Marriage - Another Issue The Left Doesn't Get

Identifying A Sore Trooth: The Institution of Marriage.

"If emotion is allowed to supersede logic, then idiocy will supersede intellect" - Compromising America's Heritage: The Filing For Moral Bankruptcy; Pg.2; 2001; Daniel A. Floersch.

Enter the Liberal Left.

Virtually every social and/or political issue the Left engages in follows this Trooth. Marriage is no different.

For years, we've listened to the amoral Left hatefully bash Christianity (and pretty much all that it stands for). As example, they've argued that we can't teach abstinence in our schools because - it's a Biblically derived concept - and that violates their mythical Separation of Church & State claim with regard to our public schools. So, while the teaching of sex education and the handing out of condoms culminated in escalating teenage pregnancy, the spread of STD's, and an increasing welfare burden on society - the Left continued convincing themselves they had the best interests of our youth in mind.., and at heart.

Re-read the opening quote at this point.

Food for thought - why is the Left so hung up on the marriage issue (specifically as it pertains to the gay community)? After all, marriage is a Biblically derived concept. The Biblical basis regarding marriage is that one man and one woman join in union. The Biblical basis is that God created man and woman for the purpose of perpetuating the human race. Since gay couples cannot fulfill this Biblical aspect of the marriage union, what's the true agenda in wanting to be recognized as married? Why not just live together and call it what it is? They don't want to recognize or believe in the Bible (in part, because another Biblically-based concept is that homosexuality is an unnatural abomination) - yet, all of their hullabaloo centers on wanting recognition for the Biblically-based tradition of marriage. So, do you want to recognize the Bible, and its concepts/traditions, or not? File it under things that make you say - Duhhhhh.

More food for thought - there are two diametrical schools of thought relative to our existence on earth. Either the theory of Creation as depicted via the Bible and the God of the Bible, or the theory of the Big Bang and ensuing Evolution. I find it interesting that homosexuality violates both concepts. The Bible recognizes it as an unnatural abomination and Evolution claims the requirement of natural (male/female) selection in order to perpetuate the species. File it under things that make you say - hmmmmm.

One side note. Thanks to Perez Hilton for once again showcasing the Trooth in the opening quote. His hate-filled, and highly intolerant, attack on Carrie Prejean (Miss California) with regard to her opinion on marriage, not only reinforces the Trooth of the quote - but, once again verifies the unadulterated hypocrisy that Liberalism is founded upon. He's so incredibly stupid (as a result of living by the quote), he can't even grasp the elementary notion that - he himself resorted to insurmountable hatred and intolerance in his feeble attempt to accuse Miss Prejean of engaging in hatred and intolerance. That's taking stupid to an unprecedented level.

Here's the cold reality. Men and women are supposed to join together, have sex, and create new life. Whether you want to believe in the Big Guy (and the moralistic Biblical traditions) or the Big Bang (and any amoralistic non-Biblical traditions) is ultimately your business - but, the stark reality is that neither system allows for homosexuality as a means of natural advancement of man.

I'm not a dentist. I'm just some guy identifying - A Sore Trooth.

    

Michael Jackson's Poor Children

Identifying - A Sore Trooth: Michael's Children.

In the wake Michael Jackson's death, and the two-week long insanity ride that the media outlets took the world on, the best may be yet to come (if you happen to be into insanity rides).

The reports being thrown around are that Jackson left this worldly realm carrying a financial debt load estimated at $400 to $500 million. Further reports being thrown around indicate his asset base may reside in the $800 to $900 million range. Hence, if the assets could be jettisoned, with some degree of intelligent forethought, the estate could report a $400 million (or so) net gain after the debts are settled (minus $100 million +/- for attorneys, etc.).

Enter Debbie Rowe.

My humble opinion would suggest that Rowe has little to no interest in actually obtaining custody (and, therefore the responsibility) of raising the two children that she "gave Michael as a gift." By default, her interest then is in - the money.

So, how much more bizarre can this story become - given the already outlandishly bizarre nature of Jackson and his children's lives.

Food for thought - what if the fight over the children culminated in a DNA test, only to confirm that Jackson did not biologically father the children. And if not, did Jackson then ever officially adopt them? And if not, what's the true legal status of the children? Can you claim common-law children - similar to common-law marriage? What position could (or would) the courts take in terms of the children and Rowe under such circumstance? Could the Jackson family use such DNA results to deny Rowe any money from Jackson's estate (while still fighting for custody on the basis of the emotional stability of the children - after all, the third sibling isn't Rowe's)? File it under things that make you say - hmmmmm.

Here's the cold reality. Jackson's life was as bizarre as it was fascinating. He could arguably be considered the greatest entertainer of all time. Certainly in an elite class with the likes of Elvis - in terms of world renowned fame, popularity, and success. But, the aura surrounding his freakish eccentricity (regardless of what initially triggered it or continually fueled it) will likely be extended for some indefinite period of time - as it's a fairly sure bet we'll see fights internally among Jackson family members, as well as against the Jackson family by external parties - you know.., with $400 million at stake, and all.

I'm not a dentist. I'm just some guy identifying - A Sore Trooth.

Who Are Today's Racists?

Identifying - A Sore Trooth: Racism.

Racism exists. Racism has always existed. Racism will always exist.

Reason - there are, there have been, and there will always be stupid, immoral people on the face of the earth (by the way - from every race, creed, and color). At least the hatred-based, hard right-wing, white supremacists admit it upfront - whereas, the left-wing, black crowd cannot. Their choice to exist in a hatred-based, hard left-wing world is a fantasy built on a pathetic foundation of denial and hypocrisy.

The Jamie Foxx rant, regarding Michael Jackson, could not have driven the nail home in the coffin (excuse the pun) any clearer. His "He Belongs To Us" speech could not have been more divisive and contradictory to the words of a famous "I Have A Dream" speech.

One of Jackson's signature song's (as I recall) stated - "It doesn't matter if you're Black or White". Well, apparently to Foxx, it definitely matters. Foxx chose "denial and hypocrisy" with regard to the fact that Jackson spent his adult life turning white, dating & marrying white women, and having his children fathered by white men & women (don't be so stupid as to believe that Jackson's sperm impregnated Debbie Rowe).

If the black community truly abhors racism, and wants to work toward minimizing it, then black celebrities, with access to a public stage/venue, have to step up and be intelligent in their efforts - unlike Jamie Foxx's words and actions.

Food for thought - what if there was a White Miss America pageant, a WET (white entertainment network), a UCCF (united caucasian college fund), and on and on? Would such actions be labeled racist? File it under things that make you say - hmmmmm.

Here's the cold reality. The Civil Rights Movement spent years attempting to break down the barriers and divisions of race. MLK, Jr. message was the forerunner to Jackson's hit - "It doesn't matter if you're Black or White."  Those efforts, although taking hold little-by-little over time, began to make headway in White America. And then, some numbed-skull, self-appointed spokesmoron like Foxx, takes the liberty to speak for all of Black America and reminds everyone (Black or White), that Blacks, in fact, want to define racial barriers - not break them down.

Thanks Foxx - for casting a "black" eye on the issue of racism.

I'm not a dentist. I'm just some guy identifying - A Sore Trooth.