Webster's dictionary redefines 'marriage'

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 17, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[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...

[Marie2]

I think sterile and post-menopausal women should be able to marry. I don’t think that is rejecting the Bible.

[Marie2]

“Not for ‘creating’ children but for raising children.”

But sometimes there are no children, and sometimes the children are grown.

[444Flyer]

“For the record, I'm against polygamy. That's why I only have one wife...”

You just saved yourself a night on the couch.;)lol

I found this today and it states in a short synopsis God's view of polygamy and His original plan which should always be followed whether or not man tries to disobey it (God always knows best but we humans tend to twist His best to fit our own desires...which is what the examples in the Old Testament did).

http://www.eadshome.com/polygamy.htm

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I think sterile and post-menopausal women should be able to marry. I don’t think that is rejecting the Bible.

I happen to think a marriage certificate, as a matter of law, should be a birth certificate.

This way, any question of marriage is strictly biological.