What’s in a word? A lot…

When the left has nothing left they pick on language as a last resort. Political correctness has been their tool of choice. So again they take to being the language police. Now we are back to their favorite tactics, pin the tale on the racist.

They constructed a whole defense around the word “thug”. That’s right, I said that vile, ugly, racial term. Can you believe they have nothing better than to play language games?

The word thug describes the behavior of, well, thugs: be they male or female, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Portuguese, Sicilian, Latino, gangsters, politicians, government officials. white urban teenagers, parents, teachers, union organizers, activists, etc. It is a generic term, or so everybody thought. And along comes the left, academia, media, even professors to say that term is a euphemism for blacks and a racist term. Apparently “thug” is a pejorative — like duh — that they don’t like. Who knew there was a lock on the term?

I’ve described many different people as thugs including politicians like Harry Reid. Let’s get something straight, it is the behavior that begets the label thug, not a skin color or demographic. I’m more amazed how these language and redefinition police have hijacked the term into some narrow and twisted definition. Of course when calling Bush, his administration, conservatives or Tea Partiers thugs that is a different story.

I just don’t understand how description of behavior can be turned into a slur. Every word the left doesn’t like it labels a slur or a racist term. After all, they’ve turned the generic word gay into a sexual identity. That is until someone uses their term in a way they don’t like, and then they attack you for using the term as a slur. Get it? It is not the term at all, it is the person using the term they have issues with. But they are afraid to take their argument up on those terms, so they make it about terms of language. They use the word lesbian. But when you use it they attack you for using a pejorative. Of course the word homophobic is loosely used and its use is freely encouraged.

So it is a game. It’s all about who uses the word that counts. We must know who is using it as to what it means. Terms the left uses all the time are deemed symbols of of hatred, animosity, racism and incivility when used by conservatives or Republicans. I’ve already mentioned a few. “Pride” is sexual awareness. The word protestor is a noble term to the left. But when a conservative uses the term it is supposed to be a slur of hatred. In other words, you meant to call them something else but just substituted a generic word “protestor” instead. See these self-anointed language police get to put all these parameters and qualifiers around words and terms. We get to define what we mean by our words, not them. They think they get to define not only the words but the person using the term.

I have a little hearing test for those left of sanity. The next time someone uses the word “thug,” just ask yourself if you heard “black urban youth” et al, or the word thug?

I used 567 words to talk about one word. A hundred years ago that would have probably seemed absurd, today it has become necessary.

RightRing | Bullright

Marriage…or whatever

The problem is very simple. I know, most people here know this but I’ll say it anyway. The word that is all the rage and the crux of Leftists’ argument is “marriage equality” But is that true?

That is a subjective term.(for their purposes) It means whatever the user wants it to mean. Marriage equality is defined by the user. Marriage equality for the bigamist is marrying a harem. Marriage for someone else is something else. Do I see them define what “marriage equality” means? Of course not, it is as intentionally vague as most language the left uses.

So it will be up to the person to claim what “marriage” or “marriage equality” is to them. A person wants marriage equality, which to him/her means marrying whatever they want or choose to. Then to deny them that is to deny them equality. But the minute anyone draws a line that it (equality) applies to gays but not others, then they will no longer be standing for “equality” will they? They will be denying someone else their right to “equality”. Get it? When society tries to say it can not apply here or there, then bye-bye equality.

The people who adopted that term as their political lingo will have to apply it to wherever someone demands their “marriage equality” — whatever that means to them. Therefore, there cannot be any laws against the outliers, because that would not be equality and be denying someone equality. So there cannot ever be equality until everyone gets what he/she/it demands. (which by my calculation is the second Tuesday of never) — unless you think it is possible to grant every possibility.

Noun

1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (

The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws. I couldn’t marry another man. My wife couldn’t marry another woman. Nor could I marry a cow either. See that is the thing, we are under the same rules.

On the other hand, what they want is to expand the definition of marriage. And yes, it does affect us all, since we are all afforded equal protection of the law. So in effect, they are changing the definition for everyone. It shall mean whatever you want it to mean.

However, no one was denying them the right(s) of marriage, same as the rest of us have. We have that equality now. They are about changing the definition not about “equality”.

But under their newfound definition of equality, no one could be denied the institution of marriage — however one wants to apply it or interpret it. That is what they are asking. It is not about “equality”, it is about ever-expanding definitions of what marriage IS. Remember Bill Clinton: “it depends what the definition of “is” is“. That’s what they are saying.

So all the talk about equality is just that, talk. But no one bugs them about the specious arguments, though they will attack Christians for making a case for the conventional marriage definition. Doing that is supposedly taboo.

Under their ever-expansive definition(s), there are no parameters. It shall mean whatever a particular person wants it to mean. We don’t offer that option in other places either. Remember, they say it is only about equality.

Digging deeper

Now people can say why does this matter because “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”, as Jefferson said? It could be more relevant now than you thought.

This week the NYT took it on itself again to be the teller of all things and frame the political debate. But they framed it using the Methodist Church in their cross hairs. Why this is a central issue at all is because of a prominent retired Methodist pastor who performed a same-sex wedding for his son in NY, back in October 2012. Now the Times zeros in on him.

He happens to be the former Dean of Yale and Drew Universities, and presently professor emeritus of theological ethics at Yale. So they found a pastor with plenty of credentials and bona-fides to press the issue of same-sex marriage. That is what this is about, not just allowing same-sex marriage but having it approved by clergy and institutions of the church.

For long the general conference of the Methodist Church did not permit pastors to perform such weddings. They still don’t. But that did not stop this activist, academic, pastor from acting on his own. It gets worse though, because of his explanations. He said he wanted to perform the wedding because it is his son, and he said he had no intention of acting in civil disobedience by doing it. And he said that when there is a rule that is not right, and you cannot change it, then you break it. All this rationale flowed from him as his reasoning for doing it. Then there was the quiet reprimand he received which asked him to apologize and promise not to perform them again. He rebuffed that offer. Now he is in clear defiance.

The problem is that all those reasons don’t jive. He was not doing it for civil disobedience, then pretty much admits he was. As well as saying if you don’t like the rule then you break it.(is that what we are taught) I can’t imagine this flying in either Yale or Drew for professors underneath him. Does he tell them to ignore what rules they don’t like? No, of course not. But for him this is his reasoning. Defy the authority of the church which ordains him as a minister.

As bad as that is, I can’t say that the UM Church position and reaction was much better. Though they gave him the opportunity to say he would not do it again and he wouldn’t. But he is not doing it for civil disobedience? Oh really! That means he is not in compliance with that rule and who knows what other rules he cares to take issue with? Must be this is what theological ethics teaches?

So anyone can see this is not just about gay-marriage etc. It is about a whole lot more.
referrence article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/nyregion/caught-in-methodisms-split-over-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

 

These are pertinent excerpts from the piece.
Sometimes, when what is officially the law is wrong, you try to get the law changed,” Dr. Ogletree, a native of Birmingham, Ala., said in a courtly Southern drawl over a recent lunch at Yale, where he remains an emeritus professor of theological ethics. “But if you can’t, you break it.
“I was inspired,” Dr. Ogletree said. “I actually wasn’t thinking of this as an act of civil disobedience or church disobedience. I was thinking of it as a response to my son.”
In late January, Mr. Paige and Dr. Ogletree, accuser and accused, met face-to-face in an effort to resolve the dispute without a church trial. Mr. Paige, who declined to be interviewed for this article, citing the confidentiality of the proceedings, asked that Dr. Ogletree apologize and promise never to perform such a ceremony again. He refused.
“I said, this is an unjust law,” he recalled telling Mr. Paige.

He siad he did it in response to his son, but refusses to say he would not do it again? And he claimed he wasn’t thinking of civil disobedience when doing it, but that is exactly how he rationalizes it.  Are all those reasons hard to accept?

“Dearly beloveds, we are gathered here together to join the church to same-sex marriage. Any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace.”