Dennis Byrne has never been a favorite columnist of mine. Not only are our politics different, but I don't think he is always honest in his "analyses." Here's an example:
quote:
As the conservative Witherspoon Institute, a Princeton, N.J., think tank said:
"Human beings are social animals, and the social institution of marriage is a profound human good. It is a matrix of human relationships rooted in the spouses' sexual complementarity and procreative possibilities, and in children's need for sustained parental nurturance and support. It creates clear ties of begetting and belonging, ties of identity, kinship and mutual interdependence and responsibility.
"These bonds of fidelity serve a crucial public purpose, and so it is necessary and proper for the state to recognize and encourage marriage in both law and public policy. Indeed, it is not surprising that marriage is publicly sanctioned and promoted in virtually every known society and often solemnized by religious and cultural rituals. Modern biological and social science only confirm the benefits of marriage as a human good consistent with our given nature as sexual and social beings."
In fewer words: Research and common sense indisputably validate that heterosexual marriage is uniquely good in itself, better for the children and essential for the common good.
So, do you think Dennis's "fewer words" accurately depict the Witherspoon Institute's statement?
Yep, I agree with you both. The word "heterosexual" was not even mentioned. In the past his dishonesty has been more subtle, but this time it's egregious.
It's not accurate at all. The aspect of research was not even mentioned in the original piece. I would precis it as:
The bonds of findelity, as legally represented by the contract of marriage, serve a cruicial purpose. It is therefore right that the state recognise the benefits of the institution of marriage.
Most of the rest of the passage is puff, which adds little to the main point of the passage.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
You are so right about the research piece not even being mentioned. I struggled with the heterosexual, but the implication of research is another embellishment.
As for the procreative part, Bob, I had also considered that, at first, but when you deconstruct the sentence ["It is a matrix of human relationships rooted in the spouses' sexual complementarity and procreative possibilities, and in children's need for sustained parental nurturance and support."], you realize that the "procreative possibilities" are only part of it; you might just have the sexual complementarity. Plus, though I am sure they didn't intend this, gay couples can be parents.
I think I will send this off to Geoffrey Pullum to analyze. He loves analyzing why sentences are understandable, so he will be doubly interested in this analysis, I imagine.
I posted a link to our conversation there on Dennis's Blog. I do think I'll send it to Pullum to, just in case it would interest him. I'd love to see a linguist's analysis of this on Language Log!
