Subscribe to

Consider This

in Apple Podcasts

Apple Podcasts

in Google Podcasts

Google Podcasts

in Stitcher

Stitcher SmartRadio

on Android

Subscribe on Android

or the “podcatcher”
of your choice

RSS

Human Sexuality Archives

Three years old!

Three years old!

This is the Consider This podcast, which recently passed its third anniversary, bringing you conservative commentary, and your feedback, in 10-minute-or-less chunks, since June 14th of 2012. I’ve left the terrible twos and am entering the thrilling threes! And just like the 1st and 2nd anniversaries, the time limit might just take a holiday for this episode.

I’ve got kind of a general topic for this anniversary. I’m going to explain, not why I’m conservative, but why I’m not a liberal. The launching point for this will be what seems to me the Liberal Utopia society would be, and why it doesn’t really work or why I believe that some features are really problems.

Mentioned links:

List of countries by energy consumption per capita

Consumption by the United States

The top 1% and what they pay

Read the rest of this entry

Is he a she now?

Born this way?

Let’s begin enumerating what I don’t know about this. I don’t know at all what he’s going through, and I don’t want to pretend that I do. I acknowledge that my comments in this episode will come from a position of ignorance on that point.

I also don’t know for sure, speaking as a Christian, whether or not what he’s done is a sin. I suppose that there could be something that could be found that could be said to speak to this situation, but frankly I don’t think that determination is very helpful at this point in time. It will be something that should be considered (because of all questions this bring up, that is the eternal one), but for now I have no plans to address that here.

In fact, I don’t plan on addressing Bruce Jenner at all in this episode, other than to say that God loves you, and for whatever it’s worth, I love you and respect you, too. What I want to tackle in this episode is society’s reaction to transgenderism in general, using Jenner’s example as a launching point.

Mentioned links:

Body dysmorphic disorder [Wikipedia]

Body Dysmorphia [The Free Dictionary]

Bruce Jenner: “Call me Caitlyn” Dear Bruce: “I Can’t”

Read the rest of this entry

Spending on nothing?

Spending on nothing?

In this episode, I talk about how the money spent on (literally) nothing will soon outpace defense spending, and not much later, non-defense spending as well. And no, it’s not some right-wing think tank making that prediction.

Also, is it possible to have a moral disagreement with someone, and yet not hate them? The Left seems to think that impossible, and Dana Bash questioned Mike Huckabee about it specifically. He schools her in the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

(OK, normally I don’t like it when someone says, “Hey, X really schooled Y!” when all X did is say something the speaker agrees with. Usually there’s not actual educating going on. But this time, there certainly is.)

Mentioned links:

The Legacy of Debt: Interest Costs Poised to Surpass Defense and Nondefense Discretionary Spending

CNN Confused: How Can Huckabee Oppose Gay Marriage AND Have Gay Friends?

Read the rest of this entry

The Pope is still Catholic

The Pope is still Catholic

If you think it sounds like this episode is going to delve more into religion that it has up until this point, you have a discerning ear. But when I started this podcast, I promised you a take on these issues that you might not have heard elsewhere. So, depending on the circles you run in, this could very well fit the bill; a Protestant defending Catholic doctrine using Jewish texts.

I posted an article to my social media audience from CNS News headlined, “No Unambiguity: Homosexual Acts Sinful and Disordered”. It’s an opinion piece that explains the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. I received a comment on the Google+ posting of it, with common misunderstandings that I thought I’d cover in the podcast. But 10 minutes or less is only enough to point you in the right direction, and so the links in the show notes will be very helpful.

Mentioned links:

No Unambiguity: Homosexual Acts Sinful and Disordered

Google+ conversation with Christopher Li-Reid

Bible Verses About Homosexuality

THE BEGINNER’S GUIDE TO INTERPRETING OLD TESTAMENT LAW

Does the Old Testament condone slavery?

Read the rest of this entry

New Hamas recruit

New Hamas recruit

The state of the conflict between Hamas and Israel was well-described over half a century ago, and it still rings true. Rather than being simplistic descriptions of what might be a complex problem, I think that it’s tough to deny the truth of those sayings. It’s worth considering.

The US now has the best calculation of how many people in its borders are gay, and the number might surprise you. What the result of this may be on leglation and funding is anybody’s guess, but perhaps it bears reconsideration.

Mentioned links:

Golda Meir [WikiQuote]

Benjamin Netanyahu [WikiQuote]

20 missiles found in UN-run school in Gaza

Wanting-To-Hand-Out-Sweets 16

Health survey gives government its first large-scale data on gay, bisexual population

The FAIR Foundation (Fair Allocations in Research), NIH Statistics

CDC: HIV DOWN IN GENERAL POPULATION BUT SURGING WITH GAY, BISEXUAL MALES

Read the rest of this entry

Two years old

Two years old

It’s been two years since I launched my own podcast, and once again I’m giving the 10 minute time limit the day off. I’m not going that much over, but hey, I did this for my 1st anniversary, so there’s precedent.

This time out, I’m focusing mostly on social conservatism. The idea of tradition, history and experience being a good reference for what we should do now works just as well for fiscal and political policy as it does for social policy. The idea is sound, regardless of where it’s applied. And that’s why I’ve been doing this show for 2 years; to get the word out that this idea of conservatism works. It isn’t always practiced as well as I would like by the guys I vote for, but at least I’m not ceding more ground.

Another problem we’ll see is that the folk least likely to give you your freedom are not conservatives, in  spite of how conservatives generally get portrayed. While not a social issue per se, it does show the underlying intolerance of those who seek to remove all dissent, rather than have a healthy debate.

Mentioned links:

The Matt Walsh Blog

This person is planning to kill me in order to teach me that I shouldn’t be mean and hateful

This poor child is confused, not ‘transgendered.’

Google+ conversation with Christopher Li-Reid Read the rest of this entry

Jason & David Benham

Jason & David Benham

Back in episode 73, I mentioned the case of Brendan Eich, the new CEO of a technology company, who was drummed out of his job because he had the audacity to give money to a cause he believed in. It wasn’t politically correct, however, and he paid for it with his job.

This time out, I have yet another example of folks who would describe themselves as “tolerant” unwilling to tolerate dissenting opinions, even, as with Eich, those opinions have nothing at all to do with the job at hand. But they lost their job because of the oxymoronic “Tolerance Police”.

And a commenter on my Google+ page has an interesting point to make on this subject. Can you be against an agenda without being against the people pushing that agenda?

Mentioned links:

Christian-hating liberal fascists have once again demonstrated their ‘tolerance’

Benham brothers lose HGTV show after ‘anti-gay’ remarks

Read the rest of this entry

Did you know that the Boy Scouts recently allowed alcoholic boys to join? After all, there is a genetic component to alcoholism, and certainly you can’t discriminate against someone like that if they were born that way, right?

No, just kidding, but only a little. Turns out that it was homosexuality is the allegedly genetic behavior that the Scouts were discriminating against. All of a sudden, it turns the whole story upside down. Hmm, why is that?

In order to avail yourself of ObamaCare(tm), it will require you to use an ID card. Is that racist? If not, why is a voter ID racist?

Mentioned links:

“Under the Dome Radio” podcast

Churches split on Scouts’ welcoming of gay youth

The Genetics of Alcoholism

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Drug Use and Abuse [Boy Scouts of America official site]

Boy Scout Oath, Law, Motto and Slogan and the Outdoor Code

What’s in Obamacare, part 7: The National Health ID Card

Read the rest of this entry

A one-topic show, as well as only having one link, but it’s a doozy. I talked about “marriage equality” in show 36, and showed that asking for equality in something is not helpful if you don’t understand the nature of what you’re asking equality for. “Driving equality for the blind”, and all that. So this episode is where I deal with the issue of what marriage is.

Ryan T. Anderson wrote a report for the Heritage Foundation entitled, “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It”. It is, in my estimation, required reading before engaging in honest debate on the subject. It’s that good. But, it’s also that long, so there’s a time investment. The abstract at the beginning makes all the claims of the report, but the report itself explains why those claims are made.

Marriage was defined millennia ago, by cultures and religions across time. And during all that time, they came up with the same definition. The government recognizes marriage, but it has never defined it. It is so ironic that those who say that government should get out of marriage are the ones who are asking it to define it.

Marriage has existed to bring a man and woman together, acknowledging that they are complementary, and that any children produced will need both a father and a mother. Even cultures where homosexuality was fully accepted, same-sex marriage was not even a concept most of them considered. Sociologically, this combination has always been the best possible environment for children; with their biological parents, who are in a committed, lifelong relationship. Just because there are examples of how human failings have not lived up to this ideal, does not mean we should thus scrap the whole concept. Indeed, the ease with which divorce can be purchased these days has itself, with only heterosexual participation, turned marriage into merely an agreement based solely on how you Iabout your spouse. Today.

And if government is telling us what marriage is, if it is any emotional bond the state says it is, religious groups who have their views on marriage, and have had them for thousands of years, will not be allowed to keep the religious freedom they have enjoyed.

Anderson ends his report with this statement: “Some might appeal to historical inevitability as a reason to avoid answering the question of what marriage is—as if it were an already moot question. However, changes in public opinion are driven by human choice, not by blind historical forces. The question is not what will happen, but what we should do.”

Let me know your thoughts on the subject.

Mentioned links:

Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

Read the rest of this entry

The Supreme Court recently heard 2 cases related to same-sex “marriage”. Facebook lit up with picture of red “equal” signs with folks proclaiming their support of “marriage equality”. But is equality really what this is about? This episode asks you if you are for “driving equality”. I’m betting you aren’t, but not on account of any equality issue.

I plan on tackling more issues on the subject of same-sex “marriage” in the future, so I’d love to hear your thoughts here for use in a future episode.

President Obama, who has overseen the addition of $6 trillion to the debt, proclaims this month as Fiscal Capability Month to, among other things, help kids learn how to use a budget. How can I further parody something as humorous as that?

Last July, 3 California cities went bankrupt. Recently, the largest city in the US to go into bankruptcy was also in California. Could the spending habits of this blue state have anything to do with this? Judge after you hear what their biggest costs are.

Mentioned links:

The Red Herring of “Marriage Equality”

Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

Obama Proclaims April the Month to Teach Young People ‘How to Budget Responsibly’

Presidential Proclamation — National Financial Capability Month, 2013

Judge: Stockton, Calif., Can File for Bankruptcy

Read the rest of this entry

 Page 3 of 4 « 1  2  3  4 »