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

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

Not one for the kiddos, just an FYI. I’m keeping my PG rating, but it’ll be more PG than usual.

An international symposium in Dublin, Ireland of medical experts put out a statement saying that abortion, on its own, is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother. This should have far-reaching implications in the abortion debate.

After last week’s topic on the normalization polygamy, this week we have a story showing support for calling pedophilia a “sexual orientation”. While the act is still frowned upon (for now), if you change the vocabulary, you change the culture. Homosexual activists have been insisting that sexual orientation is akin to being left-handed or blue-eyed. If you’re born that way, no one can criticize it. Well, if that’s true, where are we heading with pedophilia?

Mentioned links:

Forum in Dublin on maternal health

Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex with Children

Read the rest of this entry

Episode 8: Playing Chicken

Chick-Fil-A

I’ll have 1 chicken brouhaha, please.

Back from vacation, it’s time for another episode. Niagara Falls was wonderful, thank you very much.

I start out with a run-down of the Chick-Fil-A / same-sex marriage brouhaha. Apparently, businesses are not allowed to have CEO’s with opinions. (Or at least, the  wrong opinions).

The tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado should have the blamed placed where it belong; on the shooter, not on the gun. If only the theater had been a gun-free zone. Oh, wait…

Seven states have begun Medicare prescription drug rationing. Why do we think it’ll be any different with ObamaCare(tm)?

Mentioned links:

PleaseRobMe.com

‘Guilty as charged,’ Cathy says of Chick-fil-A’s stand on biblical & family values

With Chick-fil-A fight, progressive mayors get their ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ moment

Evolve: Obama gay marriage quotes

Rahm Emmanuel: Christian Chick-fil-A bad, anti-semitic Nation of Islam good

“Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day” Facebook page

Rick Warren: Chick-fil-A’s owner told me they set a new world record in sales today

‘Hateful,’ ‘day of intolerance’ Chick-fil-A restaurants across nation provide water … for protesters

Rationing Begins: States Limiting Drug Prescriptions for Medicaid Patients

The Right To Shoot Back: Another “Gun-Free-Zone” Fail

 Page 4 of 4 « 1  2  3  4