This page currently is under construction and contains nothing more than the incoherent ramblings of an idiot.
Read all you dare but, Please stop back later after I have properly collected my thoughts.
Last updated 21 October 2005
Should the state(s) restrict or outlaw homosexual marriage? Marriage ® was designed by God and is defined by Him as the union between one man and one woman. Marriage ® was not designed by man and therefore ought not be redefined nor changed by man. "Marriage" is also unfortunately the name of a legal status granted to certain people by the state. This legal status gives the people entered into this agreement certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities that non-married people do not enjoy. Further, many of the benefits of "Marriage" can not be achieved via personal contracts or agreements such as a will or power of attorney.
The emotional side of this issue really seems to boil down to separation of church and state. The way I see it, homosexual people whom wish to have a committed relationship desire to enjoy the legal benefits of married people. Religious people detest this idea since homosexuality is sinful and calling a homosexual relationship "Marriage" would be blasphemous before God.
Since God and His ideas of Marriage ® came first, Marriage ® should remain a religious ceremony that religious people can use to include God in their relationship. The state should refrain from using the Marriage ® word since it is already taken by God. The state should use the term "Civil Union" or really anything other than Marriage ® to describe the legal status that they grant to couples. Since Marriage ® is then NOT a legal status, married people should have to enter into a Civil Union as well to enjoy the State approved benefits of a Civil Union. The State should not require a license for Marriage ® since it has nothing to do with the state but rather is a religious ceremony.
If a particular church wants to allow or prohibit homosexual couples from being Married ®, then it is up to that church or denomination and has nothing to do with the government or anyone's civil rights. As for Civil Unions, lets keep the decisions in the hands of individuals and keep government out of it.
A separate line of reasoning runs that since homosexuality is sinful, for the government to recognize that behavior by granting the legal status of Marriage ®, regardless of what it is called, would damage our society. This would be taking yet one more step down the road of moral decline that has already brought us a multitude of societal problems that we suffer today.
Should abortion be legal? Governments can not and should not attempt to regulate morality. Government's job is to protect the people's rights not to keep them moral. That should be the job of the Church and society in general. The question of abortion is then not about whether is it right or wrong but rather is it violating anyone's rights?
We have to consider the rights of everyone concerned and all the possible circumstances which makes this a very complex issue.
Does the Constitution of the United States give you the right to free speech? The answer is NO it does not. Does the Constitution of the United states give you the right to freedom of religion? The answer is NO it does not. Why then do so many people seem to think that we have these "rights"? Where then do these "rights" come from?
According to our Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." So we see that the writers of the Declaration of Independence believed that our "certain unalienable Rights" are endowed upon us by our Creator. Now lets take a quick look at the Constitution's first amendment. Article I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Constitution does NOT give you these rights, your Creator does. The Constitution only prohibits Congress from infringing on those rights when it says "Congress shall make no law..."
What are some of these "certain unalienable Rights"? Lets have another look at the bill of rights (first 10 amendments to the US Constitution) to see what the founding fathers thought.
Ever wonder why you have a license plate on your car? You paid for it. What does it do for you? Nothing. It only helps the government track you and extract yet more money from your wallet. "Oh, it helps to catch criminals" I've heard that. Should myself and every other law abiding person be charged an annual fee to maybe help catch criminals? I'd rather not.
Property rights are a joke. There I said it. Although we recognize property as a human right extending from our right to earn a living and keep what we earn our government is trampling all over that.
Drug seizures started the whole slippery slope. Even though the idea is not new. Don't pay your property taxes and the city/state takes your property. That is wrong. But the war on drugs started a whole new idea. The trouble is that people think it is OK for the government to take drug dealers ill gotten gains so they don't have it to show for their troubles when they get out of jail. I agree that the idea isn't really bad but it unfortunately opened up a really ugly box.
Car insurance in Arlington and other cities. You can now have your car seized in Arlington for not having insurance. If that means the car is impounded and you need to pay to get it back after you get insurance then it is a good idea. But if the city really is seizing cars and then they own it. Then law enforcement officials in those city's are nothing more than two bit car thieves and need to be treated as such. I suggest citizens get the laws changed and in the mean time do what ever it takes to protect their property by force if necessary. The loss of life that will result on both sides in tragic. I'm afraid our government is going to need to learn some hard lessons before they get it figured out.
The recent eminent domain decision by the supreme court. Do I need to say more. If tax payer B can earn more revenue for the city than tax payer A, the city can take tax payer A's property and give it to tax payer B. Once again converting the government into two bit thieves whom need to feel the wrath of irate citizens.
What determines "fair market value"? The way I see it, there are two factors, 1) how much you are willing to take and 2) how much someone is willing to give. That is how the value of a property should be determined. If my house normally sells for $100,000 but a developer wants my property for some kind of project, my property is likely much more valuable to them. They should pay more than "fair market value". That is of course ignoring the fact that if I don't want to move, then I shouldn't have to.
I was amazed at the level of hate the Kerry/Edwards supporters have for Bush and his supporters. Christians / Conservatives are stupid, incapable of rational thought. I felt threatened. I'm glad I didn't have a "W 04" sticker on my bumper next to my Texas license plate, I could have been lynched!
What is more important, the rights of the individual or the common good?
Homosexuality is wrong. "Gay" marriage is an assault on God and Christian values that are the foundation of our nation. How could I then support it? Even though I can not embrace homosexuality as a life sytle, I can not support government intrusion into the bed room. Any kind of sex between concenting adults ought to be OK. The big points here are concenting and adults. Both of those conditions must be satisfied. Who says the next thing to be assaulted isn't my Christian views as opposed to their "gay" views?
You have a right to be offended as do I. If I don't like your lifestyle then I can choose to not live it. If you don't beleive in God then you have a right to ignore His existance. Do not attempt to force me to accept homosexuality as "normal" or "OK". It is not.