Monday, July 6, 2015

Going to the left -

What does that mean going to the left?  Is it like going from right to wrong or the other way around?

The left stands for socialism and communism.  Is that so bad?  It's part of God's plan for everyone to bring all they produce and put it in the Bishop's storehouse to be redistributed to everyone in proportion to their needs.   In this fashion the weak are protected, the mentally ill are treated, the lazy are fed, and the strong provide, the imaginative have joy in sharing.  Some one is poor, the rich are the rulers, most everyone goes hungry.  A few are happy.  No one deserves more than their needs.

The right stands for personal responsibility, self rule and capitalism.  It's part of god's plan too to have charity.  The rights rule of thumb is to take care of oneself first, providing excess to take care of family next and neighbors after that and country last.  In this fashion the weak are protected, the mentally ill are treated, the lazy get fed, and the strong provide, the imaginative have incentive to share.  There are poor, there are rich and someone goes hungry.  Not everyone is happy.  Everyone deserves to have what they can earn.

Which would you rather align with?  The left or the right?  There is no wrong answer only a choice that most closely fits your philosophy.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

LGBT - Oh...

     I find myself confused over the current state of affairs in the country over gay rights, particularly the right to marry.

     It seems that those that support the LGBT community are running high on emotion.   Which is fine for on the other side of the coin those against the gay community are running strong on emotion also. 

The gay community does not fall under a protected class like blacks and women, people with disabilities such as blindness or deafness where they have no choice being what they are.  Also protected classes that seem a bit more gray, but has the force of law anyway, is religious people and pregnant women because they do have a choice to be what they are.

     Then logically the gay community would not be protected as they do have a choice to exhibit their sexual preference in whatever manner they want.  Yet, they could become protected because other groups of choice have protections.  So, what would be the difference? As it turns out I think the difference is huge.

     I think where it all goes awry for the people is law makers and courts taking on the task of legislating abhorrent and abnormal behavior as being normal.  Putting religion aside for a moment and just looking at the nature of the world it is not populated by homosexual unions.    Even at the level of recreational sex the parts do not fit together properly.   To be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual is not normal by any standard that can be held up outside their own community.  Thus it begs the question why are we at this point with the latest Supreme Court ruling?

      I think basically it is because gays are human too.  They have been the brunt of jokes and hostile emotion and actions for centuries and as people regardless of their physical miswiring they are stuck with they deserve respect and equal rights as much as another person in so long as they behave normally.  To determine what is normal, let nature be our guide coupled with the social norms of the society the gays reside in. 

     Using that as a guidepost then should gays be permitted to marry?  I think yes.   However, it isn't the place for the federal government to intervene.  Where the Supreme Court got it wrong is that the constitution does not support abhorrent and abnormal behavior in any fashion.  A left leaning activist court cannot normalize gay behavior from the bench anymore than the court in the 1850s ruling that black people are property of their white masters and runaways have to returned when caught could keep that law.  

     Then where would the right for gays to marry come from?  It has to be the states.  The argument as to people can't help who they fall in love with doesn't hold much water, however if a same sex couple wishes to align their life paths together and share interests and support to one another forsaking traditional marriage they ought to have the same protections of health care,  beneficiary rights as any other human contract.   

     Where the gay community missteps is in the flaunting their abnormal sexuality in the face of those operating in the social norm.  The social norm for the United States is heterosexual marriage between man and woman resulting most times in off spring and grandchildren and great grandchildren who in turn continues the norm. 

     What is going to happen now is over the next decade normal people are going to push back hard and the gay community is going to go back into the closet.  Laws that put legal protections for work and such will be in place because it isn't right to restrict someone for their sexual preference in so much as they behave normally.   A supervisor that sees his worker parading down the street banishing a black flag full of dildo pictures has every right to dismiss the person as that isn't normal behavior.

     The old adage, it isn't wise to fool with Mother Nature is true.  That which isn't aligned with nature will not endure.