Tuesday, April 21, 2009

You Go Girl

April 21, 2009

Marriage ~ Noun
- the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

- the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

*****
I just saw Neil Cavuto's interview of Carrie Prejean (Miss USA 2009 Contestant) and was amazed that in this politically correct world someone ( Carrie Prejean ), in national spotlight and national forum, had the spine to tell things like they are, tell things like they should be, and not allow someone with an agenda use a particular forum cause her to waver in her conviction.

For those of you that have not heard of the incident, the politically loaded and leading question that was directed her way at the Miss USA Pageant was about homosexual marriage (a.k.a. the euphemism "gay" marriage). Her answer was that she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," she said on the live broadcast.





Of course, the responses are predictable .. For example ..

"I am personally ... hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement." Keith Lewis, co-director the Miss California competition

And then, of course, came the YouTube diatribe made by the deviant that asked her the question and was apparently humiliated when he got the unexpected answer [that did not support his cause] on live TV.

Says Prejean during her Cavuto interview, "It did cost me my crown ..... It is a very touchy subject and [Hilton] is a homosexual, and I see where he was coming from and I see the audience would've wanted me to be more politically correct. But I was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything." .... "I feel like I won," she said. "I feel like I'm the winner. I really do."


I laud this young woman for standing firm. Speaking of standing, words stand for things and the word marriage is a character based (xyz are characters) symbolic representation for a relational and legal condition pertaining to a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, or a man and an animal, or a woman and another woman.

Just because somebody wants to say that 2 = 5, does not make it so, and the incessant histrionics and yammering of homosexuals over this term "marriage" is puerile, and indeed, is indica of thinking that is unstructured and imprecise, and evidence of thinking that knows no control or boundaries or limitations. Just as homosexuals are deviants by the very definition of the word (Hint - look it up in a book on statistics) and no amount of Orwellian speak can change that, they still persist in trying to shame and intimidate those straight thinkers among us through devices such as attempted national embarrassment as was done by that homosexual with an agenda (Hilton) to Miss Prejean. Well, Mr. Hilton, your attempts to humiliate someone into saying something favorable to your views backfired.

Get it through your grey matter that words mean things. Indeed, the fact that you can read this means that words mean things, for if they did not then you would not understand this writing.

So then, in keeping with the resolve of Miss Prejean - here are MY declarations:


- I refuse to allow YOU to dictate the meaning of words - words mean what they mean.

- I refuse to allow YOU to dictate the choices of words used in my speech. That homosexuals call themselves "gay" does not mean that they are not homosexuals, and that they are homosexual is why society, in the remote past, created a unique word to describe that relation which is different than an opposite-sex relation. Sheeesh, the reason we have the word dog is because a dog is a different thing than a cat. Don't tell me that because you want to yamer that you call what we call a dog by the name "jambjubwe" that I now have to call it a jamjubwee! No, it is you that need to call a dog a dog, instead of engaging in all the infantile finger-painting.

-As to the the word marriage, that is a word that was created long ago to describe the man-woman relation, and just because you now want it to mean something else is untenable. What then would you want to do, cause the man-woman relation to not have a word to describe it, or to have society have to create a new word for the man-woman relation because you have stolen the word marriage? No, methinks that the man-woman relation and the word to describe it, has staked "first claim" and it is YOU that need to find yourself new territory with a word other than the word "marriage", instead of trying to steal for yourself something that already belongs to another relation.

- I refuse to allow YOU to co-opt the words of the language so as to allow you to convert terms having one connotation into warm fuzzies so as to assist you in propagating your message. Not to put too fine a point on things- you are not gay, you are homosexual, and your attempts to co-opt this word "gay" is a transparent attempt to make things seem more palatable to non-homosexuals and is a sign of a misguided, but I do admit, clever, mind.

- Like Miss Prejean, I do not hate you.

- I believe that life is to short not to love somebody and have somebody love you. Yes, you read the implication properly. So, if you are a man and love either a man or a woman, that does not offend me. Knock your socks off. Again - Life is too short to not have somebody to love and have somebody love you.

- I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to join in a civil and legal state of relation and that it is even appropriate for us as a society to decide on a neologism to be the character based symbol set to convey that relation - perhaps "gayirage" or "garriage"; and "garried", to convey the idea of civil, spiritual, and other union. BUT, you cannot take an existing word and redefine it.

- Please drop the agitation to redefine the word marriage, for in persisting in this way, you shoot yourself in the foot. I suspect that half of the population that you think is "against" you, or against homosexuality is actually not against YOU or your preferred state of relation, but instead is against the corruption of the language that sends their minds reeling because if words do not mean anything and can be redefined at will, then they do not mean anything. Again, let's choose a specially created new word to refer to the special same-sex relation that you want to enjoy and that you want legal protections for.

1 comment:

Claudius Valarium said...

Cool. You got a google ad for gay personals . . . . the irony.

What about the over 50% of the population in CA that voted for the damn proposition in the first place? Are they to be ignored? I imagine so, so that the vocal, polically correct few can have their way. Because perhaps as children, they were denied - you know kids tell it like it is.

Now, that they are able to deal with us so-called adults, they can have their polically correct way with us. It's kind of like the "white man's" syndrome. The progressive's road to "feel-goodism" because of the actions of theirs and my ancestors.