Beards and Gay Marriage

[ThinkingSapien]

And I am puzzled at the mention of this new meaning by you, Thinking Sapien.

Why is it noteworthy to mention this?

A word taking on the meaning of its antonyms to me seems to be a real world non-hypothetical example of people assigning to a word a concept that that had not been compatible with and was contrary to the word’s previously listed meaning. This to me seems to be analogous related to the example you referenced of the word “circle” being assigned a meaning that is non-circular.

Isn’t your point that it’s odd, and, well, wrong actually, to have a different definition for a word?

Not quite. The example I listed is only a recent example. Over the etymology that we can still trace there are many others. Are you familiar with the etymology of the word “nice”? Why does “cleave” mean both to split apart and to bind together?

And I am going to make a bet here. I trust in your honesty, both PS and TS. I predict that even if the dictionary says that when one uses the word “literally” she can also mean “figuratively”…you both would never do that.

I know that I wouldn’t.

I tend to stay away from certain words that have a spectrum of meanings. From past interactions you might recall that I also tend to avoid “should” or the phrases “believe in”/“trust in.” But when receiving the statement of another the possible alternative meaning would be a candidate for interpretation. Much like how I don’t use the word “inflammable” (which means the same thing as “flammable”) but when I need to interpret an expression such as “is that material flammable or inflammable?” I understand the intended question even though the word usage is “wrong.” If there is an ambiguity I ask for clarity. “Are you referring to a circle with a circumference or a circle with 4 sides.”

For other auto-antonyms the context makes their intended meaning clear. “Dusting” can refer to the removal or adding of a powder. “Oversight” can refer to careful observation or non-observation. “Off” can refer to both activation or deactivation. “Awful” can me terrible or magnificent…

I have no plans to use the 2013 added definition of the word in rendering my thoughts as words. I seldom use the word “literally” anyway. “Actually” tends to be my word of choice. So your prediction may hold true. Let’s see if my position on that changes over time. Besides “literally” always makes me think of the Jerry Falwell quote on the gas steamroller.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

One has to wonder at your astonishment, Prodigal Son, at this evolution of the definition of a word.

And I am puzzled at the mention of this new meaning by you, Thinking Sapien.

Why is it noteworthy to mention this?

That you find it noteworthy, TS, (and “staggering”, PS notwithstanding your winky icon) seems to make my point.

It was a joke, PR. Apparently you didn’t get it. Let me explain.

When I said, “It’s literally staggering”, I used the word “literally” to mean “figuratively”. After all, I wasn’t *actually *staggering. Hence the joke. Funny. Haha. Etc.

ThinkingSapien mentioned this because these changes in language happen all the time. I personally have nothing against linguistic change. There’s nothing wrong with it, in the great majority of cases. Do **you **think it’s wrong that “cool” now means “pretty awesome” instead of just “reasonably cold”?

Now, sometimes language changes for political reasons. Language is a weapon we use to smash our opinions down other people’s throats – or, from our perspective, to arrange the world properly. Many Americans (gay and straight) are trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage” for political reasons. I think this is a bad idea.

But I don’t think it’s impossible, and I don’t think language should never change.

How 'bout you? If you think it’s impossible, then why are you opposing it? By definition, people can’t do impossible things.

And I am going to make a bet here. I trust in your honesty, both PS and TS. I predict that even if the dictionary says that when one uses the word “literally” she can also mean “figuratively”…you both would never do that.

I know that I wouldn’t.

Because it’s just wrong to say, “Kim, you are literally making me boiling mad right now!”

Am I right? Neither of you are going to start using “literally” when you actually mean “figuratively”…even if the evolution of the word indicates this is correct.

Oh, I use “literally” like this all the time. Sorry to disappoint you with my heterodox ways.

 

[Stephen168]

It was a joke, PR. Apparently you didn’t get it. Let me explain.

When I said, “It’s literally staggering”, I used the word “literally” to mean “figuratively”. After all, I wasn’t *actually *staggering. Hence the joke. Funny. Haha. Etc.

ThinkingSapien mentioned this because these changes in language happen all the time. I personally have nothing against linguistic change. There’s nothing wrong with it, in the great majority of cases. Do **you **think it’s wrong that “cool” now means “pretty awesome” instead of just “reasonably cold”?

Now, sometimes language changes for political reasons. Language is a weapon we use to smash our opinions down other people’s throats – or, from our perspective, to arrange the world properly. Many Americans (gay and straight) are trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage” for political reasons. I think this is a bad idea.

But I don’t think it’s impossible, and I don’t think language should never change.

How 'bout you? If you think it’s impossible, then why are you opposing it? By definition, people can’t do impossible things.

I would add the words gay and gender to words that have changed for what might me political reasons. Gay meant festive when I was a kid and I’ve heard my kids us it as unsatisfactory, but they stopped doing that when festive people were offended. And I can’t remember the last time I was asked my sex on a form.

 

[PRmerger]

It was a joke, PR. Apparently you didn’t get it. Let me explain.

Apparently, you missed a sentence or two in my response. Literally.

(and “staggering”, PS notwithstanding your winky icon)

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, I use “literally” like this all the time. Sorry to disappoint you with my heterodox ways.

Ah, so I have lost the bet.

But my opinion of you has diminished greatly.

The dumbing down of America is a shame indeed.

Whenever I hear this: “You are literally making me boiling mad”–I think, “You are literally uneducated.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ah, so I have lost the bet.

But my opinion of you has diminished greatly.

The dumbing down of America is a shame indeed.

Whenever I hear this: “You are literally making me boiling mad”–I think, “You are literally uneducated.”

Language is fun, PR. Loosen up.

 

[PRmerger]

Language is fun, PR. Loosen up.

I have great fun with language, PS.

But I’m sure that you agree that we ought to have boundaries within the language. You just draw them in a different place than I do.

So perhaps you should loosen up about where** I draw my** boundaries. That’s above your paygrade.

 

[PRmerger]

I have great fun with language, PS.

But I’m sure that you agree that we ought to have boundaries within the language. You just draw them in a different place than I do.

So perhaps you should loosen up about where** I draw my** boundaries. That’s above your paygrade.

One of my boundaries: don’t use “literally” when you mean “figuratively”. It makes you look stupid.

To wit:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfrfSYsIAAAj-HB.jpg

QED

 

[Stephen168]

Love this analogy!

Thank You, I think it shows why DrTaffy ignores the differences that matter.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I have great fun with language, PS.

But I’m sure that you agree that we ought to have boundaries within the language. You just draw them in a different place than I do.

I think language is the most fun when some people try to keep them in boundaries and some people try to shove them out of the boundaries. I certainly don’t think there’s something morally wrong about language change.

 

[DrTaffy]

God created man and woman. And he told them to increase and multiply. He did not creat two men, he did not create two women. The presumption is that God knew what he was doing. Case closed.

That is your subjective religious view. Surely the whole point of this thread has been about placing objections to same sex marriage on a secular, objective foundation. After all, if you feel justified in forcing homosexuals to live a life of celibacy based on your personal religious views when you are in the majority, why should liberals not force you to actively celebrate gay marriage (even beyond just being willing to sell them cakes) once they are in the majority?

Not even the ancient Romans or Greeks, as morally corrupt as they were, ever dared to suggest that men should marry men, or that women should marry women.

Martial, Juvenal and Cicero all refer to same sex marriages in ancient Rome. Cicero even argues that Curio the elder is legally responsible for the debt of his son’s husband, implying legal recognition of these relationships. Two different emperors were allegedly married to other men on three seperate occasions.

And plenty of other civilisations had same sex marriage of one form or another.

 

[DrTaffy]

Hmmm… I noticed this grammatical error, way back when you made it (it was an assault to my eyes the moment I saw it, literally ), but I was too generous to mention it then.

Aww! Now you are keeping records of minor typos of mine to refer back to a month later!

While I am in equal parts flattered and disturbed by your fandom, I would ask you to stick to discussion of the topic, not my awesome self!

No, I do not claim to be immune to typoes, speling erorrs, or even misplaced apostrophe’s, but I have no objection to people pointing them out.

As long as it is done without malice, of course!

 

[DrTaffy]

It’s not that they have the wrong genitalia,

Sure it is. What else are you objecting to when you say that two women should not marry?

Are you saying that it is OK for two women to marry as long as one of them has a penis?
(Naturally, that is, not as part of a Hannibal Lecter-ish trophy cabinet)

it is that the self-control to use their genitalia for the natural purpose for which they ARE [seems grammatically clumsy to me but let’s go with it]

“They are designed …”, not “They is designed…”

Not a big deal, as I said to PR, and no malice intended, it just grated a bit. :imsorry:

Therefore, genitalia and NOT reason drives behaviour, and overrides choice. The mantra of gay advocacy, for example, is that sexual orientation is NOT a choice, therefore, again, genitalia overrides reason.

You seem be confusing the reason whether (or why) one should resist same sex desire with the ability to do so.

If I assert that Catholics should not marry or reproduce, and you do both anyway, does that mean that you are a helpless slave of your genitals or just that you reject my assertion?

Do you really think that desire is rooted in the genitalia rather than the brain? Or is it the fact that homosexuals choose their partners at least in part based on what genitalia they have? Is this not true of heterosexuals? Would this mean that those who object to bans on inter-racial marriage are slaves of their skin colour?

 

[DrTaffy]

First, in regard to the three things you suggest cover marriage, a point is made but I don’t think it’s the point you want.

No, I think it is.

P_S asked whether I thought marriage was a social construct, and to that end I wanted to distinguish between the sacrament and the other two types of marriage.

On the one hand, I feel that all three are human social constructs, but I realise that you probably do not feel that about the sacrament.

On the other hand the sacrament is not affected by the civil, legal definition that is being debated in law courts and parliaments around the world right now.

On the gripping hand, the sacraments of other religions are even more clearly none of your business than are the marriages of homosexual couples.

The point here is that marriage is defined as type of union, you and I hold to contrary definitions.

I’m not sure about ‘contrary’ - you (apparently) have a narrower definition than I, and many here want to force me to have to use your definition by having the State only accept your version of marriage.

If the State widens its definition, you are not thereby denied the right to marry or not marry as you wish. Narrowing the State definition does explicitly deny homosexual couples the right to marry as they wish. This, in my opinion, requires objective justification.

This is an instance where you are justified (and I would agree with you) in holding opposition. But the followers of “bluedaism” are wrong because they define meter stick by a certain type of meter stick. This is what you think those who are opposed to “gay marriage” are doing.

Some of those who are opposed to gay marriage have said, quite explicitly, that same sex marriage is not marriage. Do you deny this?

You think we define marriage by a certain type of marriage, but what I am here to tell you is that this is only due to your personally held definition of marriage as a specific union. Now, I think the definition you subscribe to is incorrect, but until we can flesh out how different our definitions are I don’t think this conversation will go anywhere. I would love to hear your response.

The division between social/civil/sacramental types of marriage is, certainly, irrelevant here. A better example might be marriage between two men, two women, or a man and a woman.

All these have, in the past, been referred to as ‘marriage.’ As, for that matter have incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, forced marriages, and underage marriages. And we all know what is meant by ‘marriage’ in these cases. There is no ambiguity or internal contradiction.

Now can you explain to me if and (if so) why you want to limit the definition of ‘marriage’ to only some of these, as opposed to saying that all of these are ‘marriage’ but that some should not be allowed?

Contrast with sex: there are many things that we accept to be ‘sex’ without approving of them. e.g. rape, child abuse, adultery. Why would anyone define these as not being ‘sex’ rather than explaining why they think they are wrong?

 

[Stephen168]

Likewise incestuous, polygamous, underage or forced marriage is marriage. I am happy to admit that they are ‘marriage’ but that does not prevent me from disagreeing with them.

Incestuous marriage is usually taboo because of the children; the reason most cultures are against them. Like same sex unions, underage unions are sterile, so not marriage. Of course underage unions can grow into marriage, which same sex unions never will.

Ignore

All these have, in the past, been referred to as ‘marriage.’ As, for that matter have incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, forced marriages, and underage marriages. And we all know what is meant by ‘marriage’ in these cases. There is no ambiguity or internal contradiction.

And repeat

 

[DrTaffy]

Ignore

Ignored for the very simple reason that it was not answering any question that I had asked.

And repeat

As the question has yet to be answered.

Now can you explain to me if and (if so) why you want to limit the definition of ‘marriage’ to only some of these, as opposed to saying that all of these are ‘marriage’ but that some should not be allowed?

Contrast with sex: there are many things that we accept to be ‘sex’ without approving of them. e.g. rape, child abuse, adultery. Why would anyone define these as not being ‘sex’ rather than explaining why they think they are wrong?

 

[PRmerger]

I think language is the most fun when some people try to keep them in boundaries and some people try to shove them out of the boundaries.

It’s only fun because there are boundaries, right?

I certainly don’t think there’s something morally wrong about language change.

On this, we are agreed.

 

[PRmerger]

Aww! Now you are keeping records of minor typos of mine to refer back to a month later!

Well, only if you mean by “keeping records” that my brain kept a record of it.

My brain just does that. It remembers what I read.

Just a helpful tool I’ve been blessed with.

As long as it is done without malice, of course!

Malice? Never. I don’t have a malicious bone in my body.

But it was certainly done with great glee. And amusement, given your great interest in pointing out the grammatical errors of others.

I would never have mentioned your own
grammatical error were it not for your comment.

I’m just charitable like that.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It’s only fun because there are boundaries, right?

We couldn’t call it “language” if there weren’t boundaries. It would be gibberish.

Or rather, we COULD call it “language”, but we’d change the meaning of the word “language” by doing so.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

We couldn’t call it “language” if there weren’t boundaries. It would be gibberish.

Or rather, we COULD call it “language”, but we’d change the meaning of the word “language” by doing so.

I think as long as there is some correlation between “information” (using the term loosely here) and some set of expressions (gesture, signals, pattern of flag waving, numerical or alphanumeric sequences,…) I think it could be considered a language without being figurative about it . Even the chemical emissions of bacterial have been labeled as language.