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.

[Colvin]

I'm not saying I will get married the very first day it is possible, but if I can't because my boyfriend is playing a male Roegadyn instead of a female, I'll be really disappointed in them.

I don't know if you have been reading, but we have kind of moved from a should they/shouldn't they to how they can implement the system so that it is properly inclusive without having to come to some kind of moral epiphany as a business.

[Colvin]

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.

I'm guessing you didnt read the post to which this was response, but the post specifically talked about the definition of marriage as it is stated today and it's origins as a basis for an arguement as to why it holds meaning. That is the part I was setting straight. There is no point in having conversations about who is and isnt a proper linguist without realizing that today, dictionaries are still the central reference point to "meaning". You can certainly change the meaning of any word in any context for your personal uses and no one would consider you wrong.

It seems that at the end you agree with me regardless at the end, though, so that's good.

[Twiddle]

I don't know if you have been reading, but we have kind of moved from a should they/shouldn't they to how they can implement the system so that it is properly inclusive without having to come to some kind of moral epiphany as a business.

This is my 2c and feel free to throw the flame buckets... But it would sound well if SE called it a partner ship or a union of sorts. For all cases be it of same gender or other wise, that way they would not be in hot water "politically".. Idea being to not step on any toes. Meaning the word marriage should not be used.

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.

I couldn't agree more!

[EnkiOro]

I don't know if you have been reading, but we have kind of moved from a should they/shouldn't they to how they can implement the system so that it is properly inclusive without having to come to some kind of moral epiphany as a business.

When people argue semantics means there's little to argue about. I honestly don't give a damn what they call it, as long as they use the same word for both unions and hold the same meaning.

Also so far I've only seen a couple of you arguing the word itself, versus the hundreds of posts like mine, showing my support for SSM. Not sure why my post was special, but thanks for the attention!

[Nix]

This is my 2c and feel free to throw the flame buckets... But it would sound well if SE called it a partner ship or a union of sorts. For all cases be it of same gender or other wise, that way they would not be in hot water "politically".. Idea being to not step on any toes. Meaning the word marriage should not be used.

We've gone over that idea a bunch in this thread and it went down really well, so don't worry, you can unequip that flame shield! Though if there's a name change, it should be the same across the board. Would be much safer to abolish the term 'marriage' altogether.

[odintius]

Here my theory, there a reason why there so many different types of religions out there and their stance on marriage is somewhat the same, it because each was started to fit their own particular ideology for their type of religion. Don't like what another religion rules are start a new religion to fit your ideology and then preach and try to recruit others to your particular religion one for example that is new scientology. Instead there people out there who want to cram their views down other people throats to conform to their ideology many different types of groups are guilty of this.
When you have so many different stances of philosophy of religion or beliefs etc. out there it will always bring conflicts/wars with others. That also true when people try to force another groups to change their views or beliefs to conform to their beliefs. This battle of ideas have being going on since are beginning of are brief existence as a species. When you have so many of those battling out which is the correct belief or whatever the end result is never a good thing for anybody history repeats itself and it usually is a bloody one. I don’t think as a species sure are technology have advance and stuff but as a people we still make the same mistakes over and over.
I know not so much on topic but something I’ve been thinking about recently and this is not meant to try to make people upset btw.

[Twiddle]

I fully agree that a new term should be used when referring to the emotions, feelings, love 2 people have for each other regardless of the gender. As the word marriage (like stated above) is a term used to "bond" 2 people of opposite genders together for means of procreation and (like stated above) many times be it in past or present the ritual of said word is done do to necessity than actual love between 2 people.

Thing is and this is the hard part the term used needs to be "new". As union, bond, partner ship, exe, are far to closely intertwined with the word marriage. In the last 10 years i have been to ~50 weddings, and soon will attend my own (none of which are, were SS). And nearly all terms we are using now are used when 2 people speak vows.

[Colvin]

When people argue semantics means there's little to argue about. I honestly don't give a damn what they call it, as long as they use the same word for both unions and hold the same meaning.

Also so far I've only seen a couple of you arguing the word itself, versus the hundreds of posts like mine, showing my support for SSM. Not sure why my post was special, but thanks for the attention!

And all the people who happen to be in the forums right now who agree with same sex marriage is great, but down-playing the talk of a real-world solution as applied to a pan-socilological issue is inflamatory, rude, and frankly counter-productive to the solution process.

[Colvin]

Thing is and this is the hard part the term used needs to be "new". As union, bond, partner ship, exe, are far to closely intertwined with the word marriage. In the last 10 years i have been to ~50 weddings, and soon will attend my own (none of which are, were SS). And nearly all terms we are using now are used when 2 people speak vows.

I agree that it is difficult but I think that this kind of thinking is really the way forward to both sides both in game and out. It has to start somewhere!