Well, that and nuke the News/Entertainment media, who will warp whatever principle that is put forth into some kind of hate outrage or something.
Seriously, we got here because Urban Liberal Democrats who run the media use their power to misinform the public. We are not going to get out of here until that power to misinform is taken away from them.
It’s just this election season’s “gotcha” subject for the interviews and debates.
Sean, Welcome to the United States, when did you arrive, December 2014?
Republican leaders always put principle first. McCain, Romney, Boehner, McConnell, Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, and the rest of our leaders believe in a clear set of principles, and they never deviate. Their one and only principle is that whatever decision keeps them in office is what they should and will do.
I’m hoping and praying that Cruz or Walker will be better.
We should ignore all the “news” of this sick, deviant sexual behavior.
Weirdness as “principal”
Talk about bizarre world!
The democRAT party will accept EVERY sexual fetish out there in the name of “principle”.
Soon, it will be pedophiles, necrophiles and zoophiles who are given special rights in the name of principle. It will not end until the regime crumbles.
OK, let's give the same advancement to all other forms of mental illness. Since trying to cure crazies somehow abrogates their "rights", homosexuals, violent paranoids, serial rapists and killers should be allowed to act on their mental illness without any consequences. (Is the < /sarc > tag really needed?)
“Transgender rights” is not a principle. It is an arrogant, humanistic perversion of nature.
“You reap what you sow,” and “eternal damnation” are, however, principles.
What most of them (except Cruz) don’t get is that the
“lgbt movement”
is simply an excuse for the left’s anti-Christian agenda.
Did anyone commenting on this well-written article actually read it?
Satan’s army and America’s judgment. Just wait until SCOTUS issues their ruling creating the abomination of gay marriage.
“If Republicans would likewise put principle before policy, they would not only have the power to win elections”
In other words sell out our beliefs just to achieve political office.
And we’re winning elections anyways, so no thank you.
Fieler apparently doesn’t know what principle is. If he thinks that Dems support gay rights as a matter of principle, he couldn’t be farther from the truth. It is all politics and has nothing to do with principle.
Per a TED talk I recently saw from 2008, there are five main dimensions of morality: purity, in group loyalty or respect for authority, harm and fairness.
Conservatives care all about some of them, such as harm and fairness, but much more on purity, loyalty and authority obedience.
For liberals, sexual freedom is a challenge to purity standards of morality, hence the fixation on anything that tears down traditional sexual mores. The cry to “question authority” is a challenge to obedience to authority being a source of morality. “Diversity” is a challenge to in group loyalty as a social more. That makes it an assault on many people’s views. By demanding more and more “diversity”, it also suggests the current population just isn’t good enough for the views of those making the decision.
Liberals also make the mistake that adding people of different ethnic and social groups automatically improves society. They want more variety in life without needing to travel, but ignore the costs of English classes, refugee services, unskilled immigrants undercutting local wages.
Emphasizing social diversity even of groups within a nation decrease social ties and trust, while creating the stereotypes diversity advocates want to fight; think of the black kids beaten up for acting white, because they got good grades, or black Republicans attacked as not really black. And looking for diversity of ethnicitiy in hiring tends to end up discriminating against those who don’t meet the preferred check boxes. Ask the Asians who are denied at far higher rates than any other ethnic group at Ivy League schools, where merit is irrelevant to meeting the desired ethnic quotas considered ideal by administrators.
Sexual freedom is a challenge to purity, and anything that attacks the traditional sexual mores of chastity, faithfulness in marriage, the definition of marriage, value of marriage is acceptable to those who want to tear down sexual purity / restraint as a definition of morality.
Liberals don’t care that a man not committed to his kids via marriage to the mother have worse life outcomes (on average) from drug abuse to mental illness to poverty; her sexual freedom is more important as a measure of quality of life. They don’t care that someone’s freedom is eroded by saying you must participate in a same-sex union’s celebration; they see their sexual freedom as more important than your old-fashioned sexual restraints.
Liberals really don’t care about a man in a dress saying he’s a woman, except that it is a basis for eroding female only areas as a protection of women’s “privacy” and chastity. Likewise, men who have surgery to become women are simply a basis for saying there is no difference between men and women, so restrictions on homosexual relations have to go (though no feminist says women need to be drafted for combat and sent to the front lines unless they want to go).
The end result is that sexual freedom is the only freedom liberals care about with a religious fervor, and they will fight for it as much as the Muhajadeen for Islam, because it is a big hammer to attack the conservative religious with. And they can link it to “diversity” and push the in-group loyalty morality metric as well, by saying you have to stand up for the rights of the sexually extreme.
This is why we have to stand up against “sexual freedom”. If we don’t, we can’t condemn adultery, people having five kids by five dads with demands we the people pay for it, say that a homosexual boy who decides he’s transgendered is mentally ill or refuse to participate in a same sex wedding because the state backs the left’s sexual freedom rights more than anyone else’s freedom of belief and association.
Fieler really nails it here: The entire LGBT movement, which has enjoyed astonishing "political success" over the past dozen years or so, rests entirely on a principle, albeit a profoundly distorted one — i.e., that one's objective, physical biology is optional once a human can "create himself" by reimagining himself in any way he wants to. Darwin is completely irrelevant. And creator God does not exist. And yet,
Americans still believe that a man, even a man who thinks he is a woman, is still a man. A principled argument would not only reiterate this obvious point but would also point out the shared principle of biological irrelevance that stretches across all the LGBT constituents.... Having already repeatedly affirmed that our rights come from God, not the state, Republicans are starting in the right place. They need only add the logical corollary that if we recast ourselves in a way that denies either our human nature or our Creator, we undermine the very basis of the rights we cherish and defend.Well, I just have to agree with that. And I don't think the subject matter is at all irrelevant. In fact, it is extremely relevant in my family life; for my sister is gay, and has a long-time partner, J.
Recently, I managed to offend J by simply observing the difficulty I have in understanding how a person can come up with a self-image/self-concept that is totally at odds with the facts of that person's biology. To me, this was simply an unadorned statement of fact. But I grievously offended J. Instantly, I wrote to her to apologize, lamely stating that I had always regarded her essentially, as a person, not as a member of a group.
If anyone out there thinks this subject matter is just about politics, I beg to differ. This is about the state of American culture, which always precedes American politics....
It seems to me American culture increasingly is losing its grip on Reality. If "your sexual desire, not your biology, constitutes your identity," certain curious effects logically flow from such a premise. For one thing, under this understanding, it appears that there is a soul-like entity that can activate itself without reference to a physical body. But this idea does not comport well with either materialist doctrine or Darwinian evolution. For another, if one is free to define oneself as a person on the gratuitous basis of one's sexual longings, then I don't see any limit on human capriciousness — certainly there is no basis for universal moral sanction under such conditions.
Thanks for the great post, EveningStar!
why focus on a group that will NEVER VOTE republican...
i read on here thatONLY 25% OF CHRISTIANS VOTE...
if that is true ...that is the group to address
it is a sorry azz state of affairs when repubs control both houses AND ARE ACCOMPLISHING NOT AN EFFIN THING
you asy well obumbler will VETO the laws... I SAY SHOVE IT UP HIS SORRY AZZ AND MAKE HIM VETO AND THEM MAKE DEMS TAKE A VISIBLE STAND ON ISSUES THAT AMERICANS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT....
not sodomy and sodomy marriage .... things like obamacare and open borders... with secure borders THERE ARE NO ILLEGALS COMIG IN.... for the ones that are here, there are laws to be enforced... LAWS CAN STOP OBUMBLER IN HIS TRACKS....START PASSIN THEM
She is trying to make the anti-Rovian, anti-Machiavellian argument that, as Ronald Reagan proved, ideas matter.