Wednesday, January 28, 2009

On Obama's Agenda: The Destruction Of The Traditional Family

"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments." ~ William H. Borah

The following discourse is another comment I began to leave at our team blog, which was a short comment that linked to a Town Hall piece by Alan Sears, founder and CEO of The Alliance Defense Fund, but it became so long, I decided it would make a good subject for a post on it's own:

The subject of the aforementioned article by Mr Sears is an analysis of parts of President Barack Hussein Obama's agenda according to his official web site. Mr. Sears' position is that Obama's agenda is "a virtual declaration of war against those who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in homosexual behavior."

The first commentary was on Obama's agenda of "Expanding the definition of, and ramping up the penalties for, 'hate' crimes".

This is my opinion about hate crimes legislation:

I am a little confused about hate crimes legislation, and have been ever since hate crime legislation was first introduced. As I understand it, it was introduced to combat violent crimes committed by person A against person B because person A hates Person B.

Already this requires a judgment call. Who can say what anyone thinks about anyone else during the commission of a felony? Who can read minds?

Very few violent crimes are committed because the perpetrator loves the victim, if any.

Now, if person A admits that he committed a violent crime against person B because he hates person B, there is indeed just cause to prosecute, however, original hate crimes legislation was introduced to protect those victims who are considered minorities, and in particular, homosexuals.

But even in that scenario, isn't the fact that a violent crime was committed enough of a reason to prosecute? Why is labeling any violent crime a hate crime even needed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was already a crime to assault, batter, and/or murder someone else, and whatever reason, except in cut-and-dried instances of self defense, motive isn't even required in the determination of guilt or innocence. It often helps to know why, but it is not necessary.

I've mentioned before that hate crimes legislation is an perfect example of what I call "government overkill". Which means the government spent a lot of time, energy, and tax payer money to pass a law that was essentially already on the books.

Government overkill happens when some one sues some government entity over some perceived negligence, justified or not. That's when government goes into full blown CYA mode, and over-reacts by proposing some legislation that creates some new law that is neither useful nor necessary.

Like hate crimes legislation.

Where the state used to prosecute the crime of murder, they now have to spend additional time and money to determine if said murder is a hate crime or simply a run of the mill murder.

I say, what's the difference? The victim is still just as dead, and the perpetrator is still just as guilty.

The second part of the article quotes the Obama website as follows:

Expanding “anti-discrimination” employment laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

I agree with the author that this is simply an attempt to place the decision of who to hire into the hands of the government. According to Mr Sears: "...[T]his is about forcing religious groups (including churches) and private organizations (like the Boy Scouts and businesses) to hire those whose open announcement of sexual behavior runs counter to the beliefs of the organizations. And when those organizations point to those beliefs...well, see 'Hate Crimes' above."

Let me add here, this is an egregious violation of the Constitution of the United States, particularly the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Third, and fourth, Obama declares, "Opposing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage,” while promoting the legalization of these and other same-sex relationships – granting them the same federal legal rights and privileges as other married couples."

And, "Securing full adoption rights for same-sex couples."

This third point is where Mr. Sears and I part company. While I agree that allowing same sex couples to marry is disgusting and sickening, I really don't have a problem with it if they choose to do so. Whatever floats their boat. As long as they don't try to shove their immorality down my and my children and grand children's throats, they can marry each other as many times as they want.

They are welcome to the same feeling of hopelessness and entrapment that married couples have had to deal with since time began. And, since homosexuality is depravity, they no doubt deserve it more.

But I draw the line at allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.

In my opinion, allowing homosexual couples to adopt children is child abuse. Let them play house if they want to. More power to them. But leave innocent impressionable children out of the picture.

Give them a chance to grow up mentally healthy without all that additional unnecessary trauma.


Anonymous said...

Well said. Homosexual adoption is ridiculous. I always ask the proponents of this why the sex of a partner is immutable yet the sex of one's parent's is irrelevant?

It seems like they'd have to give up at least one of these bad ideas. How can a guy say that he just has to have a guy for a sexual partner (not a butch female or a transgender female), but a real guy, then turn around and insist that it is completely irrelevant what the sexes of a child's parents are?

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Mark, I agree with all that you said in your post, however, as a priest I could NEVER perform a same-sex marriage, nor could I ever recognize such an abomination and an affront to nature.

As to all of the federal hate crimes legislation, it is my belief that they are totally unconstitutional, as they are in direct violation of the double jeopardy clause which states that you cannot try a person twice for the same crime. This is what happens because if you are found not guilty in your local court, or if the prosecution feels that your sentence (if found guilty) is not stiff enough, they can have the federal government retry you under hate legislation.

Kris said...

i fear we are so far down this road that we will not be able to turn back...


Trader Rick said...

I wonder if it might not be the chlorine in our municipal water supplies that causes half our nation to be raving lunatics and not even know it...Insanity run amuck.

Mark said...

Father Gregori, Nor would I, but if Obama has his way, you might not only have to recognize it, but you might even be forced to perform such marriages.

Dan Trabue said...

As I understand it, it was introduced to combat violent crimes committed by person A against person B because person A hates Person B.

Actually, hate crimes are committed when Person A commits a crime against person B because person B belongs to Group Z. It's not merely because you hate a person. Someone can commit a crime against me because they think I'm an idiot and hate me for it, but they have not committed a hate crime.

BUT, if they hate Christians and therefore commit a crime against me as a Christian, it's not just a crime against me, it strikes a blow against my group and helps create an atmosphere of fear among that group. So, there is an additional crime happening and it is rightly separated legally as an additional crime.

It's not dissimilar to acts of terrorism. If someone puts a bomb in a federal building and gets arrested, they aren't charged with just attempted murder for putting a bomb in the building, they may also be charged with terrorism, if in fact, they were trying to terrorize people. It's an additional crime and needs an additional charge.

So, where Rev. Gregori worries about double jeopardy, no worries, it's an additional crime they're being charged with, not the same crime twice.

Fair enough?

Dan Trabue said...

someone said:

Well said. Homosexual adoption is ridiculous. I always ask the proponents of this why the sex of a partner is immutable yet the sex of one's parent's is irrelevant?

Shame on this kind of thinking. It is always a beautiful and blessed thing, when someone selflessly agrees to take in a child with no home in order to give that child a home, parent(s) and love. God bless any and all who so selflessly give of themselves and shame on those who oppose such beautiful love.

As to the rest of his "logic," what in the heck is he talking about? Yes, IF you are straight, it DOES matter that your spouse would be of the opposite sex and if you are gay, it DOES matter that your spouse be of the same sex. It's called "orientation," and it's a very real thing. Each of you straight people here recognize the very natural orientation towards the opposite sex in your own lives.

However, WHY would it matter to an orphan if they had only ONE person to adopt them and be their mom (or dad)? They'd be glad to have one parent, I guarantee you. Similarly, why would it matter to an orphan if they had two moms, two dads or a mom and dad. The important thing is to have a loving home and that can be found in a single parent home, in a gay or a straight home.

The logic in this argument is lacking.

Dan Trabue said...

One more thing, no need to fearmonger. No one is forcing churches to marry gays.

From a Myth-busting website:

"There is nothing in any marriage law, existing or proposed, anywhere in the United States, that does or would have the effect of requiring any church to marry any couple they do not wish to marry. Churches already can refuse any couple they wish, and for any reason that suits them, which many often do, and that would not change. Some churches continue to refuse to marry interracial couples, others interreligious couples, and a few refuse couples with large age disparities and for numerous other reasons."

Mark said...

The overly optimistic Dan says, "No one is forcing churches to marry gays."

Not yet, Dan, but if Obama wants to, that scenario is entirely possible. He already has shown a propensity to take away other of our freedoms. What's to stop him here?

Dan Trabue said...

What's to stop him there? Our laws. Our people. The Left is WAY too strong an advocate of free speech to allow any president to take away our free speech.

Relax, bro. Don't you worry, 'bout a thing. We got your back.

Dan Trabue said...

Returning to the notion of being opposed to gay folk adopting, it is this sort of prejudice that makes it appear that the religious right are haters not merely of the sin, but of specific sinners.

Tell me, how many of you all are opposed to others sinners adopting children? If someone commits the sin of greed, are you opposed to their adopting children? How about those who engage in the sin of slander? Should they be banned from adopting children?

Why would you pick on one group of sinners to the exclusion of others? It makes you sound like hypocrites and bigots and you shouldn't be surprised when people think that of you.

If you wanted to be consistent, you might oppose gay marriage - thinking that homosexuality is a sin (like you would, in theory, oppose greed or slander or other sins that you're personally more likely to engage in yourselves), but you would still celebrate when gay folk or slanderers or the greedy adopt children. Sinners, believe it or not, CAN be good parents.

Mark said...

"What's to stop him there? Our laws. Our people. The Left is WAY too strong an advocate of free speech to allow any president to take away our free speech."

What have you been smoking? Obama's main agenda is to silence any speech with which he disagrees. He's already started the ball rolling with the recent trial balloon he sent up to see if anyone would object to his "suggestion" not to listen to Rush Limbaugh. And, he supports the mis-named fairness doctrine, which is blatant in it's intent to revoke the first amendment.

You are correct, though about the lefts advocacy of free speech. You just forgot to mention that they only advocate free speech as long as they agree with it.

Wait and see. Obama will work hard to abolish freee speech in Amewrica. He might not accomplish it, but he will most certainly try. And he is a leftist, so the left will back him until they have no rights themselves.

Dan Trabue said...

Live in fear if you wish, Mark. No one is trying to silence you. Relax. Your words are still here and the Left would be the first to step up to defend your right to make up stories and reason badly and otherwise speak your mind.

You gotta know who your friends are...

Mark said...

"Tell me, how many of you all are opposed to others sinners adopting children? If someone commits the sin of greed, are you opposed to their adopting children? How about those who engage in the sin of slander? Should they be banned from adopting children?"

Apples and oranges, Dan. The abuse is in exposing children to deviant sexual behavior and not teaching them that it is contrary to nature, which encourages children to experiment with it themselves. Children often emulate their parents. Even parents who beat or sexually molest them. Have you not heard that the children of abusers often become abusers themselves?

And that's only the ones with honorable intentions. That doesn't include all the pedophiles who want to adopt children just so they can have a live in plaything.

And don't even try to tell me that doesn't happen. I would suggest it's even more prevalent than either of us imagine.

Dan Trabue said...

Mark said:

That doesn't include all the pedophiles who want to adopt children just so they can have a live in plaything.

And since the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, I suppose you are opposed to heterosexuals adopting? You're exposing your prejudices, Mark.

A sin is a sin is a sin. By saying that THIS group of sinners don't deserve to give of their lives to save a child, but THAT group of sinners, it's okay for them to adopt, you're hurting children and society at large and you're exposing your hypocrisy and prejudices. I guarantee you that more children are harmed by Greed or even slander in our society than they are by loving gay parents.

Again, shame on this sort of thinking - Putting your hateful prejudices ahead of the best interests of children, shame on you.

Mark said...

A vast majority of pedophiles ARE homosexuals, Dan, and I have the facts and figures in a book that is packed away somewhere. (I recently moved and am not completely unpacked yet) But as soon as I find it, I'll publish them for you.

By the way, just because some pedophiles say they aren't homosexual it doesn't mean they are telling the truth. After all, if one will molest children, one will lie.

And I know, Dan, your next question will be why would they lie?

Because they are depraved individuals and nothing is out of bounds to them.

Mark said...

I'm no longer going to debate this with you, Dan. You know the truth. You just refuse to believe it.

How many of those child molesters molested female children? See? I can play the statistic game, too, Dan. With statistics, I can prove or disprove anything. It all depends on where you get your sources.

It is entirely illogical for a heterosexual child molester to molest same sex children.

Once in a while you should try using common sense instead of homosexual friendly resources to bolster your illogical points.

Gayle said...

You use common sense, Mark, and the left hates common sense because they truly don't know what it is, as is proven here by your conversation with Dan.

I only disagree with you on one thing in this entire post, Mark. The "hopelessness and entrapment" sentence regarding marriage. My husband and I celebrated our fiftieth wedding anniversary this year. We married at the age of 17 and 18, and even though the first few years were tough financially, we grew stronger by overcoming the tough times. Not all marriages are like you describe. It sounds as though you've had a bad experience but I wish you wouldn't let it make you bitter.

As far as Obama goes, be bitter... be very bitter! They are going to do their very best to make American citizens dependent on them in order to give themselves more power. Rush Limbaugh said he hopes Obama fails. I agree. Why would we want him to succeed when it would mean we lose our capitalistic system? This bailout crap is going to send the entire system down the crapper!

Mark said...

"Not all marriages are like you describe. It sounds as though you've had a bad experience but I wish you wouldn't let it make you bitter."

LOL! Don't take everything I say seriously, Gayle. That was just a little joke to lighten up my comment a bit.

Dan Trabue said...

Miss Gayle, where is the common sense in opposing gay folk adopting children? Many children need parents. Some gay folk are willing to provide a loving home to them. We ought to let them.

That's common sense. Where is the common sense in opposing it? All I see are hatred and bigotry in such prejudiced thinking.

Where is the common sense in living in fear that the Obamaboogeyman is going to take away our free speech? Does it make sense to live in fear of a thought that has no support in the real world? Sounds illogical and whiny to me.

Where's the common sense in misrepresenting what Hate Crimes are about? Isn't that sorta akin to lying? Hate crimes aren't about convicting people for merely hating someone. That's a misrepresentation of reality, not common sense.

I'm not sure of what you mean by common sense, but it does not seem to match the real world definition of the term. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Mark, you said: "Father Gregori, Nor would I, but if Obama has his way, you might not only have to recognize it, but you might even be forced to perform such marriages."

I will NEVER do either. Let them put me in prison, they will only end up giving me free medical care and perhaps some more college courses of my choice.

Mark said...

Attaboy, Father. You are a man of principle. I like that.

Marshall Art said...

"All I see are hatred and bigotry in such prejudiced thinking."

And that's a problem in you that you refuse or fail to recognize. The anti-homosexual sentiments expressed by most of us on the right are not a matter of bigotry at all. That's just demonizing tactic of the homosex activists and their supporters.

NOW you want to compare pedophiles and homosexuals? I thought that was taboo. Perhaps it's a lame attempt to again equate heteros and homos. Of course it's lame because heterosexual behavior is not sinful if expressed within a traditional marriage setting. If you want to ask if unmarried hetero couples should adopt, I'd prefer they not. But pedophiles and homosexuals, absolutely not.

Now, I can put all the varied sexual sins in order of which is worst for kids, but they are all bad for them to be exposed to. The only ideal situation is for kids to be placed within a traditional marriage that has been properly investigated before placement. It not only gives them what they need most, one mother and one father, but exposure to the ideal to which we should encourage all our children to aspire.

I may have misread, but it looked like Mark said he doesn't care about homosexual marriage. I hope I misread, because to redefine the institution is by itself a pandora's box of trouble, as I have exhaustively examined at my blog.

Homosexuality is a condition that was removed from the list of mental illnesses through activism, not because it was scientifically determined NOT to be a disorder. Indeed, at the time, most psychologists were still of a mind that they could offer help, but it faded with further activism. From this lie, and I call it a lie because nowadays this salient point is never mentioned but only that it was removed from the list of mental illnesses. No study or research has proven any biological link that proves they are incapable of being helped, and no study that resulted in a suggestion of a possibility of any such proof has been duplicated by other researchers.

My point here is that there is far too much in the way of lies, distortions, half-truths, etc in both the secular and scientific, as well as Scriptural "support" for the homosexual agenda for any legal special rights to be considered. And yes, they would be special rights, not equal rights. They have those now, despite their whining about not being able to marry who they want. That's never been the criteria, but only what the definition of marriage is.

From falling for their weak arguments to go so far as to legislate in favor of those weak arguments, a clash of rights WILL take place and there is no way it can be avoided. Hate crimes will include hate speech, as it has where ever the concept was put into law. The invented rights of the homosexual (and their many and varied co-conspirators) will jockey for prominence over the already Constitutionally protected rights of free speech, free expression of religion, free association.

What is the absolute worst aspect of this travesty, would be the crafting of laws based on how 2% of the population chooses to pleasure themselves sexually. I can think of nothing more contemptable and pathetic to impose upon the other 98% of us.

Anonymous said...

One of the biggest fallacies of this debate is that we must choose between forcing children to remain orphans or adopting them out to loving homosexual couples. And since compassionate people hate to think that some children will never enjoy being part of a family, they prefer option 2 over option 1, of course.

It's time to stop ignoring the fact that every baby or child either placed for adoption or in foster care has the opportunity to be adopted by a married heterosexual couple. (There are on average 8 married couples who have already been screened and approved per every baby placed for adoption in the U.S.)

Every child has the right to have a mother and a father, and with same-sex adoption, you are denying these children their right to have both for the rest of their lives. Even Rosie O’Donnel’s little boy Parker told her, “I want to have a daddy.”—as she herself explained during an interview. If she really loved her son more than she loved herself, then she wouldn’t have been selfish enough to place her own desires of parenthood above that little boy’s RIGHT to have a father. And that is essentially what’s going on here: Adults selfishly wanting to be parents enough to deny children their RIGHTS to be raised by a mom and a dad.