Merriam Webster Upsets Conservatives with Updated Definition of Marriage

Conservatives have their tidy whiteys all twisted because (ZOMG) the nation’s most popular dictionary updated the definition of marriage.  Guess what, language gets updated all the time, that’s why there are new editions of dictionaries. *facepalm jpg*

 Merriam Webster added a new definition of marriage in 2003

the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

but as Andrew Sullivan points out, conservatives seem to have just noticed it. One guy got so upset about the "homosexual agenda" he made a video about it (above). So let’s learn about etymology

Dear Conservative Wingnut Freaks:

Language evolves and changes as usage evolves and changes. The actual meaning of "apocalypse" in Greek, the language used to write the New Testament at one point,  is "revelation" not "end of the world;" but in popular usage, it’s come to mean a really intense final kaboom, and thus the word in the dictionary now comes with that definition.

How about "corn"? In England for centuries "corn"referred to all grains, and "corned beef" got its name because it was cured with coarse grains of salt, not because it has any seeds in the recipe. Eventually because of the discovery of what we call now "corn" (the kind on the cob) when the Spaniards and Pilgrims arrived in different parts of the Americas, there became a differentiation and "grain" was eventually used to refer to weensy little pieces of dirt and other things like salt, and to dried seeds of  plants used to make flour. "Corn" became defined to be the stuff that grown on cobs, or on your feet if your shoes are too tight, which is from the French for horn (and shall we discuss "horny"?). If something is "corny" though it doesn’t taste of corn–it is an old stale joke.

So realize things evolve–oh wait thats dirty word to you, too.

Sincerely,

La Figa

And here’s what Webster Associate Editor Kory Stamper told Sullivan:

We often hear from people who believe that we are promoting — or perhaps failing to promote — a particular social or political agenda when we make choices about what words to include in the dictionary and how those words should be defined…In recent years, this new sense of ‘marriage’ has appeared frequently and consistently throughout a broad spectrum of carefully edited publications … Its inclusion was a simple matter of providing our readers with accurate information about all of the word’s current uses.

21 Responses to "Merriam Webster Upsets Conservatives with Updated Definition of Marriage"
Millineryman | Saturday March 21, 2009 06:04 pm 1

I never agreed with the meaning of pickle but hey that’s just me.
Also, I support anything that will make a wingnut’s head explode.

Thanks for this post. I did not know that the definition was updated.


TobyWollin | Sunday March 22, 2009 06:22 am 2

Whoa..Merrian Webster added that in 200-3 and they are just NOW aware of it? Just another piece of evidence to add to my “Conservatives and Rethugs lack language skills” argument.


SteveNS | Sunday March 22, 2009 06:27 am 3

They’ll always have Conservapedia to keep only the definitions they approve of.


eCAHNomics | Sunday March 22, 2009 06:38 am 4

Conservative means being stuck in the past.


IvanIvanovichRenko | Sunday March 22, 2009 06:40 am 5

Dictionaries are DE-scriptive, not PRE-scriptive.

Thus, this conservative whinging is just more of their usual– “reality has a decidedly liberal bias.”


ironranger | Sunday March 22, 2009 06:44 am 6

The divorce rate of heterosexuals is nearly 50%, fewer & fewer people go to church & the number of babies born to single women is growing. Yet, the uber conservatives still insist that most americans are in their camp. It must be exhausting to wake up every morning having fight the same battle but lose ground daily.


eCAHNomics | Sunday March 22, 2009 06:48 am 7
In response to ironranger @ 6

It must be exhausting to wake up every morning having fight the same battle but lose ground daily.

Progressives are no stranger to that. Only the battles we are losing are different ones.


eCAHNomics | Sunday March 22, 2009 06:51 am 8

Quite the neocon on WJ. Then I switch to cspan2 to find Perle’s face on my screen. cspan is a real neocon propaganda outfit this morning. (Not too different from other mornings.)


foothillsmike | Sunday March 22, 2009 06:51 am 9

These Wingnuts wake up daily in their own world. Now they want to offer a Masters of Science Degree for creationism
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0321.html


candideinnc | Sunday March 22, 2009 06:51 am 10

Neologisms–new words–are created all the time to describe new ideas or things. Old words constantly evolve to reflect new meanings, and old meanings become antiquated and unused. If that were not the case, we wouldn’t have to teach Shakespearean language to our high school students; they would understand it without any help. Conservative are simply ignorant when they become incensed at something as self-apparent as this.


candideinnc | Sunday March 22, 2009 06:54 am 11

Also, there is the OED which provides a historical map of theEnglish language. It is a wonderful tool which demonstrates the genesis of the English language.


TobyWollin | Sunday March 22, 2009 07:00 am 12
In response to candideinnc @ 10

But..the basis of Conservatism is clinging to the past…not allowing anything to change. No wonder they are up in arms about a language evolution in the word ‘marriage’ –


ironranger | Sunday March 22, 2009 07:03 am 13
In response to eCAHNomics @ 7

True. I don’t suppose we would shut up even if 90% of americans agreed with the ultra conservative agendas. The difference would probably be that most progressives use pesky facts, evidence to argue what works or doesn’t work versus wishful thinking.


Kassandra | Sunday March 22, 2009 07:14 am 14

How funny! I wonder if it was a typo, or a true liberal got ahold the thing? LMAO


Adie | Sunday March 22, 2009 07:33 am 15

Good Morn Puppies.

Nice post. Isn’t love what makes the world go ’round?

Nice of Merriam Webster to notice. Is this binding on SOTUS now?

Will the consoivative movement explode in the bud of a-borninga-boring? That’s a heck of a way to spread seed a message. Would that they’d chill out, pull their injured psyches up out of the people’s dictionary if reading so upsets their equilibrium, and stick their little red noses back in whatever their one-and-only version of THE Bible may be, if and as they wish.

P. E. A. C. E.


Adie | Sunday March 22, 2009 07:34 am 16
In response to Adie @ 15

phooey, it’s SCOTUS, of course. sigh.


Adie | Sunday March 22, 2009 07:40 am 17
In response to eCAHNomics @ 8

Top o’ the mornin’ to you eCAHN. I’ve given up on the Sunday pawndacity. Turned out that was what triggered some rather pesky indigestion. Reading is easier on the g.i. system, and the brain doesn’t overheat quite so quickly.


Adie | Sunday March 22, 2009 07:44 am 18
In response to TobyWollin @ 2

WELL, I NEVER! That just caps it! heh

Are tenure and precedent on the side of the liberal angels on this one?

I guess there are some pitfalls to tightly controlled and severely limited home schooling. eh? *g*


60thStreet | Sunday March 22, 2009 08:00 am 19

Awesome, Figa! I loved the soap opera music said wingnut put in there! It was the perfect touch!

Oh and speaking of dictionaries…it’s “tightey” whiteys, in this case, especially so, considering that this dood’s whiteys probably weren’t very tidy after he saw that re-definition of marriage in the Dictionary! ;)

tightey-whiteys


ShotoJamf | Sunday March 22, 2009 09:18 am 20

“The Homosexual Agenda”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANrvQC4wIk


Mile23 | Sunday March 22, 2009 05:10 pm 21
In response to 60thStreet @ 19

The ’soap opera’ music isn’t soap opera music. It’s by Brian Eno and is called ‘Music For Airports.’ If you want to know what irony is, look at a picture of Mr. Eno from the ’70s, in his band Roxy Music.


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Get the Most out of FDL

Become a Founding Member today

Build our community

Get great discounts

Keep us independent

Close