I'm weary of the constant drumbeat throughout the media and political classes as they vilify those Social Conservatives. Especially since I happen to be one - it's not any sort of club where we sign up, pay dues, and have secret meetings. It's simply a loose coalition of folks who oppose Gay Marriage and abortion and seek to uphold the First Amendment.
Democrats call us extremists. Republican Establishment types blame us for Romney's loss. Lies are spread about our motives and objectives. We're portrayed as bible-thumping bigots and hypocrites. Somehow we want to force everyone to believe as we do and adhere to our Victorian sexual mores, while we secretly practice our own sexual deviancy.
It's time to speak out for the defense against these terrible charges.
First and foremost, a Christian and Social Conservative does not hate people. Contrary to the false portrayals believed by millions, we do not want to persecute, imprison, or even harass homosexuals. Our faith teaches us to love them, but use our own loving example to try convincing them to turn away from self-destructive and immoral behavior.
The idea that faith-based programs designed to help homosexuals learn to change their behavior is somehow kidnapping gay people and indoctrinating them against their will is ridiculous. There is no force in Christianity, period. It is not wrong to enroll someone in a behavior modification training class that helps them change negative behaviors into positive ones, whether it's deviant sexuality, alcoholism, or drug addiction.
Let's be clear - no, homosexuals are not "born that way". And there are no studies supporting that hypothesis; if anything, honest scientific studies done on that topic have strongly suggested the opposite. They've found the most predictive factors are single mother households, especially when Mom's boyfriend sexually abuses the children. It's really a national tragedy tied to the breakdown of the family, not to some "gay gene".
Families are the key to a functioning and prosperous society. America became great because most of our citizens embraced a simple formula for life success: Children, behave yourself, get a good education that leads to a decent job (or business venture or career), find and marry the love of your life, build a home and family, and raise your children to understand and carry out those same values.
Gays marrying each other doesn't fit any of that. Besides, if gay folks want to "marry" each other, nobody's stopping them. They can go out in the woods and make up any vows they like, say them in front of some wiccan priestess, then build a life together pretending like they're just like a traditional family. They can even sign contracts that give each other inheritance rights to each other's property when one passes.
That's the open secret. Gays don't want to get in front of a Roman Catholic Priest of Methodist Pastor and get married just like everybody else. They want benefits. Gay Marriage isn't about the holy sacrament called "Marriage" - most Gay folks are atheists. Gay Marriage is about getting money and benefits - Social Security Survivor income, Employer-provided Health Insurance, stuff like that.
My personal version of Social Conservatism is that I don't really care if Gays want to pretend to be married, just don't disrespect one of the most important sacrements of my faith by forcing us to honor and support the idea of redefining that sacrament to include those flaunting a seriously sinful lifestyle.
Next we'll talk about abortion. Science is actually on the side of Social Conservatives on this issue - a fetus is a human baby, not some blob of tissue that can be excised like a cyst. The issue is typically obscured by the Democrat/Media establishment, who focus on pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. They always ask that question of social conservative candidates so they can use their answers against them in campaigns.
Missouri's Todd Aken and Indiana's Richard Mourdock are the most recent examples. Both men were stupid enough to give away what probably would have been certain Senate victories with their answers to that loaded question. No matter what a social conservative candidate says on this question, it will be used against him. Aken was the more idiotic of the two, as he came up with some theory bandied about in his church about women being able to avoid pregnancy in cases of "legitimate" rape. Mourdock was much more innocuous, but his unfortunate phrasing, "That's something God intended to happen", became the television advertisement played on TV incessantly and was probably the phrase that lost him the election.
How about some truth on the issue for a change?
If a candidate being asked that trap question, my first response would be something like this:
Are you suggesting that we can all now agree that abortion is not appropriate in cases where there's no reason to kill the baby other than it represents an inconvenience for its mother? If so, I'm happy to accept that agreement and move ahead to stop doctors from aborting children for no reason other than the Mother doesn't feel like bringing her into the world. Now that that's out of the way, we can start talking about rape and incest.
We already agree that rape and incest are horrible things. They're illegal, immoral, and terribly abusive to the women that are victimized. What I would like folks to consider is this basic question: Who should be punished for this crime? The man who committed it, or the baby that may have resulted? Why kill the innocent baby - what did she do wrong? What message do we send to all those who are living happy and productive lives right now, when we say to those victims it's OK to kill your baby if she came about because of a rape or incest? Are their lives somehow less valuable than the rest of us?
Abortion in the end doesn't need God or Religion's involvement to tell us its wrong. If we believe it's wrong to kill a healthy infant, then it's wrong whether or not the infant has been born or not. Science confirms that babies are babies, and from conception through adulthood they're continuously developing. So its silly to suggest just because a child still lives inside its mother's womb, that makes it OK to kill her.
What this Social Conservative just came to realize on Tuesday is that we're no longer the "Moral Majority" of 20-30 years ago, but have become a marginalized and persecuted minority. As our ancestors who shared our faith have been for most of the last 2,000 years. In many ways, we've already been forced underground. We're no longer allowed to say so many things out loud anywhere but within the walls of our churches - things like abortion is wrong, homosexuality and adultery are sins, envy is a sin, rejecting God forfeits your chance for life after death. Such ideas are ridiculed and we are called bigots, superstitious, weak-minded, stupid, and racist. (The racist charge is the wierdest - where is there anything in this post that has anything remotely to do with race?)
In the end, all we're saying is that faith and morals are the foundation of a prosperous, happy society. We have watched all that slip away through the deliberate efforts of the "Progressives" over our lifetimes. And we understand that our complacency is partly to be blamed for allowing that to happen. Now we live in a country that is full of hate, crime, immorality, envy and injustice. All brought about because we allowed the Progressives to marginalize us and destroy the country in the process while trying to implement what they believed would be some sort of utopia.
No comments:
Post a Comment