We need to change the term that breeders use for female dogs because of the twisted way some people use the term toward women.
Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
genuineoriginal
New member
How many people are offended by gay marriage?
The gays getting married should stop doing it, especially if the offense wasn't intended.
Your argument seems to be quite valid, counselor.
Even if the term was meant in the most complimentary sense as you suggest, it would still be inappropriate. It reduces an antire race of complex human beings to the kind of caricature that can really hurt living members of that race
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, being compared to a proud and fierce warrior can really hurt.
A few important distinctions:
a) The people offended by the idea of gay marriage aren't gay, aren't the object of the action. That's one reason why it isn't much of a parallel.
b) Even were it an actual parallel, which it isn't, the offense could only be ameliorated by the denial of right, which is offensive to the other party.
If either party stands to be offended by the outcome, the fact that the first offended party is insisting on abrogating the right of the second, without legal justification, should decide the issue.
c) If you don't mean to offend then you should be happy to refrain from doing that and lose nothing, in fact regain the ground you meant to start from. The prevailing and formerly offended gain by virtue of your act as well as the offense is removed.
And, sadly, once again a step around a simple enough posit for which there is no answer that won't make the party objecting look like what they then should appear to be.
That's why I'm getting all the side bars and none of the issue.
genuineoriginal
New member
Maybe you forgot that the freedom to practice our religious convictions is established in the first amendment of the constitution, but there is no right to be free from being offended, nor is there a right to force approval of deviant sexual practices.
You have your priorities reversed.
So, no answer to my answer, just another side bar. Okay, here goes:
Your religious right remains unabridged. You don't, however, have the right to demand your neighbor follow or agree with yours. That's one of the things we left Europe and its Protestant/Catholic blood bath to avoid.
Couldn't agree more. We're free to be any odious thing we want to be within the context of what we think and say. But my argument was for people who claimed not to mean to offend. If you weren't one of them then I'm not trying to reach you and my argument isn't for you.
Agreed and no one is forcing you to approve any more than someone who doesn't believe in race mixing is being asked to approve of interracial marriage. Don't marry someone of a different race if it bothers you. Don't marry someone of the same sex. Speak openly about your objections if you feel compelled to.
Not even a little.
:e4e:
IMJerusha
New member
The problem is not all of the Red Nation is offended and the growing number of people you have pointed out don't have any business taking offense.
IMJerusha
New member
You know, my husband came home from work and announced that Jerry Brown has made it illegal in the state of California for a man to refer to his wife as his wife and for a wife to refer to her husband as her husband. So, if we're going to make a big stink about the Redskins, we'd better be making a bigger stink about Jerry Brown's new law because he just jumped into the separation of church and state big time. So, while he as a Native American, is not offended by the name of the Redskins team, he is BIG TIME offended that as a Christian man in the state of California, he cannot refer to me as his wife nor can I refer to him as my husband. What's worse is the many times my husband has been called a white man by Native Americans he has worked with out in the field in Arizona and New Mexico. I think that's the biggest reason he doesn't care about the team name. He thinks the whole thing is hypocritical as all get out.
I see here you're a Christian. That's great! That must mean you enjoy been poor, wandering in the desert, and being crucified.
I never said it was all. I actually noted the one in ten.
That's a terribly hard thing to say...but they are as entitled to their feelings as you are. Only they aren't wounding yours, aren't offering you any insult and then judging your response by some internal litmus.
So I ask you again, plainly, if you know what you do works a harm and the harm you do isn't necessary, why do you persist in it?
genuineoriginal
New member
It says you are an athiest.
The Bible talks about your kind.
Psalm 53:1 1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. |
genuineoriginal
New member
When the courts can force a Christian baker to pay "restitution" for practicing his religion, his rights are abridged.
Tell that to the indignant peoples that sued the Christian baker.
I do believe it is you that is trying to offend with that statement, counselor.
genuineoriginal
New member
They may be entitled to their feelings, but that does not entitle them to take legal action against a team name that has been used for over twice the number of years that the people that got their feelings hurt have been alive.
But that is exactly what you have been doing.
Yes, why did those indignant peoples persist in harming the good name of the team, knowing that their intention was to do harm?
You missed the point, didn't you?
IMJerusha
New member
Why, because they are no longer fierce and proud? Because they have forgotten their heritage as the Red Nation?
IMJerusha
New member
No Christian is required to be poor, wander in the desert or actually be crucified. Now THAT's offensive!
Because it interferes with their ability to define their own identity, both as individuals and as a group, by codifying it at a level above their ability to counter.
Because they may not identify with that notion of who they are.
Oh, now, that's just you forgetting your honorable heritage. You should really get back to it.
:think:
IMJerusha
New member
I know you did, Town. But demanding a change of this magnitude for the reasons they are demanding it, without the backing of the entire Indian Nation is wrong. Their ancestors could have made this same demand when the team name was first chosen and didn't.
The only reason I am entitled to my feelings on this is because my husband is of the Wyandot tribe and that is the only reason why I am entitled to them. People who have no Indian heritage should keep their noses out of it. And yes, they are wounding my feelings because they are wounding my husband's feelings. It is my husband's contention that the American Indian should have more pride than to act like Wasichu.
Supra, my friend.