6 responses to “The Right: Losing the Language and Losing the Debate”

1. 

   Philip France

   February 25, 2009

   As usual, Selwyn Duke is spot-on and correct in his commentary about the abuse of semantics. Lawyers have made fortunes in this endeavor. Who can forget Bill Clinton’s infamous testimony that, “that depends on what the meaning of is is”; the most pathetic form of spin-control foisted on and accepted by the American populace.
   Perhaps the most important point of the “faux marriage” debate is this: Homosexuals DO have the right to marry. They have the right to marry under traditional family tenets that are beneficial to the proliferation of the human species and the natural design of their bodies. They are legally able to marry a person of the opposite sex, corresponding to traditional and cultural law stemming the expanse of recorded history. I seldom hear this point being debated.
   Instead, those of us that oppose the oxymoron of homosexual “marriage” are portrayed as bigots who wish to deny human rights to ceratin individuals whose proclivities are in abject denial and even hostile to the proliferation of the human race. Homosexuality is in direct violation to Darwinian evolutionaray theory which holds that random and undirected natural selection “weeds out” the elements of our genetic code that are hostile to the survival of our species. By Darwin’s theory, homosexuality would have been eradicated by its second generation. By the same logic; if homosexuality were normal, the human race (and species) would be extinct after our second generation.
   You can’t have it both ways. If homosexuality were normal, the human race would be extinct after one generation. It is therefore, inarguably (even by Darwinian theory) abnormal. Back to the original point: Why, therefore, should homosexuals be afforded rights uniquely different than those already afforded to them under the existing Constitution?
   I invite, in fact defiantly DEMAND, your arguments to the contrary.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   W. Tieff

   February 25, 2009

   Can’t think of an argument that works very well. But of course, I must be biased, having written these very sentiments last year in this article: http://sit-downsoapbox.blogspot.com/2008/07/institution-of-marriage.html

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Philip France

   February 26, 2009

   Dear W. Tieff,
   I have read your blog posting and I applaud your articulation of this point. I have read significantly on this subject and wish to add to the argument this point:
   Many of us are led to believe that homosexuality is inherent at birth and that those that demonstrate this proclivity can’t help it, and therefore have no choice.
   This is rubbish and, in all of my study of this matter, there is no empirical evidence supporting this claim. Furthermore, there are entire ministries devoted to rescuing individuals suffering from this delusion into deliverance from it. As a matter of fact, I myself have shepherded a young man away from this dangerous, unhealthy and unwholesome lifestyle. If this person, his name is Paul (last name withheld for obvious reasons), were born with this proclivity, it follows logically that nothing I could have done by word or deed would have convinced him to forsake this choice.
   Thus far, my point has been securely made on secular grounds. I encourage a reading of Paul, the Apostle’s Epistle to the Romans; specifically chapter 1, verses 18-22. Herein is the explanation, namely that those of this lifestyle, as well as those that consent to it have a “reprobate mind”. They are devoid of judgement. I believe that it was Aldous Huxley who observed that “the eye altering alters all”. This is a classic case.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   W. Tieff

   February 27, 2009

   Of course, those with a “reprobate mind” may just be adhereing to the guidence “judge not, lest ye be judged”…
   But i don’t think so. They are not “devoid” of judgement. They only judge poorly. And hence they will be judged.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Philip France

   February 27, 2009

   My dear friend W. Tieff,
   I beg to disagree. They ARE indeed devoid of judgement. As proof I offer any and every public statement by Rep. Barney Frank. Every word out of this deviant’s mouth is the epitome of one that is at once reprobate and “devoid of judgement”.
   To Rep. Frank’s credit, wouldn’t he look divine in an orange jump-suit?

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   T. Bruce

   March 1, 2009

   Dear P. France,
   Your argument…
   Homosexuality is in direct violation to Darwinian evolutionaray theory which holds that random and undirected natural selection “weeds out” the elements of our genetic code that are hostile to the survival of our species. By Darwin’s theory, homosexuality would have been eradicated by its second generation. By the same logic; if homosexuality were normal, the human race (and species) would be extinct after our second generation.
   …strikes me as oddly interesting. Are you using the term “normal” in a statistical way? I.e. That homosexuality is “the norm?” Do you contend that it is impossible for a human being to be so constituted that his or her physiologically “encoded” sexual orientation could be toward another of the same sex? I would not argue that such a physiologically determined orientation would be “normal,” but I do think that it could be, and sometimes is, “natural”–as in “naturally occurring.”
   Before you saddle up your sanctimonious horse and strap on your two-edged spurs, let me say that my purpose in asking has nothing to do with the promotion of homosexuality. I would agree that homosexuality is not “normal,” but for other reasons. It seems plausible to me that at any given time in the human population there exists a very slight percentage of naturally occurring human beings with a quite “abnormal”–yet natural–proclivity for homosexual activity. Then there is an added percentage of the population that, by opportunity and/or misfortune, have veered down a path characterized by sexual “pleasure” found with another of the same sex. Reprobates? Yes. Abnormal? It depends. Arbitrarily unnatural? I think not.
   As for the alleged dearth of “empirical evidence” to support the claim that homosexuality, on rare occasion, may indeed be an innate trait, I would have to chalk that one up to “the jury is still out,” OR your discriminate “study of this matter.” Unfortunately, you have apparently made up your mind. What do you “do” with the hermaphrodite? Otherwise healthy male child born with “absent penis?” The imperforate uterus? Absent vagina? Undescended testicle(s)? How can these obvious “birth defects” occur yet it be absolutely impossible that, by some fluke of nature, some genetic, hormonal, or other anomaly lead to “homosexuality?” It was nice of you to “shepherd” Paul the deviant away from his “dangerous, unhealthy and unwholesome lifestyle.” Was homosexuality the only “sin” that stood between him and the kingdom of God?
   Certainly the “apostle” Paul (or whoever wrote the Romans’ epistle) held that creature worship in lieu of Creator worship leads to all sorts of reprobate (i.e. unfit) behavior. I would encourage anyone who might be interested to NOT stop reading at verse 22 of chapter 1, but to read on–well into chapter 2–where one finds this: “And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?”
   The government should not prevent homosexuals from entering into relationship (contractual or otherwise), nor should “the church” require its members to bow before “the state” and pray for permission to enter the “bonds of Holy Matrimony” (i.e. marriage license). We are in the mess that we are in now because of the hardness of our hearts and minds. AFTER the writer of Romans decried the “unnatural use” of men and women, he wrote:
   (Rom. 1, v.28) And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (v.29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (v.30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, (v.31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (v.32)Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
   So, let’s condemn the queers and give everybody else a pass. What d’ya say? [I wonder where defiant DEMANDERS fit into the above list.]
   Enough for now…Thanks for your honesty and passion.

   LikeLike

   Reply