving, responsible adult. A loving and responsible adult, Doc! The true parent could be anyone, regardless of who the biological parents are. A beautiful, successful American family could be a loving, responsible lesbian and her adopted, Russian baby boy. I know this, because this family exists in reality. I know this family.
Argument #1:
Dobson: The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound… half of today's children are born out of wedlock. It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes. Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements… Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.
It sounds to me, Dr. Dobson, that the problem here is divorce, not gay marriage. If you’re concerned about single-parent homes, it seems to me you should be preaching to heterosexual couples. It is marriages “between a man and a woman” that are producing children. It is these marriages that end in divorce over 50% of the time. It is the heterosexual relationship that results in children and single-parent homes.
I personally don’t think a single-parent home is a terrible thing. My five whole-siblings and four of my six half siblings were all raised in single-parent homes, and we’re all decent, moral, professional people with children and step-children of our own. Just because our experience does not follow your narrow model of perfection, does not at all mean that our families are not as valid and loving as yours.
Argument #2:
Dobson: The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey?
Let’s cross that “man marries donkey” straw bridge if and when we get there, hey Doc? The issue here is the right of two people—grown, consenting adults—who love each other having the right to share their experience here on Earth free from persecution. Aside from your irrational fear that such acceptance would result in widespread polygamy and incest, by what right do you deny two consenting adults their happy union? Your biblical values are yours. You have no right to force your faith and its ancient decrees on Americans any more than Islamist hate-mongers and bigots in Tehran have a right to execute homosexuals.
Argument #3
Dobson: An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.
Back in 1951, my newlywed parents moved to Madrid, Spain, where my father began medical school. Upon their arrival they met and befriended a young couple Harvey and Camile. Harvey was a medical student, like my father. Before the two men had graduated medical school, Harvey had left his wife Camile for his gay lover, Leo. My parents divorced in 1969, and my father married his second wife. Harvey and Leo were still together in 1969. My father’s second marriage ended in divorce in 1984. Harvey and Leo’s 30-year “marriage” was going strong. My father’s third marriage was celebrated in summer, 1985, and when my father died in 1992, the family of Harvey and Leo was still going strong.
The pursuit of happiness is every man’s unalienable right. There is no guarantee of happiness, and there is no prescription for achieving happiness. Nobody’s answer to the question “How should I live my life?” can be forced upon others. Individuals are free to choose their lifestyle. As long as nobody is harmed, there is no wrong-doing, there is no crime. There is no role for government to play.
Argument #4
Dobson: With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.
All gay individuals have one thing in common: heterosexual biological parents. An individual’s sexuality is not determined by the will of, nor the example set by, their parents. It is not learned in school, either. An individual’s sexuality is determined [more or less] by two very human functions: 1. Biology and 2. Choice. If a person’s homosexuality is primarily a function of biology, Dr. Dobson is condemning these “perverts” for characteristics beyond anyone’s control. That’s like persecuting ugly people…not very Christian of you, Doc. If educating young people about legal, gay marriages does anything, it will demystify the life-style and result in greater tolerance across the board. There’s no reason to believe this tolerance will result in more people choosing homosexual relationships. Knowing about the heterosexual relationships of their parents and the wide-spread acceptance of heterosexual relationships in society did not cause gays to grow up straight.
I’m not gay. I never have been. I have always believed choosing my friends and lovers is a choice that belongs to me and the subjects of my affection. If I found some girl attractive and decided to ask her out, for example, I did so. If she didn’t share my interest and said “no,” well…that was that. I moved on. Made other friends. I’m an adult. The company I keep is mine to keep and nobody’s business but mine. The same must be true for all individuals regardless of whether or not their choices would be mine.
Argument #5
Dobson: From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.
There is a shortage of loving couples and individuals qualified, willing and able to adopt, not the other way around. Nothing could be more irrelevant to a child than their parents’ sexuality. Do you have any idea what your parents did in the privacy of their bedroom, Doc? Shudder to think of it.
I thought everybody knew this: All any child needs is one, loving, responsible adult. A loving and responsible adult, Doc! The true parent could be anyone, regardless of who the biological parents are. A beautiful, successful American family could be a loving, responsible lesbian and her adopted, Russian baby boy. I know this, because this family exists in reality. I know this family.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Faith and Jihad
Let’s play 20 Questions! The following quotes are descriptions made by family, friends, and acquaintances of a very famous individual. Who are they describing?
He was “shy, soft-spoken, friendly, almost gentle…”
He was “tireless, an activist, with a great imagination.”
“He ate very little. He slept very little. He was very generous. He’d give you his clothes. He’d give you his money.”
“He had a small smile on his face and soft hands…you’d think you were shaking hands with a girl.”
“His house was poorer than the houses of most of the people who worked for him.”
“He was shy and serious, and struck many as naïve. When he laughed, he covered his mouth with his hand”
“He was very religious.”
Who is this man they are describing? Jesus? Pope John Paul II? Billy Graham? Mother Theresa? NO.
Try Osama bin Laden.
The most wanted man in American history, terrorist and evil-doer, 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden is a very humble, generous, and religious man. A good Muslim. Far more religious than any of his siblings [and he has dozens of siblings]. A man of uncompromising faith.
This is the problem with blind acceptance of millennia-old divine revelations, or put simply, faith in the irrational: there is no objective standard by which all men may make judgments or be judged. Most Christians would agree that self-denial, humility, faith, generosity, and religiosity are all fine qualities, that the man described above could not be evil. But the man described above is evil.
What makes Osama bin Laden evil? It is his irrational belief that he is doing God’s work. He, like all people of any faith, handed over his rational self, turned his back on his own humanity, in exchange for the supernatural promise of life everlasting. Like the most religious individuals of any faith, he’s not living his life: He’s waiting to die. He and his followers can find justification for their actions [suicide bombers and the murder of innocence] in their holy book, the Koran. They believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for making these sacrifices in the name of Allah. Like Christians, Muslims believe their holy book is the word of God. [Mohammed delivered his message over six centuries after Jesus, so for Muslims the Koran is God’s last words to man. Muslims acknowledge Jesus and his teachings, but because Mohammed came after Jesus, his message is final. The savior, the Mahdi, many Muslims are waiting for will actually do his Judgment Day war-on-the-anti-Christ work with Jesus at his side. Jesus, of course, is expected to beseech all Christians to convert to Islam.]
Mohammed said it’s okay to convert [and if unsuccessful, kill] non-believers, infidels. As long as some religious leader declares a fatwa, even murder of innocents is permissible in bin Laden’s world. Christians have a long history of murdering innocents, non-believers, heretics. In the last century it was a so-called “Christian nation” that actually used nuclear weapons killing tens of thousands of women and children.
Why does God require so much bloodletting? Both Muslims and Christians worship death. Martyrdom in both faiths is the surest route to Heaven. Martyrs, like Jesus, St. Peter, and St. Stephen are among the most revered of all Christian saints. Today, young men travel from all over the Muslim world [including the United States] to volunteer to serve bin Laden in Afghanistan and Iraq with hope that they will be killed fighting the jihad against the West. When the bombs fall, many do not even take cover. Death is their wish. It is their only standard. They are anti-human, anti-life.
The moral dictates of both faiths defy reason. A believer is left with no objective standard with which to make judgments. What is an objective standard? 1. Life on Earth is governed by natural law. The laws of nature do not answer to the prayers of men; 2. What is…IS! This world is the world and when humans die they are dead; 3. Each individual has an absolute right to their life and an absolute right to determine their own thinking. These are all rational, objective standards that would [if widely accepted] create a much better world than the one envisioned by Muslims or Christians.
In fact, if men could do two simple things, we could make a heaven of this Earth.
1. Take care of yourself.
2. Do no harm.
As long as immoral, altruists, religionists claim the high moral ground in this world, as long as moderates and secularists yield [by default] the higher ground to the extremely irrational, as long as entire nations of people are subjected to the thought control of religious, morality police, whether they be young thugs raping unaccompanied women on the streets of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, or Christian state legislatures here in America denying a woman the right to determine the functions of her own body, this world will know no peace.
Nobody has the right to force anybody’s mind.
If you think your ancient prophet is God, or is the son of God, or works for God, think it! Live your life doing exactly what’s written in your holy books…with one exception: Leave the rest of us the hell alone!
We don’t believe your claim to know what God wants. Many of us don’t even believe there is such a thing as “God.” Yet, we are moral people! You’d never know it because we don’t walk around all day saying “bless this” and “bless that.” We don’t do public displays so that everybody can say “Gosh, what a religious guy he is” or “He must be going to Heaven.” We don’t go around trying to force other people to think the way we think. We don’t condemn to Hell people who don’t agree with us. We don’t murder! We don’t use ancient mores sanctioned in our holy book so that we can have sex with little girls.
We are enlightened, modern men governed by reason with a profound respect for humanity, the rights of individuals, and human truth. We are the future of humanity if humanity is to have a future.
He was “shy, soft-spoken, friendly, almost gentle…”
He was “tireless, an activist, with a great imagination.”
“He ate very little. He slept very little. He was very generous. He’d give you his clothes. He’d give you his money.”
“He had a small smile on his face and soft hands…you’d think you were shaking hands with a girl.”
“His house was poorer than the houses of most of the people who worked for him.”
“He was shy and serious, and struck many as naïve. When he laughed, he covered his mouth with his hand”
“He was very religious.”
Who is this man they are describing? Jesus? Pope John Paul II? Billy Graham? Mother Theresa? NO.
Try Osama bin Laden.
The most wanted man in American history, terrorist and evil-doer, 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden is a very humble, generous, and religious man. A good Muslim. Far more religious than any of his siblings [and he has dozens of siblings]. A man of uncompromising faith.
This is the problem with blind acceptance of millennia-old divine revelations, or put simply, faith in the irrational: there is no objective standard by which all men may make judgments or be judged. Most Christians would agree that self-denial, humility, faith, generosity, and religiosity are all fine qualities, that the man described above could not be evil. But the man described above is evil.
What makes Osama bin Laden evil? It is his irrational belief that he is doing God’s work. He, like all people of any faith, handed over his rational self, turned his back on his own humanity, in exchange for the supernatural promise of life everlasting. Like the most religious individuals of any faith, he’s not living his life: He’s waiting to die. He and his followers can find justification for their actions [suicide bombers and the murder of innocence] in their holy book, the Koran. They believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for making these sacrifices in the name of Allah. Like Christians, Muslims believe their holy book is the word of God. [Mohammed delivered his message over six centuries after Jesus, so for Muslims the Koran is God’s last words to man. Muslims acknowledge Jesus and his teachings, but because Mohammed came after Jesus, his message is final. The savior, the Mahdi, many Muslims are waiting for will actually do his Judgment Day war-on-the-anti-Christ work with Jesus at his side. Jesus, of course, is expected to beseech all Christians to convert to Islam.]
Mohammed said it’s okay to convert [and if unsuccessful, kill] non-believers, infidels. As long as some religious leader declares a fatwa, even murder of innocents is permissible in bin Laden’s world. Christians have a long history of murdering innocents, non-believers, heretics. In the last century it was a so-called “Christian nation” that actually used nuclear weapons killing tens of thousands of women and children.
Why does God require so much bloodletting? Both Muslims and Christians worship death. Martyrdom in both faiths is the surest route to Heaven. Martyrs, like Jesus, St. Peter, and St. Stephen are among the most revered of all Christian saints. Today, young men travel from all over the Muslim world [including the United States] to volunteer to serve bin Laden in Afghanistan and Iraq with hope that they will be killed fighting the jihad against the West. When the bombs fall, many do not even take cover. Death is their wish. It is their only standard. They are anti-human, anti-life.
The moral dictates of both faiths defy reason. A believer is left with no objective standard with which to make judgments. What is an objective standard? 1. Life on Earth is governed by natural law. The laws of nature do not answer to the prayers of men; 2. What is…IS! This world is the world and when humans die they are dead; 3. Each individual has an absolute right to their life and an absolute right to determine their own thinking. These are all rational, objective standards that would [if widely accepted] create a much better world than the one envisioned by Muslims or Christians.
In fact, if men could do two simple things, we could make a heaven of this Earth.
1. Take care of yourself.
2. Do no harm.
As long as immoral, altruists, religionists claim the high moral ground in this world, as long as moderates and secularists yield [by default] the higher ground to the extremely irrational, as long as entire nations of people are subjected to the thought control of religious, morality police, whether they be young thugs raping unaccompanied women on the streets of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, or Christian state legislatures here in America denying a woman the right to determine the functions of her own body, this world will know no peace.
Nobody has the right to force anybody’s mind.
If you think your ancient prophet is God, or is the son of God, or works for God, think it! Live your life doing exactly what’s written in your holy books…with one exception: Leave the rest of us the hell alone!
We don’t believe your claim to know what God wants. Many of us don’t even believe there is such a thing as “God.” Yet, we are moral people! You’d never know it because we don’t walk around all day saying “bless this” and “bless that.” We don’t do public displays so that everybody can say “Gosh, what a religious guy he is” or “He must be going to Heaven.” We don’t go around trying to force other people to think the way we think. We don’t condemn to Hell people who don’t agree with us. We don’t murder! We don’t use ancient mores sanctioned in our holy book so that we can have sex with little girls.
We are enlightened, modern men governed by reason with a profound respect for humanity, the rights of individuals, and human truth. We are the future of humanity if humanity is to have a future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)