Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Our Immoral President

by Sam Huntington

Even though most people in this country regard same sex relationships repugnant, they do they care how consenting adults behave in the privacy of their own homes. We may not approve of their behavior, but unlike the Islamic faith, rational Christians believe that people have God’s permission to make unwise or immoral decisions.   We call this freedom of choice.   Still, while content to allow people to find their own way, we cannot say all human behavior is worthy of emulation. 



Most people in this country think there are limitations to what a civilized society will accept in terms of hedonistic behavior; a line in the sand, as it were.  We will not abide pedophiles, and we reject same sex marriages. 

A flummoxed President Obama (now) endorses same sex marriage.  This is a concern to us because Barack Obama is a man singularly unqualified to be our moral compass.  He endorses filth, and he wants the rest of us to accept smutty behavior as our new “low” standard.  He fully intends to lead America into an immoral abyss, which provides our society with this challenge: do we follow this charlatan down the path of decadence, or do we repudiate his immorality. 

Obama is an enigma because while condemning our use of gasoline, and punishing us because we have earned wealth, Mr. Obama has no hesitation supporting a behavior that is utterly dangerous to the human body and ultimately, the human soul. No parent can claim to love their children if they encourage them to play in the freeway.

 
How did our society ever get to the point where we accept a president who supports queer marriages? Well, it began by normalizing homosexual behavior, which has been Hollywood’s primary mission now for the past fifty years. We have even manufactured a new name for queer: gay. We have stood mute while educationalists countermand religious training by brainwashing elementary aged children, telling them that queer behavior isn’t so much repugnant as it is simply “an alternative" life style choice.   Society's acceptance of this brainwashing now causes our children to think it is normal when Tommy has two mommies —and no daddy.

Now that everyone is out of the closet, Mr. Obama thinks it is time to accommodate odd behavior further by redefining marriage.   Normal citizens do not want this issue on the front page of the state-run print media, or talked about ad nauseam on television; most Americans do not wish their young children exposed to Mr. Obama’s filth. But this is exactly where we are in America today and it is no surprise that our children are confused. Today, it isn’t merely the airliner that smells of poo; our entire country is beginning to smell that way.

Mr. Obama’s support of same sex marriage should surprise no one; he did promise us “fundamental change” to the United States of America, even though none of his changes reflect traditional American values.  This explains why so many Americans stand opposed to Obama on the queer marriage issue.  But we know why he did it, right?

Obama’s stated goal is to raise one billion dollars toward his reelection. It speaks volumes about Mr. Obama that he is willing to lead an attack upon American morality in order to garner as many votes as possible from homosexuals —along with their millions of dollars in campaign donations. This places Obama on the bottom run of the political ladder; he is the lowest of the low. We should all despise what he is, and what he has done to our country.  In our view, we must overwhelmingly reject another Obama presidency in November.

46 comments:

  1. Progressivism is the new religion. Progressives set out over 100 years ago to form a new morality, and they are achieving their goals.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Correction: WE did not manufacture a new name for Queer. THEY did.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No civilization can long endure without a common moral bond.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great post!
    Obama:“I’m also mindful of the proverb, ‘A man is judged by his deeds, not his words.’ So if you want to know where my heart lies, look no further than what I have done.”
    That's easy enough!

    ReplyDelete
  5. With all due respect I don't believe homosexual concerns are of any importance whatsoever when it comes to sound economic and fiscal policy -- or foreign policy for that matter.


    I'd be much more concerned about the epidemic of illegitimate children with no father claiming responsibility for their well-being, and of the massive proliferation of "Anchor Babies" which is a de facto form of invasion, than I would about a group who not only sustains themselves quite handsomely on average, but is also well-known for improving the value of property wherever they live, because of an apparently built-in penchant for making their domestic surroundings as pleasant, attractive and comfortably up-to-date as possible.


    The "Gay" issue is a smelly red-herring that works against the Conservative cause, because the obsession with homosexuality makes it all too easy to target "us" as a bunch of bigots.


    This Gay Marriage nonsense is nothing more than a DISTRACTION which keeps too much time, energy and ingenuity focused AWAY from the concerns that really MATTER.


    DON'T FALL FOR IT. If you do, you're playing right into Obama's hands -- or rather the hands of the Oligarchs who own and operate him and push the freedom-destroying agendas most of us hate.


    The self-righteous posturing of religious zealots does a great deal of damage to the credibility of the Conservative-Libertarian Movement as a whole.


    It would be much better if all religious individuals "prayed in their closets in secret," and then went out to "let their light so shine before people that their good works may be seen to benefit others." It is the good works that glorify our Father which is in Heaven not the use of Scriptural quotations to justify deprivation and persecution of hose we deem "sinners."


    Get the "beam "out of your own eye, before you start castigating others about the "mote" in theirs.


    It really is a shame that "some Power" has not given us the gift "to see ourselves as others see us."


    If human beings had that gift most of us would soon be humbled and begin feel honestly contrite. And then TRUE reform might be possible.


    "Judgment" as well as "Vengeance" belongs not to us, but to Almighty God.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  6. @FT

    With all due respect, did you even read the post? It does not address economic or fiscal policy. I prefer you stay “on topic.” I should also note that leaving the same remark at various other blogs is an irritating tactic employed by surrogates of Media Matters and Think Progress. If you wish to broadcast your point of view, I would be happy to navigate to your own blog to read your treatise on fiscal policy.

    It is possible that you believe Americans are only capable of addressing one issue at a time. Perhaps you think economic issues are our only problem. If that’s your assessment of our current state of affairs, then you are giving insufficient thought to what is happening to American society —or why. Were conservative politicians not despoiled with political correctness disease, they might have addressed this issue. No, the people who made this an issue are Joe Biden, and then Barack Obama; this post reflects our opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. THIS should come as no surprise after Obama's recent announcement of his support of gay marriage (dated May 17, 2012):

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she stands with the White House in opposing a provision in the House defense authorization bill that would prohibit anyone in the military from ordering a chaplain to act against his or her "conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs" or against the religious beliefs of the denomination to which he or she belongs.

    Pelosi described the conscience-protection provision as a “fraud."...


    Are there any military or retired military among the readers of this thread? I'm interested in your take on the above.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Obama has always been in support of gay marriage, he has tried to overturn DOMA and thank goodness that has failed.

    I believe the people of the LGBT movement put the pressure on him to finally come out and say that he supported it.

    We have the fundamental right to protect traditional marriage.

    Fantastic, post Sam!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The new morality is no morality, especially if an agenda is promoted & politicians are elected.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Glad you all have a forum to express your lack of percipience and abundance of malice.

    You might be a redneck if.....lol!

    And no Leticia, Obama has NOT always been in support of gay marriage.

    You all need to watch this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry, Sam, but I come here to speak my mind not to please or harmonize with you -- or anyone else.


    AOW and I are good friends. She has never objected to anything I've said or the way I've said it. Quite the opposite in fact.


    I happen to disagree -- vehemently -- with your opinions on this particular issue. It's a distraction -- and an incredibly stupid and self-defeating one for "conservatives" to embrace.


    As for my posting elsewhere, that's absolutely NONE of your business. You don't own the internet. I responded here first, and then realized my remarks were perfectly suitable to be used anywhere else this particular subject was raised.


    Sorry we can't agree on this, but I deeply resent your having the temerity to insult me because i said something you didn't want to hear.


    In future please save the vitriol for Ducky and his ilk. I won't accept it.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  12. SAM, I agree with you; this kind of information is vitally important in that it shows a side of Obama American voters should understand.
    This is a super post...well said.


    Leticia, Most people do believe he's always been for it, too....he just couldn't 'come out' so to speak, and say it out loud until he needed the big bucks from the gay community this campaign year.

    FT, I've just come from SF's and thought I recognized your comment. Sam's right, that practice is annoying. Particularly when you're using it to correct people who take the time and effort to have blogs. It really isn't up to you or any other reader to tell them their posts are unimportant.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I also agree with Sam. You need a nap, FT. Also, if you are not worried about Obama’s fundamental changes to this United States of America, then you are part of America’s problem.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Disagreement on blogs is part of the blogging forum, particularly on blogs without comment moderation (as is typical at this site).

    The 2012 Election is soooo important, and all of us are rightly on edge. At least, I know that I am.

    Ah, well, in the immortal words of Scarlet O'Hara, "Tomorrow is another day."

    PS: Next week, I will be posting something about distractions -- not because that has been a topic on this thread, but because I've been thinking about that subject the past few days BEFORE this blog post ever went up on the web.

    I'm sure that there will be disagreement as to what are and what are not distractions.

    Honestly, so much is happening under the radar under the Obama regime that I can't keep up with it all! See THIS RECENT EXECUTIVE ORDER, for example, over at Bunkerville's site. Sam mentioned this to me in a private exchange today, and once I read the post, I nearly fell off my chair!

    Bunkerville has several other items that are jaw-droppers. Just start scrolling down at Bunkerville's site. Get ready to gasp!

    HOW CAN ALL THESE THINGS BE HAPPENING IN AMERICA?

    Most Americans are unaware of these dangerous goings-on!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Still, while content to allow people to find their own way, we cannot say all human behavior is worthy of emulation.

    --------
    Oh me oh my-o, the deviant who likes to play dress up in powdered wigs is setting himself up a judge of human behavior.

    Problem is Sam that about half the country thinks your a bigot who needs a nice tight bowel movement.

    I know, let's vote on it. I'll remember that the next time one of your starts on about the tyranny of the majority.

    ReplyDelete
  16. your = you're in case the grammar police are prowling.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I reason earth is short
    And anguish absolute --
    And many hurt ––
    But what of that?

    I reason that in Heaven
    Somehow it will be even ––
    A new equation given ––
    But what of that?


    ~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)


    Submitted by FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  18. He preached upon “breadth”
    Till it argued him narrow —
    The broad are too broad to define ––
    And of “truth” until it proclaimed him a liar—
    The Truth never flaunted a Sign.

    Simplicity fled from his counterfeit presence
    As gold the pyrites would shun.
    What confusion would cover the innocent Jesus
    To meet so enabled a man!


    ~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

    Ms. Dickinson, of course, could just as well have been talking about a woman as a man. As always, her sentiments may be applied universally.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  19. AOW, I couldn't agree more...Bunkerville does have jaw droppers; while our media SLEEPS.
    Of course, leftwingers will slam the media venues carrying the truth, but we have to be aware. Though that's not doing much, I have to say.
    I never thought we'd have to call OUR media PRAVDA.

    ReplyDelete
  20. To a Louse

    On Seeing One on a Lady's Bonnet at Church

    Ha! whare ye gaun' ye crowlin ferlie?
    Your impudence protects you sairly;
    I canna say but ye strunt rarely
    Owre gauze and lace,
    Tho faith! I fear ye dine but sparely
    On sic a place.

    Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
    Detested, shunn'd by saunt an sinner,
    How daur ye set your fit upon her--
    Sae fine a lady!
    Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
    On some poor body.

    Swith! in some beggar's hauffet squattle;
    There ye may creep, and sprawl, and sprattle;
    Wi' ither kindred, jumping cattle;
    In shoals and nations;
    Whare horn nor bane ne'er daur unsettle
    Your thick plantations.

    Now haud you there! ye're out o' sight,
    Below the fatt'rils, snug an tight,
    Na, faith ye yet! ye'll no be right,
    Till ye've got on it--
    The vera tapmost, tow'rin height
    O' Miss's bonnet.

    My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose out,
    As plump an grey as onie grozet:
    O for some rank, mercurial rozet,
    Or fell, red smeddum,
    I'd gie you sic a hearty dose o't,
    Wad dress your droddum!

    I wad na been surpris'd to spy
    You on an auld wife's flainen toy
    Or aiblins some bit duddie boy,
    On's wyliecoat;
    But Miss's fine Lunardi! fye!
    How daur ye do't?

    O Jeany, dinna toss your head,
    An set your beauties a' abread!
    Ye little ken what cursed speed
    The blastie's makin!
    Thae winks an finger-ends, I dread,
    Are notice takin!

    O wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as ithers see us!
    It wad frae monie a blunder free us
    An foolish notion:
    What airs in dress an gait wad lea'es us,
    An ev'n devotion!



    ~ Robert Burns - (1759-1796)

    Submitted by FreeThnke

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO_tdp8pYxg

    ReplyDelete
  22. American morality... whats that? We lost any morality years ago, and have been taught to never speak of it, defeand it, or practice it. The gay thing is in part the media and school's... but mostly the fact that any and all Christian morality has simply dissapeared and is mocked- and we just roll over and let it happen, and now we are the minority it seems. Fact is, outside of 'common' sense and Christian morals, nobody ever will see anything wrong with gay marriage, homosexuality, etc, ect, etc. And franky... this issue will not be fixed in the government before it is fixed in the hearts of the people- and thats not easy in the slightest. What Obama has done is repundent... to the select few of us. The majority don't care or agree, and even us are willing to do nothing, for fear of being branded as bigots.

    @FT Yes the media may be playing a red-herring, however this is a massive symptom of the countries desiese and needs not be ignored. There are a million things we need to focus on... and its personal opinion about what ones matter. To many of us, this does matter.

    -Wildstar

    ReplyDelete
  23. I just stumbled across this May 17, 2012 essay by Larry Elder. First paragraph:

    Will Gay Marriage Force Black Churches to Reconsider Democratic Party?

    President Obama's affirmation of gay marriage threatens to undermine the near-monolithic black support Obama enjoyed in 2008. Several members of the black clergy now say they intend to sit out the presidential election. One poll from last November found black opposition to gay marriage at 58 percent, higher than the rest of the country, which is about evenly split....


    More at the above link.

    ReplyDelete
  24. FT,
    Be sure to check the link that Mark left above! You'll enjoy it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Wildstar,
    The fear of being branded as bigots has turned out to be one of the worst consequences of the Civil Rights Movement.

    Does bigotry exist? Absolutely. And vile bigotry, too.

    That said, people have a downright phobia of being called "bigot." Furthermore, once somebody is DISCERNED as a bigot, anything and everything that individual has said is nulled in the minds of most people.

    You know -- and this isn't much of an analogy, but I'll use it anyway to make a point....I don't like Brussels sprouts. Can't stand 'em! Won't eat them not matter how wonderful the sauce over them might be. So, do I have a bigoted attitude toward Brussel sprouts? One could say so.

    You said:

    Christian morality has simply dissapeared and is mocked- and we just roll over and let it happen...

    I think the root cause is that a lot of people in our society, including some who are Christians, have gotten away from the concept of sin. Who now believes that sin even exists?

    ReplyDelete
  26. It should serve as a warning to all people, this is what he'll do when he faces accountability, give him another four years and he won't have any accountability. To put it mildly, he'll shove you so far down the path to ruin that you cannot turn back.

    And by extension, he now also supports polygamy and every other type of depraved union man can think of.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Louis H. said..."....if you are not worried about Obama’s fundamental changes to this United States of America"

    Really, can you delineate those 'fundamental changes' for me please? Doubtful, because you're a parrot.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yep ! Americas first gay ass President. Disgusting !

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yes, AOW, Dawn Steele's rendition of Burns' best known poem in it's original Scots Dialect is charming, but I still wonder if most people ever get the point of the piece.

    [HINT: It's all about the "beam" in our own eyes as opposed to the "mote" in that of others.]

    Thanks to Mark for the link.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  30. Equating "Christian Morality" with anti-homosexual bigotry is arrant nonsense.

    The problem with Obama's stance -- and all the unwarranted publicity it has generated -- is the utter cynicism -- the purely self-serving motivation -- of his sudden, apparent, change of heart.

    Like everything else the left embraces this is just another in a long, long, long series of political ploys designed to gain increasing power and ever tighter control over our thoughts words and deeds.

    That's ALL it is, believe me, and my point about Obama's "Change of Heart" opening up a the floodgates to unleash a torrent of anti-Gay sentiment from the "right" is well-taken.

    I told you how it looks to me, and many of you didn't like it. I'm a Conservative and I'm a Christian, but I do not believe in using the tenets of our faith to justify animosity towards anyone.

    The only things I hate are Hatred, itself, and closed-minded Intolerance based on prejudice born of ignorance, superstition and mindless adherence to Tradition. I don't like the smugness -- i.e. the assumption of moral superiority -- that often accompanies these things either.

    It may be perfectly "honest" to feel distaste for something you don't find attractive and don't understand, but cloaking a lack of understanding in the garb of RIGHTEOUSNESS and using it to justify zealousPERSECUTION of individuals or groups who've done harm to no one with the possible exception of themselves -- is frankly IGNOBLE.

    ____________________

    Wildstar, I know you are still quite young, even though you write with an astonishing aura of maturity, I'd like to know precisely why you think the presence of homosexuality is harmful to this or any other society? Have you really thought t out for yourself, or have you possibly just conflated "common wisdom" with Immortal Truth?

    I would agree that homosexuality ought not to be promoted in the school system, but mostly because Sex-Education and Life -Adjustment programs of any kind waste valuable classroom time as they distract students from mastery of the Three R's, knowledge of history, science and the development of critical thinking skills. Sex is NOT a classroom subject. Period! I do, however, vigorously support policies that oppose harshness and teach us instead to be gentle, kind, considerate and intellectually curious towards things we find puzzling or perplexing.

    I assure you too that I find the public demonstrations of such groups as Act Up every bit as obnoxious as those of SDS, Code Pink or any OTHER activist groups. I happen to despise "activism," itself, as shallow, disruptive, counter-productive to worthwhile goals and fundamentally uncivilized in the main. That doesn't mean I would support having the police use machine guns or flamethrowers to stop demonstrations.

    It's always better to THNK long and hard before permitting ourselves to REACT.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  31. @FT The Bible. Paul's letters makes it pretty clear where he stands on the issue of homosexually... Romans has a good point IIRC. I could, if I wanted to take the time, find quotes. It is a destructive practice- just like drunkeness and addictions, which it is compared with. I do not think they should be pursecuted, and did not mean that... but just as we do not think drunkeness as alright, I do not think we should think homosexually is alright. Punish or pursectuate and not condone are different... the old love the sinner not the sin comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  32. PART ONE

    Thank you, Wildstar, for responding intelligently, as I knew you would.

    I am thoroughly familiar with the disapproval expressed by both St. Paul and Leviticus. Let me just say that I am one of those terrible "Thinking Christians" who does not believe that every single word in the Bible was written or dictated by God.

    I believe the Bible is the product of keen flashes of insight and great wisdom much of which is based on good Common Sense collected by many different individuals over a long period of time.

    Like any story passed down through millennia it became encrusted and in a sense victimized by a long series of misperceptions, imperfect understanding, distortions, agenda-driven "interpretations," and the desire of many in leadership positions to tyrannize ad micro-manage the lives of those over whom they exercised authority.

    That's what I am certain Emily Dickinson meant when she wrote:


    "What confusion would over the innocent Jesus
    To meet so enabled a man."



    I fully realize that what I am saying is regarded as "heresy" and is considered abhorrent by many, but now that we're not torturing "heretics" on the rack, burning them at the stake, disemboweling them with red hot pokers, tossing them into "oubliettes," or having them drawn and quartered anymore, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say straight out that anything in the Bible that tends to result in insolence, arrogance, unkindness, deprivation and forfeiture -- or any other form of mean-spirited, destructive behavior -- is simply and indubitably WRONG.

    ~ FreeThinke

    (CONTINUED)

    ReplyDelete
  33. PART TWO

    Eating and drinking can become self-destructive, minding other people's business while neglecting your own [the disease most peculiar to liberalism as well as religious fanaticism] is extraordinarily destructive to all concerned, as surely most of us we have seen.

    Heterosexual sex, when it's used exploitatively, coercively or compulsively, is extremely self-destructive. In fact ANYTHING that becomes addictive, obsessive, compulsive or abusive falls into that category.

    On the other hand how could any intelligent, good-hearted person seriously find fault with two people who got together, maintained a household together, shared all aspects of life together for 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years, and stayed together quite literally "for better and worse, richer and poorer and in sickness and health till death did them part," even if they are two people who happen to be of the same sex?

    You don't hear much about those kind of people. The enemedia would much prefer you to focus on "Gay Pride Parades" where participants strut around in sequined jockstraps -- or completely in the nude -- shouting obscenities and generally making asses of themselves. Or they prefer to focus on AIDS or horrifying isolated cases like the torture-murder of poor Matthew Shepard.

    We are imperfect creatures and, therefore, we're all bound to err no matter how hard we may try to avoid it. My contention is that it would be far better for us always to err more on the side of Compassion and Understanding than their opposites.

    You -- and most people here -- have probably known a great many homosexual or bisexual people all your life, but were never aware of it, because their outward behavior seemed perfectly acceptable. And why should anyone's sex life be of concern to a community at large, UNLESS there is some kind of untoward attempt to involve unwilling or uninterested parties in it?

    The world is full of wonders and many great mysteries. As Shakespeare said, "There are more things in Heaven and earth that are included in your philosophy ..." This was said to a character named Horatio, but it could -- and should -- be said to every one of us.

    Believe only half of what you see, and nothing of what you may hear. Investigate things for yourself. See if the precepts and concepts given you are consistent with reality, as you experience it. My advice, not that you asked for it, would be this:

    Never let anyone do your thinking FOR you -- not even St. Paul.

    Remember the words of Mr. Jefferson, who said, "I am unalterably opposed to any form of tyranny over the mind of Man."

    My warmest, best, most hopeful regards to you.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  34. FT,
    One of my biggest concerns about gay marriage is the fact that we simply don't know how a child develops his sense of sexual identity. How much is nature, and how much is nurture?

    With gay marriage will come the right to adopt or otherwise have children.

    Also, there is a slippery slope involved along the lines of "If it feels good, it has to be right."

    Do right and wrong not exist?

    One final point....With the legalization of gay marriage, will churches be FORCED to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples? Will military chaplains be forced to perform marriage ceremonies? I know that many in the gay movement say that merely asking such questions is paranoid and bigoted. However, I keep coming back to the escalation of the gay movement; at first, many of those activists claimed that all they wanted was equal rights, not marriage. See where we are now?

    You mentioned:

    ...two people who got together, maintained a household together, shared all aspects of life together for 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years, and stayed together quite literally "for better and worse, richer and poorer and in sickness and health till death did them part," even if they are two people who happen to be of the same sex...

    It's hard to argue against that on the compassionate level -- unless there is a threat to public health. Of course, there is still the matter of defining "health."

    BTW, I read somewhere the opinion that we should completely abolish the term and the practice of "marriage" to solve this issue. Just say, "They are a couple," I suppose, and the couple would sign a contract. Maybe that is what will happen within this century: marriage becomes obsolete.

    We keep accommodating and accommodating, tolerating and tolerating, accepting and accepting. Where does that STOP? And on what basis does it stop?

    ReplyDelete
  35. There's a tragi-comical aspect to all of this, AOW:

    Fewer and fewer heterosexual couples are "bothering" to get married. More than half of all heterosexual marriages now end in divorce. A huge percentage of children now come from "broken" homes. As more and more mothers now either "have to go to work" in order to pay the rent, etc. -- or choose to "pursue a career" -- the educational system is taking it upon itself -- apparently out of some perceived "crying need" -- to act more and more in loco parentis."

    To me this is really "loco" -- in the Spanish sense of the word, but it's an undeniable "reality."

    It's certainly not up to me to "educate" you or anyone else on the subject of homosexuality, but I wish others would examine my observations with less prejudice. Homosexuality is a fact of life. It's been around since The Dawn of Time. In ancient Athens -- surely the most highly civilized and intellectually advanced society in the ancient world -- homosexuality was considered normal, although most mature men also took wives and fathered children while carrying on passionate affairs with make lovers. This may seem preposterous to us with the conditioning we've had, which developed over hundreds of years, but the Athenians too were human beings just like us, and their civilization thrived brilliantly.

    It's a vast subject -- and one that's frankly tedious to me, since I figured out that logic and lack of logic in it many years ago.

    For the record I am very much opposed to Public Protest Demonstrations in general, and am not in favor of the type of people who are noisily pushing this Gay Marriage issue in order to gain political leverage.

    If it were up to me, any and ALL households where two or more people live in a sustained, mutually supportive relationship that involves economic interdependence would be given the exact same tax breaks, visiting privileges in hospitals, doctors offices, laboratories and nursing homes as lawfully married heterosexual couples. They should also be given the exact same rights of inheritance, and sharing of health insurance benefits as everyone else.

    For me this is an ECONOMIC issue, and has nothing at all to do with sex.

    The households that concern me might include brother and sister, sister and sister, brother and brother, aunt and niece, uncle and nephew, or two old maid school teachers living in what-used-to-be-called a "Boston Marriage." It could also include people who are just close personal friends who choose to live together partly to save money and partly for economic reasons. Any and all combinations o permutations of these and other conceivable relationships should be on an equal footing politically and economically with traditional heterosexual marriage.

    Why ANYONE should be discriminated against for ANY reason either for TAX purposes or insurance eligibility or the disposal of personal property after death is a mystery to me. It's not only illogical, it's profoundly unfair.

    As for sex, it should be nobody's business except that of the people involved. Sex is not a COMMUNITY affair. Humanity would be much better off if people could learn to mind their own business and stop meddling in situations that do not properly concern them.

    If we always followed the Golden Rule, never forgot the parable of the motes and beams in the eyes, remembered and abided by the Beatitudes, we couldn't possibly go wrong.

    All the best,

    FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  36. FT,
    I note that you omitted the rearing of children in this portion of your comment:

    If it were up to me, any and ALL households where two or more people live in a sustained, mutually supportive relationship that involves economic interdependence would be given the exact same tax breaks, visiting privileges in hospitals, doctors offices, laboratories and nursing homes as lawfully married heterosexual couples. They should also be given the exact same rights of inheritance, and sharing of health insurance benefits as everyone else.

    What are your views on same-sex couples rearing children?

    Most people may not realize that there are significant marriage penalties built into our healthcare system and in our Social Security System as well. For example, Mr. AOW's Social Security Disability check would not be taxable if we were not married and I working (paltry though my salary is). I believe that I have to make less than $14,000 for Mr. AOW's SSDI not to be taxed.

    Spousal benefits for Social Security are not significant for many on Social Security.

    Medicaid involves even more penalties for a married couple -- but not for a couple living together without the benefit of marriage. I was advised several times by the social workers assigned Mr. AOW's case in both the hospital and the nursing home to divorce my husband so that he could go onto Medicaid and, thereby, preserve some of the small assets we have for myself and my own care later. Here in Virginia, a married couple CANNOT SEPARATE assets even if those assets came primarily via the family of one member of the family (as is my case) and can absolutely prove the origin of those assets. Similar laws apply to civil law suits. All my assets were on the line when Mr. AOW had a car accident and was sued for $2 million; the case settled out of court for less than our insurance coverage, but could easily have gone the other way.

    ReplyDelete
  37. FT,
    BTW, I believe that inheritance taxes OF ANY KIND are a form of robbery. Assets in an estate were taxed many times over before death.

    ReplyDelete
  38. FT,
    And one more thing....It is now becoming common for people to think that any same-sex friendship has a sexual basis. Frankly, I resent that attitude.

    I could say the same about opposite-sex friendships. I resent that as well. Some years ago, my friend John visited here one evening before Mr. AOW got home; indeed, Mr. AOW got home after John left. My neighbor, a neighbor who was a good friend, came hotfooting it up the street to tell me that I shouldn't be putting on such a questionable display. Sheesh. Even my parents, about as straight-laced as they come, were disgusted that my neighbor actually thought and said such a thing! John and I had been friends and friends only for decades; we are still friends (although he moved back home to Illinois about 25 years ago.

    I never told John about what my neighbor said. He'd have been upset -- so upset that he'd likely have made sure that he never again visited before my husband arrived home. Silly situation, huh?

    BTW, the one neighbor wasn't the only one to say something. Another neighbor came over the next day and winked at me and said, "Had a little evening delight yesterday before your husband got home, huh?" Sheesh. Mind in the gutter!

    ReplyDelete
  39. How do I feel about homosexuals raising children?

    1. Any number of women have become mothers while trapped in bad or unsuitable marriages. Many of these women have discovered their true lesbian nature long after they were married. [The same is true for many men as well by the way.] At any rate, the natural biological mothers of children may enter into a lesbian relationship while raising their children. I don't think the State -- or anyone else -- should ever have the right to interfere in that strictly on the basis of the homosexual nature of the alliance alone.

    2. Should two Gay Men (or two Lesbians) be permitted to adopt? I have to say "It depends," -- just as it would when heterosexual couples attempt to adopt children. Some prosperous, stable gay couples may be able to provide children with affection, understanding and material advantages they could never get otherwise. "Screaming Queens" and compulsive drug-addicted orgiasts obviously could not. As I said, "It all depends ..."

    Naturally, I believe that in most cases having your own mother and father bring you up is the best thing for a child -- IF the parents are decent, responsible, loving people. Heterosexuality per se is no guarantee of virtue, however.

    I tend to believe it's probably better for a child to have two parents of the same sex than ONE SINGLE MOTHER or FATHER.

    I see that there's an ASSUMPTION on the part of many, who have no understanding or empathy, that homosexuals by their very nature cannot help but live poorly, irresponsibly and self-destructively in unwholesome and degrading circumstances. Such an assumption must be based on ignorance and prejudice, because such is no more the case with these people than it is with those society deems "normal."

    Prejudice always takes the worst possible example -- sometimes derived entirely from inner fears and vain imaginings -- of what it is that may be that's despised and rejected, then insists that this dismal example is most TYPICAL of the group deemed undesirable.

    It's as stupid and as reprehensible as insisting that all black people are NIGGERS who act like JIGABOOS, all Jews are SHEENIES, MOCKIES and KIKES, all Hispanics are SPICS, all Italians are DAGOS, WOPS or MAFIOSI, all "POLACKS" are STUPID, all Irishmen are DRUNKS or all Germans are NAZIS, etc., etc., etc.

    I hope that answers your question, AOW?

    ReplyDelete
  40. FT,
    Two matters about gay households that may affect the social development of children and might lead to a sense of misfit -- or even worse:

    1. I'm not sure that most heterosexual couples would be comfortable sending their children to a gay couple's house for a sleepover at the home of children of gay couples. Homosexual does not equal pedophile, but that is the perception of the part of many.

    2. When children first go to school (age 4-5), children naturally assume that all households are like theirs, that is, with parents of opposite sex or, in the case of gay couples, with parents of same sex. I know for a FACT that is difficult to explain to young children of intact marriages that the parents of another child in the class are single or divorced.

    -------------

    Gay marriage can be legitimized, but such a step will not change the views of people who don't accept gay marriage as an acceptable lifestyle. Statistics at this point indicate that a large majority of Americans do neither favor nor accept gay marriage, and it's not going to matter to a lot of people how "good" a gay couple is.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Good morning, AOW!

    What you appear to be saying is that adamant prejudice on the part of a presumed majority will forever prevail no matter how decently, kindly, intelligently or constructively a despised minority lives their lives.

    If true, that speaks very poorly for humanity. In fact it says the desire to believe the worst about others in order to feel better about one's own shortcomings is a fundamental part of being human. It says that in truth Reason plays little or no part in the formation and maintenance of our attitudes -- that most always have and always will prefer to live their lives based on the fears and fantasies they project onto others in preference to accepting Reality. It is an admission that people rarely-if-ever think, but simply react in most situations.

    In that case the problems you outlined are probably an accurate description of what may be likely to occur. That doesn't justify it, but it's an unpleasant -- actually tragic -- reality I suppose one must accept. "It is what it is," as people say today.

    No wonder we have been branded a "Fallen" species!

    I'm sorry Mr. Huntington chose to bear down in this particular subject. It tends to bring out all sorts of unthinking, gratuitous, cold-hearted nastiness bound to produce little or no constructive effect. I'll make every effort to avoid darting into the fray next time the issue arises, since, apparently, no good could come of any attempt at reasoned debate.

    If only we human beings could encourage ourselves to practice The Golden Rule in every transaction! That would mean cultivating an ability to put ourselves into the proverbial shoes of others, imagine what their lives must be like, and then act toward them the way we wish others would act toward us.

    The world will never change to accommodate any one of us. I believe the key to success in the art of living could only be found in meek acceptance of Reality followed by the determination to deal with it as graciously and generously as possible.

    "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God by which you are sealed unto the day of Redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and evil speaking be put away from you with all malice. And be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God, who for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."

    Thank you again and again, AOW, for your capacity to allow people to express themselves without hyper-judgmental interference or vituperation your part. It's a rare and great gift -- particularly in the blogosphere.

    "This is the day the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it ..."

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  42. FT,
    What you appear to be saying is that adamant prejudice on the part of a presumed majority will forever prevail no matter how decently, kindly, intelligently or constructively a despised minority lives their lives.

    To a certain extent, yes, that is what I'm saying.

    I do well recall how lonely the children of mixed-race marriages were when I first encountered those children in my classroom about 30 years ago. These mixed-race children were treated just fine at school and at school functions, but never invited to the parties at other children's homes. Never.

    Also, it may not exactly be prejudice that makes heterosexual parents "afraid" of same-sex parents. Like it or not, some heterosexual parents have strong religious objections to homosexuality. Furthermore, the gay rights activists who prance around in demonstrations (You know the ones I mean!) do ZERO to allay those "fears" and MUCH to disgust the vast majority of people (including some gays, I'm sure).

    I maintain that we don't know the long-term consequences of children being reared in a gay household. I know of only one child (now an adult) who was reared by his openly-lesbian mother (who divorced the boy's mother). That young man is so maladjusted as to beggar belief; in my view, that maladjustment is partly due to having come from a broken home. Of course, I know of only this one case.

    ReplyDelete
  43. FT,
    Forgot to say....The man was was divorced by his lesbian wife isn't well adjusted, either -- not by a long shot. How do you tell you friends, "My wife left me for another woman"?

    ReplyDelete
  44. FT,
    I must need more caffeine! I just saw this portion of your comment:

    I'm sorry Mr. Huntington chose to bear down in this particular subject.

    He posted this with my pre-approval.

    And, actually, I think that the topic does need discussion. It is going to be one of THE major cultural debates for the foreseeable future here in the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hello Again, AOW,

    Thanks for your response. I think we are mostly in agreement, even though you may not feel -- as I do -- that it's shame that things are the way they are.

    What you said about the children of interracial unions reminds me of yet-another institutionalized cruelty that I think we may finally have outgrown; that is the harsh treatment and social rejection humanity once felt perfectly justified in visiting on "illegitimate" children -- bastards, if you will.

    The idea of perpetually punishing an innocent child, who was in way responsible for the way in which he entered the world, for the perceived sins of his parents seems preposterous and indecent today -- or at least I certainly hope it does.

    The same holds true, of course, for children of mixed parentage. I'm not much in favor of miscegenation, myself, BUT it would no more occur to me to make special efforts to give the children of such couplings a hard time than it would occur to me to bomb St. Peters in Rome to rubble, because Pope Pius didn't do enough to oppose Hitler at the time the Holocaust was taking place -- or any other idiotic rationale for mayhem and vandalism.

    There are many and varied forms of cruelty and insanity. People always seem to be looking for a plausible pretext that enables them to vent their spleen and find ways to punish and deprive others. It's especially offensive to me when this perverse desire gets cloaked in the garb of "Righteousness."

    The world is a difficult and dangerous place at best. We ought never to be in the business of making it even more difficult for others.

    As you know-- because I've said it so many times here and there and beyond -- I despise "activism" in general. Militant behavior in the name of ANY cause is bound to arouse more opposition -- even bitter enmity -- than sympathy. Even when successful, militancy leaves an enduring legacy of resentment that festers just beneath the surface poisoning future relationships.

    As I said above: Once upon a time Christendom was in the business of torturing "heretics" on the rack, burning them at the stake, disemboweling them with red hot pokers, tossing them into "oubliettes," or having them drawn and quartered.

    Thank GOD we do not condone or tolerate such practices any longer.


    Our having grown past that proves that we are capable of improving our character both as a species and as individuals. In many many ways The Old Normal, which we Conservatives tend to regard with nostalgia was not the blessed, beautiful, flawless thing we'd like to think it was.

    I believe the prevalent attitude toward homosexuality is just as wrong as our former policies regarding "heretics," and any and all fellow human beings who incite suspicion and resentment because they appear "different" on the surface.

    It may take anther century or two, but eventually this too will change, and we'll all be much the better for the excision of yet-another cause for hateful and destructive behavior.

    If we were true followers of Jesus Christ, we'd spend all our times searching for ways to love, support, encourage and aid others. He didn't even condemn those who tortured Him and slowly murdered Him in the cruelest, most barbaric way imaginable. With that in mind how any of us who call ourselves "Christian" could dare to hold others, who've done us no harm at all, in contempt and derision defies analysis.

    And that must be my final word on that -- at least for now. I don't believe in beating a subject into the ground.

    My best always,

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective