The Current Debate Over Marriage Is One of a Semantical Dilemma

0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.docSame-Sex Marriage in America: An Analysis of the Word Marriage with Reference to American Semantics The current debate over marriage in America is one of a semantical dilemma, with the issue being the approbation of the word marriage with consideration to sexual orientation. If a homosexual couple wishes to officially and legally join in a union, does the word marriage, which in the past has been solely heterosexual, appropriately describe that union, or is a separate word necessary? In regards to this issue, it is vital that one take into account that language is not concrete, but represents the conquest of abstraction(Breal 81), and therefore is dependent on the current state of a society to determine the significance of a word (Potter 107). It is also important to realize that the denotation, the direct explicit meaning of a word, shapes the meaning of a word, but the connotation solidifies it, and is customarily what society uses to define a word. Two words that were created to represent the same concept in denotation will eventually develop two different connotations when used in context (Potter 108). Therefore to create a separate word for marriage to represent homosexual unions would create a separate connotation, one not necessarily synonymous with marriage. The connotation of a word can vary from society to society, and within a society, with each individual. Variables in the formation of a meaning include, though are not limited to, the situation in which the word was learned and/or experienced, the space in time (the influence of current events), and the background of which the word was acquired (Schlauch 116). The connotation of a word largely influences the meaning and its significance in society, and commonly becomes the reference point used in redefining a word to match societal views. When forming the connotation of a word, history gives1 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc the necessary precision that is needed to understand a word (Breal 111). With reference to the history of marriage in America, marriage is understood to be solely heterosexual, though not limited in other aspects, such as race, social status, religion etc (though at different points in history one or all of this factors limited the choice of a marriage partner). As society’s view of homosexuality changes, the language used to define relationships must reflect such changes in order for the language to remain relevant. Due to the volatile nature of language, it is unlikely that a word’s connotation is the same has it has been in years past, or will continue to be the same in years to come.For example, for the greater part of marriage in American history interracial couples were not allowed to marry. The law banning such unions and the (then current) connotation of marriage as a union between a man and a woman of the same race reflected the sentiments of society regarding race at the time. Up until 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that is was unlawful for states to restrict interracial couples from marrying, many states had laws contrary to the ruling (Wolfson 87). At the time of the ruling, the Civil Rights Movement was at its strongest, causing Americans to reevaluate their stance on race and equality, and in turn, Americans became more accepting of the inclusion of interracial couples in the definition of marriage, and language reflected the change. Much like the Civil Rights Movement did, the Gay RightsMovement is currently forcing Americans to reexamine their views on marriage equality for homosexuals, with the majority in favor of the inclusion of homosexuals in the word marriage (Lahey 134).The current views of society are what determine the meaning of a word, which in turn forces other institutions (religions, government, etc.) to follow the progression of the2 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc language. The current connotation of marriage has changed from that of a religious context to one of a public declaration of love and commitment, with many meanings in between (Schlauch 117). All of the past and current connotations of marriage have coincided with societal views, none of which have threatened the institution of marriage itself, but simply kept the institution’s connotation relevant to society’s needs and views.Language grows and changes along with the people who use it, and the word marriage is not immune to such progression. The application of the word marriage to homosexual unions, from a linguistical perspective, is part of the progressive nature of language. As society changes, so does the semantics of their language (Schlauch 117). As is evident with the overturning of anti-sodomy laws in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court ruling, homosexuality is becoming more accepted in American society, and is therefore necessary to reflect such changes with the inclusion of homosexuals in the language. To deny homosexuals inclusion in the definition of the word marriage, especially as public opinion of homosexuality becomes more positive, would threaten the present denotation of marriage. Many opposed to homosexual marriage feel that if homosexuals are included in the definition of marriage, then the word marriage will be dishonored.Words are dishonored when they are assigned to things which are dishonorable, but society has shown that the majority do not find homosexuality to be negative, and therefore it is safe to assume that the inclusion of homosexuals in marriage would not dishonor marriage, but solely expand the meaning of it (Breal 101). Conversely, if society chooses to exclude homosexuals from marriage, especially as more and more are becoming more accepting of homosexuality, they risk discrediting marriage. If the language used to describe official unions does not reflect America’s3 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc growing acceptance of homosexuality, the word marriage is in risk of becoming connotated as disgraceful. The refusal of the inclusion in the definition of marriage to a group that society has for the most part accepted suggests that marriage is not a necessary union or is a discriminatory one, and therefore, a disgraceful union. This thought could cause a drastic shift in the connotation of marriage from a union of love and commitment to that of an entirely separate, negative connotation. A word like marriage is especially in danger of such a change, since words that refer to the relations of the sexes are especially prone to change in meaning, from a reputable one to a disreputable one (Breal 103). Assigning a separate but equal term to homosexual unions is a not a possibility.With regards to the fact that a word is nothing more than a symbol used to represent an abstract notion (Breal 29), it is impossible for two different words to have the same connotation in society, despite their denotation. When considering the use of a separate word to represent homosexual unions, it is necessary to regard each word as a separate symbol, and realize that each symbol will carry a different connotation. In the case of the word marriage, a separate word to represent homosexual unions would create a separate institution. The creation of a new institution for homosexual unions only would create risks similar to those mentioned in the previous paragraph to the institution of marriage. As is the case with all words, the meaning reflects society’s need to express an abstraction. Eventually a word will begin to posses a meaning similar to that of society’s connotation (Schlauch 117). Much like the multitude of words used to name homosexuals (gay, faggot, pansy, etc.) all carry different meanings, the instation of a separate word to describe homosexual unions will carry a separate meaning than that of the word used to describe heterosexual unions. 4 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.docIf given separate terms, homosexual and heterosexual unions would begin as synonyms, but given the fact that it is impossible for two words to posses the same connotation, they would become two separate institutions, eventually developing separate values, beliefs, rituals, etc (Schlauch 114). While the laws of language allow for one word to possess many connotations, it does not allow for two words to possess the same connotation, since in language the existence of absolutely identical terms is not possible(Breal 28). The possibility of equality in language is only feasible if the same word is used. In limiting the definition of marriage to heterosexual unions, while at the same time recognizing homosexual unions with a different term, a gap in the language used to describe relationships is created, because the language is being forced to ignore changes in society, and therefore does not accurately represent societal views (Trudgill 100).Marriage carries a connotation of full dignity and inclusion, especially since marriage inAmerica is now considered a choice, an institution that one is accepted into (Wolfson134). The denial of marriage to homosexuals sends the message that homosexuals are not accepted in society. The use of any word other than marriage to characterize homosexual unions, while legally may be equal, inherently is different in connotation (Wolfson 135).For marriage equality to become a reality, it is necessary for the word marriage to be non- exclusive.The use of a word other than marriage for homosexual unions would be creating a pejorative reference to homosexual unions. The pejorative tendency is the result of the human disposition’s inclination to veil, attenuate, disguise ideas which it finds disagreeable, wounding, or repulsive (Breal 100). Considering that the creation of a word to represent homosexual unions suggests that homosexuality is accepted, it is essential5 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc that the word marriage is used, or society is creating an institution that will segregate homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. The word marriage has thousands of connotations, including ones pertinent to homosexuality (Wolfson 3). Marriage is almost impossible to define, due to society’s multi-faceted concepts of marriage, and the fact that language is incomplete and inaccurate. It is incomplete because language is constantly evolving and consequently inaccurate because the nature of language makes it impossible to fully describe an abstract notion that suits all of society (Breal 172). For every connotation of marriage there exists another that is just as appropriate. To restrict the meaning of marriage to heterosexuals is an incorrect use of language, because it would deny the natural progression of language. So many connotations of marriage are able to coexist due to the ever-changing nature of semantics.With regards to the fact that a word is a symbol used to represent an abstract notion (Breal 171), it is impossible for two different words to have the same connotation in society, despite its denotation. As is the case with all words, the meaning reflects society’s need to express an abstraction in a concrete manner (Breal 78). Eventually a word will begin to posses a meaning similar to that of society’s connotation (Schlauch117). Two words that begin as synonyms, that can be used interchangeably, will develop their own distinct connotations. Known as the law of differentiation, the belief is that the interpretation of language does not allow for identical terms, and eventually all words develop connotations that stand on their own (Breal 28). It also states that to deny that identical terms do not exist creates useless and possibly dangerous synonymy (Breal 28).Change in a society is reflected in the synchronic evolution of its semantics. Marriage,6 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc which was once thought of as a religious ceremony, has come to represent a contract of commitment between two consenting (heterosexual) adults, showing that the connotation of marriage has changed along with society. Words are nothing more than abstract notions that a society deemed necessary to make concrete, thus allowing the abstraction to become visible and tangible (Breal 81).At the time of the conception of the word marriage, society felt the need to create a word to describe a dedicated relationship that could be made official in a public sense (Wolfson3). With regards to the fact that when a word is applied to a group of objects or ideas, which in some respect resemble one another, naturally it becomes restricted to just one object or idea (Potter 107). Marriage, which in denotation applies to all sexual orientations, currently possesses the restrictive connotation of a heterosexual union representative of a choice to make a public commitment. While language is naturally restrictive, it is important to keep in mind that language is not fixed, with the semantics of a language ever changing. Semantic development is gradual, with the prejudices, preoccupations, and interests prevailing over others in the community of speakers (Schlauch 117). The semantics of a society tend to demonstrate the social tendencies of the group; thus if a society believes that homosexuals should be offered the opportunity to participate in an official union, a separate word would not be needed, for the word marriage would be symbolic of all official unions (Potter 107). The use of a separate word would suggest that homosexual and heterosexual unions are two separate entities and should be regarded as such, thus creating useless synonymy (Breal 28). 7 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.docMuch like the multitude of words used to name homosexuals (gay, queer, pansy, etc.) all carry different meanings, which are largely influenced by the history of the word, the instating of a separate word to describe homosexual unions will carry a separate meaning than that of the word used to describe heterosexual unions, because of the circumstances in which it was created. An alternate to the word marriage would represent toleration of homosexuality, with full recognition of an individual’s civil rights, but would create a connotation just short of acceptance (Wolfson 134). The inclusion of all sexual orientations in the definition of marriage would indicate that society had reversed all previous judgements of homosexuality, and now connotated the marriage of homosexuals with the same reverence as heterosexual marriages (Wolfson 134). America has yet to legally/officially define marriage as “the union between a man and a woman,” but socially has designated marriage to be just that. It has been suggested by certain politicians and groups opposed to the inclusion of homosexuals into the definition of marriage that marriage should legally be defined (in America) as an official union between a man and a woman, and that a separate term, equal in all legal aspects, should be designated to official homosexual unions. The reasoning being that while the word marriage may lack a specific sexuality, it has come to represent heterosexuality inAmerican society, and to expand the meaning to include homosexual unions would discredit the current meaning of marriage (Wolfson 125). To restrict the meaning of marriage to that of a heterosexual connotation creates a greater risk to marriage than the inclusion of homosexuals in the word marriage. For a new word to represent homosexual unions, it first needs to be associated with some kindred sense (marriage), which in turn society will then arrange according to their own8 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc ideas (Breal 29). While the two words to describe homosexual and heterosexual unions may begin as synonyms, they will eventual take on different meanings of their own(Breal 27). The application of a word other than marriage to describe homosexual unions would eventually be unable to be used indiscriminately with the word marriage (Breal27). The differentiation of homosexual and heterosexual unions would have many possible ramifications. The biggest issue that would result from the use of separate terms for homosexual and heterosexual unions would be the exclusion of homosexuals from laws regarding marriage and all things pertinent to it. In 1987, in the case of Turner v. Safley, theAmerican Supreme Court defined marriage in legal terms. The justices outlined four attributes of marriage: the first being that marriage represents the opportunity to make a public statement of commitment. Second, marriage for many has an important religious/spiritual dimension. Third, marriage offers the prospect of consummation of a relationship. At lastly, marriage allows for tangible and intangible protections (Wolfson8). The creation of a separate word to represent homosexual unions would not be included in the above mentioned guidelines of marriage, since it only defines marriage, and not a substituted word for marriage that represents homosexual unions, thus heterosexual unions and homosexual unions would not be synonyms. This would allow for discrimination based on sexuality, because homosexual unions would not be protected by marriage laws. A major reason for the incorporation homosexuals into the definition of marriage is that all protections guaranteed when entering an official union use the word marriage exclusively, thus homosexual unions would not necessarily be guaranteed9 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc the same spousal rights, which could lead to the possible denial of next of kin rights, inheritance rights, exclusion from the tax bracket that favors married couples, and a number of other rights and privileges that one is granted when entering into a marriage. A choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of homosexual couples to second-class citizens, and would create a synonym that is dangerous to the rights of homosexual couples (Wolfson 123). The importance of the word marriage applying to all sexual orientations is so great, if for the sole reason of the certainty of homosexual couples being protected and/or included in the law. A less obvious problem that could arise from the designation of two separate terms for marriage dependent of sexuality, is the invention, for all extents and purposes, of a separate language, which would divide those on each side. Just as many African-Americans have rejected the terms colored and Negro, which were the accepted terms for many years, in favor of the politically neutral black, and even more recently the conception of the politically correct term African-American, there is no guarantee that homosexuals will readily accept a term assigned to them by heterosexuals (Michaels237). The application of a word other than marriage for homosexual unions suggests that the two institutions, which represent two sexualities, created by (heterosexual) society should be considered different, which risks the possibility of alienating homosexuals from the very institution that is supposed to be theirs, and on a lesser scale, alienating heterosexuals and homosexuals from each other, much like today. Since semantics are not fixed, society has no way of predicting in which direction the language will change (Potter 107). If a separate word is adopted for homosexual unions, and the majority of homosexuals feel that this word was created only as a10 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc compromise in the marriage debate and does not accept them as first class citizens, it is unlikely that the word will be accepted throughout the gay community. Many homosexuals would feel that they are still not accepted by society, and the fact that they could not be a part of the same union as heterosexuals would only serve as a reminder.In the past the homosexuals have altered the terms in which they identify their sexuality in an attempt to limit the influence that heterosexuals have on their language and relationships, since homosexuality was not an accepted part of society, and also to safely identify one’s self as homosexual without notifying heterosexuals to one’s sexuality. In casual situations, homosexual is thought of to have a textbook medical ring, queer is considered to be derogatory, and faggot is considered to be a word that heterosexuals use in a pejorative sense (Michaels 238). Gay is the acceptable term used when identifying one’s self as homosexual. In addition to the many terms homosexuals use to identify themselves, what could be considered a “gay vernacular” has come to exist. At a time when homosexuality was considered to be taboo, a private language was a practical method in finding another homosexual without asking outright one’s sexual orientation (Michaels 245). Terms such as “chicken” (teenage boys), “seafood” (sailors), and “Miss Me” (a reference to one’s self) have become outdated, as homosexuals are allowed to participate openly in what is for the most part a heterosexual society, and in the process adopted what could be called a “heterosexual talk” (Michaels 245). Some in opposition to the inclusion of homosexuals into marriage have falsely claimed that since homosexuals have their own “language,” that it is only natural that they have a different term for their unions (Michaels 244). Nowadays it is common for11 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc homosexuals to refer to their relationships in a language and manner similar to heterosexuals. The language homosexuals use in reference to their relationships matches that of heterosexuals. A homosexual man will refer to his significant other as his boyfriend or husband, and a homosexual woman will refer to her significant other as her girlfriend or wife. It is mainly heterosexuals who change the language used to describe homosexual relationships, with terms such as life partner. Society for the most part tolerates homosexuality, but the majority of heterosexuals have yet to adjust their language to reflect such. In associating terms solely with homosexuals, a precedent that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are different is set.To say that homosexuals have entirely abandon the “gay vernacular” is false.Many terms that were once almost exclusively used by homosexuals have become a normal part of sexual, heterosexual conversation. In the past, when homosexuality was rather hidden, words such as “head trip” (sexually aggressive fantasies), “S&M” (sado- masochism), and “rough stuff” were reserved strictly for homosexuals (Michaels 245).But as homosexuals have adopted heterosexual diction, heterosexuals have begun to view the “homosexual vernacular” as a part of language that they to can use (in context). As seen in recent years, the merging of homosexual and heterosexual terms have created a language that is not associated with a specific sexuality, but is inclusive to all sexual orientations (except for the term marriage). Society’s willingness to allow language to progress so quickly shows that they will only become more open to language that is inclusive to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is only natural that the word marriage be included in this progression. Many homosexuals (and some heterosexuals) now use the term marriage when referring to describe a homosexual couple who has12 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc identified themselves as such. A semantical shift for marriage has already begun; society has already shown that they are open to the idea of homosexuals being permitted to participate in a union of some sort, and the language that once divided homosexuals and heterosexuals has all but been broken down. To create a separate word for homosexual unions would deny the changes that language experiences naturally (Potter 107).Eventually a term will develop that includes all sexualities, since language is always evolving to fit society. As society becomes more and more accepting, it will ultimately have to make a decision as to whether or not marriage will be the all-inclusive word for official unions. Works CitedBreal, Michel. Semantics. Trans. Mrs. Henry Cust. New York: Dover Publications, INC, 1964. 13 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.docDeutscher, Guy. The Unfolding of Language. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2005. Lahey, Kathleen Ann. Same-sex marriage : The Personal and the Political. Toronto : Insomniac Press, 2004.Michaels, Leonard and Christopher Ricks. The State of the Language. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980. Potter, Simeon. Our Language. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1966. Schlauch, Margaret. The Gift of Language. New York: Dover Publications, INC, 1955. Sullivan, Andrew. Same-sex Marriage: Pro and Con: A Reader. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.Trudgill, Peter. Sociolinguistics. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.Wolfson, Evan. Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004. 14

The Current Debate Over Marriage Is One of a Semantical Dilemma

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support