Thursday, March 19, 2009

Redefine marriage? Merriam Webster's already has


Surprising news from Beetle Blogger: In Merriam Webster's dictionary, the definition of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions.

As associate editor Kory Stamper responded to WorldNetDaily:

"We often hear from people who believe that we are promoting – or perhaps failing to promote – a particular social or political agenda when we make choices about what words to include in the dictionary and how those words should be defined," Stamper wrote in response.

"We hear such criticism from all parts of the political spectrum. We’re genuinely sorry when an entry in – or an omission from – one of our dictionaries is found to be offensive or upsetting, but we can’t allow such considerations to deflect us from our primary job as lexicographers."

What we have on our hands, as I've said before, is an Orwellian dilemma: if you can't change the words, just change what the words mean.

Then the societal changes happen without most people even being aware.





It's a hijacking of the lexicon - which is pretty absurd, considering that same-sex marriage is legal only in Massachusetts and Connecticut, not to mention the numerous states that have codified marriage as between a man and a woman.

The switch is so disingenuous - it ignores the majority opinions of the people. Social commentaries belong on the opinion page - not in the dictionary.

But, then again, these are the people who consider "jiggy" and "bling" part of our proper lexicon. I don't know that I really trust their grasp of the English language.

10 comments:

Franklin said...

TO HIZZEATHER...

just a couple things.

who are you to define what a family is? oh wait, you don't, God defines what a family is.

you say, "I happen to believe that families are important, especially as the way God designed children to be raised - with a mother and a father."

i happen to believe families are important as well. my family consists of myself and my husband and our 3 dogs. this is my family. you don't get to declare my family does not exist.

i have been saved. yes indeed i have. and the one thing i learned from that experience at the first assembly was to never deny my true self for any cause. quite ironic isn't it? sitting there in the pews being preached to, to spread the word in a manner that pronounced my beliefs and was true to my most inner self, and it was this preaching that led me to stop pretending that some part of me was attracted to women. that most everything i did as a teen was a lie, just trying to fit in for fear of being persecuted by my peers who were YOU!!!

you are so close-minded you cannot see how very similar we are. i cannot force myself to be attracted to a woman, just as you cannot. there is no magic to it, no rehabilitation needed, nothing unnatural.

hear me out now, as a fellow Christian.

could you imagine yourself living in a world where you were naturally attracted to, say, the man your married to now. you had always been attracted to boys for as long as you could remember. as you grew up you realized that you were part of a minority. that the majority of people were attracted to the same sex. and now you had people telling you that you should be with a woman because that is what everyone does. that is what is normal. that is what is says to do in this Book. and yet you know you cannot change the way you feel about your husband, and in fact there is no way you could ever even think of being with a woman. it would feel wrong and it would make you feel ill.

this is what a homosexual feels like. the same as a heterosexual made to question their sexual orientation. we are initially attracted to each other, naturally and beautifully, we fall in love, just as you, and we make commitments to each other, we ARE family units. whether you want to recognize that or not.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO TELL YOU HOW TO THINK. NO LAW CAN CHANGE THE WAY ANYONE THINKS. ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE LAWS IS TO ENSURE WE ARE GRANTED RIGHTS THAT ARE DUE US REGARDLESS OF WHAT OTHERS, EVEN THE MAJORITY, MAY THINK.

our government was founded on the seperation of church and state. the reason our forefathers came to this land was to escape religious persecution. THEY WERE FLEEING A LAND THAT WAS GOVERNED BY THE CHURCH!!! let me repeat that for you, because you may have attended a k-12 evangelical private bible school...

OUR FOREFATHERS CAME TO THIS LAND BECAUSE THEIR GOVERNMENT WAS RULED BY THE CHURCH. THEY WANTED A GOVERNMENT BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY NOT CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. THIS IS SIMPLY A FACT. YES "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" NOT "ONE NATION UNDER OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD WHO DIED FOR MY SINS ON THE CROSS"

oh yes and this one:

"I'll be damned if I'm just going to stand by and let the minority demand that we change the definition of marriage. It's just too important to me and to millions of others."

actually if you look it up, marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman. yes yes, i know it says that in your almighty Book, but you see, that's the ONLY place that marriage is defined in that manner. in your religious document. not my educational dictionary. your religion is not my religion. your doctrine does not and should not rule the world. why can't you focus all of your Christian energy on helping others.

you could even help a homosexual win their civil rights because you finally understand that they love the same as yourself, and there is no reason we should dictate who and how people love.

the human brain is capable of a lot. and you have one of those hizzeather. that means you're capable of a lot. even forming your own opinions based on logical arguments from different sources that have nothing to do with your religion.

beetlebabee said...

Franklin, I think you're missing the point and turning this into a hetero/homo argument when it is in actuality a marriage argument.

There is no comparison to homosexuality here, it's just not marriage. Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Marriage provides more than just a symbol of commitment and socially approved avenue for personal sexual gratification.

In all your whole rant, did you ever think that this was about more than just you and your feelings? To see it as simply something that you should have, on your terms, because you want it that way, is not enough.

Gender matters. Children have rights, and there are more options than what you have put forth on the table.

Marriage is the only institution that provides a mother and a father, committed to their children. The family is time tested as the ultimate nursery for nurturing and raising the rising generations.

It's not about you, though you do matter, your rights can't come before the rights of innocents. It's about them. Children's rights come before adult sexual preference, and every child has the right to a mom and a dad, committed to each other and their family for life.

Franklin said...

my right to marry my partner of the same sex doesn't do ANYTHING to the rights of others! my marriage should not concern you just as yours does not me.

and in an argument about same-sex marriage you cannot tell me that i needn't be concerned about the whole homosexual side of things. the ACTUAL whole point of this argument is to prove that a marriage is a loving, commitment between to adult who vow to spend their lives together.

you can't change the fact that we're gay. we can't change that either. this is something that you people choose to ignore, because you don't believe us. when i tell you i can't change the way i am, just as you cannot, you simply don't believe me. so how can we get anywhere, if when presented with the actual source, you simply disregard it's validity.

marriages do not exist to bring children up in. there is something so so wrong with your logic. this would mean that in the Christian light, a hetero family with no children would be viewed as less meaningful than your child rearing family.

i think you asking me if i considered if it's about more than my feelings is very very rich coming from you. here i am, simply fighting to be allowed to legally live in the same country as my spouse, who is not American. This actually affects my well being. I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but feelings are valid. they lead to thoughts and vice versa. i know it's not just about MY feelings, but it is about the feelings and the pursuit of hapiness of all those who belong to MY community. i am fighting to be allowed to legally live with the man i love, and here you are fighting against just because you feel threatened in some way. just because you disagree.

did you ever stop to think, during your wholly illogical, clearly elementary, one-sided, fundamentalist rant that this is about more that just YOUR feelings?! how dare you dismiss my concern for MY family (again, my husband and myself are MY family, this is not something that can be argued about, this is fact) as something to belittle. i don't dismiss your concern for your family. i would never expect another couple in love to live apart simply because the law says their love is not valid. hey remember when we didn't let people of different races marry?! you probably miss those days. i only say so, because i'm pretty sure they used the Bible back then to support their argument too.

i do dismiss your concern that homosexuals will somehow affect your family...this is one you folks are obsessed about. i think it's because you're still caught up on this idea that homo's decide to be so, so if it's a decision then it's something we can convince your kids of. THIS ISN'T HOW IT WORKS CRAZY PEOPLE!!! gay people are gay. straight people are straight. some gay people pretend to be straight because they are so incredibly scared of what you crazy people would do if you found out. we don't recruit members!!! we find each other as adults when we have gathered enough courage to stand in front of you people, our personal lives so immediately on display, just to try and gain some understanding from those who have tried to persecute us for centuries. get out of our sex lives, that's all this is about. you are weirded out by our sexual preferences. that's all it is. you can declare there are so many other reasons....whatever....just admit that homo's make you uncomfortable because we're so different.

The Pomegranate Apple said...

franklin,

you are ranting. and you show the same arrogance and close-mindedness that you accuse beetlebabee of.

it's not arrogant to declare that marriage doesn't exist for children's benefit?
(then i guess your side can't use that as an argument FOR marriage).

i don't think beetle babee cares who you have sex with, or what your sexual orientation is. i don't care. i don't think the government cares.

civil marriage is a contract with the government. the government represents the people. which means, as a society we get to decide how society will be organized.

civil marriage doesn't exist to grant benefits, or even express love. it is a contract that brings the two opposite-sex representatives of humanity (male and female), together. This union is gorgeous, and ensures that if any children result, they will have the best possible chance at success.

marriage's man-woman criteria is not based on sexual attraction. you can still get married. it depends on your choice--

the definition of marriage says nothing about sexual attraction.

A.D. said...

And I quote:

"Contrary to today's popular notions of today's culture, marriage is not just about loving relationships, even where there is longstanding commitment. Governments and societies have granted certain institutional benefits and privileges to heterosexual marriage because these unions have the biological potential to provide societies with a tangible benefit--children. Two men or two women sleeping together to obtain a sensory experience . . . provides societies with no measurable benefit.

A stable marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship that has the biological potential to both produce children and then provide the best and most successful environment in which to rear the next generation. Heterosexual marriage is a government imperative. This is not an issue of love, rights or sexual preference. It is an issue of which activities and unions provide societies with a net benefit and which do not. There is no societal benefit to unions based fundamentally on genital stimulation and the perception of love. . . .

If the law abandons the fundamental principle that reproductive sex within marriage has a unique role, there will be no basis upon which to draw distinctions between multiple types of relationships such as polygamy, incestuous couplings, or any type of chosen loving relationship. The same arguments used to justify the legal recognition of same-sex marriage can always be used to justify legal protection for any consensual sexual practice or form of marriage."

Franklin said...

ummmm....ok.

yes i'm ranting. i'm forced to live apart from my husband every day because Evangelical Christian Fundamentalists believe that the ONLY purpose of marriage is to raise children.

and to A.D. -- you're quote, and i'd like to note you've provided no source, makes statements that are simply false. homosexual marriages do indeed provide society with net benefits. those benefits would be the same as the benefits provided by a married heterosexual who were unable to conceive children. you simply cannot grasp this concept. because you're a Fundamentalist.

what crazy person said this anyway? i mean come on, "...unions based fundamentally on genital stimulation and the perception of love..." WHAT?! the "perception of love"? this is what i mean, you refuse to recognize that we DO LOVE. it is not a perception of love. we love each other. just the same as you hetero people. can you really not believe this?! YOU people think it's based "fundamentally on genital stimulation" so clearly there are hang ups regarding the whole sex part of this, you can all stop denying that now. do you not see the dangers in your fundamental views? stating that our "unions (are) based fundamentally on genital stimulation and the perception of love" is a false statement. it is the statement of a fundamentalist.

how can you actually believe that the entire world should operate under the umbrella of your King James, late 20th century interpretation of an ancient text aimed at creating an army for God out to convert or destroy.

Jesus so clearly promoted the ideas of inclusiveness and peace. Yet you go on, crusading, hating, fighting those who are different from you for fear that any advance they make will lead to the destruction of all of YOUR OWN religious principles. when really those that you fight simply want to be able to live as first class citizens because we are. We are not all born again Christians and we should not have to live in a country governed by literal translations of ancient prophets from YOUR OWN religion.

Every single argument you make is based on words from your evangelical King James book.

We actually receive support from many different Christian denominations. It is the fundamentalist, army of born again Christians that are out to promote exclusiveness and righteousness and shove their beliefs down everyone's throats.

It is no secret that you actually organize and motivate the children, teens and young adults in your cult by holding large "conferences" where you promote the idea of being soldiers in God's army out to convert or tear down. no middle ground. no compromise.

you actually get all these kids together and don't address homelessness, or child abuse, or disadvantaged urban communities. you just get together and say "now we want you to go out and fight! fight for the word of God! witness every chance you get! let people know the word of God!" that's all you're concerned about. increase the numbers. forget all the actual humanitarian issues on your very own block and focus on converting everyone. and don't try and tell me you go on missions to help people. you go on missions to convert. and funny, you always go on missions abroad. where are the missions right around the corner from you. that child who needs help with his schoolwork, whose parents can't afford a tutor.

you people so obviously prove your insanity by promoting an "Army for God". this is an insane phrase. it is THIS PRECISE MINDSET that occupies the minds of Islamic terrorists. sane Christians all agree that God and Jesus both prefer peace and understanding. violence, hate and intolerance preached in the name of God is sick. normal, compassionate Christians understand this.

put the kool-aid down. please.

Christa Jeanne said...

Franklin, I'm sorry about your love's inability to be with you because of legal red tape. Honestly. That stinks, and I wouldn't wish that on you or anyone. Perhaps civil unions should have the same green card privileges as marriages - that's something you should push for.

Please stop putting words in my mouth and the mouths of others on here, however. You don't know me - you don't know my personality, my life story, my beliefs, etc. Not all supporters of traditional marriage (even on this blog alone) support and defend it for the same reason. I'm not an Evangelical Christian, nor am I a fundamentalist.

I respect all guests on my blog, but remember that you are a GUEST in my online home, so to speak - please have respect for others. Your railings against religion in such sweeping generalizations are not cogent to this conversation. If you cannot engage thoughtfully in a dialogue with others without continuing to rant and rave, then you are welcome to take your commentary elsewhere.

Sarah said...

You know this whole blog is ranting and raving, right?

With some nice big, bold font and loaded words like hijacking to go along with it..

..you guys really, really scare me.

spaz-own-joo said...

Mister blogger, you have misunderstood the job of a dictionary: to document the vernacular. Like it or not, there are places in the world where gays can be "married", and English speakers are gonna have to talk about them sometimes. And, surprise surprise, some of them will use the word "marriage" to describe that arrangement even though America hasn't ratified it in law!

Here's the thing, guys. God never defined the word "marriage". The word appears nowhere in any ancient texts. It's not an exclusively Judeo-Christian word, for use only by believers, and it might not even have been invented by one.

If you want a special, exclusive word for a heterosexual marriage, why not look up the Hebrew word for holy matrimony and call yourselves that instead? You can trust the Hebrew language never to change. But English evolves, and it has always done so.

"Hijacking the language" is what it's called when you try and use law to defend a word.

KingM said...

The spooky music on that video made me LOL.

But so what? The dictionary reflects the current state of the language. Since even the traditional marriage crowd will use "same sex marriage" or "gay marriage" again and again, it's obvious that this is one of the accepted uses of the word.