Replies

No, playing words to exacting sub-meanings, or claiming that the plain meaning meaning of words no longer applies because times have changed is a major and effective tactic of the social deconstructionists such as the Marxists.

For example the same Webster's 1913 dictionary I used above defines marriage as follows [excerpt]:

Legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife.

But the current Merriam-Webster gives the definition as follows:

(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

That's a whole lot of extra words. And they were added for a reason! The phrase "a person of the opposite sex" is distant, cold, strange and off-putting, isn't it? The old "a man and a woman" is much easier to read and means the same thing. Let me ask you, why use the word "person", rather than "man"?

Is it politically incorrect to be human these days?

And if they really want to be careful, why did they use the word "sex" rather than "gender"? Gender is the more specific in this context. But instead they used "sex."

The old school, clear and concise term used in 1913 was "legal union". Today Merriam-Webster uses the very long circumlocution "a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". Why? Obviously, to me, or any sharp knowledgeable observer, there is A WHOLE LOT OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS goin' on 'round here.

Here's a clue.

The NEW MODERN definition of marriage leads into and supports a second wholly new meaning of the word in that Merriam-Webster:

(2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

So, yes, I WILL INDEED complain when OUR SIDE ADOPTS policies of destructive word games that reinforce and empower that tactic when the social deconstructionists and Marxists use it.