Thus spake peggy miller circa 11/11/2008 08:07 AM: > Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is extremely > important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which includes > "to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and wife" > -- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet these two > requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the husband and > generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form a legal > marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and ignores the > definition of marriage itself.
But if we argue from the dictionary we may end up with arguments like the following. While all the below agree with your point: 1) "marriage" generally refers to a spousal relationship and 2) "spouse" is a term meaning things like vow, pledge, ritual, etc, and 3) "husband" generally means master of the house, "wife" really is defined to be a female. So, while lesbian couples can choose who is the husband and who is the wife; gay male couples can't. They can choose the husband; but neither can be a wife. Personally, I think marriage is an obsolete concept. We should completely separate legal contracts from religious ceremonies and purge "marriage" from the law entirely. It should be in the exact same category as baptism. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
