If I were still in California and undecided, your article would
definitely establish in my mind the need to support Proposition 8.
Your taking an allegation as fact "correctly attacked Proposition
8 as an attack on civil rights" is characteristic of the rest of
your drivel, which has no place on a site discussing teaching of
English grammar. I truly hope this posting is not characteristic
of what you do in the classroom; however, in any case it is out
of bounds. I could easily do a paper on semantics in the classroom
guaranteed to raise the ire of any 'liberals' in ATEG, but cui bono?
Scott
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:36:14 -0700
From: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument
--Apple-Mail-90-19555208
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=WINDOWS-1252;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
I am taking a risk in sending you an opinion piece on a subject not =20
directly related to grammar. I do this, not to persuade you. =20
Rather, I do this to show how grammar might reveal certain aspects of =20=
our thinking that words on their own may not convey. Underlying both =20=
syntax and semantics is a philosophical understanding of the world =20
that takes us from concept to reality. Grammar guides us on that =20
journey. The piece I have written is about a California Proposition =20
that seeks to ban same-sex marriage in that state. Again, my purpose =20=
is not to sway your opinion on that subject. I know that would not =20
be appropriate on this site. But, I do think it fair to share an =20
argument based on grammar and what it reveals about the world it =20
shapes into sentences.
Rites, Rights, and Privilege
by Gregg Heacock
The night after my step-daughter married, I realized certain truths =20
about family and personal development that have not been addressed in =20=
the debate over California=92s Proposition 8, which says: =93Only =20
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in =20
California.=94 People have correctly attacked Proposition 8 as an =20
attack on civil rights. But, its errors are more profound than =20
that. Because the rite of marriage both signifies and codifies the =20
commencement of a life based on commitment, it provides people an =20
opportunity to develop themselves more fully as human beings. That=92s =20=
what makes Proposition 8 is an attack not only on marriage but also =20
on our inalienable right to =93life, liberty, and the pursuit of =20
happiness.=94 Like any other attack on our civil rights, Proposition 8 =20=
would eliminate a right that unites us and replace it with a =20
privilege that divides us.
Maybe we are too ambivalent about the importance of marriage to see =20
the threat for what it is. Not everyone is pleased with this tie =20
that binds. When asked, =93If a man says something in a forest and his =20=
wife isn=92t there to hear him, is he still wrong?=94 some men will say =20=
that he is wrong even if he says nothing. They see that worry rules =20
the household and that any attempt to eliminate worries would throw =20
off the balance of power that the story of the Garden of Eden may =20
have been warning us about. Given that, Proposition 8 would be =20
granting same-sex couples a special right. It would give them the =20
right never to have to commit to a relationship that could diminish =20
their sense of self rather than transform it. But, this view of =20
marriage seems distorted to me since my daughter=92s marriage. I see =20=
the importance of submitting to obligations greater than my own =20
immediate wants. In the self-discipline that must be exercised to =20
commit oneself to others, I see the development of the capacity to =20
deal with what others might see as drudgery.
Marriage is important, not in and of itself, but it how it relates to =20=
our commitment to other aspects of our lives. As a retired English =20
teacher, let me share a truth that is hidden by the nature of our =20
language. Verb forms have three states just like matter, which can =20
exist as a gas, liquid, or solid. But the base verb remains the =20
same, making it difficult to see the changes that occur as we move =20
from conceiving an idea, to testing it, to realizing it as part of =20
our lives.
Consider the infinitive =93to love.=94 As a Platonic ideal, it is =20
boundless. Add sex, and it becomes finite. Sex leads to =20
expectations and disappointments, jealousy, anger, and, even, hate. =20
No wonder Plato thought that we could only know these qualities in an =20=
ideal state=97the same conceptual state in which we know the properties =20=
of circles and squares. For Plato, the ideal was real.
But, for most of us, we travel an Imaginary path, called romance, =20
speculating on the probable consequences of various actions. With the =20=
help of auxiliary verbs, we ask ourselves, =93If I spend money on her =20=
and show some interest in her, would she go out with me again?=94 =93If =
=20
I invite him to my bed, will he respect me in the morning?=94 =93If I =20=
were to date others, would he continue to ask me out?=94
For all our belief in the power of our Romantic machinations to make =20
things real, they do no more than bring us to the altar. It is only =20
by saying, =93I do,=94 that we truly alter our situation, for it is =
doing =20
that makes things real. =93Having done it,=94 we possess something that =
=20
will change our very =93being.=94 Marriage grounds love in commitment. =
=20
It is because of this that marriage signifies a stage of human =20
development.
Like running a marathon, marriage may not be for everyone. And, =20
there are other ways for people to develop themselves. But, life =20
demands that we commit ourselves to what we want, submit to its =20
requirements, and risk investment our time and emotion: otherwise, we =20=
deny ourselves the benefits that come with being real.
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry denies them these real =20
returns. Parents don=92t celebrate when they hear that their son is =20
shacking up with his girlfriend. The same could be said of becoming =20
domestic partners. Of course, denying same-sex couples the right of =20
marriage has forced us to recognize other covenants; thus, =20
corporations, to ensure that they are on the right side of the law, =20
have often granted medical and other benefits to same-sex partners of =20=
their employees. It must be said that, since same-sex couples in =20
California have been allowed to marry, these domestic-partner =20
benefits often have been taken away. Marriage changes things for =20
everyone. It=92s serious business.
What supporters of Proposition 8 want is what many Southerners wanted =20=
at the end of the Civil War=97to hold onto their privileged state. =20
When Lincoln declared that all former slaves should have the rights =20
of citizenship, John Wilkes Booth vowed, =93That is the last speech he =20=
will ever make.=94 Unfortunately, killing Lincoln only increased the =20=
problems faced by the South and heightened the conflict over civil =20
rights so that we have been held in its thrall for over 150 years. =20
Supporters of Proposition 8 need to see that by restricting the rite =20
of marriage, they would change a right that unites us into a =20
privilege that divides us.
Some privileges are fine. Seeing my step-daughter marry forced me to =20=
recognize her in her own right=97something I had put off until that =20
time. Parents of children who have led unconventional lives deserve =20
the same opportunity to honor the choices their children have made. =20
What supporters of Proposition 8 have failed to realize is that =20
committing to each other is different from committing to a life-=20
style. Marriage helps make us part of the human family. About that, =20=
we should not be ambivalent. Sharing this family value will help =20
bring us all together.=
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Apple-Mail-90-19555208
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=WINDOWS-1252
<html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I am taking a risk in sending =
you an opinion piece on a subject not directly related to grammar. =A0I =
do this, not to persuade you. =A0Rather, I do this to show how grammar =
might reveal certain aspects of our thinking that words on their own may =
not convey. =A0Underlying both syntax and semantics is a philosophical =
understanding of the world that takes us from concept to reality. =
=A0Grammar guides us on that journey. =A0The piece I have written is =
about a California Proposition that seeks to ban same-sex marriage in =
that state. =A0Again, my purpose is not to sway your opinion on that =
subject. =A0I know that would not be appropriate on this site. =A0But, I =
do think it fair to share an argument based on grammar and what it =
reveals about the world it shapes into sentences.<span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: 27px; font-weight: bold; =
"></span><div><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: 27px; =
font-weight: bold; ">=A0</span><div> <h1 align=3D"center" =
style=3D"text-align:center"><span style=3D""><font =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" size=3D"3"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
style=3D"font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal;">Rites, Rights, and =
Privilege</span></font></span></h1><p class=3D"MsoNormal" align=3D"center"=
style=3D"text-align:center"><span style=3D"">by Gregg =
Heacock<o:p></o:p></span></p> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">=A0<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">The night after my step-daughter married, I realized certain =
truths about family and personal development that have not been =
addressed in the debate over California=92s Proposition 8, which says: =
=93Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in =
California.=94<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>People have =
correctly attacked Proposition 8 as an attack on civil rights.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>But, its errors are more profound =
than that.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Because the rite =
of marriage both signifies and codifies the commencement of a life based =
on commitment, it provides people an opportunity to develop themselves =
more fully as human beings.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>That=92s what makes Proposition 8 is an attack not only on =
marriage but also on our inalienable right to =93life, liberty, and the =
pursuit of happiness.=94<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>Like any other attack on our civil rights, Proposition 8 would =
eliminate a right that unites us and replace it with a privilege that =
divides us.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">=A0<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">Maybe we are too ambivalent about the importance of marriage =
to see the threat for what it is.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>Not everyone is pleased with this tie that binds.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>When asked, =93If a man says =
something in a forest and his wife isn=92t there to hear him, is he =
still wrong?=94 some men will say that he is wrong even if he says =
nothing.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>They see that worry =
rules the household and that any attempt to eliminate worries would =
throw off the balance of power that the story of the Garden of Eden may =
have been warning us about.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>Given that, Proposition 8 would be granting same-sex couples a =
special right.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>It would give =
them the right never to have to commit to a relationship that could =
diminish their sense of self rather than transform it.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>But, this view of marriage seems =
distorted to me since my daughter=92s marriage.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>I see the importance of =
submitting to obligations greater than my own immediate wants.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>In the self-discipline that must =
be exercised to commit oneself to others, I see the development of the =
capacity to deal with what others might see as drudgery. =
<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">=A0<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">Marriage is important, not in and of itself, but it how it =
relates to our commitment to other aspects of our lives.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>As a retired English teacher, let =
me share a truth that is hidden by the nature of our language.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Verb forms have three states just =
like matter, which can exist as a gas, liquid, or solid.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>But the base verb remains the =
same, making it difficult to see the changes that occur as we move from =
conceiving an idea, to testing it, to realizing it as part of our =
lives.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">=A0<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">Consider the infinitive =93to love.=94<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>As a Platonic ideal, it is =
boundless.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Add sex, and it =
becomes finite.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Sex leads to =
expectations and disappointments, jealousy, anger, and, even, hate.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>No wonder Plato thought that we =
could only know these qualities in an ideal state=97the same conceptual =
state in which we know the properties of circles and squares.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>For Plato, the ideal was =
real.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">=A0<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">But, for most of us, we travel an Imaginary path, called =
romance, speculating on the probable consequences of various actions. =
With the help of auxiliary verbs, we ask ourselves, =93If I spend money =
on her and show some interest in her, would she go out with me =
again?=94<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>=93If I invite him =
to my bed, will he respect me in the morning?=94<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>=93If I were to date others, =
would he continue to ask me out?=94 <o:p></o:p></span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"">=A0<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"">For all our belief in the power of =
our Romantic machinations to make things real, they do no more than =
bring us to the altar.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>It is =
only by saying, =93I do,=94 that we truly alter our situation, for it is =
doing that makes things real.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>=93Having done it,=94 we possess something that will change our =
very =93being.=94<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Marriage =
grounds love in commitment.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>It is because of this that marriage signifies a stage of human =
development. <o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">=A0<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">Like running a marathon, marriage may not be for =
everyone.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>And, there are =
other ways for people to develop themselves. But, life demands that we =
commit ourselves to what we want, submit to its requirements, and risk =
investment our time and emotion: otherwise, we deny ourselves the =
benefits that come with being real.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"">=A0<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"">Denying same-sex couples the right =
to marry denies them these real returns.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes">=A0 </span>Parents don=92t celebrate when they hear that their son =
is shacking up with his girlfriend.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>The same could be said of becoming domestic partners.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Of course, denying same-sex =
couples the right of marriage has forced us to recognize other =
covenants; thus, corporations, to ensure that they are on the right side =
of the law, have often granted medical and other benefits to same-sex =
partners of their employees.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>It must be said that, since same-sex couples in California have =
been allowed to marry, these domestic-partner benefits often have been =
taken away.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Marriage changes =
things for everyone.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>It=92s =
serious business.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">=A0<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"">What supporters of Proposition 8 want is what many =
Southerners wanted at the end of the Civil War=97to hold onto their =
privileged state.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>When =
Lincoln declared that all former slaves should have the rights of =
citizenship, John Wilkes Booth vowed, =93That is the last speech he will =
ever make.=94<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Unfortunately, =
killing Lincoln only increased the problems faced by the South and =
heightened the conflict over civil rights so that we have been held in =
its thrall for over 150 years.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>Supporters of Proposition 8 need to see that by restricting the =
rite of marriage, they would change a right that unites us into a =
privilege that divides us. <o:p></o:p></span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"">=A0<o:p></o:p></span></div> <span =
style=3D"">Some privileges are fine.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>Seeing my step-daughter marry forced me to recognize her in her =
own right=97something I had put off until that time.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Parents of children who have led =
unconventional lives deserve the same opportunity to honor the choices =
their children have made.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>What supporters of Proposition 8 have failed to realize is that =
committing to each other is different from committing to a =
life-style.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Marriage helps =
make us part of the human family.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>About that, we should not be ambivalent.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Sharing this family value will =
help bring us all together.</span><!--EndFragment--> =
</div></div></body></html>=
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Apple-Mail-90-19555208--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:53:46 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: a corollary to one of the rules
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Brad,<br>
If you want to take a functional approach, you shouldn't be so
directive and prescriptive. The two are very different.<br>
As soon as you put "had" in front of a past participle (I don't
know
why you ignore the whole conversation we had about that), you have a
past perfect verb phrase. Whether or not it is being used wisely is
another issue. But if you want some credibility with people who know
something about language, you should stop talking about the second part
of a past perfect verb phrase as past tense. Tense is carried by the
finite auxiliary, which always comes first. Since you seem very willing
to be blunt, you are absolutely wrong. It is an indefensible position. <br>
"She has been my friend." "She had been my friend." Both are
perfectly legitimate sentences and don't need anything around them to
be "correct", at least not as "correct" is understood by the rest of
us. <br>
"She is petitioning me." In progress, meaning ongoing. "She has
petitioned me." It has happened. No longer in progress. "Perfect" in
the traditional sense; complete. For present tense, that is in
reference to the present time of the speaking. For past tense, it is in
reference to a moment in past time. "She had petitioned me." The fact
that the moment in past time is created by the surrounding discourse is
no reason to say it is "incorrect" or that you can't do it. <br>
At heart, you seem to be someone who wants to govern the way
other
people use language and to do so with hard and fast rules about what is
allowed and what is wrong. That is a prescriptive approach, not a
functional one. <br>
Quite frankly, I think presenting your views in a hard,
prescriptive
form is what will keep people from taking you seriously. Instead of
offering a thoughtful alternative, you have to defend your view that we
have been making mistakes our whole lives. You create the impression
that you think we are fools and you are the only one who can save us.
When you clearly show a lack of understanding of language, it hurts
your case. <br>
When you fail to convince people, you end up calling them
names. <br>
From my perspective, it looks like you have no interest in
exploring
these issues from any side but your own. You have already decided that
I either agree with you or are wrong. <br>
My best advice to you is to drop the prescriptive approach.
<br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
Brad Johnston wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit;
font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit;
font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"
valign="top">
<div id="yiv1464510567">
<div id="yiv1350362242">
<div id="yiv184262153">
<div id="yiv1870781555">
<div id="yiv850541481">
<div id="yiv1781408782">
<div id="yiv1820204375">
<div id="yiv1753428305">
<div id="yiv1352392795">
<div id="yiv696673992">
<div id="yiv654323469">
<div id="yiv1641057577">
<div id="yiv760806321">
<div id="yiv1132996797">
<div id="yiv724358920">
<div id="yiv1204151397">
<div id="yiv158727205">
<div id="yiv1856845402">
<div>Standing in the checkout line at Walmart Saturday morning,
a corollary to one of my rules came to mind.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Rule One<strong>:</strong> You can't make a past tense
verb into a past perfect verb by putting 'had' in front of it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Call me a taxi. OK, you're a taxi. It doesn't work that
way. Calling someone a taxi doesn't make him a taxi. Putting 'had' in
front of a past tense verb doesn't make it a past perfect verb.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>New Rule Two<strong>:</strong> Likewise, you can't make a
past perfect verb into a past tense verb by taking 'had' away from it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the
Western hills.</div>
<div>By the time they reached Amman, the sun set in the Western
hills.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Doesn't work, does it? By the time they got
there, something had already happened; the sun had already set.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><strong><font color="#c00000">Meaning-Centered Grammar, by
Craig Hancock, c.2005.</font></strong></div>
<div><strong></strong> </div>
<div><strong><font color="#c00000">Chapter 5 - A closer look at
verb phrases</font></strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From the introduction<strong>:</strong> <strong><font
color="#c00000">I have come to find that a functional approach is very
effective. If we keep our attention on function, a formal understanding
will fall into place.</font></strong></div>
<div><strong></strong> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">If it functions as a past tense
verb, it's a past tense verb. </font><font color="#000000">If it
functions as a past perfect verb, it's a past perfect verb. (Or a
past-tense-perfect-aspect verb, if you prefer.)</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">You can try to disguise a
verb by
either adding words or subtracting words but its function determines
what it is.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hmmm. There's an architectural design maxim about that,
isn't there? "Form follows function". First we decide what we intend
and then we form the language to achieve it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>(The first six and the last three paragraphs above are
mine, in case you're set for 'plain text' and don't see the way
the quote is differientated.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>.brad.wed.29oct08.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a> </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:52:03 -0700
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: a corollary to one of the rules
--0-695090499-1225291923=:4882
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I wrote to Craig, told him what I was going to do, and asked him to stay ou=
t of it, to give the others a chance. There are more than 300 interested, i=
nteresting people on the listserv. If any of you, other than the half a doz=
en who domineer the conversations, have any thoughts, why don't you disrega=
rd him for the moment and reply as if he hadn't said anything. It's my rule=
anyway, not his.
=A0
.brad.29oct08.
=A0
Brad Johnston wrote:=20
Standing in the checkout line at Walmart Saturday=A0morning, a corollary to=
one of my rules came to mind.
=A0
Rule One: You can't make a past tense verb into a past perfect verb by putt=
ing 'had' in front of it.
=A0
Call me a taxi. OK, you're a taxi. It doesn't work that way. Calling someon=
e a taxi doesn't make him a taxi. Putting 'had' in front of a past tense ve=
rb doesn't make it a past perfect verb.
=A0
New Rule Two:=A0 Likewise, you can't make a past perfect verb into a past t=
ense verb by taking 'had' away from it.
=A0
By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the Western hills.
By the time they reached Amman, the sun=A0set in the Western hills.
=A0
Doesn't work, does it?=A0By the time they got there,=A0something had alread=
y happened; the sun had already set.
=A0
Meaning-Centered Grammar, by Craig Hancock, c.2005.
=A0
Chapter 5 - A closer look at verb phrases
=A0
From the introduction: I have come to find that a functional approach is ve=
ry effective. If we keep our attention on function, a formal understanding =
will fall into place.
=A0
If it functions as a past tense verb, it's a past tense verb. If it functio=
ns as a past perfect verb, it's a past perfect verb. (Or a past-tense-perfe=
ct-aspect verb, if you prefer.)
=A0
You can=A0try to=A0disguise a verb=A0by either adding words or subtracting =
words but its function=A0determines what it is.
=A0
Hmmm. There's an architectural design maxim about that, isn't there? "Form =
follows function". First we decide what we intend and then we form=A0the la=
nguage to achieve it.
=A0
(The first six and the last=A0three paragraphs above are mine, in case you'=
re set for 'plain text' and don't see the way the=A0quote is=A0differientat=
ed.)
=A0
.brad.wed.29oct08.
=0A=0A=0A
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-695090499-1225291923=:4882
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top"
style="font: inherit;"><DIV>I wrote to Craig, told him what I was going to
do, and asked him to stay out of it, to give the others a chance. There are
more than 300 interested, interesting people on the listserv. If any of you,
other than the half a dozen who domineer the conversations, have any
thoughts, why don't you disregard him for the moment and reply as if he
hadn't said anything. It's my rule anyway, not his.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>.brad.29oct08.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Brad Johnston wrote: </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-FAMILY: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch:
inherit" vAlign=top>
<DIV id=yiv1464510567>
<DIV id=yiv1350362242>
<DIV id=yiv184262153>
<DIV id=yiv1870781555>
<DIV id=yiv850541481>
<DIV id=yiv1781408782>
<DIV id=yiv1820204375>
<DIV id=yiv1753428305>
<DIV id=yiv1352392795>
<DIV id=yiv696673992>
<DIV id=yiv654323469>
<DIV id=yiv1641057577>
<DIV id=yiv760806321>
<DIV id=yiv1132996797>
<DIV id=yiv724358920>
<DIV id=yiv1204151397>
<DIV id=yiv158727205>
<DIV id=yiv1856845402>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Standing in the checkout line at Walmart
Saturday morning, a corollary to one of my rules came to
mind.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Rule One<STRONG>:</STRONG> You can't make a past tense
verb into a past perfect verb by putting 'had' in front of it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Call me a taxi. OK, you're a taxi. It doesn't work that
way. Calling someone a taxi doesn't make him a taxi. Putting 'had' in front
of a past tense verb doesn't make it a past perfect verb.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>New Rule Two<STRONG>:</STRONG> Likewise, you can't
make a past perfect verb into a past tense verb by taking 'had' away from
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the
Western hills.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>By the time they reached Amman, the sun set in the
Western hills.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Doesn't work, does it? By the time they got
there, something had already happened; the sun had already
set.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#c00000 size=2>Meaning-Centered Grammar, by Craig
Hancock, c.2005.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#c00000 size=2>Chapter 5 - A closer look at verb
phrases</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>From the introduction<STRONG>:</STRONG> <STRONG><FONT
color=#c00000>I have come to find that a functional approach is very
effective. If we keep our attention on function, a formal understanding will
fall into place.</FONT></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT color=#000000>If it functions as a past tense verb,
it's a past tense verb. </FONT><FONT color=#000000>If it functions as a past
perfect verb, it's a past perfect verb. (Or a past-tense-perfect-aspect
verb, if you prefer.)</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>You can try to disguise a
verb by either adding words or subtracting words but its
function determines what it is.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Hmmm. There's an architectural design maxim about that,
isn't there? "Form follows function". First we decide what we intend and
then we form the language to achieve it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>(The first six and the last three paragraphs above
are mine, in case you're set for 'plain text' and don't see the way
the quote is differientated.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>.brad.wed.29oct08.</FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></
DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-695090499-1225291923=:4882--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:53:34 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: a corollary to one of the rules
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Brad, and others,<br>
I did not realize I was responding to the list and not just
Brad--my
mistake--since he and I have been in conversation off list. He is
right; he said he would post to the list and asked me not to respond
(though that was a while ago, and we have corresponded since.) <br>
I stand by what I said, though I apologize for the fact that
much of
it was intended as part of an ongoing conversation that you have not
been privy to. <br>
We all have a stake in clear explanations for aspects of
language.
But I will back off and let others respond if any of you are interested.<br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
Brad Johnston wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit;
font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit;
font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"
valign="top">
<div>I wrote to Craig, told him what I was going to do, and
asked him to stay out of it, to give the others a chance. There are
more than 300 interested, interesting people on the listserv. If any of
you, other than the half a dozen who domineer the conversations, have
any thoughts, why don't you disregard him for the moment and reply as
if he hadn't said anything. It's my rule anyway, not his.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>.brad.29oct08.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Brad Johnston wrote: </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="font-family: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch:
inherit;"
valign="top">
<div id="yiv1464510567">
<div id="yiv1350362242">
<div id="yiv184262153">
<div id="yiv1870781555">
<div id="yiv850541481">
<div id="yiv1781408782">
<div id="yiv1820204375">
<div id="yiv1753428305">
<div id="yiv1352392795">
<div id="yiv696673992">
<div id="yiv654323469">
<div id="yiv1641057577">
<div id="yiv760806321">
<div id="yiv1132996797">
<div id="yiv724358920">
<div id="yiv1204151397">
<div id="yiv158727205">
<div id="yiv1856845402">
<div><font size="2">Standing in the checkout line at
Walmart Saturday morning, a corollary to one of my rules came to
mind.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font size="2">Rule One<strong>:</strong> You
can't make a past tense verb into a past perfect verb by putting 'had'
in front of it.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font size="2">Call me a taxi. OK, you're a taxi.
It doesn't work that way. Calling someone a taxi doesn't make him a
taxi. Putting 'had' in front of a past tense verb doesn't make it a
past perfect verb.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font size="2">New Rule Two<strong>:</strong>
Likewise, you can't make a past perfect verb into a past tense verb by
taking 'had' away from it.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font size="2">By the time they reached Amman, the
sun had set in the Western hills.</font></div>
<div><font size="2">By the time they reached Amman, the
sun set in the Western hills.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font size="2">Doesn't work, does it? By the time
they got there, something had already happened; the sun had already
set.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div>
<div><strong><font color="#c00000" size="2">Meaning-Centered
Grammar, by Craig Hancock, c.2005.</font></strong></div>
<div><strong></strong><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><strong><font color="#c00000" size="2">Chapter 5 -
A closer look at verb phrases</font></strong></div>
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font size="2">From the introduction<strong>:</strong>
<strong><font color="#c00000">I have come to find that
a functional approach is very effective. If we keep our attention on
function, a formal understanding will fall into
place.</font></strong></font></div>
<div><strong></strong><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font size="2"><font color="#000000">If it
functions as a past tense verb, it's a past tense verb. </font><font
color="#000000">If it functions as a past perfect verb, it's a past
perfect verb. (Or a past-tense-perfect-aspect verb, if you
prefer.)</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" size="2">You can try
to disguise a verb by either adding words or subtracting words but
its
function determines what it is.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font size="2">Hmmm. There's an architectural
design maxim about that, isn't there? "Form follows function". First we
decide what we intend and then we form the language to achieve
it.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font size="2">(The first six and the last three
paragraphs above are mine, in case you're set for 'plain text' and
don't see the way the quote is differientated.)</font></div>
<div><font size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font size="2">.brad.wed.29oct08.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a> </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:46:51 -0700
From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument
--0-926806042-1225306011=:52635
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm not really clear about the grammar and semantics point, but there are s=
everal fallacious, or at least questionable, arguments made in this piece.=
=A0 The first is a confusion between the thing, commitment in a relationshi=
p, and a sign of that commitment, marriage.=A0 There is little to support t=
he claim that if one cannot have a sign, then one cannot have the thing.=A0=
The contrary is clearly more likely.=A0 It is a bit far-fetched and demean=
ing to say that same-sex couples cannot "develop themselves more fully as h=
uman beings."=A0 It is even more far-fetched to say=A0denying the pursuit o=
f=A0one avenue of self-development is a denial of the right to pursue happi=
ness.=A0 Further, there is nothing to prevent same-sex couples from marryin=
g each other in the eyes of their families and friends.=A0 This would fulfi=
ll the same end regarding commitment as being married=A0in the eyes of the =
state.=A0 I care little what the state thinks; I=A0care greatly what my fam=
ily
and friends think.=A0 =A0Also, to claim that same-sex couples cannot=A0com=
mit themselves fully, and so cannot become=A0"real" seems outrageous and un=
substantiated.=A0Finally, tit compares those who want to maintain the statu=
s quo regarding marriage to those who wanted to maintain the status quo reg=
arding slavery.=A0 It claims that those who want to define a legal relation=
ship through the proposition system by direct recourse to the people--inste=
ad of letting the courts decide the issue against the will of the people--a=
re=A0basically the same in motives=A0and character as=A0those who would mur=
der their President and wage war on their country.=A0 This is really an ad =
hominem attack on motives designed to shut down discussion and de-legitimiz=
e any opposition.=A0=20
=A0
Scott Woods
--the the rFrom: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 7:36 AM
I am taking a risk in sending you an opinion piece on a subject not directl=
y related to grammar. =A0I do this, not to persuade you. =A0Rather, I do th=
is to show how grammar might reveal certain aspects of our thinking that wo=
rds on their own may not convey. =A0Underlying both syntax and semantics is=
a philosophical understanding of the world that takes us from concept to r=
eality. =A0Grammar guides us on that journey. =A0The piece I have written i=
s about a California Proposition that seeks to ban same-sex marriage in tha=
t state. =A0Again, my purpose is not to sway your opinion on that subject. =
=A0I know that would not be appropriate on this site. =A0But, I do think it=
fair to share an argument based on grammar and what it reveals about the w=
orld it shapes into sentences.
=A0
Rites, Rights, and Privilege
by Gregg Heacock
=A0
The night after my step-daughter married, I realized certain truths about f=
amily and personal development that have not been addressed in the debate o=
ver California=92s Proposition 8, which says: =93Only marriage between a ma=
n and a woman is valid or recognized in California.=94=A0 People have corre=
ctly attacked Proposition 8 as an attack on civil rights.=A0 But, its error=
s are more profound than that.=A0 Because the rite of marriage both signifi=
es and codifies the commencement of a life based on commitment, it provides=
people an opportunity to develop themselves more fully as human beings.=A0=
That=92s what makes Proposition 8 is an attack not only on marriage but al=
so on our inalienable right to =93life, liberty, and the pursuit of happine=
ss.=94=A0 Like any other attack on our civil rights, Proposition 8 would el=
iminate a right that unites us and replace it with a privilege that divides=
us.
=A0
Maybe we are too ambivalent about the importance of marriage to see the thr=
eat for what it is.=A0 Not everyone is pleased with this tie that binds.=A0=
When asked, =93If a man says something in a forest and his wife isn=92t th=
ere to hear him, is he still wrong?=94 some men will say that he is wrong e=
ven if he says nothing.=A0 They see that worry rules the household and that=
any attempt to eliminate worries would throw off the balance of power that=
the story of the Garden of Eden may have been warning us about.=A0 Given t=
hat, Proposition 8 would be granting same-sex couples a special right.=A0 I=
t would give them the right never to have to commit to a relationship that =
could diminish their sense of self rather than transform it.=A0 But, this v=
iew of marriage seems distorted to me since my daughter=92s marriage.=A0 I =
see the importance of submitting to obligations greater than my own immedia=
te wants.=A0 In the self-discipline that must be exercised to commit onesel=
f
to others, I see the development of the capacity to deal with what others =
might see as drudgery.=20
=A0
Marriage is important, not in and of itself, but it how it relates to our c=
ommitment to other aspects of our lives.=A0 As a retired English teacher, l=
et me share a truth that is hidden by the nature of our language.=A0 Verb f=
orms have three states just like matter, which can exist as a gas, liquid, =
or solid.=A0 But the base verb remains the same, making it difficult to see=
the changes that occur as we move from conceiving an idea, to testing it, =
to realizing it as part of our lives.=A0=20
=A0
Consider the infinitive =93to love.=94=A0 As a Platonic ideal, it is boundl=
ess.=A0 Add sex, and it becomes finite.=A0 Sex leads to expectations and di=
sappointments, jealousy, anger, and, even, hate.=A0 No wonder Plato thought=
that we could only know these qualities in an ideal state=97the same conce=
ptual state in which we know the properties of circles and squares.=A0 For =
Plato, the ideal was real.
=A0
But, for most of us, we travel an Imaginary path, called romance, speculati=
ng on the probable consequences of various actions. With the help of auxili=
ary verbs, we ask ourselves, =93If I spend money on her and show some inter=
est in her, would she go out with me again?=94=A0 =93If I invite him to my =
bed, will he respect me in the morning?=94=A0 =93If I were to date others, =
would he continue to ask me out?=94=20
=A0
For all our belief in the power of our Romantic machinations to make things=
real, they do no more than bring us to the altar.=A0 It is only by saying,=
=93I do,=94 that we truly alter our situation, for it is doing that makes =
things real.=A0 =93Having done it,=94 we possess something that will change=
our very =93being.=94=A0 Marriage grounds love in commitment.=A0 It is bec=
ause of this that marriage signifies a stage of human development.=20
=A0
Like running a marathon, marriage may not be for everyone.=A0 And, there ar=
e other ways for people to develop themselves. But, life demands that we co=
mmit ourselves to what we want, submit to its requirements, and risk invest=
ment our time and emotion: otherwise, we deny ourselves the benefits that c=
ome with being real.
=A0
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry denies them these real returns.=
=A0 Parents don=92t celebrate when they hear that their son is shacking up =
with his girlfriend.=A0 The same could be said of becoming domestic partner=
s.=A0 Of course, denying same-sex couples the right of marriage has forced =
us to recognize other covenants; thus, corporations, to ensure that they ar=
e on the right side of the law, have often granted medical and other benefi=
ts to same-sex partners of their employees.=A0 It must be said that, since =
same-sex couples in California have been allowed to marry, these domestic-p=
artner benefits often have been taken away.=A0 Marriage changes things for =
everyone.=A0 It=92s serious business.
=A0
What supporters of Proposition 8 want is what many Southerners wanted at th=
e end of the Civil War=97to hold onto their privileged state.=A0 When Linco=
ln declared that all former slaves should have the rights of citizenship, J=
ohn Wilkes Booth vowed, =93That is the last speech he will ever make.=94=A0=
Unfortunately, killing Lincoln only increased the problems faced by the So=
uth and heightened the conflict over civil rights so that we have been held=
in its thrall for over 150 years.=A0 Supporters of Proposition 8 need to s=
ee that by restricting the rite of marriage, they would change a right that=
unites us into a privilege that divides us.=20
=A0Some privileges are fine.=A0 Seeing my step-daughter marry forced me to =
recognize her in her own right=97something I had put off until that time.=
=A0 Parents of children who have led unconventional lives deserve the same =
opportunity to honor the choices their children have made.=A0 What supporte=
rs of Proposition 8 have failed to realize is that committing to each other=
is different from committing to a life-style.=A0 Marriage helps make us pa=
rt of the human family.=A0 About that, we should not be ambivalent.=A0 Shar=
ing this family value will help bring us all together. To join or leave thi=
s LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.=
muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ =0A=0A=0A
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-926806042-1225306011=:52635
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<table cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0" ><tr><td valign=3D"=
top" style=3D"font: inherit;"><DIV><BR>I'm not really clear about the gramm=
ar and semantics point, but there are several fallacious, or at least quest=
ionable, arguments made in this piece. The first is a confusion betwe=
en the thing, commitment in a relationship, and a sign of that commitment, =
marriage. There is little to support the claim that if one cannot hav=
e a sign, then one cannot have the thing. The contrary is clearly mor=
e likely. It is a bit far-fetched and demeaning to say that same-sex =
couples cannot "develop themselves more fully as human beings." It is=
even more far-fetched to say denying the pursuit of one avenue o=
f self-development is a denial of the right to pursue happiness. Furt=
her, there is nothing to prevent same-sex couples from marrying each other =
in the eyes of their families and friends. This would fulfill the sam=
e
end regarding commitment as being married in the eyes of the state.&n=
bsp; I care little what the state thinks; I care greatly what my famil=
y and friends think. Also, to claim that same-sex couples canno=
t commit themselves fully, and so cannot become "real" seems outr=
ageous and unsubstantiated. Finally, tit compares those who want to ma=
intain the status quo regarding marriage to those who wanted to maintain th=
e status quo regarding slavery. It claims that those who want to defi=
ne a legal relationship through the proposition system by direct recourse t=
o the people--instead of letting the courts decide the issue against the wi=
ll of the people--are basically the same in motives and character=
as those who would murder their President and wage war on their count=
ry. This is really an ad hominem attack on motives designed to shut d=
own discussion and de-legitimize any opposition. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Scott Woods</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(=
16,16,255) 2px solid">--the the rFrom: Gregg Heacock <logicconex@ROADRUN=
NER.COM><BR>Subject: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument<BR>To: ATEG@LISTS=
ERV.MUOHIO.EDU<BR>Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 7:36 AM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=3Dyiv599066331>I am taking a risk in sending you an opinion piece o=
n a subject not directly related to grammar. I do this, not to persua=
de you. Rather, I do this to show how grammar might reveal certain as=
pects of our thinking that words on their own may not convey. Underly=
ing both syntax and semantics is a philosophical understanding of the world=
that takes us from concept to reality. Grammar guides us on that jou=
rney. The piece I have written is about a California Proposition that=
seeks to ban same-sex marriage in that state. Again, my purpose is n=
ot to sway your opinion on that subject. I know that would not be app=
ropriate on this site. But, I do think it fair to share an argument b=
ased on grammar and what it reveals about the world it shapes into sentence=
s.<SPAN class=3DApple-style-span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 27p=
x"></SPAN>
<DIV><SPAN class=3DApple-style-span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: =
27px"> </SPAN>
<DIV>
<H1 style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=3Dcenter><SPAN><FONT class=3DApple-s=
tyle-span size=3D3><SPAN class=3DApple-style-span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: nor=
mal; FONT-SIZE: 12px">Rites, Rights, and Privilege</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></H1=
>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=3Dcenter><SPAN>by G=
regg Heacock</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN>The night after my step-daughter married, I re=
alized certain truths about family and personal development that have not b=
een addressed in the debate over California=92s Proposition 8, which says: =
=93Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in Califo=
rnia.=94<SPAN> </SPAN>People have correctly attacked Proposition 8 as=
an attack on civil rights.<SPAN> </SPAN>But, its errors are more pro=
found than that.<SPAN> </SPAN>Because the rite of marriage both signi=
fies and codifies the commencement of a life based on commitment, it provid=
es people an opportunity to develop themselves more fully as human beings.<=
SPAN> </SPAN>That=92s what makes Proposition 8 is an attack not only =
on marriage but also on our inalienable right to =93life, liberty, and the =
pursuit of happiness.=94<SPAN> </SPAN>Like any other attack on our ci=
vil rights, Proposition 8 would eliminate a right that unites us and
replace it with a privilege that divides us.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN>Maybe we are too ambivalent about the importan=
ce of marriage to see the threat for what it is.<SPAN> </SPAN>Not eve=
ryone is pleased with this tie that binds.<SPAN> </SPAN>When asked, =
=93If a man says something in a forest and his wife isn=92t there to hear h=
im, is he still wrong?=94 some men will say that he is wrong even if he say=
s nothing.<SPAN> </SPAN>They see that worry rules the household and t=
hat any attempt to eliminate worries would throw off the balance of power t=
hat the story of the Garden of Eden may have been warning us about.<SPAN>&n=
bsp; </SPAN>Given that, Proposition 8 would be granting same-sex couples a =
special right.<SPAN> </SPAN>It would give them the right never to hav=
e to commit to a relationship that could diminish their sense of self rathe=
r than transform it.<SPAN> </SPAN>But, this view of marriage seems di=
storted to me since my daughter=92s marriage.<SPAN> </SPAN>I see
the importance of submitting to obligations greater than my own immediate =
wants.<SPAN> </SPAN>In the self-discipline that must be exercised to =
commit oneself to others, I see the development of the capacity to deal wit=
h what others might see as drudgery. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN>Marriage is important, not in and of itself, b=
ut it how it relates to our commitment to other aspects of our lives.<SPAN>=
</SPAN>As a retired English teacher, let me share a truth that is hi=
dden by the nature of our language.<SPAN> </SPAN>Verb forms have thre=
e states just like matter, which can exist as a gas, liquid, or solid.<SPAN=
> </SPAN>But the base verb remains the same, making it difficult to s=
ee the changes that occur as we move from conceiving an idea, to testing it=
, to realizing it as part of our lives.<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN>Consider the infinitive =93to love.=94<SPAN>&n=
bsp; </SPAN>As a Platonic ideal, it is boundless.<SPAN> </SPAN>Add se=
x, and it becomes finite.<SPAN> </SPAN>Sex leads to expectations and =
disappointments, jealousy, anger, and, even, hate.<SPAN> </SPAN>No wo=
nder Plato thought that we could only know these qualities in an ideal stat=
e=97the same conceptual state in which we know the properties of circles an=
d squares.<SPAN> </SPAN>For Plato, the ideal was real.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN>But, for most of us, we travel an Imaginary pa=
th, called romance, speculating on the probable consequences of various act=
ions. With the help of auxiliary verbs, we ask ourselves, =93If I spend mon=
ey on her and show some interest in her, would she go out with me again?=94=
<SPAN> </SPAN>=93If I invite him to my bed, will he respect me in the=
morning?=94<SPAN> </SPAN>=93If I were to date others, would he conti=
nue to ask me out?=94 </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN>For all our belief in the power of our Romanti=
c machinations to make things real, they do no more than bring us to the al=
tar.<SPAN> </SPAN>It is only by saying, =93I do,=94 that we truly alt=
er our situation, for it is doing that makes things real.<SPAN> </SPA=
N>=93Having done it,=94 we possess something that will change our very =93b=
eing.=94<SPAN> </SPAN>Marriage grounds love in commitment.<SPAN> =
; </SPAN>It is because of this that marriage signifies a stage of human dev=
elopment. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN>Like running a marathon, marriage may not be f=
or everyone.<SPAN> </SPAN>And, there are other ways for people to dev=
elop themselves. But, life demands that we commit ourselves to what we want=
, submit to its requirements, and risk investment our time and emotion: oth=
erwise, we deny ourselves the benefits that come with being real.</SPAN></D=
IV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN>Denying same-sex couples the right to marry de=
nies them these real returns.<SPAN> </SPAN>Parents don=92t celebrate =
when they hear that their son is shacking up with his girlfriend.<SPAN>&nbs=
p; </SPAN>The same could be said of becoming domestic partners.<SPAN> =
</SPAN>Of course, denying same-sex couples the right of marriage has force=
d us to recognize other covenants; thus, corporations, to ensure that they =
are on the right side of the law, have often granted medical and other bene=
fits to same-sex partners of their employees.<SPAN> </SPAN>It must be=
said that, since same-sex couples in California have been allowed to marry=
, these domestic-partner benefits often have been taken away.<SPAN> <=
/SPAN>Marriage changes things for everyone.<SPAN> </SPAN>It=92s serio=
us business.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN>What supporters of Proposition 8 want is what =
many Southerners wanted at the end of the Civil War=97to hold onto their pr=
ivileged state.<SPAN> </SPAN>When Lincoln declared that all former sl=
aves should have the rights of citizenship, John Wilkes Booth vowed, =93Tha=
t is the last speech he will ever make.=94<SPAN> </SPAN>Unfortunately=
, killing Lincoln only increased the problems faced by the South and height=
ened the conflict over civil rights so that we have been held in its thrall=
for over 150 years.<SPAN> </SPAN>Supporters of Proposition 8 need to=
see that by restricting the rite of marriage, they would change a right th=
at unites us into a privilege that divides us. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal><SPAN> </SPAN></DIV><SPAN>Some privileges are f=
ine.<SPAN> </SPAN>Seeing my step-daughter marry forced me to recogniz=
e her in her own right=97something I had put off until that time.<SPAN>&nbs=
p; </SPAN>Parents of children who have led unconventional lives deserve the=
same opportunity to honor the choices their children have made.<SPAN> =
; </SPAN>What supporters of Proposition 8 have failed to realize is that co=
mmitting to each other is different from committing to a life-style.<SPAN>&=
nbsp; </SPAN>Marriage helps make us part of the human family.<SPAN> <=
/SPAN>About that, we should not be ambivalent.<SPAN> </SPAN>Sharing t=
his family value will help bring us all together.</SPAN> </DIV></DIV>To joi=
n or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: ht=
tp://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the l=
ist"=20
<DIV>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></t=
d></tr></table><br>=0A=0A
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-926806042-1225306011=:52635--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:14:45 -0700
From: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument
--Apple-Mail-93-47065872
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=WINDOWS-1252;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
Scott,
Thank you for taking the time to point out the =20
questionable aspects of my piece. Let me review each one. While I =20
accept your logic on the surface, I believe something is going on =20
below the surface of the words that you might have dismissed.
You, first, make a distinction between a commitment and =20
a sign of a commitment. Certainly, people can get married for =20
certain tax advantages (something that those who regard marriage =20
between a man and a woman as being automatically sacred while those =20
between same-sex couples could never be fail to realize). But, in =20
that marriage is a legally binding agreement, carrying with it all =20
the economic responsibilities and consequences that come with it, =20
marriage is a hand-cuff situation in which the sign of the thing is =20
taken as proof of the thing itself.
Please understand that no one is ready for marriage, =20
just as no one is ready to become president. Just like being a =20
teacher, readiness is acquired on the job. So it is with =20
commitment. One can be legally committed before becoming personally =20
committed. Here we might look to Nathaniel Hawthorne, Stephen Crane, =20=
or Alice Walker to explore the relationship of a sign to the thing =20
itself. The meaning of the scarlet letter =93A=92 changes Hester Prynne =
=20
just as she changes the meaning of the letter. The red badge of =20
courage Henry Fielding wears changes the person Henry is. The =20
negative scarification of Celie becomes something positive that =20
identifies her. The logic of character and of the human heart must =20
be considered when measuring how accurate we are being with our words.
You have misinterpreted my words when you say that I =20
claim =93that same-sex couples cannot =91develop themselves more fully =
as =20
human beings.=92=94 Obviously, people can develop themselves in many =20=
ways. But I would claim that marriage does, at least according to my =20=
experience and the experience of many, change the relationship. And, =20=
as one commits and submits to those changes, one changes oneself. I =20
would imagine that by committing ourselves to anything and by =20
submitting to the requirements entailed by such commitment, we =20
develop ourselves as human beings.
To connect this argument with civil rights, we could say =20=
that a person does not have to eat in a particular place in order to =20
get a good meal. But, if businesses have been given a public =20
franchise, the contract binds them to serve those who have given them =20=
the right to operate. We cannot force churches to sanctify same-sex =20
marriage because we have separated church from state. But, unless we =20=
have separated state from state, we should be so bound.
As for equating those who oppose same-sex marriage with =20
such a figure as John Wilkes Booth, I think you are stretching a =20
point to say that making a comparison is the same as equating. In =20
both cases, we have people who believe so strongly in their own point =20=
of view that they act in ways that might have consequences other than =20=
those intended. Lincoln would have been far more generous to the =20
South. And the struggle over race might not have become the defining =20=
struggle of our nation=92s creed. I am also claiming that marriage is =20=
a civil right and that by denying people this right, those who oppose =20=
same-sex marriage will be elevating those they oppose to a higher =20
moral position. Just as white children rebelled against the racism =20
of their past, so it might be that this and the next generation will =20
rebel against of prejudice of those who would exclude other citizens =20
from the legal covenants that should belong to all.
Beyond all of that, Scott, you have seemingly been =20
confused by what I thought was my main offering: the notion that our =20=
language is structured according to levels of abstraction=97reality, =20
imagination, and conceptualization. As we come to understand this, =20
we are better able to see the usefulness of grammar beyond simple =20
correctness of expression. Now that you have grappled with these =20
other ideas, I would like to see what you have to say about the =20
relationship of grammar, rhetoric, and logic=97how words relate to each =20=
other, how words relate to ideas, and how ideas relate to each =20
other. They seem to overlap as they give strength to each other in =20
expressing how we experience the world.
Best regards,
Gregg
On Oct 29, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Scott Woods wrote:
>
> I'm not really clear about the grammar and semantics point, but =20
> there are several fallacious, or at least questionable, arguments =20
> made in this piece. The first is a confusion between the thing, =20
> commitment in a relationship, and a sign of that commitment, =20
> marriage. There is little to support the claim that if one cannot =20
> have a sign, then one cannot have the thing. The contrary is =20
> clearly more likely. It is a bit far-fetched and demeaning to say =20
> that same-sex couples cannot "develop themselves more fully as =20
> human beings." It is even more far-fetched to say denying the =20
> pursuit of one avenue of self-development is a denial of the right =20
> to pursue happiness. Further, there is nothing to prevent same-sex =20=
> couples from marrying each other in the eyes of their families and =20
> friends. This would fulfill the same end regarding commitment as =20
> being married in the eyes of the state. I care little what the =20
> state thinks; I care greatly what my family and friends think. =20
> Also, to claim that same-sex couples cannot commit themselves =20
> fully, and so cannot become "real" seems outrageous and =20
> unsubstantiated. Finally, tit compares those who want to maintain =20
> the status quo regarding marriage to those who wanted to maintain =20
> the status quo regarding slavery. It claims that those who want to =20=
> define a legal relationship through the proposition system by =20
> direct recourse to the people--instead of letting the courts decide =20=
> the issue against the will of the people--are basically the same in =20=
> motives and character as those who would murder their President and =20=
> wage war on their country. This is really an ad hominem attack on =20
> motives designed to shut down discussion and de-legitimize any =20
> opposition.
>
> Scott Woods
> --the the rFrom: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 7:36 AM
>
> I am taking a risk in sending you an opinion piece on a subject not =20=
> directly related to grammar. I do this, not to persuade you. =20
> Rather, I do this to show how grammar might reveal certain aspects =20
> of our thinking that words on their own may not convey. Underlying =20=
> both syntax and semantics is a philosophical understanding of the =20
> world that takes us from concept to reality. Grammar guides us on =20
> that journey. The piece I have written is about a California =20
> Proposition that seeks to ban same-sex marriage in that state. =20
> Again, my purpose is not to sway your opinion on that subject. I =20
> know that would not be appropriate on this site. But, I do think =20
> it fair to share an argument based on grammar and what it reveals =20
> about the world it shapes into sentences.
>
> Rites, Rights, and Privilege
>
> by Gregg Heacock
>
>
> The night after my step-daughter married, I realized certain truths =20=
> about family and personal development that have not been addressed =20
> in the debate over California=92s Proposition 8, which says: =93Only =20=
> marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in =20
> California.=94 People have correctly attacked Proposition 8 as an =20
> attack on civil rights. But, its errors are more profound than =20
> that. Because the rite of marriage both signifies and codifies the =20=
> commencement of a life based on commitment, it provides people an =20
> opportunity to develop themselves more fully as human beings. =20
> That=92s what makes Proposition 8 is an attack not only on marriage =20=
> but also on our inalienable right to =93life, liberty, and the =20
> pursuit of happiness.=94 Like any other attack on our civil rights, =20=
> Proposition 8 would eliminate a right that unites us and replace it =20=
> with a privilege that divides us.
>
> Maybe we are too ambivalent about the importance of marriage to see =20=
> the threat for what it is. Not everyone is pleased with this tie =20
> that binds. When asked, =93If a man says something in a forest and =20=
> his wife isn=92t there to hear him, is he still wrong?=94 some men =
will =20
> say that he is wrong even if he says nothing. They see that worry =20
> rules the household and that any attempt to eliminate worries would =20=
> throw off the balance of power that the story of the Garden of Eden =20=
> may have been warning us about. Given that, Proposition 8 would be =20=
> granting same-sex couples a special right. It would give them the =20
> right never to have to commit to a relationship that could diminish =20=
> their sense of self rather than transform it. But, this view of =20
> marriage seems distorted to me since my daughter=92s marriage. I see =20=
> the importance of submitting to obligations greater than my own =20
> immediate wants. In the self-discipline that must be exercised to =20
> commit oneself to others, I see the development of the capacity to =20
> deal with what others might see as drudgery.
>
> Marriage is important, not in and of itself, but it how it relates =20
> to our commitment to other aspects of our lives. As a retired =20
> English teacher, let me share a truth that is hidden by the nature =20
> of our language. Verb forms have three states just like matter, =20
> which can exist as a gas, liquid, or solid. But the base verb =20
> remains the same, making it difficult to see the changes that occur =20=
> as we move from conceiving an idea, to testing it, to realizing it =20
> as part of our lives.
>
> Consider the infinitive =93to love.=94 As a Platonic ideal, it is =20
> boundless. Add sex, and it becomes finite. Sex leads to =20
> expectations and disappointments, jealousy, anger, and, even, =20
> hate. No wonder Plato thought that we could only know these =20
> qualities in an ideal state=97the same conceptual state in which we =20=
> know the properties of circles and squares. For Plato, the ideal =20
> was real.
>
> But, for most of us, we travel an Imaginary path, called romance, =20
> speculating on the probable consequences of various actions. With =20
> the help of auxiliary verbs, we ask ourselves, =93If I spend money on =20=
> her and show some interest in her, would she go out with me =20
> again?=94 =93If I invite him to my bed, will he respect me in the =20
> morning?=94 =93If I were to date others, would he continue to ask me =20=
> out?=94
>
> For all our belief in the power of our Romantic machinations to =20
> make things real, they do no more than bring us to the altar. It =20
> is only by saying, =93I do,=94 that we truly alter our situation, for =20=
> it is doing that makes things real. =93Having done it,=94 we possess =20=
> something that will change our very =93being.=94 Marriage grounds =
love =20
> in commitment. It is because of this that marriage signifies a =20
> stage of human development.
>
> Like running a marathon, marriage may not be for everyone. And, =20
> there are other ways for people to develop themselves. But, life =20
> demands that we commit ourselves to what we want, submit to its =20
> requirements, and risk investment our time and emotion: otherwise, =20
> we deny ourselves the benefits that come with being real.
>
> Denying same-sex couples the right to marry denies them these real =20
> returns. Parents don=92t celebrate when they hear that their son is =20=
> shacking up with his girlfriend. The same could be said of =20
> becoming domestic partners. Of course, denying same-sex couples =20
> the right of marriage has forced us to recognize other covenants; =20
> thus, corporations, to ensure that they are on the right side of =20
> the law, have often granted medical and other benefits to same-sex =20
> partners of their employees. It must be said that, since same-sex =20
> couples in California have been allowed to marry, these domestic-=20
> partner benefits often have been taken away. Marriage changes =20
> things for everyone. It=92s serious business.
>
> What supporters of Proposition 8 want is what many Southerners =20
> wanted at the end of the Civil War=97to hold onto their privileged =20
> state. When Lincoln declared that all former slaves should have =20
> the rights of citizenship, John Wilkes Booth vowed, =93That is the =20
> last speech he will ever make.=94 Unfortunately, killing Lincoln =20
> only increased the problems faced by the South and heightened the =20
> conflict over civil rights so that we have been held in its thrall =20
> for over 150 years. Supporters of Proposition 8 need to see that =20
> by restricting the rite of marriage, they would change a right that =20=
> unites us into a privilege that divides us.
>
> Some privileges are fine. Seeing my step-daughter marry forced me =20
> to recognize her in her own right=97something I had put off until =20
> that time. Parents of children who have led unconventional lives =20
> deserve the same opportunity to honor the choices their children =20
> have made. What supporters of Proposition 8 have failed to realize =20=
> is that committing to each other is different from committing to a =20
> life-style. Marriage helps make us part of the human family. =20
> About that, we should not be ambivalent. Sharing this family value =20=
> will help bring us all together.
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =20
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and =20
> select "Join or leave the list"
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =20
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and =20
> select "Join or leave the list"
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Apple-Mail-93-47065872
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=WINDOWS-1252
<html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<!--StartFragment--> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica">Scott,<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:Helvetica"><span =
style=3D"mso-tab-count: 1">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
</span>Thank you for taking the time to point out the questionable =
aspects of my piece.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Let me =
review each one.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>While I =
accept your logic on the surface, I believe something is going on below =
the surface of the words that you might have =
dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica"><span style=3D"mso-tab-count: =
1">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span>You, first, make a =
distinction between a commitment and a sign of a commitment.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Certainly, people can get married =
for certain tax advantages (something that those who regard marriage =
between a man and a woman as being automatically sacred while those =
between same-sex couples could never be fail to realize).<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>But, in that marriage is a =
legally binding agreement, carrying with it all the economic =
responsibilities and consequences that come with it, marriage is a =
hand-cuff situation in which the sign of the thing is taken as proof of =
the thing itself.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica"><span style=3D"mso-tab-count: =
1">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span>Please understand that no =
one is ready for marriage, just as no one is ready to become =
president.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Just like being a =
teacher, readiness is acquired on the job.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes">=A0 </span>So it is with commitment.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes">=A0 </span>One can be legally committed before becoming personally =
committed.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Here we might =
look to Nathaniel Hawthorne, Stephen Crane, or Alice Walker to explore =
the relationship of a sign to the thing itself.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>The meaning of the scarlet letter =
=93A=92 changes Hester Prynne just as she changes the meaning of the =
letter.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>The red badge of =
courage Henry Fielding wears changes the person Henry is.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>The negative scarification of =
Celie becomes something positive that identifies her.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>The logic of character and of the =
human heart must be considered when measuring how accurate we are being =
with our words.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica"><span style=3D"mso-tab-count: =
1">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span>You have misinterpreted my =
words when you say that I claim =93that same-sex couples cannot =91develop=
themselves more fully as human beings.=92=94<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes">=A0 </span>Obviously, people can develop themselves in many =
ways.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>But I would claim that =
marriage does, at least according to my experience and the experience of =
many, change the relationship.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>And, as one commits and submits to those changes, one changes =
oneself.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>I would imagine =
that by committing ourselves to anything and by submitting to the =
requirements entailed by such commitment, we develop ourselves as human =
beings.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica"><span style=3D"mso-tab-count: =
1">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span>To connect this argument =
with civil rights, we could say that a person does not have to eat in a =
particular place in order to get a good meal.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes">=A0 </span>But, if businesses have been given a public franchise, =
the contract binds them to serve those who have given them the right to =
operate.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>We cannot force =
churches to sanctify same-sex marriage because we have separated church =
from state.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>But, unless we =
have separated state from state, we should be so =
bound.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica"><span style=3D"mso-tab-count: =
1">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span>As for equating those who =
oppose same-sex marriage with such a figure as John Wilkes Booth, I =
think you are stretching a point to say that making a comparison is the =
same as equating.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>In both =
cases, we have people who believe so strongly in their own point of view =
that they act in ways that might have consequences other than those =
intended.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Lincoln would have =
been far more generous to the South.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>And the struggle over race might not have become the defining =
struggle of our nation=92s creed.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>I am also claiming that marriage is a civil right and that by =
denying people this right, those who oppose same-sex marriage will be =
elevating those they oppose to a higher moral position.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Just as white children rebelled =
against the racism of their past, so it might be that this and the next =
generation will rebel against of prejudice of those who would exclude =
other citizens from the legal covenants that should belong to =
all.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica"><span style=3D"mso-tab-count: =
1">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span>Beyond all of that, Scott, =
you have seemingly been confused by what I thought was my main =
offering:<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>the notion that =
our language is structured according to levels of abstraction=97reality, =
imagination, and conceptualization.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 =
</span>As we come to understand this, we are better able to see the =
usefulness of grammar beyond simple correctness of expression.<span =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>Now that you have grappled with =
these other ideas, I would like to see what you have to say about the =
relationship of grammar, rhetoric, and logic=97how words relate to each =
other, how words relate to ideas, and how ideas relate to each =
other.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes">=A0 </span>They seem to overlap =
as they give strength to each other in expressing how we experience the =
world.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica"><span style=3D"mso-tab-count: =
1">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span>Best =
regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
class=3D"Apple-tab-span" style=3D"white-space:pre"> </span>=A0=A0 =
=A0Gregg<br></div> <span =
style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><=
span style=3D"mso-tab-count:1">=A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0</span></span><div=
> <br><div><div>On Oct 29, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Scott Woods =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><table cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" =
border=3D"0"><tbody><tr><td valign=3D"top" style=3D"font: =
inherit;"><div><br>I'm not really clear about the grammar and semantics =
point, but there are several fallacious, or at least questionable, =
arguments made in this piece.=A0 The first is a confusion between the =
thing, commitment in a relationship, and a sign of that commitment, =
marriage.=A0 There is little to support the claim that if one cannot =
have a sign, then one cannot have the thing.=A0 The contrary is clearly =
more likely.=A0 It is a bit far-fetched and demeaning to say that =
same-sex couples cannot "develop themselves more fully as human =
beings."=A0 It is even more far-fetched to say=A0denying the pursuit =
of=A0one avenue of self-development is a denial of the right to pursue =
happiness.=A0 Further, there is nothing to prevent same-sex couples from =
marrying each other in the eyes of their families and friends.=A0 This =
would fulfill the same end regarding commitment as being married=A0in =
the eyes of the state.=A0 I care little what the state thinks; I=A0care =
greatly what my family and friends think.=A0 =A0Also, to claim that =
same-sex couples cannot=A0commit themselves fully, and so cannot =
become=A0"real" seems outrageous and unsubstantiated.=A0Finally, tit =
compares those who want to maintain the status quo regarding marriage to =
those who wanted to maintain the status quo regarding slavery.=A0 It =
claims that those who want to define a legal relationship through the =
proposition system by direct recourse to the people--instead of letting =
the courts decide the issue against the will of the =
people--are=A0basically the same in motives=A0and character as=A0those =
who would murder their President and wage war on their country.=A0 This =
is really an ad hominem attack on motives designed to shut down =
discussion and de-legitimize any opposition.=A0 </div> <div>=A0</div> =
<div>Scott Woods</div> <blockquote style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">--the the =
rFrom: Gregg Heacock <<a =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>><b=
r>Subject: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument<br>To: <a =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a><br>D=
ate: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 7:36 AM<br><br> <div =
id=3D"yiv599066331">I am taking a risk in sending you an opinion piece =
on a subject not directly related to grammar. =A0I do this, not to =
persuade you. =A0Rather, I do this to show how grammar might reveal =
certain aspects of our thinking that words on their own may not convey. =
=A0Underlying both syntax and semantics is a philosophical understanding =
of the world that takes us from concept to reality. =A0Grammar guides us =
on that journey. =A0The piece I have written is about a California =
Proposition that seeks to ban same-sex marriage in that state. =A0Again, =
my purpose is not to sway your opinion on that subject. =A0I know that =
would not be appropriate on this site. =A0But, I do think it fair to =
share an argument based on grammar and what it reveals about the world =
it shapes into sentences.<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 27px"></span> <div><span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: =
27px">=A0</span> <div> <h1 style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: center" =
align=3D"center"><span><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" size=3D"3"><span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: =
12px">Rites, Rights, and Privilege</span></font></span></h1><p =
class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=3D"center"><span>by=
Gregg Heacock</span></p></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>=A0</span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>The night after my step-daughter married, I =
realized certain truths about family and personal development that have =
not been addressed in the debate over California=92s Proposition 8, =
which says: =93Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or =
recognized in California.=94<span>=A0 </span>People have correctly =
attacked Proposition 8 as an attack on civil rights.<span>=A0 =
</span>But, its errors are more profound than that.<span>=A0 =
</span>Because the rite of marriage both signifies and codifies the =
commencement of a life based on commitment, it provides people an =
opportunity to develop themselves more fully as human beings.<span>=A0 =
</span>That=92s what makes Proposition 8 is an attack not only on =
marriage but also on our inalienable right to =93life, liberty, and the =
pursuit of happiness.=94<span>=A0 </span>Like any other attack on our =
civil rights, Proposition 8 would eliminate a right that unites us and =
replace it with a privilege that divides us.</span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>=A0</span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>Maybe we are too ambivalent about the =
importance of marriage to see the threat for what it is.<span>=A0 =
</span>Not everyone is pleased with this tie that binds.<span>=A0 =
</span>When asked, =93If a man says something in a forest and his wife =
isn=92t there to hear him, is he still wrong?=94 some men will say that =
he is wrong even if he says nothing.<span>=A0 </span>They see that worry =
rules the household and that any attempt to eliminate worries would =
throw off the balance of power that the story of the Garden of Eden may =
have been warning us about.<span>=A0 </span>Given that, Proposition 8 =
would be granting same-sex couples a special right.<span>=A0 </span>It =
would give them the right never to have to commit to a relationship that =
could diminish their sense of self rather than transform it.<span>=A0 =
</span>But, this view of marriage seems distorted to me since my =
daughter=92s marriage.<span>=A0 </span>I see the importance of =
submitting to obligations greater than my own immediate wants.<span>=A0 =
</span>In the self-discipline that must be exercised to commit oneself =
to others, I see the development of the capacity to deal with what =
others might see as drudgery. </span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>=A0</span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>Marriage is important, not in and of itself, =
but it how it relates to our commitment to other aspects of our =
lives.<span>=A0 </span>As a retired English teacher, let me share a =
truth that is hidden by the nature of our language.<span>=A0 </span>Verb =
forms have three states just like matter, which can exist as a gas, =
liquid, or solid.<span>=A0 </span>But the base verb remains the same, =
making it difficult to see the changes that occur as we move from =
conceiving an idea, to testing it, to realizing it as part of our =
lives.<span>=A0 </span></span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>=A0</span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>Consider the infinitive =93to love.=94<span>=A0 =
</span>As a Platonic ideal, it is boundless.<span>=A0 </span>Add sex, =
and it becomes finite.<span>=A0 </span>Sex leads to expectations and =
disappointments, jealousy, anger, and, even, hate.<span>=A0 </span>No =
wonder Plato thought that we could only know these qualities in an ideal =
state=97the same conceptual state in which we know the properties of =
circles and squares.<span>=A0 </span>For Plato, the ideal was =
real.</span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>=A0</span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>But, for most of us, we travel an Imaginary =
path, called romance, speculating on the probable consequences of =
various actions. With the help of auxiliary verbs, we ask ourselves, =93If=
I spend money on her and show some interest in her, would she go out =
with me again?=94<span>=A0 </span>=93If I invite him to my bed, will he =
respect me in the morning?=94<span>=A0 </span>=93If I were to date =
others, would he continue to ask me out?=94 </span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>=A0</span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>For all our belief in the power of our =
Romantic machinations to make things real, they do no more than bring us =
to the altar.<span>=A0 </span>It is only by saying, =93I do,=94 that we =
truly alter our situation, for it is doing that makes things =
real.<span>=A0 </span>=93Having done it,=94 we possess something that =
will change our very =93being.=94<span>=A0 </span>Marriage grounds love =
in commitment.<span>=A0 </span>It is because of this that marriage =
signifies a stage of human development. </span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>=A0</span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>Like running a marathon, marriage may not be =
for everyone.<span>=A0 </span>And, there are other ways for people to =
develop themselves. But, life demands that we commit ourselves to what =
we want, submit to its requirements, and risk investment our time and =
emotion: otherwise, we deny ourselves the benefits that come with being =
real.</span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>=A0</span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>Denying same-sex couples the right to marry =
denies them these real returns.<span>=A0 </span>Parents don=92t =
celebrate when they hear that their son is shacking up with his =
girlfriend.<span>=A0 </span>The same could be said of becoming domestic =
partners.<span>=A0 </span>Of course, denying same-sex couples the right =
of marriage has forced us to recognize other covenants; thus, =
corporations, to ensure that they are on the right side of the law, have =
often granted medical and other benefits to same-sex partners of their =
employees.<span>=A0 </span>It must be said that, since same-sex couples =
in California have been allowed to marry, these domestic-partner =
benefits often have been taken away.<span>=A0 </span>Marriage changes =
things for everyone.<span>=A0 </span>It=92s serious =
business.</span></div> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>=A0</span></div> =
<div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>What supporters of Proposition 8 want is =
what many Southerners wanted at the end of the Civil War=97to hold onto =
their privileged state.<span>=A0 </span>When Lincoln declared that all =
former slaves should have the rights of citizenship, John Wilkes Booth =
vowed, =93That is the last speech he will ever make.=94<span>=A0 =
</span>Unfortunately, killing Lincoln only increased the problems faced =
by the South and heightened the conflict over civil rights so that we =
have been held in its thrall for over 150 years.<span>=A0 =
</span>Supporters of Proposition 8 need to see that by restricting the =
rite of marriage, they would change a right that unites us into a =
privilege that divides us. </span></div> <div =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span>=A0</span></div><span>Some privileges are =
fine.<span>=A0 </span>Seeing my step-daughter marry forced me to =
recognize her in her own right=97something I had put off until that =
time.<span>=A0 </span>Parents of children who have led unconventional =
lives deserve the same opportunity to honor the choices their children =
have made.<span>=A0 </span>What supporters of Proposition 8 have failed =
to realize is that committing to each other is different from committing =
to a life-style.<span>=A0 </span>Marriage helps make us part of the =
human family.<span>=A0 </span>About that, we should not be =
ambivalent.<span>=A0 </span>Sharing this family value will help bring us =
all =
together.</span></div></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table></block=
quote><div><br></div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><table =
cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0"><tbody><tr><td =
valign=3D"top" style=3D"font: inherit;"><blockquote style=3D"PADDING-LEFT:=
5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><div =
id=3D"yiv599066331"><div> </div></div>To join or leave this LISTSERV =
list, please visit the list's web interface at: <a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muo=
hio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and select "Join or leave the list" =
<div>Visit ATEG's web site at <a =
href=3D"http://ateg.org">http://ateg.org</a>/ =
</div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table><br> To join or leave this =
LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: <a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muo=
hio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and select "Join or leave the list" <p> =
Visit ATEG's web site at <a =
href=3D"http://ateg.org">http://ateg.org</a>/</p></blockquote></div><br></=
div></body></html>=
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Apple-Mail-93-47065872--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:18:10 -0400
From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument
Isn't "I do" an example of performative, rather than constative, =
language? The words "I do," spoken as part of a wedding ceremony, are =
arguably not just "a sign of that commitment" but a verbal action =
ratifying that commitment and establishing it as a matter of convention =
and of religious and/or civil law. As Scott says, you can have the =
commitment without the act of marriage--but it may be hard or impossible =
to get social and legal recognition of the commitment without that =
verbal action.=20
Scott says "it's even more far-fetched to say denying the pursuit of one =
avenue of self-development is a denial of the right to pursue =
happiness." I may be missing his point, but here's what I'm wondering: =
If no one particular way of pursing happiness is protected, how can the =
general right to the pursuit of happiness be protected? What if someone =
finds every "avenue" blocked, and what if that person is told each time, =
"pursue happiness some other way"? At what point do we say that the =
right to the pursuit of happiness has been denied?
Scott also says that "there is nothing to prevent same-sex couples from =
marrying each other in the eyes of their families and friends." This =
should be true, but I'm afraid that it isn't always so. I know a gay man =
whose family has come a long way in accepting his relationship with his =
partner, but I don't think all the members of the family put his =
relationship on the same level as legal marriage. If he were legally =
married, I do think it would make some difference in the way his family =
sees his commitment. Perhaps this helps to make Gregg's point, or a =
point related to Gregg's--language doesn't just signify reality, but, in =
many ways, shapes it.
Gregg, congratulations on your step-daughter's marriage!
Brian=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Gregg =
Heacock
Sent: Wed 10/29/2008 5:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument
=20
Scott,
Thank you for taking the time to point out the questionable =
aspects of my piece. Let me review each one. While I accept your logic =
on the surface, I believe something is going on below the surface of the =
words that you might have dismissed.
You, first, make a distinction between a commitment and a =
sign of a commitment. Certainly, people can get married for certain tax =
advantages (something that those who regard marriage between a man and a =
woman as being automatically sacred while those between same-sex couples =
could never be fail to realize). But, in that marriage is a legally =
binding agreement, carrying with it all the economic responsibilities =
and consequences that come with it, marriage is a hand-cuff situation in =
which the sign of the thing is taken as proof of the thing itself. =20
Please understand that no one is ready for marriage, just as =
no one is ready to become president. Just like being a teacher, =
readiness is acquired on the job. So it is with commitment. One can be =
legally committed before becoming personally committed. Here we might =
look to Nathaniel Hawthorne, Stephen Crane, or Alice Walker to explore =
the relationship of a sign to the thing itself. The meaning of the =
scarlet letter "A' changes Hester Prynne just as she changes the meaning =
of the letter. The red badge of courage Henry Fielding wears changes =
the person Henry is. The negative scarification of Celie becomes =
something positive that identifies her. The logic of character and of =
the human heart must be considered when measuring how accurate we are =
being with our words.
You have misinterpreted my words when you say that I claim =
"that same-sex couples cannot 'develop themselves more fully as human =
beings.'" Obviously, people can develop themselves in many ways. But I =
would claim that marriage does, at least according to my experience and =
the experience of many, change the relationship. And, as one commits =
and submits to those changes, one changes oneself. I would imagine that =
by committing ourselves to anything and by submitting to the =
requirements entailed by such commitment, we develop ourselves as human =
beings. =20
To connect this argument with civil rights, we could say =
that a person does not have to eat in a particular place in order to get =
a good meal. But, if businesses have been given a public franchise, the =
contract binds them to serve those who have given them the right to =
operate. We cannot force churches to sanctify same-sex marriage because =
we have separated church from state. But, unless we have separated =
state from state, we should be so bound.
As for equating those who oppose same-sex marriage with such =
a figure as John Wilkes Booth, I think you are stretching a point to say =
that making a comparison is the same as equating. In both cases, we =
have people who believe so strongly in their own point of view that they =
act in ways that might have consequences other than those intended. =
Lincoln would have been far more generous to the South. And the =
struggle over race might not have become the defining struggle of our =
nation's creed. I am also claiming that marriage is a civil right and =
that by denying people this right, those who oppose same-sex marriage =
will be elevating those they oppose to a higher moral position. Just as =
white children rebelled against the racism of their past, so it might be =
that this and the next generation will rebel against of prejudice of =
those who would exclude other citizens from the legal covenants that =
should belong to all.
Beyond all of that, Scott, you have seemingly been confused =
by what I thought was my main offering: the notion that our language is =
structured according to levels of abstraction-reality, imagination, and =
conceptualization. As we come to understand this, we are better able to =
see the usefulness of grammar beyond simple correctness of expression. =
Now that you have grappled with these other ideas, I would like to see =
what you have to say about the relationship of grammar, rhetoric, and =
logic-how words relate to each other, how words relate to ideas, and how =
ideas relate to each other. They seem to overlap as they give strength =
to each other in expressing how we experience the world.
Best regards,
Gregg
=20
On Oct 29, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Scott Woods wrote:
=09
I'm not really clear about the grammar and semantics point, but
there =
are several fallacious, or at least questionable, arguments made in this =
piece. The first is a confusion between the thing, commitment in a =
relationship, and a sign of that commitment, marriage. There is little =
to support the claim that if one cannot have a sign, then one cannot =
have the thing. The contrary is clearly more likely. It is a bit =
far-fetched and demeaning to say that same-sex couples cannot "develop =
themselves more fully as human beings." It is even more far-fetched to =
say denying the pursuit of one avenue of self-development is a denial of =
the right to pursue happiness. Further, there is nothing to prevent =
same-sex couples from marrying each other in the eyes of their families =
and friends. This would fulfill the same end regarding commitment as =
being married in the eyes of the state. I care little what the state =
thinks; I care greatly what my family and friends think. Also, to =
claim that same-sex couples cannot commit themselves fully, and so =
cannot become "real" seems outrageous and unsubstantiated. Finally, tit =
compares those who want to maintain the status quo regarding marriage to =
those who wanted to maintain the status quo regarding slavery. It =
claims that those who want to define a legal relationship through the =
proposition system by direct recourse to the people--instead of letting =
the courts decide the issue against the will of the people--are =
basically the same in motives and character as those who would murder =
their President and wage war on their country. This is really an ad =
hominem attack on motives designed to shut down discussion and =
de-legitimize any opposition. =20
=20
Scott Woods
--the the rFrom: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 7:36 AM
=09
=09
I am taking a risk in sending you an opinion piece on a
subject not =
directly related to grammar. I do this, not to persuade you. Rather, I =
do this to show how grammar might reveal certain aspects of our thinking =
that words on their own may not convey. Underlying both syntax and =
semantics is a philosophical understanding of the world that takes us =
from concept to reality. Grammar guides us on that journey. The piece =
I have written is about a California Proposition that seeks to ban =
same-sex marriage in that state. Again, my purpose is not to sway your =
opinion on that subject. I know that would not be appropriate on this =
site. But, I do think it fair to share an argument based on grammar and =
what it reveals about the world it shapes into sentences.=20
=20
Rites, Rights, and Privilege
by Gregg Heacock
=20
The night after my step-daughter married, I realized certain
truths =
about family and personal development that have not been addressed in =
the debate over California's Proposition 8, which says: "Only marriage =
between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." People =
have correctly attacked Proposition 8 as an attack on civil rights. =
But, its errors are more profound than that. Because the rite of =
marriage both signifies and codifies the commencement of a life based on =
commitment, it provides people an opportunity to develop themselves more =
fully as human beings. That's what makes Proposition 8 is an attack not =
only on marriage but also on our inalienable right to "life, liberty, =
and the pursuit of happiness." Like any other attack on our civil =
rights, Proposition 8 would eliminate a right that unites us and replace =
it with a privilege that divides us.
=20
Maybe we are too ambivalent about the importance of marriage
to see =
the threat for what it is. Not everyone is pleased with this tie that =
binds. When asked, "If a man says something in a forest and his wife =
isn't there to hear him, is he still wrong?" some men will say that he =
is wrong even if he says nothing. They see that worry rules the =
household and that any attempt to eliminate worries would throw off the =
balance of power that the story of the Garden of Eden may have been =
warning us about. Given that, Proposition 8 would be granting same-sex =
couples a special right. It would give them the right never to have to =
commit to a relationship that could diminish their sense of self rather =
than transform it. But, this view of marriage seems distorted to me =
since my daughter's marriage. I see the importance of submitting to =
obligations greater than my own immediate wants. In the self-discipline =
that must be exercised to commit oneself to others, I see the =
development of the capacity to deal with what others might see as =
drudgery.=20
=20
Marriage is important, not in and of itself, but it how it
relates to =
our commitment to other aspects of our lives. As a retired English =
teacher, let me share a truth that is hidden by the nature of our =
language. Verb forms have three states just like matter, which can =
exist as a gas, liquid, or solid. But the base verb remains the same, =
making it difficult to see the changes that occur as we move from =
conceiving an idea, to testing it, to realizing it as part of our lives. =
=20
=20
Consider the infinitive "to love." As a Platonic ideal, it
is =
boundless. Add sex, and it becomes finite. Sex leads to expectations =
and disappointments, jealousy, anger, and, even, hate. No wonder Plato =
thought that we could only know these qualities in an ideal state-the =
same conceptual state in which we know the properties of circles and =
squares. For Plato, the ideal was real.
=20
But, for most of us, we travel an Imaginary path, called
romance, =
speculating on the probable consequences of various actions. With the =
help of auxiliary verbs, we ask ourselves, "If I spend money on her and =
show some interest in her, would she go out with me again?" "If I =
invite him to my bed, will he respect me in the morning?" "If I were to =
date others, would he continue to ask me out?"=20
=20
For all our belief in the power of our Romantic machinations
to make =
things real, they do no more than bring us to the altar. It is only by =
saying, "I do," that we truly alter our situation, for it is doing that =
makes things real. "Having done it," we possess something that will =
change our very "being." Marriage grounds love in commitment. It is =
because of this that marriage signifies a stage of human development.=20
=20
Like running a marathon, marriage may not be for everyone.
And, there =
are other ways for people to develop themselves. But, life demands that =
we commit ourselves to what we want, submit to its requirements, and =
risk investment our time and emotion: otherwise, we deny ourselves the =
benefits that come with being real.
=20
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry denies them
these real =
returns. Parents don't celebrate when they hear that their son is =
shacking up with his girlfriend. The same could be said of becoming =
domestic partners. Of course, denying same-sex couples the right of =
marriage has forced us to recognize other covenants; thus, corporations, =
to ensure that they are on the right side of the law, have often granted =
medical and other benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. It =
must be said that, since same-sex couples in California have been =
allowed to marry, these domestic-partner benefits often have been taken =
away. Marriage changes things for everyone. It's serious business.
=20
What supporters of Proposition 8 want is what many
Southerners wanted =
at the end of the Civil War-to hold onto their privileged state. When =
Lincoln declared that all former slaves should have the rights of =
citizenship, John Wilkes Booth vowed, "That is the last speech he will =
ever make." Unfortunately, killing Lincoln only increased the problems =
faced by the South and heightened the conflict over civil rights so that =
we have been held in its thrall for over 150 years. Supporters of =
Proposition 8 need to see that by restricting the rite of marriage, they =
would change a right that unites us into a privilege that divides us.=20
=20
Some privileges are fine. Seeing my step-daughter marry
forced me to =
recognize her in her own right-something I had put off until that time. =
Parents of children who have led unconventional lives deserve the same =
opportunity to honor the choices their children have made. What =
supporters of Proposition 8 have failed to realize is that committing to =
each other is different from committing to a life-style. Marriage helps =
make us part of the human family. About that, we should not be =
ambivalent. Sharing this family value will help bring us all together.
=09
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit
the list's web =
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select =
"Join or leave the list"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
=09
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select =
"Join or leave the list"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select =
"Join or leave the list"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 27 Oct 2008 to 29 Oct 2008 (#2008-232)
***********************************************************
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
