Seeking out the wise, good and honest

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Birth Control, Abortion and Health Insurance

I don't think there is an inherent right to have sex without consequences. Modern advances have made it easier to avoid getting pregnant or a venereal disease. But that does not mean you have a right to sex without negative consequences.

I don't think there is an inherent right to tell other people what to do with their sexuality or the consequences of it.

The conflict comes when you mix up health insurance between employees and employers. That started happening decades ago for reasons I don't yet understand. If we had kept them separate, then there would never had been a conflict.

If you want birth control then, buy it or buy insurance that covers it. Just don't ask me to pay for it or ask me to be involved in your decision.

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Stop Asking Kids to be Adults

Katy Faust is a traditional marriage advocate that was raised by a lesbian couple. I find her reasons for supporting traditional marriage compelling.

I love this post from her. I love it because she is not trying to beat her arguments into the opposing side. She is trying hard not to talk past them but to them. To feel what they feel. Her interaction with a supporter of gay marriage shows this.
Her: “Are you fighting against equality?!?” she said edgily, invading my personal bubble. 
Me: “No, I’m fighting for the rights of children to be in relationship with both their mother and father.” 
Her: “But you’re against gay marriage, right?” 
Me: “Yes, because it promotes fatherless and motherless households.” 
Her: “Lots of kids don’t have that.  I grew up without a dad and I did fine.” 
Me: (Full stop. Mentally on my knees – Oh Lord, help me be sensitive to this woman. What do you want me to say to that?) 
“How did that go for you?” I asked, with as much softness as I could muster and still be heard.  “Most kids long for their missing father.”
Her conversation ended up like this.
“So what are you trying to accomplish?  I mean, what do you ultimately want to have happen?” 
Me: “Basically, I want us to stop expecting children to act like adults and sacrifice their rights and needs.  And I want us to start expecting adults, heterosexual and homosexual, to sacrifice so children don’t have to.”

Kids are so often asked to act like adults. It should not be so. Whether it is because of divorce, or death or same-sex marriage; all children lose out on a bond with their biological parents.

This does not mean we are to mandate child-bearing. Or outlaw adoption. Tragedy happens. We all have the short end of some stick. When same-sex marriage becomes law, we are now saying that this is something a child should grow up in. It is different than accommodating for less than ideal circumstances.  There is something about the bond between a child and a mother and a child and a father that is worth defending.

I think if any person who has grown up without either of these strong bonds, in an honest moment, when we know we would not hurt those who did raise us, we would say that something was missing. None of us have an ideal situation. That does not mean we should stop promoting it by a conjugal definition of marriage.

I love the principles of CanaVox
Our 5 principles represent what we stand for. Passion for these principles is what unites us and motivate us.  
1. Marriage is a permanent, exclusive union between one man and one woman 
2. Every child has a right to a mother and a father; no one has a right to a child. 
3. Every human being has a right to life from conception until natural death.  
4. Every person possesses a unique dignity and is worthy of respect, regardless of sex, age, ethnicity, sexual feelings, race, educational level, religious or political ideas. 
5. Every person has a right to freedom of conscience, thought, and religion, which includes the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs in a public or private way so long as these beliefs and practices do not harm others.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Religious Freedom and Fairness for All

From the Amicus Brief of Major Religious Organizations, Apr 2015

Recognizing a new right to same-sex marriage would harm religious liberty. That harm is avoidable because neither the Constitution nor this Court’s precedents dictates a single definition of marriage for the Nation. Preserving religious liberty is a compelling reason not to give the Fourteenth Amendment a novel reading that would require every State to license and recognize marriage between persons of the same sex. At a minimum, the Court should carefully consider how a ruling mandating same-sex marriage would adversely affect religious liberty.
Also see the news release of the LDS church, "Religious Freedom and Fairness for All"


Will this become a question for future Presidential candidates?
Do you support a constitutional amendment restoring natural marriage? If not, then what exactly will you do to protect my religious freedom? If nothing, why should I support you? ("If the Supreme Court Imposes Same Sex Marriage, You Could Lose Your Church", John Zmirak, Apr 30, 2015)

Monday, April 20, 2015

Apple, Android or Microsoft

Since 2008, in my house, we have bought seven iPod touches. Since Nov 2014 we have bought 4 android phones. It was the first time my wife and I bought smart phones. Our first child ever has decided to pay for his own phone service, because my wife and I have not paid for them. But he was able to do it because it is only $10 a month.

We have only one tablet in our house, it is an iPad. I think we bought it in 2012. Our next tablet/laptop may be a MS Surface 3. It is cheaper than an iPad and the full version of windows.

iDevices will probably never go away, but the times they are a changin’

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Defend What Marriage Used to Mean

A FB friend of mine posted this concerning my opposition to gay marriage.

What is the problem with saying and thinking, I am happy that you are happy. Not everyone in this life is going to choose to live their life in the same manner, that is one of complexities of free agency. I happen to agree that should you choose to reject customers due to their life style then you are in the wrong, unless they are attempting to engage you to commit a crime, sux it up and respect your customers right to choose, should you not wish to practice business as such then build yourself a commune and move there.

This was my response.
 I don't know that I would have the stomach to deny a wedding cake for a gay wedding. In real life, I might just avoid the controversy. I will defend the right of others to do so. 
It is possible to say, "I am happy you are happy" 
And also say to your own conscience and possibly your family or co-workers, "Conjugal marriage is the ideal arrangement to raising healthy, productive, responsible, capable children. Children have an inherit right to be raised by the parents who created them. For their parents to model love towards each others and for them to create an environment of respect, love and growth." 
Just because the ideal does not happen does not mean it does not exist. That it should not be sought. Gay marriage is just another development in the redefinition of marriage over the last half century or so. Birth control has allowed us to more easily separate conjugal relations with conception. That there is a natural relationship between romantic love, marriage, sex and creating and raising children. One of the main reasons for marriage is help create a bond between a man and his offspring. For him to commit to and follow through on continuing to love and support his wife and the children he creates.  
Just because birth control, no fault divorce and now gay marriage are seeking to change marriage to only one component of what marriage used to mean, does not mean that we should not try to remember what it used to mean. That by abandoning some of the crucial components of what marriage used to mean generally, has dramatic consequences for our society.
See also

Here is a FB thread for and against conjugal marriage as the only valid definition of marriage.

The freakout isn’t about homosexuality per se, it’s about the secular world shoving its idea of sexual morality down the throats of orthodox Christians. If you haven’t read Rod’s piece Sex After Christianity, you really should, and if you haven’t, I think you should be able to connect the dots between the Christian cosmology of sex and the Christian opposition to same-sex marriage as a “condensed symbol” of Christian resistance to secularism writ large. ("Burnt by the Sol", Rod Dreher, Apr 2, 2015)
Our post-Christian culture, then, is an “anti-culture.” We are compelled by the logic of modernity and the myth of individual freedom to continue tearing away the last vestiges of the old order, convinced that true happiness and harmony will be ours once all limits have been nullified. 
Gay marriage signifies the final triumph of the Sexual Revolution and the dethroning of Christianity because it denies the core concept of Christian anthropology. In classical Christian teaching, the divinely sanctioned union of male and female is an icon of the relationship of Christ to His church and ultimately of God to His creation. This is why gay marriage negates Christian cosmology, from which we derive our modern concept of human rights and other fundamental goods of modernity. Whether we can keep them in the post-Christian epoch remains to be seen. ("Sex After Christianity: Gay marriage is not just a social revolution but a cosmological one", Rod Dreher, Apr 2, 2015)
'... Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.” 
His commandment is worthy — and warranted.' 
Not “must be persuaded,” but “must be made.” Compelled. Forced. And not forced to change our behavior, but forced to change what we believe. Because You Must Approve.


Can you imagine the outcry if Ross Douthat, an orthodox Catholic colleague of Bruni’s, writing a piece endorsing as “worthy — and warranted” the idea that pro-LGBT Christians and others “must be made to put homosexuality back on the sin list”? I’m a conservative Christian who believes the traditional teaching, and I would find such a coercive statement appalling. But of course nobody on that side seems to have the slightest doubt about their cause, their motives, or their methods. None. In a holy war, there is no room for doubt.

Can you imagine the outcry if the Times published a column saying that Jews or Muslims must be “made” to quit believing a tenet of their religion? If socialists must be “made” to disavow any of their political convictions?

But not when the target is conservative Christians who persist in their heresy. ("Christians ‘Must Be Made’ to Bow", Rod Dreher, Apr 4, 2015)
A critical mass of families built on such marriages

A family built on the marriage of a man and woman supplies the best setting for God’s plan to thrive—the setting for the birth of children, who come in purity and innocence from God, and the environment for the learning and preparation they will need for a successful mortal life and eternal life in the world to come. A critical mass of families built on such marriages is vital for societies to survive and flourish. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage and the family as privileged institutions. It has never been just about the love and happiness of adults. (General Conference Apr 2015, D. Todd Christofferson)