Thursday, December 01, 2005

Anybody want to run for Governor of California on the GOP side?

I guess Arnold has decided he's done with politics. He just named an openly lesbian Democrat, Susan Kennedy, who is married to her "partner", as his Chief of Staff. Get more here.

The Terminator isn't aware of the agenda of the militant gay activists. If you're not, read this. This article is an eye opener written by attorney Scott Lively. A must read.

9 comments:

Law Student said...

Apparently you deliberately over-looked this portion: "Kennedy has, in the past, been tough on the PUC Board, and she has verbally gone after Democrats continual 'tax and spend' growth of government. She might be a mirror image of Schwarzenegger when it comes to business and economics."

Apparently your big gripe is that she's a BIG BAD GAY person. Too bad. We don't live in a Theocracy.

Mike said...

Oh gosh, you're right...I totally overlooked that. Well, excuse me, I guess that makes things all better. NOT! I don't know if she's big or bad so I can't comment on that. She is gay which is fine by me if she wants to be gay, whatever...a little weird to me, but to each their own. The problem I have with gays is the militant shove the gay lifestyle down your throat and force you to accept it without injecting your own personal albeit opposing viewpoint strategy that gay activitst imploy. She's in a position to advance the militant intolerant gay agenda. That's what I have a gripe about. It's not like she doesn't already have every single "right" to live as she wants that I enjoy, she's just gay and I'm not.

Law Student said...

Mike: The problem I have with gays is the militant shove the gay lifestyle down your throat and force you to accept it without injecting your own personal albeit opposing viewpoint strategy that gay activitst imploy.

Me: Which means, in Christian-Speak: Get off TV, gays...don't be teachers, gays...stop raising children, gays...you can't get married, gays. No?

Mike: It's not like she doesn't already have every single "right" to live as she wants that I enjoy

Me: She doesn't enjoy the right to marry the consenting adult who she loves. Yes, I'm aware that we all enjoy the same right to marry...however, we both know the insensitivy and disengenuous nature of that argument. It's only a technical argument and it has ZERO compassion for real people in real families raising real children who are really being denied real rights that you enjoy. You not only punish the gays...you punish their children by denying them legal protections...that cannot be had with 1000 attorneys. They can ALL be challenged without the marriage protection.

If gays attempt to fight for civil rights...you call them militant. Well, fine. Blacks were militant, as well, when they were fighting for their rights...so were women. I'm sure you'll argue that being gay is not like being black...yes, I've heard them all. Many blacks see a very real similarity. Gays do not choose to be gay any more than blacks choose to be black or YOU chose to be a heterosexual.

Mike said...

Gay marriage isn't a civil rights issue.

Law Student said...

According to the courts, it certainly seems to be. But, I'm used to hearing that. Again...tell me why, as a Christian, you cannot see the incompassion in that stance. In the face of even what you consider sin...COMPASSION for families that need rights...for their children...for their investments.

God, in the Bible, gives you GUIDELINES on how to treat your slaves...even in the New Testament...how can you take a moral position on someone else's right to do what they want with another consenting adult, citing text from a book that endorses mysogeny and slavery and the slaughter of children?

All people deserve the right to be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Gays are alreayd raising children. Why leave them UNprotected, legally?

How is that a CHRISTIAN stance? I really am inquiring sincerely. You've shown that you are a graceful person in your post to me on my blog. I appreciate that.

Mike said...

You raise good questions, not easily answered. Allow me some time to take apart your last statement, extrapolate your core issues and prepare a response.

I have to say now though, the bible does not "endorse" sin, any sin, such as the ones you list. The fact that the bible brings up the good, the bad and the ugly is more evidence that the bible is inspired and trustworthy. No other religious writings delve into such "negative", "awful" things. The purpose of the bible, the main theme throughout is to point to Jesus. The good, the bad and the ugly are dark for sure which makes the light (Jesus) all the more appealing. It helps show Jesus in His true light- forgiving, graceful and loving.

I'll get back to you on the other stuff as soon as I can.

Law Student said...

Mike: I have to say now though, the bible does not "endorse" sin, any sin, such as the ones you list.

Me: Why would God give instructions in the Old Testament on how you are allowed to beat your slave? Was God not progressive enough to know that slavery is WRONG? What about the scriptures where God orders his Hebrew children to go into civilizations and slaughter man, woman, even children and suckling babies? There is one story where he told them to keep the women who've not been with a man for themselves...as slaves!

Because God endorsed this sort of barbarism...mysogeny...slavery...itapears to be further evidence that men wrote this book...why?

It reflects the barbaric nature of primitive man. They created a God who was like them. That's how I see it anyway.

Mike: The good, the bad and the ugly are dark for sure which makes the light (Jesus) all the more appealing

Me: Yes, but it's the ONLY religion where ANIMAL & HUMAN sacrifice are not only endorsed..but ordered. We can easily see how animal sacrifice by religions today is barbaric, primitive. The Christian faith, however, centers around HUMAN SACRIFICE.

It's interesting how the Mormon can easily see the delusion of the Islam...Islam can easily see the delusion of the Christian...the Christian can easily see the delusion of the Mormon...but none of you guys can recognize your own delusion. :)

Thanks for the discussion. :)

Mike said...

You have a TON of questions/issues which is good. Unfortunately, I can't cogently answer them fast enough. At some point in the next few weeks I'll blog about some of the issues you raise. Likewise, I thank you for the discussion.

Law Student said...

Sorry, I didn't mean to overwhelm and blindside you with this topic. As you can tell...I'm a little confrontational and eager. *laughs*

You're a good man, Charlie Brown.