[percy-l] Thanks Jim...
Parlin, Steven
PARLINS at culver.org
Wed Aug 13 10:48:14 EDT 2003
Jim,
It's always good to tangle with you. Though I hotly disagree with you on a
variety of topics, you're always a humble gentleman.
You wrote:
"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."
Yes... this is my point, or at least the crux of it.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:33 PM
To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
Subject: Re: [percy-l] gay marriage
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.
Jim Piat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20030813/ddaa346f/attachment.html>
More information about the Percy-L
mailing list