Nature Vs. Nurture, It Doesn't Matter

A big question these days is whether or not it's discrimination to allow someone to do something they have an inborn desire to do. Some people think the question about homosexuality is about whether or not it's inherited or learned (meaning chosen). It doesn't matter. Some people think that people discriminate against gays because they don't allow them to do what their inborn desires ask them to do.

We all have inborn desires and tendencies that we are not allowed to act on.

Let me ask this question, is a pedophile born that way? Or is that a learned behavior?

Does the answer make any difference in what a pedophile is given the right to do?

If pedophilia is inborn should it be allowed?

No, because a child is not a consenting adult.

What if a child consents? What if a child's parent consents?

These might seem like stupid ugly questions, but it brings us to the heart of the matter.

Should pedophilia be allowed if a child consents to it?

No because as mentioned before a child is not a consenting ADULT.

Should pedophilia be allowed if a child's parent consents to it?

No, parents shouldn't be able to impose that on their children.

Should pedophilia be allowed if both the child and the parent consent to it?

Is your answer yes? It should be based on the gay communities logic.

Unless there really are such things as morals, and what you do sexually does matter.

The gay community would have us think it doesn't matter. And if that's true you would have to allow a pedophile to have sexual relations with a child if both the child and the child's parents consent.

If that makes you cringe, then that means one of two things.

Your a hateful bigot who discriminates.

Or it's evidence that sexual morality does matter.

We've become debased and desensitized.

Perhaps in another twenty years you won't cringe at such an idea as a pedophile being able to legally have sexual relations with a child because you will be even more debased and desensitized.

The gay community would have you think you're not becoming debased you're becoming accepting.

There's a difference between being tolerant and becoming debased. A lot of people these days think you're old fashioned and superstitious if you think that.

Separation Between Church and State

The separation between church and state has become a bit skewed. It means that the state and church will not become one. It means that the church cannot dictate or interfere with your religion (beliefs). Nor can a church become the civil governing authority.

Some spin it to mean that if you have beliefs you're not allowed to vote in a manner congruent with them.

Some spin it to mean separation of church and the United States. Church has no place in our Country.

If anyone reads writings of the founders of the Constitution they will see how misguided this is. Our nations founders were pious men and felt that our form of government would only be appropriate for a religious people who could govern themselves aided by their religion making it thus appropriate to have minimal intervention by the state. Our form of government would never suffice by an irresponsible or irreligious people.

Thankfully, since we no longer subscribe to religion, our children have been taught ethics by MTV, otherwise our country would probably be falling apart at the seems right now.

Even Atheists Are Religious

Because n0 man knows all things, many things are left to belief and speculation. Belief and speculation are the heart of religion. Everyone is religious. Everyone claims what they speculate is the true nature of reality. Whether your belief is that God is real or God is not, they are both beliefs.

20,000 Troops, We are the enemy

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

I guess we should of put it into the constitution while we still could.

Don't be confused these troops are to keep you and me in line. The label terrorist can will be applied to anyone and everyone if needs be.