---

Principle I: The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign

The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. Since I mean by sign the whole that results from the associating of the signifier with the signified, I can simple say: the linguistic sign is arbitrary.

The idea of "sister" is not linked by any inner relationship to the succession of sounds s-o-r which serves as its signifier in French: that it could be represented equally by just any other sequence is proved by differences among languages and by the very existence of different languages: the signified "ox" has as its signifier b-o-f on one side of the border and o-k-s on the other.

---

I feel that if this principal was widely and consciously understood and internalized, people would stop bitching about how allowing different conceptions of marriage than their own destroys the sanctity of their beliefs. If the signifier "bishop" has different signifieds in different religions, why can't any/every other religious term?

Opinions?

I kind of have the gist of what you're trying to say, but don't want to agree/disagree until I'm sure I know what you're trying to say.

-------
In a city made of steel
The concrete rage is all we feel

My argument, relating this concept to marriage, is a rebuttal to the idea that allowing different forms of marriage is an attack on one man, one woman marriage. Basically, what I'm saying is that "marriage" is just a word, and has no relation to, say, the Catholic institution of marriage. The word "marriage" is a signifier, not the Catholic institution of marriage. Thus, if someone who isn't a Catholic says that marriage is a union between as many adults of whatever gender, they aren't attacking the Catholic instiution of marriage. Instead they're recognizing a different institution that is also signified, within their own religious (or, as the growing case in modern, American society is, secular) context, by the signifier "marriage". Nothing about the Catholic institution of marriage has changed, and their use of marriage is in no way a commentary on the Catholic institution of marriage is. This is no different than the fact that in Mormon, Roman Catholics, and Episcopalian contexts the word "bishop" has different meanings. Catholics don't bitch about how Mormon bishops should have more power or Episcopalian bishops should only be men. They acknowledge that "bishop" is a signifier, and that in Catholicism the signified is a man with a certain power/ responsibility, in Mormonism the signified is a man with a different power/ responsibility, and in (some) Episcopalian congregations the signified can be a man or woman. The fact that they use the same signifier, "bishop" is irrelevant; a bishop in Catholicism is not the same as a bishop in Mormonism. This is possible because there isn't an inherent connection between signifier (the word bishop) and signified (real-world bishops).

Thus, anyone who thinks that allowing gays/ polygamists/ whatever to marry affects the sanctity of one man, one woman marriage is either basing their argument on ignorance of semiology or a failure to logically implement a proper understanding of semiology, because they are (falsely) assuming that the word "marriage" is inherently tied to their specific conception of marriage, and thus that allowing gay marriage in some contexts means changing the definition of the one man, one woman institution with which they are most familiar.

In fact what they changed with prop eight was primarily the signified. They made an assertion that the signifier marriage signifies a bond between a man and a woman.

They could give two shits about the sanctity of marriage, if they really cared about that their aim would be to protect marriage by limiting divorce rather than to take away a gays legal civil rights.

-------
O` tru apothecary!
Thy drugs are quick.
Thus with a kiss I die.

Same type of thought process occurs in every publically approved attrocity. We invade other countries to "protect freedom" etc etc.

-------
O` tru apothecary!
Thy drugs are quick.
Thus with a kiss I die.

---

By limiting the sign you can use semantics to enforce biggotry, the real reason people were against it was because they hate gays so ultimately your argument will to little.

---

What's your basis for this? Generally speaking, when I talk to people who are against gay marriage they are reacting against what they see as a movement by activist GLBT to change their traditions/ values into GLBT-compatible values/ traditions. "Do what you want, just don't call it marriage" comes to mind; it's the idea that marriage is one man, one woman, and GLBT are trying to re-define that so that it aligns with their socio-political views, ergo why they don't advocate limiting divorce (which is now part of the commonly accepted one man, one woman marriage).

Maybe I'm broken, but I just really cannot even see the anti-gay point of view. Whenever there is someone on the opposing side of something I believe in or agree with, I can usually see at least one of their points. In the case of opposition to gay marriage: nada. Nothing. It's like they're from another planet talking to me in some obscure Greek dialect.

I kind of wish there was an "intellectual" who could come on here and defend. Then again, I doubt it, because I'll admit it, I'm prejudiced against marriage-nazis.

-------
In a city made of steel
The concrete rage is all we feel

Don't mislead people by trying to pretend that prop eight prserved the definition of marriage when quite literally it's goal was to CHANGE it in order to fuck gays over.

The campaigns slogans were mostly lies like "Yes on 8 = Free Speech" so I'm not sure why you would even for a second use those in an argument.

-------
O` tru apothecary!
Thy drugs are quick.
Thus with a kiss I die.