Letter to the Editor Update…
The letter to the editor that I sent to idsnews.com, was published today. Here is a link to it’s online publication. It is the second article from the top.

GAP should be allowed to come to campus

Letter to the Editor
I participated with GAP when they protested at the University of Cincinatti, and would like to offer my opinion to the campus.

Here is a link to a picture of me from their web page:

http://www.cbrinfo.org/uc/uc14b.jpg

(I’m the gentlemen in the tan and grey sweater standing to the left of the lady in the blue jacket).

Firstly I can say that I don’t completely understand the use of the trucks, and personally don’t support it. Driving trucks around the city can only annoy, and does not allow for the dialogue that people need after they view such traumatic pictures.

I do however, support the gap display. When people are angry with the display, they can come up and vent their anger, discuss it with those who support it, discuss the issue with others around them. The images, while graphic, are real pictures of real abortions, and allow the public to better understand what abortion does.

The images are graphic. But they are no more graphic than the truth. They are as appalling and shocking as the famous picture of “Gordon” the African American slave with horrible scars puffing out of his back. The image was widely distributed by Abolitionists attempting to shock open the eyes of the public so it could face the disgustingly inhumane consequences of slavery.

(for an image of Gordon, http://museum.gov.ns.ca/blackloyalists/18001900/People1800/gordon_lg.htm)

The images of aborted children that GAP displays has the same effect; it moves people. It Knocks people off the fence of apathy. After seeing the display, and discussing the issue, many people will finally form an opinion on the issue.

And, from my experience at the University of Cincinatti I saw that GAP did anger a lot of people, but that can only be expected when the issue is so contraversial. However, I personally talked to many people on both sides of the abortion debate, and they agreed that the GAP display encouraged an amount of dialogue that was both beneficial and rare. The point is, dialogue on the issue was more than I had ever experienced. Dialogue is good.

I also felt that gap did not waver on the issue of violence: they were expressly against it.

In order to help out, I had to sign a waver promising that I wouldn’t provoke anyone or react with any action that is violent in any way. I was only allowed to talk to people when they wanted to talk, and that’s what the display did: it got people talking. Greg Cunningham was insistant that he didn’t want us to be civilly disobedient, but to use these images to open a dialogue amongst the people of the college campus.

What’s the goal…really?
A buddy of mine had this posted on his web site….

and don’t forget to check out my new pic…it’s from the gay.com dinner in Indianapolis this past Saturday…I’ll tell ya’ more about it later…this weekend was sooooo fun. The shirt says The Only Way To Get Rid OF Temptation Is To Give In To It.

The goal Dave, is not to get rid of temptation, but sin.

Hebrews 4:14-16

For we do not have a high priest (Jesus) who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.

Who do I believe?
I have not been able to come to many conclusions about the conflict between Isreal and Palestine. Both sides blame each other. Both sides claim their own purity. How do I know if I can trust the media? The shots of Palestinians celebrating the attack on the WTC and Pentagon were apparantly propaganda spread by Isreali spin-docors hoping to brand all Palestinians as Terrorists. Sometimes I feel as if I would like to go to there and just find out for myself.

Follow your arguments out to their logical conclusions…

I was browsing The Petition Site and ran across a petition to block the federal marriage ammendment.

Petition To Block the Federal Marriage Ammendment

I signed the petition but only to hopefully show people where their arguments lead logically. Many people stated that “love has no boundries.”, and that the government should stay out of peoples private decisions. If only marriage were just a private decision. The conundrum is that they’re asking for a public recognition of a so called “personal decision.” Many people say that society or the government shouldn’t impose morals. But what is a law? A law is a restriction, an imposition on certain behavior. Cannabalism is illegal because our society deems it morally reprehensible, and yet there are hundreds if not thousands of peoples in the world that don’t see fault in the act. Where is the outrage against anti-murder or anti-cannabalism laws, which spring from merely philosophical or religious doctorines. So I stated that I agreed with everyone who signed the petition (but only in jest). I claimed to be a member of NAMBLA, a disgusting group of pedophiles who argue for their “right” to have full and consenting sexual relationships with young boys.

“Thank goodness the people here are speaking the truth. Someone said in an earlier statement, “everyone should have the right to get married regardless of whom they love”. I couldn’t agree with this more. I’m a member of NAMBLA, otherwise known as the north american man boy love association, and I agree, the government needs to stay out of my personal life. As long as an act is consentual, what does it matter to anyone else? Someone also said, love knows no boundries and they are right.”

Now, I wasn’t attempting to corrolate homosexuals with pedophiles, I was merely using the same arguments to “justify” a type of marriage that most reasonable people would consider to be morally unacceptable. If love really has no boundries, then it has no boundries as long as the parties are consentual. Love has no boundries is the battle cry of pedophilic activists seeking to promote their behavior.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in allowing people to make their own decisions, and allowing people to live the life they feel necessary, as long as they are not infringing on the personal freedoms of others, but that doesn’t mean that I think that what they are doing is necessarily morally acceptable.

And marriage is not just a relationship between two people, but a relationship with society as a whole. I’m currently engaged right now. The relationship that I have with my fiance at this point, is private, as we have yet present ourselves to be recognized by the government and society as bound, legally and financially, for life. To say that marriage has nothing to do with government, and society is ridiculous. Marriage, apart from a promise between two individuals, is a SOCIAL contract, legal and binding. And society, as expressed through government, is responsible for enforcing the parameters of that contract, even in the case of dissolution. Many homosexual couples have their own “marriages”, not recognized by law and society, and for some that is enough, and for others that is not enough. But let us at least recognize that “love” does have boundries, that certain types of so called “love” are morally unacceptable and wholly unreasonable; that the government and society should have a say in recognizing what types of actions are acceptable, and that society does have a say in what marriage is. The point of this entire rant is not to show why homosexual marriage should be banned, but to show that those arguing for it’s acceptance need to adopt more logical reasoning.