Comments on: The Definition of Definition http://www.eddecker.com/2009/04/30/the-definition-of-definition/ The lilly-livered need not apply Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:11:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mary Lou Ruane http://www.eddecker.com/2009/04/30/the-definition-of-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-606 Mary Lou Ruane Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:32:30 +0000 http://www.idynomite.com/wordpress/?p=242#comment-606 Mr. Decker had many good thoughtful presentations in his article about the meaning of the word marriage. He pounted out the differnces between the legal, lay, and religious meaning. His dictionary considerations are also clear studies of how English language changes over time and through use. One wonders why he found it necessary to irreverently ridicule and lash out at God in four different places in an otherwise thoughtful treatise. Billions of people on this earth have a spritual belief in Yahway. Allah, Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, Buddha, etc. either as a personal god or a ruling figure of hope, peace, and morality in their lives. Millions in CA and other states across the country who have a spiritual relationship with a god voted in favor of the non-religious term for marriage in our laws. They made that dicision at the polls in huge numbers, based on conscience, knowlege of their fellow citizens, and thoughtfule consideration. Why did Mr. Decker find he had a need to lash out at their spiritual beliefs in a God of their religion as he layed out his definitions of a word. It demeans the writer in the eyes of many who read his words much more that it demeans his "invisible" god. (This is not written in order for it to appear in your paper, but rather to reach Mr. Decker. after I was so disappointed in what he did in his artricle.) Mr. Decker had many good thoughtful presentations in his article about the meaning of the word marriage. He pounted out the differnces between the legal, lay, and religious meaning. His dictionary considerations are also clear studies of how English language changes over time and through use.

One wonders why he found it necessary to irreverently ridicule and lash out at God in four different places in an otherwise thoughtful treatise. Billions of people on this earth have a spritual belief in Yahway. Allah, Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, Buddha, etc. either as a personal god or a ruling figure of hope, peace, and morality in their lives.

Millions in CA and other states across the country who have a spiritual relationship with a god voted in favor of the non-religious term for marriage in our laws. They made that dicision at the polls in huge numbers, based on conscience, knowlege of their fellow citizens, and thoughtfule consideration.

Why did Mr. Decker find he had a need to lash out at their spiritual beliefs in a God of their religion as he layed out his definitions of a word. It demeans the writer in the eyes of many who read his words much more that it demeans his “invisible” god.

(This is not written in order for it to appear in your paper, but rather to reach Mr. Decker. after I was so disappointed in what he did in his artricle.)

]]> By: David http://www.eddecker.com/2009/04/30/the-definition-of-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-391 David Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:32:43 +0000 http://www.idynomite.com/wordpress/?p=242#comment-391 Mr. Decker, The title of your column reminded me of President Clinton’s quibbling over the definition of the work is while denying he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. If the definition of marriage doesn’t matter, then why are same-sex couples making such a big deal about being able to call themselves married as the term is defined by the laws of the state they live in? If there’s no single definition of marriage, why should couples—either gay or straight—care whether the society they live in considers them to be married, as long as they—using their own definition of marriage—consider themselves to be married? If a couple kissed each other and said “OK, we’re married,” then started living as a married couple, would they enjoy any fewer rights than a couple who were legally married? They might not receive the respect from society that goes with being able to say they’re legally married, but some segments of society will never give some couples respect, regardless of the legal status of their relationship. You spend your whole column arguing that there is no single definition for marriage, only to offer one yourself: “A union between any two (or more) people who love each other (or not) and want to be bound together for life (or at least a few months) because, you know, it’s their business, . . .” But, don’t you think the Edwin Decker definition of marriage is a bit too restrictive? Why should marriage have to last “at least a few months”? Why shouldn’t a person be able to get married every weekend? And why should the union be limited to any two or more people? What if a person wants to marry his hamster, or his Labrador retriever, or his inflatable doll? Mr. Decker,

The title of your column reminded me of President Clinton’s quibbling over the definition of the work is while denying he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

If the definition of marriage doesn’t matter, then why are same-sex couples making such a big deal about being able to call themselves married as the term is defined by the laws of the state they live in? If there’s no single definition of marriage, why should couples—either gay or straight—care whether the society they live in considers them to be married, as long as they—using their own definition of marriage—consider themselves to be married? If a couple kissed each other and said “OK, we’re married,” then started living as a married couple, would they enjoy any fewer rights than a couple who were legally married?

They might not receive the respect from society that goes with being able to say they’re legally married, but some segments of society will never give some couples respect, regardless of the legal status of their relationship.

You spend your whole column arguing that there is no single definition for marriage, only to offer one yourself: “A union between any two (or more) people who love each other (or not) and want to be bound together for life (or at least a few months) because, you know, it’s their business, . . .”

But, don’t you think the Edwin Decker definition of marriage is a bit too restrictive? Why should marriage have to last “at least a few months”? Why shouldn’t a person be able to get married every weekend? And why should the union be limited to any two or more people? What if a person wants to marry his hamster, or his Labrador retriever, or his inflatable doll?

]]> By: curious reader http://www.eddecker.com/2009/04/30/the-definition-of-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-390 curious reader Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:30:17 +0000 http://www.idynomite.com/wordpress/?p=242#comment-390 Mr. Decker, It is very much enjoyable to read your Sordid Tales articles as seen in City Beat magazine. This is not an attempt at correction or to push any personal agenda but to simply add to your knowledge base, if possible you may consider it as such. Not being a wordsmith prohibits me presenting a valid argument as to who's definitions are right or wrong. Dictionary entries are continually added to in the same way as encyclopedia entries to reflect additional meanings and achievements yet carefully presented to not change the fundamental meanings of those entries. The focus of your recent article seemed to present the definition of the word marriage. Perhaps a quick look at a thesaurus and gaining knowledge of synonyms and antonyms of the word "marriage" may shed a more thorough perspective in word's literary usage,. Have you ever heard the saying "marriage of convenience", for example? Some off the City Beat contributors seem to be climbing a soapbox of political commentary and/or take opportunity to inject such attitude. Tom Tomorrow is rather fun and entertaining. There was a song many years ago that presented the lyric "A politician wants a vote". Are there some writers there fishing for votes, or willing to pay for them? The City Beat of years ago was more like the recent "April Fools" edition. Seemed like old times. You're welcome to reply to set me straight in this matter. Take care, Curious reader Mr. Decker,

It is very much enjoyable to read your Sordid Tales articles as seen in City Beat magazine. This is not an attempt at correction or to push any personal agenda but to simply add to your knowledge base, if possible you may consider it as such. Not being a wordsmith prohibits me presenting a valid argument as to who’s definitions are right or wrong. Dictionary entries are continually added to in the same way as encyclopedia entries to reflect additional meanings and achievements yet carefully presented to not change the fundamental meanings of those entries. The focus of your recent article seemed to present the definition of the word marriage. Perhaps a quick look at a thesaurus and gaining knowledge of synonyms and antonyms of the word “marriage” may shed a more thorough perspective in word’s literary usage,. Have you ever heard the saying “marriage of convenience”, for example?

Some off the City Beat contributors seem to be climbing a soapbox of political commentary and/or take opportunity to inject such attitude. Tom Tomorrow is rather fun and entertaining. There was a song many years ago that presented the lyric “A politician wants a vote”. Are there some writers there fishing for votes, or willing to pay for them? The City Beat of years ago was more like the recent “April Fools” edition. Seemed like old times. You’re welcome to reply to set me straight in this matter.

Take care,

Curious reader

]]> By: Charlie http://www.eddecker.com/2009/04/30/the-definition-of-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-313 Charlie Tue, 05 May 2009 04:17:43 +0000 http://www.idynomite.com/wordpress/?p=242#comment-313 Ed, I’ve enjoyed reading dictionaries from childhood on, and I’m a marriage equality activist so it’s hardly surprising your column was of interest. In elementary school I noticed that the kids who didn’t think much, and therefore did not have much to say, frequently resorted to dictionary definitions to pad their papers and to substitute for missing intellectual horsepower. Later on as a college professor I noticed the same in some of my students. It does not surprise me that stupid and/or lazy people hang on to the same obvious tactics used in so self limiting a fashion in childhood. The reason this AGRO crowd clings so tenaciously to the cherry-picked marriage definitions, I think, is because they don’t think much and don’t have much to say. Ed, I’ve enjoyed reading dictionaries from childhood on, and I’m a marriage equality activist so it’s hardly surprising your column was of interest.
In elementary school I noticed that the kids who didn’t think much, and therefore did not have much to say, frequently resorted to dictionary definitions to pad their papers and to substitute for missing intellectual horsepower.
Later on as a college professor I noticed the same in some of my students. It does not surprise me that stupid and/or lazy people hang on to the same obvious tactics used in so self limiting a fashion in childhood. The reason this AGRO crowd clings so tenaciously to the cherry-picked marriage definitions, I think, is because they don’t think much and don’t have much to say.

]]>