Filed by Pauly Fongemie, May 19, 2012

Mitt the Moonshiner:
Sophistry and Shame

A breaking news article from CNS, written by Patrick Burke, exposes the real Mitt Romney:

"Same-Sex Couples ‘Have the Right’ to Adopt Children -- But Not Marry."

"I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That’s fine," Romney said during a recent interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto. "But my preference is that we encourage the marriage of a man and a woman." [Emphasis in bold and italics added by me.]

He forgot to add that one of his major policy players is an avowed homosexual activist, but then that would be a bit of overkill since the above illogical stance is already damning enough on its own. Also note that he employs the political jargon of the left, "gay".

Just as moonshine is illicitly distilled liquor, Romney's reasoning is illegitimately extracted from faulty premises in that it does not comport with human nature, human reason and common sense:

The inclination to same-sex attraction is a grave disorder, a corruption of human nature, the acting out of which violates in a grievous manner the natural law, especially when proclaimed as if normal and righteous, so much so that God has told us that the vice of sodomy is one of the four sins crying out for His vengeance. Those persons hardened in this affliction, whatever compassion they merit from us, are also entitled to the truth, one aspect of which is that such persons do not possess the proper attributes to undertake parenting. The affliction of homosexual attraction affects more than the base appetites, bad enough as this is, but the whole person, thus the term grave disorder. Raising children is nothing less than an ardent profession of self-sacrifice by mature adults. Two of the well known but media-suppressed facts about the disorder is the self-absorption and narcissistic tendencies that adhere in the affliction, with a focus on victimhood above that which ought to conform with reality, that is, an internalized immaturity that predisposes one to emotional dysfunction. It is no mystery that persons with this affliction undergo higher rates of alcoholism, drug use and other disruptive and or self-destructive behaviors. Now, we all know, perhaps, an exception here and there, which only serves to verify the rule about the disorder. In other words, a level of emotional immaturity that stems from a faulty development in the formative years of the homosexually tempted man or woman. Public policy can not be based on the exception, by definition. Furthermore, any person claiming such a right is already displaying his inability to be a proper parent because he has just declared that he no longer recognizes the natural law at the very least. Or if he does, he is the supreme judge of that law, and not the lawgiver, which is Almighty God, thereby providing the evidence of his narcissism.

By what right can anyone who has a grasp of the implications of the vice itself decide to confer a "right" to adopt, while denying the right to marry? Marriage is for the begetting of children, the rearing of a family in obedience to the natural law and the Divine law. It is only in marriage that couples have the moral right to beget children. Single men and women who are not deviant may adopt children who otherwise might not find a family, but this is like comparing apples to oranges. They are adopting, not begetting and they suffer no such disorder as we have just described. And they have a probability of marrying and the necessary attributes for marriage in the future. They have not violated the natural law in so doing.

 It is as nonsensical to say that heterosexual couples have the right to bear children outside of marriage. Now, they may do so, in fact, often choose to do so, but this is sinning, one that it is not possible for authorities to regulate without further injustice; this being said, the fact that couples transgress the moral law in this way does not confer a right in of its own; it merely is a state of affairs that is regrettable, unduly corrupting of the children and to be discouraged when possible. But it can never be held to be a right. Ergo, the same for those with homosexual attractions and "lifestyles." Romney appears to have imbibed of too much nice guy, middle-of-the road swill, evincing not only a profound ignorance, but a willingness to compromise on that which may never be compromised under the natural law. He is unsuitable for public office as is our current President. No one, not even the President of the United States has a right to abrogate that which is immutable under the Divine and natural law, the first law of all law. Look at it from another perspective: Romney, the family man, thinks it is normal and or okay for two men or two women behaving in a manner that grievously violates the natural and Divine law, yet possessing a so-called "right" to adopt. Well then, if they are this suitable, for the rearing of children, the most vulnerable among us, pray tell, why not confer along with this "right" another bogus right and permit marriage? He simply cannot have it both ways and the sodomite clan knows this all too well and will exploit it for its own advance as all Philistines and social malcontents do. Romney has gained nothing and surrendered everything, rash, untenable and ill-conceived, whatever his motive may be.

I am assuming that Romney is assuming that we won't pay close attention to his actual words and not focus on hs choice of the word, preference -- as if a mere choice about matters that are morally indifferent. I prefer spinach to kale, orange flowers over that of pink, and one restaurant rather than another for fine dining in our locale. So what? My preferences do not bear on the public good and the moral law. I don't even require any logic for my preferences since these are subjectively established by their very nature of being itself and are not functions of rationality. There is no right and wrong involved at all. With the natural and Divine law, which every man is subject to, whether he is willing to acknowledge this or not, preferences are not  morally equivalent options. There is an objective right and wrong, the ignoring or dismissal of such brings ruin to society as history attests. We may have to tolerate lame-brained liberals in our midst who think they are above the natural and Divine law, but surely we need not promote them as worthy for public office. As a matter of conscientious duty we have a moral obligation to see that they are not installed with the public trust.

That people who comment and influence public policy have not pointed these salient facts out serves to demonstrate how degenerate our society has become, to our everlasting shame, one of the great sophistries of our time being that the only shame is in laying name to actual shame, the deeds that rightfully belong hidden in the dark, lest any innocent be led astray and thus debased.

As a Maine resident, even if I could find a way to hold my nose and vote for Romney, it would be a waste of my vote, not to mention my conscience because Maine is so solidly Obama country. The electoral college determines the outcome -- there is no popular election as such. All Romney votes will be swallowed up by the morass of liberalism that has a stranglehold on our political will. If the vote were close, perhaps someone with a false sense of duty could try to make the case for Romney. However, the reality is that in Maine there is no such thing as a close presidential race.

I will be writing in Michele Bachmann's and Rick Santorum's names for President and Vice-President, with gratitude that such good Americans exist and have sacrificed so much for America.