Thursday, June 2, 2011

In Defense of Marriage

While this is not a new topic, it is still one that interests me.  Let me begin by saying that I am not at all against the government or businesses conferring benefits and recognition to same sex couples, and I am against discrimination against couples or individuals for their sexual orientation. 

However, there continues to be a push to “redefine” marriage, as though changing a definition somehow changes the condition of various groups of people or alters the facts of a situation.  This is simply not the case.  Consider the following examples:

1.     Either O.J. Simpson killed Nichole Simpson or he did not.  The status of this fact, yes he did or no he did not, is absolute, one way or the other, not open to one’s beliefs.  However, respectable people have differing opinions as to whether OJ committed the crime.  If OJ committed the crime, then those who believe he did are correct in their beliefs, and those who believe he did not commit the crime are wrong in their beliefs.  The first group would be called, “individuals who believe OJ killed Nichole.”  The second group would be called, “individuals who do not believe OJ killed Nichole.”  These two groups cannot be called by the same name, unless you ascribe to them a meaningless title such as “individuals who believe one way or another about whether OJ killed Nichole.”  The reason the name is meaningless is that it provides no information about the beliefs of the members of the group.

2.     Since its inception, then, the name “Christian” has been a name ascribed to individuals who believe that Christ was and is the son of God.  All other beliefs fall under the category of individuals who do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, and all these beliefs can be categorized under the title “Non Christian.”  The combination of all possible beliefs we can call “Belief Systems.”   The universe of “Belief Systems” is made up of the union of the two groups, “Christian and Non Christian,” and can be described as “Those who believe that Christ was and is the son of God and those who do not believe that Christ was and is the son of God.”  While one can change the definition of the name Christian to mean “Those who believe in the deity of Jesus Christ and those who do not,” those who do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ will not have achieved the conceptual status of those who believe in the deity of Jesus Christ by changing the definition.  Instead, as in the case of OJ’s guilt, we have simply arrived at a meaningless title.  We have not changed the conceptual basis of what “Christian” is; we have simply lost the use of the word previously used to describe that concept.  Where one word formerly had meaning, we must now qualify its use to achieve context, as in “Christians who believe in the deity of Jesus Christ,” or “Christians who do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.”  As a result, the word “Christian” has been stripped of its meaning.

The term “Marriage” has been a name ascribed to “the union of one man and one woman.”  Other possible groupings have always existed, in the realm of ideas or in actuality, but such groupings are not ascribed the name “Marriage.”  For this discussion we will call these alternative groupings “Alternative Groupings,” and define them as “the union of other than one man and one woman.”  The combination of all possible groupings, marriages and alternative groupings, we can assign the same name, namely “Unions.”  While one can accommodate other possible unions by changing the definition of the name marriage, these unions do not then become marriage, instead, since “Unions” has now been replaced by the word “Marriages,” we must come up with a new name for the union of one man and one woman to replace the name that was redefined.  So changing the definition of a name does not change the conceptual grouping of individuals in that category.  Instead, it simply confuses the meaning of the name, and requires a new name to represent the concept formerly represented by the old name. 

Unions other than those between one man and one woman do not achieve the conceptual status of a union between one man and one woman by changing the definition of a term.  Instead, as in the case of OJ’s guilt or belief in the deity of Christ, we simply arrive at a meaningless title.  In this case, marriage would come to mean “the union of one man and one woman or the union of other than one man and one woman.”  We have not changed the conceptual basis of what “marriage” is; we have simply lost the use of the word previously used to describe that concept.  Where one word formerly had a meaning, we now must qualify its use to achieve context, as in “marriage of one man and one woman,” or “marriage of other than one man and one woman.”  As a result, the word “marriage” has been stripped of its meaning.

The desire of marriage redefinition supporters is to redefine the meaning of the word “Marriage” to become “the union of one man and one woman or the union of other than one man and one woman.”  While they would likely divide the group of individuals including “the union of other than one man and one woman” into different subgroups, some combination of subsets of that group would now find themselves in the new “Marriage” group, while others, such as the union of a man and two women or of a woman and a child, would presumably be excluded from the “Marriage” group, though, as is currently the situation, they would still belong to “the union of other than one man and one woman.”  Now, among individuals who adopt this new definition of “Marriage,” not only do certain groupings represent “Marriage involving the union of other than one man and one woman,” but, anyone who fails to adopt his new definition is “narrow, self-serving, naïve and not worthy of serious consideration.”  As a result, the word “Marriage” has undergone two definition changes.  In the first step, “Marriage” changes from “the union of one man and one woman” to “the union of one man and one woman or the union of other than one man and one woman.”  In the second step, the definition has changed to “the union of other than one man and one woman or the union of those who are narrow, self-serving, naïve and not worthy of serious consideration.” 

As the word “Marriage” has now lost its meaning under this definition change, I would now have to classify myself not merely as “Married,” but as “Married, narrow, self-serving, naïve and not worthy of serious consideration.”  In this respect I would maintain my conceptual identity as “an individual who believes in marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” as opposed to “an individual who believes in marriage as the union of one man and one woman or other than one man and one woman,” even though both groups now fall under the new meaning of “Marriage.” Perhaps those in support of the change could propose names for the two sub-groups of the new “Marriage” term.  I assume they would lean along the lines of “Marriage” for those represented by “the union of other than one man and one woman,” and “Bigot” for those represented by “the union of one man and one woman.”  If such is the case, I will be proud to be a “Bigot,” and to remain faithfully married to the one woman who has been my wife for 23 years.

The ultimate issue is that words have meaning, and in many cases that meaning is important.  For example, the word "gay" has been adopted by a minority of the population at large to mean “homosexual.”  Any other use of that word offends many of the individuals who refer to themselves as “gay.”  For example, if a teenager observes a friend doing something out of the ordinary, and remarks, “That’s so gay,” one is expected to reprimand the teen as being insensitive (or even homophobic).  One can be certain that if a radio host remarked of the actions of a politician, actor or sports team that, “That’s so gay,” the radio host would be suspended or fired immediately with apologies from the management and the host, and several days worth of television coverage on the topic.  I’m not saying this wrong.  I am saying that a minority of the population ascribes a certain meaning to the word “gay,” and they want to protect and defend the meaning of this word as it applies to them. At the same time, a majority of the population ascribes a certain meaning to the word “marriage,” and that meaning is “the union of one man and one woman.” This majority wants to protect and defend the meaning of this word as it applies to them. 

Now, for some reason in the current arena of political correctness, when a minority group defines a word as positive or negative, acceptable or unacceptable, or possessing a certain meaning, the majority must fall in line or be labeled as insensitive, prejudiced, mean or phobic.  Yet, when a majority group defines a word as possessing a certain meaning, even when they are simply defending the meaning the word has traditionally carried, they are again judged as insensitive, prejudiced, mean or phobic.  How can it be that in all cases the desires and whims of the minority trump the desires and traditions of the majority?

Marriage” means “the union of one man and one woman.”  Let those who want rights, recognition and benefits of other types of unions pursue those goals, and I, personally, support such equality and freedom from fear and prejudice in the work force and in society.  But let the word “marriage” retain its meaning, and let the majority of people who understand and define marriage to be “the union of one man and one woman” enjoy the same agreements and protections of that definition as do the individuals who refer to themselves as “gay.”

3 comments:

  1. So IMO the real trouble started when the people allowed the state to get involved in marriage either authorizing or licensing it. I also don't get where the Federal Government thinks it derives any right in the Constitution to have any say over marriage. I refer to the IX and X Amendments. The Legislature, the Executive, and the Court have all over reached their authority. Wasn't in Jefferson that said you need a Revolution every couple hundred years to keep the government in check...I'm sure I'm paraphrasing. We are about 35 years overdue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve, well said. The Constitution specifically reserves jurisdiction over marriage to the states - it is one of those few items specifically spelled out as being a state, not Federal, matter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Therefore OJ must be gay? Brilliant? I must admit I always had my suspicions but your finally nailed it!

    ReplyDelete