Pride Goeth Before the Fall....

     To say that my return to this blog weighs heavily due to the subject matter, would be an understatement. It pains me for a number of reasons, from the fact that I will be defending Donald Trump, to the manner in which this person wrote their piece which I'm responding to, and all things in between. Let's begin so that we may be finished as quickly as possible. *sigh*

     To start, the headline is very nearly a threat towards a sitting president. Added to the fact that it smacks of a childish outburst, and we begin to see already the state of mind our author is in. "How dare President Trump not condone and support our made up month of celebrating debauchery and mental illness!"


     To begin with, to say the Daily Beast is a far left rag is an understatement of biblical proportions. (Pun intended.) I understand this is an opinion piece, but its tag of  "shame" in the corner is laughable as our author clearly shows they have none.

     I find it ironic that people who claim that holidays such as mother's day should be changed because its discriminatory, would use it as an example. The lack of self awareness is staggering. Setting that aside, no, saying "happy pride" is not non-controversial". It's very controversial, as the recent Supreme Court decision has shown us. Having "pride" in sexual deviancy is akin to having pride in adulterous behavior, or dishonesty. Though after reading our author's article, I can see they have little trouble with the latter. You see our author is claiming it's a meaningless gesture to acknowledge "pride month" yet goes on a tirade of non sequiturs, insults, falsehoods, and veiled threats over the lack of this "meaningless gesture". Also, claiming that the president and his staff haven't "issued a proclamation 2 years running" is disingenuous on its face. To begin with Trump has been president for roughly 1 year and 6 months at the time of this article, and both the author and I know, any outreach like this during his campaign would have been met with vitriol and hate, much like we saw with Senator Rick Santorum, where his last name was redefined to something vile. But let's put that aside for a moment, perhaps our author failed to realize that Donald Trump is the first president in US history, to go into office already being pro gay "marriage". Obama and Clinton both had "changes of heart" years after their respective campaigns when the left wing winds of "progress" began to blow in that direction. So we have a major blunder in this writer's opinion right out of the gate. This is all too common. Politics has become so tribalistic that most will purposefully ignore any contradictory information in favor of smearing the other side. Let's continue. 

     Perhaps our author has failed, yet again, to be self aware enough to realize what they said, and what they linked to. To begin with, the article linked is a 4 year old piece about the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) stating an obvious biological fact. There are only men, and women. This recent spate of multi-definitional nonsense terms, is not gender. Gender has had a scientific definition for quite a long while, but the rainbow letter gang has only very recently begun its campaign to change the definition of words to suit their agenda. This is why sex and gender were interchangeable for so long. Now we have literally an infinite number of "genders" because, quite frankly, people want to rail against something, and they have it so good, they have to invent something to be angsty about. Calling a group "bigoted" for following the scientific definition is asinine. It also doesnt show that they "deny" the existence of any other letter in the ever expanding acronym lgbtqaaip and a silent 2. This is a number of logical fallacies all bundled together. Let's see if they can bring any of this to a point.

     As we see, the lack of integrity continues to show in our author. They link to a pair of articles, one on the recent Supreme Court decision, and another on a very poorly exegeted article about Jesus and the "render unto Caeser" passage. First, the cake nonsense.  There's so much to unpack I scarcely know where to begin. For starters, the issue was not that the shop owner refused them service. In fact, quite the opposite. He offered the pair a pre-made cake, and/or offered to help them locate another store that could accommodate them. See there's this pesky little thing called the first amendment that keeps governments from infringing on the rights of people to practice their religious beliefs. As this goes against said beliefs, and posed no real discomfort to the pair, there is, by no legal standard, a reason to compel the baker to do the work. Just because you walk into their shop, does not entitle you to their service against their will. Slavery was abolished long ago. I could go more deeply into this, but I will refrain for brevity's sake.

     You'll note in this image that there is no link to an article, a law, nothing, in regards to a doctor refusing to treat the author's daughter at an emergency room. There's a reason for this. Its horseapples. It is against the law for a doctor to refuse treatment to a patient based on any medically necessary circumstance. Period. The dishonesty shown by this author leaves little to the imagination of what lies within the reporting on the rest of the site. As for Christians being able to "ridicule and scorn", first I'd point out, yet again, no link to evidence provided. The reason being that if you do not simply bend over backwards to accommodate every aspect of their deviancy, and give the utmost approval, you are, in their eyes, "ridiculing and scorning" them. I hasten to point out that the first amendment also allows this. Freedom of speech protects the speech you dislike, not just the speech you like.


     As a very quick rejoinder to the articles link to the "render unto Caesar" passage, try again. While the author of that article does get one part correct, in that the question set before Jesus was indeed a trap, it was not what they thought. The trap was in the fact that the coins all had Caeser's face on them and were considered idols by the Jews. Jesus diffuses this trap by pointing out that while the gold may belong to Caeser, the spirit belongs to God. This has no bearing on the Christian in terms of fighting against an unjust law. It isn't even remotely in the context. This is why those not trained or studied in the bible should not try to shoehorn their own eisegeses into the texts for personal reasons.

     I've skipped ahead a bit, as the preceding section was yet another conspiracy theory tirade without a shred of evidence. I stop here only to point out yet another dishonest paragraph laid out by our author. Note that they are yet again conflating the earlier article about the SBC siding with science 4 years ago, with the idea that Christian conservatives don't think gays exist. And yes, many do choose a particular lifestyle in conjunction with their sexual orientation. Hence why we see in most pride events, sexual acts being performed in the streets in front of children. People dressed as animals with chains around their necks. Public bondage and masochism, with torture of every sort. Gatherings like the Folsom Street Fair. This is a lifestyle choice, its destructive, and those involved should feel shame. Shame can be a good thing. It results in humility, something sorely lacking in the rainbow letter gang.

     This will be the final point I respond to. The sheer dishonesty and hatred being peddled has been shown quite obviously at this point. To claim it's a "Christian Right lie" that trans people are mentally ill is a lie unto itself. The "Christian Right" doesn't write the DSM, and certainly didn't twist psychologists arms to get it placed within its pages. It's still there by the way. Also, throwing in the "6000 years ago fossils and all" attack on young earth creationists, shows a stupendous lack of knowledge as it pertains to Christianity as a whole. There are a number of Christians who do not believe in a "young earth", though I do find it funny that one so ignorant of science would lack so much self awareness as to claim Christians deny science. The final straw was the "Imaginary Man in the Sky" nonsense. As a rule of thumb, when you encounter this type of "argumentation", simply walk away. The person using it is in no way willing to hear the truth, nor capable of interacting on an adult level. This is the sign that the person has lost the argument, and has reverted to form, the intellectual tenacity of a 5 year old.

    If you'd like to torture yourself further, you can find the original piece here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-trump-wont-proclaim-pride-month-lets-proclaim-lgbt-rage-month-instead