NUKES:
Regarding I-Ran-A-Nuke:
I see Obama is calling for worldwide cooperation to ban nukes. I guess some N.W.O. or proxy of the U.N. is supposed to have moral enforcement authority. The thing is, the world is a seething cauldron of competing nations, cultures, and cults. And some of them are, let's face it, crazy. Imagine you're in a room of competitors, all armed, some of them sociopathic robbers. Do you, as leader, propose that everyone lay down their arms, and then, to give the example, lay yours down first? Only if you're quite the stupid one.
Assume, by dint of hard work, cooperation, and courage, a society has achieved power a level above every other society. Should you, as leader, deliberately reduce its power, to give sociopathic leaders a chance to catch up? Only if you're quite the stupid one.
Someone is always going to have a leg up on power. Do we want that person or country to be the one that is sociopathic? Do we really want to be so "fair" to obvious criminals and sociopaths as not to be "hypocritical?"
OK, I appreciate the concern among other nations that the U.S. may itself sometime fall under the leadership of a sociopath (or a malignant narcissist!). And recent events have exposed chinks in America's checks and balances and separation of powers. So, what is the solution? Capitulate to sociopaths? Or fix the chinks? Among other nations, how many really want America to unilaterally disarm? And of those, how many are led by sociopaths?
Two words to the Obamanots: Grow up.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Judaism
Judaism:
What is meant by Jewishness? Is it mainly based in intense belief, or exposure, to sacred texts? Or is it based in ancestry and genetics?
What accounts for Jewish success in science, business, and the arts? Is it inculcation in habits that lead to success, or is it based in genetic filtering from trial by historical ordeal?
I try to be aware of Jewishness as a conflation of factors for background profiling. But a person's Jewishness has little to do with how I determine who should be admired and who should be discredited. Broadly, I tend to admire Jews of Israel, but to discredit Jews of Hollywood.
Of all the main religons, Judaism seems least evangelical. Most Christians see Jesus as a figure inviting of acceptance, but, unlike Islamists, not forcing acceptance.
Do religious Jews tend to conceptualize God as being responsive to those who are receptive to invite God into their lives? Maybe Jews see God as Someone who should be invited, but who does not invite, except to those most keen to a still, quiet voice. Maybe a higher level of abstract reasoning ability is requisite to have capacity to "hear" that voice. Maybe the most intellectually keen of Jews "read God," beyond sacred texts.
Regardless, a world with room for Jews is a world that avails enlightenment and individual freedom of conscience. A world without Jews would be a world of totalitarian thought control. It would be a blight on creation, for fallen derelicts to worship a false and hellish god.
May one be both an "allegorical Christian" and a "sympathizer with Jews"?
Insofar as The Word is made flesh, why not?
What is meant by Jewishness? Is it mainly based in intense belief, or exposure, to sacred texts? Or is it based in ancestry and genetics?
What accounts for Jewish success in science, business, and the arts? Is it inculcation in habits that lead to success, or is it based in genetic filtering from trial by historical ordeal?
I try to be aware of Jewishness as a conflation of factors for background profiling. But a person's Jewishness has little to do with how I determine who should be admired and who should be discredited. Broadly, I tend to admire Jews of Israel, but to discredit Jews of Hollywood.
Of all the main religons, Judaism seems least evangelical. Most Christians see Jesus as a figure inviting of acceptance, but, unlike Islamists, not forcing acceptance.
Do religious Jews tend to conceptualize God as being responsive to those who are receptive to invite God into their lives? Maybe Jews see God as Someone who should be invited, but who does not invite, except to those most keen to a still, quiet voice. Maybe a higher level of abstract reasoning ability is requisite to have capacity to "hear" that voice. Maybe the most intellectually keen of Jews "read God," beyond sacred texts.
Regardless, a world with room for Jews is a world that avails enlightenment and individual freedom of conscience. A world without Jews would be a world of totalitarian thought control. It would be a blight on creation, for fallen derelicts to worship a false and hellish god.
May one be both an "allegorical Christian" and a "sympathizer with Jews"?
Insofar as The Word is made flesh, why not?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
TIME
TIME:
SEE: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0119.pdf
“We review the idea, due to Einstein, Eddington, Hoyle and Ballard, that time is a subjective label, whose primary purpose is to order events, perhaps in a higherdimensional universe. In this approach, all moments in time exist simultaneously, but they are ordered to create the illusion of an unfolding experience by some physical mechanism. This, in the language of relativity, may be connected to a hypersurface in a world that extends beyond spacetime. Death in such a scenario may be merely a phase change.”
….
“An ongoing debate, in both philosophy and physics, has to do with the nature of time in its various applications. Especially: are the various usages of time in physics and everyday life consistent with a unique definition for it? Alternatively: while time occurs in many guises, what is the most useful way to view it at a conceptual level?”
….
“Eddington, the noted contemporary of Einstein, also appreciated the subjective nature of the situation just described, and went on to argue that much of what is called objective in physics is in fact subjective or invented.”
….
“From the Eddington viewpoint, one can argue that the decomposition of 4D Minkowski pacetime into separate 3D and 1D parts is a subjective act, so that in effect the photon has been invented as a consequence of separating space and time.”
….
“We will in this section examine briefly the three ways in which the direction of time’s ‘arrow’ is commonly connected with physical processes, and argue that they are all deficient.”
….
“Einstein (as reported by Hoffman): “For us believing physicists the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a STUBBORN ONE.” ”
….
“In the foregoing, we saw that several deep thinkers have arrived independently at a somewhat intriguing view of time. To paraphrase them: time is a stubborn illusion (Einstein), connected with human sensory impressions (Eddington), so that all moments of time exist together (Hoyle), with the division between past and future merely a holdover from our primitive ancestors (Ballard). Perhaps the most trenchant opinion is that of Hoyle (1966), who summarizes the situation thus: “There’s one thing quite certain in this business. The idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we’re all victims of a confidence trick. If there’s one thing we can be sure about in physics, it is that all times exist with equal reality.” ”
….
“Thus the idea of time as a kind of subjective ordering device, by which we make sense of a simultaneous world, appears quite natural.”
RE: http://soundlearning.publicradio.org/subjects/science_health/einstein_and_god/illusion_of_time.shtml
My summary: Dyson simplifies on an interpretation of Einstein’s view as if everything is geometry (i.e., higher math, not actual physical things or time?).
RE: http://www.flipkart.com/stubbornly-persistent-illusion-stephen-hawking/0762430036-45w3f5adqb
I don’t have this book by Hawking. If memory serves, he believes there exists, not time itself, but merely some sort of “chronological protective mechanism.” My concern is: Is that mechanism “physically” existent, or is it a construct derivative of subjective consciousness?
My suspicion: I suspect that how we communicate any point of view about “reality” depends on the assumptions or models about a frame of reference from which we begin. Depending upon the purpose of one’s perspective of consciousness, one may model time AS IF it were illusion, geometry, granular, or continuous. But I am not confident that “time in itself” exists to be any of those things or aspects. IOW, I suspect time does have a fluxing reality, but one that is dependent upon a higher reality, i.e.: purposes of perspectives of a unifying consciousness, communicating in respect of variously assumed frames of reference.
ABOUT MODELS:
The PROBLEM WITH WORDS of laymen is that they are not rigorous; therefore, such words are ambiguous. Their meaning in any particular application must be subjectively derived, based on some sort of holistic intuition or feel for the context. Even animals do this, as when they “speak” with ears laid back and hair on edge.
The PROBLEM WITH MATH of empiricists is that it proceeds from a conceit that some “physical thing” (Higgs boson?) actually exists, objective in itself, which translates its relations in mathematical models, by which we can eventually map reality, perfectly. IOW, they ASSUME a model is available to mortals by which math may be adduced for providing us with an objective map of “physical” reality. IOW, they assume empirical “rigor” is possible. (I think a holistic algorithm may eventually be available to us, but not based on any notion that there actually exists any “physical thing or ultimate particle in itself.”)
MY TAKE: There is a holistic Source of rigor, but it is beyond the “perfect comprehension” or control of any particularized or “mortal-ized” perspective of such Source. As mortals, we would enjoy no “freedom” at all were there no such rigor. Were there no law, there would be terror, not freedom. Even so, we are availed with “fuzzy comprehension.” Depending upon how we limit our focus and purpose, we may achieve astounding relative rigor. That is: That which we consciously experience is precisely and measurably what we consciously experience.
However, while the focus of any sense (or senser) is diverted to a partial attraction, “other things” will be going on, at a level of complexity that we cannot holistically reduce. (Even though the Nobel twins, Al Gore and Obama, think they understand global warming.) We may eventually understand an algorithm by which such Source produces us, but we will not be able to control its essentially subjective nature.
In short, we will need to reconcile with a higher dimension of subjectivity, whose existence is superior, which is beyond measure, but which avails subordinate dimensions, which can be experienced as being measurable in relations among subordinate forms for expressing consciousness. We may reconcile, intuit, and even appreciate aspects of such higher dimension in each of us, but we mortals will not measure or control it, as Itself.
SEE: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0119.pdf
“We review the idea, due to Einstein, Eddington, Hoyle and Ballard, that time is a subjective label, whose primary purpose is to order events, perhaps in a higherdimensional universe. In this approach, all moments in time exist simultaneously, but they are ordered to create the illusion of an unfolding experience by some physical mechanism. This, in the language of relativity, may be connected to a hypersurface in a world that extends beyond spacetime. Death in such a scenario may be merely a phase change.”
….
“An ongoing debate, in both philosophy and physics, has to do with the nature of time in its various applications. Especially: are the various usages of time in physics and everyday life consistent with a unique definition for it? Alternatively: while time occurs in many guises, what is the most useful way to view it at a conceptual level?”
….
“Eddington, the noted contemporary of Einstein, also appreciated the subjective nature of the situation just described, and went on to argue that much of what is called objective in physics is in fact subjective or invented.”
….
“From the Eddington viewpoint, one can argue that the decomposition of 4D Minkowski pacetime into separate 3D and 1D parts is a subjective act, so that in effect the photon has been invented as a consequence of separating space and time.”
….
“We will in this section examine briefly the three ways in which the direction of time’s ‘arrow’ is commonly connected with physical processes, and argue that they are all deficient.”
….
“Einstein (as reported by Hoffman): “For us believing physicists the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a STUBBORN ONE.” ”
….
“In the foregoing, we saw that several deep thinkers have arrived independently at a somewhat intriguing view of time. To paraphrase them: time is a stubborn illusion (Einstein), connected with human sensory impressions (Eddington), so that all moments of time exist together (Hoyle), with the division between past and future merely a holdover from our primitive ancestors (Ballard). Perhaps the most trenchant opinion is that of Hoyle (1966), who summarizes the situation thus: “There’s one thing quite certain in this business. The idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we’re all victims of a confidence trick. If there’s one thing we can be sure about in physics, it is that all times exist with equal reality.” ”
….
“Thus the idea of time as a kind of subjective ordering device, by which we make sense of a simultaneous world, appears quite natural.”
RE: http://soundlearning.publicradio.org/subjects/science_health/einstein_and_god/illusion_of_time.shtml
My summary: Dyson simplifies on an interpretation of Einstein’s view as if everything is geometry (i.e., higher math, not actual physical things or time?).
RE: http://www.flipkart.com/stubbornly-persistent-illusion-stephen-hawking/0762430036-45w3f5adqb
I don’t have this book by Hawking. If memory serves, he believes there exists, not time itself, but merely some sort of “chronological protective mechanism.” My concern is: Is that mechanism “physically” existent, or is it a construct derivative of subjective consciousness?
My suspicion: I suspect that how we communicate any point of view about “reality” depends on the assumptions or models about a frame of reference from which we begin. Depending upon the purpose of one’s perspective of consciousness, one may model time AS IF it were illusion, geometry, granular, or continuous. But I am not confident that “time in itself” exists to be any of those things or aspects. IOW, I suspect time does have a fluxing reality, but one that is dependent upon a higher reality, i.e.: purposes of perspectives of a unifying consciousness, communicating in respect of variously assumed frames of reference.
ABOUT MODELS:
The PROBLEM WITH WORDS of laymen is that they are not rigorous; therefore, such words are ambiguous. Their meaning in any particular application must be subjectively derived, based on some sort of holistic intuition or feel for the context. Even animals do this, as when they “speak” with ears laid back and hair on edge.
The PROBLEM WITH MATH of empiricists is that it proceeds from a conceit that some “physical thing” (Higgs boson?) actually exists, objective in itself, which translates its relations in mathematical models, by which we can eventually map reality, perfectly. IOW, they ASSUME a model is available to mortals by which math may be adduced for providing us with an objective map of “physical” reality. IOW, they assume empirical “rigor” is possible. (I think a holistic algorithm may eventually be available to us, but not based on any notion that there actually exists any “physical thing or ultimate particle in itself.”)
MY TAKE: There is a holistic Source of rigor, but it is beyond the “perfect comprehension” or control of any particularized or “mortal-ized” perspective of such Source. As mortals, we would enjoy no “freedom” at all were there no such rigor. Were there no law, there would be terror, not freedom. Even so, we are availed with “fuzzy comprehension.” Depending upon how we limit our focus and purpose, we may achieve astounding relative rigor. That is: That which we consciously experience is precisely and measurably what we consciously experience.
However, while the focus of any sense (or senser) is diverted to a partial attraction, “other things” will be going on, at a level of complexity that we cannot holistically reduce. (Even though the Nobel twins, Al Gore and Obama, think they understand global warming.) We may eventually understand an algorithm by which such Source produces us, but we will not be able to control its essentially subjective nature.
In short, we will need to reconcile with a higher dimension of subjectivity, whose existence is superior, which is beyond measure, but which avails subordinate dimensions, which can be experienced as being measurable in relations among subordinate forms for expressing consciousness. We may reconcile, intuit, and even appreciate aspects of such higher dimension in each of us, but we mortals will not measure or control it, as Itself.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
SHAME
SHAME
From A.T."
http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/504891/505190.html#msg-505190
Re: "The media are still what Justice Thomas famously called a "high-tech lynch mob." They operate by collusion and by destroying the lives of their critics. That is another running sore in Stalinism 2.0. It is yet another reason why the media must be purged by the free market...."
Well, the writer reinforces an ongoing alert. However, the supposed "cure" is pollyannish. There is no "free market" once a vibrant middle class is rendered politically impotent. Economics simply merges with politics, crime, and skirmishing among organized criminals over spheres of influence that have little to do with national boundaries. I do not take skirmishing among organized criminals over spheres of influence to be a "free market."Your "cure" merely excites small business Kulaks to run between rounds of mortar fire being lobbed by opposing gangs of Rino corporatist wolves and Dino unionizing wolves. If we allow to be killed the traditions and institutions that defend the idea of America, as an independent territorial oasis for individual liberty, then the "free market" becomes a cruel hoax.
The only power that can sustain the idea of America is faith in a Higher Consciousness (aka, God, even if you don't want to call it that), which promotes empathy for the separate dignity of each receptive perspective. This is higher than faith in materialism or heaven on Gaia. It is the opposite of abject surrender of individual thinking (i.e., Islamofascism).
No amount of clever checks and balances, constitutionalism, legalism, or materialism can sustain or defend dignified freedom of enterprise in the absence of inculcation of respect for a higher source of empathy. As we lose respect for God, so also shall we lose the idea of America. There is no law that is stronger in iron. As we disrespect that law, so shall we sink into a despairing world of the abused and the abusing.
Regain and restore respect for an idea of America that avails and defends national independence and individual freedom and dignity. Do not join with those who seek to profit by reducing America to the lowest common denominator or to the sort of sociopathic rule that is endured by most of the rest of the world. Instead, raise a light, to show the rest of the world a better way.
Human health, welfare, volunteerism, and dignity are better served by competition and cooperation among people of individual initiative and empathy than by the false promises and faux-caring of corporatists, unionizers, and their unholy renditions of Big Brother and Big Gov.
Modern Liberals have been misled to believe the lies of corporatists and unionizers, that small business, middle class, individualists (i.e., Conservatives) do not care about the health and welfare of the less fortunate. Modern Liberals have bought the lie that liberty must be sacrificed in order to spread health, welfare, and wealth. The truth is the opposite. Modern Liberals are Little Red Riding Hood, being deceived by the Big Bad Wolf, dressed in Granny's clothes. Shame on every leader of every institution who facilitates this charade! Shame!
From A.T."
http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/504891/505190.html#msg-505190
Re: "The media are still what Justice Thomas famously called a "high-tech lynch mob." They operate by collusion and by destroying the lives of their critics. That is another running sore in Stalinism 2.0. It is yet another reason why the media must be purged by the free market...."
Well, the writer reinforces an ongoing alert. However, the supposed "cure" is pollyannish. There is no "free market" once a vibrant middle class is rendered politically impotent. Economics simply merges with politics, crime, and skirmishing among organized criminals over spheres of influence that have little to do with national boundaries. I do not take skirmishing among organized criminals over spheres of influence to be a "free market."Your "cure" merely excites small business Kulaks to run between rounds of mortar fire being lobbed by opposing gangs of Rino corporatist wolves and Dino unionizing wolves. If we allow to be killed the traditions and institutions that defend the idea of America, as an independent territorial oasis for individual liberty, then the "free market" becomes a cruel hoax.
The only power that can sustain the idea of America is faith in a Higher Consciousness (aka, God, even if you don't want to call it that), which promotes empathy for the separate dignity of each receptive perspective. This is higher than faith in materialism or heaven on Gaia. It is the opposite of abject surrender of individual thinking (i.e., Islamofascism).
No amount of clever checks and balances, constitutionalism, legalism, or materialism can sustain or defend dignified freedom of enterprise in the absence of inculcation of respect for a higher source of empathy. As we lose respect for God, so also shall we lose the idea of America. There is no law that is stronger in iron. As we disrespect that law, so shall we sink into a despairing world of the abused and the abusing.
Regain and restore respect for an idea of America that avails and defends national independence and individual freedom and dignity. Do not join with those who seek to profit by reducing America to the lowest common denominator or to the sort of sociopathic rule that is endured by most of the rest of the world. Instead, raise a light, to show the rest of the world a better way.
Human health, welfare, volunteerism, and dignity are better served by competition and cooperation among people of individual initiative and empathy than by the false promises and faux-caring of corporatists, unionizers, and their unholy renditions of Big Brother and Big Gov.
Modern Liberals have been misled to believe the lies of corporatists and unionizers, that small business, middle class, individualists (i.e., Conservatives) do not care about the health and welfare of the less fortunate. Modern Liberals have bought the lie that liberty must be sacrificed in order to spread health, welfare, and wealth. The truth is the opposite. Modern Liberals are Little Red Riding Hood, being deceived by the Big Bad Wolf, dressed in Granny's clothes. Shame on every leader of every institution who facilitates this charade! Shame!
Friday, December 25, 2009
Un-Religion
Neither Reparation Obamism nor Islam are religions under any sensible definition of religion. They are no more religions than any other fascist secular belief system, such as radical secular humanism. The only aspect about Reparation Obamism, Islam, and Radical Secular Humanism that is religious is the notion of red or green purpose or Sharia after death, under facilitating grace of either a Higher Consciousness or a pagan Mother Gaia. To advocate further and seek to impose divine right of red or green rule under some mortal fascist, enhanced with SchutzStaffel or Friends of Obama, is not religion, but secular tyranny! If we are so ignorant as to let these people have it both ways through such a transparent ruse, they will exclude all from the public square except their faux religion -- even as they breed, deceive, and evangelize while doing it. In short, we are allowing empathy for higher consciousness (God) to be swept behind ever closing walls, while giving free reign to Chicago thugs and secular fascists posing as people who care about God and us. This is soulless madness. Unless vigorously opposed, it will sink America.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Pantheism vs. Panentheism
Pantheism vs. Panentheism:
An A.T. Commenter ("Old Dog") said, "You know...I just don't understand why...why? What possesses these people to make them want to destroy America? I can only come up with two words. Ignorance and Evil. Not a good combination but it is the only answer to why."
*****
Well, they have lost almost all faith. Many have been so misled or abused as to have become incorrigibly conditioned for serving only themselves, having learned no appreciation for just how hollow that sort of service is. The moral belief system to which they hang on to for dear life is the one that is most accessible for zombies who are already almost dead spiritually. This belief system is also the default system for sociopaths, gang-bangers, cult-bangers, and those so twisted as to wish to stamp out all contrary belief systems (and infidels?) as being alien to empirically based logic. This belief system drives most adherents (Pelosi?) to barely concealed rage, which its adherents duplicitously channel in order to pretend they are our champions (Stalin and Soros?). Intuitive empathy for any higher level of consciousness slips beyond them. Their ideal becomes this: That no consciousness exists beyond the consciousness they now know. The after-world as they conceive it is a "physics" that is populated only by dead rocks. Thus, they behave as if all higher empathy should already be dead. For them, there is no conscious source of empathy. There is only random physical evolution for expressing recurring memes. Know what has twisted this enemy, for it is a dangerous adversary of decency. At every reasonable opportunity stand fast and employ tough love, while wishing the poor shells that carry these lurching creatures about, "Merry Christmas."
An A.T. Commenter ("Old Dog") said, "You know...I just don't understand why...why? What possesses these people to make them want to destroy America? I can only come up with two words. Ignorance and Evil. Not a good combination but it is the only answer to why."
*****
Well, they have lost almost all faith. Many have been so misled or abused as to have become incorrigibly conditioned for serving only themselves, having learned no appreciation for just how hollow that sort of service is. The moral belief system to which they hang on to for dear life is the one that is most accessible for zombies who are already almost dead spiritually. This belief system is also the default system for sociopaths, gang-bangers, cult-bangers, and those so twisted as to wish to stamp out all contrary belief systems (and infidels?) as being alien to empirically based logic. This belief system drives most adherents (Pelosi?) to barely concealed rage, which its adherents duplicitously channel in order to pretend they are our champions (Stalin and Soros?). Intuitive empathy for any higher level of consciousness slips beyond them. Their ideal becomes this: That no consciousness exists beyond the consciousness they now know. The after-world as they conceive it is a "physics" that is populated only by dead rocks. Thus, they behave as if all higher empathy should already be dead. For them, there is no conscious source of empathy. There is only random physical evolution for expressing recurring memes. Know what has twisted this enemy, for it is a dangerous adversary of decency. At every reasonable opportunity stand fast and employ tough love, while wishing the poor shells that carry these lurching creatures about, "Merry Christmas."
Monday, December 21, 2009
OF MARRIAGE
OF MARRIAGE:
Why is it important for some folks to redefine marriage? If marriage is already equivalent in law to a civil union, then why should anyone be required to pretend a union between two people of opposite gender is the same in physical fact as between two people of the same gender? Next, will the agenda be to make it a hate crime to distinguish between same gender unions and traditional marriages? Precisely what is the agenda, if not to weaken foundations of Western Civ? Must we next take our eyes to be deceivers? If the concern is civil "rights," then why try to force changes in spiritual sacraments? And just why should sustainable civilizations avail equal "rights" and incentives to civil unions between people of the same sex? Just how does foisting and forcing civilization to do that help nourish sustainable civilization?
Obviously, what gay rads want is do is to render deluded minds so confused as actually to believe apples are oranges. Why? Because they desperately want to rewrite "normal" so that nothing is abnormal. Mr. Gay Rads, precisely why should civilization be required to accord equal rights and incentives to civil unions between two persons of the same sex but not between 3, or 5, or bi-communal unions, etc.? Are you poly-phobic of other kinds of unions? Notwithstanding your overwrought hand wringing, few thinking people give a fig, much less condemn you for, what you do behind closed doors. But many of us do care when you try to enlist government to give you the "right" to force us to say itis normal or to force us to avail it with precisely the same degree of social support or civic "rights."
Will you next be advocating that civic law should require that citizens pay precisely the same amounts to purchase or support prices for orange growers as for apple growers, because they have equal "rights"? As I said, your mix of apples and oranges is nonsense -- logically, civically, and historically. Basically, your "argument" that parriage should be deemed marriage reduces to "because I wanna." Well, that's not an argument. And if you wanna argue why parriage should entail precisely the same "rights" as marriage, then you need to explain why. Simply to say "it's my right because it's my right" is no better as an "argument" than to click your heels three times while saying "there's no place like home."
Why is it important for some folks to redefine marriage? If marriage is already equivalent in law to a civil union, then why should anyone be required to pretend a union between two people of opposite gender is the same in physical fact as between two people of the same gender? Next, will the agenda be to make it a hate crime to distinguish between same gender unions and traditional marriages? Precisely what is the agenda, if not to weaken foundations of Western Civ? Must we next take our eyes to be deceivers? If the concern is civil "rights," then why try to force changes in spiritual sacraments? And just why should sustainable civilizations avail equal "rights" and incentives to civil unions between people of the same sex? Just how does foisting and forcing civilization to do that help nourish sustainable civilization?
Obviously, what gay rads want is do is to render deluded minds so confused as actually to believe apples are oranges. Why? Because they desperately want to rewrite "normal" so that nothing is abnormal. Mr. Gay Rads, precisely why should civilization be required to accord equal rights and incentives to civil unions between two persons of the same sex but not between 3, or 5, or bi-communal unions, etc.? Are you poly-phobic of other kinds of unions? Notwithstanding your overwrought hand wringing, few thinking people give a fig, much less condemn you for, what you do behind closed doors. But many of us do care when you try to enlist government to give you the "right" to force us to say itis normal or to force us to avail it with precisely the same degree of social support or civic "rights."
Will you next be advocating that civic law should require that citizens pay precisely the same amounts to purchase or support prices for orange growers as for apple growers, because they have equal "rights"? As I said, your mix of apples and oranges is nonsense -- logically, civically, and historically. Basically, your "argument" that parriage should be deemed marriage reduces to "because I wanna." Well, that's not an argument. And if you wanna argue why parriage should entail precisely the same "rights" as marriage, then you need to explain why. Simply to say "it's my right because it's my right" is no better as an "argument" than to click your heels three times while saying "there's no place like home."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
