As I have stated before, it is my sincere belief that one of the biggest threats we face from progressivism today is a language desecration. At the forefront of the war on language is “J Street,” which has decided to call itself a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization.
This thread should hopefully become part of a series on Blogmocracy, to catalogue the many places where the progressives have desecrated the English language. The goal will be to identify the specific language desecrations, in order to correct these problems, and correctly define mis-defined words in the English language. In time, hopefully this can be copied in other languages.
The first in this series will start off with the word PEACE.
Dictionary.com defines “peace” as: the normal, non warring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world. Source. This definition meshes well with the biblical concept of “Shalom,” which wiki defines quite well right here:
Shalom, in the liturgy and in the transcendent message of the Christian scriptures, means more than a state of mind, of being or of affairs. Derived from the Hebrew root shalam – meaning to be safe or complete, and by implication, to be friendly or to reciprocate. Shalom, as term and message, seems to encapsulate a reality and hope of wholeness for the individual, within societal relations, and for the whole world. To say joy and peace, meaning a state of affairs where there is no dispute or war, does not begin to describe the sense of the term. Completeness seems to be at the center of shalom as we will see in the meaning of the term itself, in some derivatives from its root, shalam, in some examples of its uses in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and in some homophone terms from other Semitic languages.
This is all well and good, but how do the progressives define this all-important word? Let’s see the way they use this term…
Code Pink (a “peace” group)
J Street (“pro-Israel, pro-peace“)
What do all of those organizations have in common? They all have a part in the ongoing war on language, raging across the world.
They all apparently define peace as “surrender.” As such, they are actually not pro-peace, but they are pro-war for the other side. They are looking to redefine “peace” as a term which is synonymous with pacifism, which, as I showed very clearly, is NOT the actual definition of peace.
And so, that is why I like to end my statements with the following…
I am pro-peace, pro-human rights, pro-humanity, pro-American, pro-Israel, and pro-Judeo-Christian values. This is why I believe it is imperative to stand up for our basic values, and never back down against progressivism. We must never cede the language!
Recall the old Roman maxim: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” – Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
Sometimes war is necessary in order for peace to be possible. This is something that Gandhi never understood. He is the same man who told the British to “give up” to the Nazis, as a “true sign” of nonviolence, and told the Jews to “dare Germans to shoot them,” rather than move to “Palestine.”
In this screwed up ideology, fighting genocide is equivalent to committing genocide. Their version of “peace,” as I already documented in other posts, involve laying down and committing suicide.
I am sorry, but that is not “peace,” it is genocide. The next time some so-called “peace” group claims to be pro-peace, we should never let them get away with false claims. We must ask them what they mean by “peace,” and how they define “peace.” And then we should ask how they hope to bring about “peace” through absolute surrender to mass murderers/human butchers.
Next to follow in the series: justice, human rights, racism, imperialism, colonialism, apartheid, progressivism, liberalism, West Bank, genocide, zionism, patriotism, social justice, and due process. This is just for starters!
► Hot Links
Tags: J Street, language, Peace, Progressives, U.S. Institute of Peace
This is really good, this is exactly what is needed!
(First!)
NobelPeace Prize.
Sorry for the OT: Iranaian linked mosques to be seized in US.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_re_us/us_mosque_forfeiture
War and piece
@ jeppo:
~
Oi Oi.
jeppo wrote:
Well I had this piece of a…..ah never mind.
Obama is a piece…of shit…
@ Iron Fist:
That is obviously racist!
@ Iron Fist:
Ya Think! I say he is the whole turd.
They have redefined patrotism, as in dissent is the highest form of patriotism. That is of course unless one dissents against obama’s policies.
The problem with changing our language and what it means to be “pro-peace” (ie: making it mean ‘not fighting’) is that this change in definition has no baring on our enemies.
This is one of the reasons I fear for our future so much. The U.S. took many steps socially, and educationally to teach our children to be sensitive, non-violent, and well passive. In a system where everyone is acting in this manner, this is probably the preferred position. HOWEVER, this is the complete opposite of what everyone else (ie: Middle East) are teaching their kids.
This leaves us with a future (or present) where the enemy has no problem with being violent, aggressive, and throwing their weight around. They haven’t been passivized. BUT WE HAVE. Thus, our response to this aggression is what we have been taught – passivity, sensitivity, and well….surrender.
This will inevitably lead to our destruction.
RIX wrote:
“patrotism”?
My pa had the trots, ism something I ever want?
fixed that for ya. absolutely no need to say “I am sorry” when telling the truth that the way those groups define peace is a path to genocide.
good post D
The religion of peace.
Good enough for him, good enough for me.
@ Kirly:
The link on your site to The Blogmocracy is BROKEN!
@ waldensianspirit:
Time for WAR. Nuke Mecca.
Peace through fire superiority.
Those with the most bullets, wins the peace, period.
I just asked my 17 year old employee if she thinks there can ever be world peace. She said (with eye-roll) “NO – nobody gets along all the time. Someone is going to be racist or jealous or whatever.”
Iron Fist @ 18:
Smoke’em if you got’em
@ Iron Fist:
http://www.blessedquietness.com/alhaj/meccadryarial.jpg
@ Iron Fist:
Do not miss the stone blacken by the hands of menstruating women.
@ bellamags:
Then she said “Then why would we need military or police – then there would be more unemployment” LOL
Beltfed wrote:
Spoken like a Marine.
See ya later. Have a good evening everyone.
@ Iron Fist:
Not gonna happen with the crypto-muslim in office now.
However, I do believe that the THREAT should be made to all terrorist supporting muslim countries (but I repeat myself) that if any foreign born muslim commits another terrorist act on American soil, Mecca will be covered in radioactive dust and the Kaaba will be the source of that dust.
@ WrathofG-d:
Oh! Bright light! Bright light!
That looks about detonation level…
Dove of Peace
Look who’s getting all upset that somebody leaked some intelligence that Al Queda could use.
I think this is a good topic. Capturing the language is one of the left’s fundamental techniques. And in keeping with my low opinion and contempt for them I think it is an example of the intellectual laziness behind its philosophy. Their ideas can’t be defended, not in any rational way so they resort to catch phrases and twisted meanings with the intent, not of furthering their argument – but to shut down any counter argument. Their aim is to shut down discussion totally and for the opposition to just go away.
And it works a lot of the time. it’s part of the reason that a large number of Americans seem to be fucking asleep. Lulled to sleep by nice sounding platitudes and phrases. And never realizing the poison in them.
@ BuddyG:
linky no worky
@ jakee308:
Yep, but we won’t do shit about an open Jihadist who is planning and even executes an act of terrorism against American troops. We won’t even call him a terrorist after he commits an act of terrorism. Shit. They’d call it terrorism if I shot thirteen mohammedans. I am NOT saying I’m going to whack some Mohammedans. Damn, they may be knocking on my door tonight for that, but a Mohammedan whacking American troops? Nothing to see there, right?
OT: Hasan has been described as “a soft-spoken guy”:
To the tune of “He’s So Fine”:
The Left thinks he’s keen
Though he killed thirteen
That native-born Arab there
The one who has almost no hair
I don’t know how they let him do it
But let this be the last time
Because political correctness
Is just an ongoing crime
He’s a soft spoken guy
Oh so sweet kinda shy
And the Army ignored warnings
He’d shoot you in the eye
Makes me wonder what’s
The worth of psychiatry
But now he’s killed we can try
To put him away forever
I’m gonna help lock him up
If it takes me forever
Oh he’s a swine (oh, yeah)
His ass is mine (oh, yeah)
Sooner or later
Hope it’s not later
We gotta make him sweat, yeah
The sooner the better
I just can’t wait
I just can’t wait
To pay him for his harm
Tell me isn’t it obscene
With his sympathies known
To keep his record clean
And operate on his own
Cause he’s a swine a swine he’s a swine
Cause he’s a swine a swine he’s a swine
He’s a soft spoken guy…
Ilsmaists = Imperialists
Jihadis/Immigrants = Colonialists
Those are my definitions.
@ LGoPs:
Actually the place to start is to ROLL BACK all the Big Brother type language usage. Trouble is we’d have to start in the Universities and then the LSM to do the job completely.
Liberalism should be classified as a mental disorder, then maybe we can get somewhere.
@ jakee308:
Worked for me. Dove of Peace, indeed…
@ bellamags:
She’s smart for her age. Most young Women believe that World Peace crap.
@ Iron Fist:
Duck of Peace…
Dick of Peace…
Barack Hussein Obama, MMMmmm, mmmm,mmmm….
@ LGoPs:
The Left has mastered manipulating Language since the French Revolution.
Liberals = Collectivists; Statists; Totalitarians
Conservative = Classical Liberal
“Peace Studies” at colleges and universities explicitly teach that there is never a right or wrong in international disputes.
They implicitly teach that defending one’s own country’s interests, whatever they may be, is the source of war and therefore is necessarily destructive of peace.
IOW, they basically agree with Gandhi. Peace=surrender Peace=submission Peace= Islam
song_and_dance_man wrote:
“Peace Studies” at colleges and universities explicitly teach that there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in international disputes.
They implicitly teach that defending one’s own country’s interests, whatever they may be, is the source of war and therefore is necessarily destructive of peace.
IOW, they basically agree with Gandhi.
Peace=surrender
Peace=submission
Peace=Islam
So yes. The religion of peace.
Oops! Don’t know how that happened!
@ Rodan:
Nuke Paris?
Paris Hilton?
Gay Pareeeeee?
@ LGoPs:
Progressives = Liberals = Collectivists; Statists; Totalitarians
That is What Progressivism is. It’s all about an Elite controlling the people.
@ Iron Fist:
Ha ha ha, Nah France is more Pro American than this country now. Sarkovsky is more Pro American than Obama. That’s really sad!
jeppo wrote:
War and peas.
Give peas a chance.
Try the new P-pod. It has more legume.
Bomb Iran with vegetables– as part of our policy of A-peas-ment.
@ wolfie:
I read somebody the other day make the point that Ghandi owed much, if not all, his success to the fact that the British were a relatively benevolent and civilized power. He probably would not have succeeded under a totalitarian power. He would have simply disappeared.
Great work Delectable
I ran across this piece today at another place:
I haven’t an attribution and have googled the title without sucess.
Objective and Subjective Liberty: The Founding Fathers and Progressives
Of the many principles and terms used inAmerica’s political discourse, few receive more attention than liberty.Virtually every political leader or speaker in American history has claimed herepresentsthe true ideals of liberty. The definition of liberty, or freedom,however, has changed dramatically from the time of America’s Founding. The waythe Founding Fathers understood and discussed liberty does not match thepresent usage, popularized by the Progressive Movement and its followers, that now dominates American political thought. These differing definitions ofliberty result in radically different understandings of the political andsocial structures of the ideal society. Today’s Progressive conception ofliberty differs from the Founders’ in such significant ways that they result indiametrically opposed societies, societies that view each other as the enemy ofthat which they both champion: liberty.
To understand the stark contrast betweenthe resulting effects of the Founders’ and the Progressives’ definitions ofliberty, one must first examine the definitions themselves. The Founders developedan understanding of liberty that included both freedom and the obligation ofeach individual to use that freedom responsibly. According to the Founders, theright to express an opinion freely does not permit men to make libelousstatements with impunity. As the Founding Father James Wilson stated atPennsylvania’s Ratifying Convention, “What is meant by the liberty of the pressis, that there should be no antecedent restraint upon it; but that every authoris responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government, orthe safety, character, and property of the individual”
. As one of the most important and foundationalrights, guaranteed by the First Amendment, even the right to a free press requires a level of responsibility. Without a corresponding sense of responsibility, liberty will lead inevitably to abuse. Unchecked libertybecomes license, irresponsible and selfish behavior without restraint.
The Progressives and their successors’ definition of liberty strongly conflict with the principles established by theFounders. As the Progressives’ define liberty, responsibility has disappeared and freedom means simply the right to do whatever the government permits. Personal responsibility diminishes in aProgressive society because the government takes responsibility for much more. The ideal of a Progressive’sliberty then, strongly resembles what the Founders called license. Citizens nolonger need to ensure they possess the liberty necessary order to fulfill theirGod-given responsibilities to others, the State now takes on thoseresponsibilities. Individuals now only concern themselves with enjoying theirown liberty as much as possible. Even the advocates of this diminishedunderstanding of liberty unwittingly recognize the inadequacy of such freedom.Lyndon Johnson, one of the greatest proponents of the government’s increasedrole in society, remarked about black Americans that “freedom is not enough” togive blacks an equal standing with white Americans
. To achievetrue equality, men require “not just freedom but opportunity”
. The responsibility of providing equal opportunity, according to Johnson, lies withthe government and became “a chief goal” of his administration
. Thus, theProgressive model replaces a nation that requires personal responsibility witha system of government regulation and control to determine the goals anddirection of a society.
According to the Founders the rights andconcurrent obligations of liberty come from a source that transcends man: theNatural Law established by God. Alexander Hamilton described Natural Law as “aneternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon allmankind, prior to any human institution whatever”
. The Founders asserted in the Declaration ofIndependence that man derives rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness from the Creator, the source of the “eternal and immutable law.”Government exists, according to the Declaration of Independence, “to secure these rights” (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) and the Preamble tothe Constitution states that the Constitution exists to “secure the Blessingsof Liberty.” Government then, exists to protect the rights and liberties thatGod’s Natural Law has bestowed upon mankind.
The Progressives’ remarkable transition ofresponsibility from the citizen to the State occurs because of theirunderstanding of liberty’s origin. According to the Progressives, man does notpossess a natural and inalienable right to liberty, but instead derives it,like all his rights, from the government. The leading Progressive politicianand theorist Woodrow Wilson dismisses the idea that the Founders’ purpose,protection of individual liberty, represents anything more than a particularperspective appropriate to a specific historical context. According to Wilson,the Founders “did not attempt to dictate the aims and objects of any generationbut their own” (Wilson 97)
. As Wilsonargues, the Founders did not attempt to establish objective, unchanging truthsabout man, liberty, or government, but merely endorsed the arguments they foundexpedient to their particular circumstances. Rather than making this assertionas a criticism, Wilson argues that every generation should follow the Founders’pattern and establish new principles that suit their unique circumstances.
Wilson makes several significantstatements that, taken together, reveal the contrast between Progressives andthe Founders regarding liberty’s definition. “No doubt we are meant to haveliberty, but each generation must form its own conception of what liberty is”
. As previouslynoted, political principles, even the goal of achieving liberty, may becomewhatever each generation decides. Wilson comes closest to establishing ageneral framework for defining liberty when he says, “Liberty consists in thebest possible adjustment between the power of the government and the privilegeof the individual”
. Thisstatement serves to provide a basic criterion for liberty, but also recasts theindividual liberty as a tenuous “privilege” instead of an inalienable right.Finally, to reinforce the statement above, Wilson comments that, “The principleof the American Revolution was…the principle of individual liberty”
. By examiningthese statements together, the true nature of rights and liberty in theProgressives’ framework becomes evident.
A consistent application of Wilson’sprinciples reveals that to a Progressive, liberty may become anything a societydictates. Liberty and rights come and go as the government extends and rescindsthe people’s privileges. No external or objective standard such as Natural Lawexists, so freedom becomes entirely subjective. Liberty comes with the“adjustment” of the government’s powers and the privileges the government chooses to give. Because the power to adjust this balance rests with thegovernment, the injustice of tyranny becomes impossible. According to Wilson’sstated principles, whatever the government selects as the proper balance ofprivilege becomes the new definition of liberty. When man has no objectivestandard of liberty or justice and no intrinsic worth, only that which thegovernment imparts to him, the balance inevitably shifts to the government’sadvantage.
From the disparity between the Founders’theories on the definition, origin, and purpose of liberty and those proposedby the Progressives, one sees that the two ideas of liberty hold little incommon except the name. Under the Founders’ conception of liberty,responsibility to use one’s freedom wisely and effectively rest with individualcitizens; the government simply protects the rights its people naturallypossess. To the Progressives and their intellectual heirs, the State mustensure that it balances its power with the privileges it extends its people.Under the Founders’ liberty, men must take responsibility for themselves ifthey want to succeed. The freedom described by the Founders requires mencapable of governing themselves well and encourages men to develop the traits necessaryfor such a society. The Progressive’s freedom does not require or encourage anysuch responsibility, rather creating a citizenry that inevitably growsincreasingly dependent on the government to provide for its needs
@ wolfie:
I call Progressivism, “Imaginology”. (ie: from the song Imagine – liberal nihilism.
“Nihilists! F*** me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”
Reduction of Payroll tax? Won’t happen under Комиссар Obama.
@ WrathofG-d:
The link on your site to The Blogmocracy is BROKEN!
we cannot have that! thanks Wrath. it’s fixed now.
Kirly wrote:
No…..THANK YOU!
Rodan wrote:
I agree. I also think that the ‘smart’ leftards now call themselves Progressive. they’ve figured out that even the half asleep rubes out there are figuring out that liberals are anything but.
I know that the Progressive idea has been around for most of the last century but to the masses here it is still a new phenomenon and thus effective in deflecting scrutiny. The wolf has exchanged one set of sheep’s clothing for another.
We need to go wolf hunting and thin the herd a bit. Figuratively speaking of course.
ROPMA
@ buzzsawmonkey:
@ LGoPs:
Yup the worst part is the Modern American progressive Movement combines all the elements of all the Totalitarian Movements of the last century.
It’s really sick and obvious their agenda.
@ LGoPs:
Absolutely!
What I cannot figure out is this. How is it that we gun wielding, right-wing, violent nut jobs are having so much trouble getting one over on the passivist, non-violent, surrender punks?
I would guess it is because we have accepted their rules, and allowed them to set the pieces.
If I have learned anything from the “peace” movement, it is that Terrorism works!
Now I’m not necessarily suggesting anything…just pointing it out.
@ Scott Madsen:
That’s good stuff.
Be sure to save that to post again when we do a thread on the word “liberty.”
OT
As a reminder- let’s all do our part to promote our new home, The Blogmocracy.
We are in the running at The 2009 Weblog Awards
The rules are to nominate once and plus ding that nomination as a vote, but, alas, we have multiple nominations in 6 categories. I recommend that everyone here plus ding the first nomination only since according to the rules, it is the first mention that counts and the other nominations may be deleted.
Here is the latest tally. (I have eliminated the total votes since the other nominations may, in the end, have no merit)
Best Blog – 7 nominations – total first nomination vote 56
Best New Blog – 11 nominations – total first nomination vote 57
Best New Political Blog – 6 nominations – total first nomination vote 44
Best Online Community – 6 nominations – total first nomination vote 41
Best Conservative Blog – 11 nominations –total first nomination vote 61
Best Political Blog – 1 nomination – total first nomination vote 21
Now go do that voodoo, that you do, so well.
With that in mind…
OT/ Classmates: Hasan defended suicide bombings, held Islamist views
Also mentioned in post #4-
US to seize skyscraper and mosques of ‘Iran-linked Muslim group’
@ Escovado:
Great post and so good to see you again.
@ WrathofG-d:
Unfortunately you are correct.
Origin of the Peace Sign
Flag Semaphore
@ Escovado:
Good post.
@ song_and_dance_man:
Hi there!
Remember Protest Warrior?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OacolaQf_qU
vagabond trader wrote:
Day late and a dollar short…. or thirty years late and billions short.
They should have siezed the Islamic Center next address up the street when they siezed the Iranian Embassy thirty years ago.
It would have been a good start and sent a stern message earlier on.
A stich in time saves nine and all of that…..hey…..isn’t nine significant too?
@ wolfie:
10-4
YUP
buzzsawmonkey @ 34:
Excellent, right on target.
We have a gelded adolescent in the White House.
Gandhi was a miserable unhappy person. His idea of a good time was for the Jews to march cheerfully into the gas chambers. He had no respect for human beings at all. Especially his own people. Notice it was they who laid down their lives while he pretended to be a great man.
chickadee wrote:
He was very fond of enemas, though.
OT:
I just noticed that I have the ability to “blacklist” people. (Whatever that means. Sounds racist!)
@ WrathofG-d:
How so???
Good thread, Delectable.
Some other suggestions:
“affirmative action” = discrimination based on race or gender
“diversity” = uniformity with leftist views
“assault weapon” = legal, semi-automatic firearm doesn’t look like somebody’s idea of a hunting rifle
“torture”=aggressive but humane interrogation
“man-made global warming”= imaginary or fabricated threat; natural variation in weather
RIX wrote:
RIX if you return, go to http://www.kirls.blogspot.com/ and scroll down a bit to view the video that says, Moslem or not, this is quite damning. I honestly do not know whether PresZero is moslem or not but these clip, taken all at once like this, are quite daming.
Another good suggestion for a term to be defined is ‘RIGHTS.’ What does it mean to say you have a “right” to something? What are they? What is their source?
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
eeewwww. He was full it. And a bad husband, father and 2nd rate attorney. There’s a bronze statue of him in Union Square Park. He went around in that scrap cloth garb when he had all the fine trappings of British apparel and style. Gandhi. . . . whatever.
chickadee wrote:
The Dali Lama isn’t much better either in that regard. Someone pointed out to me a very interesting contradiction in his philosophy about giving up attachments… she said, interesting since he is very much attached to being the Dali Lama. (Also, for a man who supposedly owns nothing, he certainly has a very grand life jetting all over the world, being treated like royalty.
WrathofG-d wrote:
Blacklisting Myself
—with apologies to Billy Idol and “Dancing With Myself”
In a Hollywood studio
Anywhere in film I go, go
When I speak my mind
Generally I find
I’m blacklisting myself
If it’s known that you think “right”
You’ll be cast out into the night
Say a single word
Different from the herd
And I’m blacklisting myself
Oh blacklisting myself
Oh blacklisting myself
Well there’s jobs you lose
And your work is refused
I’ll be blacklisting myself
‘Mid the liberal tolerance
There’s a tightrope you must dance
To get by all right
Just learn to keep quiet
Or I’ll be blacklisting myself
So lets sink another drink
‘Cause itll give me time to think
‘Mid liberal tolerance
The tightrope you must dance
And I’ll be blacklisting myself
Oh blacklisting myself
Oh blacklisting myself
Well there’s jobs you lose
And your work is refused
I’ll be blacklisting myself
‘Mid the liberal tolerance
There’s a tightrope you must dance
To get by all right
Just learn to keep quiet
Or I’ll be blacklisting myself
This life of ours is a puzzle
And it’s too short to be muzzled
What I’ve got to say
I will say anyway
And I’ll be blacklisting myself
Oh blacklisting myself
Oh blacklisting myself
What I’ve got to say
I will say anyway
What I’ve got to say
I will say anyway
What I’ve got to say
I will say anyway
(scat)
Blacklisting myself
Blacklisting myself
Blacklisting myself
Blacklisting myself
‘Mid the liberal tolerance
There’s a tightrope you must dance
To get by all right
Just learn to keep quiet
Or I’ll be blacklisting myself
This life of ours is a puzzle
And it’s too short to be muzzled
What I’ve got to say I will say anyway
And I’ll be blacklisting myself
Oh blacklisting myself
Oh blacklisting myself
What I’ve got to say
I will say anyway
What I’ve got to say
I will say anyway
What I’ve got to say
I will say anyway…
I saw this at Hot Air:
Pelosi: Jail time “very fair” for failing to buy your patriotic ObamaCare coverage.
Now if I don’t want to spend “my money” on “my own” health insurance and I get sent to jail. If I get sick in jail do I get free healthcare or do I get sent to jail again for getting sick and not having health insurance while being in jail for not having health insurance?
Looks like I will soon be going to jail, cause they can kiss my ass on their health insurance, with illegal aliens getting a free ride on my f***ing dime. These dhimmcraps are way more more f***ed in the head then I ever imagined.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Kept you friends close and your enemas…
@ bar:
They really want to be a minority party again, don’t they?
@ wolfie:
I have two buttons on the bottom of everyone’s comments. One is “edit” and the other is “more options”. Within the “more options” tag are numerous options, one of which is “blacklist”.
How does it sound racist? “blacklist”?
bar wrote:
@ bar:
Who knew satan was really a female.
@ teacake:
Her Husband?
Iron Fist wrote:
Yup.
@ teacake:
Carlos Satan-a?
Black magic woman…..
Tanker wrote:
LOL! I love how clever and quick everyone is around here.
@ calcajun:
Yes they do.
WAYYYYYYYYYYYY OT:
(but go hug your loved ones. I got this in e-mail from the http://www.jewishmarriageinstitute.com
Also tanker, check out if you haven’t already the details of the horrible treaty obadman is going to sign in Copenhagen next month. It basically is the beginning of one world gov. Even smart sane people say this. No one will have any money left for the government to tax once all these demonic schemes of theirs comes real.
Lately I wonder if I died and don’t know it and am in hell.
Speaking of redefining language. “Dan Savage” (whoever he is) does his part to ”unexplain” marriage:
@ bar:
This is Fascism, if you disobey you go to jail.
teacake wrote:
G-d has the Shekhinah, which is the female aspect of the Deity. Why should there not be a demonic mirror image?
A good way to understand Obama (and his ilk). When this is your world view, everything he does makes sense.
@ WrathofG-d:
What the ????.
I don’t recall anyone in the Old Testament beating their wife. Sure they didnt have the same rights as men, but women then are not any different then women today.
Trust me, every husband then as now knew what his wife felt or what her opinion was. Marriage hasn’t changed.
@ WrathofG-d:
Well, I don’t disagree with him that the weapons industry has a lot to do with this, but the US is hardly the only one indulging in it all. Too bad he doesn’t mention how islamists are on the attack globally.
@ Rodan:
They come knocking on my door, they had better be ready. I’ll take as many of them with me as I can.
Bring it, bitches!
@ bar:
What the ???? indeed. Where do people today get their knowledge/education from. They really think they are the pinicle of human existance and everythign before them was horrible don’t they. I have read the Torah and it hardly treats women as inferiors. Furthermore, when I think back to the “old days” (when things were so horrible) or my Grandparent’s generation, I can find no two people who loved life or each other more. They were definitely happier then the kids today.
This is an issue that truly infuriates me, and should all women everywhere. The idea that a “woman’s role” is automatically inferior to whatever a man is doing is itself sexist! How dare they say that taking care of the home, and caring for your family is less important than say making money in the corporate world or whatever the “man’s role” is.
Beyond that their information isn’t even correct. People get dumber everyday is this stupid country it seems.
Repeated lies are taking the place of actual facts!
http://www.wfsb.com/news/21597350/detail.html
This is the video and the story from Hartford, CT.
I guess that free speech is being excised there too.
@ teacake:
A broken clock and all that…
The point however is that if that is your world view (in short: that the U.S. is just trying to impose its authority on all weak peoples of the world and Terrorist attacks are deserved responses to this) then Obama’s actions of befriending Dictators and such, make sense as weakening “that which is trying to impose….” is the logical step.
@ savage:
It’s getting to that point when now you will be arrested for not having health insurance.
OK l have 2 g0.
@ Rodan:
Seems to me that people who do have money are either going to leave the US or retire or do something similar. And without people with wealth, which is sure not me, people like me have no one to work for. Have they figured that part in DC? Maybe they have. Maybe thats the plan? I’m not putting anything past those creeps.
@ Rodan:
Let me zee your papers Heir Rodan… Ve haz vays of dealing vith people like you… your paper now Heir Rodan…
I wonder how Donald Trump and Bill Gates feels about having to give up their wealth?
Very Orwellian – war is peace.
@ bar:
And another thing.
Pelosi saying the public foots the bill when someone gets sick that doesn’t have health insurance is pure bull shit. I don’t know anyone who has 100% for everything coverage, me and the people I know all have to pay a portion of the total. Depending on what that “total” is, some may have a hard time paying.
I have a funny feeling the people that most likely stiff the hospital are illegal aliens which get a free pass on this government health insurance anyways, so her argument is circular. And unless the hospital getting stiffed on the bill is a public hospital being publicly funded, the public is not footing the bill.
@ WrathofG-d:
I used to feel the same way, as in our western society was the pinnacle of morality. We are in a way with women’s rights. But that doesn’t make us better people then people of past generations, yet we tend to think it does.
Have a good night Wrath.
WrathofG-d wrote:
Dan Savage is a “gay” sex-advice columnist popular in “alternative weeklies.”
He shows immense ignorance in the clip you posted. Yes, women were all but chattel under secular law for many, many years; indeed, it was not until the early 20th century in the US that women could hold property independently from their husbands in many jurisdictions in the US. But that was not how women were regarded in the Torah.
Now, I have argued, in the past, that same-sex marriage is not a problem if one regards marriage as merely a civil contract designed to govern the passage of property and to safeguard children. But, “marriage” is not merely that. Much as I dislike injecting religion into an argument over the definitions used by civil law—though it is certainly appropriate in this thread, which is about definitions—”marriage” has meaning beyond the civil law definitions.
Indeed, as Savage observes in the video you have provided, there are any number of people, some prominent, and some even prominent in the political sphere, who have failed to live up to their marriage vows. That, however, does not mean that the vows themselves are worthless, nor does it mean that, because many people fall short of the ideal, that the standard should be lowered to the lowest common denominator.
The point of marriage is that it does set a high standard, to which people aspire to rise—not that the standard should be judged by the level of those who fail. More, the issue is that while marriage is an institution which encompasses even those couples who choose not to have children, or who cannot, it is designed primarily as an institution for the production and the safeguarding of children and thus for the perpetuation of the society. The fact that children may be farmed out to the unmarried, or the unmarriageable—or even to flaming lunatics like Mia Farrow—does not mean that the possession of children provides, or should provide, a ticket to marriage.
As far as same-sex marriage is concerned, the issue is not one of “rights.” It is an issue of whether or not society will engage in, or permit, a seismic shift from tolerance to mandated acceptance. It is the imposition of mandated acceptance—of social validation—that the advocates of same-sex marriage are seeking. They could not seek this were the overall social status of marriage not brought so low as it has been by the out-of-wedlock adventures of prominent celebrities; nonetheless, the fact that it is avidly sought shows that despite the almost-routine denigration of the institution, it is still believed to have an almost inestimable value.
@ teacake:
Well in DC they are experts on f***ing things up.
@ doriangrey:
What’s sick that’s the direction we are going to!
@ bar:
Jackie… One more thing….. heh heh heh… /Jacki Chan Cartoon reference…
Why the definition of “peace” has changed? Search “negative peace vs. positive peace” and “John Galtung”.
@ Rodan:
Yup, and it getting down right frightening… /checks drawer to see that Colt Model 1911 is still there…
sorry: “Johan Galtung”
As soon as they arrest the first illegal alien for not having insurance, they will be branded raaaacists
@ WrathofG-d:
#96 – Wrath – really like your post. It is great!
Good evening everybody. Good topic!
Delectable:
Once again, I am late – but in earnest.
It is an excellent idea to show how the left distorts language.
My quibble is that the true definitions should be precise, and trust to the common meaning of words.
Your definition of Shalom/peace suggests that it is something beyond simple definition – a state of mind, a feeling of completeness – perhaps something hard to put into words.
Politically, not religiously, peace is the absence of war. Desirable, but not at all costs.
When the left distorts “peace” into “peace process”, if we stick to simple definitions, we can see clearly that “peace process” is a postponement of peace, enabling and encouraging war. Once again, the left’s usage inverts the common meaning. Cf. “social justice”.
But very well done, and I look forward to more.
I heard some moron last week on Larry King discussing how Obama could have appeased the progressive left by spending some political capital up in mains campaiging against…….wait for it……….. Anti Marriage equality bill.
But Larry king hit a home run ( for once) right before going to commercial break he said ” why would he do that, he doesn’t support Gay Marriage”
HAH!
@ Doppelganger:
Doppel – they are exempt from fines or jail. Total free ride.
Rodan wrote:
Do we get a reward for finking on our neighbors who don’t have health insurance?
teacake wrote:
All I can say is this POS Pres of ours is itching for a “one world knock-down” american people style.
disclaimer for any spies around. That knock-down will be at the voting booth…starting with his minnions in congress next year.
Yeah that should cover me!!!
OT
WTF with the NFL network?
What’s the point of a Thursday night game if nobody can watch it. Who gets the NFL network?
Cal – thing that seems easy to predict is should something like this pass it will turn people on each other and people will feel its their right to make trouble for anyone not living a healthy lifestyle.
Also, the gov will own your personal records.
Everything will be monitored, nancy said this but I can’t find that link. It will only get worse as the years go by because gov is never happy with the control they keep gaining year after year.
We will be wards of the state. I think just as bad as China or Russia, if not worse. Also this global carbon tax that’s coming up in the globalist treaty next month.
@ Doppelganger:
Bars.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Well said.
The argument that breaking wedding vows negates the morality of the vow itself sounds preposterous when expressed as saying since so many people commit murder. Murder should no longer be a crime. Problem solved in the stat column at least.
An argument I had during the California gay marriage debacle that proves your mandated acceptance point; why not name it what it is. Lets call one gay marriage and the other traditional or straight marriage, that way straight couples can be called bride and groom while the gay marriage licence can list party “A” and party “B”. Same property rights apply to both.
Not one supporter of gay marriage liked my idea.
You know what to do, folks.
@ Doppelganger:
I do.
I heard that the special election in NY is being re-counted. Hannity was discussing this on his radio show. Probably discussing it on the tv. Anyone know any more details about this?
teacake wrote:
A lot of misreporting on election night. It may have been intentional, but the false statements prompted the concession. Now it appears it may have been a lot closer, and it also appears there may be some Chicago style to it as well.
@ jeppo:
It was worth the trip to that site just to read Josephine’s comment.
a hoot!
@ bar:
Verrrrrrrry interesting, as Arte Johnson used to say.
Not many people know that the manifestoes of the Gay Liberation Movement—the much less tepid version of the “gay rights movement” that existed in the late ’60s/early ’70s—had, as central tenets, the exaltation of promiscuity and the destruction of heterosexual marriage. If you can find any of the writings from that era—some were compiled in the mid-70s—you will find these principles enshrined.
Now, it is just barely possible that the current “gay rights advocates” are not the ideological heirs of those would-be social Visigoths—that having seen the devastation of illness and death that promiscuity wrought upon the homosexual community, and that the survivors having themselves aged, they thought better of their youthful furies—but before I start to discuss the “granting of rights” to a bunch of agitators, I for one would like to see those agitators openly and honestly discuss those early movement templates, and whether or not they believe in them.
I will not be holding my breath while I wait.
@ calcajun:
cough cough… <—- points at Rodan…. cough cough… /wheres my reward???
@ WrathofG-d:
Try this one….
http://mackers-world.com/index.php/gallery/image_full/276/
@ tommy torquemada:
Yup. It’s all about appearance.
This is a perfectly acceptable “hunting” rifle.
This is classified as an “assault weapon,” and is illegal in California and several other jurisdictions.
Newsflash for the anti-gun crowd: They’re the same gun!
@ WrathofG-d:
Who the fuck is this f****t?
[come on people, seriously? admin]
@ lobo91:
Shhhh, if they figure that out they go for the full Monty and try to ban all rifles…
Bill Bennett and Hannity is nailing this PC bullshit.
General Casey is full of shit
@ Iron Fist:
ACHMED WHAT’S THAT FLA … …. …..
Doppelganger wrote:
But he was good in the Sunshine Band.
@ Doppelganger:
Yup… sadly it probably means nothing though…
@ WrathofG-d:
Yep, he plays for the other team alright….
Just now listening to radio news. All these people getting the swine flu and thousands dying… and the vaccine is almost on the way, almost going to be available, soon, shortly. So, if this is how the government handles this situation, is this any indication how they will handle more complex medical situations. I’m sorry to be so negative all the time about this. But I can’t talk to anyone about it in the real world. Everyone I know is happy to see “universal healthcare” finally happen.
Tanker wrote:
Here it is:
Josephine said…
I voted for Barbara Hall last time so CJ of LGF gets my vote this year.
As far as I can tell, I was banned from LGF for mentioning unpersons (the previously banned), disagreeing politely with a nasty person and for being a “Spencer and Geller lover”.
Since CJ is always right, my husband left me, believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was romantically involved with both Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. No matter how many times I pleaded with him and told him that I had never even met Robert or Pamela, he kept saying, “Charles Johnson only posts verifiable facts. He took down Dan Rather, lady, and now he has exposed you as the three-timing floozy you are.”
CJ ruined my life. If I can be falsely accused of carrying on bisexual extramarital affairs, then the (latex) gloves are off, baby, and CJ gets my vote. No more Mrs. Nice Guy. In fact, no more Mrs. anything, since my husband divorced me and the judge gave him everything based solely on CJ’s blog, which was entered into the record as incontrovertible proof.
November 12, 2009 8:38 PM
Doppelganger wrote:
Not anyone that has TimeWarner. They’re on the NFL’s enemies list. But, look at the brightside– the NFL network’s announcers and play callers make Tony Kornheiser look like John Madden.
Macker wrote:
Hey Macker, he writes a sarcastic advise column that I’ve seen in a Seattle paper called The Stranger. Could be syndicated, don’t know. Don’t know what else he does.
@ calcajun:
Don’t give them ideas!
@ Macker:
Just another Chicago Asshole..they seem to be everywhere these days.
@ teacake:
Oh, and us Netizens of the Blogmocracy aren’t in the Real World?
/
@ buzzsawmonkey:
“It is the imposition of mandated acceptance—of social validation—that the advocates of same-sex marriage are seeking.”
And what is it that we are being asked to accept? A certain form of non-procreative sex. I am delighted when two people adults can reciprocate passionate love, but it has nothing to do with marriage – or even civil unions. Marriage, evaluated for its societal utility, privileges procreative sex as part of its institutional ordering of property relations among and between generations. Civil unions can bestow a set of legal relations upon two adults (who may have an emotional bond) in the same way that marriage can. But why is it important for homosexuals to be married? Because marriage is a public declaration that the couple will be enjoying each other carnally. This is what Andrew Sullivan and his ilk want. They want the stigma of non-procreative sex to be removed. They want sodomy to be privileged in the same way that procreative sex is in marriage. (And of course there are childless marriages and couples may indulge in non-procreative sex.) This is what society has to come to terms with, and why it is difficult to do so, and why if it is generally accepted, we will be promoting carnality to a cultural significance we may regret.
(And every time I hear that gays should be “represented”, say on a board of directors, I think of it as the “sodomy” slot. So, ban me.)
Macker wrote:
Of course not. It’s the Blogmockracy world.
Sorry Macker. lol
@ doriangrey:
That would make it hard for them to keep making that (absurd) claim that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect hunters.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
@ teacake:
Heh! No problemos amigos!
THe gay marriage thing just opens the door to too many weird and ridiculous things that they probably haven’t even thought of yet. Even thought I don’t have children, that they have been pushing the gay agenda in schools, the boy scouts and the military is, well, I can’t even think of how to describe why it pisses me off so much.
@ lobo91:
I had the “talk” with my sis-in-law about guns. It took me a few seconds to realize that she knew little about guns. I don’t like humiliating relatives, especially in front of their own kids, but I took perverse delight in showing to her teens how little Mom knew–despite her strong feelings.
She did not know the difference between auto and semi-automatic weapons. She could not differentiate between an “assault rifle” and an “assault weapon”. Forget being able to tell “blow-back” from “gas operated”. Nope; no one should own an assault weapon because, according to her, they “really don’t need them”. I told her about the Ruger mini-14– same receiver, etc, different barrel, stock and grip. She could not see the point at all. Some folks do not get it.
What all news sources do you guys like for the latest? I go to Drudge a lot, but I get sort of bored with that.
Overlook wrote:
No. Not “a certain form of non-procreative sex.” We are being asked, as a society, to trash a millennia-old moral prohibition to mollify our next-door neighbors. We are being harried to substitute personal acquaintance for principle.
Understand this: I do not believe homosexual desire to be “unnatural.” The Torah would not have forbidden us to act on a desire if the desire were not natural—for some people, if not all. But moral restrictions are impositions of restriction upon “natural” desires; that is what morality is, whether it be saying no to homosexual desire or saying no to extramarital adventure.
Nor do I care for the designation of “sodomy.” Despite the popularization of homosexual desire as being “the sin of Sodom,” traditionally the sin of Sodom was hostility to strangers, and the story of the denizens of Sodom seeking to molest Lot’s guests is no more than a lynch-mob gang-rape to show dominance.
The problem is that at the bottom of the demand for “normalization” or “enshrinement” of same-sex marriage is the demand for the jettisoning of the entire basis of Western civilization.
Gots to go.
@ Overlook:
I had a talk some years back with a gay friend about “gay rights”. He did not like it when I suggested a there should be a “straight pride” day and parade to go with it. I asked him why he needed a “gay pride” parade and he replied that it was to call attention to the gay members of the community and their need for acceptance, etc., and that straight people did not need that. I replied that the straight community keeps what they do with their partner to themselves because it’s no one else’s business and we are secure in who and what we are. People who need a parade, however, aren’t secure and need validation that they are normal. If the gay community would just shut up and act like other discreet adults, we wouldn’t have a problem. He had no reply to that.
@ calcajun:
I don’t think they really want to start going down that road.
Your sister-in-law probably doesn’t “need” the SUV she likely drives, either. Or 300 channels of TV. Or high speed internet. Or her i-Phone. Or $4.00 a cup coffee. Or the family pets.
Shall I go on?
@ teacake:
Gay Marriage…sucks.
Macker wrote:
The first rule of gay marriage–never look back.
@ calcajun:
How about a White Hall of Fame?
lobo91 wrote:
And SUV’s kill more people than assault rifles in the US annually!
Macker wrote:
funny@ calcajun:
of course
@ calcajun:
Exactly.
Do whatever the hell you want in your own house, and leave me out of it. Trust me, nobody cares what you’re doing.
Just don’t expect us to issue you a state license to do it.
@ calcajun:
Problem is: One does not mess with an institution created by God Himself. My wife would agree.
@ lobo91:
My point to her was if I’m hunting and the elk that I just pissed off with a .223 round decides he wants to take me out with him, I’m going to want to put as many more .223 rounds into him before he can put his antlers into me. A semi-auto is good to have in moments like that. She still didn’t get it.
@ lobo91:
ISTR that every time Gay Marriage has gone before the People of a state for a referendum, they’ve shot it down. Every. Single. Time.
Speranza wrote:
It’s called “Europe”–for now.
calcajun wrote:
Ask her if she likes venison.
Talking of the ghey, and definitions of words.
Intarweb vs Interweb
Results 1 – 10 of about 187,000 for Intarweb
Results 1 – 10 of about 1,150,000 for Interweb
Just commenting on the “It is all about me” post over at the washed up hippy fan site.
LMAO! Old men should not try to act like 17yo kidz.
If you will suffer me one OT question / statement before I head to bed.
Andrew Sullivan is the guy who ran with the whole Sarah Palin was / was not the mother thing, right?
I just remembered what I got ganged up on at the other site for and quite a few people there called me all sorts of names.
I found it very interesting and amusing to listen on youtube to reverse speech segments of obama. There are so many of them and so interesting. But boy, did they come after me for posting some links.
Speranza wrote:
How British.
@ calcajun:
In that situation, I think I’d actually side with the elk
I own a Mini 14 just like the one in the second picture. I had it at the range this afternoon, trying to sight in a new holographic sight.
I didn’t buy it for shooting elk.
@ Macker:
Yer making me hungry.
Actually, she does not. My brother got some deer meat from a friend and she could handle it– just not used to the game flavor.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I couldn’t agree more.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
People would be screaming Pall Mall to get in.
@ Macker:
That’s correct.
The only states that have it either got it through judicial activism or by the state legislature mandating it against the will of the people they’re supposed to represent.
Funny how libs only believe in democracy when it goes their way…
@ Formercorpsman:
Yup. Still believes that, I think.
@ lobo91:
And it’s those same libs who think we have a democracy.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Bullseye.
HEY HEY HO HO WESTERN CIV HAS GOT TO GO.
Piece? Piece? I’d like a piece. KnowwhatImean, nudge nudge.
@ Macker:
They’re the ones who pushed the idea of “direct democracy” on so many states, with ballot propositions and the like, because they couldn’t get what they wanted through the legislative process.
They sure do hate it when their creation is used against them, though.
@ lobo91:
“Oh, we didn’t think about that….”
/
Who let that sassy cat in?
@ Macker:
And its a pain in the ass as well.
Anybody here know the first symptom of AIDS?
@ lobo91:
I have the mini 14 ranch rifle.
Here in Cali it came with a 5 round mag to be legal.
So I purchased 3 – 30 round mags for it, which are legal to sell in the very store that sold me the rifle, its just not legal to put them in the rifle.
These types of laws are the greatest, cause you know folks that want to shoot lots of people, want to do it legal and all.
The whole “peace process” is a lie on its face, especially when it comes to the Middle East peace process.
In the name of “peace,” the world demands that Israel put millions of Jewish lives at risk. When Israel refuses to do things that would end Israel’s existence while also insisting on defending the lives of millions of Jews, the world says, “Gee. So you don’t want PEACE????”
What peace is there in Israel committing national suicide and putting nearly six million Jewish lives in danger?
I agree that “peace” means “surrender” when it comes to the left.
It means, “Allow barbarians to put their knives to your throats or else we won’t like you.”
Well, the world doesn’t tend to like Jews anyway.
If they want Israel to fold (G-d forbid) and nearly six million Jews to have enemies’ knives put to their throats, then the cost of their friendship is too high.
G-d said to choose life and this means NOT choosing national suicide.
@ bar:
I own it’s big brother, a Springfield Armory M1A, as well.
That one came with a 10 round magazine. The box has a big label on it that says “Not legal for sale in California” as a result.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I recommend you read any of the books by Larry Kramer, the co-founder (but really the founder) of Gay Men’s Health Crisis and ACT UP.
@ lobo91:
Which version? mine is the original style, but some guys love the SOCOM.
@ JeremyR:
Mine is the “loaded” model. It has the traditional wood stock, and a National Match barrel, with a standard trigger and sights.
I can’t really see trying to turn that beast into a CQB rifle. It was meant for long-range precision shooting, not clearing rooms.
@ lobo91:
lobo91 wrote:
Well, I’m no lib, but I believe in gay marriage 100%. It is completely inappropriate for the state to impose religious conventions, even if the imposition is traditional. Nor is it relevant that a majority in a referendum would support the imposition. For example, I would not have advocated a referendum on the matter of black equality. (Naturally, I oppose “Affirmative Action” as un-Constitutional.)
JeremyR wrote:
AIDS is defined by a set of symptoms. However, flu-like symptoms often occurring shortly after infection. Have I answered your question?
@ sk (skzion):
Wrong, but nice try. Its a really hard pounding sensation in your ass.
calcajun wrote:
Well, you had a pretty dumb gay friend then, calcajun, assuming for the nonce that this friend is not fictional, because your “brilliant” arguments are old-hat boiler plate.
Let’s review. You absurdly conflate sex positions in the bedroom with public display of attachment. Straight people are hardly discreet regarding the latter. Every photo on every desk that shows a husband, wife, or child is the opposite of “discreet.” A wedding ring conveys the same message. Indeed, both are public statements that one is carnally involved with someone of the opposite sex. You simply don’t notice that because such statements are all around you. Every hetero family walk in the park is more of the same.
The justification for marches is that they promote gay visibility, which is the one thing you do not want. It is ridiculous to claim that straight people do not have “visibility.” The absurdity of a straight pride march derives from the extant visibility of heterosexual relations.
JeremyR wrote:
Wrong. The pounding need have no connection to AIDS. You should read (and write) more precisely.
lobo91 wrote:
Douglas barrel and I added a scope with illuminated reticle. I think it was in the pic I included in the gun thread last month.
When I was active, I was trained on the M-21. I have been in love with the M1A since I was a kid, but didn’t get one until a few years ago.
Incidentally, the original though behind a dictionary was inspired. I thought the point about the corruption of “peace” to mean “submission to the enemy” was very telling, as was the connection to the Jewish concept of Shalom.
In passing, I’ll say that I’d be very interested to see calcajun’s response. So far, he’s been a devil’s advocate for Islam, but seems less reluctant to advocate similarly for gay people. I admit that I am impatient with deception and sloppiness.
@ sk (skzion):
Sorry, I meant “more reluctant.”
“The jungle crouched, humped in silence.”
– T.S. Eliot
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Thank you for responding. I was called away. For what its worth, and it probably will not be read, here is my reply. Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating affection, sex, or the moral principles of traditional marriage.
“No. Not “a certain form of non-procreative sex.” We are being asked, as a society, to trash a millennia-old moral prohibition to mollify our next-door neighbors. We are being harried to substitute personal acquaintance for principle.”
The moral argument in modern America depends on “equality” under the Bill of Rights. Our neighbors are asking us to uphold a constitutional principle. My argument is that what is being held as equal is not gay and straight persons rights to a partner of their choice, but the sexual conduct of gay and straight persons.
“Understand this: I do not believe homosexual desire to be “unnatural.” The Torah would not have forbidden us to act on a desire if the desire were not natural—for some people, if not all. But moral restrictions are impositions of restriction upon “natural” desires; that is what morality is, whether it be saying no to homosexual desire or saying no to extramarital adventure.”
Anything that happens in nature, is natural. “Whatever is, is right,”
(Edmund in King Lear ?). This does represent (pagan) anarchy. I agree that law (whether religious or religiously derived) proscribes certain “natural” actions and demands self-control of impulses. But the “equality” argument demands that self-control rules not extend to consensual homosexual carnality, because carnality is carnality whatever the gender of the participants.
“Nor do I care for the designation of “sodomy.” Despite the popularization of homosexual desire as being “the sin of Sodom,” traditionally the sin of Sodom was hostility to strangers, and the story of the denizens of Sodom seeking to molest Lot’s guests is no more than a lynch-mob gang-rape to show dominance.”
I do not mind what you call it. Anal intercourse, buggery etc.
“The problem is that at the bottom of the demand for “normalization” or “enshrinement” of same-sex marriage is the demand for the jettisoning of the entire basis of Western civilization.”
Anthropologically speaking, the basis of Western civilization was the ordering of relations. Marriage was an institution that structured power and property relations – kinship. The principle of fidelity (in the woman) preserved the integrity of dynasty, primogeniture and patrimony. Today, property and power have largely been separated and neither depend on blood lines. Marriage in Western secular society is fading in kinship and property significance and civil unions can enshrine what is left – for all pairings. But there is a cultural hangover in the traditional idea that marriage is still the institution which legitimizes sex. Perhaps even sanctifies it. Which is why I say that in the end, when reduced to its ultimate absurdity, the equality rationale for gay marriage (not civil unions) is the demand for anal intercourse sex to be publicly accepted as being equal to vaginal sex. All talk of “love” being discriminated against is twaddle. Married couples may, or may not love each other, but they are expected to copulate.
Will the acceptance by the culture that anal and vaginal sex are equivalent be the end of civilization? Will moral anarchy consume all?
Could be. Because it will have trivialised the meaning of relations between human beings – all sexualities and genders – to the satisfaction of appetites. Gone will be the cultural situating of each child as the culmination of the past and the beginning of the future. We will live in the world of “whatever”, and it will dwindle away out of sheer pointlessness.
So we agree, I think, but get there by different roads.
sk (skzion) wrote:
Come on now, all those dried up grey haired Jane Godall looking women in Suburus are more conspicious than wedding rings. At least in the better suburbs.
Good Morning.
One of my favorite quotes:
“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. If what is said is not what is meant – then what needs to be done remains undone.”
Confusius
Hmm – noticed that this input box wants me to spell favorite with a “u” in it – so it becomes favourite. While I think the Queens English sounds lovely – I’m sticking with the Americanized version. – Wow – and apparently Americanized uses an “s” instead of a “z”.
Where did this dictionary come from? England perhaps?
Huh. This dictionary is going to come in handy, because many leftists will base their “definition” upon what they perceive to be the intent, or the context of the statement, or both. Of course, these “definitions” are highly, highly subject to change at a moment’s notice. And, not for the benefit of the right-wingers, either.
@ Scott Madsen:
You make a good point.
Macker wrote:
Look on the bright side, Macker. At least he’s not a n****r.
[watch it - admin]
@ sk (skzion):
Obviously I mangled Macker’s original post. Apologies.
There isn’t any reason for all of this name-calling. Choose your words people.
m, you know I think you’re swell. However, I will not accept your permitting the word “faggot” here but not permitting the word “n****r”. Indeed, my point was to highlight Macker’s usage without adopting the typical PC “I’m so offended, you should be censored” BS.
In truth, I prefer all usages to be uncensored. I’m happy to play on that field.
Whoops! I just see that you have altered both my post and Macker’s (you must have done that just this second, before my post). Sorry, for my jumping to conclusions, m.
That said, I really do prefer perfectly open language (barring the illegal type).