Succeeding Through Word Manipulation

[Storm Rider]

The problem is, no one that is against gay marriage has been able to explain how it will make anyone "more moral"  if gays are denied marriage.  Will gays become more moral if they are not allowed to marry?  Will hetero couples become "more moral" if gays are not allowed to marry? Do straight couples stop committing adultery and divorce if gays are not allowed to marry?  Certainly you would be worthy of the title "hero" if you actually did something to make the country more moral.  So just what would that be?

The topic is not what it does to a hetero marriage; the issue is what does it say or do about our society and our culture? I don't think allowing gay marriage affects any hetero marriage; that is not the issue. What is the affect on a society or culture. As we have talked before, the gay agenda is not gay marriage, it is acceptance of a broad range of sexuality that traditionally been viewed as unwholesome and impure.

 

This is a very confusing topic. How does the gay community police itself? Should it police itself when the society at large appears to condone all things gay? Is society really ready to see all things gay for what it is? What role does morality have in a society that approves of gay marriage? It does not appear that any of these questions are discussed or thought of when the agenda is limited to gay marriage.   

 

I personally am against gay marriage for the sole reason that marriage is a religious rite. If governments demand to govern relationships then all will need a civil union; governments have no business dictating religious rites.  In addition, governments need to clean up their discriminatory laws regarding civil unions and marriages. There are too many penalties on those couples who are in union. That is my little rant for the day.

[california boy]

Not more moral, more tragic for a variety of reasons -- one it means they have committed to ongoing religiously immoral acts,  two it means that they are investing a lot of themselves in a relationship that has no eternal future and only eternal damage, and three it means they have put a legal obstacle in their path to repentance because in order to repent they will now need to become involved in a divorce proceeding.  On a purely secular and legal basis, I agree with you -- having gays in a committed and long term relationship creates stability in society and helps, like heterosexual unions, to curb the spread of STD's -- but these do not overcome the eternally tragic situation involved in SSM.

Let me comment on your religious points if I may.

 

1.  They have committed an ongoing religiously moral act. 

 

 

That is true whether gay couples are married or not even if they are excommunicated from the church.  The only alternative the church has given gays is to be celibate their entire lives.  We have talked a lot about the ramifications of such a choice.  I think even from a Mormon point of view, it is not a "good" choice, it is just the only choice the church at this point has come up with..  This idea is in direct conflict against the Mormon belief of how we are suppose to spend our time here on earth.  Throughout my life I have heard over the pulpit that "It is not good for man to be alone" and that any single male member of the church is not living his priesthood responsibility if he is putting off marriage.  From the time of Brigham Young, church leaders have been chastising young men for not marrying.  My point is, celibacy is really not an ideal solution to offer gay members.  I think most people would agree with that.

 

 

2.  it means that they are investing a lot of themselves in a relationship that has no eternal future and only eternal damage,

and

3. it means they have put a legal obstacle in their path to repentance because in order to repent they will now need to become involved in a divorce proceeding.

 

 

 

 

Can you say definitively what will happen to gay couples when they die?  If a person has a wife that has no interest in joining the church, following the commandments and being obedient to every law of God, should they divorce them because their marriage will end when they leave this earth life?  My sister is married to a non-member.  He is a good guy, but he has been around the church and is very familiar with Mormon doctrine for 30 years.  He has more than had his chance to accept the gospel.  He has no interest in joining the church.  Should my sister divorce him and hope to find a man that she can be with in the Celestial Kingdom?   Is it better for her also to be celibate?  Since only temple marriage is for eternity, should Mormons advocate that it is pointless for any non temple marriage to take place?  Yes there is hope that after death, a repentance may take place and a couple may be exalted.  But can you say that about EVERY couple?  My point is, even from a Mormon perspective, every marriage does not result in exaltation.

 

And you are right.  On a secular side, gay marriage should be encouraged just as non Mormon marriage shoud be encourage for the same reasons.  Not every marriage is going to end in exaltation.  But that is no reason even from a Mormon doctrine point of view to stop people from marrying.

[wenglund]

Getting back on topic, beside the words "marriage" and "homophobic" and "bigot,"  there are several other words of religious significance that have been manipulated/controlled through the course of the SSM movement. They include:

 

Family: which was once defined as consisting of a father and mother and children, and has now been manipulated to include two fathers and two mothers, thereby also giving somewhat new meaning to the terms father and mother.

 

Spouse: which once referred to a marital partners of the opposite sex, and consisted of a husband and wife, and has now been manipulated to refer to partners of the same sex, thereby also giving somewhat new meaning to the terms husband and wife.

 

Monogamy/Committed/Fidelity: which once referred to sexual/emotional exclusivity with a single married partner, but because of the highly promiscuous nature of the gay culture, is now being manipulated as refering to emotional bonding with open sexual encounters.  In other words, many gay couples have "sex" outside their partnerships (often by mutual agreement) but still consider themselves to be monogamous and committed and true to their partners as long as they remain emotionally bonded exclusively to their partner.  (See HERE and HERE and HERE )

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

The problem is, no one that is against gay marriage has been able to explain how it will make anyone "more moral"  if gays are denied marriage.  Will gays become more moral if they are not allowed to marry?  Will hetero couples become "more moral" if gays are not allowed to marry? Do straight couples stop committing adultery and divorce if gays are not allowed to marry?  Certainly you would be worthy of the title "hero" if you actually did something to make the country more moral.  So just what would that be?

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

Our entire society is at risk from the agenda of gay marriage. Not only is it against God, it is destructive to the family.

[thesometimesaint]

CB:

 

The Church doesn't recommend divorce.

[california boy]

The topic is not what it does to a hetero marriage; the issue is what does it say or do about our society and our culture? I don't think allowing gay marriage affects any hetero marriage; that is not the issue. What is the affect on a society or culture. As we have talked before, the gay agenda is not gay marriage, it is acceptance of a broad range of sexuality that traditionally been viewed as unwholesome and impure.

 

This is a very confusing topic. How does the gay community police itself? Should it police itself when the society at large appears to condone all things gay? Is society really ready to see all things gay for what it is? What role does morality have in a society that approves of gay marriage? It does not appear that any of these questions are discussed or thought of when the agenda is limited to gay marriage.   

 

I personally am against gay marriage for the sole reason that marriage is a religious rite. If governments demand to govern relationships then all will need a civil union; governments have no business dictating religious rites.  In addition, governments need to clean up their discriminatory laws regarding civil unions and marriages. There are too many penalties on those couples who are in union. That is my little rant for the day.

I am not sure what you think the gay community needs to police itself in doing.  Can you explain that?

 

I mostly want to comment on your principle objection you have to gay marriage

I personally am against gay marriage for the sole reason that marriage is a religious rite

 

 

 

I agree that marriage is a religious rite.  But is not ONLY a religious rite.  The history of marriage also being a secular rite goes back just as far as the religious rite.  In fact it is the governments that have given religion the legal statue to this right.  If the government took away the legal ramifications of the religious rite, then in the eyes of the law, any couple married only by their religious leader would still not be married under the laws of the country. There would be no legal benefit to a religious marriage.

 

Gay marriage deals only with the legal rights granted by the state in EXACTLY the same way religious marriage deals only with the legal rights granted by the state and in EXACTLY the same way any marriage by the justice of the peace.  Religions have many rites such as baptism, blessings, etc, but there is NO other religious rite recognized by the state except marriage, which the State has granted.  So it is not religion that grants the legal ramifications of marriage it is the State.  It has always been so.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

Our entire society is at risk from the agenda of gay marriage. Not only is it against God, it is destructive to the family.

 

Please do not the FRC as a source. You would hardly go to a Anti-Mormon site for things concerning Mormons. Don't do it for our homosexual brothers and sisters.

[california boy]

Getting back on topic, beside the words "marriage" and "homophobic" and "bigot,"  there are several other words of religious significance that have been manipulated/controlled through the course of the SSM movement. They include:

 

Family: which was once defined as consisting of a father and mother and children, and has now been manipulated to include two fathers and two mothers, thereby also giving somewhat new meaning to the terms father and mother.

 

Spouse: which once referred to a marital partners of the opposite sex, and consisted of a husband and wife, and has now been manipulated to refer to partners of the same sex, thereby also giving somewhat new meaning to the terms husband and wife.

 

Monogamy/Committed/Fidelity: which once referred to sexual/emotional exclusivity with a single married partner, but because of the highly promiscuous nature of the gay culture, is now being manipulated as refering to emotional bonding with open sexual encounters.  In other words, many gay couples have "sex" outside their partnerships (often by mutual agreement) but still consider themselves to be monogamous and committed and true to their partners as long as they remain emotionally bonded exclusively to their partner.  (See HERE and HERE and HERE )

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So what is your point Wade?  Everyone agrees that the definition of words change over time.

[wenglund]

My post was in response to this statement by Roy

 

 

Wade started this thread trying desperately to pretend that the reason gay marriage is succeeding in this country is because of manipulation of language.  He is trying to pretend that it is through deception or through fooling people by the manipulation of the language as the reason why this has happened.  

 

The truth is, the reason why gay marriage is succeeding is because there are really no legal arguments against it.  We get such silly reasons as "they already have the right to marry," which the majority of people in this country just aren't buying.  It is pretty clear to them that gays have not had the right to marry.  

 

We also get the argument that they are changing the definition of marriage.  Well so what.  As has been pointed out, changing of definitions is a natural evolution of the English language.  If that were not so, we would still be using the same dictionary from the 1800's.  Yet a new dictionary is published every year.  Yes language changes that much.

 

Some try to argue that preventing gays from marrying is a moral fight, yet they fail to explain how stopping gays from marrying makes anyone less moral.  

 

Cdows is right 

 Marriage is that legal relationship.  Gays will still be immoral whether they are married or not. Heterosexuals will still be immoral whether gays are married or not.   It does not change the situation for them or for anyone else.

 

The only argument against gay marriage is a religious belief argument.  The trouble with that argument is you are talking about a churches belief and not a general public belief.  Mormons can believe what they want.  Gay marriage also does not change or force Mormons or any other religion to change their personal beliefs.  It is not a reason to legally prevent gay marriage.

 

No, it is not language manipulation that is the downfall of the discussion of gay marriage.  It is the civil rights of gay Americans that is the reason gay marriage is succeeding.  Americans are very hesitant to deny the civil rights of it's citizens.  And so are the courts.  They have heard the arguments against gay marriage and have dismissed them as not being a strong enough reason to trump a persons civil rights.

 

So you say. However, the inescapable reality is, legal terms like "marriage" and "marriage equality" and "marriage rights" are all dependent upon the definition of "marriage.' The only way to effectively and legally argue for SSM was to alter the meaning of the word "marriage." The arguments wouldn't have made sense otherwise.

 

It is not unlike with the term "women's rights." It is dependent upon the definition of "women." It wouldn't make sense for men to lay legal claim to "women rights" under the current definition of "women." For them to lay legal claim, they would need to change the definition of "women" to include men. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

How do you spell "hero"? Right here-

http://www.frc.org/insight/why-marriage-should-be-privileged-in-public-policy

[jkwilliams]

Getting back on topic, beside the words "marriage" and "homophobic" and "bigot,"  there are several other words of religious significance that have been manipulated/controlled through the course of the SSM movement. They include:

 

Family: which was once defined as consisting of a father and mother and children, and has now been manipulated to include two fathers and two mothers, thereby also giving somewhat new meaning to the terms father and mother.

That's an awfully narrow definition of the word "family." Is a single parent with 5 kids a family, or not? Are brothers and sisters a family if their parents are dead or absent? The nice thing about language is that it tends to accommodate different situations. Whether anyone likes it or not, a gay couple raising a child is a family just as much as a heterosexual couple caring for an elderly parent is also a family.

 

Spouse: which once referred to a marital partners of the opposite sex, and consisted of a husband and wife, and has now been manipulated to refer to partners of the same sex, thereby also giving somewhat new meaning to the terms husband and wife.

Spouse is a gender-neutral term deriving from a Latin word for binding together, such that a spouse is someone legally or religiously bound together with another person. (I always thought it was funny that the Spanish word for spouses is the same as the word for handcuffs, both implying being bound together.) Historically, it's implied but not definitive that the other person is of the opposite gender, but if that implication vanishes, it doesn't materially affect the definition.

 

Monogamy/Committed/Fidelity: which once referred to sexual/emotional exclusivity with a single married partner, but because of the highly promiscuous nature of the gay culture, is now being manipulated as refering to emotional bonding with open sexual encounters.  In other words, many gay couples have "sex" outside their partnerships (often by mutual agreement) but still consider themselves to be monogamous and committed and true to their partners as long as they remain emotionally bonded exclusively to their partner.  (See HERE and HERE and HERE )

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, the word is "monogamish," which is used to describe committed marriages that are not necessarily sexually exclusive. The definition of monogamy as sexually exclusive to a single partner has not changed and isn't likely to change.

Maybe you can come up with some better examples.

[california boy]

So you say. However, the inescapable reality is, legal terms like "marriage" and "marriage equality" and "marriage rights" are all dependent upon the definition of "marriage.' The only way to effectively and legally argue for SSM was to alter the meaning of the word "marriage." The arguments wouldn't have made sense otherwise.

 

It is not unlike with the term "women's rights." It is dependent upon the definition of "women." It wouldn't make sense for men to lay legal claim to "women rights" under the current definition of "women." For them to lay legal claim, they would need to change the definition of "women" to include men. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree.  Is this the only point you are trying to make?  Do you think there are people who disagree with this statement?  Of course we use language to clarify what we mean.  

[Senator]

 

Spouse: which once referred to a marital partners of the opposite sex, and consisted of a husband and wife, and has now been manipulated to refer to partners of the same sex, thereby also giving somewhat new meaning to the terms husband and wife.

 

 

Now that we do have legally recognized married same sex couples in this country, how do the individuals in such marriages refer to their partners?  This is a general question to anyone. 

[thesometimesaint]

The FRC is not example of heroics.

 

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

[wenglund]

So what is your point Wade?  Everyone agrees that the definition of words change over time.

 

If it isn't glaringly obvious from all that I have said, the point is at least two-fold: 1) words are being intentionally manipulated/controlled as a fallacious means of gaining argumentational parity or advantage; and 2) the manipulation of certain words may well be devolutionary (deletarious to society) rather than evolutionary.

 

It should be noted that while much of the discussion has hovered around the SSM movement, my intent for this thread wasn't to re-hash SSM arguments, but to provide examples of word manipulations from across a broad spectrum of religious/political issues, and this as a way of encouraging care and caution and critical thinking in regards to the way language is being used in the marketplace of ideas. It is just that the SSM movement provides a rich treasure trove of examples of fallacious and deleterious word manipulations. Sorry.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Spouse, partner, couple, soul mate, friend, lover, to name a few.

[jkwilliams]

The FRC is not example of heroics.

 

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

If anything, I am grateful that Wade introduced me to the FRC. I hadn't heard much of them before, other than occasionally hearing James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" bits on the radio. What I found there was example after example of dishonest pseudoscholarship, including complete misrepresentation of data (in polite circles we call that lying). I don't have a problem with people speaking up about what they passionately believe, as that's what we should be doing, but there's no excuse for such utter dishonesty.

[jkwilliams]

Spouse, partner, couple, soul mate, friend, lover, to name a few.

When I accepted the job here in Virginia, I posted on Facebook, "It's official. Virginia is for lovers." My daughter said, "Dad! That's disgusting!"

[Stone holm]

Now that we do have legally recognized married same sex couples in this country, how do the individuals in such marriages refer to their partners?  This is a general question to anyone.

 

In Vermont, partner, spouse, wife or husband.  Its not really an issue and there have been any Earth shattering impacts on society.  There seem to be a lot of lesbians for some reason in the farming industry out here which is concentrated on small specialty crops, organic farming, etc.  from my experience they normally just refer to their wife as their partner or companion.  Nobody really pays much attention or cares.

[jkwilliams]

Nobody really pays much attention or cares.

That's the ideal, IMO.

[wenglund]

That's an awfully narrow definition of the word "family." Is a single parent with 5 kids a family, or not? Are brothers and sisters a family if their parents are dead or absent? 

 

Yes. Both of these fit the alleged "narrow" definition. (Note that the "narrow" definition didn't contain a divorce or deceased modifier)

 

The nice thing about language is that it tends to accommodate different situations. Whether anyone likes it or not, a gay couple raising a child is a family just as much as a heterosexual couple caring for an elderly parent is also a family.

 

Again, no one is disputing the accommodating nature of language. Among other things, what is in dispute is whether certain language accommodations are actually "nice" or not. 

 

Spouse is a gender-neutral term deriving from a Latin word for binding together, such that a spouse is someone legally or religiously bound together with another person. (I always thought it was funny that the Spanish word for spouses is the same as the word for handcuffs, both implying being bound together.) Historically, it's implied but not definitive that the other person is of the opposite gender, but if that implication vanishes, it doesn't materially affect the definition.

 

Merrian-Webster defines Spouse as:  "Someone who is married: husband or wife."

 

Historically, then, the opposite sex meaning of Spouse is more than implied. As indicated, it is entailed in the gender-specific definitional terms of "husband" and "wife". Manipulating the word Spouse thus entails also manipulating the terms "husband" and "wife."

Actually, the word is "monogamish," which is used to describe committed marriages that are not necessarily sexually exclusive. The definition of monogamy as sexually exclusive to a single partner has not changed and isn't likely to change.

 

While the word "monogamish" is, itself, a manipulation of the word "monogamy," and is being used as you describe, the word "monogamy" is also likewise being manipulated as I described.

Maybe you can come up with some better examples.

 

The examples suite my purposes well enough--your lame dismissals notwithstanding.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

In Vermont, partner, spouse, wife or husband.  Its not really an issue and there have been any Earth shattering impacts on society.  There seem to be a lot of lesbians for some reason in the farming industry out here which is concentrated on small specialty crops, organic farming, etc.  from my experience they normally just refer to their wife as their partner or companion.  Nobody really pays much attention or cares.

 

Ok. I was simply curious as to whether the terms "wife/husband" were actually being used by SS couples. If not, then that would negate one of Wade's list of terms being manipulated, since other terms are being employed instead.

[Stone holm]

Yes. Both of these fit the alleged "narrow" definition. (Note that the "narrow" definition didn't contain a divorce or deceased modifier)

 

 

 

 

Again, no one is disputing the accommodating nature of language. Among other things, what is in dispute is whether certain language accommodations are actually "nice" or not. 

 

 

 

Merrian-Webster defines Spouse as:  "Someone who is married: husband or wife."

 

Historically, then, the opposite sex meaning of Spouse is more than implied. As indicated, it is entailed in the gender-specific definitional terms of "husband" and "wife". Manipulating the word Spouse thus entails also manipulating the terms "husband" and "wife."

 

 

 

While the word "monogamish" is, itself, a manipulation of the word "monogamy," and is being used as you describe, the word "monogamy" is also likewise being manipulated as I described.

 

 

 

The examples suite my purposes well enough--your lame dismissals notwithstanding.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Wade are you of the opinion that language should somehow be static?  You are entitled to your opinion that language should be static, but the reality is that language is constantly evolving including the how terms are used and what they mean.  There was a recent radio broadcast which noted the change in common parlance in describing people who for one reason or another were not successful in life.  Previously they were referred to as "unfortunates", but now increasingly because of the ever increasing competitiveness of society they are being referred to as "losers."   The English language took a major hit after the Battle of Hastings.  One wit said after George W. Bush's election that he wasn't sure exactly what this meant for the country, but one thing is for certain the English language is going to take a hit.  That's just the way language works, it is constantly changing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Much more to it than that. They need family ties for a number of things, such as permission for medical care, home purchases, taxes and so much more.  And this is from an outsider looking in and lack of understanding of the full picture.  

Ok that could be done other ways. Which in CA they already had in the form of civil unions. So next. And Vance's point is spot on. Will legalizing gay marriage make their marriage more moral? Nope.

[Stone holm]

Ok. I was simply curious as to whether the terms "wife/husband" were actually being used by SS couples. If not, then that would negate one of Wade's list of terms being manipulated, since other terms are being employed instead.

 

They sometimes are.  Its just not that important.  What is important and was noted in one of the Supreme Court opinions I believe, is that they found it was important for the kids to be able to say their parents were "married".  Besides the legal implications, I think that may have been as important as anything else that their kids could say their adoptive parents were married.