The phrase self-reliance is a bane to some in our society. I would have no problem except, these are the same people who have taken up the “I am my brother’s keeper” cause, which they have conveniently relabeled “social justice”.

If we truly are our brother’s keeper, don’t we first have to keep ourselves? Moreover, how is one to keep himself if he is not self-reliant?

I postulate that one cannot adequately take care of his brother, let alone himself, while being opposed to the activities wound up in self-reliance.

The activities wound up in self-reliance is what allows one to be able to provide for himself and have a little extra left over to provide for others.

Suppose you were the Samaritan who found the man on the side of the road. What position would you be in to help?

Pray that such a situation as the one that found the Samaritan finds you.

It was self-reliance, not Government dependence, that positioned the Samaritan to have his own transportation, and his own money, which he used to pay to take care of his “brother”.

Too often the cries of taking care of our “brother” are coming from people who are not working nor are they looking for a job. How are you going to take care of your brother without a job? How are you going to take care of your brother if you are turning the country’s safety nets (social services) into hammocks?

Those who are self-reliant are the ones most able to take care of a brother in need.

I propose that if you are of the “social justice” “my brother’s keeper” camp, and you are serious about it, you would ascribe to the activities of self-reliance, rather than Government dependence.

To be opposed to self-reliance is to become the community that is sitting around waiting for others to be taxed more so you can be taken care of.

If we are going to ask people to take care of their “brothers”, we must as a society, first demand that they begin with “themselves”.

One can debate the pros and cons of Unions. There is a plethora of reasons on both sides. I do believe however, that one can believe in the purposes and stated goals of Unions while also agree that their days are nearing.

Whenever someone speaks out against Unions, union members understandably become defensive. One can say we refer only to the bosses, but that would be half-truth. The whole truth is, when you bargain collectively, we condemn you collectively if your job is not performed. If individually-hopefully we get there-public servants would be fired or promoted based on their individual merit.

Unionization has become the single greatest threat to the reputation of teachers especially. Good employees are forced to work with not so good employees to no avail. The few corrupt the whole and now we the taxpayers are getting closer to throwing the whole of you out.

The purpose of a Union is to garner collectively, more of a company’s Profits for the workers. In Government, there is no Profit to garner. When Union bosses strong-arm, they strong-arm the Taxpayer, not a fat cat on Wall Street.

The subtlety here is this; in the negotiating process, one group of public servants negotiates with representatives of public servant for public servant wages. The union negotiating process has worked to create a situation where the only people missing from the bargaining process are the bosses; the taxpayers for those who need reminding.

The Profit that should emanate from a public servant is for the public to be adequately served. When we the taxpayer hear of an education system in decline, exorbitant retirement packages that are underfunded, and the many other inefficiencies in Government, we the people have a problem with that.

Has the US government ever defaulted on its obligations? Do they have a track record of not paying employees? Do we run a tyranny here? With the growth of Unionization among public servants, we would think that America is all those things. We are not. We don’t need middle men.

Profits to a public servant is not dollars and cents, it is a citizenry impressed by the efficiency and high quality with which things are done. Servants serve. If Unions understood what Profits are to a servant, their garnering for profits would transpire differently.

If you are not a servant, find a job like the rest of us. If not, when you collectively bargain, bargain to make our government the most efficient in the world. Bargain that fewer of you will perform at a rate greater than you did prior.

We would all agree that all ships rise with the tide. The problem is, our collective mindset has become for us an anchor instead of a paddle.

In fact, it is a core philosophy among those on the Left, who today are called progressives, liberals, democrats, members of the US Democratic Party and some Republicans. Whether or not it is a philosophy they truly believe, it is indeed a philosophy they all embrace.

That philosophy propagates that people are just too stupid to self-govern, thus they–those mentioned above–must be counted on to decide and define our future. It is their belief that without them humanity would literally deteriorate. I say all this to emphasis the importance they attribute to themselves.

The heart of my questioning is in finding out whether people are intuitively too stupid to make decisions for themselves. Whether they can self govern.

I don’t believe that to be true–that people can’t self-govern. This belief is propagated by Progressives with the expressed intent of creating dependence on their expertise. Are we neo-liberals no longer suspicions of lawyers and politicians? Not even just a little?

Why would I believe people are not stupid? Simple; government is made up of people. The bureaucrats are people. If they can make decisions for both themselves and for others, I hope you agree that an individual at minimum can self govern.  Government is not the buildings with antique furniture, it is not the computers, it is not the office spaces. Government is comprised of people. If people cannot at minimum self govern, why do we elect people to govern the masses?

Do you see how arguing against the truth that people can self govern, complicates the argument of placing the entire nations decisions in the hands of few people? Unless they can prove, using critically thought out logic, how government officials are not people, I don’t know how they win the debate.

When I recognized this ignored reality, I became even more determined in my belief that people are not too stupid. It is people who are in government making decisions for themselves and for others.

Therefore, if all men are created equal, can I at minimum infer that the ability to self govern exist in all men? Some have more than others. But with that being the case, should the strong not teach the weak, rather than tear down the individual? Can there exist a community with individualism dead? Just as government is comprised of people, a community is comprised of individuals. Embrace the individual.

What we have is a situation where government is basically self-promoting. They are like any other for-profit institution. They persuade the masses that the product or service they have is the best thing since sliced-bread and that you must have it. And that is precisely what big-government politicians and the media that journal them are in the business of. It is about convincing people they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. Also, they need someone else doing their decision making. It is important to recognize that people are not too stupid to make decisions for themselves, instead, they must be convinced that they are, so that they will allow politicians to make those decisions for them.

When you take a close examination of the progressive-liberal philosophy, what you find is, their philosophy is based not on caring for people or actually helping them attain wealth through self-reliance, instead, it is based on convincing people that they are pitied and need to be cared for by them.

For the progressed politician, this is job security. It is about creating a society where people are persuaded against adhering to the principle that those in government adheres to–which enable them to make decision for themselves and others–but instead adhere to a belief that says, they cant do it. The government needs to step in and do it for them. Don’t bother trying. The situation is just too complex for you to solve on your own. We are here to help. The more people there are that believes this way, means the chronic political plea for increased Investments by government. Investments with subprime returns.

The liberal philosophy is about expanding government. That is what they care about. Not people. For them, it became about the people’s business after they convinced individuals to let politicians address their business.

If one really thinks about it, it has served to be a dangerous scheme. This is one of the most heinous scams perpetrated against the American people.

The cost. It is costly because it has stripped so much from mankind. So much will, so much desire, so many dreams down the proverbial drain. Today, those who fell for the lie, do not believe in all that man could be. Case in point; to believe that an obscure individual can accomplish prominence here in America is said by people on the Left to be wishful thinking.

This is what they are about America. In the end, they cannot continue propagating that people can’t make decisions for themselves, while they are people. These individuals are making decisions for themselves and others. What do they believe in that we don’t believe in?

We have believed their lies. My admonition is to stop believing the lie. Be aware of the lie.

We could continue to pretend as thought this is about the definition of when life begins. I ask, when does the life of a cell begins? At the conception of the cell, or at a politically correct stage in the life of a cell?

True to their Progressive disregard for human life, they postulate that the stages of development that precede the newborn–which are Zygote, Embryo, Fetus–are not life. Once again I ask, when, in technical terms, does the life of a cell begins?

If the stages of life are now the determinants of life and not the beginning of life itself, why is the neonate stage the beginning of life and not the infant or toddler stage? Heck, why not Adults? Where does this meddling stop?

Speaking of meddling, take this, the politicians claim that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade was in fact emblematic of Government staying out of people’s business. You caught that? I thought we had three Branches of Government. To accept what they argue, we would also have to accept that the Supreme Court is not a branch of Government.

Reading the message delivered by President Obama on their 38 years of infamy, I am most troubled that an African American president enjoys this achievement. A people representing a measly 12% of the population, contributing to 30% of the abortions, can be nothing less than of “epidemic proportions.”

Is the world better off with fewer blacks? If so, why? If not, why the mass slaughter? The Hispanics are not slaughtering their kids, as we are ours. What do they know that we no longer know?

The abortion epidemic against African Americans in the US is foretelling of Universal Health Care. With programs as grandeur as the New Deal and Great Society, the government took upon itself ever greater responsibility for the lively-hood of African Americans. This responsibility was not met with increased net worth among African Americans commensurate with the debt incurred. Instead, it was met with generational poverty, illiteracy, incarceration, and the mass genocide through abortions of a people the American society seemingly prefer less of.

President Obama said, as he reaffirmed his support for abortion rights, that it “affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.” I know that some politicians believe that those who vote for them are stupid and can’t think or make decisions for themselves and must be thought for, but they seem to feel this way about everyone, even those who don’t vote for them.

If you were to hire a company to perform a task on your home and you saw signs of approval by the BBB, or you saw FDIC insured on a Bank you intended to deposit money into, wouldn’t you be more likely to go with those places? Of course you would. Were parents really supposed to compete and succeed against this stamp of approval by the Federal government? The abortion stamp of approval?

First, they convinced the people that the only consequence to starting out having sex at an early age, was getting pregnant. Before long African Americans were leading the nation with HIV/Aids and STD’s. Who would imagine? For their singular consequence, they had their abortion. Government approved. What better way to make a man or woman most unlike his father and mother?

These people can’t actually believe that they are not intruding on private family matters. Is this Ivy League education at work? When the parent pleads with the child to live in an upright way, Big Government has its stamp of approval on the contrary way. The crocked way. Up is now down and down up with these people.

There is another way.

If those who are called by His name would turn from their wicked ways, He will hear from heaven and heal our communities. Those communities and neighborhoods the politicians are always congregated in during an election year, which only declines as the years go by.

There is no way that these Ivy League graduates cannot compute that their destructive disregard for life would eliminate African Americans from our society. It is as though they thought to subtract, is how a people increases. A people so few in proportion should not represent that large amount of abortion and we not see it for the blatant infamy that it is. How are we to be moved by things much smaller, when great things are disregarded?

These things happen because our people continue to be beholden to a political system that has never been interested in increasing the net worth of African Americans. When last did the politicians come to our neighborhoods praising the fact that their programs has led to increased net worth among African Americans? How come most of the people of my color lack wealth?

It is because they follow those who kill them softly, rather than trust in Immanuel.

The real question then is; “are we Capitalist or Socialist?” The word Capitalism is a derivative of Capital. Capitalism needs Capital to succeed. Socialism on the other hand needs Government taking money from individuals and distributing to those they favor. Capitalism requires the availability of savings.

If the rich who already have basic necessity–which is why they are rich–use the additional money that they receive through tax cuts to save it, that is a good thing. Do Liberals know how the Banking System works? For all their bickering over economics, one would think they would spend less time studying political science and more time studying economics.

The monies that we place in the banks are used to make loans to business-women and men. That is how Capitalism works. It requires Capital. It requires people making more money than they need and saving the rest. It also requires people who spend. However, at this juncture in our economy, small business need money to borrow as the president argues. If the banks do not have excess money to lend because savers had Uncle Sam takes it from them, then what will they issue to those who are applying?

The obvious belief among liberals is that the only people who save are the rich. If that is the case, then we need more tax cuts for the rich because it is the only way small business-women and men can get the capital they need.

If that money goes to the government instead of the banks; then those who favor that approach prefer Socialism to Capitalism. They are saying that top-down command and control is the best policy. They are central-planners and nothing else. We believe in capitalism not socialism.

With Capitalism, people are given the opportunity to fail or to succeed. If they succeed, they reap the rewards. If they fail, they go out of business. In socialism, businesses fail or succeed based on what politician they know or whether their employees are likely to vote for certain politicians.

As you can see; if we accept the premise that Tax cuts for the rich results in savings, then that is exactly what Capitalism needs. If you doubt me; check out the savings rate of the Chinese and then will you begin to understand why they finance so much of America’s debt. Capitalism cannot succeed without capital. Therefore, we must recognize that liberals attempt to raise Taxes is an attempt suck this country and the business-women and men dry of capital. That result in the Government being the only place to go to if people have a business and want to grow.

There is a major difference between knowing and believing. The Bible tells us that we must believe that God is and that He is the rewarded of those who perform his will. On many other occasions, the Bible talks about believing in order to be saved. However, as I study the scriptures, Christian communities and the meaning of words, it become evident that a Christian must know God rather than simply believe.

Think of belief in God as having the belief that you have cancer. Do you have cancer or not? Well you believe that you do, but you do not know. How do you find out? You get tested. Unless you know something, you cannot say with certainty that it exist. Cancer may be too strong. So let’s look at friendship as another good example. We all have friends and people we trust. For most of us, we believe they are our friends in the good times. However, only when something happens do we find out who our friends truly are. Another example is credit score. We can believe that we have a good score or a bad score, but until we run the report, we will not truly know. Each of those examples distinguished the difference between knowing something with certainty and simply believing.

The same is true with God. I can understand if someone became saved a month or two ago and do not know that God is. But to have been saved for many years and you don’t know but believe is troubling. Knowing makes the difference when you lose your job and you ask God why did He let this happen, instead of where are you taking me. Knowing is what makes the difference when you are faced with a difficult situation and you ask God why did you let this happen to me instead of, what am I suppose to learn from this.

Knowing God is essential to Christian growth. Too much of Christianity is based on belief in God rather than knowing God. Some of you may say this is just semantics. It is not. Consider people who have lost their faith. Is that even possible? Can anyone truly lose their faith? I don’t believe so. How can anyone lose faith in something they know to be true? You can’t. People lose faith in things they simply believe in. The reason many people lose faith and leave the church is because they simply believed in God and somewhere down the road, they were persuaded otherwise.

Some will say all you have to do is believe; no one can know. That is not true. God never intended for us to know him by testing him in a lab. We know God because he will reveal himself to us. Scripture clearly tells us that we are supposed to know. After Jesus reappeared to prove to Thomas that He has risen, he said, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). The night before Jesus was arrested He explicitly told the disciples how we who will not see Him will know that God is who he says he is. He said, “The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. ¹⁸I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. ¹⁹Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:17-19).

In order for us to preserve the church, we must teach people to know God and go beyond simply believing. We must know that he loves us and of his plans for our lives. This knowing should not be based on an intellectual knowing but on the indwelling Holy Spirit, which Jesus left as our comforter. God did not call us to have an abstract belief concerning him, he called us to know him.

The tactics by the Bush administration to extract information from those who sought to harm us were ferociously attacked and derided by progressives. How dare the Bush administration water board people? How dare they make people feel as if they would die? How dare they deprive people of sleep? Those were just some of the questions asked of the Bush administration as they were accused of Human Rights violations and war crimes.

When the Obama administration took office, riding on their moral high horse, they pledged to turn the page on Human rights abuses. They said America had lost its moral bearing and they were elected to regain it. They promised that they knew best and they had solutions that no one prior had ever thought of. They knew how to extract information and keep Americans safe without hurting or abusing terrorists. They promised something new. They promised change.

The only thing new about what they are doing is the technology they use, not the result. Killing the bad guy, instead of capturing and questioning, was the change. Is that new? No. It is as old as Adam. Nevertheless, that is what progressive Democrats seems to believe is a superior position than torture.

In the world in which we live, I happen to believe torture is preferable. Psychological torture.  The kinds the Bush administration performed. As a pro-life Christian, I take solace in knowing that when it is all over the person lives to tell the tale.

Progressive Democrats on the other hand are a separate breed. They boast that they can still protect America without torture. What they fail to tell us is that when they are done there is no one left alive to torture. That is because they use unmanned drones that fly above the bad guys and obliterates them with bombs.

Unlike progressives, you would not find me shedding tears for any terrorist. I write this blog only to identify that I support torture while they support drones. I ask only, how is their position to kill with drones less of a violation of human rights than torture? With torture, people are hurt but they live. With drones they die.

I cannot say they are hypocrites. Their lack of respect for life is consistent. They have no problem ending life, as long as people’s feelings are not hurt.

I seek only to know, how is their position to kill rather than torture superior to ours?

The most tolerant among us believe that saying Merry Christmas offends those who do not celebrate Christmas. I do not know what kind of individual sits around and gets offended that someone is celebrating something of meaning. I also do not understand how taking offense at what others do is a symbol of tolerance, but that is what we are dealing with here.

The move to replace saying Merry Christmas with happy holiday is touted as inclusiveness but in reality, it was and is a move to keep Christ out of Christmas. This is troubling because of two primary reasons.

Christmas is the national holiday. Hanukkah and Kwanza encompasses some similar traditions but neither are United States national holidays. Hanukkah is not even a notional holiday in Israel. Since the only national holiday this time of the year is Christmas, where is the justification for not saying Christmas? We don’t say happy holidays for Independence day, nor for Thanksgiving, or Veterans day, only for Christmas do we deny our society the hearing of the word Christmas. Therefore, it is first and foremost troubling because people deck their trees, buy gifts for loved ones, we get the day off from work or if we work we are paid time-and-half for a celebration whose name is not mentioned.

Which brings me to point number two. In their attempt to keep Christ out of Christmas they have basically squandered an ongoing opportunity to teach and inform our society of people of different faiths and different beliefs. Instead, we are running away from the opportunity and saying simply, Happy Holidays. Where is the inclusion in that?

There is Hanukkah, Christmas and Kwanza being celebrated. What are those celebrations and what do they represent to those who celebrate them? These are the engagements that our society should be having but instead we are too busy saying Happy Holidays. What is Christmas, what does it represent, what does it stand for? Most of us do not know; especially our kids. Are our kids aware of the three holidays that are passing us by? For the most part no. Do we know why the Jews celebrate Hanukkah? If liberals knew, they would not refer to the nation of Israel as occupiers, which presumes that Jews didn’t live there prior to 1948.

The powers that be orchestrated things in an attempt to not offend. How is our society made better and more tolerant when their actions results in a greater offense of ignorance? Society is not bettered in any way when people don’t have the slightest idea what they are celebrating during this season and why.

When we deck a tree, light candles, make commitments, buy gifts for our loved ones some of us know why we are doing what we do. Unfortunately, most of the younger generation today does not know why they celebrate.  In contrast, the older generation understands the importance of knowing what they were celebrating.

I’m also very disappointed that corporations and stores refuse to mention Christmas. These retailers receive about 60% of their yearly sales during this time of year. All thanks to Christmas and Santa. They are ungrateful you know what. I can’t wait for the day when people wise up and start giving their money to charities instead.

When we use the phrase happy holiday we hurt our society. We are building up a generation of young people who don’t know what is being celebrated and why. Around Independence day we don’t say happy holiday, we say Independence day. the reason being there is an importance to saying what a holiday is. People need to know why they are celebrating and what they are celebrating.

Leave it to liberals to impede the very same things they have told us is best; inclusion, diversity of ideas. None of that takes place when we refuse to actually say Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas and Happy Kwanza.

All because some wanted to keep Christ out of Christmas and say happy holidays we as a society have squandered  the opportunity to inform, teach and instruct. This is why I believe that when some try to keep Christ out of Christmas they cause more harm than good.

The moral philosophies employed by Americans have been of common sense and expediency. What I would like to know, from the President or anyone else, is what is America’s moral bearing?  Is there a defined moral in the United States?  The reason I am asking is that I know that there isn’t a defining moral ideology to which the American people subscribe.  In fact, Americans possess a variety of morals and philosophies that we have incorporated at different times throughout our history and in our own lives.

The philosophy that the President is purposefully incorporating, as it regards torture, is the Kantian philosophy.  This philosophy says that if something is wrong then it is wrong all the time regardless of the consequences.  The people on the Left reference John McCain where he says that torture is wrong, proves that in their view, since we have established that torture is wrong, it is wrong all the time.  The problem with this philosophy in its extreme is this: suppose your neighbor abuses his wife and one day she came to hide in your house because she suspected he was going to come home in a drunken stupor. He notices that she isn’t home so he comes to you and asks if you saw his wife. The Kantian philosophy says, since lying is wrong it is wrong all the time and your responsibility is to give the wife over to her husband to be abused. Obviously, you wouldn’t do that but that’s the problem with solely using the Kantian philosophy. The people on the Left are taking that approach as it regards torture.

The philosophy employed by Conservatives on this issue is the utilitarian philosophy.  With this philosophy, the end justifies the means.  Now some people have a problem with this and I do too. On one hand, no one can arrive at an end without a means and on the other hand, the end does not justify all means. Conservatives argue that though torture is wrong, as they deal with terrorists, they are not willing to say we will never torture because if in a situation where the benefits are weighed against the cost and it’s more beneficial to torture that individual they will employ torture. Judging by the examples that the Conservatives have used to justify their logic they question their opponents and ask, what if 3000 Americans were to die, would you not torture the guys who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks? In their view, this is a rhetorical question. This philosophy is called the utilitarian philosophy.  In their view if an attack on the American people is inevitable they will do whatever was necessary to prevent it. This philosophy deals with weighing the cost against the benefits.

This is not to say that liberals are Kantian and conservatives are utilitarian in general; this is only the case as it regards torture. On other issues they hold contrary philosophies. So on just those two philosophies we’ve seen that America has never established a singular moral philosophy by which we refer to as our moral bearing.  But wait there are more.

There is also what is referred to as the positivists moral philosophy which says that if the government makes a law, the citizens are obligated to submit to it even if it’s not something they agree with.  We see this in two instances. The first instance is with Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement where they opposed the Jim Crow laws.  Now if Americans had subscribed to the positivists moral then Martin Luther King would have had absolutely no right to do what he did but obviously we know that we don’t subscribe to the positivists moral and Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement is a case in point.

On this same moral, there is also the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court decision where though many conservatives and mainstream Americans believe that abortion is the killing of innocent life, going out and blowing up buildings or killing people is unacceptable. Once again, we have another moral philosophy that we have employed that doesn’t necessarily define us.

Finally, there is the relativists philosophy which says, what I do with my life is none of your business. Who are you to tell me how to live my life? What is good for me may not be good for you but because it’s not good for you does not mean it’s bad for me. Everybody else is doing it.

These are four of the different moral philosophies that we as Americans have employed throughout our history in one case or the other. As you have noticed and if you are honest, the Kantian philosophy is no more the Americans moral than the others.

Nevertheless, as it generally is with politics, clarity is absent and one politician sees it in his best interest to demean the other and claim that the philosophy and moral that is expedient for him to employ is the American moral. The truth is, Americans don’t have a singular moral philosophy and to employ any of the above is not a sign of losing our moral bearing either. These varying philosophies are what made us Americans.

After listening to his diatribe, I had a big problem with their ridiculous assertions and the impression that they gave that somehow Christians are preventing gays from accessing their rights as Americans.  Therefore, for the sake of clarity I want to dissect this entire discussion because for some reason many people—those that I consider intelligent– seem to have a problem comprehending the issue.

The assertion is that Christians are preventing gays from being gay and from exercising their rights as Americans-the same right that we as Christians exercise to worship. The first question I want to ask is, “are Christian preventing gays from having homosexual sex?”  The answer is no.  We are not preventing gays from having sex.  We are not telling gays they can’t have sex.  The homosexual community knows the responsibility that those of us who are Christians have towards them regarding this issue. Our responsibility as Christians towards the homosexual community is as humane as someone telling a friend not to drink and drive.  It is not an act of controlling their lives but a genuine care and concern for their spiritual well-being.  Moreover, if they permit us to believe that there is a God but despise the care and concern that comes with that belief, it would be akin to demand that Al Gore refrain from talking about global warming.  As Christians, since we know the things that God despises it is our civic duty to speak out concerning those things.  However, our speaking does not mean that they have to listen, as is the case today.  Nevertheless, I want to stress the point in order to have this basic question answered, “are we preventing gays from having homosexual sex?”  Are there gays today who, because of Christians cannot have homosexual intercourse?”  The overwhelming answer to that question is no.  We are not preventing gays from having sex the same way gays are not preventing Christians from going to church.  That is point number one.

Point number two.  “Are we preventing gays from having relationships with each other?”  The answer that question is also no.  There are many gay people that I know of who are in relationships with each other–and I know what you may be thinking about and I will get to it.  Therefore, we are not preventing gays from having relationships either.  They are openly gay couples all over America.

I noticed that gays are attempting to piggyback off the Civil Rights movement but the fact of that matter is, no one is demanding that gays sit at the back of the bus, no one is telling them that they can’t enter through the straight doors nor are there any straight or gay water fountain etc. The attempt to piggyback off the Civil Rights movement is a fraud.  That is point number two.

Point number three is the only issue and it regards the State (Government) acknowledging their relationship as Marriage. Before I go any further, let me stress once again that gays are not restricted from being gay and they do have the right to be gay and engage in everything that relates to being gay.  So where did this notion that Christians are denying gays their rights come from?  It is a deliberate skewing of the facts. It is a skewing of reality.  The real issue regards marriage.  This is the crux of the issue and the only issue.

We believe that there is a difference between a relationship involving two males or two females from a relationship with individuals of the opposite sex.  Let me repeat that for fast readers; there is a difference between a relationship involving two males or two females from a relationship with individuals of the opposite sex. As simple as that is, it is the most important point in this entire debate.  “Do differences exist and is there a difference between homosexual relationships from heterosexual relationships?”  I quote, ‘state the facts, be clear and then give me your opinions.’  The facts as I believe it is that there is a difference between a heterosexual relationship from that of a homosexual relationship.

For the sake of clarity, I am not saying that same-sex couples are less capable than heterosexual couples nor am I saying that children necessarily need a heterosexual relationship in order to grow rather than a homosexual relationship.  I am not even going there.  I don’t believe I need to go there.  The point is, two male or two female are not the same as a male and female.  The same way a smart car and SUV are not the same simply because they are vehicles.  The argument made by homosexuals is that because they want to enter into a committed long-term relationship with someone, that endeavor becomes the same as an endeavor involving two individuals of the opposite sex.  To go further, their view of the world is akin to saying that voting for McCain and Palin is the same as voting for Obama and Biden simply because they’re politician.  There are differences and differences do exist.

Since those of us with an intellectual capacity understand that there are differences, let me make my final point.  The word marriage has already been assigned to individuals of the opposite sex who have Eros love for each other. Moreover, if people of the same sex want to have a relationship like marriage, they need to choose another name that would distinguish their relationship. That is as simple as this debate is.  The word marriage is already taken and it is taken for individuals of the opposite sex the same way the word (acronym) SUV has been taken for vehicles that are like an SUV and if you invent a car like a smart car, you can’t call it an SUV. Am I making any sense out there?

I don’t care personally if you want to be in a Civil Unions—or you can name it something else. That’s not the point; we do not have a problem with gays enjoying the benefits that those who are married enjoy, but they cannot expect us to accept that when we teach our kids about marriage there is confusion as to the kinds of relationships we refer to. I have a daughter and when she is of age and I asked her, are you going to get married at a certain age, I don’t want to have to clarify whether I mean to a male or to a female. The word marriage must have its implicit and explicit meaning and the word for gay marriage should do the same. There must be a distinction.

The notion that there are no differences and people of the same sex must come under the umbrella of marriage and use the same name to represent their relationship is absurd. That is our objection. In conclusion, I hope I have clearly identified that Christians are not preventing homosexuals from having intercourse nor are we restricting them from having long term committed relationships but we do insist that the word Marriage is taken.

Therefore, if Brad Pitt and Bill Maher or any other elitists want to get involved in this issue and they proceed to do so, I think they should at least understand the issue and understand their opposition’s contention.