As Antinor01 points out these are legally recognized relationships.
What word will you now redefine to suit you needs, or are you willing to admit you were mistaken?
No, it is not.
From Merriam-Webster:
Yes it is.
From Webster’s:
I would say they are merely reporting the recent propaganda.
Just because you keep saying it does not make it so.
From Webster’s Third New International dictionary:
Main Entry:mat£ri£mo£ny
Pronunciation:ma.tr**mn*, -ni, chiefly Brit -rmn-
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-es
Etymology:Middle English matrimony, matrimoigne, from Middle French matremoine, matremoigne, from Latin matrimonium, from matr-, mater mother * more at MOTHER
1 a : the union of man and woman as husband and wife : married state : married life : MARRIAGE b : this union entered into by baptized persons and so viewed by several large Christian churches as constituting one of the sacraments
2 a : a card game played with a layout in which certain combinations of cards occur on which bets are placed b : a combination of a king and queen in this game
Main Entry:mar£riage
Pronunciation:marij, -rj also *mer-
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Middle English mariage, from Middle French, from marier to marry + -age * more at MARRY
1 a : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family — see MONOGAMY, POLYGAMY
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected : WEDDING; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities — compare BEENA MARRIAGE, COEMPTIO, CONFARREATION, LEVIRATE
3 : an intimate or close union
4 : MARITAGE
5 : the combination of a king and queen of the same suit (as in pinochle) — see ROYAL MARRIAGE
There are abundant reasons to be found in this thread for doubting your claim here. Will you substantiate it by giving us the name of an article so it can be verified?
If you prefer not to do it in public, I can give you my word that if you tell me an article by PM, and then I find your contact information as the author of that article and contact you for verification that that person is indeed you, Melchior, then I will confirm your claim here without telling anyone who you are.
I would be very reluctant to do that. I don’t trust you.
So when you quote Webster it’s valid, when others quote Webster it’s propaganda.
It’s clear you have no interest in arguing in good faith.
And you would be wrong. Merriam-Webster changes and updates word definitions based on how words are actually used. The word “marriage” really has changed.
Sorry.
I’ll just note that Webster’s Third New International Dictionary was published in 1961.
Melchior – do you have any definitions from a dictionary published in, say, the last few years?
You’re not even holding your own against a bunch of random folks on the internet.
The idea that you have handed some PhD’s their ass is suspect at best and that’s being generous to a fault.
I am a longstanding and generally respected member (I think!) of this forum. If I betrayed you, my reputation here would be ruined. Everyone here would think me a jerk, and the biggest rule around here is “don’t be a jerk.”
I doubt you’ll address it but I’ll repeat myself anyway…
It’s not such a great distinction that I claim, because it’s not all that hard. Most of them are not that good. There is a great deal of mediocrity in academe. You act as though I were claiming some special distinction. Hardly. When everyone else is a “2” it’s easy to be a “4”.
That’s quite recent considering he had us going back to medieval times.
I’m sure it wasn’t just an article. He probably won the Mouton d’Or. Twice.
So you’re twice as smart as all the PhD’s in the world?
Thank you for the clarification.