Monday, January 03, 2005 Family Research Council explained

The “Family” Research Council claims to have been defending family, faith and freedom for over 20 years and also claims to be one of the most influential social policy establishments.

But for some reason, I get the feeling they really have no interest in defending my freedoms, my family, or my faith because, basically, my family, faith and vision of freedom doesn’t mirror theirs. If fact, they are responsible for restricting more freedoms than defending them. They are great at defending their faith, Christianity, and probably like the idea of being a nice white affluent Christian family with 2.5 kids that are taught to demonize other kids who don’t believe the way they do.

So here are the FRCs core principals:

1.God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image. Human life is, therefore, sacred and the right to life is the most fundamental of political rights. No, there is no god and I have more evidence supporting my claim than you do of yours.
2.Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expression in the institutions of marriage and the family. So what you are saying is that there is no love without marriage and family? How many “in love” happily married couples do you know, last I checked 50% of all marriages end in divorce.
3.Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family in law and public policy. No one wants to make laws saying you can’t get married, except you! Marriage and family don’t need protection because no one is attacking them, you are paranoid. The only thing that threatens marriage is divorce.
4.The American system of law and justice was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic. Which ethic was that? Thou shall not kill? That and don’t steal are the only 2 of the 10 commandments that made it into our law books. There’s a lot more to our laws than 2 commandments.
5.American democracy depends upon a vibrant civil society composed of families, churches, schools, and voluntary association. And separation from church and state and the freedom from religion, and freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to watch the movies you want to watch, the freedom to listen to the music you want to listen to, the freedom to develop your own sense of morals that are logical and come from the heart, not from the pages of some old book that has been written and rewritten for the last 2000 years.

So that’s their stance and the logic they use to formulate their OPINIONS and my response to them.

Here are some quotes from their web-site (

This is an important provision that will increase tenfold fines for indecent behavior on public airwaves - something desperately needed in this day of Janet Jacksons and Howard Sterns. This language MUST STAY within the bill, or the FCC will lose a powerful weapon in this fight.Additionally, the "hate crime" legislation included in the Defense Authorization Bill MUST BE STRIPPED. If allowed to pass, this provision could be used to stifle free speech by individuals and churches, as has happened in Canada and on college campuses. Mere thought will be punished and open debate will be eroded on the issues important to us all.
It’s almost like they are saying we don’t want people to say what they think but we should be allowed to say we want. Hitler had that same exact idea.

On why condoms don’t work and abstinence does:

The United States is in the midst of a sexually transmitted disease (STD) epidemic. We have the highest STD rate in the developed world.
We also have the highest murder rate in the western world, why don’t you address that since you are so concerned with life, hypocrites!

On Feminism and the suburbs:

In 1960, 75 percent of all American households were "married couple households" and average household size was 3.4 persons. By 2000, though, married couples comprised only about 50 percent of households and average household size had fallen to 2.5. All the growth was in the never-married, divorced, and "childless cohabitating" categories. Indeed, if the suburban family model of 1960 could be magically imposed on the American populace of 2003, the U.S. would actually need 28 million fewer dwelling units than it now has. Put another way, marriage and larger families actually prove to be more environmentally friendly than singles and childless couples. Why? Larger families--on a per capita basis--use less land, building materials, fuel, food, and supplies; they are more efficient.
No, you morons! If all these people that currently don’t have 1.4 children had them, we would be a nation of 350 million instead of 250 million. It’s good that we don’t all get married at 19, and are able to live a productive life for ourselves. Otherwise, we could all end up uneducated with a bunch of angry, suburban brats who cry about everything only to end up shooting up their classmates and blowing up their schools, leaving their 2 kids behind because you thought condoms were a bad idea, because Jesus supposedly said so! If my girlfriend and I, who aren’t taking any resources away from society, such as welfare and school tax money, and live together without children, in a small condo that consists of 26 units in the same amount of space as your one house with a 2 car garage, then how are we less efficient than you and all the suburban NASCAR dads who have 4 kids that contributes to burdening the school systems and may or may not be sucking up other societal resources such as puplic aid? Not to mention all the resources used in driving all these brats around to soccer practice and doctors appointments. What not having kids means for us, a “childless cohabitating” FAMILY , is extra money to buy things such as new hybrid cars (most likely made in the U.S. and, therefore, contributing to society) as opposed to you having to buy cheap baby toys and strollers from Wal-Mart that were made by slave labor in China?

The latter just shows you how retarded and uneducated they really are, or how brainwashed they would like the rest of us to be. Think of the Taliban or a place like Afghanistan where you don’t learn history, math, or anything about the humanities and instead all you learn is scripture and what someone else thinks your particular “god” thought about a particular issue that didn’t even exist at the time when that part of your “Bible” was written.


Two Minutes J said...

Good points. One thing that struck me: If the laws were formed on the Judeo-Christian basis, the main one really hasn't been adhered to: Thou Shalt not Kill. I could be wrong, but last time I checked more people have been killed over religion than anything else. Not necessarily all Judeo-Christians, but you see the point. Anyways what about!! Haha, I thought that shit was a joke when I checked it out, but I guess they're real huh? Those dudes got fucking issues. However, theyve converted me! I already bought the plane ticket to Topeka where I'm gonna become a cock-sucking alter boy for them! $7 an hour!!hahahaa. The drummer from Foghat! Thats my drummer!!

trick said...

Hey, before I, like, make a decision...

Could you, like, tell me what the most, like, popular celebrities think about it?

Neemund said...

Not being allowed to steal stuff from morons? Not being able to kill them if I want? Getting in even more trouble for lying to the police about it? All this Ten Commandment crap really pisses me off. How are we supposed to keep out gene pool clean if we can't kill off the pollutants before they infect the rest of mankind?

Also marriage has always been a matter of religion, not the government. I have absolutely no clue when government started to get its grubby little paws into marriage. They should keep out right now. If your religion (be it Muslim, Hindu, Athiest, Christian, Catholic, whatever...) says you can only marry 1 person of the opposite sex, more power to you. If it says you can marry whoever or whatever the heck you want, more power to you. If I wanted to marry the guy accross the street from me, my sister, and my uncle's pet goat, I don't want the government saying that I can or can't. I can't recall anywhere in the Constitution where it says anything about marriage, only that the Federal government cannot "prohibit the free excercise" of religion. So if my religion says I can marry whoever the heck I want, and kill whoever the heck I want, I don't want Uncle Sam to have any say in the matter.

Also if I wanted to kill someone of a different race, its not because I hate them, I'd kill pretty much anyone I'd consider to be my inferior; whether they were asian, black, white, mexican, martian, etc. It wouldn't be because I hate them, it would be because I live the human race too much to let them pollute our gene pool.

Toad734 said...

I have no problem with any or all churches saying they will only marry monogamous heterosexual couples, that's their right and their freedom of religion. It’s ironic that on that issue, the churches are just opening themselves up to the government becoming more involved in religion, thus restricting their freedom of religion. If the government has to start regulating religion and churches, maybe its time they start paying taxes like everyone else. Let’s face it, they spent more time planning the marriage amendment than they did planning Iraq, and how much tax money have we spent on that?
I actually believe that Mormons should have the right to marry 30 wives if they want, that is their religion, and if the women are stupid enough to go along with it, tie their tubes and send them on their honeymoon. In fact, most of the people in the bible had more than one wife. So I guess that’s the debate, is marriage a religious institution or not, if so, the government has no say in the matter, if not, and it's a federal institution, then the church can’t have any say in the matter. It’s a very gray area and not as clear as people think.

TBQelite said...

"In fact, most of the people in the bible had more than one wife."

And did you read further and see what troubles they got into because of it?

Jon said...

On why condoms don’t work and abstinence does:

The United States is in the midst of a sexually transmitted disease (STD) epidemic. We have the highest STD rate in the developed world.

We also have the highest murder rate in the western world, why don’t you address that since you are so concerned with life, hypocrites!

ok.. first problem... i'd like to hear more of the "facts" that you mentioned in the beginning of this article, and less of the mindless rambling you followed it with. this doesn't even constitute initelligent debate. what i think you are is an 8 year old who got on daddy's computer and have a goal to "change the neighborhood"

wake up you stupid democrat. there's a sun outside, and CNN is no longer the leading news source!

and read the Bible

Toad734 said...

And I suppose the Bible is your leading news source? A bit outdated don't you think? I have a copy of the Des Moines Journal from 1968 if you want to read that.

Jon said...

In fact, most of the people in the bible had more than one wife.

i keep finding good stuff on here...

i wish you would read further and see where Christ talks about marriage being between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. and if you'd read again further, you'd notice that the men who had many wives were sent out to populate the earth (or else you wouldn't be here) silly, eh?

also known as "bucketsofjoy" on

Jon said...

when did i say that the bible was a good current news source? i dont believe i did, smartypants.

and no, keep your back in the day newspapers for your dog

Jon said...

ok, i heard a good story the other day, and your little 4th grade computer project of a blog reminds me of it. (edited for length)

a man was driving down the road, and he passed by a field. he saw a farmer trying to pull something out from the back of a cow. he thought the man was having problems, so he stopped to help.

.... after a while of pulling on the baby calf, it finally came out into the world... the farmer smiles and thanks the fellow for stopping.. the man then replies "my goodness.. how fast was that calf going when it ran into the back of that cow"

now see, you take a perfectly good set of data, and destroy it. you look beyond the said "facts" wich your website is named after and you jump strait to how you hate that you were wrong about bush getting four more years.

--which he did by the way

Toad734 said...

I couldn't care less what some guy who died 2000 years ago said about something that doesn't concern me, or you, the 17 year old. The main reason I don't care is because I don't live in Jesus' country, and this is not the United States of Jesus, therefore I don't have to follow his laws. If you want to live in a country ruled under the sword of religion, may I suggest a travel agent that specializes in trips to Iran.
My point behind all of this isn't that I can't wait for women to marry each other, well actually, never mind, the point is this; is marriage a matter of the church or is it a matter of the state? If it's a matter of religion then fine, the government has no right to interfere with it. This means if a religion decides they recognize gay marriages then the have the freedom of religion to make that decision, and if a religion decides that they don't recognize gay marriages then they have the right to do that as well.
If marriage is a matter for the state, then the state has no right to make decisions about it based on religious principals. Therefore they have no right to make laws prohibiting that religions practices and ceremonies.

Jon said...

ok, first off Christ wasn't just "some guy 2000 years old" and yes, what he said STILL does partain to your life today. if it didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation and John Kerry would be moving boxes into the white house. if you'll remember, this nation was founded on the basis that people have the right to chose thier religion. or not to be religious. i'm not telling you to go out and convert to catholicism and say 1000 hail mary's a day to forgive your sins, i'm tellilng you to stop taking Christianity as a bunch of old people who are stuck in the past and dont have the right to vote. mariage is a covenant of love between you, your opposite-in-gender mate, and God. yes, you do have to deal with the government to have a marriage (i dont know much because i'm not married) but i do know that my God created this bond for us to keep and respect, not pervert and destroy. before you know it people are going to be marrying horses and crickets and stuff. when is it going to stop? where is it going to stop? common knowledge tells us that you cant fit a round peg into a...... round peg... it doesn't work... childish that seems, yes. but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. my hope is that the trend will not catch on and they (of course) will not be able to spawn.

and thanks for checking out my work, i appreciate your viewing it.

Toad734 said...

Well, if you live in a place that needs a law stating that you can't marry a horse, I suggest moving, very far away. No one wants to marry a horse, nor will they, but if they do, how does that affect you in any way?
So you didn't answer the question; is marriage a religious institution or is it federal/state institution?
I don't need a church or a priest to get married, I can go to the Justice of the Peace or even a notary (I believe) and get married and the state will recognize that marriage. So if that's the case, doesn't adding laws to that institution that are fundamentally based on Christianity violate the separation of church and state? You cannot use the argument "that’s the way god intended it to be" and then use that idea to make a new law. That’s like saying it’s a sin to drink, therefore you can't buy alcohol, which is why the 21st amendment was created, because it was reversing a law that was based on protestant Christianities laws.
Another question; do Mormons have the right to have more than one wife? If not, why? If so, why?

I have one more question for you Christians out there, because I really don't know how you will answer this one, but what I want to know is are you allowed, according to god, to have any kind of sex with your wife? I am talking oral, anal, in the shower, sideways, from behind etc...

Jon said...

yeah i dont know about the mormons.. they aren't Christians anyway, they dont believe in Christ.

did you know that many years ago, people were sitting around saying that there would never be anyone who would want to marry someone of the same sex. now you tell me that no one will ever want to marry a horse, but if we're going to allow guys to marry, why not go one step better and not have to make a new law once that catches on?

God made sex to be another bond between a husband and his wife.. however perverted you people want to make it, go ahead. i think thats all but i might add more later

Jon said...

ah yes... found it...

if you want to live in a place where you can marry a boy, i suggeset you consult your travel agent and plan on a trip to Nigeria or something... not here, you chode.

Toad734 said...

In response to Jon:

I didn't ask if they were Christians, but you do realize that freedom of religion includes them as well, the 1st amendment doesn’t say freedom for Christians, though most think it does. Which brings up another point, why do Christians think sit on this high horse and think other religions are beneath them? The only difference between a religion and a cult is the size of its members and how long its been around, and there are several religions that have been around 1000s of years longer than Branch Davidians, oops, I mean Christianity.
I never said I wanted to marry a boy, but you did say you liked living in a Fundamentalist Theocracy.
I think Christians think about gay sex a lot more than any one else, including gay people. Why is that? Curious maybe?? A little something hiding in the closet?? Come on Jon, ever stay up late watching queer as folk?? Ya I'll bet you do.
Thanks, you have inspired me to post a new blog.

Two Minutes J said...

in response to the comment: "common knowledge tells us that you cant fit a round peg into a...... round peg... it doesn't work..."

uhh yea. Thats why they do anal,...idiot....another thing, I saw a thing on HBO where this guy was trying to get married to his donkey. (in his state beastiality wasnt illegal). So yea, people do wanna marry animals. But as long as theyre not trying to fuck my dog, I dont care what they do. Same with gay marriages, I have alot of friends who are gay, it won't affect me one bit if they get married. If it did, I might have a problem with it. get over it, both of you.

Joe Wiess said...

If, as you say, our country wasn't founded on religious ideals, why does the consitution say "All men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." and why does every state constitution mention God?

Toad734 said...

RE: Joe

My creator is my mother and father, as was theirs. The federal constitution overrides state constitutions, thus the civil war. Arkansas used to say that blacks and whites cant go to school together, the federal government said "we will just see about that."

Why doesn't the constitution say God or Christian? That seems like a fairly simple and obvious thing to add if your intentions were to make a country founded on Christianity.

Joe Wiess said...

You make a good point on the Constitution, but not about the states.

According to the way the founder's wanted it to be, each state would be an independant republic, bound to a small central government in times of war and for mutual trade purposes.

Toad734 said...

RE: Joe

Some more than others. Again, what their intentions were don't really apply at this point, it's what made it on that piece of paper that matters, and that piece of paper overrides the states pieces of paper.

With your logic of intentions the second amendment would have been deleted years ago, as we are no longer living with the threat of British or Indians coming into our homes, and guns fire 100 armor piercing rounds per second instead of one inaccurate led ball per minute.