It's rather sad that so many people now fail to grasp basic concepts such as the difference between marriage and other kinds of relationships. I have answered a challenge that started at Twitter by posting a response to another blogger's assertion that governments should dilute the meaning of marriage, over at The Opine Editorials.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
What a Three Year-Old Knows
My son seems to have a natural inclanation to enjoy music and an ability to dance. He didn't get the dance moves from me, that's for sure. His sister was enrolled in dance classes. They take boys, too, so we enrolled the boy just after he turned 3.
We took him to class. He was the only male. The students were all female. The instructors were all female.
My boy refused to join the class, saying, "I'm not a girl. I'm a boy."
After showing him video of famous male dancers in action, we tried to get him to join the class the next time.
Nothin' doin'.
All he saw was girls. He didn't think he belonged.
Now, if the sexes had been reversed, it would have been our politically correct duty, along with the help of Gloria Allred, to convince him of the importance of making sure the class didn't stay all-male. But as it was, we left the girls alone and I was proud of my boy for defending his masculinity.
Diversity is so important to Leftists, with rare exceptions. The only voluntary association men should be allowed exclude women is a marriage.
My son knew he was a boy. He knew he was not a girl. He knew the difference mattered. Even babies can tell there's a difference. But... argue with a marriage neutering advocate for any length of time, and they'll actually try to maintain with a ...straight... face that that there's no difference between men and women. If you say "penis vs. vagina, XY vs. XX" they'll cite some very rare cases where someone has a genital mutation or some chromosomal problems, as if the fact that some dogs end up with three legs means that dogs are not quadrepeds. And yet, they will also maintain that a homosexual woman is not attracted to men, and thus doesn't have access to marriage. But if there is no difference between men and women, how is this possible? This is one reason why basing the demand to neuter marriage on homosexuality being an objective and inherent condition is an argument that kills itself.
It doesn't matter if their girlfriends are butch or their boyfriends are effeminate. Everyone has government-issued documents called birth certificates and identification, and those documents, at least until the gender confusion advocates change things, note whether someone is male or female. It is those documents that are used as references when state marriage licenses are issued. In most places, marriage licenses aren't issued where there will be no bride (woman) or no groom (man). Why? Sex integration is inherent to marriage.
It takes a lot of brainwashing or conditioning for people to deny the obvious differences between men and women and marriage and other relationships.
We took him to class. He was the only male. The students were all female. The instructors were all female.
My boy refused to join the class, saying, "I'm not a girl. I'm a boy."
After showing him video of famous male dancers in action, we tried to get him to join the class the next time.
Nothin' doin'.
All he saw was girls. He didn't think he belonged.
Now, if the sexes had been reversed, it would have been our politically correct duty, along with the help of Gloria Allred, to convince him of the importance of making sure the class didn't stay all-male. But as it was, we left the girls alone and I was proud of my boy for defending his masculinity.
Diversity is so important to Leftists, with rare exceptions. The only voluntary association men should be allowed exclude women is a marriage.
My son knew he was a boy. He knew he was not a girl. He knew the difference mattered. Even babies can tell there's a difference. But... argue with a marriage neutering advocate for any length of time, and they'll actually try to maintain with a ...straight... face that that there's no difference between men and women. If you say "penis vs. vagina, XY vs. XX" they'll cite some very rare cases where someone has a genital mutation or some chromosomal problems, as if the fact that some dogs end up with three legs means that dogs are not quadrepeds. And yet, they will also maintain that a homosexual woman is not attracted to men, and thus doesn't have access to marriage. But if there is no difference between men and women, how is this possible? This is one reason why basing the demand to neuter marriage on homosexuality being an objective and inherent condition is an argument that kills itself.
It doesn't matter if their girlfriends are butch or their boyfriends are effeminate. Everyone has government-issued documents called birth certificates and identification, and those documents, at least until the gender confusion advocates change things, note whether someone is male or female. It is those documents that are used as references when state marriage licenses are issued. In most places, marriage licenses aren't issued where there will be no bride (woman) or no groom (man). Why? Sex integration is inherent to marriage.
It takes a lot of brainwashing or conditioning for people to deny the obvious differences between men and women and marriage and other relationships.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Will the People of Maryland Defend Marriage?
Although the marriage neutering advocates would have you believe otherwise, one does not need to be "anti-gay" to oppose the neutering of marriage. I take a look at the opinion piece penned by a self-identified gay man over at The Opine Editorials.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
The Importance of Marriage
I almost forgot to tell you that I have posted and entry at The Opine Editorials about a quick way to point out that marriage does matter.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Tony, Zev, Dick, and God
Poor Tony Villar.
Don't know who Tony Villar is? Just as Barry Soetoro became Barack Obama, Tony Villar became… Antonio Villaraigosa. Going by "Antonio" became politically advantageous, going by "Villaraigosa" became personally advantageous, as it is a combination of Villar's surname and his now ex-wife's surname. I wonder if he ever stands to urinate?
Villar was Speaker of California’s joke of an Assembly, City Councilmember in Los Angeles, and is now in the last lap of his term-limited reign as City of Los Angeles Mayor.
The political wonks/nerds in greater Los Angeles had expected County of Los Angeles Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, also a former City Councilmember, to run for Mayor and to get elected to follow Villar. Yaroslavsky, who is Left of center on much (he voted to remove a mission cross from the official county seal... one must wonder what would happen to the rosary beads on the city seal), is nonetheless no dummy. He's sharp and woe to anyone who gets into an argument with him, especially if they don't have their facts together.
The five-member County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors governs the county, each member representing over 2 million people. They hold legislative, most executive, and a little judicial power. There are still many parts of the county that are unincorporated, and this the Board serves as the direct governing authority for those areas. In addition, many cities contract with the county government for certain services rather than hire their own staff, and there are some government functions generally retained at the county, rather than city, level. The County of Los Angeles, which is run much better than the City of Los Angeles (but that's not saying much), has to deal with raids of funds by the disastrously-run State of California as it has various disputes with the city.
The City of Los Angeles is so poorly run they can't even fix their sidewalks. The city's infrastructure is crumbling, and businesses find the climate there to be hostile.
While the City of Los Angeles has a Mayor and a 15-member City Council, The county does not have a Mayor or equivelant; not long ago the Board of Supervisors elevated the office of Chief Administrative Officer to Chief Executive Officer with some reorganizing, but the position is appointed by the Board. A slot of the five-member Board of Supervisors was essentially a lifetime position (the last time an incumbent was defeated was 1980), but now term limits are taking effect.
Yaroslavksy has long wanted to be City of Los Angeles Mayor. Term limits will remove him from his county position. So why wouldn't he go for it, and extend his political career longer than he could by staying on the County Board of Supervisors?
My guess is that he agrees with businessman Richard Riordan, the last good Mayor the city has had for at least 39 years. (It is no accident that Riordan is registered as a Republican.) Riordan predicts the city will declare bankruptcy in 2013. So it seems obvious to me that Yaroslavsky doesn't want that to stain his legacy. Why will the city go bankrupt? Well, eight years of Tony Villar hasn't helped matters.
Yaroslavksy has long wanted to be City of Los Angeles Mayor. Term limits will remove him from his county position. So why wouldn't he go for it, and extend his political career longer than he could by staying on the County Board of Supervisors?
My guess is that he agrees with businessman Richard Riordan, the last good Mayor the city has had for at least 39 years. (It is no accident that Riordan is registered as a Republican.) Riordan predicts the city will declare bankruptcy in 2013. So it seems obvious to me that Yaroslavsky doesn't want that to stain his legacy. Why will the city go bankrupt? Well, eight years of Tony Villar hasn't helped matters.
Villar is infamous around southern California for his desperation to be on-camera as much as possible. To put it in crude terms, he's an attention whore. He's even ended up dating local news anchors/reporters, one such relationship coming at (or causing) the end of his marriage. At least one of these anchors reported on him and his marriage at the time. So it must have been a painful twist of fate for Villar to be given a prominent role at the Democratic National Convention, only to have the first moment in his entire life during which he regrets being on-camera.
The bogus "let's boo God" fraudulent vote must have been a very painful experience for Villar, who clearly had his marching orders of cleaning up what was either a botched piece of the Democrat platform or an intentionally set-up trial message to Lord-knows-who. But the delegates were not cooperating. Villar needed 2/3rds of them to approve. He got perhaps 1/2... far short of what he needed. He polled them twice more, which was a stupid move, and like Peter denying Jesus three times, at least half of the delegates present denied God three times, then some of them grumbled after the bogus vote, because Villar went ahead and declared the matter approved. One must wonder if Obama plans on having Villar count the votes in November?
Villar will probably be out of office by the time the City of Los Angeles has its fiscal collapse, but people should remember that the guy who did this slimy thing at the DNC had eight years to do something to prevent the collapse, and he failed. It's a shame Yaroslavsky won't be taking the Mayor's office. If it must be a Democrat, Yaroslavsky has at least some sense.
You can read more about the bogus DNC vote and see video:
The bogus "let's boo God" fraudulent vote must have been a very painful experience for Villar, who clearly had his marching orders of cleaning up what was either a botched piece of the Democrat platform or an intentionally set-up trial message to Lord-knows-who. But the delegates were not cooperating. Villar needed 2/3rds of them to approve. He got perhaps 1/2... far short of what he needed. He polled them twice more, which was a stupid move, and like Peter denying Jesus three times, at least half of the delegates present denied God three times, then some of them grumbled after the bogus vote, because Villar went ahead and declared the matter approved. One must wonder if Obama plans on having Villar count the votes in November?
Villar will probably be out of office by the time the City of Los Angeles has its fiscal collapse, but people should remember that the guy who did this slimy thing at the DNC had eight years to do something to prevent the collapse, and he failed. It's a shame Yaroslavsky won't be taking the Mayor's office. If it must be a Democrat, Yaroslavsky has at least some sense.
You can read more about the bogus DNC vote and see video:
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2012/09/06/act_of_god_jerusalem_a_disaster_for_dems
http://www.dailynews.com/columnists/ci_21498589/doug-mcintyre-los-angeles-mayor-antonio-villaraigosa-brings
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2012/09/08/villaraigosa_on_god_jerusalem_vote_i_definitely_heard_a_23_majority
http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2012/09/09/the_dnc_as_i_saw_it
http://www.dailynews.com/columnists/ci_21498589/doug-mcintyre-los-angeles-mayor-antonio-villaraigosa-brings
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2012/09/08/villaraigosa_on_god_jerusalem_vote_i_definitely_heard_a_23_majority
http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2012/09/09/the_dnc_as_i_saw_it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)