A crisis in the making

Definition of 'marriage' is changing

By: Greg Karber

Posted: 11/21/08

In the Bible, marriage is defined as a legal agreement between a man and a woman for tax purposes and also so they don't go to hell for having sex. A growing number of (elderly, conservative and otherwise generally out-of-touch) concerned citizens are, well, concerned about the protection of this traditional definition of marriage.

I could not agree more.

Word definitions are sacred, immutable things. Marriage - like all other words - has one true meaning, now and forever, and we should fight with our lives to keep it like that.

But marriage isn't the only word we need to worry about. Thousands of words are just floating out there, their definitions slowly eroding, becoming bastardized, and I'll tell you right here: it's got to be stopped.

Some words are simply being used incorrectly. How about a constitutional amendment banning people who say that they "literally" laughed their heads off during a film (and mandating that we arrest those who say the phrase in reference to any film starring Rob Schneider or directed by David Zucker post-'80s)?

But more importantly - and more relevant to our current discussion on "marriage" - words are simply changing over time.

For example, "egregious" used to mean something was very good, but now it means something is very bad. That's the exact opposite! Also, in the '80s - and now, to a lesser extent - people sometimes use the word "bad" to refer to something good. (As in, "Who's bad? I'm bad.")

Sometimes, I have heard, a person says "no" when they really mean "yes," perhaps the most egregious (or, traditionally speaking, un-egregious) example of this bastardization of our English language, though I have heard that this particular linguistic interpretation does not hold up in court.

The Amazon.com product description for a book by Sol Steinmetz called "Semantic Antics: How and Why Words Change Meaning" explains that "adamant" used to be a synonym for "diamond," and "silly" used to mean "blessed."

A quick Google search shows that silly also, at varying times, used to mean "deserving of pity," "mean," "crazy" and "holy." (I hear some of you saying that that's quite silly itself, but I'm confused: why is this particular linguistic evolution blessed?)

This is destroying our language. We must return to these traditional definitions, people! If we do not react now, strongly and swiftly, then the whole fabric of English will be ripped apart. Pretty soon, they'll have to start printing new dictionaries every year!

Definitions are so important because without definitions, nothing would be defined. Because of this, it is better for a person to commit his entire life to a hollow and loveless marriage with someone of the opposite gender than live a fulfilling life with someone he loves.

In addition to banning gay marriage (a term I use only out of convenience, as it pains me every time I type the word "gay" and don't mean "lighthearted and carefree"), there are a few other initiatives we must take to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

First off, divorce must be banned. Divorce is the only thing that's been scientifically proven to destroy marriages. Traditionally, marriage is for life, but some people think they can ignore this little rule if it improves their or their children's lives. If we're really trying to protect marriage, divorce should be the first to go.

Also, I realize that the women's rights movement has made great strides over the last hundred years. During the 20th century, American women went from disenfranchisement to representing a majority of college enrollment.

Unfortunately, ladies, you're going to have to give all of that back. In a traditional marriage, the wife acts as homemaker, taking care of the kids, washing the clothes, watching the TV soap operas, etc. She listens to her husband (traditionally defined as the "master of the house") and rarely develops her own opinions.

My apologies to all of the intelligent, opinionated, strong-willed women out there, but that's tradition: you cling to old and outdated ideas for no real reason other than that's what people seem to have been doing for years.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go brush up on my Anglo-Frisian, the West Germanic language from which English originally arose, in time for next week's column.

You can't get more traditional than that, can you?

See you next week, or as the Frisians say, "Sjen do efternei wike!"

Karber is a columnist for The Arkansas Traveler. His column appears every Friday.