Take a look at the following video.
There is a reason Labor/Socialist/Democrats win elections on the wings of fringe ideology. Although homosexual marriage is opposed by large majorities both in Iowa, and every other state the L/S/Ds were able to turn out nearly a thousand people to show public support for homosexual marriage.
The fringe groups that comprise the L/S/D are able to produce much more intense, and hence much more involved, activists. This intensity not only translates into licked envelopes and dialed phones in election years but also molds public opinion in the off years, not to mention municipal and school board elections.
We need to take a good hard look at the size and composition of the L/S/D celebration of homosexual marriage. The L/S/D and the liberal movement mainstream their fringe ideas by our silence, or functional silence, in response. The average, apolitical American, begins to accept L/S/D ideas because they see no one validating or affirming their intrinsic mistrust or disgust with the concepts the L/S/Ds advance. As a result the average, apolitical American then slowly surrenders their beliefs in the face of the crescendo of negation of those ideas that the public experiences from the mainstream media and academia.
Who stands for the average American family if not the Republican Party? The video is pretty strong evidence that the L/S/D continue to advance the interests of numerous but relatively small fringe groups like homosexuals, unions, terror suspects and prisoners and illegal aliens and the criminals that employ them. If we don’t elevate our game the majority will continue to be gripped and punished by the alliances of fringe politicians that make up the Democrat leadership.
So what are you going to do about it?
There is a reason Labor/Socialist/Democrats win elections on the wings of fringe ideology. Although homosexual marriage is opposed by large majorities both in Iowa, and every other state the L/S/Ds were able to turn out nearly a thousand people to show public support for homosexual marriage.
The fringe groups that comprise the L/S/D are able to produce much more intense, and hence much more involved, activists. This intensity not only translates into licked envelopes and dialed phones in election years but also molds public opinion in the off years, not to mention municipal and school board elections.
We need to take a good hard look at the size and composition of the L/S/D celebration of homosexual marriage. The L/S/D and the liberal movement mainstream their fringe ideas by our silence, or functional silence, in response. The average, apolitical American, begins to accept L/S/D ideas because they see no one validating or affirming their intrinsic mistrust or disgust with the concepts the L/S/Ds advance. As a result the average, apolitical American then slowly surrenders their beliefs in the face of the crescendo of negation of those ideas that the public experiences from the mainstream media and academia.
Who stands for the average American family if not the Republican Party? The video is pretty strong evidence that the L/S/D continue to advance the interests of numerous but relatively small fringe groups like homosexuals, unions, terror suspects and prisoners and illegal aliens and the criminals that employ them. If we don’t elevate our game the majority will continue to be gripped and punished by the alliances of fringe politicians that make up the Democrat leadership.
So what are you going to do about it?
29 comments:
Democrats claimed we don't need an amendment to stop gay marriage because it was already against the law. Democrats run every branch of state government at this point and guess what...gay marriage will be the law after all.
Christians, conservatives, and average ham & eggers better wake up to the fact liberals have radical agendas running contrary to the vast majority of Iowans/Americans. Liberals do crank out mobs when necessary and are better organized, as they should be with so much govt money flowing into their causes, and until the sleeping majority wakes up we can expect more surprises.
Back to gay marriage, I have a few gay friends and coworkers and they are successful and decent people. That does not mean I support their right to marry since the Bible clearly speaks against these practices. In the end, the homosexual agenda is clearly anti-God, or at least an infallible God as given to us by the Scriptures, and the proof can be found in many rantings against the Bible in various blogs supporting gay marriage.
The average ham and egger doesn't give a crap about gay marriage. When Steve and Amy can fly off to Vegas, get drunk, screw for awhile, and go out and get married - why shouldn't Steve and Mike (or Amy and Lisa) - who have been a committed couple for 10 years - be able to do the same thing. Marriage quit being a religious institution as soon as the state government got involved with it.
And the average person is much more frightened by the right wing activists than the left wing activists.
Sporer & Ken,
Do you guys really think that in 2012 or 2013 people will care enough about this to vote for a ban? By then the hospitality industry will surely lobby against such a measure.
Plus, if you have even one drop of libertarian blood in you, you must feel at least a little bit silly about getting all bent out of shape over gay marriage.
If California votes widely in opposition to gay marriage, even in spite of the big Hollywood money that favors gay marriage, I think your average Iowan will vote in such a way that will make little baby Jesus happy.
Democrats made Iowa a gay marriage state without giving us a chance to vote on it, as usual, and Republicans should run on this issue since we are the party with committed Christians vs. the party of "anything goes" aka Democrats.
Democrats believe everything is relevant and that God is great as long as He rescinds words in the Bible. If God is the God of the Bible with everything in it as His word...they cannot accept him or must at least cut out major parts of the Bible to reduce God to their view of him. Among radical homosexual activists, you can see their hatred of God by their writings. Homosexual couples cannot repent if they remain together in sin and for that reason; homosexuals tend to be the angriest with God. The tactic of accusing, originated by the father of lies himself, is as old as Satan but God covers sin when we seek repentance or agreement with His view of sin. The couple married outside of God in Vegas can come to repentance and their prior sins are washed away. Anyone trapped in a sinful life can seek forgiveness and the outward manifestation of that would be a great reduction or even elimination of the offending activity. Gay people do not agree their lives are sinful to God and as such reject God. Good people can be gay but as long as they, or anyone else, reject God, they will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2009/04/03/but-they-just-can%e2%80%99t-help-themselves/
A great quote that shows aside from Biblical reasons the Gay lifestyle is truly deadly.
"But, if no one is hurt by homosexual relationships, then why do gays have higher rates of depression, suicide, colon cancer, other cancers, STDs in general, HIV/AIDS in particular, and a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter on average when compared with straight people?
This is not a healthy lifestyle, it is not natural, and it should not be sanctioned and promoted by the state."
This illustrates the problem I have with the unctious religios. The average "ham and egger" as you call them, Ken, is more concerned about keeping his job and how he is going to feed his family if he is layed off.
Sure, they may lose their house and have to live in their Oldsmobile, but at least the gays won't be getting married.
Vlad,
I fail to see anything in my statements indicating I am worried about keeping my job or being laid off.
Nevertheless, let us stick to the topic at hand and remember the voters of Iowa were denied a chance to vote on this issue except to elect lying Democrats who all claimed this would not happen this way. Democrats who claimed there was never a need for a law to restrict gay marriage because it was already restricted. Turns out, they lied and since they are in power, they will not give the legislature a vote either. Finally, I mentioned the gay lifestyle requires a rejection of the Bible as it is written since the Bible cannot be reconciled with purposeful sin. Republicans have many Conservative Christians among us and we should return to those roots and since there are many God-fearing people voting Democrat we should remind them the consequences if they continue to vote for the party of "whatever feels good today."
rf, glad to see you back.
may we assume your view of the political impact of homosexual marriage is not informed by the historic failure of homosexual marriage votes in every state where the issue makes the ballot.
if government is going to use government policy to encourage or discourage behaivor, as distinguished from actual direction of behaivor, then should government should encourage the best behaivor and discourage everything else.
as long as we the people recognize marriage as a contract, then it has a right to classify types of contracts. just like i can't, or shouldn't, be able to enter a contract that lets me charge 50% interest on a loan i cannot enter a contract to make all sorts of marriages that are less than the social ideal.
Ken - Thanks for proving my point about the effect the foaming at the mouth conservatives will have on people. Even the organizers of the Iowa protests at the judicial building were showing some political savvy by asking people to take down their most ignorant and offensive posters.
Sporer - A majority of people's vote does not make something right. You think the Southern states would have voted in favor of interracial marriege 40-50 years ago? Do you think they were right? Plus, you must realize the margins any anti gay marriage proposals get are surely diminishing rapidly. Just look at any polls about young people's attitudes about gays and gay marriage. You know just as well as I do that you are fighting a losing battle on this one. After a few years of the sky not falling in Iowa despite gay marriage, most reasonable people won't give a shit.
RF,
Yes, you are absolutely correct, a person is "foaming at the mouth" to point out Iowans never got to vote on this issue.
Thanks for proving the point that liberals will not allow a discussion based on merits or facts. Instead, anyone against unelected way this occurred is simply called a homophobe or worse.
Ken,
I'm personally grateful for some past unpopular court decisions. Otherwise, I could be sitting in jail right now.
RF,
Once again, you avoid the facts Iowans were not given a vote on this or that Democrats lied claiming an amendment was unnecessary since the law already prevented gay marriage. People voted for these liars believing other hot-button issues while also believing gay marriage would not happen. As it turns out, it did matter and Democrats lied. If they had nothing to fear why not put it up for a legislative vote now? Many Democratic legislators would vote against gay marriage knowing failure to do so would bounce them the next election cycle. Instead, their leaders won't schedule the vote so all Democratic legislators can claim they would've voted against it if given the chance. What a nice little favor not letting Iowans have any way to vote, even through their members, and that my friend, is why friends don't let friends vote Democrat. Elections have consequences!
Ken,
Did you even read what I said? Do you realize we have 3 branches of government for a reason? When the courts rule laws you dislike to be unconstitutional, I don't hear conservatives complaining.
RF,
#1 - Do you have examples of unconstitutional decisions that actually favored Conservatives?
#2 - The liberal playbook uses courts to enact laws they could never pass through any legislature. The only way an out of control judiciary can be curtailed is by the legislature and since Democrats are in charge that is out the window.
Ken
Should Alabama and Mississippi been allowed to vote on desegregation? Just wondering when the will of the majority should be followed....
To Ken R. from Blake L.:
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 528 U.S. 1109 (2000) (holding that forcing the Boy Scouts to allow gay scoutmasters was a violation of their first amendment to right to freedom of expressive association); U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (holding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was an unconstitutional overreach of the federal government's commerce clause power--a common conservative complaint); U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (holding that the commerce clause does not give Congress the power to enact the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act--another decision limiting the power of the federal government), in fact, virtually every commerce clause case from 1870 to 1930 went toward limiting federal government commerce power, which is something conservatives like. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (holding that manual recounts ordered by Florida Supreme Court, did not satisfy the equal protection clause)--hard to think of a more advantageous conservative ruling. All of these were U.S. Supreme Court decisions--to the extent that you wanted examples of Iowa Supreme Court decisions, I haven't looked those up yet.
#2--with the decision on friday, nothing was "enacted"--a law was struck down for violating the equal protection clause of the iowa constitution--that's the judiciary's job.
Ken:
I never said you mentioned it in your post. What I said was that gay marriage is very low on the priority list for someone who has bills to pay every month and is running out of ways to pay them thanks to the Bush/Obama economic policies.
"Finally, I mentioned the gay lifestyle requires a rejection of the Bible as it is written since the Bible cannot be reconciled with purposeful sin. Republicans have many Conservative Christians among us and we should return to those roots and since there are many God-fearing people voting Democrat we should remind them the consequences if they continue to vote for the party of "whatever feels good today."
This again illustrates why conservatives are losing. Go ahead and quote the Bible all you want, if you can't make a logical argument outside of the Biblical context, don't even bother trying to persuade anyone.
If you are going to argue against the "if it feels good, do it" mentality , try using Rand's maxim that "feelings are not a tool of cognition therefore, they cannot be a criterion of morality."
The Biblical rationale is really the only reason I am against gay marriage because the libertarian in me would have no problem with it. The fact gay men die 20 years earlier than straight men is a concern but not enough for me to outlaw it based on that.
In my mind, Christian Conservatives are the past and future of the Republican Party while the present is too lukewarm to do anything.
"The Biblical rationale is really the only reason I am against gay marriage"
Then you have already lost the debate. If you only quote the Bible as your justification, you lose half of your audience immediately.
Christian "conservatives" gave us Bush. How well did that work out? Many of them are not conservative in the least (witness their reaction to the Terry Schaivo thing) and would gladly toss aside conservatism in the name of "christianity." See Bush and The Huckatard.
Ken,
Vlad is right, even though he may be vastly underestimating the percentage of people you lose when you start the bible thumping.
I’m not usually one to give people personal or spiritual advice. But, you should seriously consider exploring other Christian churches. There are surely many that would match much better with your libertarian tendencies. You may even find their version of God be more loving and pleasant.
For me, the bottom line with these judgmental Christian conservatives is that if they spent as much time focusing on their own families and relationships as they spend worrying about other people’s lives, our society would be much better off.
#1 - Judgementalism is not the right word for adhering to a belief to God and translating that belief into moral laws...and all laws are morally based.
#2 - Everyone fails on some level and my Christian beliefs are stronger than my Libertarian tendencies especially when it comes to certain issues like Abortion and Gay marriage.
#3 - If I am right, based on the Bible, our society will suffer increasing levels of disaster in direct association with our collective level of rebellion. Therefore, it matters little whether Republicans win or lose when viewed through the prism of a fundamentalist view of God and the Bible.
Ken,
How is your approach different from the Taliban and other muslim extremists and fundamentalists?
All legal systems are based on morals handed down by societies or religions. Fortunately, Christians are not told to kill those flying kites and taking family snapshots (unlike the Taliban).
I respect laws, even those unjustly enacted, but that does not mean I will not try to repeal evil laws.
A child demanding the right to put his hand on a burning stove in defiance to his parent has a right to harm himself out of ignorance. Warning the child from across the room may prevent injury but sometimes children move too fast. As the child's hand enters the flame the response may be too slow to pull out before serious damage but a parent running across the room may get there in time to minimize the damage. I believe gay marriage in conjuction with a host of liberal (note liberal tends to be very anti-God of the Bible) agendas will harm a people. I will resist what I know harms Americans.
RF:
"How is your approach different from the Taliban and other muslim extremists and fundamentalists?"
I don't think Ken is advocating flying commercial aircraft into large, freestanding structures. Besides, if Ken was the Muslims or the Talban, Obama would bow down to him.
EXACTLY!
Ken & Vlad,
My friends, religious fundamentalism as a basis for government policy and action is a slippery slope. I don't think we want to go there.
"The Biblical rationale is really the only reason I am against gay marriage because the libertarian in me would have no problem with it. The fact gay men die 20 years earlier than straight men is a concern but not enough for me to outlaw it based on that."
First, the shorter life expectancy argument is false. Cameron's findings are the result of an inherently flawed study. Trying to determine an average based on obituaries in gay newspapers completely ignores a significant percentage of gays. Other studies have shown the difference to be approximately 1.2 years. Compare that to the fact that the difference between white and black males is 7.7 years!
Second, we're not all Christian! Just because you follow every law of the bible (you don't eat bacon, do you?), does not mean that anyone else in America must agree. Our founding fathers were smart enough to know that they didn't know everything, that they're values were not necessarily perfect ideals. Therefore, they gave us the option to change the law of the land, and they constructed our government in a way that prevents the will of the majority from trampling the rights of the minority. Thus, and end to slavery and segregation before the majority was ready.
Also, the majority of Americans do not agree with much of the bible, especially the selling of children as slaves, stoning adulterers (try to get that one passed in Congress!), not eating meat on Friday, the ban on poly-cotton blends, etc., etc.
Post a Comment