We alter the meaning of words but truth remains unchanged
We assign new “enlightened” meanings to words and ideas that change their whole concept; nevertheless, truth remains indelible. I cannot understand how established words change meaning almost overnight.
“Terrorism” is no longer terrorism according to the Homeland Security folks. It is now called “Man-caused disaster.” The death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 is no longer a result of terrorism? Illegal aliens are now “undocumented immigrants.” Torture is now defined as anything causing the slightest discomfort to prisoners of war caught killing innocent women and children. They knew of plans to murder even more innocent people. Although, under pressure, they could shed light on further plans for the deaths of more innocent people, we are not supposed to make them the least bit uncomfortable. A Hate Bill designed to protect homosexuals is working its way through Congress. The same bill, however, might protect pedophiles and their hideous sexuality under the newly minted meaning of crimes against someone because of their sexual orientation. Religious conviction is no longer valid unless it is politically correct (See the answer of Miss California USA to a judge’s question about same-sex marriage. She’s against it.) They might as well change the contest to the Miss Politically Correct pageant.
And the list goes on.
But, “A rose is a rose is a rose.” You can add any new dimension to a traditional term but the truth endures.
Once, as a college professor, I referred to a young athlete as a perfect example of a Homo sapiens. I meant it as a compliment but he displayed his indignation by replying, “I ain’t no Homo sapiens, I’m a HETERO Sapiens!”
It might be humorous except for the fact it displayed his ignorance of the biological nomenclature for modern humans. This ignorance continues to raise its ugly head as we erroneously assign new meanings to traditional and historical terms, thereby, transporting “enlightened” meanings into our dictionary.
Once uncontested terms such as “marriage” had a firm, historical, religious and well-documented meaning, but “enlightened” thought has enlarged the word to encompass much more than would have been suspected by most folks. I looked up the definition of “marriage” in numerous dictionaries and all pretty much matched the one found in the granddaddy of lexicons, the Oxford English Dictionary, – “The formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife.” The definitions most often contained the thought that marriage denoted a desire for procreation. The only deviations from this definition can be found in several “on-line” dictionaries which tend to promote the views of “enlightened” thought.
Who would have thought as recent as ten years ago we would become immersed in sociological and legal turmoil over the meaning of the word “marriage?” We would have scoffed at the mere suggestion that marriage was anything other than the union (religious, civil or otherwise) between one man and one woman. Nothing in history, religion, anthropology or sociology justifies any added meaning to the word.
Until recent days, no one ever considered the word marriage would be construed to mean anything but a biological, religious, legal or cultural term referring to anything but a union between one man and one woman. Now, I learn that recent terminology has expanded to include a legal union between, well, — anybody! Where, oh, where did I lose my way?
I am daily instructed by judges and other advocates of deviant thought that I am a hate monger – a bigot — if I don’t agree that a woman has the constitutional right to marry another woman or a man to marry another man. I am told that any American has the constitutional right to form whatever marital arrangement they prefer. No one ever answers me when I inquire if this new thought also includes groups. As in two women marrying one man; three men marrying two women or the Rotary Club marrying the Chamber of Commerce. Where does this crazy thinking stop? If it’s wrong to not allow same sex marriage, how can these folks claim that groups cannot live in marital bliss and raise children together? The saying, “It takes a village…” takes on a whole new meaning. And, what about incest? “Gee, judge, I just want to exercise my constitutional rights and marry my sister.”
This whole business is foolish. A man cannot be a mother and a mother cannot be a father. In this day of rampant single-parent households, many millions are trying. And, some are doing a credible job but sociologists and others tell us that the chances for a successful outcome for our kids is better served by growing up in traditional two opposite-sex parental households. Study after study verifies this absolute fact. Once again, let me point out that some single-parent households have met the challenge of parenthood quite successfully and these dedicated and hard-working individuals have my admiration.
However, there has been a movement toward the glorification and celebration of single and same-sex households. If George and Sam want to form a civil union separate and apart from traditional marriage, I might consider this as favorably as I would the formation of a corporation. But, marriage? Give me a break.
In this day, as we slide down the slope of secularization, I suppose we can’t be surprised at what odd ideas the future might hold for our traditional society.