Redefining Words

Redefining Words

In an earlier post I looked at Language and How We Use it. .  I demonstrated that some words are being used illegitimately. In this post I want to look at the ways we redefine words.

In July 2013 our government redefined words, by redefing the word marriage. Those who supported the change tried to convince us that they were only including others in the word, but this is not the case, as a moments thought about it shows.

It is not, as some suggest, discriminating against those who are not now included. This was suggested by someone who wanted the law to be changed. They said they were being excluded, but the truth is they were and are excluding themselves.   And no redefining words will change this.

Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. When a man and woman get married they usually expect to have children. In some cases they may not want to in other they may not be able to and admit it and make plans to do so in other ways. They are saying things are wrong and we need help.

But when a man marries a man, or a woman marries a woman, and they want children they have to admit that the problem is instrinsic to their relationship and if the want a child born to them, with one of them as the parent they have to admit an outsider into their marriage (it then ceases to be to the exclusion of all others).

Redefining Words: Outcomes

This leads to the redefining words now connected with marriage. We were not told what their titles are to be, but they cannot be Mr and Mrs. And if they have children they are not mother and father. This means that to please a minority, the majority of married couples will have their roles redefined. This is not democratic.

Redefining Words can have consequences unforseen and even denied by those who want to change them. Those who have redefined marriage to include same sex couples have now permitted people to marry more than one person. And if this is allowed what is to stop marriage to a child, etc?

The day before this was debated in Parliament the BBC aired a program about abortion. They said that when the 1967 Bill became law it was said that abortions would not be carried out on healthy women carrying healthy babies, but this accounted for 95% of abortions.

Those supporting said that it would stop child abuse because all children would be wanted. Those who opposed it said that the opposite would happen. Who was right? I don’t think anyone who listens to the news can doubt that it was those who opposed it. We are hearing over and over again that another child has been killed by those who are supposed to be caring for them, i.e. their parents.

Or rather one of them, usually the mother together with her present male partner (not the child’s father), to whom she is not married. This many say is the result of the easy divorce laws in this country.

We are told that it is a “matter of interpretation” , in other words: “Words mean what we say they mean”. No they don’t words have meanings independent of those using them.   And redefining words will not change this.

Redefining Words: Laws Governing

There are laws governing the words we use, if the letters are put in a different order no one will be able to understand them, whereas if they are put in the right order they will. In the same way there are laws governing this universe as has been proved over and over again. W|e do not break them, they break us. If we ignore the Law of Gravity and jump from a very tall building on to a hard serface and nothing breaks our fall we will be dead.

In the above case it is instantaneous but in some cases such as ingesting cancer causing substances it takes time. How do those who have redefined marriage to allow those to whom it has never applied before know that there are not laws governing this and the outcome may be different from what they intended. The answer is they don’t and they shouldn’t have done it.

So let us watch our language and stop redefining words, as this has consequences.

Leave a Reply