Conservative Party USA

Marriage, one man, one woman.

The side of the debate on marriage by liberals invariably centers on “rights.” The Conservative rebuttal is to revert the debate to the natural law, because natural law trumps civil rights. Don’t let this point unsettle you because it is the same reasoning that placed attention to it by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. They understood the natural law.

Natural law demonstrates that male and female were created for one another for the procreation and education of offspring. Mankind has understood the societal magnitude of the coupling of a male and a female, and over time gave it definition and protection; marriage. However, bear in mind, the underlying natural law conditions to marriage are sex, procreation, and education of offspring.

This understanding of the natural law regarding procreation has a recorded historical basis of thousands of years. The Judea Christian biblical reference often used about procreation has to do with Zechariah and his childless wife, Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-25). In the times of Zechariah, a Jew who had no children could be removed from the temple (God). Childlessness has always been grounds for divorce. Actually divorce is a less accurate term for a lack of procreation in marriage. The better term is annulment, because the natural law prescribes that “marriage” not open to procreation, is no marriage.

Therefore, without procreative sex, homosexual marriage is a nullity, a void, because the sexual attraction, a condition to which we admit exists, can never procreate because the natural law made no physical provision for it.

Summary Points
1. The natural order attracts male and female into procreative sex.
2. Society found this to be good and protects the procreative union, which replaces society numerically.
3. Homosexual unions are a procreative nullity, which reduces society numerically.

Introduction Remarks
Conservative Party USA Convention
Friday, July 23^rd, 9:30 A.M.

Although I greatly appreciate the fine introduction of me by Marcus Kohan, it did omit one new characteristic about me. It seems I don’t have good sense.  You see, about three months ago, after sparring with a voter curious about the Conservative party, it ended up by the voter telling me “I was an idiot wasting my time.” That kind of bothered me until a few weeks ago I read where the MSNBC host, Keith Olbermann, called Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, “idiots.”  Now I feel better! (more…)

Political discourse in America is fairly acrimonious, but this is really nothing new.  Since the founding of the country, personal smears are the standard on which one person or party gains a real or perceived advantage over another.  Currently, one side screams racist or nazi, the other socialist or communist.  Neither side of any issue hears the other, and so it becomes impossible to debate the core points of any discussion.  Even when we do take the time to fully understand an opposing position, it is easier to allow misinformation and untruth to stir the population than it is to present logical well thought out arguments that persuade through superior reasoning.  While engaged in political conversation with your friends and acquaintances, respect can easily be forgotten or cast aside, but whenever you allow your passions to overcome reason, you lose. (more…)

Questions of Integrity

There are plenty of people from all political perspectives who believe a separate conservative political party is the wrong approach for America.  I have had several conversations with well-meaning persons who oppose the idea for a variety of reasons.  The most frequently heard argument is that a third party splits the vote in such a way as to allow for the victory of the “Democrats”.  Another argument is the historical insignificance of third party candidates. (more…)

Do you remember the 60’s song about Alfie, the lyrics of which begin, “What’s it all about, Alfie?  What’s it all about when you sort it out, Alfie? The Christmas holiday season in the United States generally inspires one’s thoughts to that question, “What’s it all about?” I say it’s about the mystery of something greater than us. It provokes that thought today, and it did at the time of the Founding Fathers of this nation.

.” The Declaration of Independence makes four explicit references to our nation’s reliance on God. (more…)

Have you ever given any thought to whether or not you are actually classified as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent or Whocares?  And why is this important in the first place? (more…)

Growing up has much to do with understanding disappointing results. Illustration. A teacher gives a arithmetic pop quiz first thing in the school day. The sum of a list of numbers to be added is correctly, 78. Student’s answer is 77. Grade is “F.” First thought of the student is, “Well, it’s close.” But, then is learned that “close” only counts in the game of Horseshoes.

Marriage, when stripped of all the current civil rights blarney, is about sex. And sex is about physical mechanics. Nature, and I will please Liberals and avoid the use of a term like God, or Creator, provides that one human, a woman, carries the body apparatus to engage in sexual intercourse utilizing the body apparatus of another human, a man, the consequence of which nature intended is open to the procreation of an offspring, incubated by the female.

Under no physical sexual  circumstance does the Gay couple in union equal the physical sexual  circumstance of the “nature” provided union of a man and a woman. Thus, the Gay use of “marriage” as a defining term is all about the game of Horseshoes; close.

After the gay community co-opts the word marriage, common law will provide for a marriage definition in two parts because the law cannot handle a word-meaning with diametrically opposite understandings. Sexual marriage in compliance with nature cannot be equal to sexual marriage in defiance of nature.

Natural marriage, or unnatural marriage.

Identifying oneself with the Conservative Party can often bring forth a barrage of comments that we, as Conservatives, are a “party of the past”, that we are “always looking back, never forward”, and so on. This is probably meant as criticism, but the truth of the matter is that there are periods in history where retreat was, and is, smart. And not just in warfare. (more…)