Floyd Reports Opinion Popular


The Government Has Spoken! Are You Listening?


The cultural planks in the Democratic platform, as worm-infested as they are, don’t seem to “play in Peoria.” The attention conservatives pay to the failure of Democrat efforts to create jobs, as well as to their rampant spending sprees, almost completely eclipse the cultural excesses sponsored, encouraged, and funded by the Democrats. Let’s put some of them in focus:

On Contraception:

If, before, or following the act of sexual intercourse, Jane, or Bill, chooses to prevent natural conception by using artificial instruments to defeat the natural procreative purpose of that intercourse, while retaining the pleasure of copulation…

…..it is the duty of uninvolved taxpayers to foot the cost of the instruments of such prevention.

The government has spoken! Are you listening? 

On Abortion

If Sally, after sexual intercourse, conceives a child (identified as a zygote, embryo or fetus – depending on its age), the child’s birth is intentionally prevented by killing him or her while he or she still inhabits the womb – for reasons solely determined by those who are party to the act of killing…….

…..it is the duty of uninvolved taxpayers to foot the cost of the abortion.

The government has spoken! Are you listening? 

If, in either of the cases cited above, the costs of the subsidies granted are levied on third parties despite their consciences and/or religious beliefs forbidding such support – whether monetary or otherwise …….

……it becomes the duty of the unhappy parties to knuckle under, accept the levies prescribed – and thereby implicitly endorse the very principles they abhor.

The government has spoken! Are you listening?

What’s Next?

Looking ahead to what lurks around the corner – the logical successor to contraception and abortion is infanticide. The practice is an old one but has been eschewed in most places in more modern times. Yet, could we be headed toward the day it will return in force, perhaps sanctioned under the moral callousness cultivated by acceptance of its anti-life predecessors?  Is the camel’s nose under the tent flap? Consider Barack Obama’s opposition to the Illinois State Senate bills in 2001, 2002, and 2003 that would have mandated that a child born alive as a result of a botched abortion be given medical aid.

…. Is intentionally letting a fully formed and birthed infant die – anything but infanticide?

The government has spoken! Are you listening? 

On Homosexual Behavior and Same-Sex Marriage

Homosexual behavior consists of physical intercourse between two of the same sex; the act is, by definition, incapable of accomplishing the first purpose of sexual intercourse – i.e., reproduction. The behavior is prompted by what some believe is a disorder, psychological or otherwise, characterized by a deep-seated same-sex attraction. The disorder itself holds no stigma, but the sexual behavior it stimulates has serious anti-social implications.

Despite a human tradition thousands of years old, despite the deep religious convictions of millions of fellow countrymen and women, and despite obvious deviation from natural biological norms, Dick and Ed and Pam and Phyllis, representatives of a disordered minority (but nonetheless fully vested citizens), demand full recognition and acceptance of their sexual lifestyle, i.e., homosexuality.  They claim it is “only fair.”

It becomes, then, the duty of all the rest of the human race to bow to these demands, to discard social and religious standards, and to affirm the ‘goodness’ of same-sex behavior, as well as the right of Dick and Ed, and Pam and Phyllis to join in wedlock, redefining what heretofore has been recognized as a union of two people with the potential to produce a natural family.

…..All must be sacrificed so as to accommodate one pressing need….the satisfaction of a questionable sex urge that drives a relatively small minority.

The government has spoken! Are you listening? 

What’s Next?

Is it possible that Dick and Ed – and Pam and Phyllis – may evolve to Dick, Ed and Jack, and to Pam, Phyllis and Peggy – or to any combination of the above? Is there anything in the Constitution that specifically rules against such mixes? Is it really fair to prevent three or even more people who sincerely love each other from consummating that love within the civil or religious bonds of marriage?

Why stop there? NAMBLA, The North American Man/Boy Love Association, is already lobbying for an overturn of sexual abuse laws that restrict the right of adults to have sex with children. Henry “Harry” Hay Jr., an early supporter of the LGBT movement, argued for the normalization of Man/Boy activities, and NAMBLA currently and openly claims that – when consensual – inter-generational sexual relations are not harmful to youngsters. Do you think it’s “only fair” to allow your nine-year old son or daughter to consort with a graybeard, as long as they claim they are “truly in love.”

Perhaps the ultimate in sexual experience, bestiality, is not too far behind the ménages de trois and NAMBLA. Crazy, you say? Not so. On August 20, 2009, the Palm Beach New Times News introduced an article on the subject with the headline, “Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They’re Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement.”  More recently, on December 1, 2011, the Senate approved a bill that legalized sodomy and bestiality (that’s not a misprint) in the US military. The bill was passed in response to a democratic press to eliminate the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the armed forces.

…..the government has spoken! But are you listening?


The time has come when we must take serious steps to not only criticize profligate government spending programs and protest a jobless economy, but to register outrage about the out-of-control sexual license that is sponsored, encouraged, and funded by the government as directed by the White House and powerful elements of the Democratic party.

If you don’t feel that the slope is getting more slippery by the day, you aren’t listening.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.


Let us know what you think!