NEWSFLASH: God's Will Doesn't Contradict Nature

I can't claim to be a Biblical scholar.  True, I have read the Bible a few times, and researched the history surrounding it.  I passed my catechism, and paid attention to what I was taught.  Well, usually.

I've come to suspect (maybe just short of actually believe) that some of the Bible may be the word of God, and some might just be the word of man (throwing his voice, like Jeff Dunham), but with quite good intentions.  Considering that, and I think the most common fallacy regarding the nature of God is man's attempt to define God and His nature, I'm absolutely convinced that God would never do anything that is contradictory to His own nature.

Let me state that again, for emphasis...GOD WOULD NOT DO THAT WHICH IS NOT NATURAL.

A while back, someone put forth the proposition to me that their deviant preference regarding sexual partners was somehow God's idea.  Polite disagreement led to impolite disagreement, because logic to a homosexual is received with about the same welcome as lighting their hair on fire.  And they respond almost the same way (don't ask me how I know this).  This person, knowing deep down how inappropriate and unnatural their lifestyle is, chose to blame God for "making him this way."

Horse.  Shit.

Well, shut my mouth, then.  If God made you this way, then who am I to question it, right?  This concept completely absolves you of any responsibility for choosing the way of the pillow-biter!  It's not your fault!

Double. Horse. Shit.

Look here, I might be inclined to disregard your perversions so long as you do me the courtesy of keeping your perversions outside of and away from my scope of consciousness.  Snuggle up with your butt-buddy in the privacy of your own home...share your lesbo-love with your flannel-clad butch babe where I'll never notice.  But do not try to make me accept your deviance as somehow "normal" behavior.  Nor should you try to chip away at the granite ramparts of my convictions by eroding those of my surrounding community.  What you choose to do is shameful, and I'd react poorly to having that shame forced on me in any way.  Even a little bit.  Even if you don't think I should think so.

Make no mistake, homosexuality is a perversion...no less of one than beastiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia.  Not a disease, and not an act of God...a choice.  And keeping your perversion private is a choice.  Very much like my keeping this aluminum baseball bat away from your head is a choice.  God (or nature, if you prefer) made men and women symmetrical opposites for breeding purposes, and there are recreational benefits to that arrangement of design.  To pretend that He has the occasional nervous tic that runs contrary to that design is just plain stupid.  Let me say it once more, very simply...God did not make you gay.  Neither did your DNA, for that matter.

I may have my own perversions, but I don't foist them on others who are, or might be, uncomfortable with them.  And I do not seek to legitimize activities in a place where they are decidedly unwelcome.  Not even a little bit.

If I enjoy floating dry flies in a mountain stream, or riding a horse and shooting a gun, I can do those when and where they most likely would not inflict discomfort on someone else.  For me to try to legislate your acceptance (or even tolerance) of something that is an abhorance to you, would be just plain rude.  If I came to your neighborhood, and tried to force acceptance of my lifestyle down your throat, you'd be justifiably put off, to say the least.  Perhaps I'd go so far as to say you'd be justifiably violent in your oppostion.

Therefore, unless you'd like for people like me, people who disagree with your perversions but do so quietly, to leave you alone to practice those perversions and not seek to legislatively stamp out your assumed and adopted "rights," then please consider keeping your perversions well away from us.

On the other hand, show up in the deep, dark forest wearing a sign that says, "FOOD" and see if the bear gives half a flying shit about your convoluted sense of right and wrong, or what you think God has to say about it.  If you decide to put yourself (or worse than that, someone else) in such a position under the presumption that the bear might respond well to some cosmopolitan view of society, then you are truly an adventurous soul.

Good luck with all that.

The Handgun Essay

I was very recently made aware of the essay excerpted below.  The person who brought it to my attention is currently commanding troops in Iraq, which reinforces my faith in the calibre of soldier we have employed there.

But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry is disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed."

The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed.

The Founders understood this.

So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived.

Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril.

Until they do, American gunowners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all firearms," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers are quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.

There wasn't a date affixed to the byline, but there were clues sufficient to place the pennage in the late 1990's, and I didn't sense the location I'd been referred to was the original housing.  So, I googled the author and found him residing in a blog called, Sipsey Street Irregulars, and his email address.  I couldn't find, on Sipsey Street, any reference to the Handgun essay, so I wrote to the email address listed to ask for its whereabouts.  Mr. Mike Vanderboegh kindly directed me to his 10-Years-After recapped & edited version located at Western Rifle Shooters blog.  Read A Handgun Against An Army.

In the forum where I read the link to the original Handgun, one commenter who claimed to be a US Veteran asserted that the author's historical accuracy was sketchy, and proposed that no civilians with conventional weaponry could ever hope to win out over a real army.

I wrote to him that I heard this fellow General Cornwallis felt pretty much the same way before meeting up with the Overmountain Men at the battles of King's Mountain and Cowpens.

That was pretty much the end of his presumed historical authority.