by Buck68™, March 26th, 2013
©2013 by Buck68™, all rites re-served. Each use whatsoever requires prior written permission from the author [email email@example.com]
The NYT headline says, “Justices to Hear California Case on Same-Sex Marriage Ban Today”. Writer Adam Liptak’s lead sentence reads, “The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday morning on the meaning of marriage.” I wonder. Really? What is “the meaning of marriage”?
“Gay Marriage” is one of a number of Diversity in University oxymora that destroy the essential, rational human communications building block of definition. But this destruction of public and social reason is secondary to its supplanting of morals. For, intrinsically in the concept of morals for all humans – compared to ethics, mores, norms, or the ubiquitous ‘whatever’ – is the authority for said morals. A common term for this authority above and beyond human capacity, is “religion” – organized versions of human ‘belief in’.
Rationally, human communication depends on definition of terms, which enable empirical [aka scientific] describing and informing. Definition answers the question, ‘what does it mean’ – not whether what the definition describes is right or wrong. Yet definitions are essential to the concept of ‘fact’, as compared to opinion, or speculation. In logic – simplistically the forms of applying reason – definitions are essential to how to reason accurately. It is no small irony that how to reason is short sweet simple and inclusive… compared to the legions of… logical fallacies.
Both the limits of reason, and the enduring human penchant for logical fallacies, suggest not only the concept of right and wrong, but the necessity for the Highest Authority for what is right and wrong. I.E., morals. For what is human communication, absent or in relativity with the moral of ‘honesty’? Expressed rationally, what is human communication if deception is… “appropriate”?
As a matter of fact in logic, the correct terms “appropriate” and “inappropriate”, with which ‘experts’ have supplanted the terms right and wrong, themselves illustrate the necessity of deception in avoiding moral authority. Simply, who says what is appropriate, or not?
So, TODAY, as the United States Supreme Court hears another case for legitimizing yet another oxymoron, any decision it makes will logically repress, delegitimize, or ban… the Creator-given inalienable rights the Creator endowed to all people, regardless of our continuing attempts to deprive each other of them.
TODAY, SCOTUS will, as the trendy sayings go, ‘fight back’, ‘get justice’, ‘get fairness’, ‘free the oppressed’, ‘have social justice’…or not. All modifiers of… justice.
What is this but just [pun intended] as you and I reveal in our self-deceptions of whatever words, often overtly exempting ourselves with ubiquitous terms such as “totally, honestly, actually, really”. We feel so good [or bad, or whatever] about ourselves, we can hardly get through our next deception without their cover….
SEPARATED, is any person unequal if the Creator created us? We are only unequal if Survival of the Fittest is our amoral, ‘natural’ rule for ‘what happens’. So TODAY, SCOTUS will hear two adversaries, each making THEIR case for ‘Natural Selection’ [who wins]. Absent or SEPARATED from moral Authority, there is no moral ‘friend of the court’ – only weaker predators taking sides with big predators, just like Science tells us the animals do. And maybe some plants too?
So, what’s this Progress, but nothing new under the sun. No small irony – fighting back for a right by a wrong in order to impose yet another selfishness by redefinition… on whosoever, by all means necessary. Science defines the inevitable result of this Progress: “entropy”. Or is Science inappropriate, and ‘we’ ‘just’ ‘have to teach’ that Mommies who teach their kids that “two wrongs don’t make a right” are… inappropriate?
Mean-while, [pun intended] you just KNOW by feeling that, if even one can be saved… we must do all that is necessary… to everyone [except my side].
Once, a very few ordinary men did an ordinary thing: they risked lives and fortunes. What was extraordinary was their motivation: sacred honor. That motivation was predicated, by definition, on “sacred”. TODAY… this is ‘inappropriate’. Totally. Honest. TODAY you “have faith” that “works for me”.
TODAY…SEPARATED… there is no rational or moral basis for “united”, or e pluribus unum. Your overseers by whatever label, produce evermore laws and rules and decisions and memos and announcements and exemptions and waivers and exclusions and impositions and pogroms to ‘raise your awareness’ and …not a taxes. All for you…for your safety…for fairness…to contribute evermore to the neverending fight against ‘them’ – the ones to blame – the isolated or profiled ‘harmers’. So if you are not IN… you are… ?
Now…you ‘just’ move on. Feel think say do EXACTLY as you are told. In public testimony under oath by The State to the representatives you elected, this is your state: “At this point…what difference does it make?”