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

["Parlin, Steven" <PARLINS AT culver.org>]

Jim, I think you misunderstand my point. No matter what one chooses to call a committed homosexual relationship, it's NOT the same kind of nuptial bond that the word "marriage" refers to, not from a historical, traditional, cultural, biological, religious or any other frame of reference. It's not. Yes, words change over time, and as Mike pointed out, the phonetics and semantics can shift dramatically... but reality doesn't change. In this case, the reality is that these are two very different kinds of relationships and as such cannot be referred to with the same word. No more so than calling the moon, the sun, or night, day.

 

Using the word 'marriage' to refer to these different bonds in the same way is an out and out attempt to manipulate (dare I say, engineer) public tolerance through semantic abuse. Orwell's Freedom is slavery; War is Peace kind of manipulation. (BTW. If the state does eventually recognize "homosexual marriages", what are we to make of two brothers, two sisters or two friends living together? Why not give such co-habitators the same kinds of benefits, which is what this is fundamentally about, after all).

 

Now...I must comment on your "supreme arbiter of politically correct semantics".  Be careful, here. I wonder just WHO it is that are you referring to? Isn't the supremre arbiter in this case those who are INSISTING that we call homosexual relationships marriage, even to the point of making it into law? Who is policing whom? Check out what's going on in Ireland right now. Anyone who speaks out against homosexual marriage is in jeopardy of going to jail for "hate rhetoric". (And, moreover, its worth noting that the Catholic Church has long been out of any kind of position to "police" anyone).

 

The point is not that our understanding of reality is changing (although i think this is, if anything, a very clear indicator of having less of an understanding of reality), but that words cannot be made to mean whatever we want them to mean. Words can and do change, but this is a not merely change but misuse. Perhaps, because of the times we are living, the sacrament of matrimony will have to move on to new semantic territory, will have to find a new word for itself. Silly, as Mike mentioned, took quite a fall after all.

Finally, I could be wrong for I didn't know him personally, but based on his work, homosexuality was clearly not "natural" in Percy's view, and he would have referred to this absurdity as yet one more indicator that we are "Lost in the Cosmos".

 

Steve

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 AT bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:09 PM
To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage

Dear Steve, Folks-

 

I don't think the meaning of words is fixed or assigned to them by some sort of word police, the Church or any other single or supreme arbiter of politically correct semantics. I think the meaning of words evolves based upon common use reflecting societies' ever changing understanding of reality.  I think Percy's essay on Metaphor as Mistake suggests at least some sympathy for this view  -- or at least some sympathy for the view that there is some play or freedom between a symbol and its referent.  But as to the matter of homosexual marriages  -- I'm all for 'em myself and would like to believe that Percy would have practiced his customary charity and humility in judging the behavior of others,  though how he would have come down on the morality of the issue I've no guess. 

 

Jim Piat

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