Medium.com:
Social justice, as a concept, has existed for millennia — at least as long as society has had inequity and inequality and there were individuals enlightened enough to question this. When we study history, we see, as the American Transcendentalist Theodore Parker famously wrote, “the arc [of the moral universe]…bends towards justice.” And this seems relatively evident when one looks at history as a single plot line. Things improve. And, if history is read as a book, the supporters of social justice are typically deemed the heroes, the opponents of it the villains.
And perhaps it’s my liberal heart speaking, the fact that I grew up in a liberal town, learned US history from a capital-S Socialist, and/or went to one of the most liberal universities in the country, but I view this is a good thing. The idea that societal ills should be remedied such that one group is not given an unfair advantage over another is not, to me, a radical idea.
But millennials are grown up now — and they’re angry. As children, they were told that they could be anything, do anything, and that they were special. As adults, they have formed a unique brand of Identity Politics wherein the groups with which one identifies is paramount. With such a strong narrative that focuses on which group one belongs to, there has been an increasing balkanization of identities. In an attempt to be open-minded toward other groups and to address social justice issues through a lens of intersectionality, clear and distinct lines have been drawn between people. One’s words and actions are inextricable from one’s identities. For example: this is not an article, but an article written by a straight, white, middle-class (etc.) male (and for this reason will be discounted by many on account of how my privilege blinds me — more on this later).
And while that’s well and good (that is — pride in oneself and in one’s identity), the resulting sociopolitical culture among millennials and their slightly older political forerunners is corrosive and destructive to progress in social justice. And herein lies the problem — in attempting to solve pressing and important social issues, millennial social justice advocates are violently sabotaging genuine opportunities for progress by infecting a liberal political narrative with, ironically, hate.
Many will understand this term I used — millennial social justice advocates — as a synonym to the pejorative “social justice warriors.” It’s a term driven to weakness through overuse, but it illustrates a key issue here: that, sword drawn and bloodthirsty, millennial social justice advocates have taken to verbal, emotional — and sometimes physical — violence.
In a dazzlingly archetypical display of horseshoe theory, this particular brand of millennial social justice advocates have warped an admirable cause for social, economic, and political equality into a socially authoritarian movement that has divided and dehumanized individuals on the basis of an insular ideology guised as academic theory. The modern social justice movement launched on Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Jezebel, Slate, Huffington Post, et al. is far more reminiscent of a Red Scare (pick one) than the Civil Rights Movement.
When George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four (and here some will lambast me for picking a white male author from a historically colonialist power despite the fact that he fought and wrote against this colonialism), he wrote it to warn against the several dangers of extremism on either side of the political spectrum. Orwell’s magnum opus is about authoritarianism on both ends of the political spectrum. If the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, then the arc of the political spectrum bends toward authoritarianism at both ends.
The very fact that I am drawing a connection between the text most referenced when discussing politics-gone-bad is a problem in itself. But it warrants further exploration.
2+2=5
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy.” — George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
This particular brand of social justice advocacy assaults reason in a particularly frightening way — by outright denying it and utilizing fear-mongering to discourage dissent. There is no gray: only black and white. One must mimic the orthodoxy or be barred forcibly from the chapel and jeered at by the townspeople. To disagree with the millennial social justice orthodoxy is to make a pariah of oneself willingly. Adherence to the narrative is the single litmus test for collegiate (and beyond) social acceptance these days.
Take, for instance, a topical example: the University of Virginia/Rolling Stone rape story debacle. The author of the article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, writes an article accusing several members of the UVa student body of raping a girl named “Jackie.” “Jackie” is Erdely’s only source. In the Rolling Stone’s redaction article, Erdely and the Rolling Stone’s fact-checking is called into question and it is argued that “there were a number of ways that Erdely might have reported further, on her own, to verify what Jackie had told her.” Erdely took Jackie at face value. Why? Because, at the behest of millennial social justice advocates, we are told not to question rape victims. To do so is “victim blaming” and can potentially “re-traumatize” the victim.
In “Fighting Against ‘Rape Culture’ Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry,” author Charles C.W. Cooke expands on the issue of this Rolling Stone debacle. Cooke writes that there was an initial questioning of Jackie and Erdely and he notes that the backlash to this line of inquiry was met with extreme hostility. Cooke writes:
In the Washington Post, Zerlina Maxwell argued that “we should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser [of rape] says,” for “the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.” This view was seconded by the lawyer and journalist Rachel Sklar, who confirmed for posterity that she considers “women who speak of their own experiences” to be automatically “credible,” and anybody who asks questions to be a rape apologist. On Twitter, meanwhile, Slate’s Amanda Marcotte concluded that anybody who has questions about a given account must by definition be engaged in a dastardly attempt to demonstrate that no rape stories are ever true, while CNN’s Sally Kohn grew angry at Jonah Goldberg when he asked for more evidence. Perhaps the best example of the all-zetetics-are-heretics presumption came from the remarkably ungracious Anna Merlan, who rewarded Reason’s Robby Soave for his investigative work by throwing an epithet at him: “idiot.”
Much of this rhetoric comes from the idea that there is a pervasive rape culture on campuses nationwide that must be stamped out; more systemically, there are socially-endorsed and institutionally-endorsed modes of patriarchy that continually oppress women. The ideas purported in the quote above seek to remedy that under the name of social justice. But in what world are these statements liberal, let alone in accordance with social justice?
In “No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims,”author Zerlina Maxwell suggests that we should generally write the equivalent of a blank check to someone who comes forward with a rape accusation. This is not justice and it certainly is not social justice either. It is an illiberal perversion of the justice system. Sir William Blackstone is famous for what is known as the Blackstone formulation: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” This axiom is a foundation of modern justice systems worldwide. It as a formulation that assumes innocence; to condemn on the basis of a certain accusation because of the identity or oppressed status of the accuser is a dangerous road to go down. It erodes the most essential tenet of liberalism: due process.
Due process, or the idea that a governing body must respect all legal rights of an individual, is granted to Americans by the 5th and 14th Amendments. To suggest that there is no recourse for the accused — and to ask for it is actually rape apology — is absurd, reactionary, and further highlights the black-and-white nature of this certain brand of millennial social justice advocates. To speak dissent against— or even question at all — the orthodoxy is to have your words twisted into less positive terms: one does not ask for “due process,” one asks to let rapists go, perpetuates rape culture, and favors rape apology. Why, after all, would someone ask for due process when a woman is accusing a man of rape? The millennial social justice advocate views this as an insidious question that results from sexism against women and is corroborated, they feel, by a statistically insignificant rate of false rape accusations.
This writer, George Orwell and many others have all agreed that he who controls language controls thought.
The Left, as this writer points out over and again, has made an art form out of changing the meanings of words.
This way they seem to win arguments even though all they’ve really done is make anyone taking any opposing view look like an idiot.
But all their words don’t change FACTS.
The lady in the Planet Fitness Gym who pointed out that there was a man in her locker room lost her membership.
But her loss didn’t make that man (who called himself female) or the gym’s owners any less wrong about the fact that he is male, not female.
Magical (or teliological) thinking astounded me when I first noticed Obama doing it.
Now it is commonplace.
All liberals are doing it.
But, as in the excellent example of magical thinking in Peter Pan, no matter how hard they clap their hands and how often Tinkerbelle ”recovers” from her drinking poison, it can never be true in the real world.
How dangerous it is to live under delusion and fantasy.
How long can liberals continue in these delusions and fantasies without reality bashing their heads in?
C.S. Lewis wrote: “A child can only indulge his imagination if he has the rock of stability to return to.”
The Left is untethering itself from the stability of reality.
Good thing the USA has two big oceans to protect them.
@Nanny G:
Whether or not you “believe” in evolution, we know that things change in the world. New species are discovered, and other species become extinct. Sometimes we are the agency causing an extinction, sometimes not. But “change” is a natural event that occurs endlessly.
I cannot imagine a convincing argument that word meanings should remain unaltered throughout time. No matter the alphabet, the number of letters isn’t infinite, and the combinations that they can be conveniently assembled into are also limited, while the potential of the human mind is more in the direction of being unlimited. Inevitably, some words get re-invented, others get re-defined and still others fall out of current use. This progression is understandable when you consider that the users of these words are also changing. More to the point, old ones are dying as newer ones come on board. Generations progress, and the language follows suit.
It would certainly be convenient for the sake of historians and scholars of ancient text if the language remained immutable, but it doesn’t. The evolution of word meanings isn’t a “liberal” monopoly, it is a function of changing times.
If you REALLY want to have change-based nightmares, read science fiction. In “sci-fi,” authors attempt to out-do each other anticipating the future and writing books constructing such hypothetical futures as readers might enjoy reading about. They are often enough close in their predictions to cause some conservatives to lose sleep.
I read a story recently about a straight fellow who had joined an inter-stellar squad of mercenaries, going off for long periods of time to fight battles among the stars. Because of relativistic implications of faster-than-light travel, the years he was gone equated to centuries back home, where things changed faster than he could adjust to. One of the incentives he had to take this job was that his salary accrued on Earth, while he worked in space, so that two years of work earned two centuries of pay, but after several centuries had passed back home, money became obsolete. You would have thought that he would then quit his dangerous job, but back home, a population explosion caused the societies of Earth to reject heterosexuality. Because he could not adjust to an all-gay culture, he remained at his “star-trouper” job – with no pay. There is no guarantee that similar change isn’t in our real future.
Hopefully you read both the original article as well as my personal comment on it.
In that article the writer points out how debaters who oppose the Left are laughed at when they try to use dictionaries to prove their point about facts within the debate.
This isn’t a gradual morphing of the meanings of words over time, such as the one that left ”whilst” in the obsolete bin.
This is a sudden rupture.
An attempt to DENY the current meaning of words so as to win a debate by default and derision.
This is what the Left has been up to lately.
I’ll point out TWO examples the author uses:
RACISM:
And SEXISM:
How did you read that article and miss this?
A more recent example just appeared in the press.
CNBC: “Health spending post-Obamacare seen $2.5 trillion lower.”
This headline is not only awkwardly worded. It is, like the article over which it appears, misleading.
It cites the left-leaning Urban Institute’s study concerning projected health care spending in a way that suggests the nation has saved enormous amounts of money thanks to the “Affordable Care Act.”
Jonathan Cohn writes that the Urban Institute study is “one more reason” to feel good about PPACA: “The nation’s total spending on medical care hasn’t exploded, as legions of ‘Obamacare’ critics predicted.” Noting that the government originally expected 2014-2019 health spending to be $23.6 trillion, he gleefully reports that the Urban Institute projects a mere $21 trillion: “The total will be $2.6 trillion less than the government’s number crunchers thought it would be. That’s a pretty big windfall.”
WINDFALL?
Nobody got any money.
Not one cent.
It was merely projections in a computer model.
All this highlights an underappreciated element of the health care reform debate—the adversarial relationship that exists between Obamacare’s partisans in the press and basic statistics.
Basic statistics are FACTS, just like the definitions of words are facts.
You can’t just pretend them away, much as the Left would like to.
Reality mugs you eventually.
@Nanny G:
I am finding it increasingly difficult to continue conversations here at FA because at every turn something I disagree with is called “leftist” and then I am attacked for it.
I’ve made the point repeatedly that I am more conservative than not, but everybody here – EVERYBODY – is too mono-dimensional to get it. Here, everyone gets labeled and pigeon-holed accordingly. I understand that this epidemic has its roots in the thirty-second sound byte, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why people who are taking the time to WRITE out their thoughts feel obligated to similarly render complex situations down to thirty-second oversimplifications. Life just isn’t that black and white.
Not everyone on EITHER side of the isle “hates” the other side, but we are constantly being whipped into believing that they do. Whipped by the authors of “articles” who seemingly hope to make a name for themselves by concocting some new and better perspective that all too often bears little resemblance to the truth. Whipped by bloggers who prefer incendiary hyperbole over grace, compassion and compromise.
Also disturbing is the recent insistence by some here that everything I say is a lie, as if I am some sort of pathological liar. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every sentence I have posted represents the truth to the best of my knowledge. I freely admit that I may at times be in possession of imperfect information, but none of the errors are of my manufacture. My name is George Wells, yet even this is challenged, as if I have something to hide. Such paranoia would be laughable but for the very disturbing implications it has for human cooperation.
I have looked for answers to many of the troubling issues of our time, but it is clear that I won’t find any here, in a domain of traded insults and accusations. It is a waste of time to continue this, so I am signing off and canceling my notification feature.
I hope you find peace and happiness.
George
@George Wells:
The fact that you are a liar, while perhaps not pathological, has already been established as you abandon threads when shown to be a liar. If we wanted to be kind, we would just call you the resident fabricator.
Remember this:
Did you intend to start any time soon by acknowledging your own deliberate lies and fabrications?
@George Wells:
Project much?
I never did any of this to you.
It is your simple way of refusing to debate a few FACTS.
Language is malleable.
It just is not AS malleable as the Left needs it to be to win their debates.
@George Wells:
You might view words as engineering drawings. The drawings change from time to time as improvements are made or different and changing circumstances dictate. However, the drawing number cannot remain the same or else all context and traceability of when what changes were made is lost. So, drawings get revision levels in order to pinpoint what particular change was made and when.
Words are the same. We cannot simply apply the same word to different uses at will, simply because it is convenient. I have no problem with gay unions, per se, but to call them “marriage” is to try and redefine an historic term to include circumstances it was never meant to define and, as such, the original intent is diluted or lost. Go, if one must, give gay unions another, new name.
This liberal tactic of attacking anyone that is not an absolutist about any particular subject seems to be wearing thin and losing its effectiveness. It began with characterizing any disagreement or criticism of Obama as racist. It continues with accusing anyone that does not agree that birth control and abortion is a Constitutional right (war on women), the above-mentioned debate over gay marriage (homophobe) or opposition to open borders, amnesty and rampant illegal immigration (Hispanic hatred). All are intended to shut down any discussion or debate, but I don’t believe it is effective any longer.
Currently, on the Dallas Morning News blog, there are discussions about the North Carolina shooting of Scott. No matter if one points out clearly and repeatedly that Officer Slager clearly (based on the evidence we have available to us) shot Scott in the back as he ran away (not threatening Slager), if one mentions that IF ONLY Scott had not chosen to run, he would probably be alive today, it is characterized as supporting the notion that running from police is a death sentence. It is an interesting (and fun) debate because the pickings are so easy, but it exemplifies the mindset of the left that if you do not accept their view, as it, no alterations, you are one of the evil characters they have developed to describe those without the liberal vision.
@Bill #8:
As I mentioned previously, too many pundits on both sides paint with overly broad strokes of the brush. The term “War on Women” is a politically convenient shred of rhetorical shorthand that plays well in 30-second sound bites, but which does not fairly characterize opposition to abortion. Neither is “homophobia” a useful word other than to outrage supporters of gay rights. I believe that the only legitimate type of “homophobia” is found in those unfortunate homosexuals who are not “out” and who fear unintentional discovery. People who are self-confident in their sexuality would seemingly have nothing to fear from people who are not competing for the same breeding stock. Perhaps a better term would be something like “homodisgusted” or “homonausiated,” but neither of those words are nouns and would need to be preceded in usage by an article or preposition.
“We cannot simply apply the same word (marriage) to different uses at will.”
Without making any shrill noise, I respectfully beg to differ. Adding new uses to old words (approximately what you are refusing, I believe) is something that happens quite often, and has been happening all along. Someone here suggested that, yes, word meanings sometimes slowly evolve, but that such evolution is in some way different from the violent co-opting of words such as homosexuals did when they adopted the term “gay.” I think that such “evolution” ALWAYS starts with one person’s novel use of a word, for whatever purpose being immaterial, and that the subsequent adoption of the new usage (which morphs into an additional meaning of the original word) depends upon the
usefulness/value/appeal/attractiveness of the new meaning, not the politics of it. The tech world is so fast in its adaptations of words in otherwise current and conventional usage that it makes anyone’s head spin who is not personally right there on the leading edge. Ever try talking to an IT guy with some real aptitude? It’s MUCH harder than a guy trying to understand female emotions. And the process isn’t governed. It simply occurs, and when the new usage becomes reasonably widespread, the dictionary companies add it to the words’ other definitions.
I’ve had this discussion here before, and I’ve no hope of convincing anyone that the word “marriage” has already “evolved” differently in different cultures and that it will continue to do so in ours and elsewhere, if they are disinclined to look at the question with unbiased eyes. But with some Christian religions already conducting church-weddings for gay couples, in at last count 37 states, the argument that “civil unions” or some other term should be substituted for “marriage” in the case of gays simply ignores the current, evolved usage of that term.
Regarding your interest in the Scott murder, I suppose that it was inevitable that both Black and White racists would rally to the defense of their own. Pity. Yes, Scott would LIKELY be alive today had he stayed in his car, but neither is running from the police a crime punishable by summary execution. There are those of both races who are reacting nobly to this tragedy, and those who aren’t. Again, pity. It would be so much more helpful if every event did not become an opportunity to further polarize the country.
Yet:
…..with the Left.
…..yet I hadn’t heard it until gays started using it to describe their debate opponents (rather than debate on the points).
…..yet all too often the purpose of the Left’s change in meaning of old words is for POLITICAL purposes.
So, revisit how Both Sides co-opt words to mean new things so as to shut off debate, if you please.
I see only the Left doing it.
Over and over.
When I tried to come up with a Conservative example all I could come up with was TEA party.
But, since modern-day TEA party stands for ”Taxed Enough Already Party,” and the original tea party in Boston Harbor was a reaction to exactly that, there is no equivalence with the way the Left changes words so as to shut off debate.
@George Wells:
George,
There are, based on our posting history, not a lot upon which we agree in the political philosophy realm.
That being said, the very foundation of our constitutional republic is the freedom of EVERY individual to be able to openly disagree on ideology. Without that principle, freedom has no capability to exist.
You wrote a long set of posts on the mutability of words. I would agree that LANGUAGE changes over time, as any reading of Chaucer in the original Old English would clearly attest, in comparison to modern English.
However – along the lines of a quote attributed to Lincoln – “You can call a tail a leg, and a leg a tail, but a dog still has 4 legs and one tail”, reality is not mutable in the manner that language is. Leftist/collectivists refuse to acknowledge this, but reality exists, and the ramifications of ignoring reality don’t go away no matter how much leftists try to wish them away.
You believe in your homosexual view of the world. You are absolutely free to do so, and I will do nothing to stop you from being with your homosexual partner. I would not bother you with my beliefs or opinions on what you do in the privacy of your home UNLESS you ask me for my opinion…or post in an opinion forum like FA…or unless you try to force me to do something that I believe violates my religious principles. I have made it clear that I believe – as a Christian – that my duties as a physician require that I do my best to provide medical care based solely on what the patient NEEDS with no concern or thought as to who the patient is, what they believe, what political party they support, or who they sleep with.
The very real issue that leftists are bringing to the battlefield of ideas is the mantra that no one is allowed to disagree with the PC/leftist/collectivist ideology. That is unamerican, anti-liberty, and unconstitutional. Until leftists stop trying to FORCE right wing/Christian individuals to bow down obsequiesly to their leftist/collectivist, pro-gay agenda, this battle will not stop.
I do not care what you do in your bedroom, George. I would never support a gestapo-like government activity to beat down your bedroom door and imprison you for engaging in homosexual behaviors. The only thing I ask for is that the pro-gay movement stop demanding that I, and those who believe as I do, no longer be attacked because we disagree with you, and that we not be forced to participate in what we believe is against God’s Will.
The question is why my position is unacceptable to people like the NYT columist Bruni? Whyust I be FORCED to accept and celebrate homosexuality against my religious, biological and philosophical opinions?
@Pete:
“Everything must be done in the name of man’s dignity and rights, and in the name of his autonomy and freedom from outside constraint. From the claims and constraints of Christianity, above all.”
Pete, think about that quote. Think really hard about it. It is your answer. You see, to gain true “equality”, there cannot be any difference between you, as a doctor, and the hospital housekeeper. All norms must be abolished. There can be no difference between genders and everyone is basically genderless. And above all, your religious faith must be destroyed because if you have faith, you believe in something greater than government and you believe that your rights come from God, and not the poliburo.
@Pete #11:
“(What) leftists are bringing to the battlefield of ideas is the mantra that no one is allowed to disagree with the PC/leftist/collectivist ideology.”
If you would take as evidence the hyperbole coming from your other FA conservative commenters, I am about as vile a “leftist”… no, a fascist Marxist Hell-bent on dismantling marriage, religion and the United States of America as can be found AND YET…
I DON’T bring that “mantra to the battlefield of ideas.
I DON’T demand that Christians forego their religious convictions.
I DON’T demand celebration of homosexuality.
In short, I have NEVER demanded anything.
I HAVE presented arguments in favor of extending what I consider to be equal rights to gays, but I have never DEMANDED such rights.
You can’t find anywhere a “demand” coming from me.
(That’s a challenge to YOU, Retire05.)
So exactly what sort of “leftist” am I, anyway?
PAY ATTENTION, NANNY G! Here is the painting in overly “broad strokes” that my last post said both sides do. You mistook that line to apply to the invention of misleading catch phrases that the Left specializes in that I discussed in subsequent sentences, but the opening phrase was meant to apply only to exaggerations coming from BOTH sides. You conservatives here at FA have aggressively over-characterized my comments to paint my positions as DEMANDS, which they are not. Even when I explain at length the validity of Religious Freedom and its significance in the gay rights debate, you still view my position as an open attack on Christianity. Why?
And why, Nanny G, would you remain silent while your “friend” Retire05 makes outrageous leaps of absurdly delusional speculation as found in her post #12, likening positions counter to her own to those of the Politburo. Is this not “painting with overly broad strokes”?
Pete: I don’t know why your positions, or your Christianity is unacceptable to some people (it isn’t to me) any more than I know why my evidently complex positions are inscrutable to simple minds, or why my homosexuality (never mind what I actually used to do in bed) is so horribly disturbing to some folks. Do you or I really need to know the reasons? Would knowing the reasons really change any of your positions? Maybe, but not likely.
I’d like finally to have a little mystery left to life. Not knowing exactly what goes on in other people’s minds probably saves everybody’s sanity. Certainly mine.
@George Wells:
Yet, day after day, you appear on the pages of this web site preaching the mantra of the radical gay movement.
Do you not believe that a florist, or a baker, should be required to provide services for a homosexual wedding or “celebration?” Shall I post your comments on that particular issue?
When you support the forcing of others to participate in homosexual weddings or “celebrations”, you most certainly are ascertaining a support for those who do demand it.
You use the word “demand” as a word smithing tactic. You support all the things you listed, but “demand” is not an appropriate word use since you have no authority to DEMAND anything on this website and politically, have no ability to DEMAND anything on your own.
You’re a fabricator, George, and you have been outed as such.
@George Wells:
To begin with, Nanny G is not my “friend.” I don’t know her from the next person walking down a street. And I place greater value on the term “friend” than you seem to, but that may be because friends are a rare commodity for you. You’re not very likable.
If you were smart, which you are not, you would have understood my connection between the quote and the reference to a politburo. Obviously, you agree with the quote.
@retire05 #14:
First, a “DEMAND” is not the same thing as a “BELIEF.”
To what purpose do you confuse these two different words?
Second, I have already explained my support for Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, and need not elaborate further upon them. I only have voiced reservations regarding the exclusion of gays from life-saving services, the POTENTIAL of which was the basis for my recent questions to Pete – a doctor. I acknowledge that there is no evidence that such vital services have been withheld from gays, and I never said that they were. My concern was that they COULD be, and I would prefer that there would be some law forbidding such exclusion, rather than depending upon the kindness of strangers.
What amazing circular reasoning!
Pete used the word “DEMAND” in his post #11, I didn’t.
I’ve never “demanded” anything – no, I’m not a king or a god, and I agree that I’m not in a POSITION to make “demands.” So why do YOU “word-smith” my comments into “demands, and then, INCREDIBLY, argue that I am in no position to make “demands”?
ASTONISHING!
Oh, so now you’ve double-down-graded my “demand”, first to “support” and then to a “belief”? Who’s “word-smithing”?
Yes, I BELIEVE that public accommodations have a constitutional duty to provide their services without discriminating against their customers. I ALSO believe that there is no uniform (federal) law that forbids such discrimination against gays. I think that there SHOULD be, but I’m not DEMANDING one. And as I’ve said before, gay activists should stop pushing against Religious Freedom objections, as I BELIEVE that continuing to do so is counter-productive to their objectives. No, I’m not DEMANDING that they stop, for the same reasons that are stated above. But I think it will take some time for BOTH sides to reach a peaceful consensus on how to accommodate the two freedoms that are brought into conflict by this issue, and until then, both sides should put down their pitch-forks and torches and take a deep breath.
You see, Retire05, I’m consistent in the use of my vocabulary. My brain doesn’t slip a gear every time I get excited about something you say.
@George Wells:
No, you are a serial liar. And when you are caught in your lies, you ditch the thread and move on to another thread as if no one noticed.
And you’re also a queer, which simply means your brain slipped a gear a long time ago.
@retire05 #15:
“Obviously, you agree with the quote.”
And you reached that conclusion how?
Your inclusion of that (is it a “quote”) looked to me to be one of your uber-incendiary, bate-and-trap efforts meant to have maximum shock effect and little else, so I didn’t bother to acknowledge it. Does ignoring something mean agreeing with it in the Retire05 play-book, because if it does, you sure agree with a lot of what I say.
@retire05 #17:
Ah, nothing but spit, spit, spit.
I leave threads when you and Redteam sink to that and there is nobody else left to talk to.
@George Wells:
Oh, wait, you mean you actually object to my using the same harsh language against you that your side uses against anyone who doesn’t support your gay agenda?
Whoda thunk it?
That is another lie. You leave a thread when you are so blatantly caught in lies that you have no comeback. And perhaps Redteam can confirm this, but I remember you were the one that started lobbing pejoratives at him, not the other way around.
No, it means the resident fabricator, YOU, didn’t know where it came from so didn’t want to get caught agreeing with something you were unlearned about. So let me ask the question; do you agree with the quote? if not, why not? Do you disagree with this: “Everything must be done in the name of man’s dignity and rights, and in the name of his autonomy and freedom from outside constraint”?
@retire05 #20:
Note that I copied your original quote here, hoping to find something that made sense to me. But it doesn’t. Judging from the syntax of the statement, I would speculate that it was not penned in English originally, and that the translator failed to correctly represent the original meaning in the English translation.
The “quote” doesn’t make sense to me because I personally don’t “do everything in the name of”… ANYTHING. I don’t consider free choice (if we even have such a thing, from a determinist perspective) as requiring a single, defining purpose… especially not a purpose focused on unfettered hedonism (which seems to be what the “in the name of his autonomy and freedom from outside constraint” might imply. More simply, I can’t distill from the quote what the author was getting at with confidence that I am understanding it correctly, so I certainly am not in a position to either agree or disagree with it.
Now, a few fragments of the quote I think I understand, like the part about “freedom from the “claims and restraints of Christianity”. I would suggest that this fragment should probably apply fully to non-Christians (especially athiests), should NOT apply to Christians who adhere to a literalist interpretation of the Bible, and would probably be somewhat irritating to both agnostics and to people who consider themselves Christian but who have some difficulty with certain aspects of how the Bible is sometimes interpreted by OTHER people. From a perspective of applicability to ALL men (or ALL people), I cannot see how such a fragment would be universally applicable.
Some people feel compelled to evangelize, regardless of which religion they adhere to, while others don’t “believe” at all, in the Christian sense. I don’t like when some people attempt to force THEIR religious beliefs on OTHER people, since I respect each person’s freedom to believe whatever they wish. But when I cannot even understand the issues that such people are fighting over, I refuse to take sides in their fight.
I don’t sign contracts that I don’t understand, either.
FTA:
And who blows their dog whistle?
Obama does.
Just yesterday he denounced Senator McCain for disagreeing with him over Iran.
He said, “Iran has its own politics around this issue . . . their own hard-liners . . . their own counterveiling impulses, just as we have in our country.”
But what is the truth?
And Sen. McCain?
He merely desires a continuation of sanctions to deny the Iranians more resources to support their ambitions and to try to compel them to accept a stronger agreement. He merely worries that Obama’s deal won’t prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
And for that Obama compares him to the mullahs of Iran?!
Shame on him and on anyone thinking there is any comparison there.
There is one thing the mullahs and McCain have in common, however.
They are both calling Obama a liar about his so-called talking points on the Iran deal.
@George Wells: Some words change by definition simply because the item originally described went out of existence. Ice box, sedan, gas station have come to mean different things as the original subject disappeared or was replaced by something very different. However, we cannot just reassign definitions to words and expect everyone to abide by them. Marriage is perhaps the most apparent; the institution described by marriage has not disappeared nor has it been replaced. What has happened is that another, different institution has appeared and that institution wants to be called by the same name so as to be declared equal and the same. It isn’t; it simply is not.
For instance, what if the majority of us on this site decided to agree to declare that the word “gay” meant “racist”? What if we all declare the term “LGBT” is horribly offensive and anyone that uses it should be publicly ostracized, if not have their businesses burned to the ground?
We are forced to constantly tip-toe around the term de jour in regards to blacks; who the hell knows what we are permitted to call them (though we are reminded what, unless you ARE black, you CANNOT call them)? Black? Negro? Aftican-American? Person of color? Colored? What? Please tell me, WHAT, because I damn sure don’t want to offend anyone ever anywhere!!!
This is all a bunch of crap, but that is the intention. Even to the point regarding the “N” word, the prohibition is only there to selectively attack when convenient (Michael Richards is a perfect example). However, the political redefinition of terms has no impact on me and I do not honor it.
Regarding the Scott shooting by Slager, let me congratulate you on your telegraph vine-like absorption of the left wing mantra to try and make this an indictment of all police. Of course, running from a cop is NOT a death sentence. It is (or should be) more than apparent that the city of North Charleston does not regard this as legal or justified. However, the overriding lesson is that, in most cases, no good can come of running from the police and, in all likelihood, had Scott remained in his car, while he would have gone to jail for the warrant, he would still be alive and Slager would not be charged with murder. The same goes for the Oklahoma case where the auxiliary officer accidentally shot a suspect; had that man not run from police (or been selling illicit firearms, for that matter) he would most likely still be alive today.
This observation is not put forth in defense of anyone; it is meant to counter the accusation, implying racism, that Slager just up and shot Scott in the back, dead. Scott does, in fact, bear a bit of the responsibility. No, running from the cops is not a death sentence. Neither is owing tens of thousands of dollars in back child support. Police do not have the authority to determine death sentences and execute them. But, good God Almighty, can anyone actually see how choosing to run from the police has a far greater probability of creating a chain of events that could lead to tragedy than following the directions of law enforcement? Am I failing THAT badly at making that simple point, or is the instinct to make all things racial and anti-police just too strong?
As facts come out, it looks like this situation was more nuanced than the Left is painting it.
For example, the taser was discharged at least twice by Scott after he wrestled it from the officer.
One time it hit the officer in the chest (most likely the vest protected him) the other time it hit the officer in the leg.
What level of danger would YOU feel had someone tased you effectively?
I have seen live demonstrations and it is a scary and forceful thing.
There was a 45 second time when both men were off both cameras.
How, during that time, did Scott get the officers’ taser?
Was there a fight between them?
There is a lot missing from the SELECTIVE leaks from the POLITICAL entity doing the leaking: SLED.
The primary mission of the State Law Enforcement Division is to provide quality manpower and technical assistance to law enforcement agencies and to conduct investigations on behalf of the state as directed by the Governor and Attorney General.
As the various interested parties selectively leak what helps only their own narrative, we are left with a narrative filled with holes!
Police, for example, knew who the drifter was who was Scott’s passenger, the same day this happened.
We only found out, when?, yesterday?
WHY?
Because the fact that Scott was in a car, not belonging to him, with a drifter wasn’t going to help his family’s narrative….and it wasn’t going to help the SLED’s narrative after the officer was arrested and charged with murder, either.
The officer’s red flags were going up left and right. That doesn’t fit into any of the narratives allowed by SLED or the Scott family.
@George Wells:
It is a phrase, you know like:
in the name of liberty
in the name of honor
in the name of freedom
in the name of fairness
in the name of XXX
you reduce everything down to a personal level, thinking that impacts what the statement says. It does not. And with your every post, you support a certain agenda “in the name of equality” or so you claim.
Yet, you take sides against Christians in their belief re: homosexuality. So once again, you are (as is normal) being dishonest with that statement.
The rest of your post was just a waste of the time it took to read it.
@Nanny G: I think it was premature to fire Slager, even though the video is damning. Perhaps moving the taser over by Scott was what did him in. In any event, I don’t think he should have been fired until there had been a hearing or, in this case, a trial. Perhaps there is some legal reason he had to be fired prior to a trial; I have no idea.
I suspected in the beginnig that this was North Charleston doing everything it could to avoid a Ferguson, up to and including making Slager a sacrificial lamb. Again, the trial will tell the tale. Of course, if Slager were to be found to be acting in self defense, well, good bye North Charleston.
However, the trial is necessary and in that we will find out all these details, of which I have suspected there are more than we currently see. It looked really bad for Wilson in the Ferguson case, but the left’s narrative began falling apart very early. This case just seems to keep getting worse for Slager, though this is the first I have heard of him taking a hit from the taser. If Slager was facing someone like Michael Brown, being tased could have brought him down and allowed the assailant to take his weapon. With what we know now, this could save Slager from a murder conviction and get him some degree of manslaughter. In the end, he still shot Scott running away.
But my entire point is, even more so with your addition (which, from what I have been able to find on it, must be viewed with caution), this is in no way a case of Slager just shooting Scott in the back. There is much, much more to it, though Slager ultimately is who pulled the trigger.
@retire05 #25:
I do that because it is my own perceptions of what I read that inform me, not a foreign philosophy, something that belonged to someone else’s mind. I don’t speak for America, or for Democrats, or for gay activists, or for Fascists, Marxists and Communists. I speak for myself. You want me to speak for you? Give me permission and we’ll see how that goes.
Meaning that you grudgingly agree with it.
I didn’t agree with your ridiculous “quote”, so you have nothing to bitch about. Sorry to disappoint you.
@George Wells:
Only in your addled brain could one surmise that because I thought your entry a waste of time meant I agreed with it. But then, you’ve tried to claim that absurdity before.
Since my expectations of your intellect are quite low, you never disappoint.
A priest has posted an idea for how Christian businesses can deal with demands that they cater or photograph or bake or adorn with flowers a gay wedding:
Since we already saw how enraged gays and Leftists got when a pizza place got donations, this might just be very successful as a tactic to get most gay couples to walk back out the door.
A real Christian will have no problem using an invitation to a gathering of sinners as a way to witness……just as Jesus did when a tax collector invited him to a meal.
@Bill #23:
How did you get to this from anything I said?
What “mantra”?
What “indictment of all police”?
More to the point, how are my comments regarding Scott & Slager any different that YOUR comments in your post #26, WHICH I AGREE WITH?!
Who is “expecting everybody to abide by them”?
Who is “reassigning definitions”?
What does “twitter” mean today and what did it mean ten years ago?
Did somebody “reassign” the definition of “twitter”?
No.
And I don’t “abide” by the new meaning of “twitter.”
I don’t “twitter,” and I don’t use the word in conversation to describe a form of social media conversation.
I CHOOSE to not make use of this new usage of the word “twitter.”
But I don’t deny that some people DO use it and understand communications that make use of this new definition of the word.
A colloquial new usage of the word “Twitter” has become so widespread that it will soon be added to the other definitions of the word, if it hasn’t already.
That’s the same thing that is happening to the word “marriage.”
And just like with me and the word “twitter,” not everyone will use the word “marriage” in the new context that includes gay unions. But enough people WILL, and that’s why the definition of “marriage,” as found in dictionaries, WILL include the new usage.
This will look something like:
“marriage” (noun) 1. a. the mutual relation of a husband and a wife. b. the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. c. the union of two same-sex individuals for a similar reason. d. an intimate or close union. (etc.)
There are already multiple meanings of the word “marriage.” Not every meaning applies in every instance where the word gets used.
I’ve heard the word “marriage” used to express the joining of an engine to a chassis that it was not original to. “It’s been “married.”” That usage doesn’t apply to a one-man-one-woman “marriage” any more than it applies to a “gay marriage”.
Would you like to support a constitutional amendment banning “engine-chassis marriages”? They don’t “denigrate” your one-man-one-woman marriage any more than a gay marriages does.
I really have to ask why you even bother to argue this point. The “redefinition” of “marriage” has already occurred. There are plenty of people, you included, who aren’t happy with the addition of this new meaning, but frankly, you don’t have a say in the matter. The definition reflects usage, not opinion, not dissent, not objection. And there is already more than enough usage of the new meaning to make the change.
@George Wells:
Oooohhh so now we have a gay guy hoping for gay heaven…………..
@George Wells: # 9
George, as I pointed out to you previously, there are no Christian religions conducting church weddings for gay couples. Once they start to perform ‘gay weddings’ they become ‘former Christian Churches’. By definition, a Christian Church would be a church that follow Christ and his teachings. That would not include former churches that went astray.
Not painting with a broad brush because many gays are excoriating this gay man in SF who came up with the ”I’ll Bottom For Hillary,” T-shirts.
On sale now.
Here’s the Guardian’s take:
Personally, I’m glad this guy’s getting an earful from his fellow homosexuals, whether they support Hillary or not.
He deserves it.
He is more bigoted than I can imagine.
@retire05: 20
Absolutely correct. Neither had ‘called a name’ for days, then suddenly George got caught in some lie or other, and he resorted to name calling. After about 3 comments containing those, I pointed it out and enumerated the words he had use. Then he doubled down. Then he abandoned the thread.
Note George, it would better suit your purpose and your creds to begin to use the truth. Yes, I know that may be a strange request, but I, as most do, would like more honesty in the discussion.
@Nanny G #33:
What do you think of Marco Rubio’s distinction between allowing refusal to participate in gay weddings on the grounds of “religious Freedom” while NOT allowing such refusal to provide non-wedding-related services to gays?
I think that Rubio’s “compromise” approach has merit, particularly in view of the fact that these issues do put religious rights and equality rights squarely in conflict. In terms of the width of the brushes used to paint these pictures, Rubio’s nuanced approach, while likely the product of his effort to tack leftward sufficiently to hold onto millenials’ support, may well be the same distinction the SCOTUS will choose to make when it ultimately decides the “religious freedom” cases headed its way.
I’m just not convinced that the GOP’s evangelical right will go along with it, choosing instead an “all-or-nothing” approach that likely will work as well as their “no-gay-marriage-no-civil-union” approach worked.
@Redteam #32:
“By definition, a Christian Church would be a church that follow Christ and his teachings.”
I don’t recall Jesus saying a whole lot about gay marriage.
Your bizarre logic would leave the world with exactly zero Christians, as they all sin. The same grace and forgiveness that allows flawed Christians entrance into heaven allows churches to err (if that is what performing gay marriages is) and remain “Christian.”
While I might be more open to working at a gay wedding even as a Christian, because it is an opportunity to be a witness for Christ there, that decision is MINE.
The Scriptures discuss the difference between the feelings of freedom to act of new (weak) Christians and older (experienced) Christians.
One’s maturity is NOT a cudgel to club younger, more sensitive Christians over their heads.
Thus the Scriptures warn the experienced Christian NOT to push his views on his younger, weaker Christian brothers and sisters. (see footnote)
Marco Rubio is setting government up to act as definer of ALL Christians’ consciences!
That’s where he’s in the wrong.
This is an area where EACH Christian must live according to whatever keeps his own conscience clean.
As a result, some Christians went to prison rather than even serve in the military during the draft.
They accepted the legal consequences of their actions.
Rubio is doing exactly what Obama did when he tried to tell Christians they HAD to buy abortifactants when their consciences told them they must not do so.
Neither man is in the position to order Christians how to decide matters of personal conscience.
Now, were Mario Rubio’s concept to become law, I would expect most Christians would be able to live within its bounds…..but there would still be a few who would have to be prosecuted and fined or imprisoned.
Footnote:
1 Corinthians 10:
23 Some of you say, “We can do whatever we want to!” But I tell you that not everything may be good or helpful. 24 We should think about others and not about ourselves. 25 However, when you buy meat in the market, go ahead and eat it. Keep your conscience clear by not asking where the meat came from. 26 The Scriptures say, “The earth and everything in it belong to the Lord.”
27 If an unbeliever invites you to dinner, and you want to go, then go. Eat whatever you are served. Don’t cause a problem for someone’s conscience by asking where the food came from. 28-29 But if you are told that it has been sacrificed to idols, don’t cause a problem by eating it. I don’t mean a problem for yourself, but for the one who told you. Why should my freedom be limited by someone else’s conscience? 30 If I give thanks for what I eat, why should anyone accuse me of doing wrong?
31 When you eat or drink or do anything else, always do it to honor God. 32 Don’t cause problems for Jews or Greeks or anyone else who belongs to God’s church. CEV
@George Wells:
Your statement:
My problem is that, even when agreeing on what happened, how it could have been avoided and the declaration the what Slager did was wrong (to what degree is yet to be seen, in light of the taser), those on the left ALWAYS have to reverberate “running from the police is not a death sentence”. WE KNOW THAT. WE GET IT. NO ONE CLAIMS IT SHOULD BE.
It seems the left will not allow a discussion of the facts, an admission that all the facts are not yet available and an admission that the police do not have ultimate power without the pointing out of the obvious, “running from the police is not a death sentence.” The vast majority of police are not violent killers or beaters and, it could now be argued, that most of those that are are pushed to it by deliberate provocation.
@Bill #38:
“My problem is that, even when agreeing on what happened, how it could have been avoided and the declaration the what Slager did was wrong (to what degree is yet to be seen, in light of the taser), those on the left ALWAYS have to reverberate “running from the police is not a death sentence”. WE KNOW THAT.”
OK, Bill.
Calm down.
I agreed with EVERYTHING you said.
Did I not?
You said Scott would be alive today had he not bolted.
I said the same thing.
You said that Slager was wrong to shoot Scott in the back while he was running away.
I said the same thing.
We BOTH mentioned BOTH of these facts to demonstrate that BOTH Scott and Slager contributed to the tragedy of Scott’s death.
Focusing on one and ignoring the other would have been much more inflammatory than mentioning both “for the record.”
Since we BOTH know these details, I suppose that the only reason either of us mentioned them was to acknowledge the fact that we aren’t crazy enough to believe that all of the fault lies with one of the actors here.
I’d take that as a compliment and not get worked up about it.
Cops have a difficult and dangerous job, and they aren’t paid enough for the risks they take. And young Black males are remarkably prone to self-destructive activities – including a very high rate of criminal activity, getting physical with law-enforcement, resisting arrest, etc., etc., things that the police have to deal with but are not the cause of. At best (for Blacks) the claim of “racism” is a net zero, since Black racism is at LEAST as prevalent as the White variety. So I see a whole host of secondary social problems that contribute to tragedies such as the Scott death, and I have no easy answers for the question of what to do about them. The Liberal-Socialist creation of a dependent subculture obviously isn’t the answer. Neither is cutting off all social safety nets and forcing that dependent subculture to go it “cold-turkey.” Major riot time.
I’m communicating my agreement to YOU because I BELIEVE that in order to correct ANY of these problems, we ALL need first to agree on what they are, and communication is needed to begin that process.
Forgive me for trying to agree with you without your permission.
Next time, I’ll ask first.
Going back to the rapid or slow evolution of meanings of words, I found this today:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/dialogue-prices-values
On Redefining Reality: A Dialogue
by JAMES JACOBS
In it was this little example:
There is plenty more.
But I think the most important part of his object lesson was getting the shopkeeper whose window touted a decal advertising the so-called “Human Rights Campaign,” the organization agitating for a redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions to say this:
James Jacobs concludes:
James Jacobs is Professor of Philosophy and Assistant Academic Dean at Notre Dame Seminary.
However ”white” and ”hetero” and ”old” and ”powerful” it might be claimed as if those things are derogatory, Words have meanings.
As the days go by, more and more people are opining on this issue.
And the rappers who change words just to rhyme or homosexuals who change words just to look like they win, or feminists who change words just so they can kill babies with no bout of conscience are the losers.
Try as they might, they cannot beat their own consciences as they are alternately accusing themselves and excusing themselves.
@George Wells:
I was talking about Christian Church’s, not Christians. I have to assume that a Christian Church is Christian and not a ‘sinner’. Once a Christian Church chooses to not follow Christ, they can hardly be said to be a Christian Church. If a person is a Christian, and they sin, they can repent and still be a Christian. Either a Church is or is not. If the Church could repent (nullify any non Christian things they had done) then they might return to being a Christian church. But that wouldn’t allow for them permtting the non Christian to remain.
@Nanny G: Very good. much of that conveys my thoughts. I’m not sure why homosexuals think that changing the definitions of words makes their behaviors or activities more acceptable. When I was young, all homosexuals were called queers. They were mostly called that, I think, because that is what they referred to themselves as. One that lived near me even had a nickname, Quesy. Then many years later I started hearing them being referred to as ‘gay’. That one never made any sense, because from all I heard, very few of them were ‘gay’ (as in happy). But that spoiled things for some people, no longer can we hear ‘don we now our gay apparel’ without many snickers in the crowd. Then suddenly they wanted civil unions, and once they started to get them, that wasn’t good enough, it has to be a ‘marriage’. So their definition of marriage became, 2 things joined together. Two men, two women, one man one woman, one cow, one horse one woman 3 men, vice versa. In other words, saying that a person is ‘married’ does not mean that that person is ‘actually’ married. It now only means that a person has joined up with ‘something’ and wants to call it a marriage so they will ‘feel good’.
@Redteam #41:
“I have to assume that a Christian Church is Christian and not a ‘sinner’”
Well, your assumption is predictably wrong. A “Church” is nothing more than a group of people with similar religious beliefs. Not all the SAME beliefs, but similar enough to allow them to worship together – in a “church building,” if they have enough money to afford one. But they all make mistakes… sin, if you must, and this translates into an imperfect… CHURCH. The Catholic Church failed its children when it intentionally covered up numerous child-abuse crimes. Yes, those cover-ups were perpetrated by PEOPLE, but those people ARE the church. The “Catholic Church” isn’t just a bunch of gaudy architecture filled with antique objects of art. It is the family of worshipers and the “shepherds” who guide them. And they are all sinners. To a man (or woman).
Christianity has a very funny way of dealing with “sin” and “repentance.”
Nobody’s keeping track of it here on Earth. That’s God’s job. We just go about our merry ways, sinning as is convenient and repenting the morning after, and nobody’s the worse for wear. A “Church” doesn’t phase in and out of “Christianity” depending on the net balance in the “sin account” as opposed to the net balance in the “repentance account.” But since you choose to live in a fantasy world anyway, believe what you want. Freedom of Religion gives you that right.
@Redteam #42:
“homosexuals think that changing the definitions of words makes their behaviors or activities more acceptable.”
That is YOUR fantasy, not what gays think, not what they want, not what the activists among them demand.
YOUR fantasy, predictably misconstruing the motivations, thoughts and feelings of people whom you have no knowledge about.
Perhaps you should redirect your anger at the many millions of heterosexuals who are using the term “marriage” to describe gay unions. THEIR numbers are FAR greater than the number of homosexuals in America. THEIR usage of the term is what is driving its redefinition, not the silly demands of a handful of gay activists.
@George Wells: George it’s obvious that while you were busy studying the gay life, you were missing out on religion.
Really? You let a church, oh say a Southern Baptist Church come out and say that they are going to start doing ‘gay weddings’ and see how long that church is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. Let the word come out that a priest in a Catholic Church has ‘sinned’ (let’s say had sex with a child) Do you think that priest will remain a priest in the Catholic Church? God nor Jesus said that you can sin and just go about your business and everything will be okay. No, I think the message is that you have to repent your sin before the Gates of Heaven will be open to you.
let’s say that is correct, If those group of people happen to be members of a church, such as a Southern Baptist Church, then their beliefs are going to align closely with the Southern Baptist Convention, and if one of those persons with ‘similar religious beliefs’ decides he is going to let a gay couple get married ‘in that church’ I’m gonna say, ‘that ain’t gonna happen’. And if they took a vote and decided they wanted to let that gay wedding occur in their church ‘building’, then they would basically be voting to secede from the Southern Baptist Convention at the same time. Similar religious beliefs does not mean ‘can change with the wind’. It doesn’t mean that someone’s wife can sleep with the preacher and the church is going to be okay with it just because the preacher thought it was a good thing.
Now whether you want to have homosexual weddings in churches are not is immaterial. It’s what the church wants that matters.
Besides, I thought all you want is for marriages to be recognized. Where they are held should not matter.
I think as long as you’re studying homosexuality you should stay away from offering opinions in religion. They have very little in common.
@George Wells:
Are you saying: Amongst homosexuals, ignorance is bliss.
Redefining the definition of the word marriage does not make two guys living together, a marriage. I don’t really care how many people remain ignorant on th meaning of some words. Apparently ‘words’ mean a helluva lot to homosexuals or they would just use the word homosexual. No, that word draws attention to their ‘sexuality’ which they don’t really want, so they started going with the word ‘queer’. I guess someone thought that wasn’t the right word so they corrupted the meaning of the word gay. Now they want the word marriage corrupted. Even if some do use it, it is still a corruption and a misuse of the word.
Strange how even though there are two terms associated with the word ‘marriage’ husband and wife that you object to those two words applying. I’m not sure why, but I suspect it’s because the word wife usually means a female. Well, homosexuals have no problem with changing word meanings, ie., see: marriage. So there is one husband and one wife per wedding. Right?
@Redteam:
Actually, A church is an inanimate object. The church would be a more correct term, referring to a particular belief.
George seems to think that if a particular denomination decides to allow their churches to perform same-sex weddings, that everyone in that church will just go along. Not so:
The National Black Church Initiative (NBCI), a faith-based coalition of 34,000 churches comprised of 15 denominations and 15.7 million African-Americans, has broken its fellowship with Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) following its recent vote to approve same-sex marriage.
http://www.charismanews.com/us/48944-34-000-black-churches-break-ties-with-presbyterian-church-usa
The pastors of 34,000 churches said “Oh, no, you don’t and we will not abide.”
@retire05: Yes, it’s quite obvious, as I told Sweet Pea, that obviously ‘church’ and ‘religion’ is not amongst his strong suits. I don’t object to him saying that some church’s are doing same sex weddings, but he surely can’t truthfully say that ‘Christian Churches’ are doing same sex weddings.
@Redteam #46:
“So there is one husband and one wife per wedding. Right?”
Not necessarily so, any more.
If you are a man and you marry a woman, your marriage has a husband and a wife. If you both are male, you both have husbands. Both female – two wives.
In spite of YOUR objections, that’s how it works.
“he surely can’t truthfully say that ‘Christian Churches’ are doing same sex weddings.”
Sure I can. They are. Talk about redefining words. You’re changing the definition of a “Christian Church” to mean “a Christian Church that believes in exactly the came thing that YOUR Christian church believes in. That sort of logic has had Catholic and Protestant churches at war with each other for centuries. So far, I haven’t heard that any of them have accepted “de-Christianization.” So your “changed definition only applies to you and some others who think the same way. But that new meaning doesn’t apply to everybody just because you like it, any more than the “new” meaning of marriage applies to everybody.
Words – and even languages – evolve over time. Some words die off, just like some languages disappear from usage. You know that. By denying it, you’re just being silly.
@retire05 v#47:
“George seems to think that if a particular denomination decides to allow their churches to perform same-sex weddings, that everyone in that church will just go along.”
Odd speculation that, considering I’ve never made such an insinuation. I’m well aware of the loss of many churches from the Presbyterian Church USA over the acceptance of gay marriage. I don’t see that as a problem, as people have a right to assemble with whom they choose. The two fractions still add up to the same total, don’t they?
34,000 churches is a big number. How many churches are there in total, I wonder? Glad that they’re happy now, though.