Don't ask, Don't Tell repealed, and thoughts on why disapproval of homosexuality is not bigotry

I found this on a message board at one point and copied it to keep for future reading, because it makes good sense. People use the term "bigot" like a club to attack anyone who disagrees with them, but that usage isn't always correct. Read on...

Having a moral objection to a particular kind of action doesn't make someone a bigot. The term "bigot" is constantly used as a weapon with which to attack anyone and everyone who objects to the "gay rights" movement on moral grounds. But this terminology is misplaced and misleading.
Let's say that my next-door neighbor and his wife attend a monthly "swinging"/"wife-swapping" party. Let's also presuppose that both my neighbor and his wife truly want to be involved in these parties, and both of them feel strongly that this kind of action is enjoyable and emotionally fulfilling, and even good for their marriage.

Now let's say that I raise objections to my neighbor's action on moral grounds, because I am convinced (both for theological and philosophical reasons, not out of an unreasoning "homophobia") that marriage vows can only be truly honored, and love can only grow and flourish, if the relationship is such that neither the husband or wife seeks intimacy outside the marriage.

Certainly I am taking a stance against my neighbor's action, as well as the actions of his wife and everyone else involved in the swinging/wife-swapping parties they attend. But this does not in any way imply that I hate my neighbor, or that I am trying to deny his full human dignity. I am objecting to the activity that he and his wife engage in at the swinging parties, not because of hate or fear but because of a conviction that what they are doing is harmful to their marriage and to each of them personally.

The same is true if I say that I object to activity in which two men or two women touch each other in such a way as to arouse and stimulate each other. Making this claim does not make me a bigot, nor does it in any way mean that I hate those who engage in such activity, or that I wish anyone harm, either physically or in any other way.

Racism and objection to the "gay rights" movement are constantly compared as though they were fundamentally the same ("homophobia" is lumped together with racism and anti-Semitism); even the phrase "gay rights" implies this, because it invites comparison to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.

But in truth this is a false comparison, a comparison made "obvious" by repetition rather than by true similarity. Racism means that I fail to recognize the full human dignity of another person because of his or her ethnicity or race; I view this person as somehow less than human, and perhaps even as something worthless that can be abused or destroyed with impunity. It was racism that motivated the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people during the 30s and 40s, and racism that motivates white supremacist groups such as the KKK.

But voicing a moral objection to some kind of action, provided that is done in a non-violent way and respectful way, is neither racism nor bigotry. One is not a bigot for objecting to "gay" or "lesbian" activity any more than one is a bigot for objecting to swinging/wife-swapping, or for objecting to polygamy (and here I mean polygamy in which everyone is of legal age and no woman has been forced to marry against her will). I object to all these kinds of action, not because I bear animosity towards those who are involved in these actions but because I believe that these kinds of actions are contrary to the good of the persons involved.

I'm anything but a perfect person; I've done many things in my life that are neither good nor loving. But making a statement about the moral wrong of some kind of action doesn't presuppose that the person making the statement is morally perfect; understanding why something is right isn't the same as actually doing the right thing (although ultimately the two must go together if the person's actions are to be consistent with his or her thoughts and words).

It's important to notice that everything I've said here is true regardless of whether a person's attraction to others of the same sex is (a) genetically/biologically determined, (b) the result of psychological factors stemming from one's life history, or (c) some combination thereof. The point is that what I'm denying is not the person's human dignity, but the moral goodness of his or her actions. Having a genetic predisposition for a certain kind of action does not necessarily mean that said action is morally legitimate. One could make the argument that all humans have a genetic inclination towards having sex with multiple others rather than just one other (insofar as this allows for a greater probability of successfully passing on one's genes), but that doesn't mean that being faithful to one's husband or wife is contrary to nature or that swinging/wife-swapping is morally right.

The point of my post is simply to indicate that it's unjust to throw around the term "bigot" in reference to any and everyone who objects to the "gay rights" movement and the claims that it makes about sexual morality and about sexual difference. Raising moral objections is not hatred, and using the term "bigot" prejudices the issue by painting all who raise objections as angry, dangerous people who want to inflict harm, either physically or psychologically. The best way to silence those who disagree with you is by depicting them as ignorant, dangerous wackos (which is easy to do when you can draw attention to fringe groups like the people who demonstrate at military funerals).

The Lame Duck Congress

Is it just me, or should a Congress that the voters just fired even be in session, passing bills? What legitimacy can they possibly have?

Time to move the swearing in of the new Congress to mid-November? It's not the 1700's any more, and it doesn't take a few months for the new reps to get to Washington. We don't actually need two months for the old Congress to make mischief.

The 2010 Midterm Election in Perspective

From Peter Wehner of Commentarymagazine.com:

In shifting through the fine analysis that emerged in the aftermath of last week’s midterm elections, a few data points are particularly noteworthy:

» Republicans picked up more House seats than in any election since 1938. Republicans now control the most House seats, and Democrats now have the smallest number of House seats, since 1946.

» Fifty incumbent Democratic congressmen were defeated, while only two incumbent House Republicans lost.

» Independents comprised 28 percent of the electorate and supported Republican congressional candidates by a margin of 56 to 38 percent. That represents a 36-point turnaround from the last midterm election, in 2006, when independents supported Democratic congressional candidates by 57 to 39 percent. In addition, independents trust Republicans to do a better job than Democrats by a margin of 23 points on jobs and employment, 23 points on the economy, 27 points on government spending, and 31 points on taxes.

» Voters support repealing/replacing ObamaCare by 51 to 42 percent. Democrats oppose repeal by 80 to 16 percent — but both independents (by 57 to 31 percent) and Republicans (by 87 to 7 percent) want to repeal and replace it.

» Sixty-five percent of voters said that the stimulus bill either hurt the economy or did no good — and those voters overwhelmingly favored the GOP.

» Fifty-four percent of those voting said they were dissatisfied with the performance of Barack Obama — and they broke 85-11 for the Republicans.» Republicans have captured the seats in at least 57 of the 83 Democratic-held districts in which Obama won less than 55 percent of the vote.

» Democrats hold a majority of the congressional delegation in only three states — Iowa, New Mexico, and Vermont — that don’t directly touch an ocean. Republicans similarly routed Democrats in gubernatorial races across the Midwest and the border states, from Ohio and Tennessee to Wisconsin and Iowa.

» Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, the most in the modern era. In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats. The GOP gained majorities in at least 19 state house chambers. They now have unified control — meaning both chambers — of 26 state legislatures. And across the country, Republicans now control 55 chambers, Democrats have 38, and two are tied. (The Nebraska legislature is unicameral.)

» Republicans have not enjoyed this much power in state capitals since the 1920s.

» Voters who identified as ideologically conservative accounted for 41 percent of the turnout, an increase from the 34 percent figure in 2008 and the highest level recorded for any election since 1976.

This was no ordinary midterm loss by the party in power, predicated on a bad economy. Sounds like a repudiation of Barack Obama and the Democrats to me.

review - Justice Society of America #44

I found the art to be pretty good, but the writing wasn't what I had hoped for. I feel like I'm reading a book from the worst days of the 90s. Dark, brutal and bloody are not words I'd normally use to describe the adventures of the Justice Society, but that's what we got here. Which is not to say that we haven't seen violence in the book before, particularly in "The Next Age" opening arc, but this issue felt far more brutal to me. There was no charm and humor to counter-balance the darker elements of the storyline.

Some super-powered terrorist is being held in a CIA secret prison in Afghanistan. He escapes and slaughters everyone guarding him. He heads to America and attacks a city, so the Justice Society heads out to stop him. This nameless, motiveless, unknown plot device of a villain proceeds to trash the group with ease, bloodying everyone up and breaking Alan Scott's neck. In the end, after hours of fighting in which a good chunk of the city is destroyed, Lightning stops him by seriously electrocuting the guy, while Dr. Fate contains him.

Aside from the fact that Alan Scott/Green Lantern was declared the most powerful man on Earth just two issues ago, and here he's taken out in five seconds flat, didn't we just see a team member seriously wounded and near death in the last storyline? And Alan Scott himself has already been nearly killed back during the Johnny Sorrow storyline early in the run of the JSA title, making this feel like a retread idea.

A few more nitpicky points...

- Does it seem out of character that the polite, doesn't drink, smoke or cuss Jay Garrick flies into a rage and calls the villain a "bastard"? Sure he's shocked at what happened to Alan Scott, but that over the top rage just doesn't seem like the same Jay Garrick I've been reading for years. And this isn't the first time a team member's been mortally wounded. Heck, Alan got killed in the last story arc, and Jay didn't act like this.

- How exactly can Jay be drafted as mayor, without his consent, for a city he doesn't even live in? And in a state he's not a resident of? Monument Point is "outside of Washington DC", but according to JSA #15, Keystone City is in Ohio.

To summarize, it feels like several of the characters are out of character, most notably Jay Garrick. And Alan Scott goes from most powerful man on Earth to "taken out in five seconds to show how powerful the bad guy is". It's a rough beginning, and I hope things turn around for the better pretty fast.

2010 Midterm Elections

Well, that was fairly impressive.

I've been to three tea party gatherings, spurred on by concern about the direction that President Obama has been taking the country. I think the level of spending has been frighteningly high, and the health care law not only too expensive, but sold dishonestly and passed in the ugliest way possible, after we all said "No".

So now the American people have said no, very loudly and very clearly, by handing the still disliked Republican Party their biggest wins since the 1940s. If we borrow Obama's car analogy that he's been fond of using for the past few months, the Democrats may have been in the driver's seat, but the people have put their foot down and slammed on the brakes.

Hallelujah. Gridlock would be vastly preferable to what's been going on for the past two years. I hope, I hope... I hope we actually get our tax rates extended where they are, that spending can be cut, and that healthcare is chipped away at until we can (hopefully) get a new president in 2012 and repeal the thing outright.

Tuesday was a great night. Awesome.

"But I didn't choose to be gay!"

I often hear this from apologists for the gay lifestyle. "You tell me when you chose to be straight. I certainly never chose to be gay."

Really? So that first homosexual relationship or lesbian relationship just happened? It snuck up on you and suddenly you found yourself involved with someone of the same gender through no fault of your own?

At some point, the choice was made to act on those feelings or impulses. THAT's when the choice was made to be homosexual or not. Feelings in and of themselves don't determine who and what we are. I might feel the urge to run naked through a crowded football stadium, but that doesn't make me a streaker.

At some point, a choice is made. Don't pretend that it isn't.

Homosexuality a "civil right"

Since when is a chosen pattern of behavior a civil right?

Homosexuality is often lumped in with gender and race. The proponents, who want to force society to accept their lifestyle, are attempting to claim the same moral high ground taken by those who fought for the rights of women and minorities.

The problem is this: race and gender are what someone IS. They are immutable, innate physical characteristics. Sexual behavior is just that, BEHAVIOR. It is a pattern of actions, of what someone DOES, rather than what they ARE.

That being the case, it seems we've opened up a whole new area for civil rights status to be applied. So when does adultery qualify for civil rights status? How about incest or bestiality? Practitioners of such lifestyles need to come out of the closet and proudly proclaim just who they are and stop tolerating treatment as second-class citizens!

Proposition 8 overturned

The institution of marriage continues to be attacked by the elites in this country, and they pervert the Constitution to do it. Or rather they pre-determine an outcome and try to make that opinion sound like it's based on the Constitution and court precedent.

So here's the truth: marriage is what it is. One man and one woman, legally and morally committed for life. Marriage exists not only for the happiness of the individuals who are married, but in order to create a stable family unit to raise children safely and to pass on the values necessary to function in society. Marriage is the basic social unit of society.

And that's what marriage is. You can no more change it than you can say that 2 + 2 = 7 or that a green leaf is actually red. Marriage is what it is, and it's a social unit consisting of a man and a woman. Nothing else.

So what's been done here is not "equality" or "civil rights" for some oppressed minority. What's being done is the re-definition and watering down of marriage by the elitists, who of course are more enlightened and progressive than the rest of us peasants. The judge in this case has essentially said that 2 + 2 does equal 7, and all of you idiots out there who thought 2 + 2 = 4 are just bigots.

So now actual, traditional marriage is now "homophobic", according to this judge. Huh. Who would have thought? I just married my wife to stick it to those icky homosexuals, apparently.

More thoughts on this later.

The New Currency Is Obedience

From HotAir.com...

The past two years have seen a profound change occur in the American system. Our basic currency is no longer the dollar. People like Jason Levin understand the nature of our new currency, which is obedience.

Obama Democrats worship central planning. They have repeatedly expressed the belief that only powerful, maternal government can be trusted to allocate the most essential resources, or manage vital industries. The free market is a playpen, filled with the stuff that isn’t serious enough to merit direct control by the Mother State. When a particular toy causes the children of the electorate to scream, it is quickly snatched out of the pen. The free market can’t even be trusted to deal with airline fees for carry-on luggage… which turned out to be a market response to previous government action. You are expected to sit quietly and swallow your tears if Mother State chooses to beat you over the head with one of your toys.

Central planning is useless if nobody follows the central plans. Where the free market is persuasive, organizing resources by responding to demand and exploiting opportunity, central planning is coercive. It must compel obedience to its designs, and compulsion is always necessary. If people were eager to follow those designs of their own free will, there would be no need for central planning in the first place.
Obedience to the just laws of a minimal government doesn’t replace the currency of freedom – it enhances its value, by creating an environment of trust and cooperation. Your time is made more valuable by the knowledge you are protected from murder, theft, and fraud. This broadens the options available to you in life.
When the economy falls under political control, the practical value of your freedom shrivels. Success becomes determined by the favor of the State, and the exercise of political power. For example, labor unions are rewarded for their loyalty to the Democrat Party, including proposed public bailouts of their unsustainable pension plans, and exclusive access to government contracts. Such transactions work both ways, as powerful constituencies trade votes for obedient service from politicians.
The Tea Party is the living incarnation of disobedience. It is driven by the words and deeds of people who refuse to submit. Its members demand the return of money and power appropriated by an out-of-control federal government. They won’t allow their lives to be sculpted by the knives and chisels of penalties and subsidies. They speak out against an ugly reality that President Obama’s supporters don’t like to confront: political control of the economy consists of directives, which require submission, which can only be assured through punishment. No matter how benevolent the stated goals of such a system might be, there is nothing benevolent about the methods it must use to attain them.

Brilliant, and exactly right.

An open letter to Steny Hoyer

Courtesy of Roger Simon from Pajamas Media:

Dear Congressman Hoyer,

I have read your statement asking Republicans to condemn threats of violence that have been made toward Democratic representatives in the aftermath of the passage of the health care bill.

I am a registered Democrat, but since I have voted (mostly) Republican in recent years, let me assure you that I unequivocally condemn those threats and any possible acts of violence taken in response to the bill. That is not even remotely the way to settle such political disputes. Such things must be handled at the ballot box.

That said, and for similar reasons, I also unequivocally condemn the actions of the Democratic Party in running roughshod over the clear will of the American people. Every poll taken in proximity of the vote showed our citizenry in substantial opposition to the global health care reform being pushed through Congress by you, Speaker Pelosi and the administration.

And yet, in the grand tradition of totalitarian regimes everywhere, you employed “any means necessary” to make sure your ends were achieved, bribing and threatening your fellow Congressmen and women, etc. It is small wonder that our people are angry. It would be amazing if it were otherwise.

You have reaped a whirlwind by subverting a democracy. Now you must deal with it. The Democratic Party is no longer “progressive” or “liberal.” It is reactionary. And you and your cohorts have forever defined yourselves as reactionary politicians.

Violence is to be condemned, but so is the desecration of a great democracy.

Sincerely,

Roger L. Simon

I couldn't agree more.

Last Stand of the Wreckers
Issue 1
Not bad at all. This is clearly a setup issue, but it’s a good one.

The first issue cuts back and forth between two major plot threads as characters are introduced and situations established. It begins with the fall of the Garrus-9 prison to the Decepticons, led by Overlord. I’m not very familiar with early 90s G1 characters, particularly European exclusives, so I’ve had to look up the various characters featured in the story to learn who they are. I’m sure Nick Roche will put his own spin on them, but I was still curious to learn who Skyquake was, or Kick-Off, or Ironfist. I always enjoy seeing obscure G1 characters get some page time and development, and this series will certainly do that.

That leads to the second plot, the introduction of the new additions to the Wreckers crew. Now I’ve never been a big fan of the Wreckers, but I’m willing to be won over. Kup and Springer’s commando group who take on near-suicidal missions has a rotating roster, and Springer expresses doubts about training new recruits who will likely end up dead. Given the severity of the violence under Overlord’s rule, I’d bet he’s right.

The violence is brutal under Overlord’s rule, as Autobots are hunted down for sport or corrupted as they try to survive. Kick-Off’s situation references his toy bio, as he’s trapped and forced to fight for his life, becoming just as ruthless as any Decepticon in the process. I did get a good laugh out of his “alt modes are for wimps” remark, since he’s an Action Master. Then of course, he rips off his opponent’s head, and the scene turns dark again.

I was surprised to see Verity turn up in the story. I’ve missed Simon Furman’s three human sidekicks, so it’s good to see Verity again, and her presence adds a much needed sense of scale to the characters and events. It’s amusing that she decided to stow away on Ultra Magnus’ ship and see the universe rather than go back to her old life on Earth. I hope she doesn’t suffer the same fate as poor Hunter.

I liked this issue quite a bit. The story is strong on continuity with earlier IDW stories, and gives us a glimpse of Megatron’s offensive that led to his victory in AHM, as well as showing us what’s going on elsewhere in the universe while the ongoing is focusing on Earth. It also shows us what life under Decepticon rule would be like, or at least what it would be like under a sadist like Overlord. It’s a good start to the series.

IDW's Deep Space Nine comic - Issue 1

Out of all the modern Star Trek series, Deep Space Nine is my favorite. I hadn't been really tempted by IDW's Trek comics up to this point, though I've thought about trying them out, but a DS9 mini-series was enough to get me to finally bite the bullet. And it's not bad... not stellar, but a good stab at capturing the look and feel of the show. I'll try to avoid too many spoilers, but some are bound to creep in.

The story: obviously we're in the introductory chapter here. There's a rundown of what the station is, and a little of its history as two space travellers arrive and dock, and one fills the other in. It's a decent refresher on the basic premise of DS9. Being an opening chapter, the story sets up the problem and poses questions without really giving very many answers, but that's about what I'd expect at this point. This particular story sits between the third and fourth seasons, after Sisko was promoted to captain and Odo killed the Changeling on the Defiant, but before Worf joins the crew.

I'll give the writer credit: he's done his homework. The story hits a lot of the right beats. The station exterior and interiors look like the sets from the show. The characters are recognizable from their actions and dialogue, particularly Odo. We get his rule against phasers on the promenade, his suspicion and rivalry with Quark, Sisko's baseball, Kira's aggressiveness when confronted with a problem, etc. We even get a "Morn talks too much" gag. Sisko and Dax's long time friendship is evident.

The art: servicable, if not as photo-realistic when it comes to the characters as I'd like, but I suppose it's not really fair to expect that level of precision. Not on a monthly book. Some of the characters are drawn more consistently than others. Some of the layouts are slightly busy, but then the artist is trying to replicate the details of the show, so that's good. Kira looks like she was melted down and poured into her uniform, which is a bit over the top. But overall everything seems reasonably authentic when compared to the TV show, and that's the important thing.

Overall: There's one thing that really made me enjoy this issue, and that's because it succeeded in capturing the look and feel of the tv show, even if the likenesses aren't always strong. A good start, and I'm looking forward to reading the second issue.

A great quote from one of Ronald Reagan's radio programs in the late 70s.

"Socialists ignore the side of man that is of the spirit. They can provide shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans, treat you when you're ill, all the things that are guaranteed to a prisoner or a slave. They don't understand that we also dream." - Ronald Reagan

The chickens will come home to roost...

Let's start out the year with quotes from another excellent column by Victor Davis Hanson, highlighting the utter ineffectiveness of Barack Obama and his administration during this past year.

As part of our efforts to break with the Bush anti-terrorism past, President Obama also vowed he would close the facility at Guantanamo Bay by Jan. 22, 2010 - another deadline that won't be met.

But as 2009 ended, we were reminded that radical Islamic terrorists still want to kill us for who we are, and what we represent, rather than any particular thing we do.

Maj. Nidal Hasan, nursed on radical Islamic doctrine, murdered 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian at Ford Hood, Texas. Five would-be terrorists with U.S. citizenship were arrested in Pakistan on their way to link up with Islamist militant groups. And Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was stopped in flight from Amsterdam before he could blow up an American passenger jet.

Note that all these recent terrorists were not poor, lived in the hospitable West - and cared little that the Obama administration has been critical of the U.S.'s prior war-on-terror policies.

So, while we assured the world in 2009 that we wouldn't be overzealous in our various efforts to stop terrorists, the terrorists proved they most certainly would be in theirs to kill us.

We were given a financial break on energy prices in 2009. The worldwide recession sent oil down to about $50 a barrel. But America did little during the year's reprieve to rush into production newly discovered domestic gas and oil fields, to tap existing finds in Alaska, or to license new nuclear plants.

By year's end, oil was creeping back up to $80. If the economic upswing continues, in 2010 it may near its old high of nearly $150 a barrel. Soon we will wish we had done something concrete in 2009 rather than offering more stale rhetoric about wind and solar power.

2010 is here!!

Happy New Year!!!!!!!!