Percy-L: Literary, Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Discussion of Walker Percy

[Mike Frentz <mfrentz AT bbn.com>]

Marriage, from the Catholic point of view (to which Percy, to all
appearances, fully ascribed) is first and foremost a sacrament. 
Marriage, even between a man and woman if they enter it consciously not
intending to have children, is invalid.  Same sex
"marriage" is a total oxymoron given the cultural roots of the
authentic institution -- it can't exist.

Apparently Mr. Robinson referred to his election as the "Easter
after Good Friday".  I pity the poor Episcopalians through all
this.  What a travesty of Christianity.


Mike


At 11:40 AM 8/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:

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 specific meaning.
 
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.
 
Steve Parlin

-----Original Message-----

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

another observation:

how about the marriage of two minds??

 

Sara Carter

 

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:53:59 -0500 "Parlin, Steven" <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.

 

Steve

 

 

 

--

An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail

Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy