What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
–
William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (1597)
Image credit: Michael Kobayashi CC BY-SA 3.0
As expected of
complex situations, the homosexual marriage debate contains a number of
interesting semantic issues:
Re: “Marriage is between a man and a woman by definition”
Language evolves
continuously. Claiming that “mail is written on paper and sent through the
postal system by definition” does not constitute an argument against legalised
electronic mail. Calling Adenium obesum “desert rose,” even
though it is not a “true rose” of genus Rosa,
does not negatively affect other roses.
Re: “I support traditional marriage”
This is a euphemism
for “I am against homosexual marriage” and propagates the myth that legalised
homosexual marriage somehow negatively affects heterosexual marriage. I support traditional marriage and wish
that one day I might have a traditional marriage of my own. In addition (rather than “in subtraction”), I support homosexual marriage for those who wish
it.
Re: “Allow civil unions, but don’t call it marriage”
People with such
sentiments should therefore be satisfied by “homosexual marriiage” instead of
“homosexual marriage.” However, practical problems arise, such as being forced
to reveal one’s orientation due to ticking “marriied” instead of “married” when
filling a form. The absurdity of the literal “one iota of difference” aside,
the importance of nominative (versus denotative) equality should not be
overlooked. Suppose all people are called “humans,” except for Chinese people
who are called “chings.” “Humans” have “human rights” and “chings” have “ching
rights” such that the two are equal. Despite denotative equality, it is
understandable for Chinese people to find this arrangement offensive.
Re: “My activism against homosexual marriage
does not mean I am a bigot or that I hate homosexual people. In fact, I have
homosexual friends.”
If I
say that “medical practice should be illegal, not that I hate medical
practitioners, for I have medical practitioner friends” in absence of any
logically defensible reason, it is understandable for medical practitioners to nevertheless
feel hated, regardless of whether I actually have such hatred. What is given
may not be what is received. If one continually sends roses with good
intentions, yet the recipient is allergic to roses, the onus to resolve this
unfortunate situation falls upon the sender.
