Today my wife & I met our daughter and her four children at a restaurant 1/2 way between where we live and they live to celebrate her youngest boy’s tenth birthday.
As we sat there the kids swarmed around their Nonnie, my wife of fourty years, as she pulled out little gifts for all of them from her oversized purse. The night before she had gone to the store and bought a birthday present for the birthday boy – having had some communication with his mother about what he wanted. But I had no knowledge of these treasures in her purse – well, I confess she showed me a set of ear buds for each of them, but I paid so little attention when she did that they were still a surprise to me when she distributed them to the gleeful kids.
Carefully selected gifts for all – yes, one has a birthday but all kids are able to leave with little gifts just for them.
As she pulled them out one by one I proudly sat watching, happy that my wife was bringing such joy to the kids. It made me think of my own mother – and how her presence and her thoughtfulness, with little presents for each of our kids, filled similar occasions with such joy – and grace. This is family – this is what life is all about, I remarked to the cashier when I went up to pay the bill.
I thought about how unique and priceless the role of a wife, a mother, a grand mother is, one that possesses the delicate grace to do this simple deed – to bring such joy to her grand children which will no doubt instill in them such rich memories of childhood.
I couldn’t help also to think how irreplaceable this role is. It is the domain of a woman only – a grandmother – who so naturally fills the role that she has earned through her years – the matriarch – the grand dame of our family. A role or domain that can never, ever be filled by any man, and any attempt to try is an intrusion to something sacred.
Anyone wishing look at the gay issues facing our society ought to be able to look at it transparently.
The gay community has done well to keep this issue in our faces. Personally, I’d rather just live my life without being bombarded with how a person has sex. I wish they’d just keep it to themselves. For me, it’s like an enormous neon sign glowing in the dark that says, ‘WE DO IT IN THE ANUS!” “We’re Sodomites!” “Fudge packers!” “Back Door Man” And to make it worse, to be politically correct, we’re supposed to affirm this to be normal, and anyone who doesn’t affirm it to be normal is homophobic. It reminds me of the Act of Supremacy of 1534 –anyone in England who would not affirm King Henry VIII to be the highest power on earth (at least on English soil) was put to death. It was the undoing of Sir Thomas More and many others just like him that in their heart of hearts just couldn’t affirm this foolish act.
Such is the ‘equality’ of same sex practice. I have reconciled that the laws that guarantee my freedoms also guarantee the freedom for others to do things that I may not like. So if two men want to go for each other’s anuses or if a woman wants to strap on an artificial penis and penetrate another woman, as much as I loathe it I won’t stand in the way.
If the CEO goes home, reads the news, sips his coffee or a martini, then disrobes and puts on women’s garments – stockings and panties – and his boyfriend comes over and begins to chase him around the house with a whip… go for it. Do what you want, but why do I have to believe this is normal?
It’s not natural or normal for children to have two mommies and no daddy, or two daddys and no mommie.
It’s natural for a bride and groom to become husband and wife; it’s totally bizarre for two grooms to become husband and husband, or two brides becoming wife and wife. That makes no sense at all.
An adult that is sexually attracted to young teenagers (or younger) of the same sex in some Sanduskian environment doesn’t set well with me at all.
The argument for equality is that two men’s or two women’s love for each other is as real as heterosexual love, so therefore their relationship is as equal. But love culminates in the physical union; so the foundation of the homosexual argument is that their sexual practices are as normal as heterosexual practices and therefore must be made equal.
Is it really equal? Can it be compared with the equal rights challenge that people of color or women have had to fight? Was Barak Obama right to lump homosexual rights in with slavery and woman’s suffrage?
Another issue is anytime anyone denounces homosexuality as immoral, proponents of homosexual rights cry out “Foul’!, You cannot shove your morality and your religion down my throat, morality is archaic”.
And so this issue is the cutting edge of dismantling the moral fiber of our society. They continue relentlessly to dismantle moral principles that have been the foundation of society for thousands of years.
Next – prostitution will be legal.
Nudity laws will be repealed.
Sexual acts in public will be legal.
Why bar certain words from public anymore?
No more restrooms labeled “Ladies” and “Gentlemen”.
If a lesbian can be a scout master of a troop of girls, why can’t a man be their scout master? Let’s let him take them to the showers. Let him shower with them! And let’s allow a woman to take the boys to their showers! Sheeze! We’re all messed up!
Decency will have lost all meaning.
Impossible? How far do we go if morality becomes archaic?
Looking at it from the perspective of history, it’s never been immoral to be a particular color or immoral to be a woman. So this issue cannot be compared to slavery or women’s suffrage.
Thomas Jefferson said about religious tolerance:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
In my forty years of counseling families and helping children, I have observed children who were not sheltered from the immorality of their parents. By the time they were eight years old they have seen it all; there’s no more growing up to do except physically; their childhood and innocence is, in essence, stripped away from them. And when they are grown physically, they begin to act out the things they have become accustomed to as children. And worst of all, in no way was their lives enhanced or improved by their raw life’s experiences. By the time they’re 18 years old, they’ve been there done that. And in many cases, there’s little left to look forward to. This is the consequence of a society without morals.
How much I’d like to say that this issue neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. But the dismantling of morality does something far worse. It destroys the cornerstones of our society.
Listening to the cheering at the inauguration parade – it sounded like people on a roller coaster –
– hey – they (we) are! Hold on tight!
And when they heard the words of Wayne LaPierre, they stopped their ears and gnashed upon him with their teeth.
Although I don’t agree with every aspect of NRA’s Wayne LaPierre’s speech I wholeheartedly admire him for speaking from his heart as he did. He is more right than wrong – he was right in denouncing the video games and other influences that are desecrating the morals of our nation. Are the demonstrators waiving their flags in front of their offices and factories? I know the answer to that – no.
But armed guards in schools? I don’t see that is realistic. Yet in light of the fact that we are all subject to the next outburst of violence from some idiot – Mr. LaPierre is right that schools cannot be totally disarmed, weapon free environments. That IS an invitation to some whacko to wreak maximum havoc. It makes sense to me that in every school there should be a few people who are trained and qualified to swing quickly into action in a moment’s notice. I am talking about trained, armed staff, or at least staff that can access a weapon at a moment’s notice and have a knowledge of how to use it. Yes, I know they have other things they need to be doing, and I concede that this idea isn’t for every dedicated elementary school teacher. But I envision a feisty teacher that loves her students with all her heart that would rather have a gun within reach in the event of a dreaded intrusion, than to simply huddle with her students in a corner. Yes – perhaps out of a school of twenty staff members, teachers and administrators, I can see much more safety in a school if say 25% of the staff – 5 out of 20 – were able to meet an armed intruder. I certainly see that as better than nothing.
I also see the value of plain clothes volunteer security – grandparents, retired or other concerned citizens – eyes that can help keep watch of anything amiss.
After the news of the recent shooting in Portland Oregon I thought, outbursts of violence like this is becoming more and more frequent – how soon before it happens yet again – and here we are less than a week later – bearing horror unfathomable – again.
And again, we ask ourselves – how could this be, and what’s the answer?
A while ago I spent a few days in Paris France. It was nearing the end of a vacation, about the time when I started thinking that I was bereft of any gifts to bring back home to my grandkids. As I went out on the town that night, I decided to find a few articles that would make these kids of mine happy. I took the metro to the famous Les Halles shopping area and thought it would be a cinch to find something appropriate. I left empty handed. I was shocked to see the entire district taken over by Hip Hop shops with their obscenities menacingly bulging out just about every doorway. Nowhere in sight was a cute little children’s shop where I could pick up a French beret or scarf for a couple of little girls. No, lost moral principles is not relegated to America.
Of course there will be some that would argue that morality in the first place is the problem, as it tosses up road blocks to ‘free expression’; that morality is wives’ tale residue from defunct religion. I beg to differ; regardless of its source, morality is the fibre of civilization, providing a defined compass and a safe haven of sanity in a wilderness of human behavior.
I recall a number of years ago listening to a discourse on a local talk radio show on sexual promiscuity among high school students, early pregnancies and abortion. The very popular radio host was describing the problem, interviewing parents, school officials, and others that one after the other offered their lament on the subject while groping for answers. I found it ironic that at the end of the discussion on the matter he went on to his next topic, and that was to feature the music from a particular pop singer that without a shadow of a doubt was blatant in its promotion of the very promiscuity that was the subject of the former topic. It appeared to me that the talk show host, in order to be politically correct, was totally blind to the connection.
Let’s face it, through movies, television and music there’s a lot of garbage being pumped into the minds of our youth and we might as well wipe off the ‘whodunit’ look on our face as if we cannot imagine why gang activity, suicide, sexual promiscuity, STD, drug use, random violence, graffiti, and a total disregard of law and order is rife in our society. Our society that tolerates such mindless drumbeat must be willing to suffer the consequences.
No I don’t advocate censorship, but I do advocate that in a free society where just about anything goes, we had better combat these negative factors by stronger positive measures. It makes total sense to me that there should be a cigarette tax to help defray the cost of the health hazards that accompany smoking. What is it called, a ‘sin’ tax? Hey, we might be onto something. With all the billions the entertainment industry is making, they can pony up to help pay for the rehabilitation, prisons, additional security and mental hospitals to house the burned out victims of our free society.
Those who espouse and promote violence and licentious living are culpable. Regardless of the sources or origins of morality, they are dunning it down. They want freedom of expression? Make ’em pay for it. God knows we as a society are certainly paying… In sorrow and grief.
While few details of the life of Jacintha Saldana have emerged, the story cannot be anything but tragic beyond words; not just for her and her family, but for the pranksters themselves. This is the last thing that they expected from a day’s work, keeping their show worth tuning into – which brings me to my real topic – and that is, what a bland world this would be without jokesters. If humor doesn’t make the world go ’round, it at least makes it tolerable – and there’ll be times when humor touches the outer limits, and times when it takes an unexpected turn, like an unusual reaction.
Point in mind is the Bushman of San Francisco – some fella dressed in camouflage & covered with leaves & branches, scaring the literal willies out of unsuspecting tourists. One of the funniest things I’ve ever witnessed. I almost died laughing – hey – that would have been tragic if I had, right? Or if some heart patient is strolling down the way & gets his/her pacemaker scared right out of them. So the prankster would have to look sullenly at the dead corpse laying on the sidewalk – never again to pounce out of nowhere with his impish grin. And so humor – in the world dies too – and the world grows less & less tolerable – as the world churns… I think I’d much rather continue to see & hear of the creativity of the next prankster helping to entertain the world on our passage around the sun, even though there are going to be a few casualties along the way.
My heart goes out to Jacintha and her family – but there had to have been some major dysfunction in her that would cause her to take her life – no doubt she was humiliated – but suicide? Mel Greig and Michael Christian certainly could not have predicted that. No doubt the discovery of her personal shortcomings will all belch out in the media adding to the pathos of this sad story.
But for the pranksters themselves, I say cut them some slack. After all, Kate Middleton’s sojourn in the hospital was for the world a rather light hearted moment in itself – it wasn’t like she was there because of some top secret health crisis but the revelation of a royal baby to be! And morning sickness to boot! While the prank may have been over the line, I hardly think the words deplorable, ‘truly appalling” ‘ are apropos… no, it isn’t the time for a good old English “hip, hip, hooray’, but how about ‘ good try old chaps, stay with it’ – after all, a joke free world would really be a tragedy.
It seems to me that publishers and authors shouldn’t be so piggish. My guess is the average cost for a hard copy of a book is between $15.00 and $30.00, and the electronic version is about 10-15% less. I can see charging that much for either or – but shouldn’t it be wise and reasonable – and even a good deal all around if both versions were available together for a discount? How about charging the full amount for the hard copy and letting the purchaser have the electronic copy for just a few bucks more? I know I for one would purchase more books- but as it is, I’ll forego the electronic version and wait ’til I can get the hard copy at a used book store.
Perhaps it is stretching it to say that the real life drama that John Edwards is embroiled in is of Biblical proportion – yet the tragedies of William Shakespeare and King Lear seem to pale – in this drama the story of David and Bathsheba comes to my mind. True, David was the beloved king Israel, and John Edwards was aspiring to be king, at least he was in the eyes of Bunny Mellon who said, ‘there goes the next president of the United States’. And No, there was no Uriah the Hittite that was murdered in order to claim the pregnant mistress, but in this story there is Elizabeth Edwards, in full pathos, tearing off her blouse and bra exposing her breast and crumpling on the tarmac in a broken heap while her lying, cheating arrogant husband sat there acting like a spectator – it was the front line for her – abandoned there like Joab was instructed to do with this valient cuckoled husband of Bathsheba’s, whom Joab was instructed to ‘set in the forefront of the hottest battle and retire from him, that he may be smitten and die’.
It happened to David at a time, as Samuel wrote, ‘when kings go forth to battle’ – that seasonal time that was convenient for war – sort of like – yeah, the primaries – when great (assumed great?) personages of modern politics were running for the highest office in the land. But David stayed behind when he should have been at war when ‘from [his] roof he saw a woman washing herself’, and John Edwards dallying in hotel rooms with Reiley Hunter while giving the pretense of chasing the Democratic nomination.
But both dramas played themselves out in judgment – for David, it was a visit from Nathan the prophet wielding the judgment of God by saying, “for thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun”; and now its John Edwards’ turn – we’ve seen almost everything but the soiled bedsheets – we have for several weeks heard the sordid story of John Edwards and Reile Hunter, complete with a sex tape (at least the existance of it – we were spared the details). David paid greatly for his sin – ‘the sword shall not depart from thy house – O Absolom, Absolom’ – and it remains yet what extent judgment will come to John Edwards, if he isn’t guilty of campaign contribution fraud, and he is spared a prison sentence, he should be forever humbled.
But here is why this isn’t an epic tale of biblical proportion. While David reaped judgment, he still found the mercy and forgiveness of God, because of his humility. In John Edwards, there is a smug look in a perfect suit, accepting the fact that others have affairs too- ever before the camera as he brazenly enters and exits the courthouse, little, arrogant man that he is. Could he not stop and talk once to a reporter and say, ‘the judgment of the court is one thing; I cannot speak in regards to the proceedings within the courtroom. But the judgment of Almighty God is another; I have sinned, and, (as David said) my sin is ever before me. God knows I am humbled and humiliated beyond description.’ Possibly then, regardless of the verdict of the jury that is likely this coming week, he, like David, would find mercy.
Proponents of same sex marriage have succeeded in keeping this subject ever before us pressing the issue for ‘equality’ just like slavery was chipped away at until it was abolished and there was the ‘proclamation of emancipation’.
But the facts are, regardless of how often the issue is compared with slavery, this isn’t about slavery. This is about equating same sex relationships to be equal to hetrosexual relationships. I am sorry – I just cannot buy it, it isn’t equal at all; at best, it is uniquely different.
What homosexuals do is none of my business; I am not trying to tell anyone how to live their life. It’s a free world! But why do they insist on coercing society in accepting homosexuality as normal or natural forcing a square peg into a round hole? Why can’t gays just say, ‘hey, we’re different! We do our thing, we do it this way,’ instead of coercing their agenda upon everyone else to accept their behavior as normal? To be ‘politically correct’, one must equate homosexual behavior with heterosexual. It isn’t!
There’s a natural attraction or natural ‘fit’ between a man and a woman. I don’t know how graphic I need to get… is a man’s anus the natural receptacle for sexual gratification from another man? Or a woman with a strapped on penis? Am I to believe this is natural? Am I politically incorrect if I find this ludicrous? Again, it’s no business of mine what homosexuals do, but don’t force me to believe this is natural or normal. Don’t tell me this is equal to a man and a woman. Two husbands married to each other, or two wives married to each other is not natural or normal. Husband and wife, I will be plain; penis and vagina, that’s the natural order of things. If a person is stimulated by the same sex, or children, or an animal, it’s not natural.
I’ve heard the argument that homosexuality happens in nature, so therefore it must be ‘natural’ – justification for human conduct, because it happens in nature. Animals also eat their own vomit, roll in feces, lick their own crotches and sniff other animal’s rears without any inhibition. But hey- they’re ANIMALS. Most of the time, when people just do what they ‘feel like doing’, it’s the beast coming out in them. Yep, there’s a bit of the beast in all of us, some of us suppress it better than others. We learn not to pick our nose in public, not to scratch our butt itch at inappropriate times, not to spit just anywhere, and NOT to hump someone, of the same or opposite sex, just because we ‘feel like it’… (wow, wouldn’t that be a sight?) At least, that’s how I have been taught. All of us have been taught certain behavior that is appropriate, and that which is not. Why do we learn these things? Are they all just social taboos and we need to just let it all hang out? I lived in a society like that during the ’60’s (Haight – Ashbury). I saw it all; people living like beasts. Some are taboos, but others are not. Some are debatable, I am sure. The argument that if animals do it, it’s natural, therefore it’s OK for humans to do it doesn’t hunt.
Some would interpret this as being bigoted. A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own. I have lots of tolerance. I certainly can live and let live. Am I trying to coerce anyone to live their life a certain way? Not at all. Actually, any time I meet gay people I am just as respectful to them as I am someone that is straight. I have no hatred against gays and wish them no ill will. But does tolerance mean that I am no longer entitled to my opinion? If that is the case, the real bigots are the ones who will not allow me to have an opinion different from theirs.
Homophobia, according to the dictionary is having an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. Who is to judge what is irrational? Does it mean that to not be irrational, one must check their brains into a brain trust and not have an opinion? Not at all. I am not a homophobic, as I have no fear; and my aversion is not irrational. I certainly wish no homosexuals any harm. But this does not mean I have to agree or accept their choices or deem it to be natural.
Parents have a right – and I believe, a duty to teach their children who are discovering his/her sexuality what is normal and natural. I see a danger in teaching them that there is no difference or that same sex is ‘normal’, and they are encouraged to pursue whatever impulses that begin to arise in them.
I have been asked if I had a son or daughter that proclaimed they were gay, what would be my reaction. First of all, as the father, the choice is not mine. That would be my son (or daughter) to choose. I would above all things assure them that my love is unconditional, and that they have to choose for themselves, but that I will not change my stance about what is normal. They have to do what they have to do. But I would tell him or her that their choices will not force me to change my definition of normal, and don’t try to coerce me into placing it on an equal par with heterosexuality.
The ideal of nature or what nature intended is not what we always do. As I said, there’s a bit of the beast in all of us. Some suppress it more than others. I wish no gay or lesbians any ill will. But I wish to call it what it is. To just blindly accept homosexuality as natural reminds me of the story of the Emperor with no clothes. Everyone one was parroting what the masses were saying, because that is what the king (society, the media, Hollywood) was deluded into believing. But the truth was blatantly obvious. Again, it’s not natural.
Perhaps I would be accused of not getting the whole point – the point being ‘love’ or bond between two people of the same sex exists, and therefore they wish to be joined together as one flesh. I do get the point; and I realize these feelings exist as does physical attraction to the same sex. Again, it isn’t the ideal or what is normal. But I don’t pontificate. I simply say, folks, do what you gotta do, and call it what you wish, but don’t call it marriage. Leave that to the natural course of nature.
ecommonmanist 