[Lexicog] (Re)Definition of marriage (was: When Words Lose Meaning)

[Benjamin Barrett]

I think this is getting off the topic of lexicography. I will quickly  
respond:

For Buddhism, "marriage" is used in, for example, the SGI sect. In  
general, Buddhism is about self-fulfillment and spirituality, lacking  
the rules and regulations so common in the Abrahamist tradition.

For Christianity, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches 
, where you will find such sects as the Church of Sweden, the United  
Church of Canada and the Mennonite Church in the Netherlands. There  
are also lots and lots of other religions sects such as the Society of  
Friends (Quakers), some of which accept same-sex marriage and others  
which do not.

For Judaism, there are also many sects that recognize same-sex  
marriage. Just the other day, the Supreme Court in Israel ruled that  
same-sex marriages made outside of Israel must be recognized by the  
government so that Jews (in particular) can leave the country, enter  
into a same-sex marriage, and be recognized by the Israeli government.  
(Same-sex marriages as many other religious marriages cannot be  
legally performed within the country, though.)

For Islam, the third Abrahamist religion, I have not looked at and am  
not aware of any such traditions. The acceptance of homosexuality in  
general in the heyday of the Arab world is, though, well known.

For the history of same-sex marriage in Christianity for the past 1000  
(and more) years, see John Boswell's _Same-sex Unions in Premodern  
Europe_. The word same-sex union has to be understood as marriage,  
otherwise you have the bizarre result that opposite-sex couples in  
centuries past who did not marry in a church (or were not recognized  
by their government, etc.) were not married. Catholicism is probably  
unique in actually having saints for same-sex marriage, though the  
Catholic Church does not currently allow it.
-----
The issue at hand is whether there was a lexicographical change in the  
meaning of the word "marriage" most recently (approximately when the  
Netherlands began recognizing same-sex marriage).

While dictionaries have certainly updated their definitions, I believe  
it's still an open question as to whether the word "marriage" should  
be retroactively understood as including same-sex marriages. It seems  
to me that because in North America where same-sex (but not generally  
same-gendered) marriages have traditionally been accepted as well as  
due to other proof, lexicographers should indeed have included same- 
sex marriages as part of the definition of marriage, though their  
corpora may not have supported that because of the powerful stigma  
attached with same-sex sexuality.  BB

On May 17, 2008, at 4:34 PM, Fritz Goerling wrote:

>
> I’m sorry, but I disagree quite a bit with your statements. See for  
> my remarks and questions within your response.
>
>
>
> Fritz Goerling
>
>
>
> BB wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I disagree in the extreme with your statement.
>
>
>
> Various major religions define and have defined marriage in many  
> different ways,
>
>
>
>     I would say in “some” and ”somewhat” different ways.” The three  
> monotheistic religions differ not so much traditionally in their  
> definition of marriage.
>
>
>
> and it is not merely religions that define what marriage is (e.g.,  
> France,Germany, Turkey, where the religious ceremony has no legal  
> meaning).
>
>
>
>     Sure, not only religions define what marriage is.
>
>
>
> Take Buddhism, for example, many sects of which recognize same-sex  
> marriage.
>
>
>
>    Is what you call “same sex MARRIAGE” called “marriage” or how is  
> it being referred to in Buddhism?
>
>
>
> Another example is Christianity, many sects of which also recognize  
> same-sex marriage.
>
>
>
>    Can you mention a few?
>
>
>
> AFAIK same-sex marriage has been happening for several hundred years  
> (I believe at least 1000) within Christianity.
>
>
>
>    To my knowledge what you call “same-sex MARRIAGE” has  
> traditionally not been called “marriage” in Christianity.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/20080517/9476d8c0/attachment.htm>