I suppose it is shared diversity of sense. Like the US citizens, Canada must have agreed to agreed with the meaning established by the representative judiciary, parliament, or whatever. The diverse senses do exist. But when meaning is contested, the coordinating tool is the meaning of the law. I would guess that its meaning rests a vote and even dissenting opinion. that represents sense of the minority. The disent. At that level, majority sets the meaning to coordinate civic behavior. Over generations, senses may be transformed to meaning. What a slow process, this thing of meaning.
I wonder what the conditions are for having a meaning. We seem to get by with sense when we are dealing with very important issues. For example, if we get blown away with the next hurricane and want to sue the builder, do we engage in everybody's sense of a building code or what the meaning of a building code? A building code might have different meanings from one defined border to another, however.
I guess we all get by with sense, but when it becomes important we seek meaning.
So is this shared meaning of "marriage"? If we believe the media, then
"most Canadians" share it to be "the union of two people" whereas there
are, I don't know how many, for whom it is "the union between a man and
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:01:10 PDT