Skip to comments.
Webster's dictionary redefines 'marriage'
WorldNetDaily ^
| March 17, 2009
| Bob Unruh
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 ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 1984; badisgood; dictionary; freedomisslavery; homosexualagenda; marriage; moralabsolutes; orwell; perverts; topsyturvy; warispeace; websters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-105 next last
To: GoldStandard
They have also changed the definition of “infringed” over the years. Preparing for the assault on the 2nd Amendment.
To: Jeb21
Hey Webster's. The Lord God Almighty defines it. One man and one woman...end of topic.
22
posted on
03/17/2009 7:12:57 PM PDT
by
444Flyer
(Don't beLIEve Obama.............................Never give up, never give in, never give out!)
To: Reagan79
I, for one, will forgive you. Sometimes the mind just takes those things and runs with them! (On FR, that is like running with scissors!)
23
posted on
03/17/2009 7:14:19 PM PDT
by
rlmorel
("The Road to Serfdom" by F.A.Hayek - Read it...today.)
To: Jeb21
I think that America should just GIVE them the word "marriage" if they want it so damn bad.
Then the rest of the country can move along to "narriage" or something.
What would they do?
24
posted on
03/17/2009 7:14:46 PM PDT
by
Miss Behave
(When seconds count, the cops take minutes.)
To: Jeb21
25
posted on
03/17/2009 7:15:06 PM PDT
by
Radix
(22;22 EST, 13 Feb 2009, C-Span2, Silent wait for Sen to come bury USA after burying his Mom)
To: LearsFool
“Well why shouldn't they?
Heck, 3/4 of FReepers (mis)use the word to describe pervert joinings.”
Whaaaaaaa? Not on the threads I've been on.
26
posted on
03/17/2009 7:15:26 PM PDT
by
444Flyer
(Don't beLIEve Obama.............................Never give up, never give in, never give out!)
To: Jeb21
No problemo - I’ve just bought my last Webster’s dictionary. Forever.
27
posted on
03/17/2009 7:17:37 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
(CEO:Chief Embezzlement Officer- CFO:Corporate Fraud Officer-CASH FLOW: money down the toilet.)
To: 444Flyer
28
posted on
03/17/2009 7:21:03 PM PDT
by
LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
Comment #29 Removed by Moderator
To: Jeb21
Isn't Webster's the "accept all changes to the language without question" dictionary?
Pfffft.
Makes it rather useless as a dictionary then, doesn't it?
30
posted on
03/17/2009 7:25:09 PM PDT
by
TChris
(So many useful idiots...)
To: LearsFool
Read the posts on those stories. You'll find the posters standing for the definition of traditional marriage (One man and One woman) and criticizing or mocking any other definition.
31
posted on
03/17/2009 7:27:22 PM PDT
by
444Flyer
(Don't beLIEve Obama.............................Never give up, never give in, never give out!)
To: Jeb21
Boycott Webster! The book is now formally heretical and should not be read by Christians.
32
posted on
03/17/2009 7:33:19 PM PDT
by
cmj328
(Filibuster FOCA or lose reelection)
To: Miss Behave
I think that America should just GIVE them the word "marriage" if they want it so damn bad.Sure, surrender one word. Then they take a sentence. Soon they'll own the whole language and we'll have no choice but to speak Spanish. Then they'll want Spanish too.
33
posted on
03/17/2009 7:35:37 PM PDT
by
cmj328
(Filibuster FOCA or lose reelection)
To: 444Flyer
Well my “3/4” estimate may have overstated the case. And yes, of course there are many FReepers who understand what marriage is.
It has bugged me for years to hear “anti-gay-marriage-ers” speak of being opposed to “gay marriage” when there simply ain’t no such animal. Why, it’s like being opposed to “round squares” or “free-range unicorns”!
Webster’s reflects common usage, and “gay marriage” has become commonly used even by those who oppose the nonsensical idea. Who couldn’t see this coming?
34
posted on
03/17/2009 7:37:38 PM PDT
by
LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
To: Publius
35
posted on
03/17/2009 7:37:38 PM PDT
by
surfer
To: Miss Behave
36
posted on
03/17/2009 7:41:05 PM PDT
by
Excellence
(What Madoff is to finance Gore is to global warming.)
To: Excellence
LOL. Did you mean to say Holy natrimony? :-)
37
posted on
03/17/2009 7:55:22 PM PDT
by
Miss Behave
(When seconds count, the cops take minutes.)
To: Jeb21
38
posted on
03/17/2009 8:10:17 PM PDT
by
usslsm51
To: Jeb21
Just an interesting fact:
400 years ago, the English language consisted of only about 500,000 words—that’s 1/5th of the English words we use today.
39
posted on
03/17/2009 8:26:47 PM PDT
by
TruthHound
(A Republican who acts conservative will whip the snot out of Democrat who acts liberal EVERY TIME!)
To: Jeb21
Is “sodomy” still an entry in Webster's dictionary?
40
posted on
03/17/2009 8:36:54 PM PDT
by
fwdude
("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-105 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson