The Democratic Party 2012 convention has made the destruction of the Defense of Marriage Act part of their platform. They also seek to bring sex change to the legal criteria of marriage in order to adulterate the institution to include homosexuals in twos I think.
I find that supporters of homosexual ingressions into political hegemony usually attack opponents to their platform on a personal, ad hominem basis. I believe that is a consequence of their lack of principle and correct content and perspective on issues. To oppose rotten Democratic platform planks does not require anything more than good judgment and better ideas of history and society.
On the topic of homosexuality being wrong sexually-of course it is. Sexual reproduction was the reason for the development of marriage as a social establishment to facilitate that fact of life. Homosexuality is a dysfunction of the heterosexual nature of the species, and empirically today maybe a preponderance of homosexuals and assuredly the Democratic Party leaders seek to terminate the rationale for marriage and confer the financial benefits of marriage upon homosexuals. That is a fundamental nihilistic act that will probably lead to the end of marriage supports from society socially.
When the reason for marriage is surpassed and the transmogrification of the empirical phenomenalities are ended the conference of financial benefits of marriage upon everyone except for single people creates an evident burden upon single adults that discriminates unjustly. If reproduction is not the purpose of creating a marriage then establishing special, unequal financial categories for various classes of citizens with a marriage paper as the qualifier is wrong. The constitution is not about setting aside special groups of citizens for more-than-equal financial treatment. Groups should not have advantages over individuals before the law. Corporations are not individuals and homosexuals do not marry-single people should get all of the tax breaks that couples do when reproductive theory is removed.
In the era of dynamic subjectivism it is common for people to describe too many things as 'phobias'. Perhaps some don't consider it rude for people to confer 'phobic' status upon indigents that don't support one's own political will-for-others, that doesn't mean that it isn't. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect that the corruption of a few thousand years of human history in the institution of marriage should develop in American politics without substantial and lasting opposition.
It may be that some homosexual social nihilists will seek to establish their subjective psychological characteristics and desires as a joker in the deck of the national political psyche, yet those sorts of changes in the temporal stream of historical time are aberrant rather than transformative. The recurrent characteristics and cycles of history return just as mice always stick their heads into a mousetrap in the same way.
On the subject of hunting, my concern about guns are surpassed on the topic of self defense instead of hunting. Just night before last about midnight a black bear walked over to my tent door and began sniffing around before moving in. I awoke and shooed the bear away, yet if that had been a brown bear instead of a black I might have been a late night snack like so many others in Yellowstone now and then. Guns for self-defense are a part of human necessity, as are guns for home defense and guns for defense against a Stalinist, leftist social movement by the state to conform society to it's supremist decretals. The founders recognized that a well armed citizenry is the best defense against state tyranny, besides of course a citizenry intelligent enough to have at least a viable, progressive republic if not democracy.
One may develop a philosophy of what life is about as one wishes. The accuracy may or may not be achieved such that the beliefs are representative of what actually is. Some believe the purpose of life is about gaining personal power, and many of those enter politics. The pre-Socratic philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides differed about the question of does everything always change or in the change does everything remain the same. One can never step into the same river twice.
One likes to find a less subjective foundation for the real world of physical experience than 'everything changes'. Challenges and responses are a component of Toynbean historical cycles, even a salient feature. It is a sad fact that people in the sciences tend to lack good historical perspectives on civilization and prefer to take a scientific and narrow view of the capacity for society to change to the way they believe that perhaps it could. Scientists also tend to have a less than democratic point of view upon their own right to determine what is best for humanity politically on occasion.
So challenges and responses today to the internal and external proletariat in an age of globalization, twitter and facebook, a declining domestic industrial production, exhaustion of environmental resources, decline of comparative standing in education, corruption of marriage, demographic increases such that myriad species are exterminated-these challenges and responses are being prevalently met with failure if not outright ignorance. One Princeton historian wrote a book named 'The Age of Fracture' describing the political evolution in the U.S.A. that since the 1960s created a somewhat existential and hedonist political philosophy that is mal-adaptive to the times. The Democratic Party certainly is going in the wrong direction, is a failure at economic reform and creativity and even extended the Bush II tax cuts making them the Obama Tax Cuts in December 2010. They are a mal-adaptive joke that ought to be reformed.
I find that supporters of homosexual ingressions into political hegemony usually attack opponents to their platform on a personal, ad hominem basis. I believe that is a consequence of their lack of principle and correct content and perspective on issues. To oppose rotten Democratic platform planks does not require anything more than good judgment and better ideas of history and society.
On the topic of homosexuality being wrong sexually-of course it is. Sexual reproduction was the reason for the development of marriage as a social establishment to facilitate that fact of life. Homosexuality is a dysfunction of the heterosexual nature of the species, and empirically today maybe a preponderance of homosexuals and assuredly the Democratic Party leaders seek to terminate the rationale for marriage and confer the financial benefits of marriage upon homosexuals. That is a fundamental nihilistic act that will probably lead to the end of marriage supports from society socially.
When the reason for marriage is surpassed and the transmogrification of the empirical phenomenalities are ended the conference of financial benefits of marriage upon everyone except for single people creates an evident burden upon single adults that discriminates unjustly. If reproduction is not the purpose of creating a marriage then establishing special, unequal financial categories for various classes of citizens with a marriage paper as the qualifier is wrong. The constitution is not about setting aside special groups of citizens for more-than-equal financial treatment. Groups should not have advantages over individuals before the law. Corporations are not individuals and homosexuals do not marry-single people should get all of the tax breaks that couples do when reproductive theory is removed.
In the era of dynamic subjectivism it is common for people to describe too many things as 'phobias'. Perhaps some don't consider it rude for people to confer 'phobic' status upon indigents that don't support one's own political will-for-others, that doesn't mean that it isn't. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect that the corruption of a few thousand years of human history in the institution of marriage should develop in American politics without substantial and lasting opposition.
It may be that some homosexual social nihilists will seek to establish their subjective psychological characteristics and desires as a joker in the deck of the national political psyche, yet those sorts of changes in the temporal stream of historical time are aberrant rather than transformative. The recurrent characteristics and cycles of history return just as mice always stick their heads into a mousetrap in the same way.
On the subject of hunting, my concern about guns are surpassed on the topic of self defense instead of hunting. Just night before last about midnight a black bear walked over to my tent door and began sniffing around before moving in. I awoke and shooed the bear away, yet if that had been a brown bear instead of a black I might have been a late night snack like so many others in Yellowstone now and then. Guns for self-defense are a part of human necessity, as are guns for home defense and guns for defense against a Stalinist, leftist social movement by the state to conform society to it's supremist decretals. The founders recognized that a well armed citizenry is the best defense against state tyranny, besides of course a citizenry intelligent enough to have at least a viable, progressive republic if not democracy.
One may develop a philosophy of what life is about as one wishes. The accuracy may or may not be achieved such that the beliefs are representative of what actually is. Some believe the purpose of life is about gaining personal power, and many of those enter politics. The pre-Socratic philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides differed about the question of does everything always change or in the change does everything remain the same. One can never step into the same river twice.
One likes to find a less subjective foundation for the real world of physical experience than 'everything changes'. Challenges and responses are a component of Toynbean historical cycles, even a salient feature. It is a sad fact that people in the sciences tend to lack good historical perspectives on civilization and prefer to take a scientific and narrow view of the capacity for society to change to the way they believe that perhaps it could. Scientists also tend to have a less than democratic point of view upon their own right to determine what is best for humanity politically on occasion.
So challenges and responses today to the internal and external proletariat in an age of globalization, twitter and facebook, a declining domestic industrial production, exhaustion of environmental resources, decline of comparative standing in education, corruption of marriage, demographic increases such that myriad species are exterminated-these challenges and responses are being prevalently met with failure if not outright ignorance. One Princeton historian wrote a book named 'The Age of Fracture' describing the political evolution in the U.S.A. that since the 1960s created a somewhat existential and hedonist political philosophy that is mal-adaptive to the times. The Democratic Party certainly is going in the wrong direction, is a failure at economic reform and creativity and even extended the Bush II tax cuts making them the Obama Tax Cuts in December 2010. They are a mal-adaptive joke that ought to be reformed.
No comments:
Post a Comment