Jim, I think you misunderstand my
point.
>>
Problably!
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
>>OK
or any other frame of
reference.
>> what
about my 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.
>>To the extent
some words have a legally stipulated definition changing that definition
does have "real" consequence.
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).
>> Good
question.
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).
>> I agree
with the cautions you raise above -- personally I'm inclined to
think the state should get out of the marriage business
altogether.
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),
>> I didn't
realize you felt this way. I'm curious --during what period
of history or pre history do you think man's understanding of reality
peaked?
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.
>>
Ah, suddenly, I think I understand better your
objections. For those who view marriage as a sacrament the term
marriage is more like a proper name than a common noun. For folks
who view the term "marriage" as the name of something
sacred the idea that other folks can
appropriate the word for whatever willy nilly Alice in
Wonderland use they might choose is understandably a bit of an outrage to
them. Yes, I had not really thought of in this light.
Hmmmm -- I'm even less confident of my position than
before.
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".
>>Whatever
position he might have taken I'm inclined to agree with Robert Pauley that
he would given both sides something worthwhile to chew on -- and he
would have done it with humor and uncommon insight into the crux of
the issue.
Thanks for your
detailed comments Steve -- once again I've benefitted from them.
Jim Piat
