Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Jason Chaffetz and friends have led me to the (R/L)ight (constantly being updated)

I recently added Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz as a Facebook friend. While many of you think that I am some flaming liberal, from my comments with my new found conservative friend, you can see that I am quite the opposite. With Jason and his cohorts I have found someone I can really side with and agree with. Just to prove it, here are some of the many ways that I have agreed with Jason and his friends on a few issues, especially Jason's effort to overturn a Washington DC initiative that was supported 11-1 by the District's council.

Brittany:  "Marriage is between a Man and Woman! As soon as we decide otherwise our society will no longer exist as we've known it. God made it this way for a reason."

Me: "Better stop it. If too many gays get married, the earth might blow up and reconstitute itself into a bizarro world. Up will be down. Left will be right. Dogs will be talking as they leash us. Rain will dry the warm snow. And fires will freeze the tropical polar bears."


Joy: "And religious people will lose their freedom of speech loyd - don't forget that one."

Me: "Oh yeah, I forgot that one. Look at what has already happened in states that legalized SSM, religions in those states barely have any left. If they teach that homosexuality is wrong, they can be kicked out of the state. It's CRAZY!"


Nanette: "We're spiraling out of control in this country Jason...keep up the fight for the silent majority!"

Me: "Yes Jason, save us from bizarro world. You represent that silent majority whose voice is only heard and expressed on the news, radio, mass protests, religiously-funded campaigns, etc. If it wasn't for you, I don't think anybody would even know that SSM was opposed by anyone, cuz every who is against it is so darn silent."


McKay: "First off Jason you are doing a GREAT job. Second off I am so tired of the gay population saying "What does it matter if a state passes gay marriage it has no affect on your life" That is where you are wrong. God exists. He has a plan. Gay marriage is not part of that plan. If I stand by and do nothing it does have an affect on my life both and after this life. You can't tell me that God doesn't exist because you are deceiving yourself. Until I hear different I am going to oppose gay marriage where ever it sprouts up."

Me: "AMen McKay, this is not a democratic republic with no state-sponsorship of a religion. The United States is a theocratic republic. If I believe that God wants things to be a certain way, then by golly, we must make sure that my personal belief in what God says becomes federal law. I'm tired of all these liberals who think that we should use private religious beliefs to legislate laws that limit the rights and privileges of another."
"Let me add that I am also sick and tired of all these homosexual liberal saying that their lifestyles choices don't affect others. THEY AFFECT ME. I am tempted to act in a disgusting homosexual manner all of the time. Every time I see a gay couple, I can't control my thoughts. We need things to be like God says, so that I don't burn with my lustful desires."


Erin: "It's too bad that traditional values are dissolving in this day and age. Thanks still for standing up for those important values. Keep up the good work!"

Me: "Amen Erin, we need to bring back time-honored traditions such as slavery, racial segregation, (white) male-exclusive suffrage, polygamy, wives as property of the husband, and a prohibition of birth control. OUR WORLD IS GOING DOWNHILL and we need Jason to stop the inevitable destruction of the universe as we know it."


Debbie: "Jason, while I empathize with the deep feelings on both sides of this issue, I believe it is important that D.C. or more "liberal" states do not gain power through the Fed to force it on the rest. Loyd, you have a quick wit and make many good points. I hope that you can see that for those of us that view gay-sex as a sin, it is a real moral battle. It's not personal. One could just as well try to convince us that there is nothing wrong with adultery. Sanctioning it as "marriage" goes against everything we believe, and cheapens a relationship we believe is partnered by God. However, I think you have a right to be with who you want."

Me: "Debbie, I totally agree with you. We used to have a time-honored and God-inspired tradition of the immorality of interracial marriages. Now some of you may think that because my parents are interracial that I would support such a sinful act, but let me assure you that I do not. When my parents wanted to get married, many of my dad's family and friends tried to let him know how wrong it was, but he ignored their wisdom and entered into that immoral relationship. If we as a country would have only held onto our moral values, we could have prevented this from happening. But instead we allowed these devilish liberals and activist judges to overturn laws that prohibited these sick practices. And now look at where we are today. Not only are interracial marriages legal, but we are taught in schools that they are the norm and that we all ought to be in interracial marriages. SICK! Any church or group that teaches against interracial marriages are immediately executed. THIS IS WRONG."
 "Let me also add, that even though interracial marriages are now legal, I think it is so wrong for our schools and institutions to teach that they are acceptable. WHAT KIND OF SICK PEOPLE ARE WE? We should be teaching the children of interracial parents that they are the products of sin. We should be teaching those children that their parents are ... Read Moreimmoral and that those children should be embarrassed to go home to their parents with their sick practices. The same goes with children of gays. We shouldn't let those kids think that they come from a real family. We should teach those kids that their family is an immoral joke. We should teach children of TRADITIONAL families that their classmates who come from IMMORAL families are the bastard children of perverts."


Debbie (again): "You did not reply to my comparison. I brought up the time honored, " sin of adultery," which we both may agree has not changed in God's eyes or in the eyes of most of society around the world.You are right, society has gotten some things very wrong."

Me: "Debbie, I'm not aware of any legislation (or enforcement of existing antiquated laws) prohibiting adultery. But you are right, I think we need to start creating legislation that would criminalize adultery. Sure, it may be a private matter between adults, but that doesn't matter. It is wrong and we need to use the law to prevent it."
"When I was younger, a school assistant that lived in my LDS ward had an affair with the school janitor (no joke). She even later married the janitor after her husband divorced her. I believe the school should have used that opportunity to teach the students of our elementary school how sinful and evil they were. Her children went to the school and could have been great examples to point to of children who live in a household of sin."


Debbie (again (again)): "Again, you didn't address the point. Or answer my question. I would be happy to go over scripture and help support your stanze against slavery, race or the value of women. But that is not the issue is it? Tell me simply what you really want?"

Me: "Good, because the scriptures explicit support slavery, a prohibition of interracial marriage, and the commodification of women in marriage. . . . What I really really want is the end of laws that recognize the pluralistic reality of our nation and replace them with divinely-inspired conservative Christian principles. Sure, our founding fathers may have mostly been deists who denied miracles and the involvement of God following the creation, but they were nonetheless CHRISTIAN. And THAT is how I want our country to be ruled."
"Let me also add that (like Romney), I don't think you have to be Christian to be in this country, you just have to live by and teach MY Christian principles, because conservative Christian principles are the only true ones."


Debbie (again(again(again))): "The Old Testament does in some ways support those things, but not always. Jesus Christ teaches us to love all our fellowbeings. I don't know where you are getting your distorted, bitter views my friend. As long as I have been active in the conservative movement, I have never met anyone who thinks that Christians/Mormons should rule all government. ... Read MorePerhaps because of your deep-seeded pain reguarding the issue of homosexuality, it is hard for you to see this truth. You can only see us all as the enemy. Loyd, I believe what you do is between you and God."

Me: "Thanks Debbie. In order to reverse the feelings that I have for other dudes, I am marrying a beautiful girl in 6 weeks. Hopefully that does the trick. I also believe that Jesus teaches us to love others, just not in that gay way. Slavery is wrong if it is done with hate. That is why it is important for masters to love their slaves. If more masters were more Christian in their slavery, we wouldn't have had to get rid of the biblical practice. The same goes with husbands loving their wives more. If they did that, our wives will be more happy to be submissive property that is bartered and traded among men.
Also, I never said that only Christian/Mormons should rule the government. We can even have an atheist Muslim president (like Obama), as long as he rules the government with conservative CHRISTIAN VALUES and PRINCIPLES."


Debbie(again(again(again(again)))): "Sorry, I was confused. I thought maybe you might want to persuade people to understand you better, therefore be more open to your needs. I now see clearly that your main objective is to imply thatl those you don't agree with are unreasonable and hateful. How has this been working for you?"

Me: "I didn't mean to imply that liberals were unreasonable and hateful. I thought it was quite explicit. It hasn't seemed to work very well though. Usually when I do so, the liberal media goes on the attack and tries to make it seem like I am the hateful one. I am so sick and tired of the unreasonable liberal media who hates families (and hates God) and are always trying to force their gay agenda on me and other good CHRISTIANS. I'm glad that at least you, Jason, and others here know and understand how I feel."


Debbie (again....): "Jason, though I wish we could have true and open dialogue with the gay community, it sadly is proven over and over that they are their own worst enemies. They drive away support. We appreciate the strength that you are showing in Washington to stand up against the shouting and hateful slurs against those of us who just trying to follow our God. ... Read MoreThey think we want to crush their freedom. I don't want to do. We can take a stand for Traditional marriage without being mean to them. I don't hate gay people. I wish they could show some respect for us."

Me: "Amen Debbie! I am so tired of all of those gays who don't want to work with us just because we want to legislate against their beliefs and practices. Why can't they just see that we show they that we love them by making sure they can't be happily married. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW GOD'S COMMANDMENT TO LOVE. And they are being so rude in return! Why can't they just see that we are trying to support them by not supporting them. We aren't trying to crush their freedom. On the contrary, we are giving them the choice to not freely hate families. I agree with Debbie. I wish they could show us some respect, because that is all that we have been doing while trying to make sure they follow our own view of what God wants."
Yes, I am a trolling Stephen Colbert wannabe. I should also be working on school papers instead of wasting my time on Jason.

11 comments:

  1. I hope that you can see that for those of us that view gay-sex as a sin, it is a real moral battle.If this is all about decreasing the amount of gay sex out there, then it seems like the most logical thing to do would be to let gays marry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "We shouldn't let those kids think that they come from a real family."

    Oh Loyd. Don't you know that there is no such thing as offspring from gay couples? They can't have kids. Apparently the Lord has blessed them to be able to avoid the scurge.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My previous comment is retracted until I can think of a more original joke.

    ReplyDelete
  4. a quick paragraph from a MUCH longer article:

    The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If marriage is only about "fecundity," then why do we allow people who cannot have children to marry? People who are infertile, past menopause, or simply choose not to have children marry every day. We don't make people pass a fertility test in order to get a marriage license. Chaos does not ensue when we allow marriage for people who cannot or chose not to have children. Marriage is about commitment, pure and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  6. wow boyd - you don't know how to read do you? Let me rephrase that first sentence for you - I'll remove the comma portion so as not to confuse your obvious one idea at a time limit.

    The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love is the sole criterion for marriage.

    now we look at your last sentence: Marriage is about commitment, pure and simple.

    we now return to my comment only i'm going to ask that you try your hardest to understand. i'm going to reword some of it so that it address's what you said directly. if you get confused just take a deep breath and try again. maybe you should get some paper and take notes as you go:

    If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they [are committed to] one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to [be committed to] each other? ... But why is [commitment] between two people more worthy of state sanction than [commitment] between three, or five? ... If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

    hope you got this far. so my question to you is this: would you sanction marriage between groups of people and/or siblings?

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Alot - I couldn't bring myself to read your comment after you claimed that the son-in-law of Hugh Nibley cannot read.

    @Steve M. original or not, the joke is pretty good and people need to hear it. But bring on more!

    @Loyd This was enjoyable to follow and respond to. And knowing Chaffetz and his posts, I am sure there will be many more instances to join in on the hilarity

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jack - sorry you think an appeal to authority is valid here. who his father-in-law is has NOTHING to do with his ability to read. even if you wanted to argue that offspring of highly-intellectual people have better odds of being highly-intellectual it STILL wouldn't apply here as he is only related to Hugh Nibley through marriage.

    could you please explain your rational behind such an absurd statement. could we take your same logic and assume that whoever marries one of obama's daughters knows what it's like to be president - after all he's the son-in-law of of barack obama!?!?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think Jack should have instead pointing out the absurdity of questioning the literacy of an award-winning author.

    ReplyDelete

Please provide a name or consistent pseudonym with your comments and avoid insults or personal attacks against anyone or any group. All anonymous comments will be immediately deleted. Other comments are subject to deletion at my discretion.