Oh, I think you have.
I think you have a LOT.
Yep. That’s what a ‘marriage’ is. Funny how language works. A man who has gone through all the Roman Catholic rituals and is ordained by the bishop is called a ‘priest’. The rituals made him a ‘priest’.
Along the same lines are women who take the vows. They become ‘nuns’. If you wanted to switch the names around I think you would meet some significant opposition.
men and women who go through the rituals and repeat the vows are ‘married’ and are called ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.
Usage by whom? It matters. Your statement is overly broad. Are you familiar with the term ‘special pleading’?
And what about a pastor? I’ve met female pastors, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a male-dominated title for a very long time. That doesn’t make the female pastors I met any less valid.
Priestess is the correct word. ‘Pastor’ is a word that never seems to have developed a popular feminine form.
I was reading the other day about good architectural design being the perfect marriage of form and function. But I don’t think either one has a penis, so I knew it couldn’t be a marriage. It’s nonsensical, like a semiotician who doesn’t understand how language works.
There are no female pastors. There are merely deluded women going through the motions of being a pastor.
So what about “person?” Or is the correct term “woman,” since “person” clearly isn’t feminine and thus can’t be used to refer to a female?
And I would agree that those folks would be the genuine article and deserving of all protections under the law, despite the fact that their marriage has NOTHING to do with the historical basis for marriage.
No transfer of property occurred.
No children were produced.
So here is a perfect example of a marriage that is fully accepted and legally sound that deviates from historical roots. So, given all that, we need to truly drill down what at it’s root makes a marriage.
Your assertion (and others) is the union of people of opposite genitalia (with all legal protections provided).
My assertion (and others) is that it is the union of two people (with all legal protections provided).
See how easy that is?
You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of melchage. It’s the system whereby the meaning of a word is determined by what Melchior thinks it means.
Melchior seems to believe that the meaning of a word is determined entirely by the history of a word. How he squares this belief with the fact that the meanings of words change all the time is beyond me.
But you’d let me “marry” a member of the opposite sex even after she’s post-menopausal, right? I mean, from a left-holding-the-bag perspective and a procreation standpoint and et cetera, my “marriage” to her is allowed by society in general and you in particular even if all parties involved loudly declare that hysterectomy has long been the order of the day, yes?
Usage by American English speakers. And my statement is backed up by polling statistics. A majority of Americans use the word “marriage” to include same-sex unions. Since definitions come from word usage, not from some intrinsic quality or 50-year-old dictionaries (there’s a good reason dictionaries are updated frequently!), the word “marriage” now includes same-sex unions.
This is a fact that you insist upon ignoring.
This is also a priest. I’m quite confident that he never went through the Roman Catholic rituals you mentioned. And yet, he is a priest, all the same.
You say “women who take the vows” as though they are the same vows that the men take in the ritual that makes them priests.
Is this actually the case?
You better inform all those Protestant churches (except for the Episcopal Church) that they’re doing things wrong. Not having Priests, they call their felmale Pastors “Pastor.”
Oh wait, that’s just argumentum ad populum, and would only be important if we were talking about something like language.
For extra credit, do you know what they call a female bishop? “Bishop."
Computer is from the 1600’s and means ‘One who calculates’ and refers to a person. Using it to mean any sort of machine is trying to change the meaning and therefore doesn’t exist.
No. Priests are ordained through the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Diocesan priests (the type of priest most people think of) take vows of chastity and obedience, but they don’t take a vow of poverty. They can own things.
Nuns, monks (even the ones that are ordained and therefore “religious priests” rather than diocesan), friars (who I think are always ordained and are therefore “religious priests”), and religious brothers (who are usually not ordained) I think all take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. These are the standard ones, though I think there are some additions depending on the order.
I wonder if Melchior uses words like “awful,” “cute”, “silly,” “husband,” “nice,” etc., in their original sense, which is quite different than their current sense. “Marriage” is just another one of these words on its linguistic journey. Within a religious tradition, “marriage” may have more specific meanings. In Roman Catholicism, if I talk about marriage within the context of the church, I mean one man, one woman. In a context of, say, Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church, I may be talking about one man, many women. In a general context, it can be any of these, plus same-sex unions. I have married gay friends. I refer to them as “married” and their ceremony as a wedding because, well, that’s what it’s called by pretty much everyone I am trying to communicate the idea with. That’s the whole point of communication. Words have no intrinsic meaning and are not immutable–in fact, quite the opposite, usually.
Seriously? You’re asking if Melchior’s post is based on actual facts?