The
very concept of compromise as a moral imperative is anti-life, anti-liberty,
and anti-everything else decent.
Compromise, in this case, is not a matter of letting the other person
have the better parking space, or letting your spouse choose where you go for
dinner. In this case, compromise means,
EXPLICITLY, that you are REQUIRED BY LAW to do something you believe to be
morally wrong.
This
is hideously wrong on so many levels, and in so many ways.
Before
I go another inch, I want to make it absolutely clear to anyone possessed of
sufficient mental acuity to get their shoes on the right feet three times out
of five, that this is NOT about gay marriage!
This abhorrent policy will affect all people, no matter their sexual
preference or race. No one can predict
who will be the next victim of this monstrosity; it may very well be one of the
homosexual women who brought suit. I,
for one, hope it is.
The
photographer did not do anything to prevent this couple from getting
married. In fact, the photographers
offered to do portraits and other types of work for the couple. They just didn’t want to be involved in a
same-sex marriage. There was a time in
this nation when one could say, “Thanks, but that’s not my thing. You go ahead though, and knock yourself out.” No longer. Now, apparently, you are required
to participate in anything anyone else can dream up. Suppose the Justice Department of the United
States is successful in having pedophilia declared a sexual preference? Yup.
We have “same sex attraction,”
and now we’re going to have “youth attraction.” That means the guy who molested your daughter
can use the power of the law – which is the power of the gun – and force you to
photograph his liaison with a child. You
think not?
Read
Justice Bosson’s words again. You have
right to believe whatever you want, but you do NOT have a right to act on your
belief. Do you believe that pedophilia
is a crime? That’s fine; just keep it to
yourself, you rightwing, Christian wacko.
If pedophilia is a legitimate sexual preference, then all laws against
it are instantly voided. The North American Man-Boy Love Association will be
doing handsprings. If the government can force you to participate in something
you consider morally wrong, why can they not force you to participate in
anything else they choose?
Now
the left and all my atheist friends (I still have a few, I think, but most of
them, broad-minded as ever, dumped me like a turd when I joined the LDS church)
will be on me like a duck on a June bug about exaggerating and pandering to
paranoia. They’ll accuse me of
screeching hyperbole and setting up straw men – just as they said when we
warned that allowing same-sex marriage would have far-reaching and unobvious
ramifications.
There
are things in life called “principles.”
A principle is a rule that is true in all cases, and is not amendable. You can’t change it, and when it is broken,
there is a price to pay. The sad thing
about principles is that it’s possible to push the payment off on someone else,
but principles are immutable and eternal.
If you don’t like “eternity,” change that to, “they’ll last as long as
anything else does.”
Governments
can and very often do violate principles.
When the people go along with the violation, all bets are off. Once you throw out the principle of
individual freedom and accept in its place the principle that one group of
people can invalidate the rights of another group, the only thing you have left
to discuss is which group gets bent over.
And one other thing: if the other guys are getting bent over today,
there’s nothing in the world keeping it from being you tomorrow. The principle you have adopted is that
someone gets bent over. Shut up and roll
the dice.
There’s
a classic story about a man who asked a woman if she’d sleep with him for a
million dollars. She said she probably
would, so he asked if she’d do it for two dollars. She swelled up and snapped, “What kind of a
woman do you think I am?”
He
said, “We’ve already established that, Darlin’.
We’re just haggling the price.”
When
laws are changed, we don’t give the power to our buddy who is in office right
now. We give the power to the OFFICE,
itself. A lot of our neighbors like the
idea of Barack Obama having enormous power over a specific part of the
population. What they don’t realize is
that Obama won’t be in office forever, and if the other side ever gets another candidate
elected, the power will then go to whomever holds the office. It may be Christians getting bent over today,
but next year, it may be someone else, and if that happens, you suckers better
grin and take it, because you have no cause for complaining.
Back
to compromise. When we are talking about
moral principles, compromise is suicide.
It does not mean letting your spouse pick where you go for dinner, or
settling for a tax rate that’s half-way between your proposal and your opponent’s. A compromise on a moral principle is like
saying you are against slavery, but your border-jumper neighbor is making a
killing selling little girls. Because, according
to Judge Bosson, compromise is a moral imperative, he must say he will not sell
little girls on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but you must say it’s okay on other
days. Or perhaps he will sell Latina
girls, but will return all of his Caucasian inventory to Juarez. That’s compromise.
My
mom used to say that compromise is like mixing shit with ice cream. It doesn’t help the shit, and it ruins your
ice cream. My Arkansas cousin said
compromise is like taking a crap in the far end of the bathtub. Both of these earthy, borderline crude
country proverbs are 100% correct. Ayn
Rand said that compromise on a moral principle is like eating nutritious food
except on Mondays, when you eat strychnine; in any compromise between food and
poison, only death can win. The
Scriptures say that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of
tolerance. See? The principle applies
equally, whether you are atheist or religious.
That’s one way you can tell it’s true; it holds up equally in all
contexts.
There
is NO moral imperative to compromise on principles. This country will be either all slave or all
free. It can’t be one way some days and
the other way on other days. We must
stand firm, and say, “Oh, no you can’t.”
We must have the courage and rectitude to refuse to compromise. We must be thick-skinned enough to let the
Left yap and wet their pants about our “radical” refusal to compromise. The other side damned sure isn’t going to
compromise unless they think we’re winning.
(Have
you ever noticed that when you’re right, and you know it, and you think you can
win, you don’t ask for compromise?
Compromise is the sniveling cry of the losers. They know they can’t win
based on the supposed merits of their arguments, so they demand compromise as a
moral imperative – essentially as a form of political welfare. They can’t do the job, so they demand that we
just GIVE them something they haven’t earned.
Winners don’t ask for compromise.)
So
what if we lose? What if they say, “You
are our slaves,” and we say, “Like hell,” and it goes to the polls and Santa
Clause wins again. Do we say, “Aww,
shucks,” stack our arms, and meekly bow our heads to receive our chains?
Like
hell.
political system that allows the disenfranchisement of any of its members is an
immoral system, and must be struck down, disassembled, “…, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness.” That’s not from the
Constitution, by the way. It’s from the
Declaration of Independence, which helped in no small measure to fuel and
motivate a violent rebellion against a despotic government. It could happen again.
I
say it again: there can be no such thing
as the right to enslave. And don’t EVEN
start some bullshit with me about the Constitution allowing slavery in the
beginning. It did, and it also included
the means of amendment and abolition of slavery. Lincoln didn’t exactly use that process, but
our ancestors got it done. Do you
realize that history does not show a single instance of one race paying over
400,000 lives for the freedom of another race?
(It didn’t happen here, either, but if you want to pretend the War
Between the States was over slavery, you must also believe this.)
No comments:
Post a Comment