5.10.2012

Interesting Conversation


I had an interesting dialogue with someone offended by my paintings with Barack Obama.  Here is our conversation on Facebook:


Jeanne:
I feel so sorry for you. Living a bitter life, being a bitter man. Oh what a small mind you have.

Jon:
My love for God and my country makes me bitter and ignorant? Thank you for visiting.

Jeanne:
Your love for God should make you positive, you create bitterness in your work. God is all loving, all forgiving, and a gift of peace. God world is one of acceptance and love for everyone.

Jon:
Like when he condemned the Pharisees and overturned the moneychangers. Sometimes you have to pick a side instead of sitting on the fence and claiming "peace and love." Sure, we love others, but it doesn't mean we surrender to what is wrong. I saw your site...you believe in gay marriage. In your mind it is all about peace and love regardless of the consequences.

Jeanne:
Wars are never won, they just hurt people. Surrender-to what you think is wrong, why are you not marching in the streets, why do you contiue to support the closed mind. I am not on the fence, the forces of change will be. History is the past. What are you doing to change the furture. Painting for money.......now that is taking a stand indeed.

Jon:
Capitalism has blessed you with everything comfortable you enjoy. What am I doing to change the future? I'm doing everything I can to stop Socialism from infecting America. I'm not big on war, so your preaching to the choir. Although I will DEFEND our liberties till my dying breath, your philosophies are misguided and will only lead to tyranny.

Jeanne:
I work for my money, my children adults, both work in the service of others social worker, sheriffs dept. Nothing is fair and equal and never will be. Protecting health, the aging and children is not socialism, any more than giving money away to past presdients that don't need it but ask for it to maintain there style of living. If the congress and senate paid for there own health care etc. Would that be socialism, cause they sure are living it now

Jon:
You don't understand my paintings because you have not done any investigating. Your assumptions about me are completely off. Until more people in this country see the federal government as the problem instead of the cure, the worse our situation will become.

Jeanne:
Your painting, point the finger at one person whom is black. Your put everyone else in the background............It's like where's Waldo find the Bushes. All forms of art are important to the artist. How you allow the world to see them, often allows us not to see. Do you writre your senators, do you assit in local elections, do you hind and paint. Do you really care that goverment is over sized, or is it just that you profit because of it?

Jon:
Your questions are assumptive and wrong in each case. You imply racism because I painted Obama and he is black? You hint that I am motivated by money and make subtle sarcastic remarks. You are the very thing you claim to disdain. I engaged you in a conversation because I thought you would be rational. Good-bye.

65 comments:

  1. Way to go Jeanne.
    So gay marriage is all about "peace and love" and not about what is right?

    There is absolutely NO LEGAL BASIS to keep marriage from same-sex couples. You can make all the moral judgements you like, but conservatives can not reconcile the fact that our constitution treats EVERYONE equally under the law.

    You want the Constitution to be some sort of addendum to the Bible. Thank goodness that the majority of Americans do not believe this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm wondering why you think government should be playing a role in marriage at all. Why should someone have to receive permission from the State to get married? That's the core of the problem. This is a natural consequence of government involvement where it shouldn't be involved.

      Delete
    2. You are right about one thing. The constitution does guarantee that all people should be treated equally. Therefore, gay people do have the same right at marriage that the rest of us have. They have the right to marry somebody of the OPPOSITE sex. That however, is not what they are asking for. They are asking for everybody's rights to change, to include same sex marriage. If you try to change everybody's rights, then we all get a say in the matter. Stop getting upset about the fact that many of us don't agree with you, because we have different morals. To discount our beliefs is infringing on our rights, which is unconstitutional.

      Delete
    3. Gay marriage infringes on none of your rights, Elfen1. In fact, marriage isn't even a 'right' in our constitution, nor should it be. Marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony, to which the State has forcefully imposed its hand. The main concern that I have is that if we continue down the path that we are currently set on (mandating that individuals/organizations, regardless of religious belief, offer birth control), that there will be lawsuits, and calls for anti-discrimination from church's in regards to allowing same-sex marriages.

      A marriage is a man and a woman. Simple as that. If two people choose to live together, adopt a child, and raise a family, that's something I have to tolerate (but not necessarily morally accept it). What is being discussed is legal recognition that two individuals of the same sex can receive marriage benefits just as a man and woman does.

      This is where the problem lies. The government has created this problem by its overreach, and until we remove the government's supposed authority to tell us who or what or how many individuals can be "legally married" this debate will never end.

      Whether you personally support or oppose gay marriage is irrelevant. What is important is maintaining separation of church and state, and allow everyone the free exercise of their God-given rights.

      Delete
    4. At what point does it stop, why don't we let 3 men marry 1 woman. Or grown men can marry ten 17 year olds.

      Delete
    5. That's the point. Get the government out of the business of making those decisions for us.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. TennesseeTicked,
      Too bad the creators would most likely disagree with you. They understood, like most reasonable people, that it is a document written by MEN and therefore not infallible. This is why they made sure that it would be amendable. They even built in instructions on how to do it..

      The problem with those who try to apply a religious context to the Constitution (beside the fact that it is not true) is that they conveniently overlook the fact that God Is purposely absent from the entire document. The founders did not want their very profound and well reasoned document usurped by the same type of zealots who they sought to escape in the first place.

      Read Thomas Paine if you really want to understand the secular nature and purpose of the Constitution.

      Delete
    9. elfen1,
      Explain how your rights are changed by same-sex marriages?Are you being forced to marry a homosexual? Will you have to modify a single thing about your life other than accept and tolerate something you do not believe in morally? Don't I do that every time my wife drags me to a Julia Roberts movie?

      No one is asking you to change or even accept anything. Just recognize that if you are allowed to commit to the person you love and enjoy the benefits of that union then so should others who choose someone that they love.
      No need for fear or paranoia.

      It is going to happen eventually. It is the final piece of the civil rights puzzle that joined both conservatives and liberals together over the last fifty years.
      You can either sit in your bomb shelter, making hyperbolic predictions about the demise of America or live your life above ground in a fair and just society.

      Delete
    10. Bradenator.
      Fine with me. Government should have no place in marriage if it can't make the benefits available to all. Let's leave it up to the state's.

      Of course you know that this means that heterosexual couples will not be guaranteed anything as well. If you move to a state that does not honor your marriage to a hispanic or black woman;

      TOO BAD

      If you want to leave your estate to someone you married in a church ceremony,

      TOO BAD

      You'll have to hire a lawyer just like everyone else and pay whatever they charge to get them to certify your union.

      If you decide you want to adopt a child in a state that recognizes your marriage and move to North Carolina,

      TOO BAD

      You'll have to get your adoption re-certified in their state.

      However, if you just apply the constitution fairly to everyone who wants to join in legal marriage, nothing changes. Not your marriage, not your religion, not your sexuality.

      The only thing that changes is that you and your children live in a fair and just society. Isn't that what conservatives and liberals both want?

      Delete
    11. mrpriceroom12,

      Most of your points still rely upon the State recognition of marriage. According to the constitution, we have a right to our life, our liberty, and our property. It is not, from a constitutional standpoint, any State's right to deny you your property, especially on the grounds you have outlined. Your TOO BAD points support my proposal to remove the government (both Federal and State) from the equation. It seems to me that they are the ones creating the problem. If a State didn't have to recognize your marriage, if it didn't have to dictate what benefits you get from this change in status, if it carried out it's Constitutional responsibility to protect every individual's rights, and not every group's rights, this would be a non-issue.

      Your idea of a fair and just society, is one in which the government mandates that all religions which perform this ceremony (marriage), perform it for every individual, regardless of that religion's principles and values.

      It's a slippery slope that continues the growing trend of State interfering with church.

      Delete
    12. Bradenator,
      The Constitution says NOTHING about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." You are thinking of the Declaration Of Independence; a fine document, but one with no legal application.

      The Constitution on the other hand, is very specific about the privileges and powers that it enumerates. The ceremony of marriage may be religious, but the legality of it is a simple legal contract.

      I am sorry to break it to you, but the Constitution absolutely explains that states must honor contracts made in other states (Article IV - the Full faith and credit clause). It ensures that I can move freely around the country and not have to give up my legal rights or escape my legal obligations just because I want to live somewhere else.

      If you are staying with me here, then you will notice that religion is completely out of the picture and no NEW rights have been given or taken away.

      Instead, you just have a very clear and Constitutional mandate for states to do their duty and honor a marriage entered into in good faith in another state regardless if that state outlaws same-sex marriage.

      If you would like to amend the constitution and "remove the government (both Federal and State) from the equation", be my guest, but be prepared for the disastrous legal consequences that follow.

      Your argument is much the same as those used against Dred Scott to keep him from suing for freedom when he moved from a slave state to a free state. It is as illogical now as it was then. Fortunately, as in that case, it is only a matter of time before it is seen for what it is; flawed and unconstitutional.

      Delete
    13. ...I don't see why amending the Constitution is necessary. All that has to be done is the ending of the practice of the States issuing marriage licenses, and remove the benefits married individuals get in the tax code. Nothing that's currently in the Constitution has to change in order to do this, nor does anything need to be added

      Delete
    14. It's not just about the TAX code. There is property rights, child custody, medical and a slew of other issues that married couples benefit from that same-sex couples should also have access to.

      You are right. There is NO need to amend the constitution. It already covers the duty of states to honor legal contracts created in other states and the right of people not to be favored over others because of something as insignificant as orientation.

      Delete
  2. And you something made you think that would make an interesting post on your blog?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Typical, and the president is not black. He is mulatto just like my daughter. When they have nothing of substance, they just spew. Nothing new under the sun. Love your work and keep up the fight. <3<><

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mulatto is a term that carries a lot of history with it and many people find offensive. The fact that you are the father of a mixed-race child and not sensitive to that is worrisome. Just as you wouldn't use terms liked "colored" or "negro" (I hope you wouldn't anyway), you should also avoid using the term "mulatto" - especially when referring to your daughter.

      Delete
  4. I think you were conversing with a shovel or some type of blunt farming implement.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Matthew 5:11-12
    11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
    12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. mrpriceroom12, a great many of us believe it is a divine document.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. TennesseeTicked,
      Too bad the creators would most likely disagree with you. They understood, like most reasonable people, that it is a document written by MEN and therefore not infallible. This is why they made sure that it would be amendable. They even built in instructions on how to do it..

      The problem with those who try to apply a religious context to the Constitution (beside the fact that it is not true) is that they conveniently overlook the fact that God Is purposely absent from the entire document. The founders did not want their very profound and well reasoned document usurped by the same type of zealots who they sought to escape in the first place.

      Read Thomas Paine if you really want to understand the secular nature and purpose of the Constitution.

      Delete
    3. mrpriceroom12,

      It is correct to say that there is no mention of God in the Constitution, however incorrect to suggest that Christian values had no part in the content of the document. Many of the Framers of the Constitution were religious, and felt that they were divinely inspired, but cleverly kept God out of the document as such references would invariably raise the question: "Which God?" As the various Christian denominations in America were much more divided back then, from the Puritans and Anglicans to the Catholics and Pentecostals. As such, such a question might easily divert from the good of the document over questions of what is meant by the references to God.

      On the subject of Thomas Paine: While I myself love the man, and think of him as a great political thinker and wonderful example of patriotism, he had little to do with the content of the Constitution. He, like Jefferson, was in France during the Constitutional Convention, and neither of them had any input beyond their prior written work. The more notable person to cite would be James Madison who, while not a Bible-thumper by any measure, was not shy to point out his own belief on the relationship between God and this country.

      Delete
    4. Christians don't have a monopoly on moral values. Of course our rules are based on Christian principles, but that doesn't mean that if the founders were Buddhist our values would not have been just, fair and moral.

      The founders personal religions are irrelevant.

      What matters is the SECULAR document they created as a foundation to continue a moral and just society that provides ALL MEN AND women equal protection under the law.

      Delete
    5. You admit my point then. The content of the document is inherently shaped by Christian principles.

      The Constitution may have been fair just and moral if the Framers had been Buddhist, but it would not have produced an identical document, which is my point: the influence of Christianity on the mindset of the Founders produced a unique result in how they viewed men, law, and the government, which is present in the Constitution.

      On the note of equal protection: sometimes the best way to protect the rights of everyone is to remove the government fully from the issue, such that it cannot be used as a tool of oppression by some citizens against others. That's why I support the idea of the full removal of government from marriage. Make it a system based fully on contracts and religious ceremonies(if you are so inclined) such that everyone may exercise their rights, and remove any tax/legal benefits so the government has no stake and cannot reasonably regulate it.

      Delete
    6. Then what do we need Government for?

      Your idea of REMOVING government from protecting legal contracts is naive. What if a state decides that you can't get married until you have a job or that you can only marry the same race?

      Sometimes the government HAS TO step in to apply the Constitution to protect protect the rights of people when the state won't. It is not interference it is protection.

      Delete
    7. ...my point is that the government SHOULDN'T BE ABLE to decide that. Get government COMPLETELY out of marriage means setting no restrictions on who can or cannot marry.

      We don't seem to disagree here, I think we just have a disconnect on which government we're talking about; I mean ALL government, Federal and State.

      And I don't mean that government shouldn't protect legal contracts in the sense of say, civil courts, I just think that the legal contract marriage represents shouldn't be dependent on a marriage license issued by a government agency. It should be a contract agreed upon by both parties, drawn up and signed to provide adequate documentation and, if the partners so desire, enshrined before God in a suitable religious institution.

      Delete
    8. Like Ron Paul's ideas, it sounds like the world should work that way, but it is completely impractical.

      You want to take benefits away from millions of Americans who are already married just so you don't have to include another group?

      It is never going to happen.

      Government benefits for married couples cost nothing. In fact, it brings in private and public revenue.

      Opening it up in a fair way to those who have been denied because of another groups religious rigidity is inhumane, unconstitutional and economically senseless. Gay marriage will have NO negative effect on the economy and will not expand government.

      Is there another reason you object to gay marriage besides being afraid of government because your argument just doesn't hold water.

      Delete
  7. Keep on painting Jon. When 'They' squeal like this, you can be assured that you message is being received. Consider their whining as a barometer of success. Trying to engage them in rational dialogue is futile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds more like 'rationalizing,' then 'rational dialogue.' Don't be confused by the how similar these words sound, the concepts they refer to are actually quite different.

      Delete
  8. I thought you handled that well, Jon! I do not understand why they are offended that we don't like "their" president, but yet they can bash the republican president all they want and we are supposed to sit back and take it because they couldn't POSSIBLY be wrong! UGH! I hate that you are accused of racism because you painted our president, who happens to be negro, black! What did they expect you to paint him? Purple? Yellow? Blue? Would that make you less racist? What if you started painting him white? They would find a way to bash you for that, too! Whether they like it or not this entire country was founded on the principles of God, and God has stated that marriage is between a man and a woman! I am sorry you are catching so much criticism for your painting! It's a testament to the truth of your messages when the Adversary has to send in his troops to try and discredit your work! I personally LOVE your work and will one day own several of your paintings! Keep up the good work! I am on your side and I am on God's side! People like Jeanne that live such narrow-minded lives are one of the many problem in this country! Let's bend our rules and morals and values to accommodate the worldly man.....no thank you! God does not change with the times and ideals of man, and we should not either! Stay true to what you know is right and you will always be true to your God! God bless you for your talent and for your ability to stand for the truth!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well there is some truth in that you seem to focus on Barack Obama when Mitt Romney himself has proven to be just as much an enemy of freedom as Obama has. Your book of Mormon talks about the secret societies that overthrew freedom of all lands which is their desire. I find supporting the Mormon Mitt Romney a great decieving paradox.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Just curious on your thoughts of who you think would take away more of our freedom...Romney or Obama?

      Delete
  10. I'm with you Mr M. These people do not get it. The only way they would ever get it is if they got a spiritual awakening. They put the government in front of God, and there is no getting thru to them. If they only knew that the homosexuality issue is a big issue to God and it is clearly stated in the Holy Bible that it's an abomination TO God, then they might, and I say might, lightly..they might understand the truth of the matter.
    I love your paintings . They speak volumes. ..and they are spot on! Keep up your good work and may God continue to bless you.
    Barbara from NJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly stated in the holy bible, in Leviticus 18:22-23, correct? That argument has two important flaws that prevent it from gaining any sort of true legitimacy:

      1. The Christian religion (according to the interpretations of Paul, in other words mainstream historical and modern western christianity) abolishes the rules of the Old Testament. According to this interpretation (which, unless you belong to an ancient Israeli cult is no doubt the one you believe), God sent his son Jesus Christ to die for our sins, and also to create a new contract and covenant. This new covenant wipes away all of the rules of the old testament and creates a new standard of peace and love under Jesus Christ.

      In other words, Jesus died so that you could eat pork, wear blended shirts, and sleep with whoever you wanted to.

      2. As any form of post-renaissance government would say, the Church or any other religious structure has no right to decide the rights of non-believers. The separation of church and state has been one of the defining characteristics of the modern world, as the Founding fathers of America (which it is VERY IMPORTANT to note intended in no way to create a Christian state) would have wanted.

      In other words, it is your choice whether to believe that gay marriage is immoral or not, but your faith can't dictate the rights of others. Even if a valid part of the bible were against homosexuality, that wouldn't give the American secular government a valid reason to discriminate against anyone.

      In other other words, you can tell them they're going to hell, but you can't take away their rights.

      All this coming from a Christian :)

      Delete
    2. After you stop the gays, you can go for the abominators who eat shrimp

      Delete
  11. Who is the closed minded one here? This liberal is so accustomed to big government she can't even imagine a small one, so will always fall back on explanations of racism, greed, or ignorance, whatever she can think of in her limited scope of ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jon Super Kal is right!!! And don't worry about the Liberals that think everything is about Peace and Love, those of US who know the Lord know that he is not for anything that he did not create. And had he created Gay marriage then he would have started this world with two couples in the garden Adam and Eve and Steve and Aaron or who ever. I don't let the egnorance of these type of people bother me any more. I pray for them and let God deal with them and know that If they don't change then I won't have to spend eternity with them because they will not be going where we are going. Keep up the GREAT work with the GOD GIVEN talent and the purpose he put you on the earth with. And to those who are jealous because that is how you make your living then too bad for them. These people don't understand the Constitution or the Bible so they can't relate to your paintings that are devinely inspired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was unaware that when I became a liberal democrat that I had to cease to believe in God. And that all my readings of the bible would be promptly erased. Am I still allowed to pray? Am I allowed to still go to church? Can I continue to teach Sunday school?

      Quoting you "And don't worry about the Liberals that think everything is about Peace and Love,"

      Quoting Jesus

      Matthew 5:

      9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

      Maybe you are right - we won't spend eternity together.

      Delete
    2. You really believe the story of Adam and Eve literally? No concept of allegory or metaphor?

      I am surprised especially from a fan of McNaughton whose paintings are so deeply symbolic and allegorical. Take the one of Obama burning the Constitution for example:

      Notice the subtle way he depicts Obama symbolizing the president. Think of the deep thought it must have taken to portray the hidden meaning of the burning Constitution,

      At first glance it seems like the message is that Obama hates America, but a more complex analysis shows that he also must hate the Constitution why else would he be burning it.

      Pretty heady stuff eh?

      Delete
    3. The same book of the Bible which condemns homosexuality also condemns the wearing of 'mixed fibers,' i.e. every piece of clothing you ever bought. Just saying...

      Delete
  13. Keep up the good work! Love your art, love your perspective on America. I'll gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend our country. Truly, we cannot change the views of most of the progressives as theirs is a philosophy based on feelings, not facts and truth. We must stay together and not allowing any more division over details such as religious choice. May God richly bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jon, according to liberal "think" you should've painted Obama as lily-white to remove any hint of racism. Although then they would've accused you for painting him as white (as if all presidents should be white). Arguing with most liberals is a waste of time - liberalism is their religion, and it's usually hard to argue common sense with a belief system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is hard to argue common sense with a belief system! Just try talking common sense with a Christian.

      Delete
  15. To let someone continue in the very thing that is actually harming them the most, is not showing them love and peace.

    Tolerance is the least of all virtues(it's a good virtue, but it is the least). Because it simply says, I tolerate you doing whatever you want.

    Love is the highest virtue. Which is despising the sin which causes so much pain and hurt to the people who are involved in it. All this must be done with gentleness and respect.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I find it amusing and sad that created beings try to decide what is right and wrong and have been since their eyes were opened. It is so self-defeating. Choose God and He will open the eyes of your understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm curious how she views other forms of art that were put down during the culture wars. How does she feel about Piss Christ or Robert Mapplethorpe's work? I've noticed that it's a censorship by small minds until it makes you (liberal) question your values.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So the Liberals and Government claim separation of Church and State yet you want a religious ceremony to be forced on others. You want to find a religion that condones homosexuality, fine, go find your own and stop perverting the Christian faith. When it comes to gay marriage what is it that you all really want? Do you want the government to acknowledge gay marriage so you can have the same benefits? Why is government involved with marriage anyway. It's a religious ceremony. The same thing government and liberals say are not allowed by the Constitution.
    As for President Obama always being a victim of some racist white people is ludicrous. Because he's black he has been allowed to get away with so much. When anyone speaks out against his actions, they are labeled a racist. Is he not a politician? Has he not been making radical changes? Has he not spent more in 4 years then Bush did in 8 years? Don't you think that the US debt is out of control? Where is the transparency that was promised from President Obama? Hasn't there been more back room deals and money laundering going on now than ever before?
    When I ask people I know about Obama and his corruption, they always point to other corrupt politicians. Because someone else does wrong doesn't mean everyone gets a free pass. Justice doesn't grade on a curve.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jon, I applaud you for even trying to have a conversation with a liberal...they claim that everyone that doesn't see things their way is either close-minded or racist, neither are true. I'm a conservative and I simply don't believe in hand outs, I believe in hard work....I've gone to the grocery store too many times and seen people buying groceries with their link cards and alcohol with their cash, when they do this they will never get back on their feet, but they will always want help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."


      I can see some of the merit in classical republicanism, I also believe in hard work. But for the most part, party politics are corrupt - on both sides. But, the Republican Party in particular is generally a friend of big business, before the public. Before you get started on 'job creation,' I would like to point out that most big businesses outsource manufacturing of any kind, only providing jobs in sales and management. This creates a void in the labor market, and has made it harder for citizens to find work. Big business has destroyed jobs. Big business is also destroying the environment that sustains the life that God created. I find businessmen and many Republicans to be in favor of policies that eliminate the legal responsibility for good Stewardship of the earth. Big Business, and modern Republicanism often works in favor of the ultra-wealthy, yet they still seem to be able to sell their ideas to the little guy. Jesus knew that we were oppressed by the wealthy, he said so himself. But, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't necessarily call myself a fan of the Democrats either.

      Delete
  21. I am always amazed and disheartened when I read posts that are critical of the Constitution. I am also concerned when I read posts in support of the Constitution, but their reasoning is not always factual. If anyone wants to really know, and I mean reallllllly know and understand our Constitution I recommend a 10 part online lesson titled "Constitution 101" from Hillsdale College.

    http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/

    ReplyDelete
  22. 1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester and air conditioning.

    2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

    3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

    http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ban-gay-marriage.jpg

    4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

    5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ would be destroyed.

    6) The only valid marriages are those which produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

    7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

    8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

    9) Children can never succeed without both a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

    10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy or longer life spans.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Third post is charm...

    If you want to claim that marriage is (only) a Christian, institution then you may as well come out and say what the British said in India. That indigenous (non-Christian) couples aren't really married, and by virtue of their lack of a union rooted in Christ, that all their children are illegitimate and their wives are whores.

    Do you really want to go that far? If marriage is rooted in any particular faith, you're essentially claiming that secularists and people of other faiths aren't married.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I cans see where Jeanne is coming from, but I don't think that she did a good job of explaining herself. Personally, I really liked "one world under socialism," it really captured the essence of propaganda, and the unfounded fears that plague the American citizens of today's society. The irony of the classic republican construct of "socialism," as being a detriment to the constitutional rights of citizens in the light of the Republicans war on civil liberties across the board is astounding, and I've never seen it so blatantly expressed. Great job.
    A little voice told me to share with you all, a passage from the New Testament:
    41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You certianly have started a conversation. Which is art's job. I however don't feel that what you do is no more than coservative propganda. But to each his own. I agree with Jeanne. That is why you shut down once confronted on the very obvious. Because George Bush did mor to erode your constitutional rights with all of the directives a laws as part of Homeland security wire tapping, indefintly holding poeple with out due prcess and dozens of other usurtions. That Bush sanctioned. But you're ok with those? Why? They are definitely agaisnt the contistitution and the oil painting should have G.W Bush stamping on the constitution. He usurped many of the rights we hold dear. What did Obama do? Healthcare that the conservatives forced to be what it is? That makes him a socialist? What about FDR? Johnson? Theodore Rooselvelt? Aren't they socilists too. And didn't the country thrieve under these men? So I can only agree with her that is must be that he is black whether you want to fess up to it or not. It is clear when I look at your art. The fear of the Black man is alive and thrieving in America still.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Dezera
      I'm not going to bother implying that anyone is racist here, but you hit the nail on the head with the Bush comment - in reality, Bush burning the constitution would be a more apt commentary.

      Delete