What is a Tuna Melt?
The bubbly nine-year-old bounced in the cushioned booth seat after glancing at the menu. “Tuna melt!” she proclaimed. “That’s what I want. A tuna melt!”
The waitress smiled. “What kind of cheese do you want on that, miss?”
“Cheese?” the girl turned to her mother in a panic. “I don’t want any cheese on it.”
“OK,” continued the waitress. “So we will just toast it without any cheese.”
“But,” the youngster began to whine. “I don’t want it toasted.”
At this point, her mother interjected. “But honey, that’s what a tuna melt is — cheese on tuna toasted in the oven.”
Rather than acquiesce to the fact that the definitions of words or practices have certain meanings based in truth, children will often demand that those definitions be altered to suit their desires. Adults sometimes do the same. And if our demands are not met, sometimes claims of unfairness, discrimination or intolerance may be hurled at the messenger (and Mr. Webster’s dictionary). Like a petulant child, some of us are having tantrums.
Definitions Have Purpose
First, all definitions have a purpose for their meaning. The word “marriage” has always meant the legal union of a man and a woman, based upon their conjugal relationship, for the purpose of creating children and combining households. It is unique among any other kinds of relationships which humans may have.
When irrational criteria were added (e.g., the racist presumption that both parties must be members of the same ethnic group), they were properly struck down. The definition and the true meaning of marriage are destroyed if the term is used to mean anything more or less than that for which it was intended.
So, for example, a brother and sister, or three people, or people of the same gender, none of whom can have a conjugal relationship and naturally produce children, cannot be “married.” They can be anything else, but what they have doesn’t fit the true meaning of the term.
Conversely, when the meaning is misconstrued, a correction will and should occur. When crayons and Band-aids came in “flesh” color, it begged the question: “Whose flesh?” Truth demanded that the name of that particular crayon’s color was properly changed to “peach” and the bandage was offered in clear plastic to camouflage itself against any person’s flesh color. Of greater seriousness, the fallacy of holding that certain human beings were not “persons” for political, economic, or personal gain (e.g., the tenets of Nazism’s “final solution”, or the “three-fifths clause” pertaining to slaves in the U.S.) was always clear, although war was required for truth to finally win.
Meaning and History
The true meaning of a word or practice carries with it the gravis and wisdom of history. Thus, for example, the word “doubt” retains its silent “b”, and continues to proudly proclaim its thousand-year-old Roman pedigree, because it was derived from its Latin forefather: dubia. It may not make sense to the grade school student learning how to spell it, but it is what it is, in all of its regal tradition.
When George Bernard Shaw offered a sizeable award in his will to the person who could create an alphabet which would rid English of its archaic and nonsensical spelling rules, the idea was hailed as wonderfully sensible for the modern age. Yet the winning phonetic alphabet never caught on, primarily because it erased the historical memory and “truth” contained in each word.
Love ≠ Marriage
The capacity of a human being to love another is beyond measure. Mothers will suffer for their children; one brother will die for another. The fact that neither can marry the other does not minimize or denigrate their love.
There are no bounds to the love people can feel for one another, but there are bounds to what marriage means. It does not discriminate against same sex couples to hold that their love is not “marriageable.” It only means that marriage is reserved for a unique form of love between a man and a woman who, under normal circumstances, can form the basis of a family.
“Well, I guess I will have a tuna salad sandwich,” murmured my nine-year-old at that diner many years ago.
“I guess you will,” I nodded.
12 thoughts on “Tuna Melts, Meaning and Marriage”
Wow Cynthia this is awesome, and right on target! You have made it so crystal clear. And by the way I love tuna melts! Great illustration.
Pingback: Pope Francis, Ecumenism & Witness to Christ. - BigPulpit.com
I guess I am just old and less educated than some here, but it seems to me what is missing in this article and the comments here is the reality of who created marriage between man and woman and why. This seems especially odd to me as this is a Catholic web site. Perhaps you can add “dense” to my other traits. Perhaps this article was meant to be humorous or pithy and I just didn’t “get it”? Mebbe so…
No, I am sure you are not older than me and you are certainly not less educated. I believe that God instituted marriage, and Jesus “seconded” it in his discussions of marriage and his support of it, both implicitly and explicitly. I did not want to rely, however, on that line of reasoning here, but rather show that the Church always has excellent reasoning and a sound basis for Her teachings and philosophy, even in the secular sense.
But yep, God did create it. You are correct!
God created marriage and definitions don’t change?
1. 1 Chronicles 3…David had 7 wives and 19 sons and one daughter by his wives and concubines,
2. The Biblical patriarchs had many wives
3. Levitrate marriage…a brother has to marry the widow of his deceased brother so that the bloodline would not be extinguiished
4. Numbers 36:10 Marriage was to be within the tribe
5. Judges 14:10 The marriage was consummated when a dowry was paid
6. 1 Kings 11 Solomon, the wisest man to have lived, had 700 wives and 300 concubines
7. Numbers 31:18 God commands the Israeiites to kill the Midianite women caputured in war, but to keep the virgin girls for themselves …also tells them how to purify the girls
8. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 A Hebrew girl who is raped is to be sold to her rapist for 50 sheckels and is kept as his wife until she dies
I could go on and on, so keep believing that God defined marriage as one man and one woman and that the definition never changes.
Human consciousness about men and women does evolve, and thank God for allow evolution of human awareness of justice….because it wasn’t always that way.
But what would I know, I am just a very old man….married many years….
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.” William Shakespeare, “The Merchant of Venice”
Please do not trivialize my comments, nor refer to me in Satanic terms. Very simply, the Old Testament verifies the notion that marriage meant different things in different ages and cultures. That’s a fact! If you want to refute this fact, please do….don’t resort to anonymous arguments which could be applied to anyone who quotes Scripture or to no one.
You are correct in assuming that it’s all a matter of definition, but some points you make need challenge. It is important never to conflate sacramental matrimony with marriage. I agree that the RCC defines matrimony as a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation….everyone knows the RCC position.
To assume that, as you say, ” The word “marriage” has always meant the legal union of a man and a woman, based upon their conjugal relationship, for the purpose of creating children and combining households.” is incorrect. Over the course of history, marriage has taken on a variety of forms and was defined for a variety of purposes. The following TED-Ed narration by Alex Gendler covers the variations of types of marriage and purposes in a brief summary.
http://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-history-of-marriage-alex-gendler
Neither history nor anthropology would validate your assertion.
You also correctly state: “When irrational criteria were added (e.g., the racist presumption that both parties must be members of the same ethnic group), they were properly struck down.” I would maintain that when the only man-woman union was added, it is being struck down. 19 states and D.C. have legalized gay marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013. Appelate courts in many other states have declared unconsitiutional state laws banning gay marriage. Far more Roman Catholics support gay marriage than the Christians of other denominations; the majority of Americans support gay marriage. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-usa-gay-survey-idUSBREA1P07020140226
So yes, it is a matter of definition, the RCC defines it a particular way which is inconsistent with history and inconsistent with contemporary culture and inconsistent with the majority of Catholics. The RCC can define sacramental matrimony in any way it chooses; it is not the accepted definition of marriage throughout culture.
It is clear from the context that Cynthia was referring to the definition of marriage accepted in Western Civilization for hundreds of years. Implicitly she is affirming that that definition is truly in accord with the nature of man while deviations from it are not.
Hundreds of years of belief in a particular definition in Western Civilization does not define either marriage nor the nature of man. Given 65,000 years of human behavioral normalcy, we can only depend on constants over time. The world is quite old and extends far beyond the reach of Western thought….present day definitions continue to evolve as does human consciousness. The past several hundreds years in Western civilization hardly mark a Golden era. If a definition of marriage changes over time and that change is accepted by differing cultures, then there are no hard, fixed rules.
Thank you Bob.
Phil, you defeated your own argument with “the majority of Americans support gay marriage,” and then proceeded to tell me that it didn’t matter that that “hundreds of years of belief in a particular definition” does not count. It seems that the majority’s opinion only matters when it agrees with yours.
It is common knowledge that Western Civilization (of which ours is part) has defined marriage (and not just matrimony) as the legal union of a man and a woman. I cannot find any evidence that same sex couples were able into the same legal union in any century past. Civil partnerships are another matter, and a very sensible thing for any two people who wish to have a protected, legal arrangement. But marriage is very different and unique.
Conflating arguments, so let’s make it simple:
1. The definition of marriage in the world over the past 65,000 years of human behavioral normalcy has changed both in terms of the man/woman dynamic and the procreation dynamic
2. The definition of marriage over the past several hundreds of years does not establish an eternal definition, just one of the past several hundreds of years
3. The majority of Church going Catholics supporting gay marriage lends evidence to the “irrationality” argument you presented as a basis for changing definition….it is changing
4. Marriage for the past 65,000 has evolved as has human consciousness
5. Western civilization is a fraction of human culture and civilization
6. The RCC’s definition of marriage has not changed and probably will not…it’s called sacramental matrimony which is distinct from the evolving conception of marriage.