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 ...
Buy the old dictionaries at Goodwill/used book sales.
***
Isa 40:7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
I am pretty sure that Daniel wouldn’t be doing to many backfl;ips about it as well.
See the 1941 film if you can. Really good.
...forever, until death, with no option for divorce and remarriage.
MARRIAGE *
As a natural institution, the lasting union of a man and a woman who agree to give and receive rights over each other for the performance of the act of generation and for the fostering of their mutual love.
The state of marriage implies four chief conditions: 1. there must be a union of opposite sexes; it is therefore opposed to all forms of unnatural, homosexual behavior; 2. it is a permanent union until the death of either spouse; 3. it is an exclusive union, so that extramarital acts are a violation of justice; and 4. its permanence and exclusiveness are guaranteed by contract; mere living together, without mutually binding themselves to do so, is concubinage and not marriage.
Christ elevated marriage to a sacrament of the New Law. Christian spouses signify and partake of the mystery of that unity and fruitful love which exists between Christ and his Church, helping each other attain to holiness in their married life and in the rearing and education of their children.
* From Fr. John Hardon’s “Modern Catholic Dictionary”
This is the Catholic understanding of marriage, and after all, the Catholic Church performed all Christian marriages until about 1054 A.D. when the Great Schism divided medieval Christendom into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches.
Don’t blame Noah Webster. He was a genius as well as a Christian.
Like the ‘60’s song “Waiting for the World to Change” says,
“...when you control the information, oh, you can bend it all you want!”
It was in my favorite dictionary, the American Heritage dictionary, in the 2000 edition.
Disgustingly.
ping
Damien?
I held onto my father’s old dictionary from the 1960’s. Every time I want to check a definition, I check that one. I wish I had an even older one.
Everyone, hold onto your old dictionaries.
Marriage between one man and one woman is based on the "reproductive model". That doesn't mean a married couple must have children together. It means that only a man and a woman CAN have children together. Only a man and a woman can procreate.
State marriage laws always mention children. Yes, some couples are deemed unlikely to bear children, while others plan not to have children. But, sometimes those couples unexpectedly DO have children. And, in the event that they do, their biological family unit is protected by the legally recognized institution of marriage.
OTOH, two people of the same sex can never procreate.
But your original statement can be used to “prove” a blatant falsehood by those people that mine this site for comments such as yours.
Of course you knew that.
After all 10/6 of Freepers know that.
And get a copy of the Merriam-Webster SECOND Unabridged, if you can. That was the last one where researchers meticulously scoured works of good literature to determine proper usage. The Third Unabridged, in the early 1960s, was a travesty. American Heritage is the one where the staff actually took a vote on various issues of usage.
marriage... 4.any close or intimate union. —Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1957
I’d disagree in the modern sense, but it’s there.
#75
I’d really like to know the details on the definition
of “infringe”
I’ve preferred older dictionaries for years, decades
even.
I guess I am thinking of retired folks, widows and widowers and such, marrying. We all know there is no way they are going to have kids. I just feel like the “procreation” argument sort of shuts them out.
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.