Sunday, August 25, 2013


Refer to this link for background on this essay:
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