By contemporary standards, I’m a bit of a word freak. [I say by contemporary standards because by standards of years passed I’d probably be considered barely educated.] Words are the way the best communicate thought. In that regard, English is better than most in that it has an enormous and expressive vocabulary. Just as the experts tell us that most of us use only a small fraction of our brains, most of us use only a small fraction of the power of the English language.
Because the English language is so expressive, there are always multiple ways to express the same basic concept. However, differing word choices have differing connotations and shades of meaning. Given that fact, one way to control a debate and push it in your direction is to control the language being used to express the given arguments. Consider for a moment the marathon blog comment slug-fest that took place here. There are a few uses of language that are worth noting.
The first is the phrase homosexual marriage. I am always careful to avoid this phrase because it implies that homosexuals are denied the right to marry (i.e., that they are discriminated against). This is patently not the case. Homosexuals have exactly the same right to marry as anyone else. They are subject to the same restrictions as heterosexuals; namely, they must marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexual advocates are not interested in this right. It is actually a different right that is being posed: marrying someone of the same sex. This is why I always refer to the issue as same-sex marriage. When the debate is framed in terms of homosexual marriage it sounds like homosexuals are denied the right to marry, which is not the case.
The second is the term gender, which has been promoted as the proper way to discuss roles in a way that separates them from the physical sex of the individual. It’s a subtle change, but using the ‘gender’ language is a way that we concede that the role is not necessarily tied to the way a person was created. It becomes more about choice and social convention.
So, my advice is talk about same-sex marriage instead of homosexual marriage and talk about sexes instead of genders.
I like your take on this as more of a sarcastic argument (in your face attitude) to the same-sex agenda.
Sure they can marry as long as they marry someone of the opposite gender.
Now what do you think of the term “Lady-Boy”? 😉
Yeah, it might seem in-your-face, but I think that is only because we have allowed the other side to frame the debate. It is indisputable that homosexuals have the same rights to marriage as anybody else. The fact that this sounds funny shows how effective they have been.
Eric, I agree wholeheartedly. Words are very important and its often through equivocation or even completely redefining what words mean (like ‘hate’ or ‘tolerance’) that the other side has made many inroads.
Another example: the word “Christian.” has been stripped of its meaning. I (like many) prefer the term “follower of Christ”.
Consider the advantages of the statement, “He follows Christ,” over the statement, “He is a Christian.”
First, it moves the emphasis away from the subject (i.e., the follower) and toward the object (Christ). Instead of a subjective statement, we gain an objective one.
Second, the explicit, active verb, “follows,” does more work than the implicit, passive verb, “is.” “Is” offers no shortage of opportunity for obfuscation, equivocation, and mischief (“it depends on what the meaning of is is”).
Third, the indefinite phrase, “a Christian,” weakens the latter statement. Not only does it leave the term “Christian” up for grabs, but it leaves open the question, “what does it mean to be a Christian?” Even if you define the abstract label “Christian,” you still have to say what it means to apply it to someone. (Remember the old commercial with Inspector 12? “They don’t say Hanes until I say they say Hanes!”)
On the other hand, “following Christ” is plain: instead of the vague and abstract notion of “Christian,” you have the concrete reality of Christ himself.