So yes, we could just define a new word such as "civil union" that would apply equally under the law to gay and straight couples (and perhaps some day to groups larger than couples). But "civil union" is a sterile legal term, and "marriage" is a seven hundred year old word which carries much more societal meaning to it. It's becoming a part of that meaning--indeed, becoming a part of that society--that (many) advocates of "gay marriage" are interested in.
To which I comment:
For illustrative purposes, suppose the following: sometimes I wipe my nose on my hand or my sleeve. Whether I do this due to the effects of heredity, environment, or both, I'll leave this to scientists to haggle over (although the question will probably remain subjective forever). To many people out there, the idea of making contact with one's own mucus is gross; one has to have a certain tolerance for sliminess to be comfortable with it, for instance. People who are uncomfortable with slime and the other trappings of this are revolted by the idea (go figure).
Now, I have every legal right to do this, and even do it in public. Except for the (sometimes significant) emotional and social discomfort I am casuing others, I am conceivably hurting no-one but myself, and even that is arguable.
Given the above hypothetical situation, I ask the question: at what point does my right to not be discriminated against because I wipe my nose on my sleeve give me the right to seek, beyond mere tolerance and accommodation, the right to universal validation against of the practice of wiping my nose on my sleeve? Keep in mind that this validation is against the will and natural inclination of segments of the rest of society, and at the cost of severe distress to some of them.
As for "civil union" being a different term than "marriage", Is this really a problem. (And by the way, you suggested the term. I suggested "kwyjibo" (though I was unaware it acrtually meant something. Do you have a dictionary citation for it?)) Consider the word "adopted" with respect to children. It's a very useful word, concept, and legal distinction, and in many case its simple use has helped ease the stigma that a child may face being born out of wedlock (excuse me, familial bonding) or in other situations.
Lastly, Tahn/ry cited:
The 10th Collegiate (1998 printing) used exactly the same wording as the first quote above. The 11th Collegiate (2003 printing) defines marriage as: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage, and after that as the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.
Interesting, isn't it?
To which my comment is:
Interesting, yes; surprising, not really. The purpose of a dictionary is usually at least somewhat descritivist, describing the meanings of a word that one can expect to find in a significant subset of citations, even when those meanings are self-contradictory. Without having access to the full bank of citations, it's difficult to ascertain who is using the word in this way.
Does this reflect common usage? It depnds which subset of people you are conversing with. I was a little surprised to hear on the suppertime news here that a recent US poll indicates that close to half of the US population does not think same-sex relations should be legal (never mind civil unions). This is still so after numerous years of openly legitimizing influences in intelluctual arenas, entertainment and the media.
(Come to think of it, I find it interesting that close to half of the population admits to essentially believing in some form of right and wrong, and particularly one that applies to the sexual mores of consenting adults, but that's a completely different debate in at least some senses.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(part 2)
Date: 2003-07-31 01:00 am (UTC)So yes, we could just define a new word such as "civil union" that would apply equally under the law to gay and straight couples (and perhaps some day to groups larger than couples). But "civil union" is a sterile legal term, and "marriage" is a seven hundred year old word which carries much more societal meaning to it. It's becoming a part of that meaning--indeed, becoming a part of that society--that (many) advocates of "gay marriage" are interested in.
To which I comment:
For illustrative purposes, suppose the following: sometimes I wipe my nose on my hand or my sleeve. Whether I do this due to the effects of heredity, environment, or both, I'll leave this to scientists to haggle over (although the question will probably remain subjective forever). To many people out there, the idea of making contact with one's own mucus is gross; one has to have a certain tolerance for sliminess to be comfortable with it, for instance. People who are uncomfortable with slime and the other trappings of this are revolted by the idea (go figure).
Now, I have every legal right to do this, and even do it in public. Except for the (sometimes significant) emotional and social discomfort I am casuing others, I am conceivably hurting no-one but myself, and even that is arguable.
Given the above hypothetical situation, I ask the question: at what point does my right to not be discriminated against because I wipe my nose on my sleeve give me the right to seek, beyond mere tolerance and accommodation, the right to universal validation against of the practice of wiping my nose on my sleeve? Keep in mind that this validation is against the will and natural inclination of segments of the rest of society, and at the cost of severe distress to some of them.
As for "civil union" being a different term than "marriage", Is this really a problem. (And by the way, you suggested the term. I suggested "kwyjibo" (though I was unaware it acrtually meant something. Do you have a dictionary citation for it?)) Consider the word "adopted" with respect to children. It's a very useful word, concept, and legal distinction, and in many case its simple use has helped ease the stigma that a child may face being born out of wedlock (excuse me, familial bonding) or in other situations.
Lastly, Tahn/ry cited:
The 10th Collegiate (1998 printing) used exactly the same wording as the first quote above. The 11th Collegiate (2003 printing) defines marriage as: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage, and after that as the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.
Interesting, isn't it?
To which my comment is:
Interesting, yes; surprising, not really. The purpose of a dictionary is usually at least somewhat descritivist, describing the meanings of a word that one can expect to find in a significant subset of citations, even when those meanings are self-contradictory. Without having access to the full bank of citations, it's difficult to ascertain who is using the word in this way.
Does this reflect common usage? It depnds which subset of people you are conversing with. I was a little surprised to hear on the suppertime news here that a recent US poll indicates that close to half of the US population does not think same-sex relations should be legal (never mind civil unions). This is still so after numerous years of openly legitimizing influences in intelluctual arenas, entertainment and the media.
(Come to think of it, I find it interesting that close to half of the population admits to essentially believing in some form of right and wrong, and particularly one that applies to the sexual mores of consenting adults, but that's a completely different debate in at least some senses.)