Marriage feedback [inofficial Poll]

[Wynn]

I feel I should point out that the Oxford and webster dictionaries actually define marriage as a union between a "husband" and "wife", and then go on to specifically call a "husband" and "wife" as a "man or woman (respectively) in the state of marriage or matrimony"

for quick reference you can look here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage?s=t

Take notice of the fact that it includes a sub-term "gay marriage" as a "similar institution" between 2 people of the same sex. Most people don't realize this, but in most dictionaries, contexts, and societies, Marriage is in fact defined as heterosexual in nature (That is not to say that widespead opinion shouldnt change this fact).

In terms of the origins of the word "Marriage", It was created between 1250–1300 AD during the middle ages as referenced to the Middle English mariage of different spelling.

So actually Marriage has always been between a Man and a Woman and is in many circles considered a type of slang when used with same sex relationships. I'm not putting a judgement here, I am simply stating why I think we all get hung up on the idea of changing the meaning of the word Marriage when we really should just stop using that term to describe something it traditionally isnt (Even if we want it to). It is a bit like deciding you are just going to start calling a hamburger a hot dog because they both contain meat.

What we should really do is come up with a term, other than marriage, that best describes a relationship between two individuals based on love (since that is what people defend as their need to call it a marriage). I mean honestly, there is nothing in the definition of marriage that says ANYTHING about love and if you know anything about history it has CERTAINLY been an optional component.

While you are correct on what the specificity of today's definition means, it did not mean so when the word first became used. The etymological origin of marriage, as it entered the English language in the 1300s was simply to enter into wedlock. It was derived from the Latin word maritare which applied not only to people, but animals, foods, or anything else that could be brought or mixed together with an implication of permanence. One can argue there was an implied understanding that it was between man and woman, but no facts exist to support either side. We can't know if English speakers at that time even took that idea into consideration. They probably didn't. What we do know is that in ancient times, as well as today, you can "marry" sexless, inanimate objects together such as food. There is no real precedent to say that gender in inherent to the meaning of the word itself, just one idea (a current, and admittedly longstanding, idea) on one facet of the meaning of the word.

Any linguist worth his or her salt will tell you that language is far from permanent and that words are defined by current usage, not their etymology. Language is mutable and constantly evolving. When change in meaning happens it tends to happen rapidly, whether it be change in scope or complete transmutation, and those who write dictionaries are always playing catch up to update definitions. If the majority of society chooses to expand the current understanding of what we mean when we say marriage, consciously or unconsciously, it will happen regardless of any kind of resistance that might present itself. Consensus in usage trumps all and dictionaries ultimately serve to reflect usage, not the other way around.

The bottom line is that while we can certainly open a dictionary and say "this is the word's meaning," we can't point to a dictionary and say "see this is what it says so it can't ever mean this other thing" because that isn't how language works. What is written in the Oxford Dictionary could change tomorrow, if the common usage determines it must.

None of this is relevant to XIV of course and I am also among those who agree that this feature should be called something else entirely.