If the dollar has little value, then donate a few.

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

I am for it!

One way the media often distorts an issue is simply in the way it is phrased. The use of "positive" words versus "negative" words. It is always seen as a positive thing to be "for" or to "Allow" something rather then being "against" or to "ban" it. Being "For" an issue is seen as progressive and positive. Being "Against" something is seen as negative and regressive. A perfect example is going on right now with the gay marriage question.

Did you catch that? I bet I just got a lot of you.

You see, that is not right. That is not the question at all. That is a false issue.

The issue is not gay marriage at all. It really is the traditional marriage question. You see, traditional marriage was around first. North Carolina just voted to enshrined that traditional language. They took a positive step to do something. To define what has always been recognized. I doubt there is one sentence in the constitutional amendment that says how they "banned" anything. To ban something they had to be doing it in the first place. Homosexual marriage was never recognised by the state.

What the anti traditional marriage people want to do is to change that definition. To make it into something different then it has ever been. They are against the classic definition. The next time you hear a MSM reporter talking on this issue though, listen for yourself and see if they say North Carolina just voted to "protect" marriage, if Mitt Romney is "for" traditional marriage and Obama is "against" traditional marriage or instead, if they will all say North Carolina just "banned" Gay marriage, Obama is "for" gay marriage and Mitt Romney is "against" gay marriage.

Watch out. It is a psychological game and even conservatives get sucked into this trap of negative speak.

38 comments:

  1. So you support marriage between a land owning white male to a land owning white female?

    Maybe you support marriage to people only of the same race.

    I'm sorry, the only thing you're for is FORCING others to follow your views.

    How about you have your views.
    I'll have mine.

    And we can leave the government out of it.
    Let the churches decide.

    We don't need you playing parent to us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The church has already decided! It is all throughout the Bible that, not being gay in itself, but the homosexual lifestyle is gravely sinful, which, unrepented, can cause a person to lose their eternal salvation. Is your sexual expression worth this to you?

      It's in the Bible again and again. Do you not have a Bible?

      Delete
    2. It is in the Bible that we kill women who aren't virgins on their wedding night. Are you following your Bible? Do you not have a Bible?

      How about you stay out of my church and I stay out of yours.

      Deal?

      I'm being serious. You stop voting on what my church can and can't do and I won't care what your church does.

      I choose to live in America because we believe in freedom and equality for all.

      Delete
    3. That is ridiculous.

      America is not freedom nor equality for all. It is freedom and equality under the law. The law is the arbiter of freedom and equality. Do you believe all child molesters should be free to do as they please? Murderers? Of course not.

      Do you believe Bill Gates or warren Buffet should get food stamps and welfare? I doubt it.

      Well then you are treating those people and groups unequally. You are limiting their freedom. And it is done under the law. The ultimate "freedom" is in an anarchy state where there is no law (see Somalia). Equality of results is found in communism (see 1970's Russia). Neither of those is an America I want to be a part of.

      Delete
    4. And there is not one single law restricting your church from doing a homosexual marriage right now if they so choose. It is just not state recognized. That is what you really want isn't it?

      Delete
    5. I can explain to you how a child molester and a murderer infringes on the rights of others.

      Can you explain to me how a same-sex marriage infringes on your rights?

      If two women get married today in Knoxville, how has your life been altered?

      I guess it makes more sense for you to INFRINGE ON THEIR RIGHTS. The supreme court in Loving V Virginia outlined that married is a right.

      "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival" - Loving V Virignia

      Now you have options:

      1 - Tell me the legal justification to stop same sex marriage (There isn't one)
      2 - Not reply
      3 - Not post my comment

      Your argument about murderers and molesters is fallacious but it'll win you the favor of those that don't understand logic.

      Delete
    6. Society recognizes things for a reason. Heterosexual marriage is recognized for the betterment of society and for natural procreation. Homosexuals can neither naturally reproduce nor do they have healthy relationships nor is it a healthy lifestyle for that segment of society. Why would society want to promote that?

      Also the Loving case was not about gay marriage. It was about interracial marriage. By your argument marriage is marriage they are all the same. IF gay marriage is OK then tell me why polygamy is not OK if it is between consenting adults or why incest is not OK if it is between consenting adults?

      Delete
    7. So you're an admitted social engineer who wants society to be crafted in the way you see fit. There is no infringement on rights, you simply believe heterosexuality is more beneficial. You also ignore that research shows same sex unions produce children who are equals to children from other unions. The best possible thing is for a child to have two loving parents.

      Since you are engaging in social engineering, we should probably look at things that are actually harmful to society. I have a long list of things for you to outlaw:

      McDonald's
      Taco Bell
      Beer
      Liquor
      Cigarettes


      Do you see what I'm doing? I'm using your failed logic and love of going off topic to address issue that aren't the issues.

      If you have a problem with polygamy, argue against that.
      If you have a problem with incest, argue against that.
      If you have a problem with bestiality, argue against that.

      I want to make this very clear, please explain to me why homosexuality is wrong. Explain to me what is morally wrong about being homosexual.

      Please.

      Delete
    8. This is the last comment of yours I am putting up until you respond to my simple questions. By your argument marriage is marriage they are all the same. IF gay marriage is OK then tell me why polygamy is not OK if it is between consenting adults or why incest is not OK if it is between consenting adults?

      Morals are set by society for multiple reasons religious, social, health I would say are just a few of the factors that go into that decision process.

      As for McDonald's, Taco Bell, Beer, Liquor, Cigarettes those things are already regulated and in some circumstances illegal by laws in this state.

      Delete
    9. "So you're an admitted social engineer who wants society to be crafted in the way you see fit." And accepting gay marriage would not also be social engineering to craft society as you see fit? All of government is in one way or another social engineering. It is what the people being governed agree to live by in terms of laws that make up government.

      Delete
  2. Seeing all the headlines, on the various news networks, about the president of the United States taking a stand against traditional marriage, has just about made me sick to my stomach. It feels like a very dark day in my life. Has he never read the Bible? Has he never attended a church where the Bible has been taught to him?

    If North Carolina is the 31st state to pass an amendment on this, where does Tennessee stand? Why can't we be next?

    My sincere hope is that this, added to all the many other mistakes he has made, will remove Obama from office. I pray that he will be removed from office. This could well be the thing that gets him removed from office! I feel like the entire country is hanging its head in shame this evening...

    Oh, how I wish our first African-American president had had Christian values!

    The Bible says that our Lord, Himself, instituted the sacrament of Christian marriage between one man and one woman. The Bible is the truth and the only hope that we have. May God bless America, land that I love...

    ReplyDelete
  3. There were three things in today's news that were just unbearable: that somebody starved a little two-year-old boy to death, that someone almost starved a dog to death, and that Obama came out against traditional marriage.

    Where is a person to turn, after hearing all of this?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The majority should NOT be able to vote on the rights of a minority! Just wait and see, Campfield. There will be a day in the not too distant future when YOU as a white heterosexual male will be a MINORITY IN THESE UNITED STATES!! You know the old saying? What goes around comes around! Buckle your seat belt Campfield, it's going to be a bumpy ride.....FOR YOU!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Old Southerner, since gay people cannot reproduce, how do you think heterosexual men will become a minority? It is the heterosexuals who will keep the human race alive!

      The majority voting on the rights of a minority and everyone else is what the word democracy means. Do you not believe in democracy? Why don't you go live in some communist country for a while and then decide?

      I know Senator Campfield, and he is all man! He could put at least twenty men like you in the hospital in a matter of minutes. Of course, he is too much of a gentleman to do that!

      Senator Campfield is a devout Christian, and, instead of a bumpy ride, he will experience a life of success and happiness, given by the Grace of God, as his reward for loving and following the teachings of Christ.

      Old Southerner, you need to repent and be saved. The kingdom of heaven is at hand. The Lord loves you and he will receive you into his loving arms, no matter what you have done.

      We who love the Lord, also love you.

      Delete
  5. Very intelligent way of stating the facts!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obama's just doing this in hopes of bringing in more of the liberal votes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am a Christian and I believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

    100 years from now Christians will look back with shame on Christians who said "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

    They'll be viewed like slave owners are viewed now.

    Why not let the churches decide which consenting adults get to marry? Would you like someone busting in to your church and forcing you to marry or not marry a couple?

    I'm for less government, I don't want the government in my church. Let each church decide which consenting adults they want to marry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is laughable. You want just the opposite. You want more government. Churches have the right to marry who ever they want now. No government entity has ever busted in a church to stop a gay wedding. What you want is the government and churches who don't want to sanction gay marriage to be forced to sanction that marriage. More government.

      Delete
    2. You say you are a Christian, but, if you are a Christian, how can you have never read the many times it says in the Bible that the homosexual lifestyle is gravely sinful and can cause a person to lose their eternal salvation?

      You need to get your Bible out and read it. This is why peope like Stacey Campfield and I are telling you that gay marriage is wrong. It is all throughout the Bible that it is an abomination against God! What further proof can their be than the Bible?

      Delete
  8. I've been reading the different news commentaries, and, just as I had hoped, some say this may be Obama's downfall.

    Who could choose the wisdom of Obama over the wisdom of Dr. Billy Graham?

    It may be curtains for Obama. Christians, let's unite and pray that it is!

    ReplyDelete
  9. How about I have my view on Christianity and you have yours.

    You are free to think it is a sin.
    My church is free to marry adult couples.

    You do want more government. You want to vote on the rights of individuals in a free society so they must follow your views on religion.

    This is reprehensible.

    Explain to me the LEGAL reason we should ban marriage between two consenting adults. I live in a country called America where there needs to be legal justification.

    Lincoln came in and freed the slaves without a majority vote on the issue. Laura Bush and Dick Cheney are for marriage equality, it'll be a Republican or Democrat who sets people straight on this.

    There is no love in hate.
    It is time for equality.

    It is time to take government out of marriage and leave it to the churches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is not what you want. What you want is the government to get involved in marriage. To recognize it legally. To force religious groups to offer benefits to your "Spouse" even if it is against their religious beliefs.

      You want more government.

      Delete
    2. You do realize that the government is already involved in marriage by recognizing heterosexual marriage and subscribing benefits to those unions right? I'm curious as to how you think excluding same sex couples from this process is legal given the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. Given that you're also advocating creating law based on religious beliefs, how does this not run afoul the 1st amendment's ban on respecting an establishment of religion? Doesn't creating law based only on religious beliefs indirectly establish a state sponsored version of religion?

      To address your above argument on incest and polygamy between consenting adults, they are completely unrelated topics. It's called a straw man logical fallacy. However, since you seem so interested in discussing them, let's do that. I have no issue with polygamy between consenting adults. The only reason I think you see very little advocating for legalizing polygamy is that no one really knows how to codify that into law. If you can come up with a legal framework for it, I would have no problem legalizing it. As for incest, that's a much trickier subject. The laws are to protect children from abusive authority figures, as well as serve a public health function. A public health function I might add that is completely irrelevant in the case of polygamy and homosexuality. So, I'm ok with the laws. However, if you'd like to argue why incest should be legal given my 14th amendment argument, I'm all ears.

      Delete
  10. I get really annoyed with politics of "marriage". There are so many issues that need our full attention and we're bickering over semantics of marriage or partnerships or whatever you care to call what we do. It seem so obvious to me. There are two levels of partnership. One is legal which the courts and law makers should be able to handle. The other is moral/religious which the churches should handle. Ne're the twain should meet. Laws are written that cover the arrangements between two people regarding children, property, insurance, etc. Religious tenants are dreamed up to define how two people should act. Let's get over it and work on important stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Gay" or "Same Sex" doesn't even fit marriage... Marriage is union of man and woman. It's a convention.

    One of the rules of marriage is the woman takes the man's surname. How does that even work in the "same sex" marriage game? Does the one who is most effeminate change their surname?

    Of course, thou shalt not utter a reminder that natural childbirth between the two is impossible due to a convention of nature. The very act of intercourse in such a couple is completely unnatural. I don't get it... It makes no sense to me...

    ReplyDelete
  12. The reason government is involved in marriage is because it is better for society when children are raised in a two parent household with a mother and a father that love each other. The fact that humanity has drifted away from this concept does not make it invalid. The best environment for the development of children is a complete family with a father and a mother. Since that is the best option, the government should try to encourage people to form these family structures for the betterment of society.

    Yes you can point to situations where there is an abusive parent and say "this is not good for a child" and I agree. However, that again doesn't prove that the traditional family is not the best structure for raising children, it proves that some people should not have had children or gotten married in the first place. Society has gone to far into the "me me me" mentality and all most people care for is doing what makes them happy. We need to get back to the attitude of thinking of others first and helping each other out of kindness.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's a psychological game alright, because Romney has already demonstrated his support of homosexual marriage, personally declaring it by fiat in Massachusetts, circumventing the voters, legislators and state constitution.

    But if I was the Big Two desperate to talk about something else besides Ron Paul scarfing up delegates in Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Louisiana, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, etc....then it makes perfect sense to bring up a non-issue between these two - because they are just alike.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mitt the RNC (Romney Nominating Committee)chosen one and the Great Usurper, Barry Sotero. There is no difference between them on this issue. But for some reason it is getting a lot of manufactured attention, as if somehow Mitt = North Carolina.

      Mitt established his stand on the issue in Massachusetts.

      Delete
  14. Can someone please explain to me the legal reason we are banning gay marriage? I live in a country where we stop others from doing something for legal reasons.

    What is the legal reason two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry?

    I've heard mention of "Whats best for society". Besides numerous studies that discount your belief that same sex unions are harmful, who are we to socially engineer society. Frankly it would be best for society if no one but police owned guns. Did you know the most likely person to get shot by your gun is your own family member or yourself?

    So I am not in favor of taking away your gun, why? Because you're an adult and I don't want to live in a nanny state.

    So now back to the original question "What is the legal reason to disallow a same-sex couple from getting married?"

    There is something truly ironic about all this...

    When a man comes back from Afghanistan after fighting for our freedoms, you'd look him in the eye and tell him he can't marry the man he loves. You'd vote down his rights after he just spend years of his life defending yours.

    The irony is sickening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "who are we to socially engineer society" Just what do you think government does except socially engineer society?

      Delete
    2. Clearly you did not read the article because there is no and was no "ban". To ban something it had to have been being done previous to the ban. Homosexual marriage was never recognized by the state. It was done at some "churches" in the state and may still be done at some "churches" but it was not and is not state recognized. It has nothing to do with military service.

      Clearly you do want to live in a nanny state. You are completely wrapped up in wanting the state to do something for you. To change traditional marriage into something it is not and has not ever been.

      There is something truly ironic about that.

      Delete
  15. Senator Campfield,

    When you tell a church "You can't marry these two adults", you are inserting government in to people's lives.

    Yes, you want more government here.

    How are you NOT inserting government in to people's lives? The church and their congregation are making a choice on which consenting adults they want to marry. Then the government tells the church that the union will not be recognized.

    You can play word games all you want but this is more government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The state does nothing of the sort. A church can marry whoever they chose. The state only recognizes traditional marriage as they always have. To do more than that would require an extra step by government. That would be more government. Not less.

      Delete
  16. The major religions of the world, most notably Christianity, teach that, not being gay in itself, but that living the homosexual lifestyle, is morally wrong.

    History has shown that civilizations which have embraced homosexuality were destined for downfall. Have you never heard the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? This is not some fable. This really happened, folks!

    Throughout the Old Testament, the New Testament, and even in the Quran, the story is told about a city which was given over to homosexual sin, and God destroyed the city. Do you have no fear of God or how he will judge you for this sin?

    Just because you find something fun or attractive does not mean it is morally right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Traditional marriage was instituted by Jesus in the Bible, as being between one man and one woman.

    No matter how much you wish something else to be true, this is the definition of marriage and nothing can ever change that. You can make believe, you can pretend to be married, but you are not!

    Marriage is a sacred sacrament, instituted by God himself!

    What two same-sex people have can never even begin to approach the sanctity of one man, one woman, and their children making up a family, which is the basic unit of civilization as we know it.

    I pray for you to find your way to the truth...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Homosexuality goes against natural law.

    Isn't that reason enough?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Maybe this will help - from the New Testament in the Bible...

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

    9 Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom.

    1 Timothy 1:8-10:

    But we know that the law is good, provided one uses it legitimately. We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching.

    ReplyDelete

Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them.

http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rules-for-comments.html?m=1