Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for July 10th, 2014

For at least a thousand years, western civilization has recognized marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and for over two hundred years the United States has defined marriage as the union of two people of opposite sex who are not close blood relatives.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would allow for the definition to expand beyond recognition. If marriage is redefined as the union of consenting adults who profess to love each other, there is no principled reason to exclude others who want legal recognition and social acceptance of their unions.

How could you justify excluding a person from marrying a close blood relative or more than one person when exclusion would mean the denial of that person’s civil rights or sexuality? How could you exclude close blood relatives from marrying each other, or bisexuals who want to marry more than one person?

If two men can marry, why does it matter if they are close blood relatives, or why limit the number to just two? After all, there’s no risk of genetic deformity in the case of homosexual incest.

If homosexual marriage is permitted, why not permit incestuous and polygamous marriages? The only reason not to permit them is that people find them morally repugnant.

Western societies have forbidden incest and polygamy on the grounds of public morality. Homosexuals who want to marry are not being denied their civil rights. They can get married; they just can’t marry someone of the same sex, a close blood relative, or more than one person.

What Same-sex marriage proponents want to do is move the moral line that has been fixed in western culture for over a millennium. They call me a bigot because I am unwilling to move the line, but what they want to do is re-draw the line based their sense of morality and limit marriage to only heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Same-sex marriage proponents claim homosexuals are being denied their civil rights when they are denied the right to marry, but if that’s true, aren’t close blood relatives and bisexuals also being denied their civil rights to marry? So why isn’t it bigotry to deny close blood relatives and bisexuals who profess love for each other their right to get married?

Obviously same-sex marriage proponents don’t recognize the love that close blood relatives and bisexuals profess to have for each other as legitimate, which is why they aren’t demanding that such marriages be sanctioned by the state.

When the only basis for marriage is love or the desire of the parties to get married, it logically follows that close blood relatives and bisexuals will soon demand the right to marry, also.

Same-sex marriage proponents are extraordinarily naïve to believe that redefining marriage will have no serious repercussions or lasting effects on the social fabric. Depravity knows no bounds, and the depraved are waiting in line to prove the point.


This 9:06 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The two-hour show aired Friday, Nov. 8, 2013. TMR was broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am – noon on channel 2.

For more clips from The Millstone Report web cast visit I.M. Kane 2012 on youtube. To see a rebroadcast of the last show, visit the Ought to be Headlines web page

Read Full Post »

The lines have been drawn in the Republican Party between the establishment RINOs and neocons and the grass roots who uphold the Founders’ vision and the Constitution and believe in the Bill of Rights, particularly. This nation was founded by believers in Christianity, not Muslims, and certainly not Mormons.

In 2010, grass-root Republicans had a chance to get rid of John “Songbird” McCain but Dick Armey and Freedom Works convinced the four major tea parties in Arizona to withhold their endorsements in the Arizona U.S. Senate race. Armey has a libertarian bent and a PhD in economics, yet he supported McCain on fiscal grounds, which strains credulity.

Even though the Arizona Tea Party movement was formed to combat big government and the politicians who trample the constitutional principles of limited government, the four Tea Party groups chose to ignore McCain’s TARP supporting, amnesty pushing, free speech denying, global warming pushing and sit out the primary election, which in effect was backhanded support for McCain’s reelection bid.

Make no mistake, McCain was tea party enemy number one, yet the four major Arizona Tea Parties did nothing to stop the author of the anti free speech McCain-Feingold bill, the global warming McCain-Lieberman bill, and the amnesty for illegal aliens McCain-Kennedy bill.

Then in the 2012 midterm election, the candidacy of a Missouri Republican vying for a seat in the US Senate was derailed by Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin.

Palin and Malkin castigated Todd Akin for his remarks on abortion in the case of rape. In referencing the probability of a woman becoming pregnant as a result of rape, Akin said, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Malkin called Akin’s remarks “really, really stupid, ignorant, and garbled nonsense,” while Palin called for a third party challenger in the Missouri senate race. Perhaps Akin shouldn’t have said “legitimate rape,” but he was distinguishing between an actual rape claim verses a bogus rape claim. FBI and DOJ reports show that about one forth of rape allegations are fabricated.

Also, Akin’s claim that women have some defense mechanisms against pregnancy in cases of rape is not without merit. According to some pro-life physicians, the fertilization process is highly dependent on hormonal signals, and stress can disrupt the hormonal milieu and cause miscarriages. And what is more stressful than a forcible rape?

Akin wasn’t making a demeaning comment about “legitimate rape.” He didn’t say that pregnancy can’t result from forcible rape. What he tried to say but didn’t say very well was that “the chance of a pregnancy occurring is quite low.”

That said, a child conceived during a forcible rape doesn’t have less dignity than one conceived during consensual intercourse. The full dignity and sanctity of an unborn child remains regardless of the circumstance of conception.

The opportunity to take the Senate ended with the banshees’ barrage in Missouri. My point is Democrats don’t devour their own in the national media or in public. When a Democrat politician says something racist or stupid, Democrats circle the wagons, go on offense, and accuse the accuser.

The truth is I’m really conflicted when it comes to Sarah Palin. I’m beginning to dislike her almost as much as I like her.

The bottom line is you can’t be stupid or emotional when fighting spiritually wicked Democrats, and unfortunately far too many conservative women engaged in the fight are both.


This 12:21 youtube video is taken from The Millstone Report web cast at the Resistance Radio Network.

The two-hour show aired Thursday, Feb. 27, 2014. TMR was broadcast live M-F from 10:00 am – noon on channel 2.

For more clips from The Millstone Report web cast visit I.M. Kane 2012 on youtube. To see a rebroadcast of the last show, visit the Ought to be Headlines web page.

Read Full Post »