Gay Rights and the God Argument

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; ...." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

So our right to pursue happiness comes from God.  Being with someone you love and sharing in their life is truly a happy act.  I can attest to that as a married man myself.  So let me ask directly-where does the garbage of 'gays shouldn't get married' come from and what makes it a legit stand point in this country?  Well it isn't a legit argument.  Let's dissect this shall we?

The government cannot take away certain inalienable rights.  Only God can.  This was set up by the founders for just such an instance.  Certain private issues should not and cannot be regulated by government.  So already we're off to a bad start.  The government is wrong and is depriving a certain group of rights for no reason.  Honestly the government has never said "gays cannot be married and here's why..."  So without even so much as a bogus reason a group is being denied their God given rights. Strike one for government control.

What's that?  Ok keep your voice down-shouting God hates fags as loud as you can does get your point across but it also makes you look all the more silly because you are wrong.  Bible verse this bible verse that says "God hates gays".  Well ok let me ask you this-If only God can remove the ability to be happy (or married in this case) and he hates gays than there is NO way they can get married-right?  So how come they can in some states?  If God was against gay marriage there would be no gay married couples.  An omnipotent being with unlimited power somehow cannot prevent a group he despises from gaining something he does not want them to have?  I'm not trying to be blasphemous here-I am being logical.  I believe in and love God but I think we can agree that if he is infallible there would be no way for gays to get married-ever.  The fact that it exists in some states and those couples haven't keeled over from a plague of some sort is either a miracle or God has somehow forgotten to smite them.  In either case it's ridiculous for a being with unlimited power to allow something as trivial as this.  Could it be that he loves these people like you believe he loves you?

If you don't think that is true either than your god sucks.  Sorry but he does.  My God loves everyone-believers, non believers, blacks whites, gays straights, come one come all he loves all of you.  Somehow if you have sex with the wrong person he will hate you.  Does this make sense?  Does God REALLY care about our sexuality and what pleases us physically?  Bible verse this and bible verse that is probably the response.  Well, I do think that God wants us to be good and nice to each other and not swindle and murder our neighbors.  In short I believe God does wish that we didn't harm one another.  How does consensual sex among legal adults hurt anyone?  If it does not pick someone's pocket or break their leg there is no real harm only disapproval from those who do not understand.  Disapproval or discomfort is all relative and not grounds to claim it effects your life.

The God argument fails.  The government argument fails.  It all fails in the end and do you know why?  Because gays are born as human beings and unless you think they are inhuman they get the same protections we offer straight folks.  The right to be free and pursue happiness.  They get that God given right and he has yet to take it away.  When you make the claim that they somehow don't have this you are literally saying one group is superior to another.  Are you really as so bold and arrogant to claim this?  If you are against gay marriage you want to deny a fellow American of God given rights-even you can realize your power does not supersede God's and his wishes.

The reason for force

FORCE-it is REASONABLE

You are walking with your friends down a road.  The concert got out late and you seem to be the only ones who parked so far away in this direction.  As your group approaches the car a few men stand up-previously hidden by other parked cars.  They produce knives and handguns and tell you that you are now being robbed.  Wallets, and car keys are to be handed over if you want to make it home tonight.

This one example encompasses all that is control in our existence as humans.

Our society is based on two methods of coercion.  Reason and force.  That is it, there is no other way you can gain results from another in our society without using one of the two.  It is fairly simple.  If I want to gain anything from you I must convince you and you must agree to do it.  The other option is that I must threaten you with violence and indeed make good on that promise if you refuse and take what I want from you.

Typically when a person or entity wants something of you they ask first.  Seldom do citizens catch beatings out of nowhere for no reason. The reason being is that your capitulation makes the violator's job that much easier.  He gained what he wanted and didn't even need to expend any energy.  The myth out there is that criminals are these master minds who play games with police and are often too clever to be contained.  That they will use clever mind games in order to trick you.  The reality is 99% of crime in this country is perpetrated by the inherently stupid.   Poorly educated, apathetic of almost everything, and thoughtless.  These folks don't exactly think ahead when they choose to do something bad.  Even these folks will use words to gain what they want from you first.  That is how basic the notion is.

Force often results from resistance to reason.  We deem the demands to be in fact unreasonable and the confrontation escalates to its next logical level: Force.  There is a small chance the violator will concede the confrontation when his use of "reason" is resisted but not often.  Force is the measure of punishment applied by the violator to the victim.  The use of force against the innocent is a true act of a superiority complex and arrogance.  I deserve what you have-you have denied it so now I have the right to harm you.  That is the mindset of those who perpetrate these crimes.

However we are seeing a clever adaptation of this societal truth.  When a larger entity like a government wants something of its citizenry it first asks.  Remember it is the easiest way to attain results also it is guaranteed SOME people will do it.  When the results prove to be less than hoped the ask turns to a demand.  You must comply-it is for your benefit.  Again some will bend out of fear.  If the result is STILL not good enough they move to threats.  You must comply or we will punish you.  Even more will bend from fear and if the result is still not what they had hoped they must now apply said punishment or risk appearing as a false authority.  The punishment will be carried out in most cases.  The force of this equation will now be applied.

The reason why this method has evolved is that it causes less alarm.  We now accept this as a societal norm and not what it is-a bully tactic.  If the government were simply to go from asking and then to force we would not tolerate it as citizens.  So what we have seen is a tactic of control and coercion.  By adding steps to the process it helps perpetrate the myth that these steps are lawful and just.  The misinformation campaign is so successful that some are beginning to believe in and make excuses for this method.  Let us personalize this shall we?

If I want all of you money and I ask for it you will more than likely deny me.  A few days go by.  I return and  ask for your money-you deny me.  I then in the same conversation demand that you do it-you deny me yet again.  I return in a week's time and this time I tell you that if you do not surrender all of your money I will take it and kill you instead.  You resist me and I leave.  I return yet again and bring a gang.  We shoot everyone in your home and take all of your possessions.

How is this a legal process?

Granted a crime is not truly committed until threats are made however as mentioned we tolerate it from our authority.  We are threatened with arrest for not complying with officers even if we ourselves have committed no crime.  We are threatened with being stripped of our constitutional rights if we join up with groups the government has deemed dangerous.  Never mind that the government is bound by a process that prevents it from denying us of ANYTHING before proving guilt of a crime.    It is only when you believe a power over you is absolute that it is.  Without your consent an authority can only harm you-it can never control you.

The DNC Hates You-All Of You

The DNC and Your Constitutional Rights

      When was the last time you heard anyone at the DNC make a plea to any government body or individual about the violation of our citizens' constitutional rights?  Apart from a few brave souls who hung on with Rand Paul at his recent filibuster nothing else comes to mind.  We have to go back to Bush days for that.  Back then the DNC were right, the Bush administration violated a lot of constitutional rights.  Somehow when their man does it-we should all just "accept it" or believe whatever bogus reason that is given about it being ok.  The reason being is that at this point in time the DNC has slowly integrated unconstitutional ideas into their creed and many of them probably don't even know it.  Over time they have adopted a fierce stance against personal property, aid for non tax payers (with tax payer funds), and often are hostile to the 2nd amendment (2A).  The DNC is a good example about how an entity can be infiltrated and a misinformation campaign can bring about significant change over time.

     In its inception the DNC championed the working man on the docks and entrepreneur.  It lasted up until I'd say the 50's.  Often they drew up labor bills protecting American workers from brutal hours and slave wages.  They fought hard for consumer protections and fairness in the marketplace.  It is amazing that we have come from this end to one of an open war against wealth and possessions.  Often the DNC champions the welfare system and unemployment as necessary devices for a prosperous nation.  I'm not here to debate whatever results good, bad, or ugly.  I am however to make it clear that these are unconstitutional ideas.  The 5th states that a citizen cannot be denied their property without due process.  When we are lucky enough to earn a paycheck these days; money (apart from taxes and oh how we call our special interests taxes in order to make an idea constitutionally correct on paper) is torn out of it without our consent or approval and sent to someone else who someone somewhere by some means deems "needs it more".  There is no counter argument.  My property has been denied without my consent.  The DNC has very low faith in turning the welfare system into a private industry but many charities and organizations exist and run very effectively in this country.  A nice side note is that most have no shortage of funds either.  Any member of the DNC who are afraid of a privatized welfare system crumbling needs to punch the data on the relief efforts of natural disasters and exactly how much is donated by private citizenry.  Roughly 30% of the money that goes into the welfare system goes to pay the workers in that system.  This is pilfering off of pilfered funds.  Amazing.  Also we need to remember that we often hear of wealthy families donating half or more of their money to a foundation in America.  It is fairly often we see it floating around on facebook or even the news.  This is something I have yet to hear our friends in Europe do.  You know Europe that place that we are often told is the model of the world?

     For whatever reason the DNC champions non tax payers.  Those who do not pay into the system that protects our rights.  I shouldn't say "whatever reason" the reason is like any other political party-they want the votes.  This is a form of exploitation and preying on the weak.  You throw a few food stamps at them which won't pull them out of poverty while saying "courtesy of the DNC" with a wink and nod.  Mind you these folks do not pay into the system that we have.  Roads, military, education etc.  they get to use those for free. The fact is the DNC believes many mega corporations escape taxes and they hate them for it.  I mean H-A-T-E.  If a poor strawberry picker escapes taxes "he needs to" and you're beating up on him if you question it.  This doesn't change the fact that the strawberry picker is getting free use of public facilities.  A tax dodge of 10 billion or 10 dollars is still a tax dodge.  It's cool that we can make exceptions where appropriate for votes though.

        When was the last time anyone got to a DNC dinner for free?  You know one of those political fund raisers that cost a few grand a plate?  (the same ones the RNC has and they scream "rich people!")  That's not ok no one should get that for free but if someone is getting something for "free" on tax payer dime that is just dandy.  The hypocrisy and double standards are mind blowing when you really analyze it.  Our constitution does not apply to citizens of France, Japan, Australia or anywhere else outside of U.S. soil.  Somehow these folks who are not citizens should get the same rights as you and I without having paid a cent into the system that protects these ideals.  If you haven't figured out this idea is unconstitutional yet please stop reading this.

    The DNC is no fan of guns for the most part this is obvious.  Any sixth grader who has read the constitution wouldn't join up with the likes of Feinstein.  Does it scare you how much support she has?  It should.  Since the DNC has long thrown out most of the constitution in place of other values they more or less invented they think nothing of encroaching on or removing rights that we need as citizens.  The haughtiness that they feel they know how to run a citizenry better than men who truly suffered at the hands of a king is nothing short of an insult to the average American.  It doesn't end there though.  If they feel a part of the constitution is invalid-so should you.  Sadly for them it does not work that way.  Most in the DNC believe we operate as a democracy-we don't.  We are a republic...Google it-I'll wait. Yeah, how about that?  But it's hard to admit that when their rival has the word "republic" in it.  So we start a misinformation campaign saying we are a democracy...Democratic party-get it?  The same thing is happening here.  While we coddle gays, minorities, and women gun owners can all go jump off a cliff.  What's that?  What if you are a gay or female gun owner?  You can still jump off a cliff.  The coddling is sold out in favor of demonizing gun owners and instilling fear into non owners.  For a party that supports "the right to choose" they sure seem to want to remove an awful lot of choices for me where the second amendment is concerned.  One of the choices some in the DNC want to remove is my choice to even have the ability to defend myself and family.  Choice is only for a woman if you are a man who wants a gun go get bent oh and if you're a woman who wants a gun follow the man and get bent if you want an abortion along the way that's cool.  We will not however support killing a mugger in self defense-the baby is a the bigger threat to society.

     Money and possessions are also a target for the DNC.  As mentioned they feel entitled to your money to give to others for votes.  This is thievery and bribery all in one act.  When a corporation bribes the government with its profit it is wrong we can agree-but when the DNC bribes the poor with YOUR money it isn't a bribe but "help" or "aid".  This is supposed to be ok by the way.  Somehow they can't hold themselves to the same standards they do others.  I suppose the thing that makes me most sad about the DNC is that they quickly rush to demonize or belittle anyone who does not walk lock step with their new age values.  The problem is that while everyone knows the age old battle between republicans and democrats (and most of us are thoroughly sick of it by now) they fight Libertarians and Constitutionalists as well.  Their misinformation campaign is very strong and normally I wouldn't care but because they wish to replace portions of the constitution (or as a whole in some cases) it makes them dangerous.  We can make amends to the constitution so long as it makes the citizenry more free and/or restricts the size and role of the government in daily life.  These however are not the changes they wish to make.

The Morally Superior Argument Debunked

As I have expressed my opinion about an armed citizenry on Facebook I have been experiencing a lot of fear from people. I explain that all rational thought leads us to giving the people the choice to arm themselves for self defense purposes.  I always thought this was a common sense idea.  I also thought that America liked its constitution and Bill of Rights.  I am learning a lot these days.  People think I am crazy or stupid or both. (I may be stupid-I dunno) Whatever, Let me lay out a few personal truths.

-I do not think the government is going to kill me or kidnap me

-I do not hope for the day when I get to shoot an intruder.  The anti gun crowd seems to think any man who prepares for self defense rubs his hands together in ghoulish delight at the thought of justified homicide.  Nothing could be further from the truth for me.   I fear and loathe that day and literally pray to my God to not have to put me through it.  I will never be the same and under the wrong conditions I may end up doing jail time or worse-who hopes for that?

-I want to be left alone by anyone who seeks to do me or mine any harm i.e. I am just like anyone reading this. With that said...

I do not claim the moral high ground. I have yet to "bust out" the preposterous notion that my position on anything is more morally just than anyone else's. I refuse to get into those theoreticals. I do however take great offense to anyone telling me that my desire to protect myself and loved ones from harm (using force if necessary) is somehow barbaric or less civilized.  Civilization has gone through many types of law.  We have seen and experienced 'Eye for an eye', stockading, and a myriad of other forms of punishment.  Self defense can be seen as a form of criminal punishment.  You have intruded on my or my loved one's right to exist peaceably.  The punishment is physical force, death as a possibility.  The only way to prevent this death sentence is of course to not intrude on another's right to exist peaceably.  This is a simple idea with zero room for gray area.  Either your life is in danger or it is not.  If it is not no death penalty can be enforced. 

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to die or see someone you love die at the hands of someone else. In fact it is a very human trait. Those who accuse me of lack of morality; I wonder if they themselves have this trait. If they do not have this trait who is the lesser human being? The man who wants to be left alone and protect his loved ones or the one who would simply let them be had at the hands of evil men? Those who would not even challenge those men who seek their harm?  Sometimes we enter into a quarrel or small fist fight and you must be the bigger man in order to contain the situation.  The bigger man argument does not work in this situation.  If a man breaks into my home and begins to stab my wife being the bigger man means allowing harm to someone I love.  At this point this man has left me little choice but to meet or raise his level of violence in the hopes to stop him.  Being the bigger man is a beautiful measure of strength and patience-we should all practice it.  However, when the other man cares not for your gentleman like gesture the idea can be dangerous, even fatal. In this scenario by taking the moral high ground it means sacrificing a woman I love to prove a point to a man I do not even know.

When I am told my morals are broken because I believe in an armed populace for strictly self defense purposes it troubles me.  Are you against self defense? What is the recourse of a disarmed public in the face of evil? If your answer is to call the police what you are saying is call someone who is indeed armed to handle the situation.  The end result is the same an armed man must come to the rescue but it cannot be me or anyone else for moral reasons.  The argument is a fallacy.  Provided the police get there and I am still alive they may do the same thing an armed civilian would do: use their weapons to subdue or end the situation.  At this point an innocent life has been changed or lost forever for "morality's sake."  You claim morality but stripping weapons from those who are good in turn creates more victims. You claim morality yet expect me to do nothing when an evil man enters my home? (these are the same folks who cry someone should do something when they hear about a third time offender raping or killing someone else)  Everyone wants crime gone from our streets.  The only people who don't are of course criminals.  Owning a weapon does not make me a criminal...my actions do.  I am judged by those who are "morally superior" before I even commit a crime.  Not all crimes are committed with weapons do these people assume non weapons owners will commit crimes?  Of course not-that would make they themselves criminals and how can they be-they own no weapons since they are morally superior.

Your moral stance is a falsehood. It is a justification for your fears. Fear of weapons, fear of the world, fear of something-you fear me because I own a weapon. Do these people so full of fear cross the street and dine out with their friends? They do? well they have engaged in things that can get them killed without fear mind you and without having met me brand me as dangerous.  This is what is fair to them.  Our world is a mess.  Maybe these folks have never had a gang banger or neo nazi come into their life and destroy their happy little world?  If not thank God-I envy them.  To live in a happy little world no one can touch is the goal of most citizens.    They assume the world would be perfect if not for these pesky guns.  If history has taught us anything it's that we are well adept at killing one another with or without arms.  You would think these morally superior people would be in favor of arms.  If a six foot five thug is going to use his muscles to force a rape or robbery and a pistol is pulled out of the supposed victim's pocket the tables have turned dramatically.  There is crime being prevented and no one has to die.  A one hundred pound woman can now take out a gang of five with the right handgun and training.  Arms favor the weaker person in an engagement.  Taking those arms away puts the larger predator in an advantage.  We all know these guys prey on what they feel are easy targets to begin with why remove their ability to put the odds in their favor?

                                                           

You fear me because I own a weapon-why?  If I am your neighbor and I see a gang of men entering your home do you think I will simply let them? It seems like you fear the wrong people. Fear will only lead you to justification and blind acceptance as your fear being a truth. The reality is you need only fear evil intent and that is not brought upon by ownership of weapons or playing video games or bunking school.  It comes from those who do not cherish life. Like those people who would prevent me from protecting my loved ones. How can you claim to cherish life and disarm those who seek to protect it?

Progressives and Obama Zombies are Dangerous