What's in a word? "Gay" marriage

I have two problems with "gay marriage"; both are semantic.

I'm not sure when the word "gay" got high jacked to mean "homosexual" but I want my word back. "Gay" meant, and should mean, "happy." Even Merriam -Webster's on-line dictionary agrees.

"Marriage" back in the day meant a sanctioned carnal relationship between one man and one woman, Mormons excepted.

Now we have "gay marriage."

I am unequivocally against "gay marriage."

I am not opposed to giving homosexuals the benefits extended to heterosexual married couples, nor am I opposed to giving unwed heterosexual couples the same benefits (and Disadvantages), assuming there is come type contract/binding agreement between the individuals. Perhaps states could consider cohabiting homosexuals as common law spouses as they do cohabiting heterosexuals.

Just don't call it "marriage."

Call it a "civil union" with each party identified as the other party's "significant other." For homosexuals, that neatly eliminates the question of who is the "husband" and who is the "wife."

If one partner is hospitalized, the other partner should be able to visit "as if" they were a married couple. If the couple has a conjugal contract of any type, inheritance laws should treat the survivor "as if" the survivor was the deceased spouse.

When I was in grammar school, "queer" meant "unusual, strange." Then it morphed into a term for homosexuals because, years ago, homosexuals who came out of the closet were "different, strange." "Queer" was a convenient term; it included both male and female; now we have distinctions: gay and lesbian (bi-sexual for people who aren't sure, and transgender for folks moving one way or the other) - GLBT.

By the way, it should be "trans-sexual" rather than "transgender." Gender relates to plants and words; "sex" is limited to human beings - it's better that way. 'Course the slang "tranny" eliminates the "sex" problem . . . and also moves the thought from automotive transmissions - trannys - to homo sapiens.

But "queer," unlike "honky" is not "PC" and we must be PC. 'Course intra-group, all labels are acceptable; rather like a non-Jew telling a Jewish joke - it's not "PC" no matter that the non-Jew heard it first from a Jew's mouth.

I know most languages - except maybe French - are "living languages" subject to change.

The problem with the redefining of words such as "gay," "marriage", and "queer" is this shows a lack of vocabulary skills on the part of redefiners. Where are the Bill Buckleys, Gore Vidals, Winston Churchills, Abba Ebans, or even a Howard Cosell to either enlighten us with extant words for "this and that" or to coin words for "this and that"? Only people ignorant of their language highjack words to redefine them in their own narrow provincialisms.

Interesting aside. In Hebrew, "vocabulary" is אוצר מלים.

מלים (me'leem) means "words" while אוצר (ot-zer) means "treasury" - I can't think of a better description for "vocabulary." It's a pity that some people's "treasuries" are so bereft of words.

I Blinked

 

I learned today that Weight Watchers^® spokeswoman Jessica Simpson will be taking a break from the company's commercials during her second pregnancy.

The announcement said she was expecting her second child with fiance Eric Johnson. She and Johnson have been engaged, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Simpson), since November 2010. Their first daughter was born May 1, 2012.

Back in the day - my day, that is - a reputable company such as Weight Watchers never would engage the services of an unwed mother (or father) as its spokesperson. Marriage, back when it was between a man and a woman, was the norm for people who intended to raise a family.

A "single mother" meant a divorcee'; an unwed mother meant a woman with a child born out of wedlock, one who is "illegitimate." (This definition of "illegitimate" remains the first, i.e., most common, use of the word: not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically: born of parents not married to each other .)

Yet Hollywood, "Hollyweird" to some, seems to accept - perhaps even celebrate - unwed parents. Perhaps this is logical since Hollywood marriages, when there were marriages, often lasted less than the two-plus years (and two pregnancies) of Miss Simpson and her beau, Mr. Johnson. Perhaps the stigma of illegitimacy current in "my" day and in my part of the country no longer exists anywhere in the country; if it did, would a nationally advertised organization such as Weight Watchers have a Ms. Simpson as its spokesperson.

Unmarried couples have been "making babies" since men and women first discovered "there is a difference." Unmarried women have been "going it alone" with only a little help from a sperm bank and their favorite doctor for decades.

Judaism, unlike other beliefs, until "modern times" never considered the off-spring of an unwed woman illegitimate, primarily because a man having intercourse with an unwed woman was a form of marriage, one of three acceptable to the religious authorities. A "bastard" - in Hebrew ממזר - was the child of a forbidden liaison. I suppose that were Ms. Simpson and Mr. Johnson Jewish they would be considered married, although I am certain today's rabbis and religious leaders would balk at that status.

Still, the idea of entering into a progenitorial relationship before marriage is as foreign to me as "marriage" between two people of the same sex. (I'll accept a sanctioned relationship on an equal footing with traditional marriage, but don't call it "marriage." )

While there have been "unwed" mothers (and fathers) since the invention of state sanctioned unions, until the 1960's "free love" decade, flaunting such relationships and the off-spring of non-sanctioned unions were "discouraged."

I am a "geezer" - it beats the alternative - and the idea of an unwed mother, soon the unwed mother of two, as a spokesperson for a national company leaves me shaking my head.