When I was a kid, I thought I could be president. I thought the job was just too simple. I mean, all I would do to cure the national debt and homelessness would be to use the barter and Habitat for Humanity systems. The way I saw it, we were paying troops to kill and destroy [in the mind of a child, this is all they could be good for; not for gaining peace] so why not have them do the opposite? Build and aid? Simply put, barter with the country to which we are indebted; we build a few buildings or roads for you, and you clear our debts. Or how about building in our own country? Build more war veteran hospitals, homes for Habitat for Humanity, and rebuild broken roadways. Why pay these men to destroy lives? Only so they can come home wounded, often desolate, and suffering from PT SD?? So we can create a new cycle of homeless vets?

Habitat for Humanity has the right idea. They build homes, make the person that will be living in that home help with the building, and offer low-cost living opportunities to those who wouldn’t otherwise have had the chance to own a home. The houses are not extravagant, but to the person who never had a home, it is a sweet luxury. Imagine having the aid of hundreds upon hundreds of troops.

The national debt will constantly be. We are constantly dependent on something that we will need to provide funds for. But what if we used our forces to crack down on foreign dependency? To at least minimize it. With more tools and manpower, we are able to achieve results better and faster. THEN we can assist the foreigners.

Think about it. If it takes 10 men to build a home in 30 days, would it not be faster to build that same home with 100 men? If we took a break to focus on us, and get ‘us’ right, wouldn’t we be in a better position to come to the aide of a third world country? Heck, we may have so much time on our hands that we could even think of more PEACEFUL means of communication.

Yes, I know. My utopia could never be, but the theory is great. If implemented, it could be better than what we have in the very least. You never know until you try. Why do we have to be the ones to run to everyone else’s aid? Who made us the supreme being? Sure I know about treaties and powers and such, but nowhere is it written that we are absolutely obligated to go to war.

We waste money on wars and politicians in my opinion. Why? Why do we pay obscene amounts of money to these people who are corrupt anyways? Not only that, but the obscene retirement payments that these government officials get while America goes hungry. WHY? Wake the fuck up America. Take back what is yours. Stop putting money in these god damn politicians pockets. Fuck them. They do not give a shit about you. All they care about is them. FUCK THEM. I am tired of seeing problems that could be easily handled if these guys would dip in THEIR motherfucking pockets for a change. If THEY would step up and do something. All this talk of not having social security and these guys are getting mad ass pensions! WTF. And then we pour money into coalition groups that fight only because another certain coalition group was formed (aka the Christians vs. Everyone else). Why not go back to what we build this country on? The rights of the people! We broke away from the Brits in order to AVOID having to be controlled by a governmental power. So that our rights, wants, and desires mattered. Yet we are constantly trying to ban gay rights, stop women from having their right to choose, and intrude on any other right that does not have a single damn thing to do with us but that we do not like someone else having.

This is not how things have to be. Martin Luther King, Jr. once gave a speech that is infamous in human history. He envisioned better for our nation and it became more than a dream; it became a reality. We do not have to grin and bear the lot we have been given; if anything, this is the one place in the world that we can do anything we set to do.

I am tired. I hate to think of myself as an American because of what the word represents, but am privileged to have been born in the land of the free…even if the term is relative.

Tags: United States, troops, vets, utopia, war

But I cannot be an activist in general because I do not like the stigma that they perpetuate. Activists become so engrossed in their causes at times that they lose sight of the motivating factors; it becomes a race to win rather than a fight for equality.

And then this activist promotes another activist group; there would not be a need for gay activists if not for Christian activists right? As a matter of fact, Christian activists create many activist groups. Why? Why are there Christian advocates to begin with? The whole idea would seem to me to be an oxymoron of terms. After all, it is the Bible that says “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged…”(Matthew 7:1-6) and that “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: [who are you to judge]” (James 4:11-12). Moreover, the first one that says for us not to judge lest we be judged goes on to say that we should not sit here pointing out the mote in our brother’s eye when we ourselves have a beam in our own eyes. As also reported in Luke 6:41-42, you are nothing more than a hypocrite if you do not first take out the beam from your eye in order to see the mote in your brother’s eye. What it comes down to basically is first you should not be judging to begin with, but secondly you have your own qualities worthy of judgment so what makes you so much better that you should judge another? Let God retain His rightful position as judge, and you get right in your own life.

It is the Christian that taints the Bible by twisting its words for their own selfish gain. They take the phrase ‘teaching them to obey’ (Matthew 28:18-20) and translate it to ‘bashing, beating, and condemning them until they convert’. Jesus never acted as the Christian activist acts. He never beat a Gentile or sinner that He broke bread with. It was Jesus in fact that commands us to love as He loved. Show me where in the Bible did Jesus beat a sinner and leave him to die on a fence, and I will be that activist too. If I remember correctly, it was Jesus who said “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…” (speaking of the adultress woman when adultery was a crime punishable by stoning leading to death), and when not one man could come forward to throw that first stone, neither did He throw a stone at her. Being as He was the only that could anyhow, still He did not. So not only is the Christian commanded to ‘eat with the sinners’, Jesus also teaches us that just because we have the ability or even the right to do something does not mean that we should do it.

I am not an activist because I am too much of a Christian to try and take over God’s control.

Tags: Christian, God’s control

In today’s economy where everyone is complaining about debt and social security, why would you take other avenues of revenue off the table? Think about all that goes into preparing a marriage ceremony: the dresses, the tuxes, the catering, the marriage certificate, the band, the church, the car services, the plane tickets, the hotel rooms…etc. etc. etc…. Sure, gays and lesbians still have ‘gay marriages‘, but how many forgo the bells and whistles knowing that it will not been seen as legal in the eyes of the judicials? So many gays and lesbians will have a ring ceremony or something special with just their friends, but so many would love for more. It is not just a straight girl’s dream to have the princess wedding.

And why not take the monetary value to another level? Why not enforce a tax or subsidy or some sort of extra fee for a gay or lesbian marriage? Now before you all get your panties in a bunch, hear me out. Now we all know the dissension between the Christian Advocates and the Gay Marriage Supporters as well as how much Americans cannot handle change, but we have to take some lessons from history. When Lincoln freed the slaves, there were not mixed socials the next day celebrating this newfound ‘justice.’ It has been said that Rome was not built in a day. We need to take what we can get in order to work towards what we want.

I myself cannot understand why dissenters waste their money on ruling everyone else’s lives.

Tags: gay marriages, lesbian marriage

I recently read an opinion article of a young man who thought it fitting to propose the title ‘You Can’t Protect Everything.’ My disdain for the article has nothing to do with its title however. Let’s take a look at an excerpt from that article:

Let me express the voice of those thinking students who understand what nondiscrimination really should be about.

If you look carefully at the list of things which the university does not discriminate against, they are all things that one is. They are not things that one does.

In other words, I did not choose to be born male. Nor did I choose to be born white. In fact, with ever more shrill cries for affirmative action, I might have chosen to be born neither.

The policy states that the University does not discriminate based on “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability or veteran status,” according the article.

Each of these affiliations relates to things that a person is. A person is black. A person is female. A person is old. A person is disabled. One doesn’t choose to be these things. One simply is.

Though religion isn’t something you are, freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, so it’s there for that reason.

While this point shouldn’t have to be made, homosexuality is not something that someone is. It is something that someone does.

There is no such thing as a gay gene. It only demonstrates the agenda of humanist, liberal scholars that this hasn’t been made clear.

But, let’s say there was a gay gene. How would this gene be inherited? How would this gene last for more than one generation?

I was so taken aback by this ‘educated’ man’s ignorance that I simply had to post a reply to his column in the comments section. My comments on his opinion:

“Though religion isn’t something you are, freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, so it’s there for that reason.”

Why is it justifiable to make exceptions to a point that you are attempting to make so as to merely support your side? You attempt to make a point that we do not choose to be a sex, race, or age, etc. and therefore should rightfully not discriminate against those, but not homosexuality. Yet, you realize that your point does not hold water when it comes to the aspect of religion so you are quick to make the First Amendment comment. What about ‘veteran status’? Don’t we have those who choose to go into the military, thus choosing this status?

“While this point shouldn’t have to be made, homosexuality is not something that someone is. It is something that someone does.”

Really? I didn’t know I ‘do homosexuality.’ I was under the impression that I ‘am’ a homosexual. So do you ‘do straight’ or are you just straight?

“There is no such thing as a gay gene. It only demonstrates the agenda of humanist, liberal scholars that this hasn’t been made clear.”

There is also no such thing as the religion gene or the veteran gene for that matter. But that’s not what is up for discussion is it? So why bring up a moot point?

And then to go on to compare homosexuality to body piercings! I love it! Let’s not stop there, though. Let’s not forget about clothes! The government should not protect us from being discriminated against because of what we wear! That’s our choice after all! But wait… does not a nun wear a habit and priest wear their vestments? So we can discriminate against them because they are wearing silly clothes…no wait, we can’t because they are religious people who only wear them because that is their religion so to discriminate against them would be to discriminate them based on their religion…wait…right?!

The thing with clothes and jewelry and any other accessory you choose to adorn for the day is that these are all accessories! These are not who you ‘are.’ But then you will say that you can choose not to be gay, right? But then you still have to admit that being gay or straight is just that: ‘being.’ You are comparing inanimate objects to a state of being. This is like comparing apples and parachutes.

All in all, you attempt to bring up several points as to why rights of homosexuals should not be protected, but when you apply the vacuum test, they fail. You cannot apply one logic to homosexuality, one to religion, and then yet another to veteran status.

Do a little more research before you post illogical barbel. After all, even an opinion should use some logic; because if it doesn’t, it’s really just a load of bull.

I would like to point out that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Sure, many think that being gay is a choice. So today I’m gonna choose to be gay. Tomorrow I think I’ll choose to be bi. Maybe next week I’ll dabble with ‘other’. I’ll choose to be straight only every other weekday though….

Obviously the author and I have different opinions on what our choices are, but it is not for lack of knowledge or research that I make the statements that I make. An educated opinion, while still an opinion, allows for educated debate.

Just as when I spoke on children growing up raised by gay parents, I think it is highly illogical that someone would choose to be chastised all their life. That even as a young child, that they would go against peer pressure and love someone of the same sex. So when someone says to me that being gay is a choice, I have to wonder why? Why would someone choose to be the outcast? Perhaps because I don’t choose to be an outcast, I will never understand it, but I still want to. I try to put myself in other people’s shoes; play devil’s advocate so to speak, but I still can’t understand the ‘why’.

I must say, I enjoyed one follow-up editorial that another student wrote. There were a couple of others who wrote in reply to the editorial as well:

Offensive Column Took Guts

Sexuality, Rights Are Who I Am

All in all we realize that no one will ever have the ‘right’ answers; that in a world where relativity and opinions allow us to be the ignorant race that we are, we cannot find the happy medium that is unity.

Tags: discriminate, homosexuality, ignorance, gay, rights, opinions, choice

`(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

`(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
`(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that–

`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

`(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

I find the wording peculiar. The very premise of abortion laws now is that a ‘baby’ is not really a living member of the homo sapien community until it is out of the mother’s womb. Yet, this law is calling this entity an ‘unborn child’. Bush’s press secretary quotes:

“The President does believe that when an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence, the law should recognize what most people immediately recognize, and that is that such a crime has two victims.”

So how is it that we are supposed to accept abortion laws when the current laws contend that the fetus is an unborn child and the President insists that a crime against this unborn child has two victims? Obviously pro-abortionists caught onto the snafu too because they were in an uproar.

However, one abortionist in New Hampshire, Dr. Wayne Goldner, candidly gave his position on the Peterson case, “On a realistic basis, (the fetus) was not a human being, it was a potential human being,” he said.

I love this ‘idea’ the best. ‘Potential’ human being?? Is this guy for real? And he has a PhD??!! Is this to say that the fetus may or may not be a human? Color me confused, but I thought once a woman became pregnant, we throw them ‘baby’ showers…not ‘potential’ baby showers. Sure, he may be going on the premise that this unborn fetus may never get to be born due to complications during pregnancy or other horrors, but does that make it any less of a human? The syntax is wrong if that is what he was trying to say, but what befuddles me the most is that someone so educated could make such a stupid remark.

The law does contend that it cannot be used against those who choose to have an abortion. But it that does not make it any less illogical. Here we have a law that contends if someone kills or causes ‘bodily’ (and on an aside…how can we say this is not yet a human being, but it still has a body?) harm to an unborn child, that they have committed two crimes: one against the mother, and the other against the unborn child. Yet, if a mother decides to kill their baby, there is no crime… Why does it matter the manner in which one takes to terminate the life of this unborn fetus?

I think the abortion debate is flawed in many areas. Anti-abortionists contend that we should not play God and that abortion is murder (also against Christian beliefs). Yet, they can go around judging, slandering, and hindering their brothers. How does this make them any better of a Christian? The Bible contends that there is no difference in the weight of sins. Abortionists contend that we should have the choice to do whatever we want to with our own body because it is ours. Yet the Bible contends that the body is God’s temple.  The Bible does also contend that we have free will. This means we have the choice to do whatever we want to (good or bad), yet Anti-abortionists cannot allow for it? They want to say that it is wrong to play God or go against the Word of God, yet they cannot allow others to institute the free will that God gave to us all? Hypocrites.

I myself am Pro-Choice, but given the choice, I would choose not have an abortion. And if anyone asked me what they should do, I would tell them every time not to have an abortion. I do not believe in abortions, but I do believe that we should have the choice that is given to us through the free will that God has granted us. I do not think it is appropriate to call Pro-Choicers ‘Pro-Death’ because that is not what they are. They are exactly what they are labeled: pro-choice. Because like in my instance, I am against abortions, but still pro-choice. So I cannot be pro-death if I do not condone it.

Do I think there should be anti-abortion laws on the book? Yes. Why? Because I think abortions have become the new birth control and it has done a great injustice not only to the unborn children, but to the mothers as well. Just as we have to have sanctions to ensure order, I think we should have sanctions to ensure our legacy, safety, and good name.

Tags: Unborn Victims of Violence Act, abortion, unborn fetus, pro-choice

But the child would still be able to see his or her father, you say? Why then cannot the same argument be applied to a gay or lesbian family? Because you do not want it to? Because the family is gay or lesbian? What does that have to with anything? Once a family is split up, does that automatically make them bad homes?

The children will learn to be gay you say? What about the children that are allowed to stay in homes where the father abuses the mother or the child? Will they then learn to be abusers? What about the homes where the mother or the father is of a certain profession? A baseball player or a housewife? Will they learn to become a baseball player or a housewife? What about the ones where the mother or the father is of a certain religion? Will the child then be that religion? If we as adults know anything about growing up, we know that first, it is not learned that we follow in our parent’s footsteps, but also that we have control over our lives.

It is a well known fact that we do not always become our parents. If anything, we rebel against our family unit. We rebel against their ordeals, beliefs, and wants. Why would we expect any different from a child growing up in a gay family?  Would not the horrors of the bashing that their parents are surely to meet be enough to detract them away from that way of life (if, as you contend, homosexuality is a learned act)?

Who wants to be abused and judged? Who would voluntarily step into the depths of despair?  Who would voluntarily take on that judgment? That wrath? The world is not accepting of gays and lesbians so why would a child learn to be gay when they see the discrimination? Would not that teach them to not be gay?  Being gay means to be hated, despised, ridiculed, beaten, and made fun of. Why would that mean that the child would then allow for it? Would not the child learn that this is in fact not the way to go? It would seem that the way to keep a child from going gay would be to have them placed in a gay family. After all, if they see the abuse and homosexuality is supposedly a choice of the person, would not they then choose to be straight? Because…after all…homosexuality is learned, right?

The very arguments that a straight person makes are the ones that they should and could apply to their own community. I have a cousin who is in fact gay. She is the eldest of 4 kids. She is the only one that is gay. But if we are supposed to learn our sexuality from our upbringing, how is it that she is gay and her siblings are not? The argument one straight person makes to support their own foolishness is ridiculous. The fact that one is held high above the other should not be allowed. It is called hypocrisy and is all that the people know. We should stop teaching our children to become hypocrites.

Tags: Christian activists, judged, homosexuality, hypocrites

You cannot sit there and tell me it is because of their personality or how they look. They are a man, and you are a woman; you should be attracted to each other and be with each other because this is the way of God. Never mind that you do not have any feelings for this man or this woman; God says you must be attracted to the opposite sex so you must deny your true feelings and be with that man or woman.

How logical does that sound? How logical is it to say that God wants us to only be with men or women no matter if we are attracted to them or not? We should deny our feelings just to be with the opposite sex? Because this is how God wants it?

The Bible warrants that your body is a temple that should be kept pure. But because God knows that the flesh is weak, He made an exception to say that we could have sex in the unity of marriage. To be totally devoted to God would be to abstain from sex, but God does not penalize us for doing it when married. Just because He does not penalize us, does not mean that He supports the idea. God would still rather we are abstinent. How would we populate then? Exactly. Does reading the Bible translated from the Greek and Hebrew origins really make sense often?

Foundations of many belief systems are borne on the simplest of ideas. A small verse in a book of hundreds of chapters can make or break a system! It is the innate ability of the human race to take the smallest of things and blow them out of proportion. It is the legalistic approach to religion that condemns everyone. The Bible says there is no God and as such we should not believe in God…it does say it you know. ‘The fool sayeth in his heart “There is no God”‘. But because the Bible says it, I should accept it, and condemn others by its words. Never mind the context, the times, or who it is spoken to or about because it is in the Bible, and that Book is God-breathed.

By Christian logic, there should be no reason for a woman or man to be single. We should all be attracted to each other and thus be with each other. There is no excuse because God said it. Never mind that God also said that we should gouge our eye out if it offends us for example, by looking at a woman with lust. After all, that is just an allegory. We are allowed to pick and choose what things God meant literally and what things He did not mean literally. Why? Because we are Christians and what we say goes.

Tags: attracted, opposite sex

In the story of the adulteress woman, Jesus was the only one who had the right to throw the first stone. Yet he did not. Why? After all, God’s word condemned adulterers, right? Why did Jesus not punish her? Why did Jesus not rebuke her? ‘Let he who is without sin throw the first stone’.

Amazing how the ‘Christians’ can read, recite, and support one part of scripture, but not others. Practically selective on their parts. They totally disregard scriptures that state that God is the judge, not man. And that we have no right to throw stones being sinners ourselves. Who are we? ‘Let he who is without sin throw the first stone’.

Who ordained the Christians as the sentence carriers? Where is the scripture that supports their hypocrisy? They can quote the scriptures that condemn gays and lesbians, but where is the scripture that gives them the right to picket, protest, bash, and even kill these homosexuals? Where in the Bible does it say that a homosexual is subhuman? Where does it say that a homosexual should be treated as an animal? ‘Let he who is without sin throw the first stone’.

Does not the Bible state that we are all God’s children? Does it not say that we were knit in our mother’s womb by God himself? Does not the Bible tell us to love our brother? Is it not the very word of God that says that we need to learn forgiveness? That we should practice mercy? WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE! ‘Let he who is without sin throw the first stone’.

I could never imagine abusing my cousin for being gay. I couldn’t. It is the Bible that tells us how to be better people, not abusive people. It is the Bible that teaches us how to treat others with respect. No where in the Bible does it give us a free pass to bash another human based on any means. It is the Bible that tells us quite simply to let God be the judge. The Bible says to go tell all the nations about the good word not cram it down their throats and force them to convert. God wants us to come to Him on our own free will. That is why he gave us free will to begin with. Why should a Christian have any more rights to free will than a non-Christian? ‘Let he who is without sin throw the first stone’.

It is because of ‘Christian’ activists that Christianity is given a bad name. It leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many. It is labeled hypocrisy. It is because of the blatant rejection of the word of God by these so-called Christians that the afflicted turn elsewhere. Who wants to run to a God that rejects them? Who wants to run to a God that does not love them? Who wants to run to a God that does not welcome them? ‘Let he who is without sin throw the first stone’.

Why waste time, money, and energy on bashing gays? There a children that are abused with no help, families that are living paycheck to paycheck, and streets filled with homeless people so lost in the world that they probably do not know this love of Christ because Christians are too busy trying to cram it down a homosexual’s throat than to tell them. So many more worthy causes to focus on and a Christian chooses to focus on the one that makes them out to be a hypocrite. ‘Let he who is without sin throw the first stone’.

Tags: gays, homosexuality, God, lesbians, hypocrisy, hypocrite

Lesbian. Dyke. Fag. Why do people think words hurt so much? Why do words hurt so much? After all, they have as much power as we give them. Why do we try and find the most hated words to throw at each other? Nigger. Spic. Rag head. Words on a page, words out of your mouth, words with no meaning at all until we give them meaning. And yet we start fights, shed tears, and draw lines over them.

Lesbian. Dyke. Fag. What is it about someone else’s personal life that we feel we have to attack them? We do not attack their color schemes in their bathroom, there inability to sing, or anything else dealing with their home and household. But we attack who they are. And why? How does who they are effect who I am? How does their love effect my love? How does their relationship effect who I want to be with, how I love, and what I do?

Lesbian. Dyke. Fag. Why is it the more accepting of people are the ones who are criticized themselves? Because they understand the abuse? They know what it is like to be judged and chastised for something they have no control over? Or is it because they know that who you are is not run by who you ought to be? Because they know what it is like to be true to one’s self? Or because they know that what you do has nothing to do with what I do or who I am?

Lesbian. Dyke. Fag. The words cut not because of what is said, but because of who says it. Mother, father, brother, sister, friend…lover. Nothing is wrong with being a lesbian. Nothing is wrong with being a dyke. Nothing is wrong with being a fag. What is wrong is how the terms are used. Anything used with the intent to harm is never good.

Lesbian. Dyke. Faggot. Whore. Bitch. Slut. Nigger. Spic. Fairy. On paper, they are what they mean. As words, they are letters put together. But spoken to someone else, they are a knife in the soul. And why? Who are these strangers to us? Who gives them the power to belittle us? Who gives them the right?

Lesbian. Dyke. Fag.  Why should the connotation change just because of who says it? We cannot control what people say, but we can definitely control our reactions. It is not about inaction; it is about proaction.

Tags: Lesbian, Dyke, Fag, words hurt, power

Fast-forward and your child tells you that they are gay. They have thought long and hard about who they are and are happier being with someone of the same sex rather than the opposite sex. It is hard news to hear because you know the sorrows they will encounter because of this. You begin to wonder what you did wrong, how this could have happened, and if it is just a phase. But you know it is not. You know your child. You know who they are just as much as they do. So you love them.

Now picture this: a jogger in the park notices  something in the bushes and finds a human hand. It is connected to a body that is so beaten and tattered that it makes it hard to identify the race let alone the identity. You get a call at 5 AM from the local police asking to identify a body that may be your child’s. You arrive to a scene that is beyond imagination. They do not show this type of horror in the movies. It is the birthmark on the left ankle that assures you…this is your child.

This is your miracle baby. This is the child that you stayed up with when they were sick, cheered at every game they had, listened to when they wanted to lay their burdens down, and cried at their graduation. This is the baby that you gave to the world in hopes they would take as good care of them as you had. This is your child. This is the same child who looked into your eyes with fear as they told you they were gay. This is your baby. This is the same child who wept over the baby bird who died in your driveway, who helped the neighbor with her trash because she was too feeble to bring it to the curb, and who got beaten up in middle school for defending the new kid with a lisp. This disheveled body…this…is…your…child.

The imagery is vague and fictional, but for the woman whose Navy son was beaten so badly that the only form of identification she could use to identify his body with was a tattoo, it was a cruel reality.

Every person here is someone else’s son and daughter. Why is it okay to put another mother or father through the heartache of outliving their children when you would not want such an evil on yourself? If your children are attacked, abused, or hurting, would you not want to help them? Would you not want to do everything in your power to make the person hurting them stop or hurt themselves? Why then would you do that to someone else’s child?

It is the paradox of evil that is created. One fights another to avenge their brother, but then that other’s brother must avenge his brother. And so the cycle begins and never ends.

Tags: gay, abused, paradox of evil