Thursday, November 21, 2013

Defining Terms - PC Crowds Fail Vocab Lessons

These days, the so-called "politically correct" crowd has fallaciously taken to changing definitions of terms and convincing collectives of sheep that these new definitions are war banners. The problem is that many who are duped into these collective hive-minds are too lazy to bother to actually pay attention to the true meanings of these terms.

It started in school. One manner of teaching vocabulary is to have students reword definitions in terms they understand better. This mutated into allowing them to completely redefining the words. The question of "what is THE definition of...?" has since been replaced with the fraudulent question "what is YOUR definition of...?". Teachers have become too afraid of hurting a student's feelings by flat out telling they are wrong have furthered this brainwashing by allowing a condition of relativism instead of building a foundation of facts and hard data.

What we have today are a bunch of catch-phrases that would lead anybody with access to an unabridged dictionary to start laughing at their incorrect terminology.

One such term is "marriage equality". First, that contains the term "marriage". Look up THE definition. There is only one acceptable set of definitions. If "yours" is not among them, you need some vocabulary lessons.

Here in the US, due to the First Amendment, the only definition is the sociological, legal, cultural, anthropological definition. That is the once concerning that the condition of marriage is defined by the rules, mores, norms, and values of a given society. Each state being a society in its own, by the US Constitution, sets its own rules. So, a marriage is that which is defined by each state's legal code.

This essay is not in contention of same-sex marriage, nor is it in favor of it. It is a means of exposing illogical and ridiculous rhetoric employed by the left, who is using the issue in an unethical and immoral manner. They seek to brainwash an invented collective into believing in a perception of entitlement to non-existent "rights". They aren't even rights, kids, they are privileges. Given the current tax codes in the US, marriage isn't even a privilege, it's a self imposed sentence to increased financial servitude to socialist federal government. That is why they seek to demagogue gay-marriage supporters to the "cause", because they want more slaves. They want you to believe they delivered you to some promised land, they got you some prize, and if you don't keep them in power that the prize will be taken away. Kids, if  it is a right, it cannot be given in the first place. You are born with it. Making you believe it can be given is enslaving you to their bidding, keeping you voting for their tyranny out of fear of losing your special shiny prize. 

For some irony, I know more gay people (including committed gay couples) who oppose same-sex marriage than I know gay people who support it. That includes gay relatives, of which I have one who supports and two who oppose same-sex marriage. Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I'm not gay. Neither is my wife. We support our one gay relative who wants a marriage. But the law is the law and this state's legal definition is THE definition in this state. And it is equal among all legally recognized marriages within the state. (I will contend that states really should have to recognize any legally conducted, recorded, and verified marriage as legally recognized and valid within all US states).  

They also love to toss around, as though it is evil, the term "traditional marriage" (another improperly used "banner" meme). They also refer to it as a "biblical definition" as though only Christians held those rules. First, the concept of a marriage as a contract witnessed by families and societal leaders, then recognized by both, between a man and a woman in order to define terms and conditions for the business of running a household and caring for any progeny produced by that union; is one that predates Christianity by a couple of thousand years. The Hebrews held that same definitions. So did the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Druids, Shinto, Buddhists, the Norse, even the Native Americans held that definition long before white men settled in the New World.  To this day, most recognized world religions still maintain similar rules, thus marking the definitions of marriage for their societies.

Historically, Christianity did sanctify and recognize same-sex unions. They even blessed several in the first millennium AD/CE. Marriage, however, was set between a man and a woman (sometimes several women) for the purposes of progeny and inheritance. it was also necessary to establish noble lineages.

In effect, "traditional marriage" is THE definition in most US States and in most of the world.Most societies, cultures, and legal structures recognize that rule set.

Now, several states have set their legal definitions to allow same-sex unions/civil contracts as "marriage". Should the majority of their citizens agree, that is their right. It fits THE definition.

Some religions allow same-sex marriages and wedding rituals as well, these days. Within their cultures, the religious definitions. These include some pagan religious organizations (including mine) and some Christian sects. However, in our country, religion is not the basis for marriage laws. Common, majority views are. 

But for two marriages to be "equal" they must first be legally (socially, culturally, anthropologically) considered marriages. Second, they must consist of identical units. They must begin with equal parameters and definitions. Otherwise you are comparing apples to pears to oranges to bananas to papayas to iceberg lettuce.

(Trying to debate this using the logic surrounding slavery is a losing battle. Biologically, a human is a human, and not property. To consider one human to be property and less than another is immoral and evil. The facts are not congruous with a same-sex marriage debate.)

Those who disagree who wish to employ the 3rd definition in the set, "an intimate or close union", already have that. It is not a legal status. It is a description of their relationship. For the legal status, you must revert to definition 1, the legal definition. You cannot compare apples to bananas to oranges. The world doesn't work that way. 

However, we can also examine the original definition of the term "marriage equality". In the 1970s, the term was part of the "women's lib" movement. I was meant to recognize a woman's contributions to the home as equal to the husband's. It was also used to recognize the wife's right to work outside the home. However, if you go back a few hundred years (and even more recently in some cultures and religions around the world), it means that each wife must receive equal treatment from their mutual husband. Yes, it comes from polygamous cultures such as exist in the Arab world today. In fact, in Iraq, a man with two wives must make sure each receives an equitable share. Each wife must have a house the same size, etc. etc. etc.

That is "marriage equality". It is not the poorly construed misuse of the term that the same-sex-marriage collective is duped into using.

Another term is "reproductive rights". The pro-abortion collective is duped by the arm of the left that wants them to believe their special invented little demographic is entitled to some non-existent right.

Examine the term. Look up the definition "reproductive". Look at its root - "reproduce" - "produce". Produce = create. Reproduce = create new, or create again. In this case, it refers to pro-generation. It refers to creating life, creating a new life in particular.

Therefore, the proper definition of "reproductive rights" means the right to reproduce. It means the right to create new life. It does not mean the right to end a life created or generated.

In reality, those walking around preaching about "reproductive rights" really mean they believe that all women have the right to produce a child, on demand, if they can acquire the ability to do so. In other words, they mean they have the right to demand access to a man's fallopian swim team at any time they desire for the purposes of becoming pregnant and hopefully giving birth to a child.

In other words, the term means that women feel they have a right to a man or the product of a man's body, against his will. There is a word for that:  rape. Yes, the term goes both ways. 

"Gimme your sperm now, man-child, I demand to reproduce! I have 'reproductive rights'!".

It does not mean a right to an abortion. That would be "abortive rights". Use the correct terms, kids. You look like idiots when you don't. 

Take a look around. There are probably several other memes and banner terms circulating that, upon examination, don't mean what those using them want you to believe them to mean.

Like "gun control". Gun control is controlling a gun you own. It means hitting what you aim at, and not shooting what you do not want to hit.