I haven't written much on the presidential race (or other contests); mostly because I haven't felt really qualified to speak on many of the topics of debate. But you know what? I am as qualified as any citizen (more than some perhaps; less than others), so I'm going to open up my mouth and allow some of the hot air to escape.
This is not really open for debate: this is my blog, and if you don't like what I write, you're welcome to ... well, I guess, stop reading. But I'd rather you tell me what I've missed in my argument. Why is it that you believe I'm off base? Do your best to change my mind. Let's see what happens.
First, gay marriage. Wait: no; back up. Homosexuality is not gay. It's homosexuality. To me, because I'm a child of the 50s and 60s, gay means "lighthearted and carefree." It does not mean "light in the loafers." There's a debate about whether homosexuality is a characteristic from birth, or a learned/acquired behavior. For purposes of my discussion here, it doesn't matter: the operative word when discussing homosexuals is "practicing." Even if the desire is innate, acting on that desire is still an abomination to the Creator of the universe. If you want any chance to see that Person (I believe He embodies characteristics of both male and female, which is why leaving your parents and cleaving unto a person of the opposite sex is so crucial: we're made in his image, so if we're with someone of the same sex, we're not following His plan), you'll have to make a conscious decision to accept His terms for that opportunity to be presented. If you refuse and follow your own terms, well, you're on your own.
Okay: back to homosexual marriage: Not for it; in fact, adamantly and vehemently against (but you're a smart reader; after all: look what you decided to read! So I bet you've guessed my opinion already). I have no objection to a male and female engaging in holy matrimony, but when two males or two females decide to exchange vows, it isn't holy any more. It's abominable. And not only for reasons already stated. (See the previous paragraph:we're made in the Creator's image. Check Genesis: "Let Us make Man in our image" and "Male and Female created He them." So if George and Gary get together, it isn't representing God.) But also because it flies in the face of every established law. Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution is not a "living document." (I genuinely abhor that phrase.) It is amended from time to time to correct errors (women's right to vote, for example) and increase our understanding. But it is not open to be interpreted by those who would have it say something other than what it clearly says.
Ah, I'm off track. What Constitutional law covers marriage, anyway? Can anyone tell me? I can think of nothing, yet people always are harping on their Constitutional right to marry anyone they want. But if you bring up the Bible, the definitive work on marriage, people say, “Don’t preach your religion to me.” And in the next breath, it’s “we should be tolerant of other people’s religions.”
Yes, yes; I've rambled on and on and...
So now we're up against two candidates: a pro-life candidate and a pro-choice candidate. One who thinks it's OK the government to step into my pocketbook at the point of a gun and take what I've earned so that another can benefit, and one who... well, one who doesn't think that as much. We have no candidate who thinks the government has no business dealing in health care, in the mortgage industry, in education. Me? I think the government is here to make sure each person minds his or her own business, doesn't interfere in someone else's rights, and defends us against foreign enemies. Now you know why I will never win public office: if the politician robs Peter to pay Paul, he'll always have the support of Paul. So I'll never have Paul's support.
Jeez I've gone on so long I should just cut this off and come back another time to finish.
I'll write more later.
