There are more important things

I understand people being happy about the SCOTUS ruling on the Defends Of Marriage Act, everyone wants equality, and that’s what our Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
I take this to mean let each other live their lives the way they want, if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman marry a woman, or a man marry a woman, LET THEM, as long as they do not try and force their lifestyle on anyone else. Why is this issue of what consenting adults do in their private life taking up so much of our governments attention? Why is the government instilling itself in the bedrooms of adults who aren’t harming anyone? Why? When there are so many more important things to worry about.
Why doesn’t SCOTUS look at oh I don’t know like Obama’s eligibility to be president, not only is his citizenship in doubt, but also the legality of his even being on the ballot in Indian due to petition fraud. Two of the Democratic petition officials in Indiana have been found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud, thus he was not eligible to be on Indiana’s ballot which means he was not eligible to be on the national ballot.
Then there’s the whole voter ID problem. You need ID to do everything in this country except vote for the president, which should be under more scrutiny than anything, especially in light of all the fraud found in the last presidential election, I mean really getting 100% of the votes in one precinct is suspect, but getting 100% of the vote in multiple precincts in multiple States is statistically impossible.
Then we have the whole Keystone pipeline fiasco where Obama has overstepped his authority again in denying the pipeline because of his personal beliefs not because of any valid reasoning.
Then there is the “BIGGIE” the Second Amendment. The constitution is straight forward, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” The executive orders Obama has forced through violate this amendment. As well as any state law that infringes on this right violates not only the 2nd Amendment but also the 10th Amendment which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.” What part of the 2nd Amendment stating that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, meaning it was delgated to the United States, no state can enact a law that violates the Constitution.
These are a just a few of the concerns that far outweigh gay marriage, which should have taken all of about 2 seconds for the SCOTUS to say its legal and move on. This waste of time and money is only adding to the decline of our country.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “There are more important things

  1. “I take this to mean let each other live their lives the way they want, if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman marry a woman, or a man marry a woman, LET THEM, as long as they do not try and force their lifestyle on anyone else.”

    As far as it goes, I don’t necessarily disagree with this idea. It is pure Libertarianism.

    But there are multiple other issues.

    1. We as a society give certain benefits to married people under the assumption that most of them will have children and be responsible for raising them as responsible adults. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to give these benefits to barren homosexual couples. But the first thing demanded will be this equality, asking for what are really “benefits” as “rights.” These benefits have been given because traditional married couples are a value to society.

    Society benefits by encouraging heterosexual marriage. Otherwise you end up like Europe where the rate of reproduction is sometimes not enough to maintain your society and you end up importing untrained, uneducated people from 3rd world countries for labor and these people often hold ideas and value antithetical to you cultural values (e.g., radical Muslims, and inreality “radical” is redundant here).

    2. Now that we have the ruling on DOMA gay activists will start attacking churches and any other organization that for moral or religious reasons does not see them as equal and does not accept them as equal. Churches will be legally attacked for not allowing gay pastors, for example, or performing religious marriage ceremonies for gays.

    So to some extent I agree, except in our society this ruling will be used as a sledgehammer to force people to morally accept gays as equal and any thing else will be soon seen as a “hate crime.”

    lwk
    free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com

    • You make valid points, this idea of letting people be happy and lead their lives is classified as Libertarian, but I like to call it common sense.
      You’re right we as a society do put a certain value on heterosexual couples because they can reproduce, however that does not make them fit to be parents. You can tell this by the number of abortion clinics and children that are forcibly removed from their unfit parents, both scenarios place a financial burden on the state and the country to deal with. We can solve both of these problems by allowing homosexuals to marry and giving them the same rights as hetero couples, and allowing these married couples to adopt. We need to change planned parenthood from the abortion factory it is, to becoming a truly planned parenthood by planning a future for the mother and the child instead of just bullying their clients into killing an unborn child. We get these clinics to instead offer different avenues for the mother to choose from, including matching them up with a homosexual couple who wants to become parents. This would do away with the need for the feds to subsidize wholesale slaughter of the unborn. Also by giving these homosexual couples the same status as heterosexual couples they could more easily apply for adoption of the hundreds of thousands of orphans or children who were removed from unfit parents, thus taking these children into a loving house where they will be cared for and nurtured in an environment they never would have had before. This option solves a few problems we have in society:
      1. It will teach these children tolerance and acceptance
      2. It will take these children out of an environment that is rife with abuse and the potential to become gang members and enter a life of crime
      3. It will put that child in the care of a loving family and away from the harsh cold arms of a government system that has neither the time nor the resources to offer individual care to him or her
      4. It will reduce the financial burden already placed on us as taxpayers.

      As for the gay rights activists attacking churches and religions, yes a small percentage of the gay community will do that, the average gay person will be happy they can finally live with their spouse in peace, and have the happiness guaranteed everyone in our country. There will be some who try to force the church to accept gay priests and church leaders, but this again is no case. The separation of church and state applies here, the state cannot force a church to change it’s core values, as we have seen by the SCOTUS exempting religious organizations from having to follow the mandate to provide birth control, which is against the values the church holds. The state cannot force anyone to change their moral views, and the only way it would be a hate crime is if the church actively went after homosexuals and attacked them. Preaching their beleifs to their congregation is not hate speech unless it is acted upon, and yes there are fanatics in the church, just as their are fanatics in the homosexual community, and those fanatics should be punished not the whole group.

  2. ” We can solve both of these problems by allowing homosexuals to marry and giving them the same rights as hetero couples, and allowing these married couples to adopt.”

    I would like to suggest that children up for adoption have a natural right to heterosexual parents if at all possible. It may be that a gay couple could provide better parents than foster homes, but I don’t believe that is a given. Gay couples are not equivalent and it is impossible for them to provide the ideal role model for a heterosexual kid (or one who would lean to heterosexuality).

    So I will say, in defiance of political correctness, that homosexual couples are at _best_ a very poor substitute. Homosexual couples should – by law – be discriminated against in adoption and used only as the last resort. Sometimes discrimination is a good thing.

    “As for the gay rights activists attacking churches and religions, yes a small percentage of the gay community will do that, …”

    Along with the ACLU and the U.S. Justice Dept.

    “…the average gay person will be happy they can finally live with their spouse in peace,…”

    Personally I doubt that. Gay men are rarely happy (unless they are on drugs and having anonymous sex in alley of the Castro district). Before AIDs in San Francisco a common occurrence was gay men reporting to the emergency room with things lodged in their ass they couldn’t remove, and perforated bowels, etc. Anonymous sex was the norm, although I guess AIDs closed some of the “bathhouses” for a while.

    “The state cannot force anyone to change their moral views, …”

    But they will try through “hate laws” and such. They will punish those who say things that are “politically incorrect.” You can see that happening right now in Canada. Preachers have been charged with crimes for saying that practicing sodomy is a sin.

    lwk
    free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com

  3. One more comment:

    “1. It will teach these children tolerance and acceptance.”

    I define “tolerance” as being willing to let everyone practice the maximum amount of freedom just so long as they don’t use that freedom to initiate force of violence against others. We don’t tolerate people who rob, beat up, or rape other people and rightfully so (haven’t checked the local Texas news, but I believe we were going to execute a murderer last night – hope it went off despite the protestors).

    I tolerate homosexuality, and actually know people whom I value who are homosexual. Toleration is one thing. Acceptance is another. I am perfectly willing to tolerate homosexuals but I am not willing to accept them in the sense of pretending that I think their behavior is either healthy or desirable for society.

    lwk

    • You and I are entitled to our opinions. Homosexuals are here, whether you believe it a choice or genetically, they aren’t going away. The point of this post was that we have more important things for the SCOTUS to worry about, let everyone be happy as long as it does not interfere with others being happy. Let gays marry, if it makes them happy and they do not try and force it on you what is the problem? You don’t have to like their lifestyle, and you don’t have to participate in it, let them be, we have more important problems for the SCOTUS to deliberate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s