Gay Marriage recognized by Merriam-Webster

[TechBoyJK]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509733,00.html

Tolerance... or division?

SAN FRANCISCO ? Same-sex marriage might not be recognized in most states, but it is in the dictionary.

Merriam-Webster included a secondary definition of marriage to recognize same-sex relationships several years before gay couples were allowed to tie the knot anywhere in the United States, but the change had gone largely unnoticed until the conservative World Net Daily news site reported it Tuesday.

"One of the nation's most prominent dictionary companies has resolved the argument over whether the term 'marriage' should apply to same-sex duos or be reserved for the institution that has held families together for millennia: by simply writing a new definition," World Net wrote in an online story published Tuesday.

In its Web and print editions, Merriam-Webster defines marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

But in a nod to evolving ideas of love and English usage, the Springfield, Mass.-based company in 2003 added a secondary meaning for "marriage" as "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

Merriam-Webster said in a statement Wednesday that the edited entry merely reflected the frequency with which the term "same-sex marriage" had popped up in print and become part of the general lexicon.

"Its inclusion was a simple matter of providing dictionary users with accurate information about all of the word's current uses," the company said, adding that it was surprised by the recent attention because it was "neither news nor unusual."

"We were one of the last ones among the major dictionary publishers to do this," said Merriam-Webster spokesman Arthur Bicknell.

Boston-based Houghton-Mifflin, publisher of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, modified its definition of marriage in 2000, adding a fourth example to the entry: "A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage."

The Oxford English Dictionary this month added in a draft version that the term sometimes refers to "long-term relationships between partners of the same sex." Its editors also have proposed updating the primary sense of the word to mean "the condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony."

The dictionary's main entry for marriage, last updated in 1989, reads, "The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between married persons; spousehood, wedlock."

Only two states in the country legally recognize gay marriage: Connecticut and Massachusetts.

I'm a big fan of equal rights, human rights, etc. but I just can't get on board with "gay marriage". I'm for civil unions, as long as straight people can have them too. (something applicable to couples who otherwise get "married" for tax benefits but DO live together).

I think it's fine that they included this, since regardless of how I feel, the term is being used as defined.

But, how do you feel about the definition? It seems to divide "normal" marriage from homosexual marriage by stating that the relationship is "like that" of a "traditional" marriage (but obviously implies it's not the same).

 

[halik]

Legally speaking it is / should be the same - it's a contract between two people that is afforded special rights under the law.

That being said, it's tough to make the argument that marriage is a special, religious institution when you have things like "who wants to marry a millionaire" or 24 drive through wedding chapels in Vegas. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Phokus]

My mother and father (who live in boston) stopped fighting so much around the time gay marriage was legalized in massachusetts... Using the specious logic of the GOP, gay marriage saved my parent's straight marriage. Thanks liberal activist judges!

 

[lupi]

Beastiality among others things is also in the dictionary, a definite place to look more to revise legal code.

 

[Vette73]

Another "I'm a bigot..." thread from techBoyjk.



Don't feed the troll folks.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Another "I'm a bigot..." thread from techBoyjk.



Don't feed the troll folks.

I'm not trolling at all. I conceded my stance from the OP.

If anything, I flame baited, (knowing how atot is mostly liberal) but that was not my intention. I'm actually trying to be more open minded.

I know that I'm personally stuck on traditional idea of marriage, but I'm begin to accept, especially after view the true history of marriage, that maybe my idea of marriage needs its own prefix.

 

[polarmystery]

I fail to see how people have a problem with two people they'll probably never meet being married.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: polarmystery
I fail to see how people have a problem with two people they'll probably never meet being married.

It's an issue of morality. Some perceive homosexual behavior as immoral.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: polarmystery
I fail to see how people have a problem with two people they'll probably never meet being married.

It's an issue of morality. Some perceive homosexual behavior as immoral.

That's the problem with codifying religious morality. Which particular religion are we supposed to use?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: polarmystery
I fail to see how people have a problem with two people they'll probably never meet being married.

It's an issue of morality. Some perceive homosexual behavior as immoral.

That's the problem with codifying religious morality. Which particular religion are we supposed to use?

ehh. who knows.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: polarmystery
I fail to see how people have a problem with two people they'll probably never meet being married.

It's an issue of morality. Some perceive homosexual behavior as immoral.

And some don't. We can't codify everything some people perceive as "immoral" as illegal or nothing would be allowed. Hell, I have friends who think religion is "immoral;" should we ban religion in this country? Of course not. But why is your definition of morality any better than theirs?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: polarmystery
I fail to see how people have a problem with two people they'll probably never meet being married.

It's an issue of morality. Some perceive homosexual behavior as immoral.

This is not a matter of perception, but the lack of it, the uncritical, irrational and unconscious acceptance of bigotry passed off under the guise of morality and generally as a product of the inculcation of conformity applied to the children of some cultural group forming some cohesive unity within the larger world where completely different standards apply elsewhere.

When one begins to perceive one begins to ask fundamental questions as to the real truth of all ones ideas, as you seem to be doing. The deeply programmed and self-infatuated, self-content sheep will never do this. They have been made to feel so worthless when they stray from the flock they can never do this.

To perceive is to question and be willing to destroy everything you were ever taught is good. To perceive is to leave the flock.

 

[mugs]

Dictionaries don't create definitions for words, they just record the way people use the word. Same-sex marriage was added to the definition because it has come into common usage by supporters and opponents of gay marriage.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: mugs
Dictionaries don't create definitions for words, they just record the way people use the word. Same-sex marriage was added to the definition because it has come into common usage by supporters and opponents of gay marriage.

You don't seem to understand that gays are out to change the definition of marriage and that when they do the world will end. These new dictionaries must be burnt.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Another "I'm a bigot..." thread from techBoyjk.



Don't feed the troll folks.

Aww, I'm on your sig. :heart: