Cameron: "Let's export gay marriage!"

[ahinton]

Well, of course I (and many others) 'don't like it' when social-engineering politicians start meddling with the long-standing meaning of words.

The politicians of whom you write are elected to do their jobs in UK and can be "unelected" at a subsequent General Election; those jobs obviously include social engineering, because that's a fundamental part of what the art of politics is about.

My objection is simple and straightforward and should be easily understood. Unlike others, I didn't make up my own definition of marriage. I have simply believed what is it has always been defined in every dictionary and by every person for centuries until now. Like an elephant is an elephant and a giraffe a giraffe.

The problem with this, scotty, is that elephants and giraffes evolve over time, just as do other creatures and just as must laws; if we had the same laws now as we had in the 12th century in Britain, our legal system would be a laughing-stock and would do nothing to represent the interests of any British citizen. The definition of marriage has not been overturned by recent legislation in Britain and other countries, even now; it has been expanded.

What is so difficult to understand about this apparently revolutionary concept?

What is so difficult for YOU to understand about the notion that, like everything else in life, definitions, meanings and interpretations change over time to accommodate people's needs and aspirations; were there a near 100% opposition to legislation to enable same sex marriage in Britain (which clearly is not the case), do you not suppose that there would be protests in the streets and elsewhere and calls for a General Election? (except that this latter would be of no use as all electable political parties in Britain support same sex marriage).

[ahinton]

Is that Pope Joan ?
oooops there's another one gone

Indeed - Darby and Pope!

[Arcades Project]

No, Flossie simply repeated Pab's original diversionary assertion.

Well, of course I (and many others) 'don't like it' when social-engineering politicians start meddling with the long-standing meaning of words.

My objection is simple and straightforward and should be easily understood. Unlike others, I didn't make up my own definition of marriage. I have simply believed what it has always been defined in every dictionary and by every person for centuries until now. Like an elephant is an elephant and a giraffe a giraffe.

What is so difficult to understand about this apparently revolutionary concept, vinteuil ... ?

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

[KipperKid]

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

No doubt Scotty will answer for himself, but ahead of that, the welcome changes that you refer to do not alter the fundamental conjugal, procreational, man and woman basis of marriage (or elephants or giraffes). Same sex does.

[Simon]

I can't imagine why DC keeps obsessing about this. There are surely more important things to pay attention to - for example the appalling level of care that the mentally ill and the elderly get, in some places.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter what you call it when two homosexuals live together, though it might have been more sensible to find another noun. Already the word "gay" and the word "partner" have come to mean different things over the past few years. But what people do privately, sexually, provided it doesn't affect others, is in my view up to them and they have to come to terms with it themselves in whatever way they can. And that also seems to be the view of most of my friends and colleagues, FWIW.

[Arcades Project]

No doubt Scotty will answer for himself, but ahead of that, the welcome changes that you refer to do not alter the fundamental conjugal, procreational, man and woman basis of marriage (or elephants or giraffes). Same sex does.

Why are they welcome? If the meaning if marriage is unalterable & not subject to the whims of social engineering then surely they are deplorable? Similarly the idea that a man can rape his wife - that was considered, because of marriage, an impossibility. What right have meddlers to change that, scottycelt says the meaning of marriage has stayed the same. That's how he thinks it should be. You can't pick & choose.

[scottycelt]

Tempora mutantur, scotty. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis as we used to say.

Nowadays we wd say - times change, and we change with them.

But perhaps in scottyworld nothing ever changes.

Oh plenty of things change, vinteuil, and who knows, I may well have seen (and even welcomed) more changes than your goodself in my lifetime.

However, I still believe in the original meaning of marriage as I do in the definition of the aforementioned elephant or giraffe ... and I don't even have to be a Latin scholar to be able to grasp the point!

[french frank]

Oh plenty of things change, vinteuil, and who knows, I may well have seen (and even welcomed) more changes than your goodself in my lifetime.

However, I still believe in the original meaning of marriage as I do in the definition of the aforementioned elephant or giraffe ... and I don't even have to be a Latin scholar to be able to grasp the point!

OED:

"gay marriage n. a relationship or bond between partners of the same sex which is likened to that between a married man and woman; (in later use chiefly) a formal marriage bond contracted between two people of the same sex, often conferring legal rights; (also) the action of entering into such a relationship; the condition of marriage between partners of the same sex."

[KipperKid]

Why are they welcome? If the meaning if marriage is unalterable & not subject to the whims of social engineering then surely they are deplorable? Similarly the idea that a man can rape his wife - that was considered, because of marriage, an impossibility. What right have meddlers to change that, scottycelt says the meaning of marriage has stayed the same. That's how he thinks it should be. You can't pick & choose.

Anything that improves, but does not destroy, is welcome in my scheme of things. Same sex 'destroys' the conjugal, procreational man/woman aspect of marriage. It turns marriage into something else is the point for me.

[Arcades Project]

However, I still believe in the original meaning of marriage as I do in the definition of the aforementioned elephant or giraffe ... and I don't even have to be a Latin scholar to be able to grasp the point!

Including Chattel marriage, & the impossibility of rape occurring in marriage (centuries old legal situations with regard to marriage? Recently tampered with by social engineers?)

[vinteuil]

Oh plenty of things change, vinteuil, and who knows, I may well have seen (and even welcomed) more changes than your goodself in my lifetime.

... you admit that things change; and say that you have seen and welcomed changes.

So why are you resisting this particular change?

[Arcades Project]

Anything that improves, but does not destroy, is welcome in my scheme of things. Same sex 'destroys' the conjugal, procreational man/woman aspect of marriage. It turns marriage into something else is the point for me.

Why doesn't it destroy? For centuries marriage has been based on a hierarchical relationship between the sexes sanctioned by appeal to divine authority. That's destroyed. The point of marriage is destroyed.

[KipperKid]

... you admit that things change; and say that you have seen and welcomed changes.

So why are you resisting this particular change?

Because it turns marriage into something else.

[KipperKid]

Why doesn't it destroy? For centuries marriage has been based on a hierarchical relationship between the sexes sanctioned by appeal to divine authority. That's destroyed. The point of marriage is destroyed.

If that's your view, then fine. It's a less flexible view than mine. My margin of tolerance is around a conjugal, procreational union between a man and a woman. That model can stand quite a bit of change, but can't accommodate same sex, that changes it into something else.

[Barbirollians]

The difficulty with KK's approach is that surely it means that the elderly post -procreational and the impotent or those unable to have children for other medical reasons should be banned from marrying ?