[Lexicog] When Words Lose Meaning

[Benjamin Barrett]

I'm sorry, but I disagree in the extreme with your statement.

Various major religions define and have defined marriage in many  
different ways, and it is not merely religions that define what  
marriage is (e.g., France, Germany, Turkey, where the religious  
ceremony has no legal meaning). Take Buddhism, for example, many sects  
of which recognize same-sex marriage. Another example is Christianity,  
many sects of which also recognize same-sex marriage. AFAIK same-sex  
marriage has been happening for several hundred years (I believe at  
least 1000) within Christianity. Before that, same-sex marriage  
occurred in ancient Rome, though I do not know if religion was  
involved. The interval is difficult because there are not many records.

In North America, where I do not believe religion has traditionally  
been involved in marriage, same-sex marriage was traditionally common,  
though same-gendered marriage was not accepted. I don't know much  
about same-sex marriage in North America and it isn't well documented,  
but same-sex marriage is a well known phenomenon there.

I'm not sure what you mean by same-sex unions. This is a  
lexicographical issue, perhaps. Surely the peasants of Europe did not  
all get married in churches before modern times. Are those the people  
you mean to include by "same-sex unions"?

Today, of course, same-sex marriages are recognized by many religions  
and governments (Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa, etc.)

As a footnote, AFAIK there are ZERO religions that insist on a  
marriage being between two people capable of having children. Barring  
post-menopausal women or people physically incapable of having  
children can not be wed is surely not a requirement in any religion.  
That, however, is probably a matter of religion, not of lexicography. BB

On May 17, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Fritz Goerling wrote:

>
> Not to my – certainly limited - knowledge, Benjamin. All major  
> religions. although having somewhat differing understandings of  
> marriage, recognize that marriage involves the union of the two  
> complementary sexes in a relationship that normally is for  
> childbearing and childrearing.
>
> Whether it is legitimate to refer to same-sex unions as ‘marriage’  
> is debated and certainly not widely accepted.
>
>
>
> Fritz Goerling
>
>
>
> Benjamin Barrett wrote:
>
> Marriage has been known to encompass same-sex couples for at least  
> 2000 years, though lexicographers did not reflect that fact in their  
> dictionaries.
>
>
>
> In modern times, dictionaries have recognized the word marriage as  
> including same-sex couples for the last decade give or take a few  
> years. Many same-sex couples have used the word marriage to refer to  
> their situation for years before that, regardless of their legal  
> status or whether dictionaries recognized it. Lexicographically,  
> nothing happened inCalifornia as laws recognizing same-sex marriage  
> were already present in other countries. BB
>
>
>
> On May 17, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Fritz Goerling wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Right - the “nemesis.” What do lexicographers do with youthful  
> unorthodox uses of words like “wicked” or “bad” to mean “good/cool”  
> which usually go out of fashion soon?” Slang dictionaries? Or what  
> to do with the recent judicial redefinition of marriage by the  
> Supreme Court inCalifornia?
>
> Fritz Goerling
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20080517/cff25ea6/attachment.htm>