h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why do the arguments against aspects of homosexuality always rely on some weighty tome that no-one refers to in situations other than these? First the Bible, now the OED. I'm well aware of the meaning of regime and I didn't say your usage was incorrect, merely unconventional

It's not unconventional. It'a a generic word for a system of government.

If you asked 100 people if your useage of regime was unconventional then I'm willing to bet a reasonbly sized majority would say it was. Regime carries undemocratic and oppressive overtones, it is rare to hear a regime being talked about in a favourable manner. This may not be pedantically accurate, but it is the convention.

...and last time I suggested looking it up in a dictionary, someone responded *I* should look it up. I posted the definition later. (hey? guess who was right?) Thought I'd save everyone the effort this time by posting the definition straight away.

As in "Blair regime"?

As long as you're not infringing on anyone else's human rights, why can't you live however you like?

As in 'Regime change' 'Taleban regime' 'Communist regime' 'despotic regime' ' Mugabe regime' Need I go on?

<>

Ohhhhhhhh, it is so tempting, but I shall pass on that one.


Reddyfreddy,

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

marriage.

a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Presumably once laws are updated then dictionaries will be as well, so definition d will include being legal, but I think definition b is quite good and covers all situations.

az

az, definition d actually contradicts your argument!

Clinton regime.
Thatcher regime.
Mandela regime.
Howard regime.
Chretien regime.
Mugabe regime.
Assad regime.
De Gaulle regime.

However b and c support her (?) argument

As I have caught only small snipets of this conversation, I appologise now if this has already been bought to peoples attention.

Everyone here has a valid point, however, how you can even compare murderers to homosexuals is mind numbing. As for the written word, laws can be changed, dictionaries are religeously changed every year, to include new words and deffinitions of old words, a particular word that meant something 30 years ago, has the same meaning today, however in that 30 years it has been connected to other meanings, for instance, the word 'gay', which was only deffined as meaning happy, never connected to homosexuality and yet the deffinition has new meaning today to include homosexual people. So therefore my point is, laws can be changed, dictionary meanings can also change, as has the English language throughout history.

The arguement remains, that are the powers that be, being predjudice themselves by not recognising what ARE INALIENABLE human rights, to be treated as equals, are we not all equal in the eyes of god.

Xander

Simulpost. Of those regimes which you posted, how many are viewed popularly as good for their respective countries?

Cyzaki, by insisting on calling a same-sex relationship a "marriage", you are insulting the deeply-held religious beliefs of several billion people.

No, definition d doesn't contradict my argument at all, it only means that, where that dictionary was published, same sex marriages are not legal yet.

az

Well, HonestIago, Mugabe is probably the only one with majority support!

My semi-serious point was that they are all, ostensibly, democracies.

az, as any philosopher will tell you, (and I suspect HonestIago of knowledge in this sphere) the hardest, and indeed longest, part is defining your terms. Forgive me for sticking to published sources of word definitions. As stated before, I do not have a crystal ball to tell me what words will mean in the future. if you have a crystal ball, can you tell me what the winning numbers will be on the lottery next week?

Regime has no formal connection with democracy. It also proves how something can claim to be X when in fact it is it's complete opposite. Also be careful with your definition of democracy, the dictionary defintion is misleading

<>

I disagree. Cyzaki is only expressing his/her opinion and not intending to offend anyone, let alone billions of people.

To be perfectly honest, most of those several billion deeply religious people often offend me with their very narrow-minded viewpoints. But I just let them get on with it.

az

Reddyfreddy,



Well, I would except that I don't see that this constitutes a true definition of the word marriage. Even the one I just got off the internet was not up-to-date. Because in many countries - THIS IS A FACT - marriages between homosexual couples are legal. And I believe this is now legal in some American states. Really, I could look it all up but I'm almost ready for bed - perhaps tomorrow.

So you do not need a crystal ball to see what this word might mean in the future. In many places it already means that it can include homosexual couples.

az