Work From Home

 

Liberty has been competing against equality for about 250 years.  In the 18th century, both burst onto the political scene.  Liberty gave birth to the greatest, freest nation this world has ever seen and equality gave birth to the first modern genocide. 

 

Now we are facing another battle.  One group has taken up the mantle of equality.  Given how badly things end up every time the cause of “equality” is taken, should we be very afraid?

 

The latest group to take up the banner of equality are the liberals who are screaming for “marriage equality.”  They have invoked the equality name because gay marriage does not poll well with Americans.

 

Gay marriage is often identified as a social issue and many in the conservative and Tea Party movement say leave social issues alone. 

 

While we can have that debate as to whether we should include social issues or not, this is an issue that is not purely a social issue. 

 

The left has been making war on the family in America for over fifty years. 

 

Why?

 

The traditional family, and the left hates that expression, is the most stable unit in America.  The left wants to transform America from a liberty based, free market economy into a socialist economy, absent freedom.

 

What is on of the most effective tools socialists have to do this?

 

Attacking the family.

 

The left has been wrong on so many issues, why do we even give them the time of day?

 

Almost fifty years ago, the left launched its most successful attack on the family.  They called it the war on poverty.

 

Fifty years ago, a black child and a white child might have different challenges facing them in society; they did have something in common.  The divorce and illegitimacy rates for blacks and whites were roughly the same.   A black child had the same chance of growing up in a stable, two parent household as a white child had.

 

Today, a white child has well over a 50% chance of growing up in a stable two-parent home.  A black child has a 6% chance.

 

Why is this important?

 

The single greatest predictor of poverty is being born out of wedlock.  If you are a child born to a single parent your chances of being raised and living in poverty increase by an order of magnitude.

 

The single greatest predictor for young men ending up in the criminal justice system is the lack of a father in the house. 

 

These facts have been known for decades.

 

In the sixties, the war on poverty subsidized bad behavior.  Young people had sex but back then if an unplanned pregnancy resulted, most often it meant a trip down the aisle for the couple.   In the fifties and sixties, this was expected.  In the fifties and sixties, more unintended pregnancies were avoided by a man or a woman changing their mind just thinking about the possibility they would have to marry the other person.

 

For women, pregnancy was a huge issue.  Women did not have the career opportunities they do now and women worried about how they would support the child if the man did not marry them.

 

Welfare ended that.

 

Welfare told woman you do not need a husband.  If you have a child or two, the government will take care of you.   Welfare went even further by telling women you cannot be married or have a man in the house to collect those benefits.

 

Now, fifty years later, we see the effect on the black family.   The traditional black family is on the endangered species list as two thirds of all black children are born out of wedlock and into poverty.

 

Liberals operate under a delusion called socialist reality.  Things are never as they really are, but only as they should be.

 

According to liberals, blacks are over represented on welfare rolls and in the criminal justice system because America is a racist nation.  The truth is, we implemented the programs the left wanted and this is the result.

 

Now the far left wants to turn marriage into a freak show involving 3 men, 5 women, 2 dogs and a Bengal tiger. 

 

The left’s definition of equality is to allow anyone and anything to marry.

 

Marriage is recognized by various religions for theological reasons.  Marriage is also recognized by the state for policy reasons. 

 

Policy is simply the promotion of certain behaviors that we the people consider good and beneficial.  Creating a stable structure for the raising of children is a good and beneficial behavior. 

 

Creating structures that encourage young men in particular to do good and beneficial things, such as working and not engaging in bad behavior is a beneficial thing. 

 

The left’s attempt to turn marriage into a freak show is not beneficial.  Given their track record on being wrong with everything else, the fact they support these policies should be enough of a warning that we should automatically reject these policies. 

 

The left usually reacts to those who disagree with their policies with either emotional hysteria (people should be allowed to love who they choose!) to outright lies (conservatives want gays to die, not be allowed to pass along their property, visit loved ones, etc.)

 

Most conservatives have something of a strong libertarian streak in them.  As long as everyone is of age and capable of consenting, not only do we not care what you are doing behind your closed doors, we actually don’t want to know.

 

Most conservatives are liberty minded enough that we strongly agree with the ideas that a person should be able to visit their close friends in the hospital, that they should be able to leave their property to anyone they want, including their cat.  And, we strongly support the right of anyone to choose the person to make the important decisions for themselves, other than their cat. 

 

But when you take what should be private and try to force it on the public, then things change.

 

Traditionally marriage has worked well in America for centuries.  It has always been one man and one woman. Those who want to change this bear the burden of showing why this would be good for the nation.

 

So far they have not.

 

Given the carnage that the liberals’ policies have created, the idea of redefining marriage into something unrecognizable and equally indefinable should be something that we conservatives must reject and defeat in the political arena and in the court of public opinion.

 

Liberty and freedom depend on a stable nation, stable government and stable families.  Those who claim they support “equality” do not support liberty.  They support anarchy.

 

Anarchy and freedom cannot co-exist.

 

In the end only one can prevail and history is riddle with the graves of those who learned what happened when freedom lost.

Tags: equality, gay, liberty, marriage, on, poverty, war, welfare

Views: 2977

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

For women, pregnancy was a huge issue. Women did not have the career opportunities they do now and women worried about how they would support the child if the man did not marry them.

You mean the handout opportunities. I am not saying all single women take them, but I am willing to be a vast majority do in one form or another.

Anarchy is what is being pursued by The Powers That Be my friends....prediction....major false flag attack before election.

And out of the ashes a new America is born.

"Equality" can have many meanings, and I think it's a mistake to adopt the liberal usage.  To liberals, equality means the same outcome for all (material equality), while the traditional meaning (as in "all men are created equal") is moral equality, i.e. that we are all subject to the same moral laws and that man-made laws must apply uniformly to all.  Under moral/legal equality, people are free to make what they can of their lives with minimal interference from the state, whereas material equality (which can never be achieved) requires the law to treat us all quite differently, taking from some and giving to others, and , eventually, devolution into a totalitarian state.
Why am I off on this subject?  Because the above article implicitly adopts the liberal meaning.  This is both a philosophical and a rhetorical problem.  Conservatives and libertarians must continue to use equality in the traditional sense, so that it is understood that liberty and equality are not only compatible, but essential to one another.  If we need to clarify the use of equality (e.g. "equlity under the law"), so be it.  But dont fall into the trap of conceding the language to the left.  And we should absolutely never (NEVER) argue that liberty and equality are at odds!  -steve 

However, "equality under the law" is exactly what the liberals are asking for when they ask for same-sex marriage.  They want all marriages to be seen and adjudicated "equally under the law".

-- which of course is their gateway into discriminating via "equality under the law" anyone that disagrees -- ex.  catholic charities, hospitals, adoption agencies in Massachusetts.  So the way you define equality:  the "equality" of the law demands that catholic institutions must treat same-sex couples & heterosexual couples uniformly (equally).

I appreciate what you are saying and I think you are on to something but I don't think you have it exactly right yet.  I think there is a little more finesse needed to define "all men are created equal" accurately.

The problem with the "equlity under the law" marriage argument is that the state should have nothing to say about what constitutes marriage.  Marriage should be purely a matter of private contract, and that would render it equal under the law because teh law woudl be silent on the matter.  In other words, what gays are asking for isnt equality under the law, but rather for the law to adopt their definition of marriage.  Since the government has no business controlling marriage, both popular sides of the debate are wrong.

I'd have to disagree.  I would suggest that one of our most honored American ideals of private property rights (and inheritance) requires that government define marriage and inheritance.

Should the government seize private property when no contract is available or present?   (... who has claim to a husband's property, who dies on his honeymoon?  ... the ex-wife & children? or the new wife?)

Maybe today, the government, in theory, can "require" marriage contracts; but ever since societies began;  marriage defined relationships -- family, clan, tribe, societal relationships and by extension "inheritance contracts". Even when only a minority of people could write or understand contracts, they understood the marriage "contract".

The contention is that the American ideal of private property rights (and by extension standards of inheritance) requires the definition of marriage. (Marriage provides the "standard" or default instructions for the "disposal" of private property.)

It seems to me that you maybe promoting government required "marriage contracts",  ---  if one does not comply, then what happens to their private property? --- does it become the "ward" of the government?  Even government-mandated marriage contracts would require that "marriage" be defined.

I believe a more pertinent question is: what is government's or more accurately, society's interest in marriage?  Society's interest in heterosexual marriage is obvious  -- the possible production of another citizen  ---   to tax, to be represented in the government, to draft into service, the possibility of having to provide welfare, and (inseparable from American-defined Freedom -- the "disposal" of inherited private property in an orderly fashion), etc.

What is government's (society's) interest in homosexual "marriage"?  -----  Nothing.  

Homosexual behavior has no consequence to society, and so is rightly out of the purview of society.

(One has to conclude that what is really requested by liberals is that the government recognize & endorse homosexual behavior.  -- which of course  the regulation of human behavior is what the socialists/communists really want.)

Nice thread by both in trying to clarify some important details on this issue.

Now why isn't it just easier to make this entire argument go away by making the terms "marriage" and "civil unions" legally equal in terms of property rights, visitation rights, and insurance options, but reserve marriage for the traditional and/or religious union of one man and one woman?  It seems like this would satisfy the complaints of one side without attacking the meaning of the traditional sacrement of the other side.  But perhaps this battle is really not about finding a real solution ...

The state has the right to define a marriage, the federal government does not. See the 10th Amendment.

Life is not fair! Well, I worked nights and went to school in the day time to achieve my goal in life. I lost alot of sleep. But, I made it. I do not and I will not share with a lazy person who has not put forth the effort to achieve in this life. I paid for my education and I went without a lot, by choice, to achieve what I wanted. I don't owe the lazy, the illegals a damn thing.

Because we are afraid.

I think the slaves in your analogy are us, the ones that produce.  The welfare recipients are simply in bed with the beaurocrats controlling the system -- they work together to steal our stuff.

RSS

Tea Party Nation is a social network



The Instant Survivalist

Young Living Essential Oils

 






© 2014   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service