So a dictionary trumps public sentiment? We live in a period when social/political views are becoming more dynamic and more fluid every day. Today's majority is tomorrow's minority. Yesterday's taboo is today's norm... but a dusty old book that is updated maybe once a year is still your guiding light? Good luck with that.

Public sentiment? We were discussing what 'universal' meant.

km

Did it ever occur to you that the definition of a word might transcend the rigid and myopic set of parameters that a handful of self-indulged pontificators foist upon the rest of us? Did it ever occur to you that words have interpretations as well as definitions? This very discussion is a perfect example: There is the Oxford definition of "universal", and there is what the word means to each of us personally. No surprise that because the OD supports your POV, it's also your interpretation of the word. It means something different to me and to Pad, but only your interpretation is permitted.

Bleh.

I started with the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, as it happens, because I'm a tidy pachyderm:

There is no definition in there which supports an interpretation of 'universally accepted' as 'accepted more often than not'.

Yeah, that's why I was relying on it to refute pad's assertion that I was trying to re-define the word. Last time I checked using an accepted definition of a word is not re-defining it.


Completely irrelevant. Pad said I was trying to re-define the word not that his interpretation was at variance with an accepted meaning of it. Had he suggested that I would have been sorely tempted to say 'tough sh¡t'.


Oh, I believe most of the world will go with what the expert contributors and learned editors of Oxford say is the meaning of word rather than what you and pad think it is.

km

I think it's universally accepted that "universally accepted" can and will always be interpreted in many different ways — most often, the way that is most convenient for the one wanting to use it as a crutch.

It should be noted, however, that there is also "km accepted", which carries far more weight than "universally accepted" (or so we are expected to believe). Because, you see, a concept cannot be universally accepted unless it is first km accepted. And what is not km accepted is then universally accepted as the rabbiting on of self-centered minorities. Is this making any sense?

Noope, not a lot.

km

Well not to you, natcherly. Who'd a thunk?

The point being that while it's still possible for forms of discrimination to be legally tolerated in a strictly private environment, within the civic/government realm such tolerance is of a far, far lower order of magnitude -- to the point where trying to use the possible justification of discrimination in the one setting to justify discrimination in the other is meaningless in my view ...



And not all of them have been relevant.



You wanted to know when gays would be allowed to join women's associations. My response was that, to the extent they would be allowed to discriminate in the first place, those associations wouldn't reject a gay person because he was gay, but because he was a man. Which makes that question moot.

If your real question is "when are men going to be allowed to join women's associations," there have been many many judgments compelling gender-specific associations to accept members of the opposite sex. In that regard the analogy actually supports affording marriage rights to same-sex couples ...



We both agree that certain forms of discrimination can be legally justified. Where we appear to disagree is that restricting marriage rights for single-sex couples has such justification; or that because discrimination can be tolerated in certain cases, it should necessarily be tolerated in this instance ...

Only 18 more sleeps until same-sex marriage is legal in Sweden.
Yahoo!