Republican Party Represents Minorities Best

by

When it comes to homosexual marriage, in New York of all places, only the Republican Party is standing up to represent the views of minorities in the state. I think you’ll see this pattern repeated.

Why the Democratic Party wants to associate with homosexual marriage and abortion, two issues which are not popular and never really have been, is beyond me. Both issues put individual’s rights over their children’s rights. In the case of abortion, the right of the child to live. In the case of homosexual marriage, the right of every child to be raised by a loving father and mother.

Nowadays, the Democratic Party is seen as the “scientific” party, meaning, the party that is willing to put “science” above morality, equality, and common sense. “Science” here is in quotes because it reflects the same type of “science” that brought us Global Warming, eugenics, and socialism. In other words, the type of science that big government types like because it gives them an excuse to take away our freedoms.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Republican Party Represents Minorities Best”

  1. Dr. Kwame M. Brown Says:

    Jonathan – please explain this statement “In the case of abortion, the right of the child to live. In the case of homosexual marriage, the right of every child to be raised by a loving father and mother.”

    I fear that I know what the response is going to be, but wanted to give you the chance to explain how you think this protects the rights of homosexuals as individuals.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I don’t mind clarifying this at all.

      In both cases, the supporters of abortion and homosexual marriage do not even examine the rights of the victims of the scenarios. Only when considering everyone’s rights, can you see why those who oppose abortion and homosexual marriage do so.

      In the case of abortion, the debate is really the convenience of the mother and father versus the life of the baby. It used to be that there was a question of when, exactly, life began, but it’s fairly obvious that life begins at conception. If you listen to the propaganda in defense of abortion, you’ll hear about how women who can’t get abortions but have to bring their child to full term have to endure the difficulties of pregnancy. Nowhere do they talk about the basic right of all human beings to simply live. Neither do they talk about the choice of the woman in participating in sexual activity, knowing full well the consequences of that activity may lead to the creation of a human life. (This is also why I firmly believe that pre-marital sexual relationships are a very, very bad idea: the child suffers more than either parent ever will.)

      In the case of homosexual marriage, historically, traditionally, and scientifically it has been shown that children need a loving father and a loving mother. Someone of the opposite gender cannot successfully role-play as the other gender. There are fundamental differences between the way men and women think, feel, act, and behave that make them both important to raising children. To suppose that homosexual unions are somehow equivalent to heterosexual ones is to deny this basic fact, and to deny every child the right to be raised by a loving father and mother.

      Now, the argument naturally detours through the fact that we live in a world full of death, suffering, and bad decisions. This means no child will ever have perfect parents. Even if the entire country put raising children as the #1 priority (which is what our #1 priority as a nation should always be), we would never be able to give every child a loving father and mother.

      However, this does not erase the fact that we should support those institutions that have a positive effect in obtaining the goal, and oppose those institutions that do not have a positive effect in obtaining this goal. That’s why a lot of people believe in obscenity laws and laws against adultery: their primary goal is nothing less than creating an ideal society where parents can raise their children free from distractions. They also do not believe that our rights should be used to injure the child-rearing and raising process, since this will violate the rights of our children.

      Notice that I don’t hate anyone in my political stances. I don’t hate homosexuals, practicing or otherwise. I don’t want to build a society that will harm people simply because they have tendencies to do wrong. (We all have tendencies to do wrong.) But I cannot support institutions and practices that injure people’s rights. Our country, in 1776 and 1860, decided that it is more important to stand for human rights than to tolerate the bad behavior of their neighbors. In both cases, we took up arms to defend our rights collectively. Homosexual activists who believe homosexual marriage should be on par with heterosexual marriage try to turn this on its head, declaring that tolerating behavior that injures the rights of others is what granting rights is all about. Well, if that’s the case, then perhaps we should have allowed slavery to continue, as long as the owners didn’t abuse the slaves (also a position of the Democratic Party of former times.)

      I don’t believe acting on your sexual passions is justification for injuring children, either in abortion or homosexual marriage, anymore than economic necessities demand slavery, or the cruel reality of the world dictates that men need a king to rule over them. I never will.

  2. tensor Says:

    “…it’s fairly obvious that life begins at conception.”

    By that standard, one-half to two-thirds of all human “life” ends before the fertilized ovum can even enter the uterus. Most human conceptions do not become pregnancies, and never have. This is why a sexually-active, fertile woman must miss two periods before she wonders if she is pregnant.

    “If you listen to the propaganda in defense of abortion, you’ll hear about how women who can’t get abortions but have to bring their child to full term have to endure the difficulties of pregnancy.”

    Because a safe and legal abortion is less dangerous to the woman than is carrying a pregnancy to term. Death in childbirth remains a common outcome on this planet, and was so in the Western world until the advent of modern medicine.

    “Nowhere do they talk about the basic right of all human beings to simply live.”

    I can “simply live” without you having to dedicate more and more of your body and health to me. A fetus develops at the expense and risk of the woman. You’re granting the fetus *more* rights than the rest of us living, breathing humans.

    “Neither do they talk about the choice of the woman in participating in sexual activity, knowing full well the consequences of that activity may lead to the creation of a human life.”

    So, if she was raped, can she get an abortion? Does abortion become morally proper in that case?

    “In the case of homosexual marriage, historically, traditionally, and scientifically it has been shown that children need a loving father and a loving mother.”

    Citations please. And if the child is an orphan, and only a gay couple will adopt, which alternative should we choose?

    “To suppose that homosexual unions are somehow equivalent to heterosexual ones is to deny this basic fact, and to deny every child the right to be raised by a loving father and mother.”

    So, having childless gay couples marry is fine with you, then?

  3. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    You are going to have a tough time coming to terms with the fact that both abortion and homosexual marriage will be completely abolished and become a non-issue in our country in a matter of decades. The political will is there, the voters are overwhelmingly on the side of life and liberty as opposed to perversion and death.

    Your arguments are hardly persuading. You talk about the viability of life. By that same logic, if the people who are on Medicare and Social Security depend on us for their livelihood, then are they not worthy of life, just as the unborn baby? Of course this is absurd.

    You’ve had to draw a line in the sand arbitrarily, and you’ve had to make yourself as some sort of judge of life, as if you knew better than God when a life is worth saving or worth killing. Do you not fear that awesome power? Do you not see the natural results of arbitrarily deciding which lives are worth protecting and which ones are not? Do we need to go back to the 1860’s and talk about how the negro race was or was not deserving of basic liberties because they either were or were not fully human? Or do we need to go back to Nazi Germany, where Jews were not “viable” life, or the experiments in China performed by the Japanese?

    No man should have that option, to decide which life is worth living, and which one is not viable. The law should protect all life equally, and people should make life and death decisions according to that law. Today, our law sanctions violence against unborn children. That law is wrong, and that law must change.

    Every child has a right to live, even the unborn ones. Every child has a right to a loving mother and father.

    Minorities understand in America that they do not have the political power. They are not in charge. They depend on the majority protecting their rights, and so they believe rights trump political expediency or the comforts of the individual. They know that if babies and children don’t have rights, then it’s a few pen strokes until the minorities don’t have rights either. If I were living in a different country, I’d be arguing “rights, rights!” to persuade the majority to protect my rights as well as theirs.

    That’s why minorities are voting, increasingly, with the Republican Party, just like they did in the 1860’s. The Republican Party doesn’t just pay lip-service to civil liberties.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: