Voting on Semantics
There was an election a couple of days ago. I’m sure you noticed. I mean, you all voted, right? … Right?
Assuming you said yes, and assuming that you voted someplace in South Carolina, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and/or Wisconsin, you might have noticed an innocuous little amendment concerning the proper definition of the word “marriage.”
Right-wingers have been fighting homosexuals for years. They fear a series of homosexual events starting with gay marriage and ending with the gay collapse of society. Here’s a detailed breakdown:
- Marriage of gay people.
- ???
- Collapse of society.
Okay, so a lot of liberals complain that step two has yet to be rigidly defined, but I mean, c’mon. That’s nitpicking. Stop dwelling on it.
Strangely enough, the right-wingers have had difficulty making their case to non-right-wingers. Religious arguments fail because, well, the founding fathers stupidly put an amendment in the Constitution creating a Separation of Church and State. Good one, founding fathers! This would have been so much easier if you guys hadn’t had the idiotic notion that people of different beliefs should receive equal treatment. Bastards!
Moral arguments, on the other hand, fail because, well, some reasonable people fail to see the moral dilemma. Gay people get married and, shock and horror, not-gay people go on about their everyday, not-gay lives as usual. Doesn’t actually seem to hurt anyone.
Legal arguments go nowhere. Without religion and moral crises, there seems little basis to justify the passing of an actual law.
But right-wingers are a clever lot, always on the lookout for loopholes. Take creationism. Can’t teach it in the classroom? No problem. Call it “Intelligent Design,” pretend it’s a science, and have another go at it. It’s not religion anymore. It’s a science. Based on … You know, scientific sciences and junk. So, it’s okay to teach in public schools now, Right?
So how to halt this dreadful “attack” on marriage? Easy. If an effective argument can’t be made on a religious, moral, or legal level, then modify it into an issue about … Vocabulary!
That’s right. They’re no longer trying to persecute gay people. They’re not forcing their own religious opinions onto the public at large. No, now they’re simply protecting the definition of the word from being altered. It isn’t that they’re hateful toward homosexuals, its just that homosexuality is technically incompatible with the word “marriage.”
Its all about the lexicography, baby!
And, no, it is not at all ironic that President Bush, of all people, is suddenly really concerned about the nation’s grammar. He has good reason, after all. You can’t have people going around changing the definitions of words willy-nilly. I mean … Ignore the fact that the definition of the word marriage varies wildly from place to place and culture to culture–not to mention that even within our society it depends greatly on what dictionary you happen to be looking at in the first place–it’s still … Y’know … Important and stuff. Old definitions are better. They should never change. With this in mind, I would like to reiterate a previously-voiced desire that we should all go back to using the word “faggot” to talk about bundles of sticks. It’s only fair.
But why stop, there? I say we take the language way back, and go all Canterbury Tales, man. I can’t wait for the amendment to change the spelling of “field” back to “feeld”!
On a non-satirical postscript for any homosexuals who happen to be reading: I’m very sorry that the so-called “marriage amendment” passed in my state. For what it’s worth, I voted against it. I did my part, man! So, I dunno … Maybe you need better marketing?
Anyway, better luck next time there’s an amendment targeting your people.
Yay! Of course, Michigan voted in their definition amendment last time round. And ours goes so far as to ban any “marriage-like” arrangements. Now it is actually illegal to offer medical insurance to same-sex partners because that is just too damn marriage-like.
Legislating dictionary definitions is an awesome idea. We need to legally restrict anyone from modifying the word “mysanthrope.”
Yeah, ours bans arrangements similar to marriage, as well. Next thing you know, two men won’t be able to live in the same house together. After all, who knows what they might get up to if they’re alone together for too long!
Legislating language would be a boon to those who keep complaining that kids these days use weird slang words like “groovy” and “far out” and “bad” when they really mean good. It’s high time the evolution of language was stopped in its tracks.
Heck, maybe even going back to The Canterbury Tales isn’t far enough. We should go all the way back to expressing ourselves in grunts and moans. If it can’t be expressed in a grunt, then it’s probably not worth expressing.
It would make legalese easier to understand, anyway. “Arr, grr, huh-urr,” is far more understandable than most modern EULAs.
marrow-bone: A bone containing edible marrow.
I didn’t know marrow was edible!
Thanks again Safe T!
Grugha murgy fuggy. Prachtosharghle bargle, sha-sha-sha-CRUNK! Taggahuhur jahthththt.
Please type “I Agree” in the space provided to indicate your assent to this EULA.
B-Hip:Have we been talking about bone marrow in my sleep again?
Hippo: If you read the definition closely, it says that marrowbone contains edible marrow. Presumably, this doesn’t apply to marrow found elsewhere … But if you find it to be tasty and nutritious, let me know.
SafeT: Yep. That makes every bit as much sense as the last EULA I agreed to.
I like marrow, but not the bone kind. they can be stuffed so that the marrow is on the outside. A kind of anti-bone.
We should demand a Constitutional Amendment banning the edible use of marrow!
That was a really good post. this is the kind of stuff you should be writting to the editor of your paper about. other people should see it besides a bunch of smart-ass bloggers that can’t be serious for 1 second.
< ---(note the smiley face, just kidding guys) I get the same thing when i put up a though provoking post *sigh*
Seriously, the scary thing is that it’s true. That’s the ultimate in thought control wasn’t that one of the themes in the book “1984″ by George Orwell?
There are more and more major similarities to 1984 every damn day. The scariest ones for me are
1) the deconstruction of the english language (like text messaging and l33t speak)
2) and hategoats (formerly known as scapegoats) like Emmanuel Goldstein IS Osama Bin Laden, or Hugo Chaves or Saddam…
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”- Ben Franklin, I think he was referring to the state London is in right now.
Hippo: Yeah, let’s picket our respective courthouses! I’m going to make signs that say, “Straight and narrow! Don’t eat marrow!” It doesn’t make any sense, but it rhymes, which is the most important part of any slogan.
l>t: Unfortunately, I’m not sure a particular lot of people in my area would find any of this particularly enlightening. I live in a very conservative area of a very conservative state, where even a lot of the people who call themselves Democrats have strongly-held religious beliefs regarding homosexuality. Sadly, one isn’t particularly likely to convince anyone else to change their opinions one way or the other. I feel like I’ve thought mine out over the course of several years, and I don’t expect to change my mind because someone reads me a Bible passage. And the people who base their entire lives on those Bible passages aren’t likely to suddenly see the error of their ways. When presented with unquestionable evidence that one’s belief system is wrong, the typical reaction is for the belief-holder to refute the irrefutable in the only way he/she knows how: by calling the other person a fuck fucking fucker. Swearing doesn’t particularly help, but it makes the swearer feel better about themselves. People don’t give up sacred beliefs very easily. The reason people spend so much time preaching to the choir is that they’re the only ones who’ll listen.
And, look at me, I’m rambling. Anyway, what I was going to say is that I actually work for my local paper (with a bunch of religious women I don’t particularly discuss a lot of politics with–I do have to work with these people, after all), and there’s a policy in place preventing employees from writing letters to the editor (possible conflicts of interest, and all that), so I couldn’t really do that if I wanted to.
Pity more people don’t, though, because some of the religion-themed stuff people send us churns my stomach.
Okay, that’s enough ranting. This is pretty long for a comment. But if you’ve made it this far and still want to hear more, you can always read some of my other long-winded posts on religion and homosexuality.
Jagd: I was re-reading 1984 a couple of months ago, and started to wonder whether President Bush had ever read it, and if he did, would he be able to see to shockingly obvious parallels between his government and the one of Orwell’s book.
Granted, I’m sure the parallels were already there in Orwell’s time, otherwise he never would have felt the need to write the thing, but it is frightening to see how much 1984‘s world has in common with our own.
I don’t know what’s more frightening;
He’s read it
or
He hasn’t read it
or
He can read
or He can’t read…
Arth:On 1984- the thing that shocks is that we always think of the past as “of course that was then. We’d never let that sort of thing happen now“. When we learn exactly how much shit doesn’t really change, it can be quite sobering. It is for this sort of reason that I lose hope in humanity. That’s where L>T has an advantage over me. She’s a secular humanist who has an unshakable belief in the improvability of mankind.
Jagd: Even Bush’s best friends have said he is not what you’d call “intellectually curious”. (That’s code for: he’s not too bright, and he’s happy to stay that way)
Arth again:When I was in my early twenties I was a conservative Lutheran fellow. Disapproved of homosexuals, voted for Bob Dole, even listened to *shudder* Rush Limbaugh a few times. It took me a handful of years to shake that off. People can change. But they need to take the first step and start seeing differences not as faults, but just differences that might be understandable. You fuck, fucking fucker. (which is, oddly enough, a compliment in my book, stud!)
Well I take offense to your post sir. I’m a conservative, a right-winger and I am looking for no “Loopholes” as you call them.
Personally I am split on the issue of Gay Marriage. Yes, I consider myself a Christian and I believe that homosexuality is sinful. But I also believe that the Gay community has a point in that it is between two adults and one of the things that makes America great is you can live just about as sinful as you want. As a true conservative would say, what you do in your bedroom is your business, just leave me out of it.
I also see the side of the argument that there has to be a line in the sand someplace as to what is marriage and what is not. What comes next? Brothers and Sisters that want to marry? People who want to marry their Siberian husky? Marry their furniture?
There is the MBLA (Man Boy Love Association). A group of men that feel they should be able to have sex with young boys. Their augment is that some of the great minds of history have done it (Plato, Da Vinci) so they should too. You may say, “That’s ridiculous!! That’s not 2 adults!” You would be correct. And they would then label you as “INTOLERANT” and “CLOSE MINDED!!”
Just be careful when throwing around Names and Labels Joe. You might be next!
Jagd: Whatever Bush’s mental shortcomings may be, he does, apparently, read from time to time. A little while back, he was quoted as saying that he’d just finished a Camus, on the recommendation of his wife. I have yet to hear any quotes on whether he understood it or not.
SafeT: There are generally two annoying viewpoints on the past. As you mentioned, that it’s the past and that things are so much better now in every way imaginable. There is, of course, a lot we have leftover from the past and a lot of problems we’ve yet to sort out. Perhaps even more annoying is the “good ol’ days” outlook, in which everything was just so perfect and hunky-dory that the angels themselves came down from Heaven to walk around on Earth, ‘cuz it was just so much nicer here, and my isn’t it a shame how all these young kids, these days, had to come along and fuck it all up. Truth is, things change sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Things also fail to change for either of those adjectives, as well.
Cynicism certainly isn’t without reason, but things do improve, sometimes. It often takes a while. Lincoln, for example, signed the Emancipation proclamation in the 1860′s. The desegregation movement would follow, but it wasn’t until the 1950′s that it really picked up steam. And, while the nation is, even now, stull suffering leftover aftereffects from that segregated society, I think it’s safe to say that the civil rights movement has made progress.
And, given homosexuality in particular, certainly the country has come a long way towards acceptance. The outspoken right may not provide much evidence in that regard, but the fact that people are actually talking about even the possibility of gay marriage is indication that progress has been made. Fight all we want over the issue, there’s no doubt in my mind that the country will eventually accept the rights of a less traditional couple to be wed. Then only question is when and whether it will be soon enough to make any difference to anyone trying to pave those roads, today.
Change comes. It just takes it’s damn time.
You fuck fucking fucker (in a good way, of course).
Dan: This is, of course, the great thing about the many uses of faggot/fag. One can pile a bunch of faggots on top of each other, then once one has become all fagged out, eat a big, ol’ faggot ball and go smoke a fag.
This, of course, makes the English language totally fagtastic.
… Okay. I made that last one up.
PJ: Just to clear up any confusion, in case there is any, this is actually my post and, aside from a couple of edits here and there, not SafeT’s. We both have a “Joe” in our names, but mine ends in a “y.” So, if it pisses anyone off, I’m the one to get pissed at.
The post is, certainly, based on my own feelings regarding the resistance to gay marriage, but my delusions of grandeur aren’t quite grandiose enough to expect a piece of writing I threw together in a couple of hours to suddenly turn anyone around on the subject. As such, the main goal is to write something humorous. Have I extremified the concept of religious right? Sure. I’m exaggerating for comedic effect. Nothing personal.
Certainly, everyone’s entitled to their own opinions (and you’ve been well-mannered and articulate enough in expressing yours), and that’s fine. So no hard feelings.
If I can touch on your points regarding other non-traditional marriages with my own take, however, I’ll say that yes. Moral or no, what consenting adults engage in that doesn’t harm anyone else is their business and I can’t judge against them for it. Incest, in itself, may fall under the consentual rule, but the no-harm-to-anyone part falls apart when it comes to childbirth, which given intergender intercourse, is a possibility whether the partners plan for it or not. As for huskies, well, they have not the mental nor verbal capacity to consent. Nor does furniture, though it does, presumbably, at least suffer less when sexually exploited. As for the NAMBLA guys … Well, while a child may be technically able, though unlikely, to voice consent, the issue is at what point in one’s mental development one becomes mature enough to actually be able to make an informed decision as to consenting or not. This may be a little open-ended and hard to attach a concrete definition to, as different people mature at different rates. These days, the law generally puts the line at 18, because it’s got to be put somewhere. But, no matter how they try to justify it, I’m sure most of us would agree that eight is too young.
I’ve neither read Camus or understood him, but I hope you guys don’t put me me in the same league as your president…I prefer Abby Hoffman..(others I could list but…)
jeez, well,… i was just coming back here to say, In my little burg people who write letters to the editor of our local paper, are generally considered nuts.
we have three…an old christian lady who whines about the teenagers & how we should be nice to our neighbors & respect the police, blah, blah, blah…
then there is the weirdo that knows how to get things done around here, & this is wrong & that is wrong & he keeps running for city counciel & never gets voted in because we think he’s a nut…
& then there is the really crazy lady who feuds with her neighbors. & whines to us about how she has to call the police on them & they never show up & how come she had to remove the broken downpickup full of trash from her driveway & her neighbors still have an old refrigerator & a broken down couch in their yard?
It’s just not like the days when Ben Franklin was around is it?
See safeT you said it yourself, people can change. there is hope for mankind!
Jagd: That’s okay. I’ve only read Camus because The Stanger was a school assignment. Didn’t particularly care for it at the time, but I re-read it a little while back and realized I can appreciate it a bit more, now.
l>t: Of course, we have nuts in our letters, too. The badly-written ones are the worst, because some of them are really badly written. And it’s a small town, with a small newspaper, so if someone sends a letter, any letter, there’s generally a pretty good chance it’s going to see print. There was one guy who used to bring us letters every now and then that were damn near indecipherable, and one of us would have to figure just what the hell he was trying to say in the first place and reword the letter so it was actually readable.
Finally, we got one that, no matter how hard we studied it, no one could make any sense of, whatsoever. Whatever it was he was trying to say, he was obviously very passionate about! But the word-like things on the paper were complete gibberish. No one could comprehend it, and we weren’t about to run it as is. So, rather than explain to the fellow that his words failed to follow one another in any understandable way, our editor just decided to tell him that paper’s owners didn’t want us to run that sort of thing. Problem solved from our end, though it probably emphasized in his head that what he was saying was hard-hitting and controversial when, in reality … We don’t know what he saying.
arthbard, yep, I get it. so you understand how funny the police reports can be too?
Gays Suck!
I hear they do it well and enjoy it thoroughly.
I’m not particularly pro-marriage but the idea the state can legislate around love between two consenting adults seems somewhat rediculous. When I worked for the Oz House of Reps I saw a federal private members bill introduced that proposed that same sex couples were entitled to superannuation payouts like every other couple in Oz. It’s now 8 years later and everytime it hits the House floor one of the government ministers adjourns the debate. If they can’t even consider debating Super payouts how are they ever going to pass a bill allowing same sex marriage. It will never happen.
Just love the one you’re with. Or in my case, the several different girls who attend to my every need.
l>t: Oh, sure. But, everything becomes funny when it’s 10 at night and you’re trying to meet a deadline.
Rich: The idea of an emotional bond being legislated as a legal institution is rather odd, and a bit silly when you come right down to it–regardless of gender variations. I’ve written on the subject before that if you need a piece of paper to tell you that you’re in love, then you probably aren’t. The crux of the matter, though, is that a government that prides itself on the equality of all people and a separation of Church and State recognizes this union–and the various legal benefits that go along with it–to a certain group of people (regardless of emotional bonds or religious beliefs, I might add) but not to another.
Trackbacks