I think a topic that rarely gets attention in the concerns of the average philosopher is language, and specifically the importance and consequences of semantics. "The importance of semantics" might be interpreted as some sort of oxymoron, ironically due to the semantic debate on how "semantics" is perceived in the vernacular. When one says "semantics", usually one thinks of an endless debate of futility and triviality. On the contrary I think semantics, that is, the study of linguistic development and the changes of the meaning of words, is an omnirelative factor in the establishment of true understanding. How we define words inevitably sets the tone of debate, and is an omnirelative factor in the shaping of public policy.

One such mainstream semantic debate is over the word "marriage", and whether the meaning behind this word encompasses unions beyond the originally perceived prerequisite of the two parties of a man and woman. I think an honest discourse on the semantics of this word is truly an important step in the formation of public policy regarding gay marriage. What we need to first do is to analyze exactly how language evolves, and exactly how a word in particular can change meaning and significance in the vernacular, and lastly how our dictionaries and public policies should reflect this vernacular (or even at all).

First, it is my contention that language evolves from the bottom-up. In other words, the language dictates the dictionary, rather than the dictionary dictating the language. A language is a communication tool; specifically an agreed upon system of rules and laws as to make the gaps of linguistic subjectivity minimal. This subjectivity is especially so in the context of abstraction. That is, rudimentary language was developed for a very specific evolutionary purpose of survival; 'tiger' and 'snake' are useful tools in both the survival of the species and in the management of hunting tactics. With cultural evolution, also came linguistic evolution. In which order the former and latter came in the processes of evolution is irrelevant to the topic at hand, all we need to know is that there is some sort of connection between the two. However, abstract language has an inherent level of subjectivity built into its very premise. As opposed to rudimentary language, when an abstract word like "love", "friendship", or in this case "marriage", the word is concocted from the speakers specific set of memories and conceptions of the word, and enter the ears of the listener who then connects it with his/her own very different set of memories, conceptions, and even subjective consciousness that associates the meaning with the word.

The idea of a language is an attempt at minimizing the gap of subjectivity of linguistic abstractions. The language (dictionary), is thus an attempt at expressing not a top-down approach (dictating) of language but a mere representation of a vernacular that best bridges the gap of subjectivity. In simpler terms, the definition of a given word is merely how it is perceived and used in the contemporary vernacular. As the vernacular evolves, so the dictionary is rewritten and definitions are reformed.

In the issue of gay marriage we need to trace the evolution of the word marriage and, more importantly, analyze the meaning that is perceived by the contemporary vernacular. Most people agree that gay couples deserve equal rights under the law as their heterosexual counterparts. The primary source of contention is behind the semantics of "marriage" (gay marriage vs. civil unions). A contention that seems to have no weight whatsoever, however, is that the word marriage in some sense has an objective and intrinsic value to its nature. That is, there is an argument that has no force whatsoever in the gay marriage debate, that the word marriage means one thing, and has always meant the same exact thing. On the contrary, at any given point in time, the meaning of "marriage" seemed to always be in a state of transition.

Before, marriage was largely seen as an economic institution. It was a union between man and woman, not necessarily in love but to fulfill economic and diplomatic extensions between families. Many young lovebirds at that time had the radical idea of "redefining" the word "marriage" to encompass true love, as opposed to a predetermined economic and diplomatic pact. We have all heard the stories, Romeo and Juliet perhaps the original, of this deviant group of young men and women rebelling against the existing institutions (usually their families) in rejecting their predetermined marriages to run away with the loves of their lives. As with any challenge to accepted norms, it was met with a reactionary hostility. Eventually, though, the vernacular encompassed love as the meaning behind marriage. Marriage was redefined.

Today, we seem to be finding another rebellion against accepted norms and values. This time, it is coming from the homosexuals. The contention is that marriage is now perceived in the contemporary vernacular to encompass two individuals in a symbolic union of love. More specifically, it is to be defined as 'the union of two lovers'. As opposed to, 'the union of a man and a woman in love'. Does the vernacular reflect this? Perhaps that is the job of lexicographers, not philosophers, to find out. But does it make sense to refuse to call the union of two lovers a marriage? We find that, under the current (or as the gay community contends, the former) definition of marriage, it is an inevitable consequence that we must reject calling, even in our minds, the idea that 'two lovers uniting' is a marriage. It follows:

1. Marriage is the union of a heterosexual couple in love.
2. A homosexual couple see each other as the one they love
3. A homosexual couple in love unite.
4. Thus, two lovers have united.
5. However, according to premise 1, this union is not marriage.
6. Therefore, two lovers uniting is not marriage.

If this strikes you as highly semantic, then my intention has come across. The point is that it is an exercise in semantics. Likewise, if the conclusion (6) does not seem right to your consciousness, then it may be said that the vernacular has evolved, and the semantics of "marriage" has changed once again. If you found the conclusion (6), that "two lovers uniting is not marriage" to somehow ring wrong, then vernacular of the word marriage has been changed to be perceived as "the union of two lovers"; therefore we must encompass all couples, heterosexual and homosexual, within the context of marriage.

I'm just gonna C@P how those "semantics" can get twisted in the same way you are doing.

1. Marriage is the union of a heterosexual couple in love.

2. A homosexual/incestuous/pedophillic couple see each other as the one they love

3. A homosexual/incestuous/pedophillic couple in love unite.

4. Thus, two lovers have united.

5. However, according to premise 1, this union is not marriage.

6. Therefore, two lovers uniting is not marriage.

Since there are already human arrangements that are forbidden, trying to limit your argument to suit your needs with no support is disingenuous. There are many arguments attached to this subject. Are humans supposed to be monogamous in the first place? Why are some people NOT heterosexual? Are all the variations of human sexuality intended or are they hormonal/genetic errors? We can go on and on. There are MANY different examples of societies that have "accepted" all variations of sexual orientation. In our society, many of us don't feel that the homosexual union is one and the same as the heterosexual one just merely because "two people love each other". That's simplifies a situation to it's very core, and doesn't come close to addressing the characteristics that separate them.

Marriage has been being redefined since the first exchange of a goat for another man's daughter happened.

Gays having the right to be married is simply the latest in a long string of evolutionary redefinitions.

That which does not evolve will stagnate and rot. And - at a 50% failure rate - 'marriage' has already started smelling pretty badly.

And, the old "gay couples are not the same as straight couples" argument is tired and boring. Nobody said they were the same thing. Just as man is not the same thing as a woman - but they are equal; just as a black man is not the same as a white man - but they are equal; just as a mixed race marriage is not the same as a same race marriage - but they are equal; so is a gay marriage and a straight marriage - not the same thing, but equal...and should be treated as such.

From the little I've read (granted, my interest in such things is limited), most activity of a sexual nature between adults and children is instigated by straight men ... meaning, of course, that pedophilia has MUCH MUCH MUCH more common with hetrosexuality than homsexuality. Of course, bringing up illegal and harmful acts in such a discussion is obfuscation at it's most insidious - but, I address it because I know that it's fxashun's favorite topic.

But "marriage" has never included same sex unions. In all of my reading on the subject, I have never read where any civilization couldn't tell the difference and didn't recognize it as different.

A mixed race marriage IS the same as any other marriage. There is no difference in any way. If you are gonna make a big deal about race, you have to first verify the lineage of each participant because very few people know exactly what genes they carry. It seems that in the early U.S. all "white" people weren't created alike or equal...
On arrival in America
Italian Americans and Race
I wonder how that panned out at marriage time?
When "white people" couldn't even keep from being racist toward each other, black folk herded off ships as cattle didn't have a chance..

But "male and female" is pretty much a no brainer to suss out. And the homosexual union only resembles the heterosexual one in that there are two humans involved. After that, the similarities become a lot more vague. And the "equal" qualities become much more faint.

I don't understand how pedophilia has more in common with heterosexuality than homosexuality. Could you clarify that unsupported statement. I think that using bodily organs that aren't yet ready or biologically indicated for sex, sterility, and worldwide/specieswide aversion favors pedophilia being more similar to homosexuality...Not the homosexual person of course, we aren't talking about individuals here, but a perversion of the instinctual urge to partner. No matter how many individuals attack children of the same or opposite sex, the condition of being a pedophile is sterile and physiologically inappropriate. But I admit I could be wrong.

If pedophilia is my favorite topic then racial differences is yours. Does that make your comparison more valid than mine in any way? Or does that make mine any worse? I don't understand what you are trying to say by making that statement. Especially when you don't substantiate it with anything.

We are debating our points here, not each other. Personal attacks seem to be initiated by one side though. And very crude ones at that.

Since the vast overwhelming majority of child molestation/abuse cases are the result of actions by adult heterosexual males, it obviously has more in common with heterosexuality than homosexuality.


Understand now?

No. That doesn't mean that it has more in common with heterosexuality, that means that there are more heterosexual people in the world. There are more heterosexual bank robbers, doctors, rapists, race car drivers, and pretty much anything else. We aren't talking about individuals though, we are talking about the instinctual urge to partner. And pedo has more in common with homo than hetero.

yes
and the instinctual urge to partner with children is almost exclusively the domain of adult heterosexual men

Actually the instintual urge to partner with children is almost exclusively the domain of men...period. In fact paraphilia and fetishism is overrepresented in men. Even with homosexuality, it seems to effect men more than women...
Paraphilias: Sexuality: Merck Manual Home Edition
Most people with paraphilias are men, and many have more than one type of paraphilia.

Composite U.S. Demographics
Referring to the Laumann study, the gay rights coalition stated that in the United States 2.8% of males age 18 or older, and 1.4% of females age 18 or older are homosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual. We have applied their figures to the 2003 U.S. population (284,800,000 total population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau). 0.9% of women identify themselves as lesbians (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.32% of total U.S. population being lesbians. 2 percent of men identify themselves as gay (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.7% of total U.S. population being gay men.

Therapy for Pedophilia: "I Hate My Desires - They Make Me Sick" - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
And the numbers don't pan out...
Reliable surveys indicate that 8.6 percent of all girls and 2.8 percent of all boys are sexually abused. If the population and incidences were as indicated by population, the number of boys should be much much lower.
This is an excellent article by the way.


So again, with identified heterosexuals being a vast majority of the population, nearly any statistic will favor them. Except AIDS in most developed nations of course, but that's a different debate. And even there, men are over represented.

Yes, your analysis of my little thought experiment is correct. In retrospect perhaps I should have tagged on the qualifier "consenting adults" to every definition. But perhaps you have shown that my assumption of the integrity of this website was adequate enough as to take it for granted that we were talking about consenting adults was wrong. I don't think it is a defensible position to claim that the vernacular now contains non-consenting parties within the context of marriage. Clearly, you missed the point.

These subjects are irrelevant, not only to the topic at hand, but perhaps even in the gay marriage debate. Perhaps if you are able to tie these subjects into the semantics of the word marriage then you might have a point. Any alleged telos of love and/or sexual attraction in general seems to be irrelevant to the strictly legal and semantic debate of whether to tag "marriage" onto a homosexual union.

I think this expresses your entire misunderstanding of the intention of my original post here. Of course marriage hasn't included same sex unions in the past. The point is that language evolves, and meanings change. What we're trying to find out is if the vernacular's perceived meaning is at the point of adequacy as to change the official definition of marriage to encompass same-sex marriages. We must engage in semantics because the debate on whether to call same-sex unions a marriage is entirely semantic. The intention of this thread is to present a philosophical and lexicographical approach to the semantics of this debate, as it's my intention that such an undertaking is how this debate will eventually be solved.