What are you getting out of all this, Bricker?

The BBQ Pit
341

Me. Federal law. The laws of 49 of the 50 states.

The decisions of Canadian courts are not binding on the US. Why don’t they keep pace with the majority of the world, if we’re taking a poll of the Earth to determine the correct path? Why are we counting only the countries that support your view?

Strawman. I never said that the reason behind my position was that Americans are easily confused. Why did offer an argument that was so easily defeated, and implicitly attribute it to me?

I propose the term “civil union” for ALL relationships, gay and straight. So in what way would gay relationships be set apart?

342

So, you so oppose gays sullying the term marriage that you would rather see the entire legal institution of marriage be destroyed than have one faggot become a part of it.

What a wonderful person you are.

343

Thank you.

You miss the thrust of my motivation, however. I believe that marriage has essentially religious roots as it is used in this country, and that a religious justification for defining unions should not continue. I have no objection, to take one example, to same-sex couples adopting children. You’d think, were I motivated by the animus you imagine, I’d be against that. You’d think I’d be against some of the classics: gays serving as schoolteachers, or gays being youth group leaders, or something along those lines. I am not.

If my personal animus against gays were so compelling, why, do you imagine, would it manifest itself only in this one area?

  • Rick
344

Bricker: I’m going to ask a question which (as far as I can tell) you keep avoiding answering, phrased in a slightly new way.

Suppose, hypothetically, that over the next 20 years or so, there are strong societal shifts towards acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage, and the use of the word “marriage” to refer to same sex unions. And suppose that another 20 years down the line, teenagers who have grown up in this hypothetical future read in their history books about a time when the word “marriage” referred only (in some people’s minds) to opposite sex unions, and scratch their heads in puzzlement.
Given that you oppose using the word “marriage” to refer to same sex unions (talking solely about the language here, ignoring the legal issues), you presumably think that there’s something bad, something wrong, something unfortunate, something regrettable, about the above hypothetical.

Can you explain precisely what it is?

345

Several other cultures recognized these unions with no problem at all. There is a basis in history. Just one example: It used to happen right here in the US, where a warrior could take another man (usually a holy man or medicine man) as his bride. They were given full status as a couple, and were accorded all the rights and privileges that went with it.

The last 2 lines sum it up then. It’s always (?) been that way.

So, let’s see…
In the old old old days, we used to live in caves. Let’s go back to the caves. In the old old days we used to kill and eat each other. Let’s start doing it again. In the not so remote past, we settled disputes with swords or dueling pistols. It had always been done that way. In the not so distant past we had slavery. Let’s do that again.

Not good enough.

Your last 2 lines reveal your position perfectly. You don’t care what happens to an entire group of people as long as nothing changes for you. Did I miss something?

346

Yes.

It’s the same kind of thing that is wrong with people I’ve heard that claim something is a “mute point.” The phrase is “moot point,” but someone misunderstood it, and since the word “mute” actually means something, concluded earnestly that a “mute point” is a silent one. Since a moot point is one that does not require debate, the context didn’t provide enough clues to show these people that “mute point” - a silent point, apparently - was wrong, and thus a malapropism was born.

The word “marriage” means “union between man and woman.” If your predicted scenario comes to pass, then the meaning of “marriage” will have been changed. I oppose that course; my idea of a “living language” is to coin new words for new concepts and ideas, rather than change the meaning of existing words or phrases.

347

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law **(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> **b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry – J. T. Shawcross>

I posted this not because an online dictionary had it in the definition, but because the definition they chose seems perfectly appropriate.

348

I’ll take this opportunity to make it clear that I in no way agree with Bricker’s point about living language or with his analogy.

First off, “moot” and “mute” was a misunderstanding. The “expansion” of the word “mute” to mean “irrelevant” was due to folks who didn’t successfully understand how other folks were using the language. As such, it represents a breakdown in language’s fundamental purpose: communication.

Expanding the word “marriage” to include same-sex couples is neither a misunderstanding or much of an expansion. If I talk about “the marriage of chocolate and peanut butter,” you’re unlikely to scoff at my misuse of the language: you understand that marriage can refer to the happy combination of two previously separate entities. If I refer to “the marriage of Steve and Roger,” you’ll similarly understand exactly what I’m saying: the language will have performed its purpose (communication) admirably.

So your objections to “the marriage of Steve and Roger” aren’t based on any breakdown in language. They must be based on something else.

That something else isn’t necessarily homophobia, mind. I’ve quarrelled with other people on this board over their objections to words like “flammable,” “impact [as a verb],” and “y’all.” They object not because they hate fire, kinetic energy, or Southerners, but because they hate changes to the language.

Language is alive. Meanings change. Generally, there are two good tests to see whether a given change is good:

  1. Are people using it?
  2. Are people using it on purpose?

If the answer to both questions is “yes,” then we have the clearest possible indication that the change is good. People are using the change because they believe it helps them to communicate.

Why do people feel that it helps them communicate to say, “Roger and Steve are married”? Because they’re trying to express the idea that Roger and Steve love each other and have committed to build a family with one another and spend the rest of their lives together, and our language has only one word that expresses that concept.

Yes, previously, English speakers have assumed that that concept could only apply to opposite-sex couples (excluding group marriages etc.) That was a flaw in how English speakers conceived of the concept of romantic and familial love.

We now know better, and so we’ve got a couple choices:

  1. We can invent a whole new word to cover Roger and Steve’s commitment; or
  2. We can slightly expand an existing word’s definition to cover Roger and Steve’s commitment.

Someone with a conservative bias toward language ought, I think, be in favor of the second choice.

Daniel

349

Nitpick:

A moot point is one that is debatable but obsolete, has no practical significance or is abstract and purely academic.

Originally it was a purely academic debate among law students:

350

Rarely do I see an explanation and an example so neatly rolled into one package!

Daniel

351

It’s a thing of beauty, ain’t it?

352

Cite?

I was unaware of this test. What authority propounds it?

I have a different test for the approval of changes in language, and it is FAR more restrictive.

353

Cite? That seems to me to be basic logic, not something requiring a cite. What restrictive test do you offer, and what advantages does it have over the test I offer?

Daniel

354

I’m guessing that Bricker’s test is this one:

355

As for an authority who uses my test, here’s what five minutes of Googling turns up: no less than the prestigious linguist Steven Pinker, discussing the evolution of language

Think of it as an intellectual free market. In the literal free market, how do you tell if a product or service is valuable? You figure out if people are buying it. In the language market, how do you tell if a word is valuable? You figure out if people are using it.

Daniel

356

Sounds pretty similar to the test Merriam-Webster editors use.

357

I agree. As much as my feelings resonate with the language purists, I must reluctantly admit that the model above is accurate and useful.

But - now we are in a rare situation. I think it’s very likely that commonly-used language will follow the law – in much the same way that we now say a suspect has been Mirandized. Few people know that Miranda v. Arizona was consolidated with other cases presenting the same issue: Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and others. Had the Court chosen to style this case Vignera, we’d be talking today about suspects being Vignera’ed.

As we engage in public debate on the issue, I would argue that NOW is the chance for a language purist to STEER the public in a palatable direction. If we offer a new term for same-sex marriage, enacted into law, it will catch on. If we do not, then “marriage” will catch on by default.

In other words, here is a chance to send signals to the market.

  • Rick
358

Stipulating that this is so (and I might retract that stipulation later, using a “Shutting the barn door” argument), shouldn’t we send a signal that existing words should have their definitions expanded? As I stated before, if we are to be conservative about the language, it’s better to add an easily-understood definition to an existing word than to create a whole new word.

What advantages, linguistically, do we achieve by creating a neologism, especially when an existing word will serve the purpose admirably?

Daniel

359

On the contrary, the conservative approach would seem to favor the creation of a new word - a recognition that a new situation demands a descriptor, of course, but also a desire to minimize change. Words mean what they mean. A new word means what we coin it for; an existing word should be set it stone.

360

Toldyaso.