Dear Kirk Cameron: Homosexuality is Not Unnatural!

By Dennis McClatchey

Kirk Cameron, star of the 1980's sit com "Growing Pains," made news recently with his comments on homosexuality on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight. According to Mr. Cameron, homosexuality is "unnatural"..."detrimental"...and "destructive...to the foundations of civilization."

 

To be expected, those words created a chorus of outrage and support from many quarters. To those of us who found his notions outrageous he blames Piers Morgan. You see, poor Kirk came on the show simply to promote his documentary "Monumental" not to discuss his personal views on social issues. Although he holds steadfastly to those views and has gone on the Today show and Fox and Friends to repeat them while blaming Piers Morgan for giving his insights a platform.

 

First, why should we care what Kirk Cameron says? Second, he has a right to his opinion and a right to express that opinion when asked about it.

 

True. But, when someone says something that I feel is wrong, detrimental, and destructive that same right prevails. So, I choose to exercise my right to speak out in protest.

Homosexuality is not unnatural. Anything that occurs in nature is, by definition, natural. And, even Cameron has to accept the fact that homosexuality does occur in nature. Perhaps, though, to a greater degree than he realizes.

Naturalists have witnessed and documented same sex behavior in: Bisons, Brown Bears, Brown Rats, Caribous, domestic Cats, domestic Cattle, Chateaus, Chimpanzees, Dolphins, Marmosets, Dogs, Elephants, Foxes, Giraffes, Goats, domestic Horses, Lions, Orcas, Raccoons, barn Owls, Chickens, Gulls, Emus, King Penguins, Mallards, Ravens, Seagulls, and the list goes on and on and on.

 You see homosexuality is not just a phenomenon among us homo sapiens. (That's right. We are all homos, homo sapiens, that is)

 So, we can easily prove, through science, that being gay is not unnatural. Okay, it is the exception not the norm. But where does it say being exceptional is bad?

 Oh, I'm sure Kirk and his minions would prefer the word abnormal when describing gay behavior. Fair enough. But, being left handed would be considered abnormal with right handedness being the norm. Does that make south paws evil? Of course not.

 In order for homosexuality-or anything for that matter- to be evil or immoral it must first be a choice. It must be part of our free will. While science is still trying to sort out the question of whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, it seems clear that choosing to be gay is as logical as choosing to be straight.

 

Now, I don't know about Kirk, but for me being straight was not something that required a great deal of thought. When I became sexually driven-a time not by choice but by hormones-I did not have to set out a piece of paper, draw a vertical line down the middle and jot on one side the advantages of being gay and on the other side of the page the advantages of being straight.

 Let's see, I can be straight. I can date openly. I can marry and enjoy all the rights and privileges that society extends to married couples.

Or, I can be gay which may require keeping my love partner a secret, become estranged from my family, church, and friends. I would not be allowed to marry, open myself up to ridicule, being called a deviant, labeled as immoral by a 1980's sit com star, and possibly being bullied, beaten, and murdered.

 Oh boy, that gay life is for me! Please.

 
I am straight because I am and always have been attracted to the opposite sex. And, I trust it is the same kind of urges and desires that drives a gay person to his/her desired partner.
 

But, as long as we have the likes of Kirk Cameron judging and denouncing a gay person's orientation, there will be those who find comfort in calling out and hurting a person based on who that person loves.

As long as we allow the uneducated and the uncaring to classify gays as "unnatural, detrimental, and destructive to the foundations of civilization" we will continue to see young people confused, ashamed, and suicidal.

And, to me, that is about as evil as one can be.

Hey Rush--Do You Really Want To Complain About Paying For Contraceptives?

By Dennis McClatchey

Okay Rush, let me see if I understand this. You are outraged if your health plan is forced to pay for some woman's contraceptives. Right?

 Poor Rush. Why should he have to pony up a portion of his health premium dollar so some college kid can have sex? And, oh yes, even if the contraceptive is used for non sexual but medically necessary purposes, that matters little. I mean, he doesn't have ovaries. Why should he kick in bucks to save some "slut's" sex organs?

 So here sits cigar smoking Rush Limbaugh who is clearly and considerably over weight, a habit and condition that can likely lead to diabetes (if it hasn't already), cardio vascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, wearing a Cochlear implant-- a surgical procedure costing north of $50,000-- required because of a hearing loss due to his abuse of prescription drugs.

Here he sits complaining that his health plan will be required to fork out money for contraception. Rush, is that really an argument you want to have given your sorry state of health resulting from your sorry lifestyle choices which will result in higher health insurance premiums to cover your soon to be experienced health problems for all those who share your health plan? Do you really want to go there?

Birth control pills cost between $160 to $600 annually. Hey, one Cochlear implant would pay for 80 to 300 years of contraceptives. What a deal. And, listen to this Rush, birth control reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies which reduce the number of abortions. Good, don't you think?

And, if access to these pills is only available to those who can afford them, then the poor will not have access which means more children will likely be born into poverty placing greater strain on our welfare safety net. Bad, don't you think?

 And something else, Rush. The more a woman has sex does not translate into a requirement that she take more birth control pills. Apparently you missed the film we kids got to see in junior high. But, I bet if you ask nicely and politely some female friend will be happy to explain to you where babies come from and how her reproductive system really works.

Good luck!

Libertarian--Just Another Word for Selfish!

By Dennis McClatchey

If you search the Internet in an effort to discover the core principles of what it means to be a Libertarian, you are apt to find the following as a representative sample.

The Libertarian Party web sit. “maximum freedom-limited government.”

The Libertarianism web site. “Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.”

Boy, that sounds great, doesn’t it. I mean who can fault the pursuit of freedom and liberty. After all, it’s the American way. Sounds simple, right? Yes, and that’s exactly the problem. Because simple it’s not.

First, this philosophy is founded on the notion that the larger government becomes, the less freedom each of us enjoys. That certainly can be true for some forms of government. But what if the government is established to protect the liberty and freedom of all Americans? I would argue that the smaller, and therefore weaker, a government becomes, the less able it is to protect, maintain, and ensure our individual freedoms and liberties.

But let’s get to what is really at the heart of what it means to be a Libertarian by examining some motives and positions of a few of its stalwarts.

Tom Delay, the former U.S. House Majority Whip, is legendary for many things. But of interest here is what motivated him and drove him into politics in the first place. As well as being known as the “hammer” through his rough and tough dealings as Whip, he was first known as “the Exterminator.” You see, Tom owned a Texas pest control business. And he didn’t cotton to the government telling him what poisons he could and could not use.

So for Tom, the dilemma of choosing between what’s best for the common good and what was best for him, Tom chose, me, me, me. And he did so in the name of liberty.

Rand Paul, freshman Senator from Kentucky and a Tea Party darling, as well as avid Libertarian was interviewed by Rachael Maddow on MSNBC where he not only criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he said if he had been in the Congress at the time he would have worked to defeat it as it was written.

In explaining his position he made reference to laws restricting people from entering certain establishments carrying concealed weapons. His logic went like this. If a business owner can be allowed to prevent a gun carrying customer into his establishment, then he should be allowed to prevent anyone from entering for any reason, including race.

Of course the obvious problem with this argument is, the gun owner can still enter the establishment if he leaves his gun at home. It is a bit more tricky for one to leave ones ethnicity at home. The comparison does not present equivalent circumstances.

For Senator Paul the liberty dilemma is seen thusly. Liberty of the business owner to restrict service for any reason including race versus the liberty of an American to access services regardless of race. The answer: the business owner’s liberty trumps the individual’s liberty.

His views are not that surprising considering the views of his father, Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas, professed Libertarian, and perennial Presidential candidate.

On the 40^th anniversary of passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Rep. Paul rose before the chamber to declare that the Act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Rather, he proclaimed that it increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

To me this comment is most revealing as to the true nature of the Libertarian character. Yes, federal integration laws produced increased tension as minorities began exercising the freedoms promised them by the constitution because many white segregationist wanted Jim Crow laws to remain. This resulted in tension. Tension bad.

So, for Rep. Paul his liberty dilemma is seen thusly. The freedom of all Americans regardless of race to exercise the freedoms guaranteed under the constitution versus the freedom of white racists to discriminate against these very Americans thereby decreasing tension. For Rep. Paul the call goes with the racist. But, only as a matter of principle you understand. You see, he personally doesn’t care for racists.

Rep. Paul has some problems even with the core of the Libertarian principle. You see, Paul is a pro lifer. That’s fine. He is entitled to oppose abortion and considering his previous career as an obgyn physician, it is an understandable position.

But, to favor restrictions in a woman’s right to choose her health care reproduction decisions is not a Libertarian position. Oh, I know his reasoning. He believes life begins at conception. So, for him it is a moral issue. But, for many women, the right to make these decisions is a moral issue, as well. So, for Paul, it’s a question of whose morals we choose. His answer: mine, mine, mine.

Apparently Rep. Paul is opposed to the government interfering in our personal lives except in those instances where he feels the government should interfere in our personal lives. You call that being principled?

The problem is, it is not liberty these people are promoting. It is only their liberty on their terms when it conforms to their moral beliefs that defines their position.

And that is selfish. And, that is not the American way!

Fire Sale - The Free Market Fire Department

By Pat Berkheim
Contributing Writer

All products best serve people if they are privately run and controlled by the free market, not!

*The free market has ups and downs - not allowing consistent fire department services.


*The cost of duplicate equipment for competing fire departments would drive the cost of protection to extreme levels.


*Some fire departments would not be able to maintain a profit margin - they would cut services or go out of business leaving gaps in protection. The free market says this is the cost of doing business but before a new service could be obtained the risk is unacceptable.


*The rich would have excellent fire department service. The poor would have little or no service.


*Some fire departments would refuse to protect difficult costumers. There would be people unable to buy protection because of the high cost or flat refusal of any fire department to provide protection.


* Neighbors may opt for no coverage creating a high risk for those living around them. Driving the price higher for those wanting to purchase fire protection.


*The fire department would be motivated to provide service driven by a bottom line or profit for share holders.

If you concede that the fire department is a moral obligation for a government to provide in a not for profit setting, then the free market is not the solution for providing all products and services. The free market will always swing to benefit the wealthy. This is not acceptable for products and services that all citizens have the moral right to equally receive.



Editor’s note: If you doubt the accuracy of this, Just for kicks substitute Fire Department for health care services. See any similarities to reality?

The Three Musketeers of Capitalism

By Pat Berkheim
contributing writer

Capitalism needs to be "all for one and one for all". Capitalism as a total free market is unrealistic. Every man for himself produces winners and losers, an unjust two class economic society. Communism produces a two class society of powerful bureaucrats and unmotivated workers and therefore is also unrealistic.

"All for one" means the populace supports the efforts and success of outstanding citizens, encouraging them to produce and lead the way. Like the team being thrilled by the individual efforts of a star running back scoring and helping the team to victory. Also supporting the star's reward of publicity, popularity, and gratuity knowing that these will reflect well on the team.

"One for all" means the entrepreneur realizes his success was not totally an individual accomplishment. Both circumstance and group effort probably contributed to the final result. Like the star running back who gives credit and reward to the blocking and teamwork which make his touchdowns possible, the economic star recognizes a moral obligation to help the group. As the group is rewarded the star's self interest is also served because the workers are motivated to continue to produce to enhance the success of all. Like the linemen of a humble running back will give more effort than the blockers for and egotistical braggart.

Government is the third musketeer in capitalism ("all for one and one for all"). There are interests of citizens that are not served best by profit driven organizations. Examples are education, police and fire protection, national defense, transportation infrastructure, and health care. Citizens in a capitalist republic also deserve a social safety net to protect children and the elderly. The wealthy need to accept more of this financial burden, understanding that a stable society will benefit all. The government in the football analogy takes the role of coach and referee. The coach encouraging entrepreneurs to invest and support fair wages and bargaining rights. The referee protecting citizens from profit seekers willing to jeopardize our water supply, clean air and food sources. Also, helping to settle differences between business and workers. The coach encourages workers to make reasonable demands and loyally work for the success of the company.

What has happened in America is a swing to only valuing profit. Big business and the wealthy have been consumed by greed. The rich have been able to take control of government by buying politicians. The pendulum needs to swing toward workers rights and responsible government; not bigger government or no government but government that is responsive to all citizens, politicians not manipulated by the wealthy and small activist interest groups in their constant quest for re-election but politicians who believe America is "all for one and one for all".

Greed and Liberty

By Pat Berkheim
contributing writer

Some people care about money. Others care about people. The people who care about money believe if you take care of money the people will prosper. If you care about people you know love of money is not always enough to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People who care about others believe government has a role in both liberty and equality.

The people who believe government's only role is to insure liberty believe the wealthy will provide for all. Greed is a false prophet who has convinced many a follower that taxation is an evil demon. A representative democracy must balance equality with liberty. A progressive tax is fair and just. America can afford to help the disadvantaged and be solvent. The wealthy, motivated by greed, will attempt to scare the majority with cries of government control and loss of liberty, but they can pay more with no impact to their liberty.

People who care believe that some elements of America are better served by not for profit entities under the control of the voice of the people. America's judicial system, highway transportation network, police and fire protection, education, social security and our military are examples of entities that would be ill served by for profit private control.

Striving for balance that promotes equality, liberty, and justice is not socialism but the duty of Americas' representative government as defined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Why Am I A Liberal?

By Dennis McClatchey

My political awakening began in the sixties as I journeyed through high school and then into college. The political story of the day was civil rights. It was during this time that I became truly aware of the inhumanity of the Jim Crow south.

I learned that in the south if you were black you were told: Sorry, you can’t shop here. You can’t dine here. You can’t drink from the fountain here. You can’t ride on the bus here. You can’t live here. You can’t work here. You can’t go to school here. And, if you have the audacity to try to do these things we will bring out the hoses. We will bring out the dogs. We will bring out the clubs. We will bring out the rope. We will bring out the bombs and guns. We will beat and terrorize you into submission. And yet, many had the audacity to believe that this was America, the land of the free. They came out by the scores, by the hundreds, by the thousands. And, out came the hoses, the dogs, the clubs, the rope, and the bombs. Unbelievable pictures of this savage response to the exercise of freedom were thrust into our homes with the powerful visual intimacy of television.

And, during this period, who was it who championed civil rights legislation? It was the liberals. Who fought passage of the legislation? It was conservatives, many of whom were southern Democrats. Regardless of party affiliation, the liberal cry was for civil rights for all, while the conservatives decried loss of states’ rights. Notable conservatives such as William Buckley recognized the injustice but believed the marketplace- capitalism- would eventually solve the problem. Be patient. Eventually these shop owners will realize the color of money is all the same. Even the conservatives’ beloved Ronald Regan, while running for governor of California, proclaimed that if a home owner didn’t want to sell to someone for whatever reason he had a right not to do so.

 I immediately knew where my political soul belonged.

While the civil rights movement was a defining moment for my political arousal, it has not been the only moment. My liberal beliefs have been reinforced both by a reading of history as well as through contemporary events.

In 1935, as a part of his New Deal, it was the liberal Franklin Roosevelt who brought us Social Security including unemployment insurance. And who fought against this bold new initiative? The conservatives, of course, again many of whom were southern Democrats. In fact, a major embarrassment of this otherwise lofty landmark was the fact that Social Security when it was first enacted did not cover most women and minorities, another gift from the conservative coalition of the day.

 Roosevelt also signed the Fair labor Standards Act of 1938. The FLSA provided for a minimum wage, banned child labor and had as its purpose establishing minimum standards of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well being. Once again, it was opposed for the most part by southern conservatives.

It was liberals who promoted and passed in 1965 Medicare and Medicaid providing health coverage for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. Once more, the conservatives pushed back hard to block this progressive move calling it “socialism.”

The liberal agenda brought us Title IX which established that: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The liberal agenda brought us The Americans with Disabilities Act which “prohibited private employers, state, and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities…”

The liberal agenda brought us the Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act (C.O.B.R.A.) which allowed employees access to their employer’s health care coverage for eighteen months if they lost their job or were laid off.

The liberal agenda brought us the Children’s Health Insurance Program (C.H.I.P.S.) which made millions of children eligible to receive health insurance coverage if otherwise unavailable.

These are but a few examples that come readily to mind. Not too shabby of a record for a bunch of “elitists.”

 And, who fought this agenda for social justice? Why, our conservative brethren, of course.

 Now, I know the conservative retort: government is too big, too intrusive, and too expensive. Please, my taxes are too high as it is. Well, friend, if you are paying a chunk of taxes, then you are also making more than a chunk of money, so for you, life is pretty good. So, stop your complaining. “Oh yeah,” you say. “Well, it would be an even better life if my taxes were lower.” Perhaps. But how better would your life be if you lost your job and that liberal sponsored safety net wasn’t there to ease your fall.

Throughout our history it has been those “God-less liberals” who have stood for the poor, the weak, the disabled, the disadvantaged. It has been those “Godless liberals” who have fought for social justice. (Remind you of anyone from history, say around 2000 years ago?) The liberal mantra can be said to be: we are our brother’s keeper. The conservative chant, on the other hand, seems to be: what’s in it for me?

Why am I a liberal? I guess the question to me should be: why isn’t everyone?