I know. You all think I'm against gay marriage. I have to tell you, I am not. In fact, I will be attending a gay wedding in a couple of weeks. The groom is my son. And I have to tell you, he's very happy about getting married. He's feeling both merry and gay. Generally speaking, I think all couples who marry should be gay. It stinks to get married when you're not happy.
You see, I'm not willing to give up reality to give in to others' agendas. For instance, "gay" means "showing a merry, lively mood" or even "bright and showy". There is even a worst case "licentious." Antonyms include "unhappy" and "mournful" ... but not "heterosexual". According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "'gay' has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel." You see, a secondary definition of "gay" was "sexually immoral". Is that why it was applied to homosexuals? Is that why they embrace the term? And why do you think it is that "queer" and "straight" came to be the very common terms in this discussion? As evidenced by the hit show, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, "queer" has been an acceptable term for homosexual -- acceptable to homosexuals. But isn't there a message in these terms? We all know what is straight and we all know that if you're not straight, you're ... queer. Words, you see, have meaning.
"Marriage" is a word with meaning. It refers to the union of a man and a woman. If I say, "By the power invested in me by God and the state of Arizona, I now pronounce you ...", everyone would know how to finish the sentence: "... husband and wife." (Okay, if you're older like me, you might have said "man and wife".) That's it. That's marriage. So now the court in California has pronounced by judicial fiat that the word will no longer mean what it means. That's fine. Change the name of a dog's leg to "tail" and it doesn't change what it is, nor does it make it a tail.
I am not against gay marriage. My son will be marrying his fiance in a couple of weeks. They are happy about it. What they will have will be a gay marriage. I'm praying it will be gay for a long time. What is happening in California, on the other hand, is not "gay marriage." Call it what you want. Because they are called "gay" doesn't make them gay, and because you call it "marriage" doesn't make it marriage. California can do what it pleases. I don't have to play along.
13 comments:
Can words change meaning over time?
I had a grandmother who was born in 1889, lived to 93 years old, and used to say, "When I was a girl, everybody was gay!" with a big smile. I thought, then why are there any people left?
Then she also used to say, "Lamb is dear, you know."
Congrats on your son's upcoming wedding. Hope you have "a gay old time"!
:-)
Of course words change in meaning over time. It would be helpful if we still had words that meant what the original intent was ... like a word for "marriage" that still means what the longstanding, traditional meaning has been. And "over time" suggests "gradually", but here we have a radical, sudden redefinition by a court. Words may change meaning over time, but to me, in this case, they haven't. :)
BRILLIANT!!!
When I said “over time”—I did not necessarily mean “gradually.” More the words meant one thing at one point in time, and then at another point in time they can obtain who new meaning. Like “Being swift-boated” was a new definition of “swift boat” that came in to existence quickly. Prior to 2001, if I said “Nine Eleven” you would have thought I meant an Emergency telephone number. Overnight, those words took on new meaning.
At one time, “Marriage” traditionally meant a legal relationship between one man and one or more women. The “Traditional” definition included polygamy. Times change—the meaning changes. We have previously talked about the term of the change of “creationism.”
So who decides what the definition of a word is?
In the case of "swift-boated", we still have the original meaning of the term "swift boat". "John Kerry road in swift boats." Yep ... the term is still valid. We still have the term "9-1-1" to tell our kids who to call in an emergency. "Marriage", on the other hand, is not merely drifting. It is being eliminated. Tomorrow's post will illustrate.
Who decides what a definition of a word is?
When I was young, the dictionary did. Today ... whoever, I suppose. We are creating our own "Tower of Babel" -- a people separated by a common language.
But ... who, in your view, gets to define what a word means?
Stan, dictionaries are inanimate objects. Incapable of decisions. If we used dictionaries as our determining method, we would claim the editors make the decision as to what a word means. Which is a perpetual problem—is a dictionary descriptive (i.e. only describe what is happening) or prescriptive (i.e. order what must happen.) Which comes first—the definition or the dictionary?
Take the word “gay.” (Less problematic and a good illustration.) Did the editors of a dictionary one day decide, “We will now use this term to also mean a homosexual”? And thus introduce “gay” as meaning homosexual? Or rather did the editors note the common usage within the society about them and how people were using the term “gay” to describe homosexuals and then include it in the dictionary?
Further we are left with the problem--which dictionary? I looked at a few regarding the word “gay.” (And they all didn’t use quite the same language, so I used a bit of blogger license and slightly modified where I could to keep similarity.)
Random House Dictionary has:
1. merry
2. bright
3. abounding in social pleasures
4. wanton
5. homosexual
6. homosexual interest
7. homosexual male
8. in a gay manner. (?)
American Heritage Dictionary has:
1. sexual orientation of persons of same sex
2. merry
3. bright
4. abounding in social pleasures
5. wanton
My Miriam-Webster has:
1. Merry
2. Bright
3. abounding in social pleasures
4. wanton
5. homosexual
Oxford Dictionary:
1. homosexuals
2. relating to homosexuals
3. merry
4. bright
For fun I pulled a 1949 Webster’s I keep around:
1. Lively.
2. Merry
3. Full of spirits
4. Cheerful
5. Sportive
6. abounding in social pleasures
7. wanton.
If we use “the dictionary” to decide the definition of a word, do we end up in a fight over whether American Heritage is correct? Or Random House? Or Oxford? Or Webster’s? Or Webster’s of ’49?
And what do we do about locale? The word “boot” is used differently in America as England. Or the word “soda” even in different parts of the United States.
Dictionaries are descriptive. The new words added each year come from what society does, and the editors react. The editors are not telling us, “These are the new words for next year, the new meanings for the new words, and some new meanings of some old words. Now go and use them.”
Words, and their definitions, come from society’s continual and pervasive use. It may not even be a majority of society, and words can have a variety of meanings. As you previously pointed out, some words even have opposite meanings—like “cleave.”
So what if the word “gay” means merry? It could mean “merry” for hundreds of years—the definition has changed by those who decide what a definition is—the society. (Even you recognize “gay” means homosexual—it is the reason you wrote this blog entry the way you did. You presumed, by the way you wrote it, people would initially read “gay” to mean the most common definition: homosexual. Hence the “surprise” by “gay” meaning something else.)
The same way the word “marriage” can (and has) changed. What fails to be persuasive to me about this entry is that it appears to be an argument from definition. As if to say, “The dictionary says this word is defined as ____; and therefore the word must ALWAYS mean ____.” Yet the dictionary is not the final arbiter of what words mean—society is.
If we are to stay consistent, and say the word MUST be what it is defined, then as society changes, we would be stuck changing as well. (And it should be noted that changing of words is part of the process of society. It will happen. Why we can study etymology. The method would have to recognize change is inevitable.)
“Whoever” has always decided what a word means. Nothing has changed from when you were young to now. The dictionary merely keeps score of what all the “whoevers” are claiming a word means.
You can say you don’t like it. You can say “marriage” means this, that or the other thing, if you want. But to simply rely upon what a dictionary says “marriage” must be, as some sort of argument is…well…not very convincing. Especially since you would say even if the dictionary changed—you wouldn’t. (Correct?) (Stan: “Words may change meaning over time, but to me, in this case, they haven't. :) “)
If you don’t feel bound by the dictionary—why would you argue that others should be?
First, it has always been the case that words have had multiple meanings. For the specific meaning, you look at the context.
Second, how come you get to ask all the questions and not answer any? I asked who you would put in charge of word meanings.
Third, I write almost everything I write with a smile on my face. Please be sure to keep the notion of a little humor when you read. In that vein, I was being belligerent for effect, not for real. (Of course the common usage of the word "gay" includes "homosexual".) (On the other hand, I still hold that it is telling that "gay" used to mean "sexually immoral" when it was applied to homosexuals.)
Okay, enough numeration. When we get to "marriage", I'm not budging and I'm not kidding and here's why. It was not the dictionary that led me to believe that the word meant "one man and one woman." It was the California Supreme Court. If I had used the dictionary, I would have found that definition. But when the "enemy" (take that as intended, not as actual) agrees that "the longstanding and traditional definition of marriage" is one man and one woman, that's evidence from a hostile source. When they agree on the definition and they are overthrowing a law voted on by the people who agreed on that definition, then it is not the dictionary that failed and it is not that society has changed its meaning for the word "marriage." It is that one small group of people have pushed an even smaller group of people into acquiescing to demands that violate everyone else's definition of a word.
I wouldn’t put any one “in charge” of word meanings. There is no need. Society determines what words mean by continual and pervasive use. No one was put in charge to tell us what “LOL” means. Why “laugh out loud’? Think of all the other possibilities it could have been—“TF” (that’s funny) or “HD” (how droll) or “CMU” (crack me up.) Somehow, for some reason, it was LOL. And we manage to communicate quite well without any person ever having to have to be put in charge to determine what three letter combination will be used to indicate humor.
But society HAS changed the meaning of marriage, Stan. Why are so many people against “same sex marriage”? That phrase. Those exact words. Because they understand exactly what “marriage” means in that sentence. And it wasn’t just the California Court. Massachusetts had already changed marriage. So, too, Canada. Even if it was—think of this: every instance of a word gaining or changing its meaning started with a minority.
At one time, in one place, one person referred to a homosexual as “gay.” Then two people did. Then four, then 100, then 100,000,000. In the same way (since words are determined by society) the definition of “marriage” would be expected to change with a minority. A few, then more, then more.
To argue, “But that isn’t what a dictionary says” misses the point that words don’t change by editors in dictionaries. Words change by introduction into the society, and society’s acceptance on a large scale of that change. That’s why arguing “its not in the dictionary” is not a convincing argument as to why the word “marriage” cannot change definitions. Words in dictionaries change their definitions all the time.
And on a lighter note…
I listen to the BBC for my news. Some of their words strike me as odd. “Controversy.” Say it out loud. I’ll bet you said, “CAWN-tra-verse-ee.” I always have to think twice when they say, “Con-TRO-verse-ee” (with a long “o” on the second syllable).
Words. Societies. Life.
Again, I was using the court's admitted definition of marriage, not the dictionary's.
A movie that I enjoyed was Princess Bride. One of the lines in that movie was when Vizinni says (for the umpteenth time) "Inconceivable!", Inigo says, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Relax, Inigo. Nothing means what you think it means. It only means whatever someone wants it to mean ... which isn't actually anything.
Good post.
Post a Comment