Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
If you go here you will see how this dictionary decides how to add, change and redefine words. One of the things they do is is search for, "new usages of existing words." They modify the definition of words all the time. There is no difference here. It still does not devalue it because the definition itself has no real value.
If we decide to have carriages defined as an automobile then you could look at three automobiles parked in a lot. One is a carriage. One is a brand new Ferrari and one is a beat up Honda Accord. You can say, by definition, "These are all automobiles." By saying that are you giving any value to any of them? No. There are a million factors that determine the value of an automobile. If you are looking to buy a Ford Mustang you aren't going to just call the first add in the paper for a car for sale and buy that car because it is technically an automobile. You would ask them what kind of car it is and ask other things about it.
The same goes with marriage. There is no value to saying someone is married. It is just a word that defines their arrangement. It doesn't give any value to their marriage.
Clearly, however, it appears that I won't be able to convince you of this.
I'm curious. Do you support civil unions? Is it just the use of the word marriage that you are hung up on or do you think that gay people shouldn't be allowed civil unions as well? |
I understand what you are saying, that if some man is married to a woman and says "I am married" it is the same marriage as before wrong definition was added. I understand this point, but its not the point I am arguing.
My point bellow:
Regarding honda, ferrari and carriage, it devalues word "automobile" in such a way:
Now automobile is something from honda to ferrari. And after it would be from carriage to ferrari - broadens the interval by including something worse than a honda.
So by saying "someone is married" now you won't be able to tell if he/she is actually married or not (because NOT marriage would be called marriage as well).
Meaning that saying "I am married" now carries less weight (=devalued) because it could mean that person is actually married and also could mean that person is using wrong definition.
And yes I support union and even same union rights. I just disagree with adding wrong definition to existing word. New word would have made sense. For example "garriage". Garried and married people would have same civil union rights.
Another vivid example - lets say someone discovers new type of berries. They would not call them blueberries or cranberries just because they taste as good. They would create new word for it.
Yes I support civil unions and same rights. I merely do not agree on using wrong definition.