Why should we advocate using a new word to refer to gay unions instead of marriage?
If you change the definition of the word marriage to be "a civil union between two consenting adults" then there won't be a word to specify a heterosexual marriage.
For example, if some one said to you "I know this married couple, Amari and Jaidyn, who...."
and we were to use the current definition for the word marriage, then you would know that one of those people is male and the other female (although you may not be able to decide which is which). If we used a "generic" definition then we would have no idea if they were one of each, two males or two females.
In other words, words should convey meaning. Otherwise, what's the point of using language? The purpose of language is to clarify, not obfuscate. Otherwise, lets do away with half the words in the English language. We can combine the words that kind of have nearly the same meaning into one word. If that sounds like a crazy idea to you, then you are begining to understand that my stance against using the word "marriage" for gay unions has nothing to do with being a bigot.
The description say it all
Side Score: 10
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Another good reason is that it would disarm the bigots because if they refused to allow gay couples to have the same benefits as heterosexual couples, they would be exposed as bigots (they wouldn't be able to hide behind the religious right and claim that God ordains that gay couples should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples). Side: The description say it all
The advantage to using a term such as "civil union" is that you eliminate the word marriage from the legal system. This word is used in churches and you need to seperate church from state. Therefore, if a church tries to say they are against gay marriage, the answer is simply marriage is not recognized in state. You are free to practice marriage in your churches. It is very important that with a civil union, both straight and gay couples be granted ALL of the same rights though. Side: The description say it all
|
When someone says "I went to my cousin's Christening the other day", does the sentence provide any info with regard to the gender of the cousin? No. So how about we have a different word for the Christening of Boys, and another one for that of Girls? What you fail to understand is that the problem in your description (i.e being able to understand the sexes involved) lies within the English language itself. In the English language, the Definite Article "THE" is used to describe both male and female subjects. The same applies for the Indefinite Articles "A" and "AN". So in my above sentence, my subject is "the cousin" or "a cousin", which does not disclose the gender of that cousin. In other languages however, such as Latin based, some European and Balkan languages (and probably a lot more in the whole world), the Definite and Indefinite Articles are slightly different between the male and the female. For example, if I was to say my first sentence in Greek and "my cousin" refers to a female, I would say "i ksaderfi mou". But if it referred to a male cousin, I would have to say "o ksaderfos mou". Also note how the end syllable changes from -i to -os. So from the beginning of the sentence you already know the sexes of those involved. The word "Christening" or "Baptism" doesn't need to indicate that. Which leaves the word "Christening" free and able to indiscriminately describe the institution regardless of the sex of the subject involved. If what you are trying to do is amend this weakness of the English Language by proposing to have completely different words describing the same process/ceremony/institution/contract depending on the gender of those involved, then something tells me you haven't thought this through... :o) If, on the other hand, you are only preoccupied with preventing the word marriage being used by gay people, and you don't care about the other institutions or the linguistic shortfall, then you are a bigot. Side: Wait..., What? No!
0
points
My first language is Spanish. In that language, as you have described for other languages, There is one word for a male cousin and another word for a female cousin. Although I prefer it that way, I am not advocating changing the English language in order to accommodate my preference. But when people advocate moving further away from my preference, then I have to say something. But aside from my preference, advocating using a new word is more practical because no one would be able to say, "[Insert new word here] is not what God intended. God intended a man and a woman." By neutralizing their argument, (i.e., God intended... the definition is between a man and a woman...) the gay community can move forward and get their benefits. But no one wants to listen to me so the battle will continue in Maine and California where gays had their asses handed to them (no pun intended ;). Now, think about this. What some people are saying is that (in a democracy) the minority should be allowed to dictate to the majority what should be done (because "it is the right thing to do, otherwise you are a bigot!" which sounds like hyperbole to me.). I think that a minority in a democracy should work around the system and offer possible compromises instead of trying to force their views down the throats of people that have overwhelmingly stated that they don't want it. This applies to, not only to gay marriage, but also to health care and to whether or not tax payer money should be used to fund abortions. Side: The description say it all
I didn't actually call you a bigot. You stated in your debate that if we allow gay people to "marry" then we will get confused when talking about "married" couples because we won't know if it's a straight couple or a gay couple we're talking about. And I explained to you that the problem lies with the English language and its use of the Definite Article "THE" for both male and female. Since your first language is Spanish, it is safe to assume that you fully understood the answer to your question. So if you are not a bigot and you just wanted to raise a concern, then at this point you would have your explanation and happily moved on. Your post however, reveals that you weren't actually bothered about getting an answer to your question. What you wanted, was to score a point. So at this point, it is also safe to assume that you are indeed a bigot. Your comments about the battle of Maine and California clearly confirm that you see yourself "at war" with the gay community. Final thought. Who is trying to shove anything down your throat? What EXACTLY is going to change in your life if gays are allowed to marry? Side: Wait..., What? No!
I gotta admit its a good idea, but it just won't work. The government will still not grant the rights given to married couples. Gay marriage should be completely legal, the using of a new word would take just as long and some people may think this kind of union as inferior. Side: Wait..., What? No!
|
