|
The Official K-Talk Blog
Posted By Scott Arland 03/13/09
In
the never-ending war for free speech, I’d like to make my own contribution.
Not with any hope that it will settle anything once and for all, but
that it may strengthen the resolve of those who wish to hold their ground in
the principled defense of the traditional definition of marriage and related
battles.
First let’s consider in simple terms the offense that has been
taken by the gay and lesbian community at calling homosexual practices
“unnatural” and a “perversion.”
What is the biological purpose for the reproductive organs?
To reproduce. So the
natural function of those organs is for the act of procreation.
Using them in ways that cannot result in the reproduction of the
species is “unnatural” because it is using your anatomy for a purpose
other than its biologically determined role.
Yes, by following this line of reasoning there are many sexual
activities (including heterosexual activities) that are, strictly speaking,
“unnatural.” Those activities
are also frowned on to varying degrees by many, if not most, religions.
This in no way undermines the original argument.
Just because you have a certain impulse to do something with your
anatomy doesn’t mean that it is “natural” (in the sense that it is
socially acceptable) to act on that impulse.
If that were so, then murder, suicide, bulimia, etc., etc., could also
be considered “natural.”
Calling homosexual activity a “perversion” is a more
religiously toned statement that carries an implied moral judgment, but what
is wrong with that? A religion is
within its rights to label anything it wants as a perversion and to preach
against its practice whether it be homosexual behavior or the use of
electricity (think Amish). Should
we force the Amish to teach their children about all the options that
electricity gives people so they can choose their lifestyle from what we would
consider a more educated perspective?
If the government was not the slightest bit involved in the
institution of marriage (not to mention education), then I doubt mainstream
Christianity would make much of a fuss if a few sects began solemnizing gay
marriages, but that is not the case. The
government, and not any church, is the real authority behind marriage; that
makes gay marriage a very sticky issue.
The LDS church is well aware of the complications caused by this
intersection of government power and religious practice.
In the 19th century, several of its members were imprisoned for not
adhering to the traditional definition of marriage by entering into plural
marriages (polygamy). Asserting
government policy as being superior to freedom of religion, the LDS church was
compelled to adopt the government-established standard of marriage.
The government did it before, so what’s to stop them from
doing it again should gay marriage get the force of law behind it?
As George Washington understood all too well:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Christians have good reason to be opposed to the legalization of
gay marriage. Freedom of religion
is being eroded at an ever-accelerating rate (along with many other rights)
and nothing good can come from surrendering them in the name of “common
ground.”
Sympathizers to the gay and lesbian community will often claim
that they just want their gay son/daughter/friend/etc. to be “happy.”
That line of reasoning infers that happiness is dependant upon having
sexual relations with someone you find physically attractive.
Most of God’s laws consist of NOT indulging our lusts.
Specifically, individuals are NOT supposed to have sexual relations
with anyone to whom they are not married (i.e. adultery), regardless of how
unattractive they may find their spouse.
Arranged marriage has at times made this more common a phenomenon than
it may be today, but God never seemed concerned that someone might need to
learn to love another human being without the help of romantic feelings.
The so-called “seven deadly sins” (lust, gluttony, greed,
sloth, wrath, envy and pride) are impulses that all humans have to one degree or another.
Giving into those desires as opposed to following the laws of God can
be considered deadly--to the soul. Why
should this principle apply differently to homosexuals than it does to
heterosexuals? We all struggle
with various temptations, I don’t see why the temptations faced by
homosexuals should be considered irresistible.
If all else fails, there’s always celibacy.
I’ve been practicing it for 31 years now and while I hope to end that
streak at some point (with marriage, mind you) my life would still be worth
living if I didn’t.
Oh, but it’s genetic. So
is alcoholism. So are violent tendencies.
So are a lot of things we are inclined towards, but don’t necessarily
do.
If you don’t believe in God or the Bible, or want to join or
create a religion that does not consider homosexual behavior sinful, then go
ahead. But to simply ignore the
clear condemnation of such activities in the Bible, or assume they are
obsolete without even bothering to claim authority from God to make such a
theological policy shift, and act like others are hateful for still giving the
Bible weight is nothing less than ridiculous.
Get the government out of marriage and out of the schools, and
I’ll be more than happy to let gays marry in whatever religion will allow it
of its own free will. Until then, in order to protect my right of religious freedom I have little choice but to oppose gay
marriage and all legislation that approaches it.
Posted By Scott Arland 03/05/09
We the Peasants of the United States, in expectation of a perpetual
increase, seek to escape justice, ensure eternal taxation, expand the empire,
promote corporate welfare, and secure the blessings of debt and corruption to
ourselves and our politicians, do mock and undermine the Constitution of the
United States of America. [updated
text of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America]
At this point you might be thinking that this is just another angry
rant against how We the People have been marginalized, manipulated and/or
oppressed. But when I use the
term, “We the Peasants”, I mean much more than to simply draw attention to
our current relationship with the ruling class.
Instead, I want to draw attention to the fact that it is not “they”
who have turned us into peasants, but we who have sought to become peasants
and demanded that our public servants become our rulers.
As former President James Garfield said:
"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the
character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt,
it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and
corruption."
The government and its agents could not have achieved their current
level of power, corruption, incompetence, etc., unless We the People allowed
it. Often we have demanded it.
How many times have we elected the lesser of evils?
How many times has a person of character and principles been ignored
because they are “unelectable” (i.e. not charismatic enough or simply
belonging to the wrong political party)?
Pragmatism has brought us where we are today.
Not willing to suffer a political loss for “our side” has led to us
electing men and women of more ambition than nobility of spirit.
In other words, when given the chance to vote, we elect the candidate
who seeks to be king because he inspires us with propaganda, and we ignore the
candidate who seeks to serve honestly because he is less pleasing to the
senses. Now we are reaping our
reward.
No men could be trusted more with the powers of government than our
nation’s founders, and yet they limited the power they gave to themselves.
Checks and balances were included to ensure that the government would
not quickly exceed the bounds created for it.
Why did they do such a thing? To
protect this nation against its own people.
As Daniel Webster insightfully stated:
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of
authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to
guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
Human nature is our own worst enemy, a concept that is contrary to the
culture of our day. Self-restraint and self-denial have become something of a
joke in the mainstream, as evidenced by the ridiculous levels of debt of the
average citizen as well as the government.
As John Adams famously said:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
How could a moral and religious people justify shouldering their
children with 10--no 11--wait, wait...soon to be 12,000,000,000,000 dollars in
debt(not counting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid obligations)?
For the Constitution to function properly, it requires that We the
People desire a government that is not responsible for our standard of living,
but only responsible to protect our rights.
It requires that We the People are principled enough to take
responsibility for our successes and our failures.
If our government has been treating us like peasants, it is because we
have been acting like peasants. If
the government has not been held accountable, it’s because We the People
have neglected our responsibility to hold it accountable.
Just getting mad at “them” won’t solve anything, and can even
make matters worse if the anger is acted on in unproductive ways.
Even if every corrupt and/or incompetent politician was removed from
office today, who would take their place?
More of the same because that’s who the majority of the people
support (how do you think the current corrupt/incompetent politicians got
their jobs?). Unless we reform ourselves, our values, and our desires so
that our actions restore government to its rightful station rather than simply
tearing it down (or providing those in power excuses to expand it further),
any “uprising” would simply be a counterproductive peasant revolt.
Until we decide as a people to stand on our own, we will kneel before
our government and deserve the moniker “We the Peasants.”
|
