I heard Simon & Garfunkle’s song Sounds of Silence on the radio today. In my mind, I replaced one of the lines with the following:
And the people bowed and prayedTo the rainbow God they made
It is written:
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. ~Ecclesiastes 12:13 ESV
This is a discussion about gender dysphoria, commonly called transgender, and whether or not transgender people should be using the bathroom based on feelings of who they are, or their biological sex.
Santos said, "Because [she] is not her daughter; [she] is our daughter."
Manuel Santos is patently wrong. When he refers to her, he is referring to the baby’s biological mother, Patidta Kusongsaang, and when he refers to our, he is referring to him and his husband, Gordon Lake.
Let me point out the obvious. Santos and his husband can not have children. It’s impossible, by nature1. Therefore, the baby, Carmen, is not biologically theirs. From a legal standpoint, she may be, but not biologically. No court decision can change that.
Children, by nature, have a biological mother and a biological father. Again, this is something that a court can’t change. A court decision doesn’t change the child’s DNA. The child will forever be the biological child of Manuel Santos and Patidta Kusongsaang, no matter how Santos and his partner feel about it. To think otherwise is a denial of reality; a delusion you might say.
But it seems to me, that this same-sex "marriage" is exactly that, a denial. While the argument is posed as an equality, and love, measure, it leaves out the family measure.
It’s at this point the unnaturalness of the union becomes apparent. A same-sex couple can’t procreate. They must receive assistance from an outside individual; an individual of the opposite sex.
And it’s here that reality must be confronted: In order to have biological children, at least one member of the same-sex couple must embrace heterosexually in order to procreate. And only one of them can be the biological parent.
There is no hate in that statement. There is no bigotry. Only truth.
The bottom line is this: homosexuality is a social construct, not a biological one, and they must choose to put homosexuality aside in order to create a family in which one parent is still left out biologically.
This seems to me to be the very definition of an unnatural relationship.↩
I ran across this article, today: After 13 Years, I’m Leaving Christianity. It’s an interesting read. As the title implies, the author, Keay Nigel, discusses why she left Christianity. While many thoughts ran through my mind as I read it, I’ve chosen to comment on an analogy she made. Here’s the context:
For instance, my church had taught us that our God is the one true God, and that all other religions are works of Satan. Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism were described as unintelligent religions; their worship of pagan figures, animals and deities were said to be wrong, nonsensical, useless, and laughable even. The pastor had in fact described miracles in other religions as demonic.
It’s scary that young minds were indoctrinated with such disrespecting, bigoted extreme ideas.
Here’s the analogy:
Just because you’re lactose-intolerant doesn’t mean others shouldn’t be allowed to drink milk.
And my question:
But what if everyone were lactose-intolerant? Wouldn’t it be a good thing if they were told not to drink the milk? What if people were sick because they were lactose-intolerant, but didn’t realize it was the milk causing it? What if I told them that they had to stop drinking milk in order to get better; it’s the only way!
Would I still be a bigot?
Prince was not my favorite artist. But…
I probably saw Purple Rain a half dozen times; at the drive-in no less. With a bunch of friends. Those were good times.
Purple Rain was (is) a great record! And I still have a copy! Yes. Vinyl. Which by the way, is superior to CDs; and anything digital. I like some of his songs, and I think he’s overlooked as a guitar player.
I think I’ve said it every year since his Super Bowl performance; he put on the best show ever. No one’s come close. Most are gawdy, overdone, embarrassments, even when I like the artist. I’m glad the NFL posted the whole show.
Ain’t It the Truth!
Best Super Bowl Halftime Show Ever
In the piece, Animal Cruelty or the Price of Dinner?, Nicholas Kristof discusses the care, or lack thereof, of chickens in the slaughter industry. We get concern about: dogs, chickens on the way to slaughter, the health of chickens, the effect of sick chickens on humans, the livelihood of farmers speaking out, chicken living conditions, and efficiency vs. oppressive treatment of farmers and animals from the industry. In the midst of this complaint, there’s this nugget:
In fairness, the chicken companies excel at producing cheap food, with the price of chicken falling by at least half in real terms since 19301.
This is important because the one thing that never gets mentioned in this list of gripes is what tinkering with these things will do to the cost of chicken. Obviously, it will raise prices. And when the prices of goods and services go up, who does it hurt? The poor.
And what isn’t mentioned in Kristof’s list of concerns? How fixing the "problem" will affect the poor? Is that because he cares more about the chickens? Maybe not, but leaving the poor out of the equation is a common theme when discussing liberal initiatives.
I was simply going to share the video, but will you watch it? I’m betting you don’t, so I’m going to share some of the key points. Watch if for the full effect. Really!
We keep hearing that 99.9% of all Muslims are peace loving, but is that true? Not according to these numbers. Depending on where you live in the world, only 25% to 75% hold peaceful, non-radical ideas.
"this fear of being called a racist, has caused many people to act against their better judgment" ~Raheel Raza
According to the video, there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Think about the percentages in the video compared to that 1.6 billion.
There are three Spheres of Radicalization:
Center sphere: Violent Jihadists who want to kill apostates, and/or die trying. They believe in paradise and martyrdom. This group is represented by ISIS, which boasts 40,000 – 200,000 Muslims fighting around the world. These numbers do not include violent terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, IRCG.
Inner ring: Islamists are "just as convinced of martyrdom and paradise, and want to foist their religion on the rest of humanity, but they want to work within the system. They don’t want to blow themselves up on a bus. They want to change governments, and use democracy against itself" [emphasis added]. They "want the same things as the Jihadist, but using different tactics." Examples of this are Palestinians electing Hamas into power, and Egyptians electing the Muslim Brotherhood into power. Both are terrorist organizations. Here in the U.S., we have CAIR who works to silence critics of Islam. The U.S. Department of Justice says that CAIR is or was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood; the United Arab Emerites lists CAIR as terrorist organization
Outer ring: Fundamentalist are those who don’t aren’t trying to blow people up, or trying to change governments, but hold radical ideas.
This doesn’t even come close to the 99.9% narrative that we’re being fed by liberals. How is it that they can be so out of touch with reality? Is it intentional? There are approximately 3 million Muslims in the United States. Based on the numbers in this video, 780,000 Muslims in America believe suicide bombings against civilians can be justified. Is it no wonder then, condemnation from Islamic communities is strangely quiet in the wake of what are clearly terrorist attacks by Radical Islamists?
But, this of course, leads to the next question. Why do so many Muslims hold radical and violent views? Where do these beliefs originate? Dare I say, from Islam itself?