[percy-l] gay marriage
PARLINS at culver.org
Tue Aug 12 12:40:13 EDT 2003
Interesting, I see your point, Sara. But your example is a metaphoric
application of the word, and there are many like this.
Again, I'm not referencing the morality or immorality of homosexual
"marriage". But, heterosexual unions are different than homosexual unions.
That's obvious enough, isn't it? The first is a 'marriage' (both as it is
tradtionally and semanticallyunderstood) the second is...well...something
else, a union, a bond, a committed relationship, a pact, a contract.
All I'm saying is that the newness of homosexual unions, if they are to be
recognized by the state, requires a new word, not one that is already has a
I'm merely defending the word, which apparently hasn't any serious public
champions. The lexicon already has too many casualties....they have been
hijacked and/or run through.
From: Sara Carter [mailto:saracarter2 at juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:20 AM
To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org
Cc: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage
how about the marriage of two minds??
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:53:59 -0500 "Parlin, Steven" < PARLINS at culver.org
<mailto:PARLINS at culver.org> > writes:
Just a quick comment on the public debate regarding "gay marriage"
I wonder what Percy would make of this, at least from a semantic point of
view. 'Marriage' refers to a specific thing, the union of man and woman, and
whether one argues that such definitions can be stretched and broadened and
altered to be more inclusive, the truth is they can't. For example, no one
would really allow 'flock of fish' or 'swarm of cows' (unless for effect).
Such words refer to specific things. So, leaving the moral arguments aside,
on purely semantic terms, homosexuals can't be 'married' any more than fish
can flock or cows can swarm.
Just an observation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Percy-L