Let us start off with international affairs. Over the weekend North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon. The test took place underground and was just that, a test. A test to see if their bomb would work and a test to see the world's reaction. This device was reported to be better than the 2006 detonation. The world response was not so good. Usually Russia and China side with North Korea, but not this time. All members of the United Nations Security Council said the test was a violation of a 2006 treaty and the UN would be looking into sanctions against North Korea.
On top of the nuclear test, North Korea has been shooting off missiles. The exact number is unconfirmed but FOX News reports that North Korea launched three short range missles since Monday, also as a test.
North Korea is flexing its muscles. To me, North Korea resembles a child shouting and waving his hand for attention. This is a shame because only a few months ago they were so close to giving up their nuclear program. Now there are some states that should be allowed to have nuclear weapons and some that should not be allowed too. North Korea is defintely on the list of those that should not have them. If they gain enough technology, then the North Koreans could attack a whole host of countries including Japan, China, and South Korea with the missiles they are testing. The United Nations needs to step up and prevent any further action by North Korea. In the end though, North Korea has the technology and there is no stopping them without military intervention and very similar to the situation in Iran.
----
More close to home, today the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage. The court ruled that the process used to pass the ban, was legal and therefor Prop 8 was legal. The main issue in the case was whether the people of the state could change the constitution through an initiative and the court found yes the people can. The court did allow marriages that occured before Prop 8 to stay valid. Many rallies are sure to pop up throughout the state in the coming days and weeks.
Whats your opinion?
The people of California have spoken, TWICE.
The courts, and gays, need to accept that.
Daniel,
What are your thoughts on gay marriage?
Daniel,
You should either delete or comment on that first comment.
I periodically click on this blog...and have to say, am usually disappointed...and not because of the political slant. It's just not a good read most of the time that I've been here.
Ok....
Yes, Brian is right, the first post needs to go or be addressed. I think calling such nonsense out for what it is would be the better option.
As for your questions...
As for N. Korea's nukes and missles, many sources have reported this, not just Fox News. I don't think there is much to be done, the "hermit kingdom" is pretty self-sustaining insofar as it's nuke program is concerned...it's food and oil they need. Cutting off either just exacerbates the civilian suffering. Military options? Well, even if we weren't bogged down the the "Bush Mistake" in Iraq, it's unlikely we'd intervene so close to China..or risk having Seoul pulverized in the 1st 15 minutes of a war. The North won't need nukes, they'be got plenty of conventional artillery. So...the world will do what has done so far..cluck and wave...and watch things proceed.
As for Prop 8. The wrong thing happened, that is the rights of same-sex unions, marriage, was set back again. Reality is, in time, the barriers will break down. The Civil Rights movement has taken decades/generations to get where it is today, and some would say it's still not far enough along. Gay Rights will no doubt go down that same long and difficult road. The big difference now is that the forces against progressive change have learned that using "Bull" Conner's dogs and fire hoses, and bombing to kill are counter-productive...now they anty up misleading Propositions and support them with exploitative fear campaigns engineered by experts in manipulating public opinion. It might take longer for Gay Rights than it did for African-Americans.
Thank you for the kind comments Tom Johnston. I appreciate all the support.
In regards to the first comment, this is a free for all blog. Some of the words used were a bit harsh so I modified them. If you think I have not addressed the matter well enough, both Brian and Tom should state their opinions further.
Dan,
Perhaps I was a bit harsh...apologize for that. You've committed to the blog...I just wander in and out...I get the difference.
As to the ??? comments of the earliest post...those are tough things to deal with. I suggest you discuss this with a ...so far...neutral party..Marie Lakin..who I think deals with some of this pretty well. I do think that you options are: 1) Remove, 2) Disavow, 3) Do nothing, 4) Modify.
of those four, I think #4 is the one you should never do. I'm with #'s 1 & 2....and I think that would be a judgement call. If someone called for violence, that should be # 1 (and call the cops), if someone is just out of line, then #2 seems a better way to go.
You'll have to see what works for you...but I would suggest #4 you stay way away from.
We hear again the same argument - that the question of homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue on the level with racial discrimination shown toward Blacks. In reality, comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges. Discrimination against anyone because of the color of their skin cannot be condoned by any objective moral standard, opposing homosexual marriage can - the standard is God's word (Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Discrimination against people because of their color also cannot be condoned because it conflicts with natural law, because skin color doesn't. Being black or yellow or brown doesn't conflict with natural law at all, rather it's part of it. On the other hand, homosexuality does conflict with natural law. Even a rudimentary knowledge of biology tells us that it's against the law of nature for a man to mate with a man and for a woman to mate with another women. Human beings simply aren't designed that way. It's no more natural than for a human being to mate with an animal.
Homosexual marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. It has to do with morality. It's just an attempt to justify sin and to call good what God calls evil (Isaiah 5:20).
Rev. Lanier,
Yes, these are the same old arguments...including yours.
I will concede there are clear differences and debatable differences as regards the struggle for Racial Rights and Gay Rights.
The primary flaw (and a consistent one) in your argument(s) is to quote and rely upon a text not universally considered by society to be as valid as you seem to believe.
Let's get past that there are non Judeo-Christian belief systems, and systems of thought that reject such "evidence" as you quote as well as ALL other religious thought.
Reality is, even within Christendom there is dispute about what this or that text really means.
I'm sorry, but any individual groups version of Biblical assertions just don't belong in the discussion at all, and if you feel they do, you should be prepared to include ALL religious thoughts (as contrasted with facts), myths, and superstitions as well as the beliefs of those who wish to be freed from them.
I do suspect that you would prefer to only utilize the interpretative version your sect would subscribe to however.
That's a big problem with a lot of religion-based logic. It's "Your system is right, therefore everyone else is wrong"...usually justified by some "supreme" deity, ,ironically one most of you seem to ostensibly share.
I think it was Mark Twain that said to the effect that "Man so loved God, he made Him in his own image".
Sorry, but your personal belief systems about the mysteries of life and what it means and the relics of quasi-historical confirmed data are not binding on me, or anyone else. Unless you've missed this, that's the law in this country.
Now as far as "mating" goes..whoa! I seriously doubt any same sex couples believe they are "mating". I don't think they expect procreation to follow.
I do believe that they, along with a WHOLE LOT of heterosexual couples think they are both expressing their love for each other, and having a heck of a great time doing it. I don't think these people think they are doing anything wrong. As pointed out previously, many of the sexual practices folks engage in are shared in the straight and gay communities.
"Mating" just isn't part of the equation, unless you subscribe to the "Biblical" argument (that sexual activity is only for procreation)....which very clearly is in question amongst most of the faithful who seem to enjoy sex for the physical pleasures they give and receive.
It may be sweaty and sticky, and sometimes just plain funky....but I'd guess the majority thinks that it's plain fun most of the time, and think about procreation only part of the time!
Finally, Gay, or as your seem to prefer "Homosexual" rights are every bit about "civil" rights, those being the right guaranteed by Law.
Civil Rights are basic rights that are intended in a society governed by law to be shared by all citizens...regardless. These "rights" also preclude the expression of those rights denying rights to others. Essentially your rights end where my nose begins.
Morality on the other hand is about one group or another having collectie belief systems, social context, and yes, hang-ups. "Morality" as a concept can to often get squishy pretty fast...
I'd say...it is not moral to, by category, to systematically deny the benefits of civil citizenship to any group of people because another group of people just don't like it.
Respectfully Reverend, I think your argument is also the same we hear again and again, and it suffers from some fundamental (!) flaws arising from reliance on personal religious belief systems held in a secular society that does not universally subscribe to them.
I've said it elsewhere...but the best answer is to get government out of the "marriage sanction" business and put an end to this pointless, costly and tiresome debate with little practical consequence and no clear resolution on the horizon.
What does the writer behind this blog believe? He should comment.
I believe we should allow gay marriage. Everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness. Marriage is not always everything it is cracked up to be. It comes with good times and bad times. If same sex couples really want the fun along with the pain, let them have it.
Dick Cheney is in favor of gay marriage because he likes torture. Water-boarding and electrodes attached to your testicles is nothing compared to being married.