The slippery slope of redefining marriage

The final issue in framing the gay/lesbian marriage question is whether a redefinition of marriage creates a slippery slope down which the entire concept of legal unions become null and void.

 

Think of it in this manner. If gay/lesbian marriage is allowed to exist under the definition of marriage, then the next step down the slippery slope is the legalization of all kinds of human unions:

 

• Polygamy: one man with many wives, one woman with many husbands
• "Multigamy": multiple men and women in a single union
• Incestual marriages: brother/sisters, father/daughters, mother/sons, etc.
• Marriage invitro: marriage contracts of underage boys/girls to future spouses

 

You say that one does not lead to the other, but that's not true. If gay/lesbian marriages are supported under the changed definition of marriage then it would be wrong to disallow the above forms of human unions simply because they are repugnant or that you don't believe in them.

 

Gays/lesbians would be extremely hypocritical if they opposed any of the above forms of unions. This is why the definition of marriage must remain the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Slippery slopes are usually breached and the LOUCs are then effected.

 

Remember, the gay/lesbian lifestyle is a choice not biology since if it was biological then it would have extinguished itself long ago due to the inability of homosexuality to reproduce. Only lately has medical technology allowed for the insemination of non-heterosexual unions. Before this level of medical progress, homosexuality, if indeed biological as the gay/lesbians like to asset, would have died out due to inability to procreate and continue their gene patterns responsible for their condition.

 

Sorry, can't have it both ways, folks.

 

Will of the people subject to liberal court action

California's Prop 8, the 2nd time the voters on the left coast have affirmed the definition of marriage to be the union between 1 man and 1 woman are in danger of being denied their democratic rights to alter their own government. This is a very dangerous trend because if the gay/lesbian/humanists are successful in overturning the will of the people again, then when it comes time for the federal government to overturn the "Defense of Marriage Act" the same argument could be applied to this process as well. They don't have the authority to do so.

 

This is the main reason that the liberal/left want, desire, demand, and work for the appointment of activist jurist that will overturn the will of the voters. When they can't win at the ballot box, they turn to the courts and their leftist friends on these courts to overturn what was voted on by the people. This is against every democratic principle.

 

If the courts can overturn the will of California voters, then why couldn't the courts overturn the will of the people who elected BHO? Why couldn't a case be brought to a conservative federal court that would nullify the 2008 election and proclaim McCain the President?

 

Sound crazy? Well all crazy occurrences begin with baby steps down the road of insanity. The liberal/left are forgetting one thing: political swords cut both ways, and when they are no longer in power, the sword they used to cut down their opponents is used to cut them down instead.

 

Voters under this BHO administration are going to lose freedoms, rights, and privileges beginning with the overturning of California Prop 8. All human self-determination begins with the ability to throw off governments that are not "of the people, by the people and for the people."

 

That day may be quickly approaching in the USA.

 

Private companies forced to support gay agenda

So another private company was forced to particularly support the gay/lesbian agenda. eHarmony, in face of being threatened with a massive lawsuit, chose to change their website wording and search engine to support same sex couple interests due to 1 person wanting them to do so.

 

This is the tip of the iceberg as the liberal left agenda is gaining momentum as January 20, 2009 draws closer and closer and BHO has to make good on his promises to support full integration of the gay/lesbian lifestyle into mainstream America.

 

Now I don't have any problems with sexual orientation under 2 conditions:

1. Don't use your sexual appetites define who you are
2. Limit within the limitations of your choices

 

Heterosexuals don't walk around throwing their sexuality in everyone's face, so why do homosexuals? It would seem that if you were comfortable in your own skin you would not need to have anyone affirm your lifestyle or even care if anyone agreed with your choices. Thus, it would seem that most homosexuals are just that: uncomfortable and self-conscious needing society to approve and accept their beliefs.

 

I don't care who likes my ideas, or if they even agree with me. I don't need anyone to affirm that I exist or even if they approve of my choices. Only weak-minded people seek this kind of external approval and/or affirmation. Strong-willed, self-confident people seek their own approval and self-affirmation. World-renowned psychological researcher Abraham Maslow in his 1943 ground-breaking paper, "The Theory of Human Motivation", called this level of human motivation as self-actualization.

 

Simply stated: "one who likes himself, needs no other but is complete and can give to others."

 

When does life begin? The crucial question.

As to the issue of conception while it may seem that it is an impossible task to define this medically, legally or religiously, it really is not from the standpoint of the abortion debate.

 

Medically, there is no evidence that a new life begins at conception or the point of fertilization. I know this hard for anti-abortionists to accept, but its the facts. I am not saying that an ovum (a fertilized egg) is not a potential human, but then an egg or sperm is also a potential human under the right conditions (fertilization).

 

The reason for taking this perspective is that without evidence of when life begins religion of all kinds need to be left at the door since not everyone is a person of faith and trying to force this issue will only create the kind of insurmountable barriers to agreements that have epitomized this social debate. People of faith should apply their beliefs to the education and propagation of their beliefs to potential recipients of abortions. Said another way, it is impossible to legislate morals. It is a political solution that cuts both ways.

 

There is also no religious evidence or statement of Biblical law that says life begins at conception. The best that the Bible offers is that it clearly states that "life is in the blood...", or that God "breathed the breath of life" into Adam.

 

Now a simple solution is to take an event during the gestation process upon which people of faith and humanism can agree upon that life is definitely present in the fetal process. I believe that this point is the instant of a fetal heart beat. Once a heart beat can be detected, all rights and protection of the political process should be afforded the potential citizen.

 

Due to current medical technologies and services, a woman can determine her pregnancy status well before the 6-8 weeks event horizon of when a fetal heart beat can be detected. So using the event of fetal heart detection can be the point beyond which an abortion is not allowed unless the mother's life is in imminent danger from the continued pregnancy process. In this case, I don't believe that one life, the mother's, is more or less important than the potential human baby. However, the mother's life must be verifiably in jeopardy before an abortion should be considered.

 

I do not believe that abortions should be upon request or for any reason at any time as many of the pro-abortionists believe it should. Remember, in California, people have been convicted of double homicide for murdering a pregnant mother. This should pretty much settle this issue.

 

Abortion vs Right to choose. Which is the right issue?

The abortion controversy is a prime example of how the proponents have tried to win their argument by framing the question as a "women's choice" issue and not the real one of abortion. They do this by getting everyone to focus on the right of women to control their own bodies, to allow a woman to have the right to choose the medical procedures impacting their own bodies, etc. Who could be against these rights when they are framed in this manner.

 

So the begin with, you have to understand that the abortion issue is just that: abortion. It is NOT about a woman's right to choose since a woman's right to choose is if she gets pregnant in the first place.

 

Now before you jump down my throat, let's set aside the red herring that pro-abortionists like to throw out: "what about cases of rape and incest?" OK. Let's take this red herring and put it in the refrigerator for now and we will deal with it once we understand the true issue of abortion. In other words, it is never wise to make policy based on outlying cases. I am not trying to be insensitive, just logical. Rape and incest cases account for less than 1/10 of 1% of the life births in the USA according to the CDC, Atlanta, GA.

 

So the real question is NOT a women's right to choose, but a woman's right to an abortion. The right question to frame the debate is:

 

Do you believe in a woman's right to an abortion?

 

This changes the entire debate from one of a woman's choice to one of a right to an abortion. This is the proper framing of the question since a woman's right to choose is whether to get pregnant in the first place. Discounting rape or incest which I promise we will deal with next, every woman knows who she got pregnant. If she doesn't then she was either raped or the victim of incest. There are not other alternatives. Think about it before you get angry. If a woman doesn't know how one gets pregnant then she is either too young (rape), too mentally-challenged (rape of mentally incapacitated), or she was an incest victim where power and position come into play.

 

In those cases, the issue to conception, pregnancy and birth need different debates, but for the rest of the pregnancies the woman knows that if she has sex, protected or unprotected, she is taking the chance of getting pregnant. That is her choice! The choice to have sex in the first place. Unless one believes in asexual reproduction in humans, a woman can be fairly assured that if she does not have sexual intercourse, she can not get pregnant.

 

We have laws and have prosecuted many man for going beyond a woman's notice of "NO" when it comes to intercourse. Men today know that a woman can say "NO" right up to the point of ejaculation and he has to stop. So let's at least be intellectually honest about a woman's right to choose. It is the right to have sex or not. It is the right to control the access to and/or use of her body that defines the real question.

 

The abortion issue is NOT about choice, but about the right of woman to terminate a life that just happens to be inside her. This then comes down to a point of conception which is dealt with soon. However, don't just accept the debate framed to give the abortionist's an advantage.

 

Framing the debate is half the point

A favorite tactic of those wanting to control the debate on an issue try to form the question in a way that favors their outcome. For example, for those fighting against spousal abuse, a good way to frame the question towards someone suspected of spousal abuse is to ask: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

 

This is an example of a landlocked debate since the answer of either positive or negative convicts the responder in his/her own words. So to prevent such a trap, one must look at how the question up for debate is formed.

 

To my point, the questions this blog is going to deal with that fall into this attempt by the proponents to shape the debate are:

 

• The abortion issue
• The gay marriage issue
• The auto industry bail-out issue
• The BHO presidency support issue

 

These very important questions have all been shaped by their proponents to paint anyone that opposes the issue into a corner to be either controlling, intolerate, unsympathetic, or racist. The primary way to confront these issues is to ensure that the question is not framed so that if your disagree, your position is already weakened.

 

The next 4 posts will deal with each of the fore mentioned issues and how to respond to proponents of these issues and reframe the questions to a more open, fair perspective that allows both sides to make their points without giving one side an unfair advantage due to the manner in which the debate is presented.

 

Let's begin.