![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message news:TpJ0b.207367$YN5.143841@sccrnsc01... Can you explain how this "impossibility" is occurring now in Canada and several other nations? It isn't. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net... "Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message news:TpJ0b.207367$YN5.143841@sccrnsc01... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message k.net... Exactly. There's no point in restricting what is impossible anyway, such as same-sex marriage. Can you explain how this "impossibility" is occurring now in Canada and several other nations? It isn't. When the Canadian government lawfully issues what it calls a "marriage license", you don't think that constitutes a marriage? Why not? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message news:A0K0b.208559$uu5.36901@sccrnsc04... When the Canadian government lawfully issues what it calls a "marriage license", you don't think that constitutes a marriage? Why not? The Canadian government can call a desk an elephant if it chooses to do so, but that doesn't make it so, it just makes the Canadian government appear stupid. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net... "Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message news:A0K0b.208559$uu5.36901@sccrnsc04... When the Canadian government lawfully issues what it calls a "marriage license", you don't think that constitutes a marriage? Why not? The Canadian government can call a desk an elephant if it chooses to do so, but that doesn't make it so If the meaning of the word "marriage" is not set by statute and by various people's actual uses of the term, then what *does* determine the meaning of the word? Dictionaries? Surely you understand that a dictionary merely codifies actual usage, and as a growing number of jurisdictions issue marriage licenses without regard to gender, dictionaries will soon amend their definitions accordingly. The meanings of words constantly evolve; if not, the English language wouldn't even exist. In some times and places, the word "marriage" referred only to unions sanctioned by the Catholic Church. The meaning of the word has changed, and is changing again. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message news:wsK0b.207750$YN5.144004@sccrnsc01... If the meaning of the word "marriage" is not set by statute and by various people's actual uses of the term, then what *does* determine the meaning of the word? Dictionaries? Surely you understand that a dictionary merely codifies actual usage, and as a growing number of jurisdictions issue marriage licenses without regard to gender, dictionaries will soon amend their definitions accordingly. The meanings of words constantly evolve; if not, the English language wouldn't even exist. In some times and places, the word "marriage" referred only to unions sanctioned by the Catholic Church. The meaning of the word has changed, and is changing again. Surely you understand that since only a very small minority will ever consider same-sex unions to be "marriage" in any sense "marriage" will continue to be defined as it has been for centuries. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net... Surely you understand that since only a very small minority will ever consider same-sex unions to be "marriage" in any sense "marriage" will continue to be defined as it has been for centuries. No, my expectation is that within a year or two, dictionaries will amend the definition of "marriage" to include same-gender unions; and within a generation or two, the notion of mixed-gender-only marriage will be viewed by most people in democracies the same way the notion of same-race-only marriage is now viewed by most people in democracies, namely as a shameful anachronism. But these are empirical predictions, so we'll just have to see. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:LLK0b.208842$uu5.37894@sccrnsc04... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message k.net... Surely you understand that since only a very small minority will ever consider same-sex unions to be "marriage" in any sense "marriage" will continue to be defined as it has been for centuries. By the way, according to a recent poll ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in565918.shtml ), 40% of the US population favors gay marriage rights; among 18-to-29-year-olds, 61% are in favor. So unless those percentages are what you consider "a very small minority", the fact is that we have *already* reached a point that you just predicted we would *never* reach. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Question About Newsgroups | RST Engineering | General Aviation | 1 | January 17th 05 05:59 PM |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Home Built | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Owning | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |