We try to control others all the time, that is what jails, courts and laws are for.
You should care because God says homosexuality is a sin in His Word. Regardless of your belief in God or His Word, marriage is a biblical concept and should be defined by the Bible.
When marriage included people of the same-sex, the definition changed. Just like the definition DUDE changed when people started using it to refer to others.
The author or own of this video is completely retarded; definitions change BECAUSE practices change!
You obviously have no clue. If people started calling the color black "white" would you expect the definition to be changed? Just as the color black will always mean a dark color marriage will always mean a contract before God between one man and one woman.
Only God has the authority to change the meaning, not Webster's.
@PropheticObserver Obviously Webster owns the copyright. Therefore, Webster has the authority to change the meaning. Your god does not own the copyright. Therefore, your god does not have the authority to change the meaning.
There was Adam and Eve right? Not Adam and Steve. You can't reproduce with the same sex. And thats why people have sperm and breast and an egg. Thats what we were meant to do, reproduce. If you're homosexual, you cannot do that. They're so many signs that being homosexual isn't right.
Harhar. This whole dictionary thing just goes to show that the world doesn't need to rely on religion any more. YOU wake up! We're PAST the Renaissance!
"In the big picture although I am greatly concerned for their souls, what gays do in their bedrooms doesn't have any impact on me, it is the example they set in society, especially to children."--
Can you give a specific example on how "they" set a bad example for children? Like if a child saw their favorite sports star get arrested. Something like that.
whine whine whine whine... my god you must be horribly insecure to feel threatened by this. Is your religious belief a house of cards? Until our species stops fearing some sky boogyman we will forever be a backwards planet incapable of true civilization.
Go learn how logic works, learn definitions like "circular reasoning" and "fiction".
I sincerely hope every one of your loved ones realizes they are gay and are driven to suicide by your insane rantings.
These are the people that call Christians bigots and accuse us of hate speech?
Let's see, circular reasoning, is that like claiming to be tolerant of everyone's opinion, except those you disagree with?
How's the Thelemic thing working out for you? You're no one to be talking about a "sky boogieman" when you worship Satan. Or do you deny it? Crowley said: "Do what thou wilt". Surely you have no problem with what another person is doing? Hey, there's another example of circular reasoning!
Why would you lie? The dictionary dictionary hasn't changed the definition of marriage, but the definition has been edited to include the contemporary definition/ usage of the word. That's what dictionaries are supposed to do, they are dictionaries not versions of the Bible. I tolerate the intolerant, up to the point they resort to lying to oppress others.
If you can't see the difference between changing a printed definition after decades of language evolution and changing the definition of a word that's in the center of a heated debate, you're blinding yourself.
Hey PO, what gives you grounds to believe Jesus was divine? How do you know the Bible is the word of God? How are you equally sure all other religions are false? How do you know it's not someone's choice whether they're gay? And given you can't answer any of those questions, why are you so willing to impose your views on others - and so strongly advocate for using the power of the state to restrict others' liberty?
I know the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus is divine because I have read the Bible and have a personal relationship with God.
I know someone chooses to engage in homosexuality because it is a behavior.
The state has always used it's power to restrict liberty. What do you think prisons are for? That said, I don't believe that gays should be restricted from any part of civil union, I personally object to the co-opting of the word "marriage".
Homosexuality occurs in nature. So do you think that nature has a choice? Marriage has been co-opted many different times before the christians came along. Pagans were doing marriages before your bible was even compiled. The christians also co-opted pagan holidays as well
"And if you are only an animal incapable of self-control"
Are you trying to say that the only thing keeping you from sodomy is self-control? I have lived my entire life without interest or predisposition towards sodomy, and it has nothing to do with god, self control or any other conscious thought. I am not attracted to it.
The definition of words change over time, especially in regard to rights and equality. America would still be segregated if we had maintained the views from the bible.
No, I am saying that the only thing keeping you from doing things you might otherwise want to do is self-control.
You may not have the desire to sodomize a man, but self-control also stops you from raping a woman, stealing or anything else that you may want to do from time to time that is socially unacceptable.
The Bible never condoned segregation, indeed Moses' wife was an Ethiopian. You should probably read the Bible before you attempt to discredit it.
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
Humans choose what is precent. We are the filters of morality based on social standards. Sexual preference is biological, as studies continue to find, and condemning someone for it is the same as racial/ethnic bias
There is plenty of junk science to support just about any theory you can imagine.
There is no genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, and I would be very careful in making that claim too loudly if I were you. When combined with the "humans are only animals" malarkey one could make a pretty solid argument for the sterilizization or even euthanization of homosexuals as genetic mutants. Just ask Hitler.
It only took two replies for you to invoke Godwin's Law, that is unfortunate...
Atrocities are committed throughout history because of people's passions being exploited. Never as a result of rationality or critical thinking.
Ironically you just made my case for me.Saying that homosexuals should be treated differently than heterosexuals, and not receive all of the same rights and liberties that heterosexual couples enjoy you are condoning segregation.
There is nothing inherently wrong with many forms of segregation. What do you think prisons are for?
Same with the word "discrimination". It triggers an emotional reaction with little reasoning attached. Intellectual lightweights use these words so they can feign moral superiority and blather: "See? He supports segregation!"
Segregation can be used as a form of punishment, that is not in dispute. That form of segregation is a direct result of someone committing a crime which directly harms another person. Further this form of segregation is extremely negative, which is why its a punishment.
As soon as you try and apply segregation to a segment of the population, then you are in essence trying to degrade those people, and claim that they are less than you. Deserving of less rights, less equality.
Ahh, but in an example such as imprisonment there is a secondary benefit. Society has deemed people like murderers and rapists deserving of less rights, less equality in many places.
I say society needs protection from certain aspects of homosexuality, and cite the Bible as my evidence. You disagree.
In the big picture although I am greatly concerned for their souls, what gays do in their bedrooms doesn't have any impact on me, it is the example they set in society, especially to children.
"Protect the children/family" has been used through history to try and stop social change. "Think about the children" was heard when the first black student joined a white school, "What about the family" was on newspapers when woman left the kitchen and joined the workforce.
In the end this comes down to rights, and more specifically the right to love, and have that love recognized and respected. Like racial and gender equality I dont expect everyone to agree, bit I am glad we could discuss it.
Nobody's right to love is being infringed. It is the sexual practice that is abhorrent, not loving another human being. You are equating eros with philos.
Protecting the family will always be imperitive to human survival. Being a minority is not counterproductive to the family, being gay is.
The mother that left the kitchen for the workplace was sold a bill of goods and is in fact responsible for much of the ills we have a generation later, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
By trying to control who someone can love, and how that love can be expressed you would be stepping on their rights.
Thankfully you have the right to marry who you want, but I wonder what you would do if someone tried to step on that right.
Simple reflection on the golden rule can tell anyone what is moral. Consider taking a right away from yourself before proposing taking it from someone else. Not just in this, but everything.
You cannot marry a child, or a Golden Retriever. Where does the "right" to marry another man come from?
There is no such thing as basic human rights in this world, where would they come from, but God?
All rights come from God, not man. He shows us the difference between rights and wrongs. And "The Golden Rule" is but one of the guidelines laid out in the Bible.
Nobody is taking the right to marry away from gays. You can't take something they never had.
Human rights come from the Geneva Conventions, which apply to America because Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states that any treaty into which the U.S. enters will become part of the supreme law of the land, meaning it becomes part of the Constitution.
So, marriage is (legally) a basic human right. It is also defined as being between a man and woman, which seems to suggest that the relationships homosexuals engage in are not human, which they obviously are, since they involve two humans.
I just wanted to add that gays are not infringed in any way from expressing their "love" for each other. The problem is they want the rest of the population to rubber stamp their perversion as wholesome, normal and natural.
Incorrect. Homosexuals who do this are idiots. What they are/should be fighting for is equal rights in regard to their romantic relationships, not changing the minds of people who do not agree with their life-style.
no he made his case by pointing out your flawed and propaganda filled logic and by your own definitions the logical conclusions or your own points....because science has debunked your only small hope that personal opinion be declared science to benefit the feew...the only reason homosexuality is promoted at all today is by eugenicists and thats because they are for population control and homosexuals cant have children on their own so its promoted..that is the only valid science there is for you
ther was only one theory that said homosexuality is genetic and its been thoroughly discredited to the point that even in the liberal colloge text books that theory has been taken out totally or has a * next to it saying that there isnt any proof to back it up like the man said earlier before you enter a debate at least have some small idea of the facts and stop spouting known discredited propaganda as science
I believe the Bible because of the fulfilled prophecy. What nation but Israel has survived for nearly 2,000 of nonexistance and then returning? (Don't say "people created Israel because they read the prophecy," since the U.S. almost didn't approve of the nation's existance [not to mention the Jews weren't even sure if they wanted to call it Israel]).
I understand that you think you are saving people's souls from eternal damnation, and in that respect your attitude is commendable. If I honestly believed that God sends some to heaven and some to hell, I hope that I would have the compassion and love for my fellow man to do the same.
As it happens, I do not and cannot subscribe to such a philosophy, so while I'm not offended by those who do, I am offended when they try to impose their belief system on me through the state.
I don't see how anything is being imposed on you, quite the opposite, a perhaps 5% minority is attempting to impose itself on the 95%.
Webster's just gave it a big boost. I don't really care, in the sense that it changes nothing for me. I am sorry for the poor saps that will never know what the word really means.
How does gays getting married affect your life in the slightest? Once upon a time marriage
was defined as between a man and multiple wives and then someone came a long and redefined it. The definition of marriage has been changed many times throughout our society. The minority isn't imposing anything on anyone they just want the same happiness or suffering, depending on how you look at it, as everyone else.
There are two types of marriage; One recognized by the state, the other by God.
Why is the state involved at all is the question you should be asking.
Gays will never be allowed to marry in God's eyes as it is a contract with God between a man and a woman.
The point isn't that it effects me, it's that it effects the people pretending they are married. They will get the illusion that their sinful lifestyle will be accepted by God. It won't.
But God also approved of polygamy in your bible. So does that mean when we outlawed polygamy that was against God's word? Again you're making a judgment call. Who are you to speak for God and say gays won't be allowed to marry in God's eyes. What gives you the authority to speak for God and commit blasphemy. It doesn't affect the people one bit. There's nothing sinful about the way they were born. Where in the new testament does it say gays are sinful?
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Paul was a man where did God say in the new testament it was a sin? Where did Jesus say it was such? The bible was compiled by Men many years after the scrolls were written. Many books were left out so who chose what was to be included and what wasnt?
i guess you forgot about sodom and gomorrah you know the two entire cities that were destroyed the main reason two whole cities were annhilited was homosexuality not to mention the 40 some odd times its called an abomination..there is nothing that means worse than abomination by definition in any language ever,,so its not just clear but crystal clear on what God feels
For the record, God did not "approve" of polygamy in the Bible, but He did not necessarily say it was wrong either. What He did say was: 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' (Matthew 19:5) This means that God's original intention was for marriage to be between one man and one woman. These are also Jesus' words in the New Testament, by the way.
Also, the admonition to "wake up" is meant for those that claim to be Christians in word, but are actually not in deed.
For the true Christian the proper response to this isn't to write letters to Webster's to get it reversed, but to get on their knees and start praying for their neighbor, their community, their world.
According to Ezekiel 3:18-19 It is my duty as a Christian to warn my fellow man that they are in danger. I take that very seriously.
And the bible is there for everyone who wants their thoughts to be enslaved by crap. I really hope there's an actual god, so when you die your life did not end up being a complete waste.
The battle over the definition a word is a smokescreen initiated by bigots to try and avoid/postpone what they'll have to face and accept one day... Homosexuals are on their sure way to be treated equally, nothing will stop them...
The smokescreen is actually the pathetic name calling on the part of the homosexual community. Everyone that disagrees with their lifestyle is simply a bigot in their morally retarded world.
And for that very reason the word "bigot" applies just as much (if not more) to the homosexual community.
Look it up, if Webster's hasn't changed it to suit themselves since yesterday.
The smokescreen is actually the pathetic name calling on the part of the religious right. Everyone that disagrees with their myth is simply a sinner who will burn in hell in their morally wrong and ignorant world.
(Also, I should point out that Websters isnt the only reputable dictionary that has the definition for marriage involving something about same-sex marriages. The last time I checked, even American Heritage does.)
Websters purpose as an English dictionary is to define words in the English language, and it was simply doing its job. From a linguistic viewpoint, its a very valid definition. After all, marriage IS used in English to refer to the union between two people of the same gender. And not only does the term gay marriage exist but the concept that it refers to is legally recognized in several countries including one where English is not only an official language, but the dominant one.
With all due respect, I think too much politics is being associated with this. I personally believe that Websters was absolutely justified in doing what they did.
Noah Webster would freak. That said, I'm on the fence with this, because as much as I'm morally against redefinition of concepts, particularly God-ordained institutions, words do take on new meanings b/c of cultural changes & dictionaries probably should reflect that. The *real* meaning of marriage remains (& to Webster's credit they list it as #1), but dictionaries should include false meanings too, if that's how the words are used.
Are we left to believe that this video condemns - on strict moral grounds - the redefining of a word OR that it condones the biblical view of homosexuality. What a false flag. Shame on the makers of this video shame shame shame.
Marriage is defined differently all over the world. Yes, Merriam-Webster is compiled and edited in the United States. However, it would be naive to think that the rest of the world (where it's also sold) has no bearing on the content. In Canada, for instance, a marriage can quite easily be between two partners of the same sex.
There are many words in the dictionary that have to do with other countries. This one, however, happens to be a volatile issue, particularly in the US, at the moment.
Oh my...a word in a dictionary has changed....we're doooooomed!!!
Seriously, dictionaries do change and adapt to the current meaning of words, what's the biggie, sheesh!
That's how it is, gays and lesbians can get married (in some places only, unfotunately), just deal with it, it doesn't hurt anyone, it's neither gross nor a sin, it's not causing global warming....er, what did I forget...? :D
Actually, the 5th definition in the entry "an intimate linking together" would be the correct definition to support calling 2 gays intimately linked together as "marriage."
"What do you do if the dictionary does not support your definition of a word?"
Nothing. Why? Because as in this case it does support your definition. The dictionary did not change the meaning of the word, it just added to it. That's the way it should be.
Wake up? Should be: Wake up, shut up and get over it.
The definition HAS changed. When you say you are against gay marriage you are saying you are against a union of a person to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. You are using the word meaning this definition you are opposing.
I wonder, PropheticObserver, where are your videos about liars, theives and adulterers? Rapists, child abusers and gluttons? Bullies, drunk drivers, and drive by shooting?
It's very very interesting (in a Ted Haggard sort of way) that, in the interest of Saving the Children, you'd feel most inspired and threatened by this issue, above all the others.
The Chinese are not Christians for the most part and they do not call two sodomites married either.
Christians recognize the law of nature and natures God that brings the shame of sexual perversions, as do the Chinese and the rest of the world, Christian or not
The religion that our country was founded on was chritianity, not Buddhism. That's why we find ourselves at this point. The Christians don't want their definition of Marriage to be tainted. It's sacred to them. But lets capitulate to the Muslims instead and let them institute Shariah laws all over the place and disregard any of our own foundational laws.
No, our country was specifically founded on NOT having an official religion. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and Benjamin Franklin had "doubts" on the subject as well as a number of writings in which he outright criticized Christianity. Several other founding fathers were also Deists who did not accept Jesus as anything other than a pretty smart guy with some nice things to say about peace, love and acceptance.
How wrong you are. Guess what basic foundational religion was practiced? Now tell me that NONE of those morals and ethics ended up in our laws? please.. They weren't born deists, and they were raised as Christians with a proper moral compass. A compass that made it into our laws whether you want to believe it or not. To say that our country as not founded on the basic principals of these moralities is absurd.
Religion is a choice, too, and you don't see anyone trying to stop the free exercise thereof. I think joining a cult or being a religious fundamentalist is most likely dangerous to oneself and to others, but I also respect people's legal and moral rights to live their life as they choose.
Grow up. The dictionary reflects language as it is used. The term "same-sex marriage" is widely in use if you haven't noticed, so the dictionary has to take that into account. Language evolves.
I agree that we should outlaw unnatural things. Anything that doesn't occur naturally in our God-given world is an abomination.
Gasoline, electric appliances, medications, television news anchors and manufactured tools must be outlawed to bring us closer to the natural world and its God.
Of course, homosexuality occurs in nature in many species, so we shouldn't add that to the list. I mean, God wouldn't make gay animals if homosexuality was an abomination, right?
Dictionary: per·vert (pər-vûrt') pronunciation 1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt. 2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase. 3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See synonyms at corrupt.
pt 3 You are on the wrong side of history. You can accept it and change, or you can rant and raile and become increasingly irrelevant for the rest of your life.
As for the dictionary, it IS THEIR JOB to reflect changes in language usage. You might just want to go to the library, find the oldest dictionary there, and the newest one, and compare them. You will note that language changes and dictionaries reflect that.
pt 2 Given your prediliction, it's likely you also do not believe in evolution, but it's a fact, it's the way of the world. History marches on. People like you will go the way of the Southern lawmen we've all seen in the newsreels, the folks who unleashed the dogs on African Americans. And like their descendants today, your descendants will hang their heads in shame at your ignorance.
pt 1. You poor little dear. Perhaps you have not noticed that THINGS CHANGE. All manner of things. Cultures, landmasses, values, beliefs, entire planets, even bibles and religions. Do you use a 3000 year old map? Do you use the n-word or other racial epithets used for hundreds of years in this country and others? Do you use a quill and ink to write with?
Actually, the word wasn't recently changed. In the 2003 Collegiate Edition I have, that definition is in there as well. I'm shocked that people are just now seeing that.
This "new" definition of marriage is just as sickening as when the definition of a woman was changed to be equal to a man, and blacks were defined as being equal to whites! :O
It's sad seeing our world going in to a deep black abyss of "doing what they want to" state. We, united as Christians, need to tell people that is going to destroy us.
Yeah, utterly despairing that people are beginning to wake up to the fact that we have free will and that we (should) have the freedom to live happily. Seriously, gay marriage for maybe 5% of the population is going to destroy us? Wow, you guys are weak.
By all means, keep telling us we're going to hell in a hand-basket. You are on the wrong side of history and you knows it.
I never told anyone they are going to hell. There just needs to be a change. What about abortion? Same thing... it is just like killing a newborn child. If we arrest people for murder, then we should for abortion.
Yes, of course you have a free will. I have no problem with anyone that decides to live a gay lifestyle. I hope you don't, because you will burn in hell for eternity for it, but it is your perogative to reject God and His Law.
My problem is with you trying to tell me that homosexuality is moral and natural, and to teach that to my children in school.
It is my duty as a Christian to warn others, however God will do just fine no matter what the law or the dictionary say.
Don't lie -- you have a huge problem with people that live "a gay lifestyle". (Do you live a straight lifestyle?) It makes you uncomfortable, so you throw up the shield of scripture and your personal belief of what god is and what he wants so you can feel a moral superiority. Try living what Jesus taught. Not the bastardization of his teaching that "Christianity" has forced on this world for far too long.
What makes me uncomfortable is the fact that unless they ask God's forgiveness, all sinners (including homosexuals) are going to hell.
I feel morally superior to no man, I am a sinner just as much as anyone in God's eyes. All sin is equally repugnant to God; it is only through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross that we are acceptable to God.
Yeah, well, your morals and magic are not seen by everyone the same way. Yeah, I know, it's a hard concept to grasp that what you follow as fact is nothing more than a myth not much different than those myths of the past that are now obsolete.
In the allegory you mention, Jesus was the only party involved legally capable of stoning her, as He will on judgement day.
*I* OTOH am merely warning others that we will all be judged on judgment day.
But you my friend illustrate magnificently the circular logic that permeates society today. You see, when you tell me not to judge others, you are in fact judging me.
The same applies to tolerance. To be *truly* tolerant of others, you must include those people that are intolerant.
Ever heard of stretching a metaphor to its breaking point? You just did, "AlFoote3." By that reasoning, we might as well not have any laws at all since we couldn't enforce them because (according to that reasoning) only those who are perfect get to enforce anything, which would be no one.
Sounds more like blasphemy to me Prophetic, you claiming to speak for God about who will and will not go to hell. Isn't blasphemy the only unforgivable sin and it seems you just committed it. What happened to those who claimed to speak for God in the new testament but did not have the power of God?
I'm not sure, but you can find similar statements on a web search. It's the easiest (and funniest) way to deflate the "AIDS proves God frowns on gays" argument, as fundamentalists always tend to forget about the ladies for some reason.
You know, many people like to say that Christians are judgmental. However, I have noticed that gays and those that support their cause are equally judgmental against Christians. Why should I be made to accept your world views, while you stomp and ridicule mine? The point is, throughout the ages, marriages have always been established between a man and a woman. And when you go outside of that relationship, you go against all moral values. Why do you think AIDS is prevalient in America?
Morality comes from the bottom up. Apes and primates are moral. Homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, therefore homosexuality is natural and moral. It's not the norm, but it's all natural, baby. And nobody is telling you not to believe in God, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, but your kind is trying to restrict another person's freedom, and that is immoral.
There is no god....and even if there were, I really doubt he would be worrying about if gays were getting married and living in supportive,loving relationships. h\Rather he would probably be vexed by how intolerant the religious right and supposed "Christians" are toward those who are different from themselves.
First the gays want to get married, next thing you know they will be trying to get jobs or own homes, we need to stop them now before they edit wikipedia.
The truth is that I'm gay AND I'm Christian. And will one day be married under God in accordance with God whether the law or you say I can or cannot. And guess what?... It has NOTHING to do with you and your misguided outrage.
According to you. Your understanding of scripture doesn't line up with mine. I don't think you're right, and you should recognize you could be wrong and stop trying to dictate others lives. I am being faithful to what I believe is true about myself, my God, and His Word. Just because you believe there's no other way to understand it doesn't make something true, and guess what there are A LOT of theologians with firm commitments to the Bible and a love of God who disagree with you as well.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
We are not discussing law, we are discussing a dictionary entry. Mirriam-Webster has the right to define words any way they want, but we also have the right to notice, and discuss it.
I believe in truth, and I believe that books like the dictionary must be held to some standard of accountability, not used to further a political agenda.
Actually, dictionaries tend to define words based on how they are used, which is the only real way to nail down a definition. In this case, the dictionary reflects both existing legal definitions in certain areas (Canada and parts of the U.S.) as well as the definition shared by a sizable number of people. Many religions and philosophies define marriage to include same-sex unions, though certainly there are also many which do not.
You can continue with this (hopefully feigned) ignorant line of thought, but it doesn't help your cause.
Anyone that would change a dictionary word with so much social, political and religious controversy attached is either a blithering idiot or has an axe to grind.
You know there's a third option, right? That maybe the guy who changed the entry was aware of the context and changed it to keep up with the changing times, right? It's possible to be professional about a controversial subject, you know.
Oh yes, and Webster ... what's the definition for the word 'Godfearing'? Should I use it in a sentence? I'll try ...
*Ahem*
'The Godfearing people were taken aghast by the malicious warping of the founding principles of society just to appease some microchasm of society and make them feel better when their view of the world doesn't forward society, doesn't birth future generations, and is against religious text.'
Yes, the meanings of words change, but in the case of this word it is being changed to trigger the changing of its usage, not because of it. There is a difference.
IOW usage always dictates change, not the other way round.
So... the pro-gay guys at Webster changed the meaning of the word marriage so people could use it in a different way.
I know God's not okay with it and all, but now that Webster changed the meaning, I feel OBLIGATED to comply. I'm glad it's now okay to use that word, I was tying my tongue in a knot!
Seriously, the dictionary defenition changed after the meaning actually DID change, not the other way around.
1) The point is not that it threatens hetrosexual marriage, it is that the word marriage is gender specific. That is why you yourself refer to it as "gay marriage" and not simply "marriage".
2) Ultimately is is God who decides what marriage is and not you, me or Webster's
1. Wrong. The only reason we add the term "gay" before the word "marriage" is to allow for a sensible debate. If we just got rid of the prefix "gay" and just used the term "marry" without saying who it's for, than it would make this debate even more nonsensical than it is now. And you should also realize that in a conversational context, one would not use the term "gay married" to describe two men getting married, ie. "Adam and John are getting gay-married" would never be said.
You should also realize that gay marriage is both legal and socially acceptable in many other (English-speaking) countries like Canada. Thus, it would be perfectly logical for a dictionary to change the definition.
Here's a clue for you: Merriam-Webster's strives to reflect contemporary usage. So when a significant portion of the population starts using a word in a new sense, that sense gets included. Or do you believe that when dictionaries first started including "homosexual" as a definition for "queer" they were trying to send the message that homosexuality is bizarre?
everyone has different definitions. i'm married to my job and do not have a life. they should include that too. but words do change over time... it used to be ok to have a fag, now its a smoke or ciggie. and if you watch old films "making love" meant holding hands and perhaps kissing. but today it means something more. who really defines english words and phrases? i think the dictionary just reflects the general acceptance of these evolving terms.
"wake up"...and do what? Post an overwrought hang-wringing video that bemoans the fact that dictionaries change definitions when those changes are reflected in the culture at large? Ok, you've done that. Now what.
Guess what? Our language is a living language and changes based on our usage of it. A dictionary's job is to report what a word means based on its usage. Many people use the word marriage to refer to the state of commitment of a couple, regardless of sexual make up. If you don't like this definition, don't use it -- but don't tell me how to use this word.
By changing the definition it is in fact *you* that is trying to tell the world how to use the word. A word that has been plainly understood for centuries.
As another commenter said, you can call the color red "blue", but it doesn't change the color. Most importantly, it doesn't change God's view of it one iota.
a) if it were just *me* the definition would not change in the dictionary. It's the fact that THOUSANDS of people use it with that meaning.
b) a color is named in order to make sense of the thing. The name has nothing to do with its quality. We arbitrarily name things. In the bible Adam & Eve started naming things, not God.
c) my God's view includes all people who truly love each other without discrimination. My God sounds more loving than yours - how sad for you.
integral: First, the lake of fire is a metaphor. Second, and I don't say this on behalf of PO, since there's a good chance he doesn't believe this, but one sees things in a perspective when the bigger picture is revealed: Souls are eternal.
One of the things that becomes apparent after reading enough of the Bible is that even the literal sections are metaphors, or more correctly, allegory.
In Ezekiel 33:6 "But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand."
A dictionary updates itself to the times folks. The word marriage has been used to define a relationship between same sex partners in news, journals, books. So, they update the entry to reflect a change in usage.
It's not a dictionary's job to follow religion, it's not the bible. It's meant for academic use, it's not telling you what to believe. Hate me all you want, but you guys squealing about the bible are putting the dictionary above it.
Marriage = MAN AND WOMAN not MAN and MAN or Man and Woman or Man and Dog. Dont care what the dictionary or corrupt judges say. I only care what thousands of years of culture and GOD's law says !!!
Change a word for you(?), certainly, but just for you, if you cannot accept what it means and play like you accomplished something, and just fooled yourself, no one else
I can call red blue if I want to, but when red is called blue in a conversation with someone who understands red is red and blue is blue, he will think that person is color blind.
You have no power to change meaning of words, marriage will always and forever retain the same meaning until the day each man is dead and gone.
Yes, but what if the second person's 'understanding' is wrong?
What if that person always thought magenta is red, and all his friends did too? Would they be wrong, even if they all agreed with each other?
And would someone be a 'pervert' to question their deeply held 'magenta=red' beliefs?
If the law calls it marriage it is marriage. Don't matter what you think. If you're so sure God disagrees, then maybe He should weigh in on this. Where's His YouTube account? I want to drop Him a lin.
It's not okay with me that mixed race marriage was illegal, but then again that most clearly denied equal rights to people, as does the banning of gay marriage.
And you pretty much admitted there that the defenition of marriage DOES change over time.
The law may not be the final judge, but it does decide where I pay my taxes and what's a jailable offense. God hasn't said a thing to me yet, so I guess he doesn't care what I do or think.
what about them? hermaphrodites are a result of genetic mutations. Though I do believe in most, if not all, only one set of reproductive organs is functional. Do the math.
Your argument might hold water if the propagation of our species was meant to be upheld by the joining of same sex couples to reproduce using their own ,combined, DNA.
But it's not. Our species evolves because of men and women reproducing. That is the natural order of things. Everything outside of that is an aberration. Some people can't accept that. That's their problem. Mother nature doesn't give a shit about you.
If the law were based on nature then maybe we wouldn't pollute so much.
So gays can't reproduce. So what? Have you not heard of adoption? Artificial insemination? They're as natural as high fructose corn syrup, but they're legal and accepted by society in general.
Sodomites cannot reproduce themselves by nature, so they use their filthy and disgusting sexual lust that appeals to the lowest men and women in society
Curious... why do you have to play this "scary" ominous music?
Big deal, it's changed. Christians used to argue against interracial marriage, but logical people beat them in that one and we moved on.
hipstermi 1 year ago
How does gay marriage affect me as a straight man in the slightest way; why should i care what other people do (or try to control others)?
draber12 2 years ago
We try to control others all the time, that is what jails, courts and laws are for.
You should care because God says homosexuality is a sin in His Word. Regardless of your belief in God or His Word, marriage is a biblical concept and should be defined by the Bible.
PropheticObserver 1 year ago
When marriage included people of the same-sex, the definition changed. Just like the definition DUDE changed when people started using it to refer to others.
The author or own of this video is completely retarded; definitions change BECAUSE practices change!
DJKatAnimated 2 years ago
You obviously have no clue. If people started calling the color black "white" would you expect the definition to be changed? Just as the color black will always mean a dark color marriage will always mean a contract before God between one man and one woman.
Only God has the authority to change the meaning, not Webster's.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago 2
@PropheticObserver Obviously Webster owns the copyright. Therefore, Webster has the authority to change the meaning. Your god does not own the copyright. Therefore, your god does not have the authority to change the meaning.
Angeleer8 9 months ago
There was Adam and Eve right? Not Adam and Steve. You can't reproduce with the same sex. And thats why people have sperm and breast and an egg. Thats what we were meant to do, reproduce. If you're homosexual, you cannot do that. They're so many signs that being homosexual isn't right.
kelseySHCZERP 2 years ago
Harhar. This whole dictionary thing just goes to show that the world doesn't need to rely on religion any more. YOU wake up! We're PAST the Renaissance!
CaliforniaBlonde000 2 years ago 4
PropheticObserver, you're my new best friend! We need more people like you to stand up for morality in these days. :-)
Ladyluck229 2 years ago
Sorry folks,but for me the term "gay marriage" is a huge oxymoron.
scola91660 2 years ago
"In the big picture although I am greatly concerned for their souls, what gays do in their bedrooms doesn't have any impact on me, it is the example they set in society, especially to children."--
Can you give a specific example on how "they" set a bad example for children? Like if a child saw their favorite sports star get arrested. Something like that.
ethdude 2 years ago
Yep, Sodomites are corrupting the language.
tallswede68 2 years ago
whine whine whine whine... my god you must be horribly insecure to feel threatened by this. Is your religious belief a house of cards? Until our species stops fearing some sky boogyman we will forever be a backwards planet incapable of true civilization.
Go learn how logic works, learn definitions like "circular reasoning" and "fiction".
I sincerely hope every one of your loved ones realizes they are gay and are driven to suicide by your insane rantings.
ThelemicPotter 2 years ago
These are the people that call Christians bigots and accuse us of hate speech?
Let's see, circular reasoning, is that like claiming to be tolerant of everyone's opinion, except those you disagree with?
How's the Thelemic thing working out for you? You're no one to be talking about a "sky boogieman" when you worship Satan. Or do you deny it? Crowley said: "Do what thou wilt". Surely you have no problem with what another person is doing? Hey, there's another example of circular reasoning!
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
How can ANYONE worship someone they do not believe exists? Anyway, there's a better chance God exists than Satan.
Don't like gay marriage, don't get one. Oh and don't try to pull the slippery slope card about how incest and pedophilia will follow.
Acherus29A 2 years ago 10
Why would you lie? The dictionary dictionary hasn't changed the definition of marriage, but the definition has been edited to include the contemporary definition/ usage of the word. That's what dictionaries are supposed to do, they are dictionaries not versions of the Bible. I tolerate the intolerant, up to the point they resort to lying to oppress others.
westkan 2 years ago
Here on planet Earth editing a dictionary entry is considered changing it.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
If you can't see the difference between changing a printed definition after decades of language evolution and changing the definition of a word that's in the center of a heated debate, you're blinding yourself.
canofsand 2 years ago 2
Hey PO, what gives you grounds to believe Jesus was divine? How do you know the Bible is the word of God? How are you equally sure all other religions are false? How do you know it's not someone's choice whether they're gay? And given you can't answer any of those questions, why are you so willing to impose your views on others - and so strongly advocate for using the power of the state to restrict others' liberty?
peskydesperado 2 years ago
I know the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus is divine because I have read the Bible and have a personal relationship with God.
I know someone chooses to engage in homosexuality because it is a behavior.
The state has always used it's power to restrict liberty. What do you think prisons are for? That said, I don't believe that gays should be restricted from any part of civil union, I personally object to the co-opting of the word "marriage".
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Homosexuality occurs in nature. So do you think that nature has a choice? Marriage has been co-opted many different times before the christians came along. Pagans were doing marriages before your bible was even compiled. The christians also co-opted pagan holidays as well
PogueMoran 2 years ago 2
Yes, dogs are known to sodomize each other. They also eat their own vomit and feces. Do you really want to be compared to a dog?
And if you are only an animal incapable of self-control, give me a single reason why society shouldn't spay/neuter you.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
"And if you are only an animal incapable of self-control"
Are you trying to say that the only thing keeping you from sodomy is self-control? I have lived my entire life without interest or predisposition towards sodomy, and it has nothing to do with god, self control or any other conscious thought. I am not attracted to it.
The definition of words change over time, especially in regard to rights and equality. America would still be segregated if we had maintained the views from the bible.
katoth 2 years ago
No, I am saying that the only thing keeping you from doing things you might otherwise want to do is self-control.
You may not have the desire to sodomize a man, but self-control also stops you from raping a woman, stealing or anything else that you may want to do from time to time that is socially unacceptable.
The Bible never condoned segregation, indeed Moses' wife was an Ethiopian. You should probably read the Bible before you attempt to discredit it.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
The bible is full of all kinds of contradictions.
Exodus 21:20-21
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
Humans choose what is precent. We are the filters of morality based on social standards. Sexual preference is biological, as studies continue to find, and condemning someone for it is the same as racial/ethnic bias
katoth 2 years ago
There is plenty of junk science to support just about any theory you can imagine.
There is no genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, and I would be very careful in making that claim too loudly if I were you. When combined with the "humans are only animals" malarkey one could make a pretty solid argument for the sterilizization or even euthanization of homosexuals as genetic mutants. Just ask Hitler.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
It only took two replies for you to invoke Godwin's Law, that is unfortunate...
Atrocities are committed throughout history because of people's passions being exploited. Never as a result of rationality or critical thinking.
Ironically you just made my case for me.Saying that homosexuals should be treated differently than heterosexuals, and not receive all of the same rights and liberties that heterosexual couples enjoy you are condoning segregation.
katoth 2 years ago
There is nothing inherently wrong with many forms of segregation. What do you think prisons are for?
Same with the word "discrimination". It triggers an emotional reaction with little reasoning attached. Intellectual lightweights use these words so they can feign moral superiority and blather: "See? He supports segregation!"
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Segregation can be used as a form of punishment, that is not in dispute. That form of segregation is a direct result of someone committing a crime which directly harms another person. Further this form of segregation is extremely negative, which is why its a punishment.
As soon as you try and apply segregation to a segment of the population, then you are in essence trying to degrade those people, and claim that they are less than you. Deserving of less rights, less equality.
katoth 2 years ago
Ahh, but in an example such as imprisonment there is a secondary benefit. Society has deemed people like murderers and rapists deserving of less rights, less equality in many places.
I say society needs protection from certain aspects of homosexuality, and cite the Bible as my evidence. You disagree.
In the big picture although I am greatly concerned for their souls, what gays do in their bedrooms doesn't have any impact on me, it is the example they set in society, especially to children.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
"Protect the children/family" has been used through history to try and stop social change. "Think about the children" was heard when the first black student joined a white school, "What about the family" was on newspapers when woman left the kitchen and joined the workforce.
In the end this comes down to rights, and more specifically the right to love, and have that love recognized and respected. Like racial and gender equality I dont expect everyone to agree, bit I am glad we could discuss it.
katoth 2 years ago
Nobody's right to love is being infringed. It is the sexual practice that is abhorrent, not loving another human being. You are equating eros with philos.
Protecting the family will always be imperitive to human survival. Being a minority is not counterproductive to the family, being gay is.
The mother that left the kitchen for the workplace was sold a bill of goods and is in fact responsible for much of the ills we have a generation later, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
By trying to control who someone can love, and how that love can be expressed you would be stepping on their rights.
Thankfully you have the right to marry who you want, but I wonder what you would do if someone tried to step on that right.
Simple reflection on the golden rule can tell anyone what is moral. Consider taking a right away from yourself before proposing taking it from someone else. Not just in this, but everything.
katoth 2 years ago
You cannot marry a child, or a Golden Retriever. Where does the "right" to marry another man come from?
There is no such thing as basic human rights in this world, where would they come from, but God?
All rights come from God, not man. He shows us the difference between rights and wrongs. And "The Golden Rule" is but one of the guidelines laid out in the Bible.
Nobody is taking the right to marry away from gays. You can't take something they never had.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Human rights come from the Geneva Conventions, which apply to America because Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states that any treaty into which the U.S. enters will become part of the supreme law of the land, meaning it becomes part of the Constitution.
So, marriage is (legally) a basic human right. It is also defined as being between a man and woman, which seems to suggest that the relationships homosexuals engage in are not human, which they obviously are, since they involve two humans.
VarmitC 2 years ago 3
Human rights come from God, not Geneva conventions.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
I just wanted to add that gays are not infringed in any way from expressing their "love" for each other. The problem is they want the rest of the population to rubber stamp their perversion as wholesome, normal and natural.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Incorrect. Homosexuals who do this are idiots. What they are/should be fighting for is equal rights in regard to their romantic relationships, not changing the minds of people who do not agree with their life-style.
VarmitC 2 years ago
no he made his case by pointing out your flawed and propaganda filled logic and by your own definitions the logical conclusions or your own points....because science has debunked your only small hope that personal opinion be declared science to benefit the feew...the only reason homosexuality is promoted at all today is by eugenicists and thats because they are for population control and homosexuals cant have children on their own so its promoted..that is the only valid science there is for you
NSMDOC 2 years ago
Nobody choses to be gay! Gawd!
JonathanClement140 2 years ago
ther was only one theory that said homosexuality is genetic and its been thoroughly discredited to the point that even in the liberal colloge text books that theory has been taken out totally or has a * next to it saying that there isnt any proof to back it up like the man said earlier before you enter a debate at least have some small idea of the facts and stop spouting known discredited propaganda as science
NSMDOC 2 years ago
I believe the Bible because of the fulfilled prophecy. What nation but Israel has survived for nearly 2,000 of nonexistance and then returning? (Don't say "people created Israel because they read the prophecy," since the U.S. almost didn't approve of the nation's existance [not to mention the Jews weren't even sure if they wanted to call it Israel]).
Ladyluck229 2 years ago
Orwellian homofascism will not stop until the every last shred of decency and virtue is eradicated from civilization.
TJHX1 2 years ago
Let the bible bail confused people out.
The dictionary is for everyone who wants to understand the real world.
5random1 2 years ago
The Bible is here precisely to bail confused people out, and the Bible is for everyone that wants to understand God.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
I understand that you think you are saving people's souls from eternal damnation, and in that respect your attitude is commendable. If I honestly believed that God sends some to heaven and some to hell, I hope that I would have the compassion and love for my fellow man to do the same.
As it happens, I do not and cannot subscribe to such a philosophy, so while I'm not offended by those who do, I am offended when they try to impose their belief system on me through the state.
tzushih 2 years ago
I don't see how anything is being imposed on you, quite the opposite, a perhaps 5% minority is attempting to impose itself on the 95%.
Webster's just gave it a big boost. I don't really care, in the sense that it changes nothing for me. I am sorry for the poor saps that will never know what the word really means.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
How does gays getting married affect your life in the slightest? Once upon a time marriage
was defined as between a man and multiple wives and then someone came a long and redefined it. The definition of marriage has been changed many times throughout our society. The minority isn't imposing anything on anyone they just want the same happiness or suffering, depending on how you look at it, as everyone else.
PogueMoran 2 years ago
There are two types of marriage; One recognized by the state, the other by God.
Why is the state involved at all is the question you should be asking.
Gays will never be allowed to marry in God's eyes as it is a contract with God between a man and a woman.
The point isn't that it effects me, it's that it effects the people pretending they are married. They will get the illusion that their sinful lifestyle will be accepted by God. It won't.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
But God also approved of polygamy in your bible. So does that mean when we outlawed polygamy that was against God's word? Again you're making a judgment call. Who are you to speak for God and say gays won't be allowed to marry in God's eyes. What gives you the authority to speak for God and commit blasphemy. It doesn't affect the people one bit. There's nothing sinful about the way they were born. Where in the new testament does it say gays are sinful?
PogueMoran 2 years ago
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
That's Paul's account. Where does God say in the new testament that its a sin. This seems more like Paul's personal opinion.
PogueMoran 2 years ago
The bible is God's Word. Paul was teaching it. God says it is a sin in the OT, and it is reiterated in the new.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Paul was a man where did God say in the new testament it was a sin? Where did Jesus say it was such? The bible was compiled by Men many years after the scrolls were written. Many books were left out so who chose what was to be included and what wasnt?
PogueMoran 2 years ago
Paul was inspired of the Holy Spirit, as were all the writers.
You will never really understand the Bible until you realize it is not a normal book. It was divinely inspired and compiled.
Go read a King James Bible straight through then ask your questions on a Christian Forum. It is beyond the scope of a YT comments section.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
i guess you forgot about sodom and gomorrah you know the two entire cities that were destroyed the main reason two whole cities were annhilited was homosexuality not to mention the 40 some odd times its called an abomination..there is nothing that means worse than abomination by definition in any language ever,,so its not just clear but crystal clear on what God feels
NSMDOC 2 years ago
For the record, God did not "approve" of polygamy in the Bible, but He did not necessarily say it was wrong either. What He did say was: 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' (Matthew 19:5) This means that God's original intention was for marriage to be between one man and one woman. These are also Jesus' words in the New Testament, by the way.
Ladyluck229 2 years ago
Also, the admonition to "wake up" is meant for those that claim to be Christians in word, but are actually not in deed.
For the true Christian the proper response to this isn't to write letters to Webster's to get it reversed, but to get on their knees and start praying for their neighbor, their community, their world.
According to Ezekiel 3:18-19 It is my duty as a Christian to warn my fellow man that they are in danger. I take that very seriously.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
And the bible is there for everyone who wants their thoughts to be enslaved by crap. I really hope there's an actual god, so when you die your life did not end up being a complete waste.
gosthok 2 years ago
The battle over the definition a word is a smokescreen initiated by bigots to try and avoid/postpone what they'll have to face and accept one day... Homosexuals are on their sure way to be treated equally, nothing will stop them...
fanagot 2 years ago 2
The smokescreen is actually the pathetic name calling on the part of the homosexual community. Everyone that disagrees with their lifestyle is simply a bigot in their morally retarded world.
And for that very reason the word "bigot" applies just as much (if not more) to the homosexual community.
Look it up, if Webster's hasn't changed it to suit themselves since yesterday.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
The smokescreen is actually the pathetic name calling on the part of the religious right. Everyone that disagrees with their myth is simply a sinner who will burn in hell in their morally wrong and ignorant world.
gosthok 2 years ago
It's a clunky definition it should just be "the joining of two people..." without the gender designation in either definition.
SquallCloud 2 years ago
(Also, I should point out that Websters isnt the only reputable dictionary that has the definition for marriage involving something about same-sex marriages. The last time I checked, even American Heritage does.)
bookofthedead 2 years ago
Websters purpose as an English dictionary is to define words in the English language, and it was simply doing its job. From a linguistic viewpoint, its a very valid definition. After all, marriage IS used in English to refer to the union between two people of the same gender. And not only does the term gay marriage exist but the concept that it refers to is legally recognized in several countries including one where English is not only an official language, but the dominant one.
bookofthedead 2 years ago 2
With all due respect, I think too much politics is being associated with this. I personally believe that Websters was absolutely justified in doing what they did.
bookofthedead 2 years ago
Noah Webster would freak. That said, I'm on the fence with this, because as much as I'm morally against redefinition of concepts, particularly God-ordained institutions, words do take on new meanings b/c of cultural changes & dictionaries probably should reflect that. The *real* meaning of marriage remains (& to Webster's credit they list it as #1), but dictionaries should include false meanings too, if that's how the words are used.
EncompassedRunner 2 years ago
Are we left to believe that this video condemns - on strict moral grounds - the redefining of a word OR that it condones the biblical view of homosexuality. What a false flag. Shame on the makers of this video shame shame shame.
rsl4yt 2 years ago
Marriage is defined differently all over the world. Yes, Merriam-Webster is compiled and edited in the United States. However, it would be naive to think that the rest of the world (where it's also sold) has no bearing on the content. In Canada, for instance, a marriage can quite easily be between two partners of the same sex.
There are many words in the dictionary that have to do with other countries. This one, however, happens to be a volatile issue, particularly in the US, at the moment.
praedolepus 2 years ago
Oh my...a word in a dictionary has changed....we're doooooomed!!!
Seriously, dictionaries do change and adapt to the current meaning of words, what's the biggie, sheesh!
That's how it is, gays and lesbians can get married (in some places only, unfotunately), just deal with it, it doesn't hurt anyone, it's neither gross nor a sin, it's not causing global warming....er, what did I forget...? :D
Andy7777 2 years ago
Actually, the 5th definition in the entry "an intimate linking together" would be the correct definition to support calling 2 gays intimately linked together as "marriage."
therefore, this argument holds no water.
DSAhmed 2 years ago
"What do you do if the dictionary does not support your definition of a word?"
Nothing. Why? Because as in this case it does support your definition. The dictionary did not change the meaning of the word, it just added to it. That's the way it should be.
Wake up? Should be: Wake up, shut up and get over it.
LikaStarr 2 years ago
Nobody said they changed the meaning, it was the definition that was changed.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
The definition HAS changed. When you say you are against gay marriage you are saying you are against a union of a person to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. You are using the word meaning this definition you are opposing.
valital 2 years ago
I wonder, PropheticObserver, where are your videos about liars, theives and adulterers? Rapists, child abusers and gluttons? Bullies, drunk drivers, and drive by shooting?
It's very very interesting (in a Ted Haggard sort of way) that, in the interest of Saving the Children, you'd feel most inspired and threatened by this issue, above all the others.
ilsitat 2 years ago
Yawn...
I am against all those things. If Webster's redefines any of them let me know.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Homophobes are hilarious.
I'm praying for you, guys. :)
(PS: This change to the dictionary actually happened like six years ago. So. There's that.)
HarebrainedHarpy 2 years ago 2
The Chinese are not Christians for the most part and they do not call two sodomites married either.
Christians recognize the law of nature and natures God that brings the shame of sexual perversions, as do the Chinese and the rest of the world, Christian or not
coloradoplains 2 years ago
The religion that our country was founded on was chritianity, not Buddhism. That's why we find ourselves at this point. The Christians don't want their definition of Marriage to be tainted. It's sacred to them. But lets capitulate to the Muslims instead and let them institute Shariah laws all over the place and disregard any of our own foundational laws.
KodoTheShoe 2 years ago
No, our country was specifically founded on NOT having an official religion. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and Benjamin Franklin had "doubts" on the subject as well as a number of writings in which he outright criticized Christianity. Several other founding fathers were also Deists who did not accept Jesus as anything other than a pretty smart guy with some nice things to say about peace, love and acceptance.
MooFishProductions 2 years ago 2
How wrong you are. Guess what basic foundational religion was practiced? Now tell me that NONE of those morals and ethics ended up in our laws? please.. They weren't born deists, and they were raised as Christians with a proper moral compass. A compass that made it into our laws whether you want to believe it or not. To say that our country as not founded on the basic principals of these moralities is absurd.
KodoTheShoe 2 years ago
To be sexually active is by choice, not genetic.
No one is forced to have sexual realtionships thereby showing all its a choice.
Neither the anus or the mouth are sexual organs, and to use them for sexual gratification perverts their own body with dishonor.
The shame of sodomy is a law of nature, not from the meaning of the word marriage.
Even if all men would define marriage to include sodomites, the law of nature will still make them feel shame for their perverted abuse of the body.
coloradoplains 2 years ago
Religion is a choice, too, and you don't see anyone trying to stop the free exercise thereof. I think joining a cult or being a religious fundamentalist is most likely dangerous to oneself and to others, but I also respect people's legal and moral rights to live their life as they choose.
tzushih 2 years ago 2
Do you have any idea how often word definitions change with the times (as reflected by the dictionary). How about the word "gay" itself?
You wake up. You're grasping at straw.
jvadnais 2 years ago 2
Grow up. The dictionary reflects language as it is used. The term "same-sex marriage" is widely in use if you haven't noticed, so the dictionary has to take that into account. Language evolves.
valital 2 years ago 2
I agree that we should outlaw unnatural things. Anything that doesn't occur naturally in our God-given world is an abomination.
Gasoline, electric appliances, medications, television news anchors and manufactured tools must be outlawed to bring us closer to the natural world and its God.
Of course, homosexuality occurs in nature in many species, so we shouldn't add that to the list. I mean, God wouldn't make gay animals if homosexuality was an abomination, right?
mistergone 2 years ago
Another word in the dictionary
Dictionary: per·vert (pər-vûrt') pronunciation 1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt. 2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase. 3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See synonyms at corrupt.
Describes sodomite "marriage"
coloradoplains 2 years ago
I think the aborted baby would disagree that abortion is ever safe and legal...
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
I think you should look up the definition of "dictionary."
It's not Webster's job to record only word meaning that you "support."
socxan 2 years ago 6
I never suggested it was. I think the changing of this word was a meaningful event, and deserved recognition, whether one agrees with it or not.
I don't question that there may be a miniscule minority that use this word in this manner, I question the motives of doing so.
You can continue to ignorantly pretend that there is no social, political and religious significance attached if you wish. Others think differently.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Oh no! I hope that all the marriages survive this lexical apocalypse! After all, if everyone can get married, then no one can get married!
Wait... What?
ilsitat 2 years ago 4
pt 3 You are on the wrong side of history. You can accept it and change, or you can rant and raile and become increasingly irrelevant for the rest of your life.
As for the dictionary, it IS THEIR JOB to reflect changes in language usage. You might just want to go to the library, find the oldest dictionary there, and the newest one, and compare them. You will note that language changes and dictionaries reflect that.
lesleygoo 2 years ago 2
pt 2 Given your prediliction, it's likely you also do not believe in evolution, but it's a fact, it's the way of the world. History marches on. People like you will go the way of the Southern lawmen we've all seen in the newsreels, the folks who unleashed the dogs on African Americans. And like their descendants today, your descendants will hang their heads in shame at your ignorance.
lesleygoo 2 years ago 3
pt 1. You poor little dear. Perhaps you have not noticed that THINGS CHANGE. All manner of things. Cultures, landmasses, values, beliefs, entire planets, even bibles and religions. Do you use a 3000 year old map? Do you use the n-word or other racial epithets used for hundreds of years in this country and others? Do you use a quill and ink to write with?
lesleygoo 2 years ago 3
Actually, the word wasn't recently changed. In the 2003 Collegiate Edition I have, that definition is in there as well. I'm shocked that people are just now seeing that.
This "new" definition of marriage is just as sickening as when the definition of a woman was changed to be equal to a man, and blacks were defined as being equal to whites! :O
Firestar120 2 years ago 4
The dictionary never defined those words in that manner, why prey on the ignorant by pretending it did?
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
It's sad seeing our world going in to a deep black abyss of "doing what they want to" state. We, united as Christians, need to tell people that is going to destroy us.
dmonks40 2 years ago
Yeah, utterly despairing that people are beginning to wake up to the fact that we have free will and that we (should) have the freedom to live happily. Seriously, gay marriage for maybe 5% of the population is going to destroy us? Wow, you guys are weak.
By all means, keep telling us we're going to hell in a hand-basket. You are on the wrong side of history and you knows it.
cherrydog9 2 years ago 3
I never told anyone they are going to hell. There just needs to be a change. What about abortion? Same thing... it is just like killing a newborn child. If we arrest people for murder, then we should for abortion.
dmonks40 2 years ago
Yes, of course you have a free will. I have no problem with anyone that decides to live a gay lifestyle. I hope you don't, because you will burn in hell for eternity for it, but it is your perogative to reject God and His Law.
My problem is with you trying to tell me that homosexuality is moral and natural, and to teach that to my children in school.
It is my duty as a Christian to warn others, however God will do just fine no matter what the law or the dictionary say.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Don't lie -- you have a huge problem with people that live "a gay lifestyle". (Do you live a straight lifestyle?) It makes you uncomfortable, so you throw up the shield of scripture and your personal belief of what god is and what he wants so you can feel a moral superiority. Try living what Jesus taught. Not the bastardization of his teaching that "Christianity" has forced on this world for far too long.
AlFoote3 2 years ago
What makes me uncomfortable is the fact that unless they ask God's forgiveness, all sinners (including homosexuals) are going to hell.
I feel morally superior to no man, I am a sinner just as much as anyone in God's eyes. All sin is equally repugnant to God; it is only through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross that we are acceptable to God.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Yeah, well, your morals and magic are not seen by everyone the same way. Yeah, I know, it's a hard concept to grasp that what you follow as fact is nothing more than a myth not much different than those myths of the past that are now obsolete.
gosthok 2 years ago
Great. I think someone, somewhere said: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." You've just said you're a sinner. Stop casting stones.
AlFoote3 2 years ago
In the allegory you mention, Jesus was the only party involved legally capable of stoning her, as He will on judgement day.
*I* OTOH am merely warning others that we will all be judged on judgment day.
But you my friend illustrate magnificently the circular logic that permeates society today. You see, when you tell me not to judge others, you are in fact judging me.
The same applies to tolerance. To be *truly* tolerant of others, you must include those people that are intolerant.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Ever heard of stretching a metaphor to its breaking point? You just did, "AlFoote3." By that reasoning, we might as well not have any laws at all since we couldn't enforce them because (according to that reasoning) only those who are perfect get to enforce anything, which would be no one.
canofsand 2 years ago
Sounds more like blasphemy to me Prophetic, you claiming to speak for God about who will and will not go to hell. Isn't blasphemy the only unforgivable sin and it seems you just committed it. What happened to those who claimed to speak for God in the new testament but did not have the power of God?
PogueMoran 2 years ago
The Bible speaks for God, not me. Where in the video did I claim to speak for God?
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Ha! Can I quote you on that? It's great.
lisavilisa 2 years ago
Please do! :) It's a paraphrase of something I read years ago anyway.
tzushih 2 years ago
Really? Where?
lisavilisa 2 years ago
I'm not sure, but you can find similar statements on a web search. It's the easiest (and funniest) way to deflate the "AIDS proves God frowns on gays" argument, as fundamentalists always tend to forget about the ladies for some reason.
tzushih 2 years ago
You know, many people like to say that Christians are judgmental. However, I have noticed that gays and those that support their cause are equally judgmental against Christians. Why should I be made to accept your world views, while you stomp and ridicule mine? The point is, throughout the ages, marriages have always been established between a man and a woman. And when you go outside of that relationship, you go against all moral values. Why do you think AIDS is prevalient in America?
NinjaPrincessZelda 2 years ago
"The point is, throughout the ages, marriages have always been established between a man and a woman."
Except for all the times that they've been established between a man and several women, including most of the time span covered by your own bible.
"And when you go outside of that relationship, you go against all moral values."
Nope.
"Why do you think AIDS is prevalient in America?"
Promiscuity, which is independent of sexuality, and also intravenous drug use, which is likewise.
ChristopherJHenry 2 years ago 6
Morality comes from the bottom up. Apes and primates are moral. Homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, therefore homosexuality is natural and moral. It's not the norm, but it's all natural, baby. And nobody is telling you not to believe in God, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, but your kind is trying to restrict another person's freedom, and that is immoral.
gmezzy 2 years ago 3
There is no god....and even if there were, I really doubt he would be worrying about if gays were getting married and living in supportive,loving relationships. h\Rather he would probably be vexed by how intolerant the religious right and supposed "Christians" are toward those who are different from themselves.
hfxmagdude 2 years ago
First the gays want to get married, next thing you know they will be trying to get jobs or own homes, we need to stop them now before they edit wikipedia.
TrixieHardcore 2 years ago 4
The truth is that I'm gay AND I'm Christian. And will one day be married under God in accordance with God whether the law or you say I can or cannot. And guess what?... It has NOTHING to do with you and your misguided outrage.
belmonttau 2 years ago 4
Sad to say, you may be either gay or a Christian, but not both. It is akin to saying you are a vegan and you eat meat.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
According to you. Your understanding of scripture doesn't line up with mine. I don't think you're right, and you should recognize you could be wrong and stop trying to dictate others lives. I am being faithful to what I believe is true about myself, my God, and His Word. Just because you believe there's no other way to understand it doesn't make something true, and guess what there are A LOT of theologians with firm commitments to the Bible and a love of God who disagree with you as well.
belmonttau 2 years ago 4
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)
Not according to me, according to God's Word. What part of that verse do you not understand?
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
We are not discussing law, we are discussing a dictionary entry. Mirriam-Webster has the right to define words any way they want, but we also have the right to notice, and discuss it.
I believe in truth, and I believe that books like the dictionary must be held to some standard of accountability, not used to further a political agenda.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Actually, dictionaries tend to define words based on how they are used, which is the only real way to nail down a definition. In this case, the dictionary reflects both existing legal definitions in certain areas (Canada and parts of the U.S.) as well as the definition shared by a sizable number of people. Many religions and philosophies define marriage to include same-sex unions, though certainly there are also many which do not.
tzushih 2 years ago 3
You can continue with this (hopefully feigned) ignorant line of thought, but it doesn't help your cause.
Anyone that would change a dictionary word with so much social, political and religious controversy attached is either a blithering idiot or has an axe to grind.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
They put "D'oh" in the dictionary.
You know there's a third option, right? That maybe the guy who changed the entry was aware of the context and changed it to keep up with the changing times, right? It's possible to be professional about a controversial subject, you know.
SpaceHelicopter78 2 years ago
Oh yes, and Webster ... what's the definition for the word 'Godfearing'? Should I use it in a sentence? I'll try ...
*Ahem*
'The Godfearing people were taken aghast by the malicious warping of the founding principles of society just to appease some microchasm of society and make them feel better when their view of the world doesn't forward society, doesn't birth future generations, and is against religious text.'
kamak894 2 years ago
Here it is:
Godfearing:
(1) see yawn
valital 2 years ago
Yes, the meanings of words change, but in the case of this word it is being changed to trigger the changing of its usage, not because of it. There is a difference.
IOW usage always dictates change, not the other way round.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
So... the pro-gay guys at Webster changed the meaning of the word marriage so people could use it in a different way.
I know God's not okay with it and all, but now that Webster changed the meaning, I feel OBLIGATED to comply. I'm glad it's now okay to use that word, I was tying my tongue in a knot!
Seriously, the dictionary defenition changed after the meaning actually DID change, not the other way around.
SpaceHelicopter78 2 years ago 2
1) The point is not that it threatens hetrosexual marriage, it is that the word marriage is gender specific. That is why you yourself refer to it as "gay marriage" and not simply "marriage".
2) Ultimately is is God who decides what marriage is and not you, me or Webster's
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
2) Then why care what the law says?
lisavilisa 2 years ago
Re:2
I would say that it's more correctly *society* that decides what marriage is and both you and I are part of society as is Webster's.
If God decided those sort of things, we would tend not to get much reliable input.
mengbomin 2 years ago
1. Wrong. The only reason we add the term "gay" before the word "marriage" is to allow for a sensible debate. If we just got rid of the prefix "gay" and just used the term "marry" without saying who it's for, than it would make this debate even more nonsensical than it is now. And you should also realize that in a conversational context, one would not use the term "gay married" to describe two men getting married, ie. "Adam and John are getting gay-married" would never be said.
Converge88 2 years ago 2
I suppose I'll just have to get used to saying "straight Marriage" for a while.
GREYBAT 2 years ago
You should also realize that gay marriage is both legal and socially acceptable in many other (English-speaking) countries like Canada. Thus, it would be perfectly logical for a dictionary to change the definition.
2. That presupposes that:
a) God exists
b) He cares who you marry
Both of which, are highly dubious claims
Converge88 2 years ago 3
I'm so glad people are waking up even if some people would not like us to. Good Job Merriam-Webster.
lisavilisa 2 years ago
With divorce rates where they are, it is the heterosexuals that threaten marriage.
scottpmcq 2 years ago 5
Here's a clue for you: Merriam-Webster's strives to reflect contemporary usage. So when a significant portion of the population starts using a word in a new sense, that sense gets included. Or do you believe that when dictionaries first started including "homosexual" as a definition for "queer" they were trying to send the message that homosexuality is bizarre?
ChristopherJHenry 2 years ago 5
Let's get back to biblical polygamous marriage:
"If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." Exodus 21:10.
Abraham was poygamous:
"Now Sara Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar." Genesis 16:1
"And Sara Abram's wife took Hagar her maid ... and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife." Genesis 16:3
"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah." Genesis 25:1
dougsha 2 years ago 6
I'm awake. Tell me, what did Jesus say about same-sex marriage? Not anybody else, just Jesus.
desidono 2 years ago 3
everyone has different definitions. i'm married to my job and do not have a life. they should include that too. but words do change over time... it used to be ok to have a fag, now its a smoke or ciggie. and if you watch old films "making love" meant holding hands and perhaps kissing. but today it means something more. who really defines english words and phrases? i think the dictionary just reflects the general acceptance of these evolving terms.
mrchloe 2 years ago
"wake up"...and do what? Post an overwrought hang-wringing video that bemoans the fact that dictionaries change definitions when those changes are reflected in the culture at large? Ok, you've done that. Now what.
cherrydog9 2 years ago
WHY
DO
YOU
CARE
????
spacula 2 years ago 3
Yes, please - wake up, fundies!
TheoIsTheGreatest 2 years ago 2
Guess what? Our language is a living language and changes based on our usage of it. A dictionary's job is to report what a word means based on its usage. Many people use the word marriage to refer to the state of commitment of a couple, regardless of sexual make up. If you don't like this definition, don't use it -- but don't tell me how to use this word.
AlFoote3 2 years ago 3
By changing the definition it is in fact *you* that is trying to tell the world how to use the word. A word that has been plainly understood for centuries.
As another commenter said, you can call the color red "blue", but it doesn't change the color. Most importantly, it doesn't change God's view of it one iota.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Nice, but wrong.
a) if it were just *me* the definition would not change in the dictionary. It's the fact that THOUSANDS of people use it with that meaning.
b) a color is named in order to make sense of the thing. The name has nothing to do with its quality. We arbitrarily name things. In the bible Adam & Eve started naming things, not God.
c) my God's view includes all people who truly love each other without discrimination. My God sounds more loving than yours - how sad for you.
AlFoote3 2 years ago
Your God is of your own invention, mine is of the Holy Bible. We'll see whose is the real one.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
I hope yours is the real one, other wise, you will have lived a very sad and regretful life.
gosthok 2 years ago
To you perhaps, to me it is a life full of hope & assurance of a better afterlife.
If I am wrong, I lose nothing. If you are wrong, you spend eternity in hell. Not a good bet if you ask me.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Maybe you can explain something for me.
If a god created man, then he knows us inside and out, down to our very subatomic particles.
Therefore he would know not only what we are capable of doing, he knows what we will do, to a certainty.
Therefore he/she/it has created billions of people for the sole purpose of burning in eternal fire, according to christianity.
Now where's the sense in that?
integral 2 years ago
He created us all with the opportunity to live forever, it is our decision to reject God and burn in Hell.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
integral: First, the lake of fire is a metaphor. Second, and I don't say this on behalf of PO, since there's a good chance he doesn't believe this, but one sees things in a perspective when the bigger picture is revealed: Souls are eternal.
canofsand 2 years ago
One of the things that becomes apparent after reading enough of the Bible is that even the literal sections are metaphors, or more correctly, allegory.
I believe in a literal burning hell.
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
Hell is eternal separation from God.Just as there is a hell, there is a heaven.
Verlch 2 years ago
Repent and live people, so says the Bible!
Verlch 2 years ago
In Ezekiel 33:6 "But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand."
Verlch 2 years ago
A dictionary updates itself to the times folks. The word marriage has been used to define a relationship between same sex partners in news, journals, books. So, they update the entry to reflect a change in usage.
It's not a dictionary's job to follow religion, it's not the bible. It's meant for academic use, it's not telling you what to believe. Hate me all you want, but you guys squealing about the bible are putting the dictionary above it.
nobrand 2 years ago 2
Gay means to be lightheartedly joyous.
Queer means unusual and weird.
Marriage means one man and one woman.
Websters complicity in pushing the Queer anti-truth agenda are pathetic cowards.
fsmdud 2 years ago
Marriage = MAN AND WOMAN not MAN and MAN or Man and Woman or Man and Dog. Dont care what the dictionary or corrupt judges say. I only care what thousands of years of culture and GOD's law says !!!
zabotlivaya 2 years ago
5 Stars for letting the public know of this 'change'.
Elaine02424 2 years ago
Change a word for you(?), certainly, but just for you, if you cannot accept what it means and play like you accomplished something, and just fooled yourself, no one else
I can call red blue if I want to, but when red is called blue in a conversation with someone who understands red is red and blue is blue, he will think that person is color blind.
You have no power to change meaning of words, marriage will always and forever retain the same meaning until the day each man is dead and gone.
coloradoplains 2 years ago
Yes, but what if the second person's 'understanding' is wrong?
What if that person always thought magenta is red, and all his friends did too? Would they be wrong, even if they all agreed with each other?
And would someone be a 'pervert' to question their deeply held 'magenta=red' beliefs?
If the law calls it marriage it is marriage. Don't matter what you think. If you're so sure God disagrees, then maybe He should weigh in on this. Where's His YouTube account? I want to drop Him a lin.
SpaceHelicopter78 2 years ago
There are not millions of shades of sexes, there is man and woman.
The law once called mixed marriage illegal, is that ok to you? The law is not the final judge, neither is the dictionary.
God did weigh in on this through His Word:
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.
Matthew 19:5 (KJV)
PropheticObserver 2 years ago
What about hermaphrodites?
It's not okay with me that mixed race marriage was illegal, but then again that most clearly denied equal rights to people, as does the banning of gay marriage.
And you pretty much admitted there that the defenition of marriage DOES change over time.
The law may not be the final judge, but it does decide where I pay my taxes and what's a jailable offense. God hasn't said a thing to me yet, so I guess he doesn't care what I do or think.
SpaceHelicopter78 2 years ago
what about them? hermaphrodites are a result of genetic mutations. Though I do believe in most, if not all, only one set of reproductive organs is functional. Do the math.
KodoTheShoe 2 years ago
Your argument might hold water if the propagation of our species was meant to be upheld by the joining of same sex couples to reproduce using their own ,combined, DNA.
But it's not. Our species evolves because of men and women reproducing. That is the natural order of things. Everything outside of that is an aberration. Some people can't accept that. That's their problem. Mother nature doesn't give a shit about you.
KodoTheShoe 2 years ago
If the law were based on nature then maybe we wouldn't pollute so much.
So gays can't reproduce. So what? Have you not heard of adoption? Artificial insemination? They're as natural as high fructose corn syrup, but they're legal and accepted by society in general.
Why is it an aberration? Because it's gross?
SpaceHelicopter78 2 years ago
Sodomites cannot reproduce themselves by nature, so they use their filthy and disgusting sexual lust that appeals to the lowest men and women in society
coloradoplains 2 years ago