... Manly Man, "Ugh, ugh, ugh!"

So I was having this discussion this evening with a couple of guys.  Any time you get some guys together these discussions are always a potential.  One of the fellas observed something very interesting and very true about what words men use and what words we do not.  

For instance, the words "top" and "bottom," when referencing clothes.  You will never hear a man say (especially to another man) "Wow, that's a really nice top you have on today." or "Those bottoms match that top nicely."  NEVER.  Instead, a man would say something like this, "Dude, I like that shirt." or maybe, "Bro, that shirt looks good with those pants."  Of course, when complimenting another man, saying "dude" or "bro" either before or after the body of the sentence legitimizes the compliment behind the mask of masculinity.  It's kind of like telling another man you love him (close friends, church buddies, college buddies, etc.).  It's always OK if you follow it up with "bro" or "man."  Using these add-ons is, of course, optional.  But it definitely adds to the manliness.

Other words you will never hear a man use in normal use: "Accessories."  For instance, "You always have such nice accessories."  Again, NEVER.  From the mouth of a man... "Dude, nice watch." or "I really dig those shoes, bro."   "Accessorize."  For instance, "You could accessorize that outfit with those shoes."  Instead... you might hear, "Dude, you could wear those shoes with that."  

Of course, there are other words out there that fall into this category, but I will discuss those at another time.  If you have similar words to these, let me hear about them... dudes!

... (an) Adventurer

So, I have been blogging on some fairly serious/heavy issues as of late and the whole election thing is getting to me a bit.  So, I want to put out something more on the lighter side...

Knowing that everyone's different in how they deal with the every-day stresses of life, I recently figured out a key to how I function best.  I realized I am a vacation goal setter.  I can't remember hearing of any demographic that this places me into, but It's a very real part of my coping mechanisms of doing life.  

In order for me to function with hope, a positive attitude, and looking forward to each day, I have to have a vacation project looming on the horizon.  For instance, Steph and I had plans to use a free gift vacation to Vegas (one of those give-aways you get if you show up to a time-share sales pitch).  We failed to return a registration form in the alloted time to take the trip when we wanted (there are about 5 hoops you must jump through to actually go on the trip, I'm sure meant to deter people from actually following through and using the "free" vacation).  When I found out we weren't going on our trip in about two months, I felt this feeling of despair and hopelessness sweep over me like a wave.  I was not expecting this, but it all made sense.  

For as long as I can remember I have always had something I was working on and toward to look forward to.  College graduation, youth group events when serving as a Youth Pastor, wilderness expeditions when serving as a wilderness guide, my wedding, hikes and trips and day-trips with Steph, the birth of Madeline, a trip to Yosemite with a friend (cancelled just before the incident described above, adding to my feeling of hopelessness), etc.  When I found myself without an event to look forward to in the following couple of months, it was hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel of everyday stresses.  

When we were able to reschedule the freebee trip for February 2009 it got a little better, but it was still too far away to really feel any anticipation.  Then Steph, the genius and loving wife that she is, booked four days and three nights at one of our time-share properties.  The monotony of dealing with every-day stresses had just been lifted.  I had an adventure to look forward to.  There's something from John Eldregde's Wild at Heart there.

That's what it is... the lure of an adventure on the horizon...

Anyone else have this same or similar personality trait?  

...person interested in the single issue voter

Below I've quoted a blog on single issue voting, specifically in regards to abortion.  The author, Randy Alcorn, is a well known anti-abortion activist and author.  This is definitely his passion.  I must say that this particular argument is very compelling and I agree with most of it.  I'm sure this will ruffle some feathers with some of you, but we're all bigs kids and can hopefully handle it.  The portions I've quoted here are not the complete article.  If you'd like to read it in it's entirety, feel free to visit the web-site at the bottom of the post.  Enjoy... and feel free to comment...

“As a Christian, should we vote for who we think should lead our country solely based on their stance on abortion? I have been thinking about this question and I am having a hard time putting my thoughts into words.


Is the unborn an innocent human being? If you claim to be prolife in the historical meaning of the word, then your answer is yes. Is abortion the shedding of innocent blood, the taking of human life created in the image of God? If you say you are prolife, your answer must be yes. (Please do not redefine the meaning of the word prolife and say "I'm prolife" if you're really not.)

So, is the candidate’s stand on the issue of shedding innocent blood important enough to disqualify him as a candidate? Yes. While a single issue can’t qualify a candidate, it can disqualify him. In my opinion, this issue clearly disqualifies Barack Obama, just as it disqualified Republican Rudy Giuliani.

I don’t think someone is a good candidate just because he is prolife. But he cannot be a good candidate unless he is prolife. Personally, if he is committed to legalized child-killing, as a matter of conscience I must vote against him.

Now, when someone says, "But still, abortion isn't the only issue," I agree. I care very much about the poor and racial equality. That's why if John McCain was committed to legalizing the killing of the poor and the killing of ethnic minorities, I would not vote for him either.

But suppose you have two candidates, one who has promised to defend and further the legalized killing of one group of people (any group: women, minorities, disabled, unborn, poor.) You disagree with the other candidate in areas that in their own right might be important, but do not involve the merciless slaughter of millions of people. Furthermore, the second candidate—whom you consider boring and disagreeable—believes that same group of people has the right to live, and he says he will defend their rights, and appoint judges who will defend it. Now, which candidate should you vote for?

If neither candidate were committed to the legalized killing of people, any people, then I would say, by all means weigh and measure those other important issues and make your choice. But can you seriously argue that these other issues trump the killing of millions of innocent children, not just now, but in the decades to come under a proabortion Supreme Court that could have been a prolife Supreme Court?

Don't you believe that though there were other issues in Nazi Germany besides the killing of Jews, Gypsies and the disabled, that all those other issues were trumped by that one? If Lincoln's platform involved ending slavery yet you agreed with Douglas (who wanted slavery to remain legal) in lots of other areas, would you feel right voting for Douglas, knowing you were voting for slavery?

So I say OF COURSE THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES. I don't minimize them. All I can say is the differences between the candidates on those issues don't stack up, even cumulatively, to the legalized killing of human beings. It's a matter of relative importance, not just a number of issues. A man who is a good husband in most respects, but who beats his wife, is not a good husband. That issue outweighs all the others.

In a previous blog comment, someone said they wouldn't vote for McCain due to his failures in his first marriage. I too am troubled by John McCain's treatment of his first wife. He has said it was a failure on his part, but whether he has repented, I don't know. This is one of several things I don't like about John McCain. But his past failure in marriage is not comparable to Obama taking a present stand for the legalized killing of children.

I am not excited about John McCain in every area. But when I compare him to Barack Obama in the overriding issue of our day, the right of preborn children to live, there is a stark and radical difference. In America right now, the rights of Jews to live and slaves to be free are not on the table. The right of unborn children to live is on the table. The killing of the unborn is the holocaust of our day. Where do you want to have stood on this issue? Where do you want the man you vote for to have stood on it? If your grandchildren ask you one day whether you voted for or against the right of children to live, what will you say?

Would John McCain be a great president? I don't know. Maybe he wouldn't even be a good president. There are so many claims by both candidates that their words seem like wind to me. I don't feel like I know a lot. But I do know for certain that one candidate defends the right of the unborn to live, and the other is utterly committed to be sure that it remains legal to kill them. And on THAT issue I know what God says is right and wrong.

Yes, I realize Obama is cool. As I said two blogs ago, I really wanted to vote for him, so I could be cool too. John McCain is not so cool. And he's a Republican at a time where being a Republican definitely isn't cool. The question isn't whether I'd rather have dinner or play golf with Obama or McCain. (I'd choose Obama.) The question isn't whether I'd like the Republican Party to change. (I would.) I'm not voting for the Republican Party. In one sense I'm not voting mainly for John McCain. I am voting for McCain because it's my only way in this election to vote for the right of unborn children to live rather than die.

Now, if you think that's an overstatement, that the difference between the candidates isn't that great, or they will not influence the future of abortion in this country, I challenge you to look at Obama's dogged commitment to the legalized killing of unborn children, backed up by his 100% proabortion voting record. And look at McCain's repeatedly stated commitment, also demonstrated by his voting record, to oppose the legalized killing of children. If you think your presidential vote is not for or against unborn children, you don't understand the significance of the Freedom of Choice Act or the significance of the balance of power of the Supreme Court with the Obama judges who are certain to be pro-legal-abortion and the McCain judges who are virtually certain to be anti-legal-abortion.

My conversations with fellow Christians who are prolife but are voting for Obama have common themes these days. They always emphasize "Obama is prochoice, not proabortion." To which I respond, "actually he is pro-legalized-abortion." This is emphatically true, based on his own words and 100% consistent voting record. It shouldn't be considered a matter for debate. What politician in the country is more strongly committed to legalized abortion than Obama is? Every radical proabortion group knows this, and everyone of them have been working tirelessly to get him elected.

Believing what I do that the unborn are human beings in the fullest sense, to be pro-legalized-abortion is exactly equivalent to being pro-legalized-killing-of-three-year-olds. Or pro-legalized-killing-of-teenagers. Or pro-legalized-killing-of-women. Or pro-legalized-killing-of-Jews.

What would you think if a politician said "I'm not pro-rape, I'm simply prochoice about rape. And though I would not choose to rape a woman, I believe that every man should be free to rape a woman if that is his personal choice." And what would you do if that politician promised the rape lobby that if he is elected president, the "first thing I would do" is to sign legislation that would invalidate all the state laws that restrict rape in any way?

Well, I think I would say that man is pro-rape, wouldn't you? But technically, no, he is simply prochoice about rape. Well, okay. Be prochoice about whether someone should eat Mexican food or Chinese food, or cheer for the Phillies or the Rays. But don't be prochoice about whether men rape women or kill children. Because that is to be pro-rape and pro-killing.

Now, no doubt Obama supporters will think this is an outrageous analogy. And those who don't believe unborn children are really human beings would understandably feel that way. (Though, both scientifically and biblically, they are absolutely wrong.) But what about all the people who keep insisting they are prolife, that they really DO believe the unborn children are precious human beings created in God's image? If that's what you really believe, then you must accept the analogy as valid. (On what basis is it invalid unless it's because the unborn aren't really human and therefore don't have human rights?)

Is rape, despicable as it is, really worse than overpowering and tearing apart an innocent child in his mother's womb? If you are REALLY prolife, not just if you say the words "I am prolife, but there are many other issues," but I mean if you REALLY believe these are children, then the analogy to rape, kidnapping, or killing teenagers or women or Jews or African Americans is perfectly legitimate. How could it not be? Don't skim over this—seriously, I want to hear your answer.

So, feel free to go against the clear evidence about who the unborn really are. Then just admit that you are not prolife. Sure, it's irrational, but at least it's a good explanation of why you would support the strongest pro-legal-abortion candidate for the presidency in the history of our nation.

But PLEASE don't just mindlessly say "I'm pro-life" then contradict that statement by saying you are supporting a candidate for president who is utterly committed to not only maintain legalized abortion through policy and appointment of judges, but who also HAS PROMISED (through the Freedom of Choice Act) to try to reverse all pro-life state legislation passed by vote of U. S. citizens in the last thirty years.

I've heard other prolife people say "I don't like either candidate, so I'm not voting at all." Well, ask yourself who you're willing to punish by not voting. If it's political parties who will pay, fine, I really don't care about them. Sure, it would be better not to vote than to vote against God's children's right to live. But if instead of abstaining you have a chance to vote for God's children's right to live, why would you not do that? (Don't vote for the man, vote for generations of children who will have a chance to live if he's elected, even if he's just a mediocre president in other areas.)” -Randy Alcorn 10-22-08 (www. randyalcorn.blogspot.com/2008/10/im-not-voting-for-man-im-voting-for.htm)