Heterosexuality Rears Its Ugly Head In a Same-Sex “Marriage”

Santos said, "Because [she] is not her daughter; [she] is our daughter."

Manuel Santos is patently wrong. When he refers to her, he is referring to the baby’s biological mother, Patidta Kusongsaang, and when he refers to our, he is referring to him and his husband, Gordon Lake.

Let me point out the obvious. Santos and his husband can not have children. It’s impossible, by nature1. Therefore, the baby, Carmen, is not biologically theirs. From a legal standpoint, she may be, but not biologically. No court decision can change that.

Children, by nature, have a biological mother and a biological father. Again, this is something that a court can’t change. A court decision doesn’t change the child’s DNA. The child will forever be the biological child of Manuel Santos and Patidta Kusongsaang, no matter how Santos and his partner feel about it. To think otherwise is a denial of reality; a delusion you might say.

But it seems to me, that this same-sex "marriage" is exactly that, a denial. While the argument is posed as an equality, and love, measure, it leaves out the family measure.

It’s at this point the unnaturalness of the union becomes apparent. A same-sex couple can’t procreate. They must receive assistance from an outside individual; an individual of the opposite sex.

And it’s here that reality must be confronted: In order to have biological children, at least one member of the same-sex couple must embrace heterosexually in order to procreate. And only one of them can be the biological parent.

There is no hate in that statement. There is no bigotry. Only truth.

The bottom line is this: homosexuality is a social construct, not a biological one, and they must choose to put homosexuality aside in order to create a family in which one parent is still left out biologically.

  1. This seems to me to be the very definition of an unnatural relationship.

‘Honoring’ Parents of ‘Transgender’ Kids

If you withhold medical treatment for your children due to religious beliefs, you are guilty of child endangerment, and a horrible parent.

If you withhold vaccinations for your children due to religious beliefs, or because you don’t trust them, you are a horrible parent.

If you give your kid hormone therapy because they’re Gender Dysphoric (a mental disorder), you’re a model parent; a hero.

Note: the odds of your child committing suicide after using cross-sex hormones and undergoing sex reassignment surgery increases 20 fold in adulthood1.

  1. Cretella, Michelle A., M.D., Van Meter, Quentin, M.D., and McHugh, Paul, M.D. (2016). Gender Ideology Harms Children. American College Of Pediatricians (ACPeds). Accessed: 23 Mar 2016.

Stop Using Jesus To Justify Welfare

I told them, feed the poor. I also told them, "Go and make disciples of all nations." Where's the fiscally irresponsible government bureaucracy for that?

Go and make disciples of all nations.

It’s amazing how many people quote Jesus when it comes to feeding the poor. And I’m sure you’ve seen the memes making fun of Republicans, Christians, and conservatives who supposedly don’t care about the poor.

But did you know that he said other things as well?

So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” (Matthew 19:17-19 NKJV)

Where’s the outcry against adultery?

Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, (Luke 14:12-13 NIV)

How many people do you know that throw parties and invite the homeless instead of their friends?

How about this one?

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20 NKJV)

Here’s my proposal:

Since so many people are more than happy to justify the use the government to do what Jesus said, i.e., feed the poor. I think it’s time to start another government program aimed at spreading the Gospel. We can shorten the saying to just “Save the Lost.” Quite honestly, there are probably more lost than there are hungry since Jesus also said, wide is the path to Hell, and narrow is the path to Heaven. And I would argue that this is true, because Jesus also said He is “the way, the truth and the life.” (emphasis mine).

Based on that, we should be able to earmark a truly massive amount of taxpayer money for this effort. We can establish a bureaucracy that is too big to be efficient, and fiscally irresponsible, just like most other government entities.

But what about Separation of Church and State, some may ask. Liberals and Democrats are already using Jesus’ commandment to further their agenda, so they don’t have a leg to stand on. They’re already pushing for more irresponsible spending in order to help the poor, in the name of Jesus, so precedent is set. We can set up more irresponsible spending to save the lost.

Um, no. When Jesus said to help the poor, He meant for YOU to help the poor. Not push your responsibility onto some nameless, faceless, government agency. He didn’t say set up a Robin Hood government to take from the rich, and give to the poor. He didn’t say redistribute wealth. And He didn’t say, demonize the rich.

He did say, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15 ESV). There is no Gospel in welfare, which means there’s no Christ in welfare, which means welfare is not a Christian program.

Is the Female Chore Burden a Scourge?

I just learned that Bill and Melinda Gates publish an annual letter on Bill’s personal blog. I only heard about it because a story entitled The Scourge of the Female Chore Burden showed up in Google Now under Stories to read. Pleasant title. Alarm bells. Obviously I had to find out about the scourge on society that was being alluded to, and it turns out that Melinda Gates wrote a section of the letter called More Time.

First, let me make it clear that I’m not addressing the issues in poorer countries. There are issues that come with different cultures, and poverty, that don’t need to be addressed here in America. I happen to agree with Melinda that culture needs to change in most impoverished countries, but until that happens first, no real progress will be made in other areas such as economics, equality, health, education, etc.

But things are different in "civilized" countries. I don’t think it’s fair to compare our culture with that of the culture in Tanzania, for example. There, it probably is considered to be the responsibility of the woman to do the unpaid stay-at-home chores. Melinda writes:

Unless things change, girls today will spend hundreds of thousands more hours than boys doing unpaid work simply because society assumes it’s their responsibility.

While it may appear that way in the United States, I don’t believe that’s the way it really is. Generally speaking, I don’t think anyone assumes its the woman’s responsibility to do the unpaid housework. I, personally, know of two families where the father stays home with the kids, and does all the housework because the woman had a better job when the kids came along. It made sense to them, and quite frankly, it makes sense to me. I’ve never heard of anyone questioning that decision, except my wife who doesn’t understand how any mother could leave her kids all day. But even she, admits that it’s cool that the father quit his job to take on that role. To the best of my knowledge, no one makes fun of them. And why would they? A few exceptions aside, I think most people don’t care whether the man or the woman are the breadwinner… as long as someone is.

Now, this work has to be done by somebody. But it’s overwhelmingly women who are expected to do it, for free, whether they want to or not. [Emphasis hers]

There are actually two points I want to address in the statement. The first point I want to address is "this work has to be done by somebody." The problem I have with this is that she’s using a rather narrow definition of work, because as she said, they are doing the work "for free." If you look at it from a cold, hard, paycheck, cash aspect, then she’s right. But raising a family isn’t just about cash; it’s about providing for a family. And a lot of times, that means doing the work yourself.

Let’s use a politically incorrect, typical family as an example. Both man and woman work to provide for the family. In this typical family, the man goes out and gets a job in order to do the paid work, and the woman stays-at-home and does the unpaid work. Despite the fact that one is paid and the other is unpaid, both are contributing economically to the family. The man is bringing in money for the whole family, including the woman. It’s not just his. If you see this as the man’s money, and not the family’s money, that’s an issue. The woman, while not being paid cash for her housework, is contributing also economically. How is that, you ask? Because the family isn’t paying out money to have someone else do the laundry, or scrub the floors, or babysit, or whatever. Since the woman is doing this unpaid work, that’s cash in the pocket for the family to spend elsewhere. Because she’s doing the work, there isn’t a negative on the family finances, so in essence, you can say she’s not economically wasting her time. She may not get cold, hard, cash, but the very fact that there isn’t a negative drain on the checkbook… Yeah, that’s a positive economic impact on the family.

Steven Nelms wrote an article breaking down the costs of what he would have to pay annually for outside help if his wife didn’t do all that unpaid work. Tell me she isn’t making a positive economic impact on her family.

Here’s a thought. Maybe the man should pay the woman out of his paycheck, and then when they go out to dinner, they can go dutch.

The second point I want to address is "whether they want to or not." I think there are a lot more women that want to stay home with their children as opposed to men. My wife, for example, finds the idea that a woman could carry a human being inside of her body, feel it kicking, and go through the trial of childbirth, only to finally drop it off for someone else to raise, absurd. How could any good mother possibly do that to a human being they were that close to for nine months? While generalizing because she knows there are good mothers out there that do just that, it raises an important point, because Melinda’s letter really doesn’t account for the women that do want to stay at home.

I do get the feeling, however, that Melinda doesn’t really think women should stay-at-home. While not as blunt as Hilary Rosen, when she said stay-at-home mom Ann Romney, "never worked a day in her life," I think that Melinda sees a mother’s time spent better, economically speaking, by getting a paying job.

…it’s obvious that many women would spend more time doing paid work, starting businesses, or otherwise contributing to the economic well-being of societies

The irony of all this is that she also thinks that men should spend more time at home:

In fact, studies show that when fathers are able to take time off from paid work when their children are born, they spend more time with their kids and doing other kinds of housework for years to come. As a result, they form a stronger bond with their partners and children. That’s one reason why I think access to paid family and medical leave is so important for families.

Paid leave? If one of the benefits your company allows is paid leave, then more power to you. But, to be clear, it should not be a requirement, and no, the government shouldn’t pay for it. It’s your family. Plan for it. Save up and take unpaid leave. Didn’t plan ahead? Didn’t save? Too bad. Someone else shouldn’t have to pay for your poor planning.

As we continue to watch the family break down in the so-called civilized world, I question whether contributing to the well-being of society should be a priority. It’s apparent to me, that in a time when more women were stay-at-home moms, the family unit was a much stronger entity. While I don’t think it needs to be the woman’s responsibility, shouldn’t it be someone’s in the family?

God’s Law Written On Man’s Heart

Biblical References To the Law Being Written on Man’s Heart

Old Testament

Jeremiah 31:33 (ESV):

33For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Deuteronomy 30:14 (ESV)

14But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

New Testament

Romans 2:12-16 (ESV)

12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Hebrews 10-15-16 (ESV)

15And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, 16“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds.”

James 1:21 (ESV)

21Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

The Great Commandment

Matthew 22:34-40 (ESV)

34But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the great and first commandment. 39And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."


Jesus said the the greatest commandment in the Law is that "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Since God has told us, clearly, that He has written His Law on the hearts of men in order that we shall know and do what is right, then it is clear that loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind is right. It is also innate. God has essentially told us we are wired to believe. It is natural for man to look for God. It is natural for man to believe in God.

On Immigration

Illegal immigration is just that: illegal. Illegal immigrants need to be deported. There is a legal way for immigrants to come to this country, and those that do not follow it, do not deserve to stay.

There are many Christians that seem to think that we need to help everyone, no matter the cost, and this is not true. We are supposed to also follow the law!

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. ~1 Peter 2:13-17

I don’t care what anyone tells me, you have to reconcile both commandments: care for the alien, and obey the laws.

Stronger measures need to be taken to secure our borders from the state and federal level. It is the Federal Government’s job to keep this country safe, and allowing immigrants to arrive unchallenged is a security threat. Liberals scream about background checks for citizens buying guns in this country, but don’t give a damn about the background of those invading our borders. While not all immigrants are criminals, there are an alarming number, and it’s an issue that needs to be taken seriously. States should not have to be burdened with the responsibility that the Federal Government should be dealing with. It’s a security issue and the only state and local involvement should be holding criminals for immigration officials.

Every year, hundreds of immigrants die trying to cross the border into the U.S. They are trying to cross the border because they have hope that once they reach here, they will be allowed to stay. And the Federal Government is partially to blame for their deaths. They have utterly failed to deter migrants by simply not enforcing existing laws. Immigrants need to be swiftly sent back home. The message needs to be that the trek across the border is not worth the risk. This shit pisses me off. There are legal ways to come here.

Illegal immigrants working in the U.S. should not be given amnesty. If found, they should be immediately deported and the company that hired them should be fined, heavily. No company is too big to fail.

Law enforcement officials should be required to detain illegal immigrants for any crime, and hold them until federal immigration officials can take custody and deport them. State and local law enforcement agencies caught releasing illegal immigrants should be fined, at the expense of local taxpayers. Sanctuary cities should be fined, again, at the expense of local taxpayers. Support for breaking federal law should be strongly discouraged.

The only health care illegal immigrants should have access to, is emergency health care. Once they are healthy enough to travel, they should be deported. Children of illegal immigrants should not be granted citizenship. They should remain with their parents and be deported as a family. Illegal immigrants that use the health care system, have no investment in the system, therefore their use of it is theft.

Illegal immigrants should not be given access to schools at any level, public or private. Public schools are taxpayer funded, making their use a form of theft. Regardless of the ability to pay or not, they are here illegally and it is every citizen’s duty to report them to be deported. Citizen’s that fail to report should be arrested as they would for aiding an known criminal.

Allowing illegal aliens the same rights as those who are here legally is a slap in the face to those who did things the right way. It’s a slap in the face to the citizens of this country who obey the law. You may be able to argue that it’s compassion for the alien, but the indifference to the legal is disgusting.

Legal immigration to this country should be encouraged. Legal immigrants should be welcomed, but also expected to assimilate to this country, and that means supporting it’s laws and Constitution. Immigrants should be encouraged to learn English, and those opposing Free Speech should be discouraged from that opposition. They should understand that in this country, Free Speech means free speech, even if you find it offensive.

I, for one, will continue to use the terms illegal immigrant or illegal alien. I do this out of respect for those who come here legally. I do this to differentiate between the criminal and the legal immigrant.

Are the Crusades A Black-eye for Christianity?

Every once in a while, it is good to remember real history. Not the history written by anti-Christians looking to make Christianity look bad. Christians can do that enough on their own without outsiders embellishing their misdeeds, or outright lying.

Thomas F. Madden published an article entitled The Real History of the Crusades back on May 6, 2005. It’s coming up on it’s ten year anniversary, but it deserves to be read by everyone. It’s short and concise for those of you don’t like history, but like to throw it up in people’s faces anyway. It sets the record straight.

So, in a nutshell, the Crusades are not the black-eye on Christianity that people think it is.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

And why did they do it?

They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love.

There’s a lot of Christian values there, but I want to point out something in particular. Madden writes: “they were keenly aware of their sinfulness.” How many of us can say the same?

The goals of the Crusades were two-fold: “to rescue the Christians of the East” and “the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ.” The Crusades were started in answer to a request for help from the emperor in Constantinople; not colonialism, expeditions to get rich, or missions to convert. They were in answer to the spread of Islam by the sword, violence, and terror; the same way Islam spreads today.

Read the whole thing: The Real History of the Crusades

Discriminating Between People and Events

There’s a lot of screaming about anti-gay discrimination from Christian shop owners, but are they really discriminating against gays?

You hear a common theme from the shop owners: they will provide services for gay people, but they won’t provide services for a same-sex “marriage.” The outraged response shows that people clearly don’t understand the difference between the two. To not provide services for gay people, such as someone’s birthday cake, would be to discriminate against a person–an individual. That would be a legitimate complaint; that would not be loving your neighbor. But a wedding ceremony is not a human being, it is an event. And for a Christian owner to not want to provide services for an event that he does not believe in, is not just acceptable, it should be expected.

Many people miss the fact that we are talking about two different cases here, but respond the same for both. In one case we’re talking about individual human beings, and in the other we are talking about an event. They want the same protection for each, but in order to be fair to everyone, we must violate the beliefs of many, not just a few that we are angry with at the moment. The whims of the law can’t change with the whims of the people.

If we’re going to force people to support, or appear to support, ideas and events that violate their conscience, than in the name of equality, the government must:

  • force Christian cake shop owners to create cakes that support same-sex “marriage”
  • force gay bake shop owners to create cakes that support “God Hates Fags” messages
  • force black cake shop owners to create cakes that support KKK events (if there is such a thing)
  • force Christian cake shop owners to create cakes with “God Hates Fags” messages
  • force any cake shop owner to create cakes with pornographic images

Of course, I can’t see a KKK member soliciting a cake shop owned by black people for a cake. In which–I can’t believe I’m thinking this–in this case, I suppose the KKK member actually has a better sense of reality than the LGBT Nazis. Why wouldn’t you just take your business elsewhere? Why create a stink?

Sometimes discrimination is good. For example, if you Google “definition discrimination” you are presented with two definitions. The second one reads: recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. The usage in a sentence example is: “discrimination between right and wrong.”

Another example of discrimination is this article. I’m discriminating between a gay individual and a gay event. See how that works? We are talking about the difference between and individual and an event. And this is good. The two are not the same, should not be treated the same, and should not have the same protection under law.

So, to answer the question, are Christian shop owners discriminating against gays? No. They are discriminating against an event.

Note: the vast majority of Christians do no believe “God Hates Fags.” Those that do are a vocal minority, and not representative of the greater majority. Hmm. Sound familiar?