Morality

Man and a dog.
Girl and two trees.
College roommates.
42 year old man with nine year old boy.
Two guys.
Two girls.

What marriage is:
According to Scripture, one man, one woman, united.
According to Webster, one man, one woman, united.

Words mean things, and the word "Marriage" has always meant, and still means, "The union of a man and a woman." No civil or political action can change the meaning of the term.

Ellen was never married to her partner. She may have gone through a ceremony and had the California Supreme Court say it was a marriage, but that does not change the fact that no relationship between two women (or two men, for that matter) can properly be understood to be a marriage. The whole "gay marriage" debate basically revolves around the desire of some to legitimize and justify what has always been generally understood to be deviant behavior.

Now, before you call me a hate filled bigot, (too late, you say? How hatefully bigoted of you!) consider this...

Those on one side of the issue claim to merely "want the same rights" that the other side has. In actuality, what they are demanding is that the structure and limits of that particular relationship which has always been understood to be called "marriage" be torn down so that the word really means nothing at all. After all, if marriage does not mean "one man, one woman, united," then what else can it mean? Why should the limits to the definition include only two consenting adult humans? Why must the line be drawn at two, or consenting, or adults, or even human? Why can a cowboy not marry his horse? Why a son not his mother? Why should there be any limits at all placed on what is legitimately recognized as marriage?

Yes, I know, it's the old "slippery slope" argument. But when you're standing at the top of a wet hill, shouldn't you call the slick incline by its real name?

Today I saw two magazines next to each other that made quite a disturbing juxtoposition. The two rags in question were GQ and Esquire.

What a nearly nude Jennifer Aniston has to do with men's fashion is beyond me, but apparently the editors of GQ have no problem with the continuing pornagraphication of America. After all, it does sell magazines.

Right next to the topless GQ cover was the December edition of Esquire (another magazine I have never in my life read.) Beyond the elitist "Best and Brightest" fawning, I thought the reference to "Dirty Hands" peculiar. Frankly, I do not want to know what he is doing with his hands...

These covers aren't blasphemous (like the Osteen cover,) but I found the whole juxtaposition of Clinton doing something dirty with his hands next to a topless woman quite discusting.

American Family Association
National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families
Just Harmless Fun?(PDF)
Breaking Pornography Addiction

Supporters of Prop 2 are having a rally/concert/get-together thingy at Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater in College Station on Monday, Nov. 7. The band Antioch will be performing, and featured speakers will include one of the authors of Prop 2.

If you're in College Station Monday night, come on by!
(Begins at 7:30)

Don't forget, VOTE TUESDAY.

Courtesy of Brazos County, here's a sample ballot for the upcoming Texas Constitutional Amendment election. For what it's worth, here's my take-

Prop. 1 - Railroad relocation fund
Against - Don’t we just need another huge government program to sink countless billions of dollars into over the next hundred years?

Prop. 2 - Marriage defined as marriage
For - Really, is this that complicated a matter?

Prop. 3 - Certain financial games don’t constitute debt
Against - My nerves tingle anytime the government is involved in economic development.

Prop. 4 - Denying bail to bail violators.
For - I think Dawg would be proud of this one.

Prop. 5 - Get the state out of the interest rate business
For - Less government intervention in the private sector is generally better.

Prop. 6 - More people on the State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Against - What, they don’t have enough people already? Deal with it!

Prop. 7 - Reverse mortgage line-of-credit
For - Folks ought to be able to spend their equity as they see fit.

Prop. 8 - Clear some land titles.
For - It’s silly that this should be a constitutional amendment, but whatever. Get this mess cleaned up so folks can get on with their lives.

Prop. 9 - Six year terms for RMA boards.
Whatever - They’re already doing it, so why not make it formal?

Texas Tommy has his recommendations.
Charles Kuffner makes his recommendations.
Porkus Maximus has been gathering articles and editorials related to the ammendments, primarily looking at numbers 1 and 9.

Prop 2 Stuff

Texans for Marriage

Republicans are for... Democrats against.

Various editorial boards are lined up against Prop 2. Not much of a surprise, really, seeing as most editorial boards are arrogant, obnoxious, and somewhat pompous. Case in point, the Eagle is against.

Opponents of Proposition 2 have formed a Coalition of Losers. For the record, Prop 2 is NOT anti-gay.

***UPDATE***
Shaine Mata thinks the opposition is wasting their time in trying to get the Gen XYZ crowd to turnout, and has this to say regarding the arguments against Prop 2:

Horsefeathers

Ernie has rounded up several news posts Prop 2.
Chad Hart has gathered some interesting quotesregarding Prop 2. I think the Perry and Cornyn quotes are priceless;
Perry

"If there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas, then maybe that's a better place for them to live."

Cornyn

"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . ."

Tarrant County Young Republicans are for.
Texas Songbird is for.

In a Sunday editorial, Ray Wilkerson of the Eagle made mockery of the legitimate concerns of many concerned parents and christians relating to an issue Dr. Dobson raised recently. Hoping to enlighten him as to the legitimacy of these concerns, I sent him an e-mail. Here's a portion of what I wrote, followed by his response;

Mr. Wilkerson-
Perhaps you ought to come down off your "high horse" and look a little
closer at the facts you mockingly dismiss. Please consider whether these
are the kinds of questions you want your granddaughter's teacher asking
during homeroom class;

"Do you know any people in your school whose sexual orientation is
different from yours? How do you know? Form small groups and discuss;
What are some factors that might encourage or discourage a person about
being "out" as homosexual or bisexual in this class or school?"

Dr. Dobson is not making this stuff up... these are actual questions
from an actual teaching guide which is intended to be used in conjunction
with the video in question. Human sexual behavior in all its various
forms may be a topic you are comfortable discussing with your
granddaughter... I believe it is appropriate for these discussions to
be had within the family. However, is this is the kind of discussion a
school teacher should be having with her, without your knowledge or
consent?

Mr. Wilkerson's response-

I'd have no problem with those questions were they posed to any
of my children while they were in school or my grandchildren. Thanks for
your opinion.

"My opinion" is that children ought not be indoctrinated with such a godless view of moral issues at the hands of a state institution. "My opinion" is that the state has no place discussing human sexual behavior with young children against the wishes and/or consent of the parents. "My opinion" is that all those crazed right wing wackos that are pulling their kids out of the system have legitimate concerns and are right to be taking control of their children's education. "My opinion" is that the Eagle's editorial board is not reflective of the local community on this and other issues.

That is, however, just my opinion.

***UPDATE***
Please allow me to clarify;
I include myself in that group of "crazed right wing wackos." My wife and I do homeschool our son, and situtations such as this spongebob flap only serve to validate the choice we have made.

Following is the text of an e-mail I got from Focus on the Family. People should read it before jumping on the "What an idiot to call SpongeBob gay" bandwagon.

By now you've undoubtedly heard about the controversy surrounding statements I made recently in which I reportedly accused a cartoon character named SpongeBob SquarePants of being "gay." Although I never made any such comment, the media has repeated the story incessantly, to the point that the truth of the matter has been completely obscured. Here's what actually happened.

I haven't plunged into the murky depths of the so called "Sponge Bob" controversy, but I have got to say this much; Michael Ventre of MSNBC (Main Stream Network Bashing Christians) comes off as a Genuine, 100%, A-1 Authentic Ignoramus.

Dr. John Mark Reynolds expresses my sentiments well.

All I can add is- Thank God for home schooling. May God have mercy on our public school children.

* * * UPDATE * * *
Focus on Family Statement
Bill Cork has a good grasp on the story.
Dr. Don Wildmon Money Quote-
"If you are a person who accepts the homosexual lifestyle, then you are tolerant," he said. "If you don't, then you are a bigot who is motivated by ignorance and hate."
More from Dr. Reynolds...
First, no evangelical is ever allowed to denounce anything in pop culture. That is the first media rule. Since we all know, in a breath taking piece of stereotyping not seen since we danced Jim Crow, that all evangelical leaders are prudes and irrational no one ever asks if such concerns are valid. If an evangelical says it, then we know it is false and hopelessly reactionary. At this point, Michael Jackson's best p.r. hope is for some evangelical to denounce him. The LA Times would then find some way to praise the King of Pop.

Robert E. Lee was born January 19, 1807. Christian, patriot, and leader, this man of character is an example we should learn from.

I would recommend General Lee: A Biography of Robert E. Lee
This biography of General E. Lee and his part in the American Civil War is written by his nephew who was a cavalry officer in the war under his command. His exposition of Lee's achievements at Sharpsburg, Gettysburg and other fields of war are enhanced by his access to Lee's private papers.




Last year, R.E. Lee Day also fell on MLK Day. Brit Hume made a brief mention of Lee's birthday, demonstrating that he is not content to let the MSM and other forces of political persecution correctness completely revise history. For our part, we did a unit on the civil war. To culminate our study, we attended a "Robert E. Lee Sunday" service at a local church.

The pastor dressed as a Civil War chaplain and church members were in 1860s-period dress. The morning service consisted of readings and music from the Civil War era, followed by professional Civil War re-enactors from the 12th Texas Cavalry and 11th Texas Infantry, who performed a live Civil War re-enactment.

A descendent of General Lee was present. He described the spiritual significance of the elements of General Lee's camp flag.

*** UPDATE ***

I did not intend for this post to degenerate into the "all confederates were pro-slavery" argument, but I should have anticipated that. Nevertheless, David Marcoe has been looking at some interesting facts relating to the war of seccession. Unfortunately, modern debate does not seem to allow for facts to be considered in the place of broad generalizations.

After seeing Jim Carrey's lewd portrayal of Dr. Suess's beloved Grinch, I was very apprehensive of seeing him in any other children's movie. I must say, however, the folks at Nickelodeon did a good job of keeping his standard fair in check. Other than one unnecessary curse word, his performance of the villainous Count Olaf was splendidly nefarious. I've not read the Snicket series, but this movie has convinced me that this should become a literature study in the not too distant future (my boy agrees as well.) Warning to parents- some themes and scenes may be quite intense for younger children. Be prepared to discuss the realities of death, evil, greed and malice. There is no graphic display of violence or death, but multiple murders and attempts to murder for financial gain are clearly portrayed. There is no question that the evil Olaf is indeed wicked, yet the children always respond with courage, character, and consideration for the well being of others. A common theme in movies these days teaches kids to connive and manipulate for their own advancement. This movie definitely breaks that mold with a powerful message; one does not have to become evil to resist evil. * * * UPDATE * * * If you came here from google looking for info on the 0x8DDD0004 thing, try this post instead. I have no clue why google thinks 0x8DDD0004 has anything to do with Lemony Snicket.