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]

What you said. I think the marxist egalatarian school of thought it is the main deconstructor of the family, for the reason that deconstructing the family makes us weak little tools of the state.

[cmj328]

While irreverent, that meaning was primarily used as slang or jargon or analogy, for example by Mergers and Acquisitions lawyers. Nobody who off-handedly used the term “marriage” to describe, for example, Abbott and Costello, deliberately intended to change the meaning of “marriage” in a legal or social sense.

The push for gay “marriage” is an ideological attempt to sacrilegiously change the original meaning of the word. Webster’s has signed up for that agenda, and is thus siding with our enemies. One wouldn’t imagine that, at the height of the Cold War, Webster’s would give a definition of “freedom” as “the state’s commitment to unite the proletariat”.

[444Flyer]

Outside of those who were disobedient to God's original command, can you name an example?

[GOPJ]

I’ve preferred older dictionaries for years, decades even.

I use The Random House Dictionary of the English Language ( the Unabridged Edition) 1967. It works for me.

[FlyingEagle]

Maybe we just need a new expression of words for a union between a man and a woman and let the homosexuals have “marriage” since they so desperately want it.

How about “holy matrimony”? We can just use that to define the union between a man and a woman.

Because it is holy the gays will not want it.

Marriage has been debased by the gay men and lesbian women and many of their “marriages” or “unions” don’t last very long.

Holy Matrimony has a more intense and permanent sound to it.

[Tired of Taxes]

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.

Marriage is based on the reproductive model. The key word is model. That doesn't mean a couple has to reproduce. It means that the activity in which a married couple engages could lead to reproduction. (I'm trying to put it politely. I don't want to use raw terms. But, let me put it this way: Certain parts are meant to go into certain places.)

[Marie2]

I understand. In that case, I guess I’d just like that pointed out.

I think there is MORE to marriage than procreation. Of course procreation, and the appropriate rearing of little fellers, is a huge and primary objective. But there is more to marriage, than that.

[Tired of Taxes]

I think there is MORE to marriage than procreation. Of course procreation, and the appropriate rearing of little fellers, is a huge and primary objective. But there is more to marriage, than that.

Absolutely! I couldn't agree with you more.

[deannadurbin]

heeheeheee

Thanks Rush. :)

[deannadurbin]

When all is said and done though I wouldn’t want a childless marriage. You just grow to be too self-centered without children. God gave the command, “Be fruitful and multiply” and He didn’t give us an expiration date for that command.

[ReignOfError]

The short answer is that dictionaries are both descriptive and prescriptive, always with an uneasy balance between the two. You can argue that the word “marriage” *should* not be used to describe same-sex unions, but you cannot argue that it *is* not being so used.

[ReignOfError]

Boycott Webster! The book is now formally heretical

Now?

The following is from the 1913 edition:

1. A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol.
He maketh a god, and worshipeth it. - Is. xliv. 15.

The race of Israel . . . bowing lowly down To bestial gods. - Milton.

2. The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.
God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. - John iv. 24.

This is defying the first amendment -- "thou shalt have no gods before me" -- in the most literal way possible.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I support biblical (traditional) marriage. That said, I have never bought into the “for creating children” argument.

You support the Bible and Genesis first, then you reject it?

"What's he that is not born of woman?"

(Macbeth, act V, scene VII)

[cmj328]

Try reading the Bible a bit more closely. Or, alternatively, use a search engine.

[chapin2500]

That would mean that those who are sterile or past childbearing years shouldn’t marry, which I don’t think is true.

Not for 'creating' children but for raising children.

[alancarp]

From merriam-webster.com

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage [same-sex marriage]   b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union

[Military family member]

The short answer is that dictionaries are both descriptive and prescriptive, always with an uneasy balance between the two. You can argue that the word “marriage” *should* not be used to describe same-sex unions, but you cannot argue that it *is* not being so used.

I learned while working on my Master's degree in English that dictionary creators have always looked to examples in print to determine definitions. If you start with the OED, which used to contain a written example from each decade the word has been used, lexicographers look to how the word is being used. Thus, dictionaries often reflect their time.

My lexicography professor, incidentally, earned his Ph.D. in divinity from Harvard in the 1930s, was an ordained Episcopal minister, and was one of the hundreds of editors of Webster's Third International Dictionary. He would have agreed with the definition, despite his personal preferences and background. If you look at the literature of the past decade, the concept of same-sex marriage has been so prevalent in the media and literature of the time, is it any wonder that this particular definition appeared.

The problem is not the dictionary; it is the importance we are placing on the dictionary.