Sleeping dogs...

In all fairness, now that BHO had "outed" his views on gay marriage, he has allowed us to wake that dog up. Generally speaking this is always a one way conversation. Because, although the whole gay rights issue is about their right to express themselves openly, it's not about an open discussion. For as soon as the first word is spoken referencing opposition to these views, we hear cries of homophobia, gender bias, bigot etc. In reality this is a shadow effect of the whole liberal agenda. No opposing ideas are seriously entertained. One is either for their perspective, or they are a racist, bigot homophobic.

For this reason, conservatives have the tendency to clam up. By nature they don't want to be perceived as any of those, so rather than chance it, they zip it. Eventually, through silence of the right, the left assumes precious territory simply through lack of opposition.

That, however, is not my nature. As a conservative Christian, I have studied scripture. Because of my studies, I know what "turn the other cheek" really means. And though that sentiment is based in tolerance, it's not entirely about tolerance. Knowing what our final chapter will be, ergo eternity, and knowing that in the end, there really is none, Christians are empowered with the strength to know that acts of "contempt" perpetrated against us in this world are just history in the next.

You see the Jews, being a conquered nation, had to accept the contempt thrown at them by the Roman soldier. These soldiers could slap a Jew, back handed, as a sign of the contempt the Romans had for the conquered Jews. And yet, though conquered, they were protected as citizens from actual violence. So a soldier who violated these "protection laws" was susceptible to prosecution if they violated them. Hence, though humiliating, the slap was more of a slander than an assault. Something they, the Christian, knew they could endure. And, by turning the other cheek, thereby invoking the implied "thank you, may I have another", were actually expressing their contempt for the Romans. "Sticks and stones" if you will.

Keep this in mind though, an assault perpetrated against the Jew in those days was no more acceptable than it is in these days. Hit one open handed, with a closed fist, or wielding a weapon, and retaliation, or retribution was not only acceptable, but expected. A consept forgotten today by Christians, as well as their advesaries. Loving your "brother" doesn't necessarily mean you have to tolerate everything he does to you.

Christian benevolence has always been mistaken for weakness. And yet, it is a civilized religion that has stood dominant in the world for thousands of years. Why? Because eventually those pushing push too far.

So here's me pushing back.

Gays have traditionally been discouraged in the military for...well forever really, because war is serious business. And for the same reason women aren't allowed in subs, it's not a good idea for an open gay atmosphere to be allowed in the men's, or women's ranks. In a sub, in close quarters, and under battlefield circumstances, it can get very close, and very hot. Sailors sometimes have to strip down to bare essentials in combat. It doesn't take much imagination to see the potential for problems of distraction to arise. A logical perspective. Throw into an already tense situation, the sexual aspects of a group, whether men or women, and you have a higher potential for distraction.

Here's another.

I spent my time in the Marine Corps as an investigative liaison with the Navy, back grounding officer selection candidates, as well as training failures on board San Diego's Marine Corps training base. This put me front and center with the (then) policy of gays in the military. This was prior to don't ask don't tell. Gay behavior simply wasn't tolerated on any level. Therefore, push comes to shove, many who realized that boot camp was ...uhum, tough, tried to use that as an escape hatch. It was my job to disprove the claim. That involved investigating the claim to its truthful end. Often it was just that, a claim. A partner had to admit to times and places and all this had to be expressed in front of a three party panel. Parents, pastor, partners, wife etc. Extremely traumatic as can be expected. But my point is the military was adamantly opposed to gays because of the potential distraction it created. Bluntly spoken, I don't want somebody focusing on my fanny instead of the mission at hand. That might sound narrow minded, but I also know the distraction presented to me by a half dressed, and sweating female in a sub would be real. Consider also the lack of privacy that certain battlefield conditions can present.

It has very little to do with the professional abilities of the individual, but more with the absolutes of human nature. Especially when considering that gay men, with respect to physical ability, shouldn't necessarily have any shortcomings. As well as the fact that women are every bit as technically compitent, and physically in some cases, as any man.

It's more the esthetics of the situation. If I'm not gay, I should have the right to not be subject to the innuendo of those that are. Simply stated, my rights as a heterosexual male are just as valid as those of the gay. The large difference....I'm not advertising my sexuality. You don't need to know what I am, and I don't want to know what you are. Simple. Sexuality belongs behind doors, and not in the open where its a matter of public discourse.

The same thing applies with marriage. Marriage has never been recognized as the union, under Gods eyes, of anything other than a man and a woman. God rejects the concept of men and men co joining in any fashion and He makes that clear in scripture. There are some who will try to mince those words around to fit their means, but any true student of the bible knows what God has intended in them. He made them each the way He did so procreation was possible. A true scientist will tell you as well that if you start messing around with those formulas you either get sterile mules or nothing. Some would also go so far as to say that immune diseases and other STD's are a result of God's displeasure or complications created by abnormal intercourse. I don't personally subscribe to the first, and I'm not enough the scientist to speak on the second. I do know this, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Another push back is the thought by gays that just because they have the right to their lifestyle, which I would agree with, they have the right to force this lifestyle on the rest of us, to which I don't agree. I speak specifically of the issue of the gay agenda in schools, government, or public facilities. I, or my child, as a male or female, should be able to attend a restroom in any public institution with a reasonable expectation of privacy. We shouldn't be forced to accept as rule that we have to subject ourselves to either a same sex exposure, a cross sex exposure, or something remote and in between. Lobby for a third bathroom if you must, but don't expect that I want, or have to see your widget if I don't want to.

Lastly, lets be real. Sex has always been a bit of a taboo subject. It's been taboo because its personal. When you go and throw it out into every bodies purview, it takes away the intimacy of it. And that's whats happened. Sex is no longer intimate, so it's ordinary, and uneventful, and tawdry, and sometimes just plain weird. Everybody has the right to do what they want to do, so long as that doesn't infringe on my right to do what I want to do, or not as the case may be. In any case, have the common decency to do it in private. And by all means, keep what you do do to yourself every chance you get.

It is for these reasons that, in my expressed opinion, Barrack Hussein Obama, has demeaned not only himself, but the office of POTUS, in venturing into the realm of either agreeing or disagreeing with the concept of gay marriage. 43 previous presidents have seen the wisdom of leaving that sleeping dog lie. Something better left to the individual to determine. I personally don't believe that POTUS (or the government, by proxy) has any business inside my, or anybody Else's, bedroom.

But Barry, and liberals in general, are all about pushing envelopes. It's that whole "entitled" mentality. Anything goes. The liberal agenda is do whatever the hell you want, whenever you want to, and with as little regard to what anybody else thinks as possible. Because that's their "RIGHT". Well, here's Right back at ya, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is what Barry said in his outing disclosure and reasoning behind approving of gay marriage. But the reality of it is, they haven't got the moxxy to deal with that in reciprocity. Otherwise we wouldn't be hearing the "bigoted homophobic" cries because a majority of people in one of 31 states decided enough was enough and shot down the concept of a gay marriage being recognized by the state.

Whether the left wants to believe or accept it or not, the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitutions of all 50 individual states, are built on the foundation of Christian faith, and the precepts of God's moral standards. And it is high time that professing Christians stand up and say as well, enough is enough. Do what you want to do, but by all means keep it to yourself. And if you don't have the common decency to keep it to yourself, don't be surprised if you get the newspaper across the nose for doing in public what you should do only in private.

Do Not Tread On Me! And if you do, expect to get that same boot back.