Exactly! There are no Christians in the United States. In fact, there’s been zero Christian influence in the country whatsoever at any point in its history. Stop talking nonsense, you lot.
Nuh-uh! Not outside of America they don’t!!
You’re the one who keeps bringing up “in the United States”; I don’t think anyone else has. To the contrary, other people have mentioned other parts of the world which do have same-sex marriage.
So, in the United States, marriage has been defined as “the union of one man and one woman”. This, in itself, is arguably a re-definition of the concept, since in many other times and places, marriage has meant something other than “the union of one man and one woman”. (I would point out that we have modified–greatly modified–our legal and social conception of what kind of union that is, from a more-or-less unbreakable patriarchal bond where the man is officially described as the “head of the household”, controls the wife’s property, and divorce is difficult if not impossible to obtain and heavily stigmatized; to an egalitarian union of two people which can be terminated by mutual consent.)
The question then becomes “Why shouldn’t we modify the definition of what ‘marriage’ means in the United States?” Yes, it would be a change. If we were saying “from now on let’s use the word ‘marklar’ instead of the word ‘marriage’” then saying “Why should we do that? We’ve never done that before” would be a perfectly adequate refutation.
However, the arguments for modifying our definition of the word is that it would increase the human happiness of 10% of the population (or whatever the number is); that a lot of the rest of us are perfectly fine with the change; that it would be the fair and just thing to do; that even when there are no children involved, promoting stable pair bonds is good for society; that one way or another there are children involved in many same-sex relationships; and so forth.
Against all this, we have “But–but–but it would be a change! We’ve never before used that specific word in that exact manner in this particular country!”
So you language purists, what pronoun do you use for third person singular, gender unknown? Please give a corrected version of the following:
“Every nurse at the hospital knows what they should do in an emergency.”
More importantly, is this sentence at all ambiguous or unclear as it stands? Isn’t this a more reasonable and intuitive solution to our language’s archaic sexism than the failed neologisms tey and cey, – or worse, the ungainly he/she, he or she or shudder s/he?
(Miller, I admire your ability to remain so civil, clear-headed and articulate about what is rightly a very emotional topic. Kudos.)
“Every nurse at the hospital knows what to do in an emergency.”
Okay? Nonsexist language is not that hard.
Uh, because that whole “separate but equal” deal didn’t work out all that well for black people? If it’s not the same system, they aren’t the same rights.
The current idea of marriage in the US has certainly not been around for hundreds of years. The popular concept of why two people should get married and what a woman’s role within marriage should be are radically different now than they were in the past. It’s only been a little over 40 years since the Supreme Court ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, and that was a pretty big change. Society has been asked to change its idea of marriage many times in the past, it’s not something that was invented by uppity homosexuals.
*When?
It’s more than a little annoying to me as a woman that some people still think marriage is primarily about begetting children and that the idea of marriage should never have changed from what it was centuries ago. Excuse me if I don’t share your enthusiasm for the traditional form marriage that was practiced for thousands of years, a system under which any man who wanted to beget some children would have been able to buy me from my father and put me to work.
No, not that it would… but uh be a change. It would change the meaning of a clearly defined relationship. Cats are not dogs.
How would you wish to define marriage?
Uh exactly the same as it is now, but with “two legally consenting adults” instead of “a man and a woman”?
This is the problem here- I don’t think the gender is an important part of the meaning of the word. I feel like if you asked most people (without an agenda) the definition of marriage they would probably forget to mention gender all together. What is important is the nature of the relationship. A marriage between a straight couple and a gay couple are just about a direct translation. It’s not different at all except the ceremony might have two people in tuxes. But nothing fundamental in the nature of the relationship has changed.
Is your battle primarily linguistic or do you actually care about the issue as to whether gay couples can gain access to certain privileges currently restricted to straight couples? It’s disingenuous to dress the latter in the guise of the former. Besides which, the former is a lost cause. Words in ordinary language do not have single concrete meanings; they have fuzzy webs of interrelated ones. And within that web, for the word “marriage”, are such things as gay marriage, polygamous marriage, corporate mergers, card tricks, and other, further metaphorical uses. That ship has sailed. If your role is as linguistic purist, you are rallying in defense of something which doesn’t exist.
And on the other hand, as far as legal language goes, there’s no reason to assign traditional legal definition some cherished status to protect; if changing legal language would make people better off, one should be all for it.
You keep saying this yet I really do not understand your urgency. The way I’ve read your posts in this thread, you seem to be saying that changing the meaning of the word marriage has the same urgency as saying that a miles-wide asteroid is hurtling toward earth and will strike our planet within a year, causing the extinction of the human race.
I honestly do not see how simply extending the meaning of the word marriage to include same sex couples would wreak such havoc. Could you, please explain, step-by-step, exactly what would happen if the meaning of the word was changed so as to include same sex couples? I really want specifics here, not vague generalizations of how people might feel or how it’s predicted by the Book of Revelations or Nostrodamus. Could you also back it up with some reputable social science theory, something quoted by mainstream sociologist or anthropologists, not someone like Paul Cameron or other fringe charlatans?
Otherwise, you’re just doing a third rate Chicken Little impression and it’s really getting tiresome.
This analogy doesn’t hold up. Separate but equal didn’t work because you had to duplicate a complete system for education, etc., that was as good in every way as the existing ones for whites. In the case of equal rights for gays all you need would be a few specific laws. Just for an example. Allow gays to enter into a legal union called X. Than have all the rights of married couples extend to a gay couple. Seems very simple to me. Extremely simple.
For much longer than 200 years it has clearly meant the union of one man and one woman. That’s simply a fact.
I don’t think that correct. Other than anti-miscegenation laws, how has it changed?
Much sooner than if gays insist on changing the meaning of a word and concept that is deeply ingrained in our culture and brains.
The vast majority of changes in marriage of the decades and centuries have to do with how that marriage came about, how a spouse was chosen, and by whom. The one thing that has not changed (a few polygamist sects aside) is that it has always been between a man and a woman. Talking about the issue of marriage with that of how women have been viewed through out the ages conflates two different issues.
Facetiously put, part of that fact is that it has often meant the union of one man and more than one woman (more accurately put, it has often meant the non-exclusive union of one man and one woman). The word means lots of things. That’s simply a fact. But that doesn’t mean we have to write our laws one particular way or another. Legal terminology and ordinary language aren’t so tightly coupled; even to the extent that they are, you seem to be asking for the tail to wag the dog.
If you’re all for giving gay and straight couples the same rights in this regard, why not make only one legal contract available, let’s call it “civil unions”. Whether you’re a same-sex or an opposite-sex couple, the only union the government grants official privilege to will be “civil union”, though if you want to also consider yourself as falling under other categories of couplehood, that is your prerogative, perhaps in conjunction with your church, etc. Just as the government has almost no say on whether someone is your “boyfriend/girlfriend”, or “friend with benefits”, or “fuckbuddy”, or “soulmate”, or “best friend forever”, or “lover”, or “mistress”, or what have you, it also won’t have anything to say about whether two people are “husband and wife” or “married”. The only thing it will talk about will be “civil unions”. Everything else is out of its hands.
Having made that step, perhaps it doesn’t really matter all that much what the legal terminology is for that particular contract, does it? I mean, if it was called “civil junctions” instead of “civil unions”, it wouldn’t change anything, would it? So maybe, at some point, for whatever bureaucratic reason, this piddling change is made. No cause for concern.
Over time, language drifts. Not a problem. Perhaps it would come to be called “civil flarriage”. (You can see where I’m going). Still, no big deal. A rose by any other name, right?
Except eventually, let’s say, it comes to be called just “flarriage”, and from there, just “marriage” [of course, this would actually happen at step 1. You could make the legal term “civil union”, but everyone will actually call it “marriage”, it being such an apt and common word]. But why would that be a problem? It’s just a legal term. Who cares?
If you really do see no problem with giving same-sex couples the same rights in this regard as opposite-sex couples, why insist that the two forms of legal contract should have different names? It’s just nitpickery about legal terminology. In what tangible way does anyone benefit from this resistance?
You can make this as confusing as you want. Fact is, new words enter the vocabulary all the time. Step 2: come up with something. Step 2: use it often and consistently. It can be an invented word, or a take on an existing one. For what it’s worth, something that grates on me just as much—if not more—is the usurpation of the word “hero”. It used to mean someone who did something absolutely extraordinary in sacrificing his life for the benefit of others. The word today has been contorted and lessened to mean “someone in the military” or “a fireman”. Sorry, you don’t get that badge of honor just by wearing a uniform. These people might be brave, courageous, honorable, admirable, the bee’s knees…but that doesn’t make them the same type of person (to use a simple example) a guy who falls on a grenade to save his buddies. Anyway, maybe that helps you see where I’m coming from.
But we lose a word to describe what is a foundational relationship of our society. I understand why you want to do it: to gain immediate acceptance by grabbing on to the coattails of an institution that has been around for ages. But it has always pointed to that special relationship of a man and a woman, a man and a woman unioned in a way that society thought fostered families. Two people who were going to follow their natural sexual drive and children would be the result. And don’t take that to mean the I view homosexuality as not natural. I believe that it is.
This is new ground for a society. We can call it one of a thousand things. But I think the concept of marriage is so important to who we are and how we got here that we should reserve the word for it and it alone. I think where we might differ is that although we both agree that gays should have equal rights, you want to erase ANY distinction between a gay union and a heterosexual one. I don’t. I want the rights to be equal for two distinct groups.
Here’s an analogy from history. When women couldn’t own land or vote and fought for equal rights. They didn’t move to abolish the word “woman”. They wanted the rights, and were perfectly happy, sensibly so IMO, to have a term that kept the distinction.
No. He might have, but this was the rare guest of the old school of guests who came in here actually willing to listen and debate, not just rant at us. It was very heartening.
But that’s not how it’s codified into law. The law recognizes people or citizens or humans. It doesn’t (in terms of equal rights) split a distinction between male and female. You don’t have anything like you’re asking for, a separate definition of female to say that they have the same rights as a male.
I’m still curious what you think of my prior questions about other terms like engaged or fiance.
That’s an excellent point. When we moved to Louisiana, the “head and master” law was still in effect, which made the man the owner of all joint property. My wife, who was making almost all the money at that time, was told she couldn’t get a check cashing card at the supermarket without my signature. In the debate repealing this travesty, some lawmakers were dead set against doing so, since they got married with the understanding that they ruled, and this was what marriage meant to them.
This is really the best way to tackle the whole “issue”, I think. Who could complain about such a proposal? If anyone would have any complaints about it, I’d love to hear them.
What’s that phrase so often used to reassure the parents during a marriage? “You’re not losing a daughter, you’re gaining a son”? It’s an addition, an expansion of the word, not a loss in meaning. Does your concept of your family completely lose all incoherence when someone marries into it, because suddenly your family is different from what it used to be? “My family” suddenly includes a new man, and I don’t know what it means any more!
Certainly, which is why we now have women votes, or “wotes”.
Your analogy is wrong. IIRC, females (and those who supported their cause) never argued to change the definition of the word women. Instead, they argued to expand the definition of the word citizen (and the rights and responsibilities thereof) to include both men and women.
We’re doing the same thing now; expanding the defintion of the word marriage to include same sex, as well as opposite sex, couples.
Well, then you are wrong. The whole point of creating a “civil union” is to create an inferior, second class, version of marriage for homosexuals. Just as the whole point of segregation was to provide blacks with second class version of everything. It won’t be “simple” because the people pushing the idea are not well meaning and would never write it as equal.
No; it’s meant the ownership of one woman of the same race by a man of the same race.
And even if you are right, so what ? America, historically, has been quite vile in many ways. We shouldn’t hang on to that vileness just because it’s old.
The majority of cultures have been polygamous, actually. And again, so what ? Historically slavery was quite common; does that make it a good idea ? Historically, racism and sexism was not just allowed, but written into the law of this country; was that good ? The argument from history doesn’t work, because history is full of things we are much better off without.