Wee Scoops

Measure for Measure

Don’t think of it as losing a nuance, think of it as gaining an adjective

Gay marriage: the debate wearies me.

It’s all semantics as far as I can see.

Currently, in the dictionary, “marriage” is man/woman. The gender is inherent in the word. The word denotes the male/female heterosexuality of the relationship. “Marriage” just is male/female.

But why?

Well, the dictionary lists what words mean. And words mean what we mean when we use them. So for years, people use the word “marriage” to mean the current dictionary definition.

But the definition is changing. When homosexual couples get married, I mean (in the UK currently), form a civil partnership, people will say that they are married. This then means that the word “marriage” is losing its heterosexual nuance.

It’s just like the actor thing. Years ago, you got actors and actresses – and if there was an actor, he’d be male. If it was an actress, she’s be female. Then, they all became actors and the word actor lost its gender-specific nuance.

But perhaps we shouldn’t worry about lost nuances?

Immediately I am thrown into the middle of Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four” again and the slippery slope of Newspeak. As Syme puts it:

“In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.”

The thoughtcrime that society is trying to eradicate is the thought that gay marriage is not equal to marriage. Or should I say heterosexual marriage. By denoting both relationships as “marriage” then the gender nuance is lost, “rubbed out and forgotten”.

But, when actresses became actors, and casting directors were looking for someone to fill a part, they would then be looking for however many male actors and however many female actors… so the internal nuance inherent in the word was turned into an external adjective, so that the nuance, if needed, could still be expressed in words.

So, if gay marriage becomes marriage, marriage as in today’s dictionary becomes heterosexual marriage. Until both become marriage – when, when the majority of people use the word “marriage”, they are not being gender specific with the utterance.

But, will the use of gender-specific adjectives be thoughtcrime, I wonder…?


Single Post Navigation

4 thoughts on “Don’t think of it as losing a nuance, think of it as gaining an adjective

  1. I appreciate your weariness with the entire gay marriage debate. Eventually marriage will be as you said, just a word for marriage. I’m fine with that.:)

  2. Long ago, when a marriage was gay, it was a happy, friendly marriage.

    I always thought of the word “actor” as being gender neutral, and the word “actress” as being specific, just as the Bible addresses “brethren” and gives specific utterance also to women.
    In fact, the word “woman”, itself, means “a man with a womb”.
    When all mankind figures this out, what a DAY!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: