Cameron: "Let's export gay marriage!"

[Arcades Project]

Until the Married Women’s Property Acts (UK, 1870, 1882 and 1893) a married woman was considered, legaly, by dictionary definition, her husband's property (chattel marriage). That was accepted for centuries, until the agitation that led to the passing of those acts (which changed the definition of marriage). If marriage is an unalterable concept, with an unalterable meaning, trans-historical, presumably you consider the abolition of chattel marriage aberrant?

http://herstoria.com/?p=473

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattel_marriage

scottycelt

For many centuries (under the accepted definition of marriage) a woman was a man's possession; everything that was hers was his; it was impossible for a man to rape a woman if they were married because she belonged to him & was obliged to obey him. Would you mind answering a question? if marriage means something unalterable am I right in thinking you regard the changes which removed the chattel status of women as social meddling & as going against the established meaning of marriage? If you don't regard those changes thus, then why can't the meaning of marriage change again?

[Sydney Grew]

No, it is not an "illusion"; it is a reality. That said, it is not compulsory and has never been so, nor should it be so. It's there for those who can and who want to; a choice (other than for those incapable of procreating even if they might want to), not an obligation.

Marriage has never been a privilege or a pleasure. It is a yoke imposed by the church and the government; it takes away one's freedom. It comes complete with a dream, an illusion, and a lie. It has never been anything more than a simple solution for the gullible and easily led who have not the imagination or gumption to find anything better in life.

[Pabmusic]

Marriage has never been a privilege or a pleasure. It is a yoke imposed by the church and the government; it takes away one's freedom. It comes complete with a dream, an illusion, and a lie. It has never been anything more than a simple solution for the gullible and easily led who have not the imagination or gumption to find anything better in life.

So now you know. Full stop.

[scottycelt]

I don't think you have quite got the hang of this evolution thingy.

If I ever come across a giraffe with an elephant's trunk I'll let you know, Bryn (and Flossie).

But if ever do will David Cameron introduce legislation to ensure that we continue to call the new beastie a giraffe ... ?

[french frank]

to ensure that we continue to call the new beastie a giraffe ... ?

Wasn't the giraffe once called a camelopard ?

[KipperKid]

If I ever come across a giraffe with an elephant's trunk I'll let you know, Bryn (and Flossie).

But if ever do will David Cameron introduce legislation to ensure that we continue to call the new beastie a giraffe ... ?

Jirrelephant?

[Pabmusic]

Wasn't the giraffe once called a camelopard ?

Yes.

[scottycelt]

If I ever come across a giraffe with an elephant's trunk I'll let you know, Bryn (and Flossie).

But if ever do will David Cameron introduce legislation to ensure that we continue to call the new beastie a giraffe ... ?

Ah, I see Simon made a similar sort of point after I was safely tucked up in bed last night.

Simon, you are right about Alderley Edge and some of its undoubted attractions, however eerily creepy the place is otherwise. I'm delighted to report that the attractive young ladies still abound.

Though these days, and at my age, maybe sensible not to ponder too much on that particular subject ...

[scottycelt]

Wasn't the giraffe once called a camelopard ?

Ahhh ... so we can find fresh new names without changing any definitions!

Excellent!

[jean]

I'm delighted to report that the attractive young ladies still abound.

Though these days, and at my age, maybe sensible not to ponder too much on that particular subject ...

[Shudder] Anyway, aren't you married or something?

[Pabmusic]

...To use the animal analogy, if a giraffe evolves slowly to have a long neck to reach high food, that's a normal process and longer-necked giraffes can logically be considered part of the same family as the earlier giraffe-type animals with shorter necks. But if you suddenly find a giraffe-like creature with wings and webbed feet - a change of major proportion - it is at least sensible to ask whether it can still be a giraffe.

I'm being picky I know, but "a" giraffe doesn't evolve so that it has "a long neck to reach high food". That is what Henri Lamarck thought in the early 1800s, I know, but it's not so. If long necks are an advantage (obviously so, it seems) and genes for long necks are available by mutation, the gene pool among giraffes changes over time to contain a higher proportion of genes for long necks (because animals that don't have the advantage don't manage to reproduce as frequently because they can't get enough food compared with others, and they're possibly not so attractive to potential mates). Thus over time more and more giraffes are born with long necks.

No living thing remains the same over a long enough time span. You'd probably have to go back at least 100,000 years before you noticed any difference in humans, and then it would be very slight indeed (thicker brow ridges perhaps). But go back 3 million years and meet Lucy's family and you'd notice (apart from the fact that she'd be about 1 metre high, which would be a giveaway).

[Anorak goes on and Pab shuffles into the distance.]

[MrGongGong]

Ahhh ... so we can find fresh new names without changing any definitions!

Excellent!

Let's nail language down for ever
and never allow it to change ........... very worrying

No living thing remains the same over a long enough time span.

Scotty ?

[french frank]

Ahhh ... so we can find fresh new names without changing any definitions!

Excellent!

But since, with a swift stroke of her pen, HM signed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 into law on 17 July, the word marriage has, legally, an extended meaning.

If you find this troubling, wrong, impossible to accept, try to think of all those other words that have different meanings for the same word.

In the depth of your own being you will know that 'marriage' can only be between a man and a woman. All the rest is pretence. But you may not be able to stop people from pretending otherwise.

[ahinton]

Marriage has never been a privilege or a pleasure. It is a yoke imposed by the church and the government; it takes away one's freedom. It comes complete with a dream, an illusion, and a lie. It has never been anything more than a simple solution for the gullible and easily led who have not the imagination or gumption to find anything better in life.

Not so. How can anything take away anyone's freedom if it is not compulsory? Neither the Church nor a government makes it so. In what sense is it therefore the restrictive imposition as which you appear to seek to portray it? What makes you assume that being married bars anyone from finding good things in life and how in any case can it do such a thing? And who are you to determine and pronounce upon what marriage has "never been" to those who are married, purely on the supposed grounds that the notion of marriage has scant appeal for your personally?

[Flosshilde]

scottycelt

For many centuries (under the accepted definition of marriage) a woman was a man's possession; everything that was hers was his; it was impossible for a man to rape a woman if they were married because she belonged to him & was obliged to obey him. Would you mind answering a question? if marriage means something unalterable am I right in thinking you regard the changes which removed the chattel status of women as social meddling & as going against the established meaning of marriage? If you don't regard those changes thus, then why can't the meaning of marriage change again?

& answer came there none.