Posted on 03/17/2009 6:15:24 PM PDT by Jeb21
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.
"I was shocked to see that Merriam-Webster changed their definition of the word 'marriage,' a word which has referred exclusively to a contract between a man and a woman for centuries. It has now added same sex," YouTube user Eric B. noted to WND.
"The 1992 Webster's Dictionary does not mention same sex at all," he wrote.
He created a YouTube video illustrating his concerns, which has been embedded here...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Well that’s just doubleplusungood.
I am sure Daniel Webster would be jumping for joy over this.
Noah Webster.
BTW, the definition in question is the second definition, not the first.
Check an unabridged dictionary, and you'll find a lot of words that are offensive, but are in the dictionary.
You will also find the word, "ain't"
Who cares what the leftists writing Webster’s dictionary think?
There is another word I bet that they do not have. Heterophobia!
Yes Noah Webster. That’s pretty embarrassing since I read his biography of last month, the Unger biography.
God had an ultimate plan for the ‘woo woo’ and the ‘wee wee’.....to procreate. ‘Little bundles of joy’ cannot be created in a rectum. JMHO (brutal, tho it is.) ;)
Now look in the dictionary to see if you can find the word “feminazi.”
Marriage descends from Matrimonium therefore the definition is now incorrect according to it’s original meaning, which is to signify the inheritance of children arising from the union of a man and woman.
MATRIMONIUM. By this word is understood the inheritance descending to a man, ex parti matris. It is but little used.
2. Among the Romans this word was employed to signify marriage; and it was so called because this conjunction was made with the design that the wife should become a mother. Inst. 1, 9, 1.
God, I believe, has his own dictionary and I don’t think it would agree with Webster’s version. ;-)
He who controls the language controls not only dialog, but thought as well.
Our brave new world will continue to co-opt the language.
Well why shouldn’t they?
Heck, 3/4 of FReepers (mis)use the word to describe pervert joinings.
OBAMA MADE ME DO IT........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.