About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"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.

"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?

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.