Difference between revisions of "Changing the definition of marriage"

Latest revision as of 18:07, 19 April 2014

About

It is often claimed by opponents of gay marriage that allowing individuals to marry others of the same sex would be somehow changing the definition of marriage and that this would be a bad thing due to the importance of marriage in our society and the way marriage works.

This argument is based on two ideas:

The current definition of marriage is the only valid one.
Changing it in any way would be harmful to society.

Analysis

There are two main objections to this:

Marriage has "traditionally" been defined in many different ways. This is true even if we look exclusively at Christian history.
General understanding of the word "marriage" is broad enough to include many variants, even if one particular meaning is the most frequent usage.

an argument

Saying that gay marriage changes the definition of 'marriage' is like saying that self-driving cars will change the definition of 'car'.

If someone makes a different kind of car, that doesn't change the definition of your car any more than someone marrying differently from you affects your marriage.

"Same-sex marriage" (or "gay marriage"), like monogamous heterosexual marriage, is just a subset of the general concept to which the word "marriage" has always referred, regardless of what many current dictionaries might say. There's no widespread confusion about what "same-sex marriage" could possibly mean; everyone -- even those opposed to it -- understands where the two concepts overlap. If this wasn't true, you wouldn't hear its critics calling it "gay marriage"; they'd use some other term -- but they don't. They use the existing words because it's immediately obvious -- from their existing, unmodified definitions -- what it means.

Background

Forms of marriage

Supporters of this argument often claim that the current definition of marriage has been the only one throughout all history.

This claim overlooks a number of things, including the fact that marriage has in fact had many different forms throughout history, even in Western culture, and only arrived at its present Western form (the nuclear family, marriage sanctioned by law, and other details) within the past century or so.

Dozens of societies across many centuries have recognized same-sex marriage. Some of these societies continue to do so.
Even more societies recognize other forms of marriage such as polygamy and polygyny.

see marriage/history

Harm from Changing of Definitions

Even if it were true that allowing "gay marriage" would represent a substantial change in the definition of the word "marriage", no good arguments have been offered for what the nature of this harm might be.

The arguments Issuepedia is currently aware of include:

changed words make older writings difficult for modern readers to understand
no society that has respected gay marriage has survived

The first claim seems like spitting in the wind; definitions change whether you want them to or not. It is also inconsistent to single out "marriage" for preservation when the meanings of many other words and phrases have been inexorably changing. If "changing definitions" are the real concern, shouldn't we be making laws requiring all official documents to use the Queen's English, or perhaps the English of Chaucer?

This argument also assumes that preservation of existing definitions is more important than increasing general happiness.

The second claim is simply false; there are a number of contemporary societies which have respected gay marriage for quite some time. Those societies which have more recently adopted gay marriage show no signs of crumbling, and there is no argument to suggest any mechanism whereby gay marriage might lead to social instability; quite the opposite, in fact.

Links

to file

2012-05-14 Moral decay? Family life's the best it's been for 1,000 years (by George Monbiot
2012-06-25 Marriage and all that entails (by Greg Laden)
2012-06-27 A Maasai Marriage (by Greg Laden)
2012-08-04 What Does The Bible, and History, Tell Us About Marriage? (by Greg Laden)

2014/04/14 [L..T] Alberta PC Caucus approves changing definition of marriage
2013/07/26 [L..T] The Oxford Dictionary Is Changing The Definition Of 'Marriage' To Include Gay Couples "In light of gay marriage being legalized in the UK, the Oxford English Dictionary editors are changing the definition of marriage."
2013/07/17 [L..T] Hacking The World's Dictionaries To Change The Definition Of Marriage "A group of San Francisco activists are trying to change old dictionaries definitions of marriage, by replacing out of date entries wherever they find them."

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 This argument is based on two ideas:
 # The current definition of marriage is the only valid one.
-# Changing it in any way (i.e. broadening it to be more inclusive) would be harmful to society.
+# Changing it in any way would be harmful to society.
+==Analysis==
+There are two main objections to this:
+# Marriage has "traditionally" been [[marriage/history|defined in many different ways]]. This is true even if we look exclusively at Christian history.
+# General understanding of the word "marriage" is broad enough to include many variants, even if one particular meaning is the most frequent usage.
+===an argument===
+Saying that gay marriage changes the definition of 'marriage' is like saying that self-driving cars will change the definition of 'car'.
+If someone makes a different kind of car, that doesn't change the definition of ''your'' car any more than someone marrying differently from you affects your marriage.
+"Same-sex marriage" (or "gay marriage"), like monogamous heterosexual marriage, is just a ''subset'' of the general concept to which the word "marriage" has ''always'' referred, regardless of what many current dictionaries might say. There's no widespread confusion about what "same-sex marriage" could possibly mean; everyone -- even those opposed to it -- understands where the two concepts overlap. If this wasn't true, you wouldn't hear its critics calling it "gay ''marriage''"; they'd use some other term -- but they don't. They use the existing words because it's immediately obvious -- from their existing, unmodified definitions -- what it means.
+==Background==
 ===Forms of marriage===
 Supporters of this argument often claim that the current definition of marriage has been the only one throughout all history.
-This claim overlooks a number of things, including the fact that marriage has in fact had many different forms throughout history, even in [[Western culture]], and only arrived at its present Western form (the [[nuclear family]], marriage sanctioned by law, and other details) within the past century or so.
+This claim overlooks a number of things, including the fact that marriage has in fact had [[marriage/history|many different forms throughout history]], even in [[Western culture]], and only arrived at its present Western form (the [[nuclear family]], marriage sanctioned by law, and other details) within the past century or so.
 * Dozens of societies across many centuries have recognized same-sex marriage. Some of these societies continue to do so.
 * Even more societies recognize other forms of marriage such as polygamy and polygyny.
-* "For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children." - Wikipedia
-* "[Greek and Roman] marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval. Both marriage and divorce could happen by simple mutual agreement." - Wikipedia
+''see [[marriage/history]]''
-* In the US, married women were once prohibited from owning property, and married couples were prohibited from using contraception until 1972. Married women were only allowed credit in their own names in 1975; reversals of these rules represent additional "changes in the definition of marriage", but there has been no corresponding outcry against them.
-====Christian history====
-* The Bible endorses polygamy, incest, and concubinage. Its "definition of marriage" includes a wide variety of options that we rightly consider heinous and unethical today.
-* There were Christian ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" in the 10th and 11th century and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" in the 11th and 12th century. Similar Christian ceremonies were performed in Ireland in the 12th and 13th centuries, Greece in the 13th, Serbia in the 14th. There are records of Christian same sex unions spanning a thousand years, from the 8th to the 18th century. [http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html]
-* It was not until 1563 that witnesses to weddings, including an officiating priest, were required by the Church. [http://rationalreasons.blogspot.com/2005/05/brief-history-of-marriage.html] "Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. ...the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required." - Wikipedia
-'t say anything about same-sex unions.)
 ===Harm from Changing of Definitions===
 Even if it were true that allowing "gay marriage" would represent a substantial change in the definition of the word "marriage", no good arguments have been offered for what the nature of this harm might be.
@@ Line 34: / Line 38: @@
 * no society that has respected gay marriage has survived
-The first claim seems like spitting in the wind; definitions change whether you want them to or not, to attempt to prevent such change is futile regardless and counterproductive when the change in question is one that increases happiness overall.
+The first claim seems like spitting in the wind; definitions change whether you want them to or not. It is also inconsistent to single out "marriage" for preservation when the meanings of many other words and phrases have been inexorably changing. If "changing definitions" are the real concern, shouldn't we be making laws requiring all official documents to use the Queen's English, or perhaps the English of Chaucer?
+This argument also assumes that preservation of existing definitions is more important than increasing general happiness.
 The second claim is simply false; there are a number of contemporary societies which have respected gay marriage for quite some time. Those societies which have more recently adopted gay marriage show no signs of crumbling, and there is no argument to suggest any mechanism whereby gay marriage might lead to social instability; [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/14/family-life-best-for-1000-years quite the opposite], in fact.
@@ Line 43: / Line 49: @@
 * '''2012-06-27''' [[URL/to file::http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/06/27/a-maasai-marriage/|A Maasai Marriage]] (by [[Greg Laden]])
 * '''2012-08-04''' [[URL/to file::http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/08/04/what-does-the-bible-and-history-tell-us-about-marriage/|What Does The Bible, and History, Tell Us About Marriage?]] (by [[Greg Laden]])
+{{links/smw}}