Some marriage neutering advocates proclaim inevitability because of fauxmentum based on poll dancing and talking with teenagers. For example, one morning I was listening to Los Angeles-based talk radio host Bill Handel who was citing that younger generations don’t see what the issue is – why wouldn’t a man be able to get a state marriage license with another man? He used his own westside-of-LA-raised teenaged daughters as an example. There is probably some truth to that – teenagers haven’t matured enough and experienced enough life to understand the implications of the differences between the sexes and what marriage is and isn’t, and what it means and how it has an impact on individuals, families, and the community.
However, we don’t determine public policy based on the feelings and inexperienced, uninformed opinions of teenagers. Otherwise, we might replace Algebra, Biology, and History classes with porn screenings (they have to wait for university for that), eliminate curfews, lower the drinking, smoking, and driving age to 13 along with the age of consent for sex, and excuse stealing, lying, and cheating as long as it was for a teen’s short-term gain. Your child might not understand why you say “no” to a sleepover – it doesn’t mean you relent. Children do tend to grow up, and grow more socially conservative as they get older, marry, and have children of their own. (Having children of both sexes does much to educate many people on the differences between the sexes, if marriage hasn't already. Many boys are drugged essentially because they are not girls.) Some children need more help in understanding the realities of life than others, and it is up to their parents, first and foremost, to teach them.
Bill Handel, however, isn't likely to do that. Why not? And why is he constantly mocking marriage defenders on his show? Well, as he admits, he did do a lot of drugs in the past. However, it might…quite possibly…just possibly, have a little to do with the fact that Bill Handel makes a pile of money with his business in "third party reproduction", which essentially means that he's party to a lot of killed human beings (in the embryonic stage of growth) and "selling babies" to same-sex couples and singles (who, unable or unwilling to find the time and skills to find a partner, still want to inflict themselves on someone who can't choose to leave), thereby ensuring that those children will either not have a mother or not have a father in their lives. He has talked on-air, without the slightest hint of regret or pause, about condemning his own children (in the embryonic stage of growth) to suffer experimentation and death. He mocks anyone who isn't wholeheartedly in support of a "right" to abortion-on-demand without restrictions or conditions as being "extremist" or "fringe", even though a significant majority of Americans favor limits, restrictions, or conditions on abortion. He ignorantly mocks concerns for human beings as akin to concern for ejaculate. He likewise mocks marriage defenders and refuses to address our better arguments (I know, because although he reads some e-mails on air, including mine, he hasn’t responded to my arguments, unless I somehow missed it.) What should we expect from someone who can toss human beings away so casually and gets paid a lot of money by the likes of Elton John to sell babies into a situation where they will never have a mother?
Bill Handel should make it clear every time he speaks on the subject: "I make a lot of money selling babies to homosexual couples. I wouldn't speak against anything the homosexuality advocacy organizations want even if I disagreed with them."
If someone is unwilling to defend marriage (and thereby devalue their own marriage and wife in the process of claiming she’s no different than a groom), they should at least take the opportunity to discuss history and the Constitutional process as to why marriage has not been neutered in more than a handful of countries and states. "Why can't two men get a marriage license?" Because those licenses are issued on behalf of the people, and the people have not been persuaded that a brideless union is marriage. "Why can't two men get married?" The same reason the government shouldn’t label water as "milk" no matter what the lactose intolerant want, and the same reason people who refuse to take a driver's test, claiming motion sickness, shouldn't be issued a driver's license. Words mean things. Marriage unites a bride and a groom. The state simply does not have the same interest in brideless or groomless relationships. Homosexual sodomy is not heterosexual coitus, which is how we all got here in the first place.
However, we don’t determine public policy based on the feelings and inexperienced, uninformed opinions of teenagers. Otherwise, we might replace Algebra, Biology, and History classes with porn screenings (they have to wait for university for that), eliminate curfews, lower the drinking, smoking, and driving age to 13 along with the age of consent for sex, and excuse stealing, lying, and cheating as long as it was for a teen’s short-term gain. Your child might not understand why you say “no” to a sleepover – it doesn’t mean you relent. Children do tend to grow up, and grow more socially conservative as they get older, marry, and have children of their own. (Having children of both sexes does much to educate many people on the differences between the sexes, if marriage hasn't already. Many boys are drugged essentially because they are not girls.) Some children need more help in understanding the realities of life than others, and it is up to their parents, first and foremost, to teach them.
Bill Handel, however, isn't likely to do that. Why not? And why is he constantly mocking marriage defenders on his show? Well, as he admits, he did do a lot of drugs in the past. However, it might…quite possibly…just possibly, have a little to do with the fact that Bill Handel makes a pile of money with his business in "third party reproduction", which essentially means that he's party to a lot of killed human beings (in the embryonic stage of growth) and "selling babies" to same-sex couples and singles (who, unable or unwilling to find the time and skills to find a partner, still want to inflict themselves on someone who can't choose to leave), thereby ensuring that those children will either not have a mother or not have a father in their lives. He has talked on-air, without the slightest hint of regret or pause, about condemning his own children (in the embryonic stage of growth) to suffer experimentation and death. He mocks anyone who isn't wholeheartedly in support of a "right" to abortion-on-demand without restrictions or conditions as being "extremist" or "fringe", even though a significant majority of Americans favor limits, restrictions, or conditions on abortion. He ignorantly mocks concerns for human beings as akin to concern for ejaculate. He likewise mocks marriage defenders and refuses to address our better arguments (I know, because although he reads some e-mails on air, including mine, he hasn’t responded to my arguments, unless I somehow missed it.) What should we expect from someone who can toss human beings away so casually and gets paid a lot of money by the likes of Elton John to sell babies into a situation where they will never have a mother?
Bill Handel should make it clear every time he speaks on the subject: "I make a lot of money selling babies to homosexual couples. I wouldn't speak against anything the homosexuality advocacy organizations want even if I disagreed with them."
If someone is unwilling to defend marriage (and thereby devalue their own marriage and wife in the process of claiming she’s no different than a groom), they should at least take the opportunity to discuss history and the Constitutional process as to why marriage has not been neutered in more than a handful of countries and states. "Why can't two men get a marriage license?" Because those licenses are issued on behalf of the people, and the people have not been persuaded that a brideless union is marriage. "Why can't two men get married?" The same reason the government shouldn’t label water as "milk" no matter what the lactose intolerant want, and the same reason people who refuse to take a driver's test, claiming motion sickness, shouldn't be issued a driver's license. Words mean things. Marriage unites a bride and a groom. The state simply does not have the same interest in brideless or groomless relationships. Homosexual sodomy is not heterosexual coitus, which is how we all got here in the first place.
I cannot read your articles about fauxmentum and poll dancing - they link out to a blog that is available by invitation only.
ReplyDelete