Nobody, least of all me, appointed me "semantician in chief." Quite the opposite. I asked YOU for YOUR definitions.
Actually, YOU are the one who tried to be "semantician in chief" by issuing a definition here: "sexual relations = sexual intercourse." That was a definition YOU put forward as fact. I'm now simply asking you to clarify YOUR definition. So don't claim that I asked you to "come up with" definitions--I didn't. I asked you to respond to specific instances where YOUR definition would or would not apply. Nor did I say I would restrict the term to what the majority of Americans believe--I just want to know whether YOU THINK the majority of Americans would see the term sexual relations in a certain way. If you say No, that's fine. I'm asking for YOUR OPINION, not for any verifiable truth, polling result, etc.
I notice that in trying to attack me, you completely sidestepped the questions I asked. So, I'll ask them again. I really would like to have your answers. Can you do that?
1. Can lesbians have "sexual relations" as you define the term?
2. Can lesbians have "sexual relations" as you believe the majority of Americans define
the term?
3. Can gay men have "sexual relations" as you define the term?
4. Can gay men have "sexual relations" as you believe the majority of Americans define
the term?
5. If the "average" American father found out that his 16 year old daughter's boyfriend
had been having oral sex with her, do you think he would agree that they were not
having "sexual relations"?
All I want is YOUR answers, or YOUR understanding of what YOU think average Americans would say.
And BTW, when a court needs to define a term, it looks first to the statute. I know of no statute which defines "sexual relations." Then it looks to prior case law. I don't know about Arkansas or Washington, D.C. law, but I can't find any Washington State case which defines the term "sexual relations." Then it looks a law dictionary, usually Black's. Black's Law Dictionary doesn't define "sexual relations." Indeed, it doesn't even define "sexual," and defines "sex" only in terms of gender, not in terms of behavior. Then it looks to an ordinary dictionary of the English language. Random House's Webster's College Dictionary, a dictionary frequently cited by our Supreme Court, doesn't define "sexual relations." However, in defining "sexual" it says: "1. of or pertaining to sex. 2. occurring between or involving the sexes: sexual relations. [italics in original]. And it DOES define "sexual intercourse" as a term but does NOT use the term sexual relations in that definition. So I would say with a great deal of confidence that if a Court in Wahington State were asked to define, legally, the term "sexual relations" it would define the term to be broader than just "sexual intercourse." And lest you charge me again with appointing myself semanticist in chief, let me just say these are not MY definitions, and not MY policy on how you define terms in law, but are those of the court and the dictionaries it consults.
And while you're answering, if you do, PLEASE take the few seconds just to answer my five questions above.
Thank you. |
