According to the LA Weekly blog, in the wealthy, Los Angeles neighborhood called Holmby Hills, Michelle Obama attended what was described by the Obama campaign as an “LGBT Reception” the evening of September 3.
Among the more notable quotes from the woman who wants to be the First Lady of the United States, who only recently for the first time was proud of her country, was this:
Mindful of the audience in front of her, she then touched up gay and lesbian issues. “In a world as it should be,” Obama said, “we repeal laws like DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) and ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” She also said an Obama Administration would “recognize” gay adoption rights. Both lines received loud applause.
Heaven help not only our country but especially our children if the Obamas manage to get elected to the presidency.
28 comments:
Maybe your readers would have a more informed and well-rounded opinion if you recognized the many children of gay parents who grow up perfectly normal, happy, and healthy, rather than writing about only those whose lives are screwed up. Or maybe testimonies of kids who were taken from their adoptive gay parents whom they love and forcibly placed into a different home, and the psychological torment that put them through...all "for the sake of the children." Why do you ignore them?
How can you intentionally present only one side of an issue and then complain about media bias?
Since the "mainstream" media which lies through it's teeth and claims to be "objective" only gives the pro-homosexual side of issues, I am balance.
YOU ARE BALANCE! LET US ALL BOW BEFORE YOU! (Sorry I had to shout; I wanted to make sure you could hear me from up there on your pedestal.)
Seriously though, I never said that CNN et al are not biased - they are. I asked how YOU in particular can give only ONE side of the story and still call yourself balanced - or, rather, not merely exhibiting the quality of balance, but assuming the embodiment of balance itself, as you so modestly put it. The fact that the mainstream media is biased does not make Dakota Voice unbiased by default. Every news outlet, including yours, is biased. Get over it.
But now that you mention it, if the mainstream media were suddenly to disappear and no one was left to inform your readers about pro-gay issues, would you be obligated to do it yourself? You ARE balance, after all. Balance doesn't pick sides. Balance gives each side of an issue its equal share of attention and discussion, no matter which side the reporter favors. A balanced reporter, as you claim to be, shouldn't even REVEAL which side he favors.
If you were the only news source in the world, would you report testimonies of gay couples and the obstacles they face when trying to give parentless children a home? Or will you continue to portray them as "the bad guy"?
I don't think I've ever said that the coverage I provide is balanced in the sense that it covers everything or provides all sides to an issue, only that I attempt to balance the one-sided coverage from the "mainstream" Leftist media.
The "mainstream" media claims they are objective, that they bring only the facts--which is the biggest load of garbage since Marxism itself came along. If they'd admit their bias up front, I wouldn't give them such a hard time for it. Or better yet, simply provide more objective coverage. It is possible. Even Candy Crowly on CNN--one of the worst biased news outlets in existence--covers her stories objectively. But they don't want to. The agenda is more important to them.
If I was the only source of news in the world, I'd report that while some homosexual couples may have parented adequately, that these situations nevertheless deprived children of either a father or a mother, and as such, were far less than an ideal place to put children. That is a simple fact.
And when you additionally consider the high rates of promiscuity, infidelity, disease, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence which plague homosexuals, the contention that children should be placed in such an environment stretches credulity to a laughable--were it not so sad--extreme.
"If they'd admit their bias up front, I wouldn't give them such a hard time for it."
I wouldn't hold my breath. CNN is about as likely to admit its bias as you are to admit your antipathy for homosexuals.
Agree, with one correction. I have antipathy for homosexual behavior and for the advocacy of that behavior. I have sympathy for those caught up in it.
Here is an article from the Scientific American website which should be valid because science is the documentation of God's design.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bisexual-species
Bisexual Species: Unorthodox Sex in the Animal Kingdom
As many as 1,500 species of wild and captive animals that have been observed engaging in homosexual activity.This is occurring in nature. Therefore, isn't it by definition, natural? God designed these Animals.
I think what I would like to point out...if you see the sky is blue, but the Bible says the sky is green, what color is the sky? If we see things for our own eyes that contradicts the Bible, then isn't the Bible wrong? The words where written by people who were inspired by God...however, their words are specific to their time and culture. And their limitations as well. Also, God is always described as a he. Which is inaccurate. Because God created the Earth, therefore God is not from Earth. By definition God is alien, and cannot be described in human terms or attributes. Emotions, wants etc. diminish the vast intelligence that God is, treating IT as it is a fallible , petty human and is in a word, blasphemy.
Rod1million, you've cited examples of a fallen, sin-cursed world.
God designed the universe and everything in it to function perfectly and correctly. Because of the original sin of Adam and Eve, creation--which was under their dominion--was cursed with them. Since then, we have had death, disease, sin and malfunction of creation across a broad spectrum.
Homosexual behavior is not natural; it cannot accomplish reproduction, which is the primary biological function of sexuality. It is not natural.
If you see something that contradicts the Bible, let me know. I've never come across a single thing that contradicts the Bible; only things that people try to warp into an alleged contradiction in the hopes of absolving themselves of moral responsibility. They're just fooling themselves, though, because God isn't fooled by their con...and neither am I.
I hate to tell you this, but
"homosexual" adoption is already happening. All it takes is a "single" person who wants to adopt and there is many times a same-sex partner involved who may not have legal rights to the child but considers themselves the other Mom or Dad to the child.
Yes I know, Jennifer. It sounds like the Obamas want to make it even easier than it currently is.
We need to start putting children's welfare first instead of what adults want.
Adoption a child is not a RIGHT, no matter what one's sexual orientation.
I have researched adoption issues for nearly 40 years and am well aware that many chidlren - including many with special needs - have found safe, caring homes with same sex couple. having said that, i repeat: NO ONE has a RIGHT to adopt a child!
Children have a right to remain within their family and their family has a right to receive all the resources the need to remain intact. No child should be removed from their family unless they have no extended family willing and able to provide a safe home for them, given all the support necessary to do so.
When all of that has been exhauatsed, and a child requires alternative out-of-family placement, it must be open and honest.
If a prospective adopter meets all requirements of a homestudy and criminal background check etc., AND if the child's natural parents meet them and have objection, then sexual orientation should not be, in and of iteself, a detriment.
Mirah Ribe, VP, Origins-USA, advocating mothers rights and keeping natural families together
author, "The Stork Market: America's Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry"
You are correct, AdoptAuthor, when you say adoption is not a right.
The child's welfare should come first.
Homosexual couples do not make good candidates for adoption for a number of reasons.
First, a homosexual couple inherently and intentionally deprives the child of either a mother or a father. Children should have both. For children to grow up healthy and well-adjusted they need role models from both sexes, as men and women are naturally suited to provide different things to children. Children also need to have healthy interaction between the sexes modeled in the home as they grow up.
Numerous studies show that homosexuals have much higher rates of AIDS (72% of male AIDS cases come from homosexual activity), other STDs, depression, substance abuse, suicide, and domestic violence. Homosexual couples also have very high rates of promiscuity and very low rates of monogamy and fidelity.
Children should grow up in a home with a mother and a father. Any situation where they are deprived of this is unsatisfactory.
Bob,
Regarding Rod1million's comment about homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, I find it interesting that you consider it unnatural for the reason that it does not accomplish reproduction. However, animals, particularly primates, engage in other forms of non-reproductive sexual contact, such as manual and oral stimulation. Would you consider these unnatural as well? The concept of pleasure is not exclusive to humans; many animals enjoy doing things purely for the sake of doing them, whether or not the end result is offspring.
Also, I'd like to examine what you said about God's perfect plan for creation:
"God designed the universe and everything in it to function perfectly and correctly. Because of the original sin of Adam and Eve, creation--which was under their dominion--was cursed with them. Since then, we have had death, disease, sin and malfunction of creation across a broad spectrum."
According to Genesis, God intended for all humans and animals to be herbivorous. This is proven in chapter 1, verses 29-30: "Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food.' And it was so."
This demonstrates two things: first, God did not intend for animals to eat each other. Second, God did not intend for humans to eat animals.
According to you, this was the perfect, correct function of life. Therefore, it is unnatural for a lion to eat an antelope, or for an eagle to eat a fish. Or for you to eat a steak. It is an ungodly perversion. A malfunction of the natural order of things.
(Incidentally, I wonder why carnivorous animals' teeth are designed - one might even say "intelligently" designed - specifically for eating meat? If evolution is a fantasy, how can you explain this?)
The conclusion here is that if homosexual behavior is unnatural for the reasons you've cited, then the same must be true for the consumption of meat. It violates God's plan for creation.
As for what you said about biblical contradictions...
"If you see something that contradicts the Bible, let me know."
...I and many others HAVE let you know, on multiple occasions. You just aren't listening.
Please see the site >
http://about-orphans.blogspot.com
Many thanks.
Please see the site >
http://about-orphans.blogspot.com
Many thanks.
I am not sure that recognizing rights and promising rights are the same thing.
A is pro-life and is elected president of the United States. He swears to uphold the laws of the land. Despite his own personal beliefs, he knows that includes Roe v. Wade. He must recognize that pro-choice is the law at this point. That is something he must recognize. Now, A promises to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected, that is something else, something he can't deliver alone, certainly. The same would be true for Obama.
Alex, the pleasurable stimulation of which you speak is a legitimate practice for humans within marriage, as the Song of Solomon points out, but it is not the primary biological function of the sex organs. The pleasure and sensitivity our sex organs possess is designed to motivate and facilitate sexual intercourse. Heterosexuals can engage in such stimulation and still affect reproductive activities within the sexual encounter; in fact, they are usually a precursor to sexual intercourse. Homosexuals can never affect reproductive activities; it is biologically impossible even when both sex organs are functioning correctly and put to their greatest possible use. Moral considerations aside for a moment, there is, as I said, no legitimate biological or otherwise useful function involved in homosexual behavior.
As for animal teeth, we believe many were designed for eating meat, but we don't know that. They could have been designed for breaking off tough forms of vegetation for all we know. It is also possible that, in God's infinite foresight, since he knew that Adam and Eve would not only sin and bring corruption on creation, that it would eventually become necessary under those fallen conditions for animals to eat meat to survive. Creation scientists believe the climate of the earth radically changed after the global flood, and vegetation was no longer available in abundance over the entire planet as it once was. Consequently, both animals and man would need to eat meat to supplement their diet, and even to survive in many cases. Perhaps this is why God made it permissible for humans to eat meat, per Genesis 9:1-2.
And no, neither you or anyone else has yet come up with a single contradiction in the Bible. You have come up with things you mistakenly believe to be a contradiction (like your previous comments) because you aren't listening with an ear to understanding, only to find fault and excuse for immoral behavior.
Roe v. Wade is not the law of the land. It is not a law, it is a judicial pronouncement which became an edict.
Ours is a nation of law. Under our form of government, laws are passed by the legislative branch, signed into law and enforced by the the executive branch, and adjudicated by the judicial branch.
In the Roe v. Wade decision, we allowed the judicial branch to create a de facto law and force their will on the country by manufacturing a "right" to kill unborn children based on emanations from a penumbra, nothing more.
A president has no lawmaking authority, but a president has a powerful "bully pulpit" which which to advocate legislation. The power of the presidency to shape law and public policy should never be underestimated.
"It is also possible that, in God's infinite foresight, since he knew that Adam and Eve would not only sin and bring corruption on creation, that it would eventually become necessary under those fallen conditions for animals to eat meat to survive. Creation scientists believe the climate of the earth radically changed after the global flood, and vegetation was no longer available in abundance over the entire planet as it once was. Consequently, both animals and man would need to eat meat to supplement their diet, and even to survive in many cases."
Organisms physically adapting to changes in their environment over long periods of time.... Sounds an awful lot like evolution to me.
The last time I checked, switching from eating a salad to a steak didn't involve any new genetic information or physical changes of any type.
To answer your comments, Bob
"God designed the universe and everything in it to function perfectly and correctly."
Because of the original sin of Adam and Eve,
(- You mean the MYTH of Adam and Eve)
creation--which was under their dominion--was cursed with them. Since then, we have had death, disease, sin and malfunction of creation across a broad spectrum.
(- We have had those things because we need to learn more about God's universe...because we need more KNOWLEGE! Isn't it strange - back to Adam and Eve again. Knowledge is forbidden in that story.Why? Knowledge is the greatest thing a human can possess. That strikes me as a political entity uses superstition as a means to keep the rabble in line...)
"Homosexual behavior is not natural; (- If it occurs in nature, by definition , it is...) it cannot accomplish reproduction, which is the primary biological function of sexuality. It is not natural.
( -I think you lost every straight male that masturbates on that statement. So you tell me that you are only going to have sex with your wife according to how many babies you're planning on having? That is truly tragic! )
If you see something that contradicts the Bible, let me know. (- Let me see: People can not walk on water or part seas, snakes cannot talk, and people do not come back from the dead..just to name a few. However, that being said, it does not mean that it is a book that has no value. It is as important as works such as Beowulf, or The Odyssey.) I've never come across a single thing that contradicts the Bible;
( Thou shall not kill- imagine fighting our wars without the means to kill? America would not exist as we know it!)
only things that people try to warp into an alleged contradiction in the hopes of absolving themselves of moral responsibility. ( -Its more that people are too scared or lazy to learn what people are really about, and instead demonize them using their religiosity as an excuse to be sexist, racist, and homophobic. More likely than not, it is fanaticism due to psychological or physical abuse.)
They're just fooling themselves, though, because God isn't fooled by their con...and neither am I.
(-What ego! You don't even masturbate! What is it about sex that bothers you? Have you tried sex therapy? I think you envy Homosexuals because they are capable of expressing themselves sexually without guilt or repression. It always seems that the people that confuse sex with promiscuity are desperately in need of more of it. Correct me if Im wrong... )
Rod1million, pretty much your entire comment is highly ignorant and closed-minded.
Most of it doesn't merit a response, but I will respond to one part, in the hopes it might inspire you to think a little bit.
You claim that miracles such as Jesus walking on water, talking snakes, people coming back from the dead, etc. "contradict" the Bible.
For one thing, they in no way contradict the Bible. It might be slightly more logical to make the claim that the Bible and natural law are not in agreement in these events.
If that is an assertion you'd like to make, as many have, I'd ask that you consider this. Don't just dismiss it like many happily ignorant people sometimes do, but really stop and think about it:
If Genesis 1:1 is true ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."), then everything else in the Bible (Jesus walking on water, God raising people from the dead, etc.) wouldn't even cause God to break a sweat.
But Bob, the believing that Genesis 1:1 is true is nothing more than an assumption. You could call it a "fact," but only within the pages of the Bible. The only confidence you have in your correctness depends on a gut feeling and a book whose alleged veracity is conveniently self-referential. Not something I'm willing to stake my life on, and especially not something I'm willing to base domestic and foreign policy decisions on. I'd rather those decisions were made firmly in the world of intelligence and reason.
Alex, you're betting your eternal soul and destiny on the hope that it isn't true...when the overwhelming evidence is that it is true.
A large and growing number of atheistic scientists and philosophers (Anthony Flew?) are coming to the conclusion that there is no way to explain the order and complexity of the universe without an intelligent designer. If these noted and educated people are reconsidering it, perhaps you should give it a second look as well.
But don't fail to miss my main point: if only one verse (Genesis 1:1) is true, then the rest of the Bible is easy to believe.
Bob,
No, I'm living my life on the basis that I do not and cannot know the answer for sure either way, and neither can you. It isn't a "hope" for something not to be true; it's a skepticism that it IS true and an open-mindedness to the possibility that it isn't.
As for this "intelligent designer," who's to say it isn't some alien being that's vastly superior to us, perhaps on a god-like level? "Intelligent designer," contrary to what right wing creationists want us to think as they so carefully employ politically correct rhetoric to destroy the separation of church and state for their own agenda, does not necessarily mean "God." Have you considered that?
There never was a "separation of church and state" in the way I'm sure you mean it.
There has always been a prohibition between a state-run church and a church-run state, and neither church nor government has the Constitutional power to rule over one another.
But there was never--until the last 50-60 years--a mandate or effort to sanitize government or the public square of religious values or influence.
I would highly suggest you read Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America." You can find it free online. This Frenchman who visited the U.S. in the 1830s (I believe) noted with astonishment how Christian the United States was...without an official mandate. And he noted the incredible way in which Christianity informed government and public policy...again, without any official apparatus. I think you'd find it incredibly enlightening.
"depression, substance abuse, suicide, and domestic violence. Homosexual couples also have very high rates of promiscuity and very low rates of monogamy and fidelity."
Bob, you have clearly are relying on data from second sourced religious right studies. These studies are incorrect due to the fact that they either rely on discredited studies or take legitimate studies out of context.
A perfect example is what you said about substance abuse. Now studies talking about gays and substance abuse blame negative outside factors (such as homophobia) for their behavior.
Still another study that is used by the religious right to claim that lesbians have a high rate of alcohol abuse was a study that looked at the patterns of behavior for 35 LESBIANS WHO ALREADY HAD PROBLEMS WITH ALCOHOL ABUSE.
Now in the hands of the religious right, this study was distorted to cover all lesbians.
I challenge you to give specific studies to prove your points about gays and monogamy (I think this is taken from a study in Amsterdam that was definitely taken out of context), depression, domestic abuse (don't even think about distorting the Patrick Lettelier book), and other negative behaviors.
BlackTsunami, even if my sources were "second sourced religious right studies," that wouldn't in the slightest prove inaccuracy as long as they were done using legitimate research methods.
However, if you consider sources like the International Journal of Epidemiology, the New England Journal of Medicine, The Gay Report, the Department of Justice, the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention, the American Sociological Review, the Archives of General Psychology, the Handbook of Family Diversity, the Washington Blade, the Journal of Sex Research and such sources to be "religious right", you would probably be alone in such a belief.
Open your mind, do a little research, and let the truth come pouring in. It'll set you free, if you let it.
Post a Comment