I have a difficult time standing extremes of arguments. They result in far biases that make no one want to listen to what they are saying without really underlining the important truths of what is really being discussed. What is the point of an argument if the essence of the thing is lost? I do not claim to have no bias. In fact, I am very biased by my own view of the world. But here is what I think.
Gay marriage: This is all I have to say about it. Love is universal. No one would deny that and if they did, they have a really messed up view of the world. Even history tells us that love is experienced by all people. History and the human condition have also established that people are different in many ways, but at their heart, people continue to be people. Having a certain set of “rare genes” or a certain belief system does not change the essential humanity of anyone. It is not for us to tell people what they must believe or what they must do. The human spirit will always rebel against such oppression and it should.
I don’t care what you think about gays and lesbians. It is irrelevant. They are people - humans like the rest of us. They are different, but that does not make them any less human, any less insecure, any less special, any less a gift to this world, any less able to love.
People can debate the meaning of “marriage,” but at the end of the day it comes down to whether one will accept the humanity of someone who is different from themselves. Not the meaning of words, nor the place of tradition, nor any interpretation of any religious text. It does not matter. Everything comes down to what one person will allow another to do and what rights they give themselves.
4 comments:
That's a good point. In the debate about gay marriage, it often does come down determining a clear definition of marriage, which many persons would argue is "a union between a man and a woman". It has been made an issue of defining words. Like the liquor episode in Locke (and I love liquor), politicians will have to set their terms before they can make any decisions.
Similarly, a lot of the arguments between pro-choice and pro-life groups concern the nature of abortion. Is it an abortion if a fertilized egg is unable to implant in the womb due to the effects of the Pill? Is it an abortion if the sperm is prohibited from reaching the egg at all? Opposing parties use the loopholes and vague areas in language to make their arguments. Given that, though, I think if everything were clearly defined and people could no longer base their disagreements on the uncertain meaning of words, they would simply find another way to argue.
You definitely have a point there. Richards and Ogden even identify this. They talk about wartime use of language and also about how the Greeks lost control of their language after the Pelopenisian war (Richards, 1277-1278). I think the instability of words as symbols, or even symbols as a means of expression always allows for the manipulation of communication.
Great example to everyday life! While I agree with you, and do also agree that it is as simple as one's definition of marriage, I also have to wonder about the referents not only of "marriage" but of any union in general. Some extreme anti-gay marriage groups are also in opposition to "civil unions". When you look at those two words, they would not seem to apply a loving relationship. However, modern society has internalized in us this meaning....so does this mean that took an indirectly connected symbol and referent and made it a definite connection? After all, the problem between these "black and white" issues, is that either side fails to see any other way. So do they have such a strong connection between symbol and referent that they are unable to see anything else? Is this a weak or strong aspect of language?
I think you have it there. The fallibility of the symbol-to-referent connection is, I think, the primary fault of language. I think instead of being a weak or strong aspect of language, it is more like a gauge of how exact things are. If either side sees only its own side, then neither of the two understand the whole and neither will be able to effectively use the word to transmit their ideas around the rest of the triangle. It's similar to when Locke says "where the signification of a word and the real essence of the thing are not exactly the same" (Locke, 818).
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.