To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" <percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:33:22 -0400
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.