More conspiracy theorists, damn them.
From the Armorer:
I’m not against, gay marriage, myself – I’m coming to the point where I lean towards the gov’t should get out of “marriage” altogether, leave “marriage” to the churches, and create a legal framework for contractual arrangements under civil law, simply because I don’t think people should use the coercive power of government to tell religious entities, many of which have existed for far longer than the US government, that they will too toss over their dogmas and do what they’re told.
Another one of those “Amusing” but clearly mentally flawed conspiracy theorists.
I’d be careful calling him that, though, he’s pretty well armed.
19 comments Og | Uncategorized
“Another one of those “Amusing†but clearly mentally flawed conspiracy theorists. ”
I was hoping you’ld expand on this a little bit. Though I do pride myself in ‘getting things’ on my own, there are times when I… can’t see the forest for the trees.
I have been repeatedly labeled as a conspiracy theorist for my view that the “gay marriage” movement is actively anti-religion. I’m happy to see I’m not alone.
Oooooh… okay. Yes.
I agree that it is an attack on marriage: especially since there are faaaar easier relationship setups out there today that have become rather common:
Cohabitator Vows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVErKZGzNNM
Think about the inconsistencies of all groups who’ve bought into the Leftist “causes.” For the gays who choose the marriage route (instead of civil unions) will wind up with a the tax penalty on income because they’re boosted into the higher brackets when filing jointly, or lose half their deductions when filing separately. That’s simply not well thought out — and I’ve tried to tell that to gays I know, and they dismiss it because they haven’t heard “leaders” speak of it. (WNNL!!!) The only logical reason to force the gay marriage issue is to allow discrimination laws to come into play. Period. Every other other reason I can recall given are emotions based.
And intimidation is rampant by Leftists in every minority community by using various variations on the “Uncle Tom” charge. Anybody who disagrees with the Leftist cause — a gay who sees the marriage issue as the ploy to game the legal system for instance — is labeled as not really gay. Any woman who is pro-life is labeled as a female impersonator.
And, of course, this is all anti-life. Al Gore came out this week proclaiming that we have to stop having children, and the NYSlimes’ Thomas Friedman thinks Chinese authoritarians — who value human life at the cheapest on record — have the best ideas on governance.
In short, Leftist are tools of the authoritarian Statists who are gaming finances worldwide and need to end America as the world has known her.
All the Leftist agendas are about eliminating other forms of authority. The gay agenda is playing out as antireligious, as you point out. But the atheists are ultimately stupid if they fail to see their bacon is also in the fire. This virulent form of anti-religiosity is anti-life. Anti-life is anti-God. Anti-God is the ultimate authoritarian aim — to leave the future subject without even a sound understanding of even the concept of God. Without even the concept of God being available in the thoughts of the subjected individual…. “That’s the future Winston. A boot stomping on a human face — forever.”
Sorry, for the poorly laid out post. I am short on time but I felt you wanted this addition faster than I normally put things together.
Pascal: The leftist want it all. They want to create a politcial ideology that encompasses all things. The all powerful, all knowing, ‘merciful’ gods that watch over us great unwashed. These Gods will be the ‘supermen’, the intellectual elitists how harken from lofty academia ivory towers to bestow their omniscient wisdom upon the world and all will be good. It would be what Islam tried to do – without the book – as these Intelligencia are ever learning, ever perfecting a better way to shape and mold the world in the image that they believe would benefit all. All powerful and free from the bonds of the silly boundaries that ethics creates as they are most cumbersome and burdensome – meant only for simpletons to ensure they don;t hurt themselves. All powerful and free.
Thats how it would start, of course.
But sadly, it will invoke the sleeping demons of their own psyche, the likes of which have never been seen.
I think Lovecraft and his Cthulhu books seems to fit the description best.
…and as you know, this video opens the door, just a crack, to the raging furnaces of that leftist paradise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM
What most disturbing is the cheerful happiness of the people after the ‘bad’ people and blown to bits.
“What most disturbing is the cheerful happiness of the people after the ‘bad’ people and blown to bits.”
To be precise, it’s the cheerful happiness of those pushing the button, not that of the remainders who were spared — this time — which is the implied threat to anyone who dares challenge the “suggestions” of authoritarians. As a bit of intimidating propaganda — that 10-10 No pressure video could hardly have come closer to the line.
Depicting the authorities not only without a lick of remorse, but cheerful, demonstrates the “new morality” beyond anything my poor writing talents could convey all these years I’ve been sounding the alarm.
It’s proponents have shifted the paradigm back to the time before Abraham. And they run our institutions.
In California there have been at least two crosses taken down (La Jolla and Mojave), but monuments to the blood thirsty Aztec gods have been permitted despite there being no proven Aztecs this far North. Population reduction was an Aztec and Mayan institution, so what symbol better fits our governor Jerry “age of limits” Brown?
It’s quite possible (and likely) a self-funding/financing attack by way of the courts a-la Westboro Baptist Church – they will sue any church that doesn’t preform the gay-marriage ceremony they demand.
Sue and then take to court to make them conform or shut them down. It’s already happening.
“It’s proponents have shifted the paradigm back to the time before Abraham. ”
Yes. Before Abraham. Before Genesis when it was known that G-d breathed the divine within us.
Before Abraham, Human-Sacrifice and Cannibalism occurred often. Before each human life was sacred.
We will lose that if Judeo-Christianity is lost. But then, the Secualr Humanists think the world is overpopulated, too.
As put on Brigids, wall:
“And what would humans be without love?” – “Rare” said Death” – Terry Pratchett (Sourcery)
In my readings of and about the Founders, this is the first mistake of theirs I can detect, and that mistake was to give the Government the right to regulate marriage.
Government has NEVER had either the moral or legal right to regulate Marriage, since that concept is a purely religious construct, and the Government gains it’s only moral authority from the consent of the governed. None of the governed has the authority to impart to Government the right to regulate any religious institution or religious construct.
What we have here is a null set. The Government can’t do what it’s been doing because it lacks the authority, and the People can’t grant the Government that authority because the People are constrained by the Establishment Clause from doing so.
Marriage belongs to the religions, period.
I, too am well-armed.
“But then, the Secualr Humanists think the world is overpopulated, too.”
The heck I do.
Also, you really should get your understanding of early human civilization from someplace other than the Jack T. Chick edition of the Pentateuch.
“early human civilization from someplace other than the Jack T. Chick edition of the Pentateuch. ”
Heh.
Never heard of Jack Chick until a week ago, Tam – and that was from a conversation with Og.
I read plenty about early civilization, Tam, and Secular Humanism is a bastardization of Christianity. It wouldn’t exist… wouldn’t even get a foothold if it wasn’t for the peaceble Christian civilization that resided in Europe (and even then it wasn’t peaceable).
I would be more than happy to expand my premise as I have plenty of information to access, but Ogs blog is not a place for us to debate – if you remeber our last conversation.
…and sorry to disappoint, but Jack Chick is not one of my references either.
Tam:The Council for Secular Humanism has a clear agenda regarding the human overpopulation of this planet. If you call yourself a secular humanist you own this agenda, exactly as all members of the Catholic Church owns all its evils. Like it or not, Cond is correct.
No, he’s not. And you saying so doesn’t make it so. :)
Ah, so the link doesn’t work for you? or because you don’t “Believe” it, its’ not true?
Sorry.When I stop getting grief every time a Catholic does something someone doesn’t like, then I absolve you of the nuttiness of the nuttier secular humanists. Until then, you’re one of “them“.:) And Cond is learning from Jack Chick in the same way you are a devout follower of the Pope.
I have not heard what specifically you are referring to as my being ‘wrong'(only a misplaced, though toxic, label), and I am very curious as to what you think I am wrong about, Tam.
I’m more than happy to take this to email – but not here.
Indeed. You’re both people I value highly, but take it outside.