Archive for homosexuality

Stuff Going On — 05/29/2017

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 29, 2017 by cavalier973

The Manchester bomber’s own mosque contacted British authorities, warning about his possible involvement in terrorism. The British will arrest you if you speak out about homosexuality, though–if you’re doing it from a Christian perspective, that is.

Another Congressional Democrat-hired IT worker flees to Pakistan. She made over six figures as an employee of her husband, who for some reason was hired to handle the Information Technology services for several Democrat congresspersons. There is an investigation into whether the IT services company mishandled data and information.

The earth has seen a significant increase in vegetation, most likely due to an increase in plant food. This stunning finding has scientists baffled. “More plant food means more plants?” ~ a famous scientist. Crazy, crazy times that we live in.

This is a discussion about the effect CO2 on the growth of plants, focusing on “food plants.” It is extremely interesting. It points out the possibility that increased Carbon Dioxide plus higher temperatures means much higher amounts of food can be grown.

Trump thinks that throwing government money at health care will alleviate the problems. Thinking like this is why I did not vote for him.

On a related note, some guy on Twitter was spouting nonsense that a Single Payer System (i.e., Government pays for all medical services) would reduce the national spending on “health care” (medical services). As if the government ever spent sensibly when making a purchase. Think “$500 hammers”.


The obligatory Duck Dynasty post

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , , , , on December 20, 2013 by cavalier973

The thing that bothers me the most about the Phil Robertson situation is the reaction of some professing Christians.  Calling him “ignorant”, “bigoted”, etc. is the incorrect reaction.  Also, giving approval to someone’s sinful actions is not Christ-like.  In fact, I don’t think it’s going to a pleasant time for some Christians when they stand in front of Jesus and try to show Him the Scriptures that support their argument that one man sticking his doodle up another man’s butt is totally within God’s plan for sexual relationships.

Here is a fuller treatment of the controversy.

Addendum:  I would also like to point out that Jesus said that the world would recognize us as His followers by the love we show to each other, not by the love we show for people generally.  Calling Phil Robertson names is not a very loving act.

Obama respects gay-bashing Senegalese

Posted in For God with tags , , , , on June 27, 2013 by cavalier973

Because he’s just that kind of guy, you know?

Same sex marriage is now officially doomed

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 26, 2013 by cavalier973

And I express my sympathy for my esteemed opponents on this issue, who worked so hard for “marriage equality”.  But, now that the Federal Government has involved itself in same-sex marriage, the only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that same-sex marriage is doomed.

Here’s the decision.  The dissent begins on page 31.

Some observations:  The lower District Court already ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, and ordered the IRS to refund the taxes paid.  Who wouldn’t love that?  The case should have ended there.

Also, it seems that Justice Roberts denies that the Constitutionality of DOMA was even addressed in this decision:

“I write only to highlight the limits of the majority’s holding and reasoning today, lest its opinion be taken to resolve not only a question that I believe is not properly before us—DOMA’s constitutionality—but also a question that all agree, and the Court explicitly acknowledges, is not at issue.”

Justice Scalia was a little more vituperative:

“This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion
aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the
Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the
role of this institution in America.

The Court is eager—hungry—to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete “Cases” and “Controversies.” Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here? The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portion of today’s opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the majority’s vision of our role. The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” (at least one that “has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff ”) would “become only secondary to the President’s.” Ante, at 12. But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must march on regardless, lest we “undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.

This image of the Court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. They knew well the dangers of “primary” power, and so created branches of government that would be “perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission,” none of which branches could “pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” The Federalist, No. 49, p. 314 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). The people did this to protect themselves. They did it to guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive. So it was that Madison could confidently state, with no fear of contradiction, that there was nothing of “greater intrinsic value” or “stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty” than a government of separate and coordinate powers. Id., No.  47, at 301.

For this reason we are quite forbidden to say what the law is whenever (as today’s opinion asserts) “‘an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution.’” Ante, at 12. We can do so only when that allegation will determine the outcome of a lawsuit, and is contradicted by the other party. The “judicial Power” is not, as the majority believes, the power “‘to say what the law is,’” ibid., giving the Supreme Court the “primary role in determining the constitutionality of laws.” The majority must have in mind one of the foreign constitutions that pronounces such primacy for its constitutional court and allows that primacy to be exercised in contexts other than a lawsuit. See, e.g., Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Art. 93. The judicial power as Americans have understood it (and their English ancestors before them) is the power to adjudicate, with conclusive effect, disputed government claims (civil or criminal) against private persons, and disputed claims by private persons against the government or other private persons. Sometimes (though not always) the parties before the court disagree not with regard to the facts of their case (or not only with regard to the facts) but with regard to the applicable law—in which event (and only in which event) it becomes the “‘province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’” Ante, at 12.”  [Emphasis mine]

One other thing I’d like to add:  same-sex couples can’t, technically speaking, even have genuine sexual intercourse.  This refutes the argument that procreation cannot be used as part of the definition of marriage.  A married couple who are barren (or choose not to have children) can still engage in the procreative act and have genuine sexual intercourse.  Same-sex couples are only capable of engaging in mutal masturbation sessions.  A same-sex couple cannot consummate the marriage!!!

Re: Five Reasons that the Church Failed on Wednesday

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 3, 2012 by cavalier973

You can read the article here; for some reason, I’m unable to access the original blogpost.

The five reasons:
1.  The Chick Fil-A “buycott” wasn’t loving
2.  People felt hated by the massive crowds that attended the “Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day”
3.  The Chick Fil-A buycott put a cause above people
4.  The Chick Fil-A buycott wasn’t loving
5.  The Chick Fil-A buycott didn’t convince homosexuals that Christians didn’t hate them.

So the failure ascribed to “the Church” rests on the idea that Christians should accomodate homosexuals in their sin, rather than take a stand for righteousness.  The people who patronized Chick Fil-A showed that they were unwilling to endorse homosexuality to the point of accepting a preposterous stance (“Same-sex marriage”), and therefore, they made homosexuals feel bad.

Encouraging another person to continue in his sin is a severe form of hatred; subsuming the Gospel to a political fad by endorsing “same-sex marriage” is not loving in the slightest.  Not that one needs to be a jerk about it, but confronting sin is a very loving and Christlike activity in itself.  It’s a rather pointless effort in futility to try to get the World to love us as believers, since Christ Himself told us that the World would hate us, because it hated Him to the point of murdering Him.  The Gospel is offensive to unbelievers; it tells them that they are not “okay”, that they are not the masters of their own destiny.  Sharing the Gospel with an unbeliever can make him uncomfortable and even angry.  Not that buying a tasty chicken sandwich is the same as sharing the Gospel.  Still, there’s the whole “salt and light” paradigm in which we are to live.  As a public statement for the defense of definitional marriage, I’d say that the crowds on Wednesday were rather successful.

Edit:  In the first link, the comments of one “Tim Hsiao” are very good.

Also: Free Speech tastes like chicken.