Reader comments · Oxford Dictionary will change the definition of ‘marriage’ to include equal marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Oxford Dictionary will change the definition of ‘marriage’ to include equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Great! And will it change the definition of ‘religion’ to be ‘the last bastion of homophobic bigotry’?

  2. Judging from the comments in the Daily Mail on this story the world will end & dictionaries will be useless. The amount of references to 1984 were staggering. Wonder how many Daily Mail readers have actually read 1984? I’m guessing not very many.

    1. Are we really to believe that a Daily Mail reader has ever read 1984 – let us be completely honest there is no one more illiterate than a person who regards the DM as a reasonable or accurate representation of national/world affairs and/or news.

      I would imagine al those DM readers referencing 1984 are just paraphrasing from their swivel eyed wingnut book of phrases.

      The number of pro-nazi articles published in the DM should be a big clue.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Jul 2013, 4:20pm

        As if the DM or Telegraph for that matter cater to a majority of literate readers! Uneducated masses more like it, replete with blatant hypocrisy, ignorance and bigotry. It’s their livelihood catering to rubbish along with all the other daily rags of yellow ‘journalism’.

        1. Actually if you look at the Telegraph and read their comments section you will see that many of the commenters on there are just as far-right and reactionary in their views as Mail readers but much more articulate and intelligent, which is more worrying.

          1. Nothing makes me sadder than an articulate and ‘intelligen’t homophobe.

    2. My favourite comment is by “Quincy” who mentions 1984 but can’t use they’re/ their/ there properly. That said we shouldn’t be surprised by reading this on the Mail Online, yesterday on a story about a French politician who said that “Hitler should have killed more Roma gypsies” there were comments that said “perhaps he’s right” and some were even defending Hitler.

      Funny how Mail readers claim to be against tyranny when it suits them but defend another tyranny and even genocide when it falls in line with their world view.

      1. That would require critical thinking.

        DM readers don’t DO critical thinking, it detracts from all the pretty pictures.

        1. Also they like to claim that they’re part of an oppressed group because they think it validates their opinions. Gays, asylum seekers, Muslims, immigrants and women are protected by an evil and dictatorial PC elite in their mind and considering that they don’t like any of these groups it justifies their hatred and contempt for them.

          1. Beelzeebub 25 Jul 2013, 9:17pm

            From such ideals the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was formed.

            History shows us how that ended.


    3. My favourite is the one that urges anyone who is against gay marriage to sign the C4M petition as, “it’s never too late”.

      Tee hee.

  3. I must look up “France” in the OED & see whther it is defined as “a place where everything happens much quicker than in the UK (& much much more quickly than in Awksford)

  4. This is surely common sense.

    If two men get married, but the OED continued to define marriage as “between a man and a woman”, then the OED definition of marriage would be incorrect.

    The OED is simply changing the definition to ensure it truly reflects the accurate understanding of what marriage is under the law.

    1. Beelzeebub 25 Jul 2013, 8:48pm

      I’ve had a few of the atypical, “I only recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman” comments.

      To which I retort,

      “Fine, that is your singular view, however do anything against my legal parliamentary sanctioned legal marriage and I WILL sue your @rse off.

      “Do you wish to continue with your comments?”

  5. As the OED records usage, this is only to be expected. But oh, what joy it will be for those who sometimes contribute [troll] here, who insist upon their own one-man-one-woman-for-life-as-it-says[not]-in-the-bible definition as final!

    The thought of their little ferret faces screwing up with fury really does delight me.

  6. The snowball has really started rolling, and it won’t stop anymore. It will be bad only for the bigots who insist on staying stuck in the past and asking to be crushed by the snowball.

  7. Homosexual agenda:
    Redefining marriage ✓✓
    Indoctrinating children
    Destroying society

    (Just in case… this has been a satirical post)

  8. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the truth” exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but THE PAST. If the Leader says of such and such an event, “It never happened”—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs […]Orwell

    welcome to homo-facsism

    1. Thanks as always for taking the trouble to comment, but it’s just as well this doom-laden scenario will enable you to meet your Maker all the sooner then, Ray, isn’t it? Shouldn’t you be rejoicing?

      (BTW would you say the Catholic church was keen on the truth that, for example, the earth orbits the sun and not the other way round?)

  9. This is utterly ludicrous and offensive to married people.
    It is like changing the value of pi for people who don’t understand maths.
    This is not an issue about denying equality to same sex people, it is about understanding etymology and the roots of words and culture. What is wrong with “Union”? It describes the act of being unified with your chosen partner and doesn’t change the definition of any words. Why not allow lawyers or advertisers to start changing words to fit the argument or lie about product definitions.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.