Saturday, April 21, 2007

And now for something completely different

I think between my post, my husbands post (if you read one you probably read the other but here is his link if you don't ) and the news in general we have had enough depressing and frustrating rants in the last week. I sat down to write another post about the homosexual agenda, (more debate and less rant) but I’m not going to. Instead, I’m going to take a tip from Monty Python… And now for something completely different!
Here is a poem for your reflection, it’s meant to be serious and thought provoking, but since it’s also a Cochainian political commentary poem it won’t necessarily make full sense to most of my readers. But, I think the general gist of it transcends cultural boundaries.

Busy rushing always going
So many things, so many cares
What life is this of rush and haste?

Are we warriors that lives hang on our actions?
Or rulers that support nations?
Does not the ale spill if the server is rushed?
Are not the stitches loose if the seamstress hurries?

Shall man require his convenience over another life?
Let it not be!
Even the slave is given the festivals.

Do not follow the senseless sun
Which rushes forever through its daily race.
It accomplishes nothing in its haste
And needs arise anew every day
To chase its path through the sky.

Rather observe the stately march of the stars,
Whose quiet pace is a help to all who seek it.

And now for something completely different!
Did you know that according to the US Department of Agriculture fruity cocktails are good for your health? You see, apparently the ethanol (alcohol in rum, tequila, and other hard spirits) boost the antioxidant nutrients in colorful fruits such as strawberries or blackberries. To quote “Any colored fruit might be made even more healthful with the addition of a splash of alcohol”. Lets see, I guess that lets hard alcohols, provided you drink them with fruit, join the group of ‘health foods’ right along side red wines. I guess it just goes to show, ‘everything in moderation’. Which really should be ‘most things in moderation’, because there are some things that should be done to excess. ;) Here’s the link to the news article if you’re interested:

And now for something completely different!
Here are some well known scientists from the past that were creationists (for a much more complete list look at : Frances Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Johathan Edwards, Carolus Linneaus, Samuel F.B. Morse, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Joseph Lister, James Clerk Maxwell, Alexander MacAlister, and George Washington Carver. So just remember, if you believe in the Bible you are not only in good standing religiously but also intellectually and scientifically!

And now for something completely different!
Nope, never mind, I think I’ll take my own advise, this is one joke that should be used in moderation.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

"Equal Protection"

Okay, so I've written about this before, but its come up again and I think its time to revisit the subject.
I found out something horrible today. The Oregon legislature passed a bill to allow domestic partnerships and to grant protected minority status to homosexuals, transvestites, bisexuals, ET all. I just had a rather expected online argument with one of my chat buddies, which ended when he simply left (which is rather typical for liberals, they rarely want to go through any form of logical debate they just want to spout rhetoric and then get ticked off when you dare question it) about my dismay over the new 'laws'. You know, I wish I owned a business, because right now, I would be very proud to get arrested for refusing to hire the right 'quota' of homosexuals, or get sued for having, instead of a sensitivity lecture, a required attendance lecture on the dangers of homosexuality.
Man, I even hate the word. "Homosexual", biologically speaking, means a creature that reproduces asexually, within the 'same sex'. Strictly speaking its impossible for a human to be homosexual. A better term would be homophiliac, lover of the same. Not that 'love' is a good term to use for that particular practice. How about 'homofornicator'? Yeah, I like that, its a great description. Of course, I always preferred sodomite or queer. Sodomite technically doesn't describe females that have sex with other females, but queer works for both.
Okay, back to the point, they have always had equal protection. There is no reason for 'special protection'. People claim that they don't have equal protection because they can't 'marry' whoever they want, and they might be discriminated against. News flash, I can't marry whoever I want either. I can only marry (or could marry since I'm already married) a living member of sufficient age of the same species that is not a close relative, who is not currently married to another, and who is of the opposite sex. The average person can't get married to whomever they please, why should queers have special rights? What about all those necrophiliacs? How about those pedophiles? How about all those lonely polygamists? They can't marry whomever they wish, why should queers be able to? Of course, what most people who are so quick to defend the queer don't realise is that making 'marriage' between two people, regardless of sex, is just the first step. Next is to allow marriage between multiple partners (its already begun, a polygamist recently sued, thankfully he lost but its only a matter of time, to set aside his conviction for marrying 3 women using the same argument that struck down the sodomy laws in Texas which sparked all this 'marriage' talk), then the next step is to remove age restrictions. Don't believe me? Look overseas. The country that has always preceded us in queer rights, The Netherlands, has not only domestic partnerships for multiple partners but a POLITICAL PARTY based around pedophilia.
As far as discrimination in employment we discriminate against convicted rapists all the time, and well, they will be happy to tell you they are 'born that way' and that rape is the only way they can enjoy sex. Don't know about you but my employment contract includes a morality clause that says I can be fired for making the company look bad or producing bad PR. Like if a CEO has a messy affair they can be fired because its bad PR. Well, if a company has a good moral compass it will make them look bad to employ a practicing queer. If a queer wants a job maybe they should keep their perversion in the proverbial 'closet'. Lets be clear about something here. I'm not homophobic, such a stupid term, no more than I am adulterer-phobic or pedophilia-phobic. I work with at least 3 queers, and converse politely with them as coworkers. And there used to be another there. She was very outspoken, and blurted out, very loudly, about her sexual experiences with her partner during a company dinner. Nothing happened to her. I would say if a normal couple said something that lewd, that loudly, during a company function I would expect the bosses to get their tail feathers ruffled. But since she was queer if they had done something they could have gotten in trouble for discrimination. I am not, in anyway, suggesting that rules apply differently to queers than they do to people of more moral bedroom practices. The exact opposite, I demand they be treated the same! Why is it okay to tell someone you disagree with adultery, but if you say you are against sodomy you are bigoted and 'homophobic' and (as proven by numerous stories from around the country) can be fired for simply voicing your point of view, a point of view that has ruled every society from time memorial. (Even in the Greco-Roman culture homosexuality was still considered by the majority of the populace to be wrong, it was just tolerated among the upper classes)
So then people say, well since we have separation of church and state its not right to criminalize sin, or to let people's religious convictions dictate other people's 'rights' to do as they please. Really? What are laws? They are state sponsored criminalization of sin. Murder? Against the law. Rape? Against the law. Pedophilia? Against the law. Why do we have the right to say these things are wrong but the 'right' to say so stops at homosexuality? There is no logical reason, there is no scientific reason, there is no biological reason. In fact the only possible reason to not include an act that is against reason, is against science, is against biology, in the list of sins we already criminalize is the wanton and willful inclusion of sin purely because its sin. The queers have been shouting for so long, demanding that they be allowed not only to sin, not only to rub our faces in it, but for the right not to call is sin, and not to allow us to call it sin, that the public finally was intimidated. Like some 5 year old who's afraid of being yelled at our elected officials, as well as a fair amount of the populace has folded and fearfully begun to bow and scrape to the alter of political correctness. The fact that every state that has brought a defense of marriage amendment to the ballots has passed it shows that the majority of the populace aren't scared by yelling, but that lawmakers in those very states repeatedly ignore the general populace proves that apparently being elected to office requires the removal of all courage and conviction. For some reason the majority of people who vote for marriage protection laws then turn around and vote into office people without enough spine to stand up to the temper tantrum of the approximately 1% of the population that is queer. That's what I will never understand. Why people don't vote on their convictions. They vote on political issues, who promises tax relief, better schools, or better roads, all the while ignoring the actual important issues of weather a politician is for baby-murder (abortion), forced feeding children sin (homosexual programs in school), homofornication, ET all. Don't get me wrong, I wish we had better public schools, but if the choice is between bringing the public schools up to snuff or stopping babies from being slaughtered, guess which one I choose? So why in the bleepedy bleep does anyone think that its 'okay' to vote on purely political issues instead of moral ones? I've heard confessing Christians (I say confessing because I find it difficult for any real born-again Christian to think this way) say that they don't think its their job to vote for 'forcing beliefs on others' IE criminalizing abortion or homosexuality. Well who else is going to do it? The non-Christian who finds being yelled at horrific?
Okay, so this ended up on a different tangent than it started, but its all connected, its all one big attempt to brainwash and keep life and truth from reaching the populace. An attempt to silence the truth, the Truth, from being preached because its not politically correct, because it might offend, because it might call someone a sinner.
If you are reading this and are a Christian, even if you aren't a Christian but you defend the Jedo-Christian belief system this country was founded on, I urge you to vote not for politics, which are fleeting and ultimately pointless, but to vote for morality, which might just help save one life, one babe, one child, one impressionable teenager from death, death by suction, death by abuse and molestation, death from AIDS and STDs, and from the ultimate death of never being told the truth.
With prayer,