Comments on: Merriam Webster takes on Legislative and Judicial Powers Unilaterally Declaring Homosexual “Marriage” in New Definition

By: rubyeliot

rubyeliot — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:50:09 +0000

The OED is much more correct: 1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony. The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex. The part about how the word is sometimes used is written as a footnote. Correctly identifying how the word is sometimes, but not authoritatively (and far from always) used.

By: rubyeliot

rubyeliot — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:45:31 +0000

Language is delightful, and usually its shifts and growths are happy additions that add a depth to language.

However, it can also be destructive. For example. Historically, words that refer to women have been turned to denigrate them:

hussy (used to refer to the mistress of a household; a thrifty woman)
bitch
wench (which used to just mean a girl, maid, young woman; a female child)

By including same-gender couples under the definition “marriage”, webster’s is participating in the abuse of the institution, in the same way women are demeaned by these word shifts.

By: Pearl

Pearl — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:32:30 +0000

I think Beetle and Secular Heretic make a good point. This isn’t just about the evolution of language and a dictionary wisely adapting to that evolution. The inclusion of a same-sex specification to the definition of marriage in MW, is Dictionary Activism just like the CA Supreme Court May 2008 legalization of homosexual “marriage” was Judicial Activism and just like the Assembly Judiciary Committee passing HR5 is Legislative Activism and just like the Senate Judiciary Committee passing SR7 is Legislative Activism and just like Governor Schwarzenegger appealing to the Supreme Court, against the will of the people, to strike down Prop 8, is Executive Activism.

More shady circumventing.

Personal Failure makes a good point about the evolution of language using the examples of “flammable” and “inflammable.” BUT claiming the innocence of the this new addition to the definition of marriage by citing popular evolution is misleading and inaccurate. In truth, there is not ample popularity for the inclusion of a same-sex union specification in the definition of marriage. The VAST majority of the world using MW is still very much inclined to fight for the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, leaving no doubt that once again, a small group of errant activists have defied the right of the very people using the language, to define the language. This is not the first time it has happened (AAVE) and I am sure it will not be the last.

In the end, Secular Heretic is right, the Miriam Webster definition says that a same-sex relationship is “like marriage” so it ought not to be placed, in a very blatantly misleading way, under the definition of marriage. Really, I don’t think same-sex marriage, even if legalized will ever be viewed as anything other than exactly that, “same-sex marriage.”

And that . . . is simply not marriage.

Same-sex marriage vs. marriage, same-sex marriage vs. marriage.

Not the same thing. The usurper warrants its own definition.

By: Secular Heretic

Secular Heretic — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:12:59 +0000

Webster has made a mistake here. The attempted union of same sex couples is not a marriage.

I think the definition they have given has been put in the wrong spot. It should be under “gay marriage” not “marriage”. The very definition they have given actually says that it is like a marriage. It doesn’t say that it is a marriage. Therefore it should be under its own heading.

Same sex marriage is impossible anyway. Marriage is a part of our human nature and we can’t change human nature and redefine it. We could lie to ourselves and call it marriage but same sex unions will never correspond to what marriage actually is, an integration of the sexes with the possibility of conceiving children.

By: Personal Failure

Personal Failure — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:47:59 +0000

That was mostly my reaction to the article, and perhaps why I felt like I wasn’t understanding it. As much as things like “flammable” and “infer” and “imply” having the same meaning bothers me, it is delightful to me the way language grows and changes.

I even enjoy that new, crazy internet lingo. You know, lollerskatez!!1!!

By: Cynical Nymph

Cynical Nymph — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:43:48 +0000

It was a bit of a hyperbolic claim, yes, but when French Academia speaks of “the language” they’re considering it at only the most esoteric level. If it were up to them, for instance, when Shakespeare had been writing (had he been writing in French), many of his plays would neeeever have attained the level of popularity they did, because they contained so many made up words. (Speaking of eminent playwrights, Moliere was a member of l’Academie.) So when one considers how much popular literature and theatre can affect us and form us as human beings – in a trickle down sort of way – there is a risk of a language stagnating, theoretically, if it is unnaturally held in one spot for too long.

By: Personal Failure

Personal Failure — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:40:12 +0000

Aren’t there enough French-speakers (in Quebec, France, and portions of Africa) that French isn’t likely to die out, even if it is rather oddly frozen in time? Or do Quebec and African French speakers not count as French speakers?

By: Cynical Nymph

Cynical Nymph — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:35:02 +0000

French is very peculiar that way, and there is a large contingent of the French-speaking academic world which argues that French is in danger of becoming a dying language if the language isn’t officially opened up. It’s an interesting prospect to consider.

By: Personal Failure

Personal Failure — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:02:18 +0000

I remember reading about some dustup in France regarding slang and English expressions, but I didn’t really completely understand it. Now it makes sense. Thank you!

By: Cynical Nymph

Cynical Nymph — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:56:16 +0000

That’s a good point, Personal Failure. It’s one of the biggest ways English is separated from French, a language in many ways similar to ours. The French language, however, is literally governed by a body of scholars who are in charge of officially sanctioning or denying any new word or new usage of a preexisting word. It’s one of the reasons slang is such a force in French society in quite a different way than it is in English-speaking societies.

Anyway, a bit off the point, but figured I’d throw it out there.