By any other name

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.