Rights of others are being taken away…because of an outdated dictionary definition??
Marriage by definition is: “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc…. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage). Times change and so do definitions of words so please don’t tell me there is no dictionary with the second part of this definition existing today or that marriage MUST be thought of as the traditional definition.
If you want to go by traditional definitions, here’s a few for you. Manufacture used to mean ‘to make by hand’ instead of “to make or process (a product), especially with the use of industrial machines” (new definition from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/manufacture).
Or, how about the word awful? It used to mean ‘full of awe, something delightful’ and now it means something really ugly or terrible.
The word nice, as in ‘nice person’, used to mean someone who was ignorant and/or unaware of what was going on around them instead of “Of good character and reputation; respectable… Pleasing and agreeable in nature…” (http://www.answers.com/topic/nice). Huge differences in my mind.
But these changes are allowed and tolerated, I wonder why a change of the word marriage isn’t even allowing an added on part to the definition…
That’s right, I just schooled you all. You know you love it.
Speaking of these traditional meanings…
Would Obama or Romney support any of those other traditional uses of vocabulary and apply their meanings literally to today’s economy and social situations?
Manufacture means ‘to make by hand’ in the traditional sense, so allowing this definition to be added on to the modern definition would create more jobs where people make things with their hands. Obama would like this, Romney would ship the jobs to China where they’re definitely already using this mixed definition of both making with their hands and using machines to produce things.
Awful. I think I’d like the traditional definition of ‘full of awe, something delightful’ instead. Just makes more sense looking at the word and you can always say ‘that’s absolutely terrible’ if you don’t like something.
I know politicians in general would love this reverted back to the original meaning, so that everyone who says they’re ‘awful’ is actually complimenting them. Of course, I bet the ‘delightful and wonderful’ definition is already in their heads anyway due to ego.
Politicians always say how ‘nice people are’ when they go into towns or have conferences. I bet they go by the ignorant and unaware definitions in their heads, don’t you agree?
So, I believe Obama and Romney would allow 2 out of 3 of these traditional meanings to come back into light… due to ego, nothing else. No wonder things aren’t changing even though: hard working people who ‘manufacture goods’ are ‘nice people’ and are working ‘awful’ conditions.
This translates into for politicians: …things aren’t changing because hard working people ‘who make stuff with machinery’ are too ‘ignorant’ to know what is better for them so why do they need better situations especially if they are working in ‘delightful’ conditions.
See, 2 out of 3 traditional definitions… they’re really stuck on making things good for themselves and not us, aren’t they? That’s why I won’t vote for either of them, or anyone without a brain.
The Steadfast Contessa 