Vice-President Joe Biden in the 2012 election campaign got the ball rolling on homosexual marriage when he stated marriage came down to the question, "Whom do you love?"
This definition of marriage is quite broad. One may marry anyone whom he loves. What if someone were to love a child? Would this be considered acceptable, progressive, and lauded as are homosexual unions in our current faddish frenzy? I suspect even the Vice-President would no doubt object that clearly one could not marry a child because he is too young. Ah, here the criterion has changed. Here the Vice-President has abandoned love as the determining principle and argues instead from the nature of man, age in this instance -- does age discrimination enter here? Children, he would argue, and rightly so, are not marriable because of their age, human itself nature placing limits on and defining marriage. No longer is love the determing principle but the nature of man.
Why then does not the nature of man not enter into the discussion of homosexual marriage? Age is a much more sublte distinction than sex, namely, sex means mankind is made up of male and female. Sex constitutes a continental divide in human distinctions, not a subtle distinction like age. Sex clearly shows a distinction amongst humans, namely, there is male and female. It shows that marriage is not merely limited to whom one loves but to the one whom he loves who is marriable, in this instance, to a person of the complementary sex. Consequently, sex is the first criterion before one may consider for marriage the person for whomone has affection. Why do the Vice-President and others argue against marriage in the case of pedophilia or other areas, e.g., polygamy, based upon the nature of man but not homosexuality? If love be the only criterion, then, one may marry anyone or any number of people whom he loves. Why only in the area of homosexual unions is the nature of man not a factor but only the ambiguous principle of love? The burden clearly rests upon the Vice-President and those who advocate homosexual unions to answer this question.
According to human nature and reason, homosexual unions are not marriage. Marriage comprises the union of two indivudals to form a unit, namely, the family unit. Only complements form units. Like entities do not form units. For example, a trailer hitch is comprised of complementary components. Two like components cannot form a hitch. Only complementary components can form a hitch. Such is the case with the marital union. Only complemenatary individuals can form the family unit. Consequently, like individuals cannot form a unit because they do not complement one another. Human nature, therefore, determines who may marry whom, not "love" ambiguously defined.
The Vice-President and those who advocate homosexuals unions are obligated to prove their point from the nature of man and reason. The public is not obligated to incorporate into public policy their unreasonable and unfounded views of marriage merely because they insist upon it. It is incumbent upon the Vice-President and those who advocate homosexual unions to prove their point from human nature and reason. It is not incumbent upon the public to disprove it.
Human nature itself, not "love" vaguely defined, determines who may marry whom. The public is not obligated to incorporate into public policy any view of marriage that does not comport with human nature itself and reason.
After Mr. Santorum's comments I need to know if he truly believes that NO Christian from any era or any political climate has EVER used terrorism against others not of their religion - which history clearly proves to not be true. Do you truly believe that only Muslims are capable of terrorism under true or perceived persecution? If so, you have no ability to heal the problems that face us now - - - only to inflame them. The rhetoric I heard from Mr. Santorum will only inflame differences between good, law-abiding citizens. Have you forgotten or rewritten the Crusades? Have you forgotten or rewritten the Christian South racist movement? Have you forgotten or rewritten the Nazi movement when reviewing your history? I am a devout vegetarian, but can at least concede that Hitler was as well, yet somehow believed that animals should not be eaten but Jews should be burned alive. I would be ignorant or blinded by my own beliefs to believe otherwise. "In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that He would give His blessing to our work, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right. I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty. No man can fashion world history unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessings of this Providence." This from the man responsible for killing 6 million Jews.
Please respond. Kimberly Swise
Politics and religion, to be more exact, democracy and the Bible. What can be said about it? But it turned out that the Creator of the society designed democracy into the human nature. And here is a natural connection between democracy and religion. A contemporary (educated and religious) has been expecting arguments of this connection of politicians for a long time! And at last we are able to give them!
The US Supreme Court prohibited to teach Intelligent Design (ID). Its verdict is ID is a religious subject, a pseudoscience. But almost nothing is known about the content of ID except its name. And here is a paradox: something was prohibited that is not known. In fact, the democracy project from the Creator of the society was prohibited. Human nature as a Constanta of the society, as a creation of the God is this project. “The God created the Man” – everybody knows about it but… He Created the best form of existing and development for people. The urgency of Intelligent Design is so high that it is ‘shouting’ at people: Gentlemen, you have piled up so many problems because you don’t know me! Why are there problems of democracy, morals, religious crises, financial-economic crises, migration problems and even an islamic extremism? Because what is the Creator designed for us is not fulfilled. For example, there is no Institute of Equivalent Relations among people (as a constitutional institute of administration) but it is the basis of morals, honesty, openness (as much I give – as much you do: approximately equivalent). There are many examples in practice but it should be lawfully made as a general rule of people’s behavior. And it should be learnt at school with simple examples such as ‘eye for eye’, ‘tooth for tooth’. (The Institute of equivalent relations could be Santorum Amendment).
We won’t spread ID into the space and stars, we won’t go deep into genetic processes, molecular biology. ID is a global social object, it forms the world in which we are living, and it should be searched in the human nature, in the nature of the society, in the subconscious sphere of people’s behavior. We have taken the liberty to raise ID from the knees, to return it the Top-status. And we hope to have your support in this wished by the God matter.
We need more and more candidates willing to fight Common Core. It is a question that comes up time and again, the frequency and the level of importance from the voters increasing at various functions. Still the candidates remain shamefully uneducated regarding the topic of education in the districts they are running for, and details of Common Core in particular.
Common Core isn't merely about the horrors of teaching to standardized tests. That would be bad enough. It's not only about removing the concept of teaching children to think for themselves, which I still have trouble wrapping my brain around. That alone would give me nightmares the rest of my life. It's not only about teachers and administrators forgetting their place and deciding that the children are theirs and THEY are the ones to decide what is taught and how rather than remembering that they are acting in place of the parents, they are trained, and dedicated, but they are not the parents. The children are NOT theirs.
It's about more than All of that. It is the horror of indoctrination. Common Core is about turning our children and grandchildren, our nieces and nephews, into a crop of slaves. The future of our country is being raised, trained incapable of doing basic math, incapable of reading cursive (script) and thus incapable or reading the original historical documents of our National History vs the revisionist history now being taught College texts are currently abridging explanations of the Amendments to the Constitution and by the time these kids get to high school and college they will be incapable of reading the original for themselves, how will they discern the truth? They will have no ability to read the original. Perhaps no copy of the original text in print that they can read. And even if they could read it, no ability to think and reason for themselves. They will not be capable of making simple transactions on their own because the ability to do simple math will be beyond their scope. There is a reason slaves are never allowed to read. There is a reason the Chinese didn't want to educate their populace, and a reason they couldn't control their populace once they started to educate them.
There is a reason the upper classes always tried to keep the servant classes illiterate, and uneducated. Perhaps Nothing is so important as keeping our young educated.
Constant unrelenting repartition of "the needs of the individual must be suppressed for the needs of the society" "the President had a very had job and we must support him" at a young impressionable age, along with the lack of teaching children to question and think, we'll be raising mindless little slaves, unable to reason.
It must be addressed . We must demand that our candidates put it at the top of their priority list, and educate themselves.
Dear Mr. Santorum: I am a pro-lifer. I was born with Spina Bifida way back in 1964, when not all doctors would save us. I am not a fan of the some-are-better-off-not-being-born mentality of the abortion industry. You have done an incredible amount of damage to the pro-life cause with your crusade against the CRPD. You have absolutely refused to listen to the wishes of the disability community and veterans groups. The treaty is endorsed by humdreds of disability groups and over 20 veterans' groups. Ratification of this reart was never about homeschooling rights or abortion. Backers have bent over backwards to address your concerns. Read the RUDs. So what is this treaty about? It is about maintaining US leadership on disability rights so we can export our gold standard - The ADA - to other countries. And it about creating a world where US citizens with disabilities can travel and work abroad. Do you have any idea what it is like for people with disabilities in other countries? Some friends of mine, both of whom use wheelchairs, recently adopted a child with a disability from China. They could tell you what it is like in other countries for people with disabilities. And what about people with disabilities in other countries? We, as pro-lifers, should care about them too. Maintaining US leadership on disability rights is so important. Backers of the CRPD listened to your concerns and addressed them. There is no excuse. If ratification fails, you will have hreatlt damaged the pro-life movement by alienating the disability community. (You already did that once.) No one will remember that the president of NOW said that we need abortrion to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality. (You can imagine what I thought of that.) But no one will remember that if Rick Santorum does not care about huge disability support for this treaty. The abortion industry will score a huge PR victory if you succeed in defeating ratification. They will gain public support. All I will be able to say is, "Don't blame me." John, a pro-lifer born with Spina Bifida. My mobility is good, but I care about accessibility for my friends.
First and foremost, I am a proud lifelong Republican who addresses the misconceptions (read untruths) of liberal co-workers, neighbors and my own wife head on rather than looking the other way. I am as ardent a supporter of our Constitution as was Jefferson and I have quite literally argued our talking points until I lost my voice but I am amazed and occasionally overwhelmed by my 'local liberals.' Its one thing to have differing social or economic beliefs but its another to defend one's position with falsehoods perpetuated by the left-leaning media. How does an average joe like myself convince a [brainwashed] liberal that his/her view is flat out wrong when the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC and others continue to spoon-feed them rubbish? I had marked success in 'converting' one socialist into a free-thinking moderate who now sees through the thinly-veiled lies by which she had once been swayed. Here's how I did it:
My wife, Marcia, God love her, is Canadian. Having spent far too much time in her country, I can attest that, unfortunately, our friends to the north are hooked on CNN and Michelle Obama and scoff at the very mention of Bush. According to many who I've met up there, Bush is the reason our country is in disarray and we were 'saved' by The Anointed One. As you can imagine, thirty years of socialist values on top of their affinity for American liberal media, had shaped my innocent wife's views. Well, 2009 rolled around, we were wed and Marcia was introduced to Fox News. Now I won't lie - the early days, weeks and months of negotiating a single hour of Fox in exchange for 3 of that brain surgeon Chris Matthews were trying. Over the next few years, as America fell further into the unrecognizable form in which it still finds itself and when Obama's policies hit our family very hard, Marcia's views began to sway. She began to ask more questions and, perhaps more importantly, was receptive to my answers. My truthful albeit hard right answers. Nowadays she peruses friends' Facebook posts and scoffs at their political ignorance. She watches Hillary Clinton claim that she was 'broke' upon leaving our White House and responds angrily. Marcia sees clips of Obama playing golf, attending fundraisers and vacationing in Hawaii and actually lectures me as if I campaigned for this guy. All this from a woman who was a staunch supporter of Hillary just 6 years ago and who used to sternly ask that I ,give Obama a chance.' I'm not a miracle worker, though; her pro-choice, anti-gun and pro-gay views are unshakeable.
As I arrive at my point in a roundabout way, we cannot change 100% of the liberal minds which we encounter. We can, however, change 100% of one person's mind, given time, effort, lots of patience and facts. I have been guilty of dismissing someone as a liberal and waving him/her off in the past but these days I simply ask, "Why are you a Democrat?" The stuttering, stammering, incoherent answer, if any, that typically emerges from their mouths is nonsensical. I don't know about you but if someone asks me why I'm a Republican, I can hit a dozen points inside of five seconds. Many on the left can't even identify what makes them registered Democrats although they all seem united in their belief that Bush was the Devil. If that's all that's keeping them from taking a moderate, if not right position, can't we make the time to remind them not to worry since he won't be President again? I jest of course yet I don't believe that its a stretch that these weak-willed people could be prompted to reconsider their position sans Bush.
So if I was able to convert my beautiful though then-socialist wife, can't you likewise sway a single person in your life? And then can't they educate one more person....?
As conservatives we must keep fighting for what we believe in. We need to broaden our base of supporters. I am a young conservative and i believe we need to educate young college kids on our ideals, most young college kids right now our liberal, we need to change that status quo.If we show young people that we are all about pro-growth and pro-jobs they will support our ideals. If our base grows we can silence the political unjust of the Liberals and establishment Republicans.
Right now our base is constantly being attacked by the Liberal Media because of our opposition to amnesty, Obamacare and other issues. Liberal and Establishment Republicans believe that illegal immigrants make America stronger. I believe immigrants make America stronger and smarter.Conservatives must prove to Liberals and establishment Republicans that immigration reform needs to occur but without rewarding illegal aliens. There is a distinct difference between immigrants and illegal aliens. Most immigrants come to America on green cards, student visas or work visas they spend thousands of dollars to come here the legal way. Illegal aliens come to America to live off of our government and to commit crimes. We can reform our immigration system but we need to do it in way that will not cost American tax payers their jobs or taxes. If we want to give immigrants legal status we need to give those who are waiting patiently for visas or green cards first dibs. I believe for those illegal immigrants who are here working they need to be given work visas to stay here legally. But before we put forth ideas on how to reform our broken immigration system we need to prove to the liberals and establishment Republicans that our border is porous and that we need to secure our border first.
As Conservatives we can continue to oppose Obamacare but the American people want to see a better solution. Obamacare is disastrous it gives the federal government too much power. It forces good doctors to lower their prices and standards for everyone. It basically cripples doctors. It also over populates and cripples our hospitals.It forces hardworking Americans to purchase healthcare or pay a fine,this is absurd. As Conservatives we need to offer healthcare that protects patients from negligent Doctors. We need a healthcare plan that is cost efficient for middle class Americans. We need healthcare plans that can compete to offer the lowest premium for the consumer.
Most of these can ideas can be pursued if we elect leaders who resemble Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Steve King and other conservative patriots. Establishment Republicans have ran their course its time we end the era of the John McCain's and Orrin Hatch's. Establishment Republicans like John Mccain and Orrin Hatch like to help liberals increase taxes and increase the federal governments authority. These disastrous policies are what cripple our economy.
In closing, sorry for the long detailed post but i am very passionate about politics. I am a conservative through and through. Here is a little bio about myself. When i was 18 i registered as a Democrat because of peer pressure. My father is a staunch Democrat. As i got older i researched both parties and i took class in college that was political ideology. When i looked at both parties i said to myself why am i a Democrat i side with Republicans on most issues. I consider myself a fiscal and social conservative. I hope to run day run for Congress and show the American people my ideas. I would like to thank Patriot Voices for allowing me to express my ideas. May god bless our troops and their families. May god bless these United States Of America.
What can we do to launch a broad based industrial revival? Manufacturing arguably built the country and helped make the US technologically advanced, self-reliant and built our giant middle class and successful, productive companies. Is it just me, or does it seem that the growth of the trade deficit began to really take off around the same time everything took a turn for the worse? Will the Republican party turn back to a focus on industrial development, perhaps even championing tariffs on all of these imports? Can't we go back to the situation before 1913 when the US government was financed mostly by tariffs, instead of income taxes that punish work?
Hey Rick, I've seen you on TV alot lately. I noticed the media loves to paint you as the Anti-gay guy. Next time somebody tries it I recommend you reference the 2012 debates in which you are the only candidate running for office who proposed increased sanctions on Iran and cited treatment of women and gays as the reason. That includes Obama.
I think its pretty hard to attack you on gay rights with a record like that. For some reason you don't ever bring it up to defend yourself.