Posted on 11/28/2007 1:34:26 PM PST by Froufrou
I seem to rememhber something about Jesus rather ungently booting a batch of 'businessmen' out of His Father's house, while in the flesh.
Maybe this batch better keep a sharp eye out for Jesus coming through the doors of their "Christian" church; he may do more than just sue them for taking His name in vain.
That’s another subtle form of discrimination. Women members of McGowan’s church should stop having babies to remedy this outrage.
You should find a new church.
Some church.
Sounds like a place to avoid.
You should find a new church.”
_______________________
In a hurry.
The bastardization of language and communication by the displacement of the basic definition of terms with meanings that don’t just give new expression to those terms but undermine the original basic meaning as well - like “discrimination”.
It comes from “discriminate”.
It means to mark or perceive the distinguishing or distinctive features of (fill in the blank), or to distinguish, differentiate, or to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences, to identify one from another, to make a distinction. It’s most common synonym is “discern”.
So, even if one is an atheist secularist, is a romantically involved “couple”, simply a romantically involved couple, with no “distinguishing or distinctive features”, and no discernible differences to identify one couple from another, in kind, regardless of the genders?? I expect, when exposed to the correct definitions, the answer is NOT.
Does not “discriminate” simply, in its basic sense, mean to identify a difference or difference and “to discriminate” (or “discrimination” - the act of discriminating) to apply some meaning to an action because of that difference (those differences) that the discriminating mind observes.
What we have is also the destruction of the basic meaning of both “same” and “equal”, which do not, intrinsically mean the same thing and now are treated so often as if the do.
Keeping with an atheists/secularists reasoning: No matter our religious faith, a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple are “different”, there are differences, there are differences in the physical composition, in the “natural” outcomes that can accrue to them (naturally derived children from the genetic components of a heterosexual couple are not possible for a same-sex couple, even by accident), among other things. So, the two types of couples are NOT in fact THE SAME, in many ways.
To say they are THE SAME is simply to ignore the differences.
To acknowledge the differences, to admit they are not the same, even from an atheists/secularists position, should not have to mean that in as much as they are not THE SAME, still they MUST be treated THE SAME?? This now occurs because here is where same and equal get merged, among secularists, by their leftists.
An apple and an orange may be of equal value, in a general nutritional sense, but that “equality” does not make them the same, nor do I treat them the same (I don’t eat the skin of an orange, I don’t bake it sliced-up in a pie) - I respect their differences, I discriminate, and I accord each EQUAL consideration IN RESPECT OF THOSE DIFFERENCES (EQUAL DOES NOT = SAME).
So, even if one wants to permit, by law or otherwise, some things to “same sex” couples, how and why is it that (a)the differences MUST BE IGNORED, OBLITERATED FROM CONSCIOUSNESS AS HAVING NO CONSEQUENCE OR DISTINCTION (when standing right in front of us we know that is not true), and bastardize EQUAL, in terms of what is granted to “couples” to falsely mean SAME. Should not we give EQUAL respect TO THE DIFFERENCES, AS DIFFERENCES and in “marking those distinctions” allow them to drive distinctions in our legal responses to “the couples”, commensurate with those differences?
I once was told by a liberal minister that to him whether it was “civil partnership” license or a “marriage license”, either was good enough, as was a “commitment ceremony” or a marriage ceremony. If he had no problem with those differences then, and even his ceremonies he said were “different”, I doubt that he has any problem with those differences now.
What is afoot here is not a seeking of “equality” but, as I said above, the bastardization of terms, like discriminate (choose), same and equal, so that actual differences that people have a right to believe they can make value judgments about, are IGNORED, OBLITERATED FROM CONSCIOUSNESS AS HAVING NO CONSEQUENCE OR DISTINCTION - but we know they do.
Social engineering theories are nothing more than the belief that nothing is natural in we humans, we are totally plastic - it is an “inorganic” concept of humans and ignores much of our God-given innate nature.
Actually, it was an interdenominational group that met at a Methodist church. And I pulled my family out of it immediately afterward.
Your post reminded me of what I heard Walter Williams say about the word “discrimination”. I remember him saying that everyone discriminates. We all do it everyday. And then he added, “When I chose my wife, I discriminated against all other women.” LOL. He was arguing against the misuse of the word by pointing out that we each make discriminating choices in many areas of life. And he was absolutely correct.
Some other words being misused today include “diversity” and “socialization”. (As a homeschool parent, the misuse of that last word really irks me.)
I’ve been hearing for years that the problem is atheism/secularism, but I don’t think that’s the whole story. Yes, I’ve come across atheists with those points of view. But, I’ve also come across many Christians who are liberal progressives, just like the liberal minister you mentioned in your post.
My husband was raised Protestant and I Catholic. We have never settled on a church. We’ve heard again and again that our children must be brought up with faith or they will not have a moral compass, despite the fact that everyone also comments on how nice our children are. (They are very good children with a solid knowledge of right and wrong.)
Nevertheless, we’ve continued to look into churches for years, and my children and I were heavily involved with one interdenominational Christian group for a few years. I kept waiting for the moral lessons to begin, but they never did. The group would pray for each other, and so on, and collect donations for the poor. Otherwise, their beliefs seemed to have no substance.
Then I was surprised to learn much later that the leaders of this group were in favor of so-called “same-sex marriage”. So, here, I found myself, a nonreligious person, arguing in favor of real marriage against a group of CHRISTIANS, who wanted to teach children that homosexual couplings are perfectly acceptable. One woman said she will be teaching her children about same-sex marriage because - and I quote - “it’s reality.” Right away, I said, “No, it’s not reality. It’s pretend.”
As I told them, I may not be a religious person, but I do believe in Natural Law. You should’ve seen the blank looks on their faces. They didn’t know what I was talking about. But, my point here is: Whether churchgoing or not, a logical person understands and accepts that marriage is and always has been based on procreation and the continuation of a biological family unit, which can exist only in the union of one man and one woman. State marriage laws are based on the procreation model, too. That’s why siblings or close relatives cannot marry! My husband has been saying that someone should bring up that point: If marriage isn’t based on procreation, why not let close relatives marry?
Whoa, that was a long post...
“What is afoot here is not a seeking of “equality” but, as I said above, the bastardization of terms, like discriminate (choose), same and equal, so that actual differences that people have a right to believe they can make value judgments about, are IGNORED, OBLITERATED FROM CONSCIOUSNESS AS HAVING NO CONSEQUENCE OR DISTINCTION - but we know they do.”
Ding, ding, ding! We have a WINNER!!!
Good for you for not compromising your values! Every time I’ve pretended to be someone I’m not, for the sake of p.c. or politeness, it has come back to bite me in the arse.
Now, I am what-you-see-is-what-you-get.
That’s very observant of you. And I am sad to admit that too many ‘men of the cloth’ will promise that which is not within the realm of possibility for them to promise. And all in the name of the almighty...
...dollar...
Would not be surprised to hear they DO support abortion.
I know this is way too long - but my mind and fingers refused to stop.
In all human history, [1]”a romantic relationship”, even a [2]”monogamous and faithful, romantic relationship” even a [3]”completely honest, monogamous and faithful, romantic and lifelong relationship” were never, from any “earliest times” through the periods of “civilization” the basis of why humans developed the institution of marriage. Were it not for two things - human reproduction and the long period from infancy to “adult”, humans would have had no impetus to develop “marriage”. Humans would have had no impetus to make a contract of reproductive mates staying together and being faithful together as a reproductive couple.
Even among heterosexual couples, there has always been “couples” who were in [1]”a romantic relationship”, even a [2]”monogamous and faithful, romantic relationship” even a [3]”completely honest, monogamous and faithful, romantic and lifelong relationship” but for whom, by their decision, were not in fact, not thought of as, married and not acknowledged as married - even if they did have one or more child, because they did not seek to combine the two - their reproductive ability and a contract of fidelity for the protection of their progeny. They were a “couple”, yes - even their peers referred to them as a couple, but simply being a “couple” did not make them married.
A romantically attached couple does not a marriage make - never has.
Why can’t “same-sex” “couples” accept that history, and if they desire to protect, and share certain attributes of responsibility, property and finance, then seek specific ways to do so without attempting to bastardize the foundation of what has always been meant by “marriage”.
[In fact, there are many legal avenues for any two persons to secure many things, with and for each other, that are often assumed as protected by law for married couples and most of those things do not take much longer to prepare than does a marriage license:
(power of attorney, durable power of attorney - so hospitals and health providers have a legal alternate decision maker already decided, in case someone is injured or ill in a way that they cannot make medical decisions for themselves, and most hospitals treat such a designated person as they would a spouse - , wills, living wills, living trusts, joint accounts with the wills and powers of attorney documents filed with the institutions holding those accounts - just some for instances)].
I think that a good many “same sex” couples already understand many of these things and accept them and accept the alternate concept of “civil union”, without needing to call it a “marriage”. One “gay” man I know thinks that calling his partner either a “husband” or a “wife” would be so asinine that he tells me the idea of it is “repugnant”.
But, “husband” and “wife” are, terms that are founded in and intrinsically connected to “marriage” in the sense in which it naturally developed. They do not mean the same thing as “boy friend” and “girl friend”, nor does even “lover” provide an equivalent to either one, because that term does not even provide a clear idea of the relationship in any social sense, outside of the private sexual involvement of the couple.
Trying to follow a completely non-religious and secular line in all this, to separate our religious beliefs and outlooks from the argument, I still come to the conclusion that the legal “line of march” does originate not only within “secularists” but from leftists (Marxists and Marxists educated) among them and is in fact an attack on marriage.
There are any number of ways in which an honest attempt to provide some things in the area of stability and protection to “same sex” couples who are actually pursuing a course of stability, monogamy and fidelity with each other could be made. Denuding marriage of its foundational and intrinsic meaning is not necessary, even for that secular goal.
I suspect that the true course, if it continues, is intended to lead to any adult relationship (polygamy, plural “marriage” and even incest between “consenting adults” to be considered “equal” with or as “marriage”. If so, it will contribute to the devolution of human society. The left cannot distinguish, conceptually, between freedom, liberty and “licentious” (lacking legal and moral restraint - in the “sexual” sphere). They cannot distinguish - due to bastardization on the left of the term “freedom” - between what we do not go out and arrest people for, even though some of us might morally disapprove of it, and (taking their step) providing that same thing with legal status. Under our freedoms there are many things that morally and socially a good many of us frown on, but accepting that others are free to have a different point of view, we don’t set the law against every action they take. But, for so many of those things we don’t arrest people for, we also don’t provide a legal boost to them either. We tolerate them, we don’t always accept them, so we don’t give a legal mandate of acceptance to them; we just let them be, most of the time.
My prove of logic in this is a case in a grade school in Massachusetts, where a book was brought into the (third grade I believe) curriculum. The book was about a young prince and the boyfriend he sought - he did not want a princess. The book came from an educational consultancy promoting “diversity”. A “lets talk about marriage” day (for third graders????) was manufactured as an event to which this book could be introduced (to provide diversity). One of the outraged parents objected, failed to achieve any reasonable change of course and sued. He lost. I don’t have the details but some of the rationale was the “non-discrimination” language in various Massachusetts laws. OK
BUT. Most people who voted for those laws (even where “sexual orientation” is included) did not vote for them on the basis of what “government should do to promote” something, but how government should not take special and discriminatory action towards. Again, to most legislators, it was not to provide moral sanction, but to deter intentional, directed harm. If, the “non-discrimination” intent is designed to LIFT UP - because we said an activity is “not illegal” - then, why, out of diversity and tolerance is there not a third grade book lifting up the character of someone who smokes cigarettes, a totally legal activity, that the laws of the nation and all states protect.
So, the introduction of that book is not about “non-discrimination”, it is about promotion, it is about an agenda. If it was truly about “non-discrimination” the activity in the curriculum would be agnostic on the subject - propagandizing neither for or against - because the agenda, the curriculum is not non-discriminatory, it is anti-religious and seeks to tell children to go home and tell their religiously faithful parents they are bad people.
An agnostic educational position would be centered completely outside the curriculum and founded on behavior of the educators toward a child of a “gay couple”, insuring that child was not discriminated against by them and that bad behavior by students towards that child was not tolerated - end of “diversity” lesson, end of tolerance lesson; because true tolerance is NOT acceptance. Tolerance does not require a change in opinion or values; it expects only a change in behavior in the public square - whether that is on the street, in the classroom or in the office. Acceptance implies agreement, values and interests we accept. Preaching for acceptance in the classroom is not teaching for tolerance. It is indoctrination for orthodoxy and sameness of views.
Again, the source is the left, Marxists - the socially engineered, thoroughly plastic human, with no foundation other than what the state teaches.
Even “gays” must come to the realization that, in the end, they will have been no more than a tool that worked against their own freedom.
Whenever you want to know how a liberal will come down on ANY issue,
all you have to do is ask yourself one question:
“What position on this issue will further the destruction of traditional American society?”
That’s the essence of “liberalism”:
different choices should have no differing consequences, and any natural consequences that occur must be alleviated by those making the choices that don’t have those negative consequences.
(Sorry, this is a long post, too, but this issue is a major one in the fight for traditional values.)
The book you described sounds like King and King. And it is a good example of how the term "discrimination" is applied subjectively according to the leftist cause of the moment. Not only is the book discriminatory against the children of parents who want to teach their children to respect the real institution of marriage, but one also could say it's "discriminatory" against woman: Every female character in that book is presented in a negative way. The queen mother is miserable. The prince is bored by all of the princesses. He pokes fun at them. He perks up only at another male. Even if I agreed with the "same-sex" marriage crowd, I wouldn't want my children reading the book due to its negative messages about girls. You can view samples of it by clicking here. Interesting how the Left ignores the negative portrayal of women in this book.
And all the children's books promoting the gay agenda "discriminate" against biological mothers and fathers. In the sequel, King & King & Family, the two princes go on their honeymoon and meet a little girl whom they take home to raise as their daughter. As per the reviews, there is no attempt to locate her biological parents. The two Kings never even ask about her family. The moral message seems to be: Finders, keepers! Another example is Daddy's Roommate which begins with a mother divorced and left to raise her son alone, and the son visiting his father and his father's boyfriend. No one seems bothered that the selfish SOB left his wife. Like your example of a book promoting cigarette smoking, what would people say if "Daddy" left an unattractive wife to live with a supermodel because he found her more attractive? Would the Left think that was OK? I think not.
For all their cries about "discrimination", the Left is very discriminatory. Indeed, their real objective is to attack marriage, just as you said. Here in my state, when the gay lobby was pushing for civil unions, a GOP lawmaker responded by introducing a bill that would allow any two people to enter into a "domestic partnership", regardless of sexual relationships (with the exception of an unrelated man and woman). That is, siblings, relatives, friends, or "gay" partners could enter into a legal partnership and receive most of the same benefits as marriage. Now there's a perfectly NONdiscriminatory proposal, right? But the gay lobby was angered by it; they fought against it and won special status under "civil unions". This proves their fight was never about "fair" and "equal", as they say. It was always about normalizing "gay sex".
And, like you, I too believe all of this will lead to legal recognition of other types of couplings or triplings, etc. They will receive special status, as long as there is some kind of sexual contact involved. I remember one woman visiting a women's internet forum I was on many years ago, and she said she was a "poly-bisexual" and that there was "discrimination" against "poly-bi's" because she couldn't legally marry both a man and a woman. (I kid you not.)
With regard to this movement being rooted in atheism/secularism, I will say that I've discussed the issue with atheists/secularists who do hold that line of thinking. I found it ironic, considering how they fancied themselves as intellectuals, or at the very least very logical. And that's how I viewed myself, too! Yet, on this issue (and a few others), those with whom I conversed seemed to have no sense of logic at all. When they couldn't argue against my points, they'd resort to name-calling. When they realized calling me a "bigot" wasn't fazing me, they tried several logical fallacies such as: "Well, interracial couples get married." The media uses that one all the time, too. Yet, one has nothing to do with the other, and no one ever points out that the comparison alone is "racist".
The so-called "Christians" I knew who wanted to teach their children to accept "same-sex marriage" subscribed to the same logical fallacies. Many of both the "intellectual atheists" and "progressive Christians" seem to regard feelings first and lack basic thinking skills. The whole leftist movement is rooted in emotionalism and devoid of critical thought.
I used to have some liberal views, but now I can see how those little incremental steps have eaten away at our society and led us down the wrong path. I firmly supported the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy for the military because I thought the government asking people about their sexual feelings sounded like the Thought Police. Now DADT is considered a bigoted policy, and the gay lobby is pushing to serve openly.
Two things:
Yes, its the conflation of two terms "equal" and "same" into a mode of communication in which they are to become interchangeable; when making them interchangeable destroys the very basic, and needed, difference that the original meaning of those words have (at least most of the time still have). To the left, the problem with the GOPer's proposal was not that it would not provide "equal" "benefits", it would not do so by redefining the relationships as "same".
There are others to whom the GOPers proposal would have salutary benefits as well, and who are also sometimes, due to their actual relationship not provided many financial, tax and inheritance benefits because they are not spouses to each other, and some financial, tax and inheritance benefits, by both state and federal law, accrue only to the remaining spouse of a married couple after one has pre-deceased the other.
I can give you a theoretical example for which I believe there are real examples all over the country. Women, on average, outlive men. That means women, on average, outlive the men they married. So, let's take two widows who have been close friends for many years. One had a husband who was financially more fortunate than the other but the differences in their financial means did not disrupt the long friendship of the couples. Upon the death of the less-well-off husband, his wife was settling his affairs and realized that in doing so she needed to sell the house to pay some debts and to get her monthly costs down to below what her new fixed income would be; so she is looks for and finds a small apartment that she can afford.
But her long-time friend still lived in the house that her husband's life insurance had finished paying off, it was bigger than she needed for herself, she enjoyed the companionship of her long-time friend and so she invited her long-time friend to just move in with her, and she did.
For another ten years they shared the house and often entertained their two families together there on holidays; until the following year when the woman who owned the house died. Although there was no mortgage remaining, and although the woman who was left could afford the annual taxes and utilities, on her own, and even though the woman who left did will the house to her, she was not eligible for a "spousal" exemption on the inheritance and estate taxes, which in her state were higher than the value of the house, and so again, and at a much older age, she was left with having to sell "her" home.
As people get older, and spouses become elderly singles , many different relationships develop, within families and between friends, in which in all but name, their financial life is only more stable because of that relationship. Because they are not "immediate" family - husband, wife, mother, father, brother, sister - they often encounter the same difficulties as other "non-spouses", in critical health-care issues, unless, they also (as "gays" can do) have been apprised of the need to have durable powers of attorney for each other.
The GOPer's proposal you mentioned would have greatly benefited the theoretical friendship of the two elderly women.
The fact is, I have known a number of such elderly people who would have benefited from a "domestic partnership" law that helped them hold and preserve the financial stability that living together had given them, with many of the protections that spouses receive.
“And, like you, I too believe all of this will lead to legal recognition of other types of couplings or triplings, etc. They will receive special status, as long as there is some kind of sexual contact involved. I remember one woman visiting a women’s internet forum I was on many years ago, and she said she was a “poly-bisexual” and that there was “discrimination” against “poly-bi’s” because she couldn’t legally marry both a man and a woman. (I kid you not.)”
Here is the problem we conservatives have with her position. The fact is (1)she is already in the relationship(s) she claims to desire and guess what - no is looking for her to arrest her; and (2) just because we are not trying to “invade her privacy” does not mean that societies “tolerance” is required to lift up her relationship by providing it with a legal status on par with other “legally recognized” relationships. “Marriage”, in spite of its many natural foundations is a socially defined institution and the society at large has a right, and from our point of view, a moral right to define it and yes to restrict it, AS WE ALWAYS HAVE IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER THROUGHOUT TIME.
The “poly-bisexual” blogger is ignoring the fact that “she is free now” to live as she is living. She ought to be grateful because in many places in the world and here as well if some people had their way, her neighbors would have already turned her and her mates into the “moral” police.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.