Okay, in order.
Real topless photos of a pageant girl. Yawn. But, but, but, she's a Christian; hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, HYPOCRISY. I repeat myself here, but, if liberals didn't encourage the behaviour in question, the hypocrisy charge might have a little more merit. But it's a sin, and SHE'S A CHRISTER. So what? Christians don't claim infallibility (that is reserved for liberals). As I'm not a Christian, that is all I will say on the subject. It's their club, their rules, go to them for more if you like.
Mr. Trump's defense of her pretty much amounted to (paraphrasing rather loosely), "It's the president's position too, so get over yourselves." Why aren't they beating up on Obama for opposing "gay marriage?" Oh, right, the doctrine of liberal infallibility. And, come to think of it, when Obama poses topless the press get tingles up their thighs, and they forget all but their love for the Won, and their desire to see the object of their desires succeed.
Shanna Moakler is upset about the topless photos and the "gay marriage" thing. Moakler posed for Playboy; hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, HYPOCRISY. Oh, wait, she's also a supporter of "gay marriage" and, thus, a good liberal. Doctrine of infallibility again. To the "gay marriage" thing, piss off Miss Moakler. You're 34 years old and can't accept someone holding an opinion different from yours? Grow up.
And finally we get to "gay marriage" itself. I suppose the quotes around it give away my position, i.e. against.
Now, Bill Quick a writer for whom I have profound respect, and who provides my essential daily read, is in unequivocal support. Further, he considers the vast majority of opposition to it to be simple anti-homosexual bigotry. On the second point, we are in complete agreement. On the first, not so much.
First, a couple of notes. Did you catch the bit above where I said I'm not a Christian? My opposition is informed by precisely zero holy texts. As to sexuality, I truly don't give a flying f@#$ at a rolling doughnut what you do with your private parts, providing all parties consent, and are fit to give consent (I'm looking at you, NAMBLA).
However, sorry lefties, words have meanings. Meanings such as Marriage:
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
See, that's the meaning of the word. Oh, not everywhere, I know. Just the entire white world, and more importantly, the English speaking world. You know, the places where we live and are having this discussion. And it's meant that for a long farking time; the word is about 800 years old, which is, coincidentally, the age of the English language, and words follow ideas. That is, the concept, marriage, is older than the word as defined. The very fact we have to put a modifier, "gay, in front of "marriage" should be a tip off that something is afoot.
Yes, words and even institutions change. But they evolve, they do not change because one morning some pushy asshole awoke with a bug up his ass and decided they needed a new meaning.
Ahh, institutions. He moved off of words. Well, I will return to that, because redefining marriage is more than simply changing the meaning of a word. But first a bit more on words. Take "gay" for example. Even now, the first 4 definitions of the word are:
| 1. | having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. |
| 2. | bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. |
| 3. | given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season. |
| 4. | licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies. |
The fifth is homosexual, yet the above 4 are not the first thing most of us think of when we hear the word, are they? Same with "queer" and, unless we're discussing the Royal Family, "queen." These words have completely changed their primary meanings. How?
Well, it wasn't by judicial fiat, and it wasn't by plebiscite. A group of people simply determined to change the words, and used them in the new way, and eventually the new meaning was adopted by all. My parents' generation mourns the loss of "gay." Me? Meh, I don't care. The word has a new meaning, and we all know what it means when we say it. Did you catch that? It has a new meaning, and we all know what it means when we say it. That is important. We're not in Wonderland, where a word means what we want it to mean when we mean it that way.
Now, the institution. The left seeks not only to redefine the word, but to remake the institution. Look, marriage is changing. I know that, any idiot can see it, and it doesn't matter whether we like it or not, it's changing, and doing so on its own. As the institution changes, so will the meaning of the word. There will always be those who will never accept the changes (see "gay" above). So what?
It comes to this. Marriage has a meaning, right now. That meaning has changed in places, and is changing here. It will happen, or not, at its own pace, as it has in Europe, and some of the more liberal American jurisdictions. Win the hearts and minds, and the legalities will follow. Legalities first, is cart before the horse, and the hearts and minds won't follow.
And while we're at it, lefties, would you be so kind as to stop using the word "invest" in place of "spend?" That one is really annoying.
No comments:
Post a Comment