Cameron: "Let's export gay marriage!"

[ahinton]

& answer came there none.

Indeed - but did you really expect there to be one?...

[Arcades Project]

& answer came there none.

I'll try again.

scottycelt: it is untrue to say the meaning of marriage has remained unchanged for centuries, is immutable, unalterable.

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

If the meaning if marriage is unalterable & not subject to the whims of social engineering then surely [any change] is 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, since scottycelt says the meaning of marriage has stayed the same. That's how he thinks marriage should be; an immutable state unaffected by social & political change. You [or he. Or one] can't pick & choose.

Please scottycelt, would you respond to these points. Or do you have me on 'ignore'?

[ahinton]

I'll try again.

scottycelt: it is untrue to say the meaning of marriage has remained unchanged for centuries, is immutable, unalterable.

Please scottycelt, would you respond to these points. Or do you have me on 'ignore'?

Rather than having you on 'ignore' it is just possible that the absence of the requested response from him is due to his having no answers on the subject - but let's wait and see.

In the meantime, what about exporting David Cameron?...

[Pabmusic]

Rather than having you on 'ignore' it is just possible that the absence of the requested response from him is due to his having no answers on the subject - but let's wait and see...

Or that he's attending 8 o'clock mass.

[KipperKid]

How about people be patient and let Scotty answer in his own time. It's the polite thing to do.

[Pabmusic]

How about people be patient and let Scotty answer in his own time. It's the polite thing to do.

Tank you, Beefykip, but I genuinely meant to suggest a real reason why he may not be around.

[KipperKid]

Tank you, Beefykip, but I genuinely meant to suggest a real reason why he may not be around.

Mea culpa, Pab!

[amateur51]

I'd like to thank David Cameron for showing real political courage and determination to face down objectors in his own Party in following through with same-sex marriage.

Like many people i have become jaded by politicians' blowing with the wind, failing to deliver, raising people's hopes only to dash them on the altar of pragmatism. I believed that Cameron would do this at some stage with same-sex marriage and I'm genuinedly surprised and thrilled that he's delivered and proved me wrong. Not that I'll be voting for him as a result, you understand.

We need to remember that the great reformer, Tony Blair took nearly seven years to repeal Thatcher's section 28, years when he had majorities of over 150 seats. Lesbians and gay men only mattered to Tony when it came to delivering votes - I know that he's made many a brave speech stating otherwise but the political reality is that it took him seven years to repeal a vicious piece of anti-gay legislation, the repeal of which would have had zero impact on the budget.

So hats off to David Cameron - the world for English & Welsh lesbians and gay men has indeed changed. But he also revealed through polling evidence that the majority of UK citizens backed his stand too. As others have pointed out on here the change has made Britain (I'm assuming that the other bits will line up for same-sex marriage soon) a better place to live for all of us. Potential has been unlocked. Young people growing into adolescence will find the world a better place. Elderly and disabled people in care homes will, I hope, find the world a better place. If there's one crowd of people who can kick-start their local economy through holding wedding celebrations, it's lesbians and gay men.

And perhaps Cameron's very public leadership will encourage lesbian and gay activists in Commonwealth counties where such equality is not yet enjoyed that even their apparently insurmountable struggle is worthwhile and that we have not forgotten them.

[scottycelt]

Well, I don't live on this forum ... I do have another life!

I'm not sure why Arcades Project is again asking the same old question again and again (predictably egged on by our redoubtable member, Flossie) that I've probably answered about 1,064,273 times ...

I'm really at a loss to figure out how I can put things any clearer. French Frank is correct that this subject has been gone over time and time again. Obviously some members are not bothering to read previous posts before asking the same old, same old, same old.

Let me finally try just one more time. Okay ... here goes ... are we ready ... ? Good!

Whilst the terms and conditions of marriage vary in different parts of the world and have done so at different times in history the MEANING AND DEFINITION of the word has always been the same ... ie THE OFFICIAL UNION OF A MAN & WOMAN. Nothing else. Not even the official union of a giraffe and an elephant.

Sorry for all this shouting (I'm really very mild-mannered) but there are none so deaf as those who do not... blah blah blah!

I suggest any member who is still fails to spot an answer here swiftly contacts a close friend or relative for some urgent assistance.

[Nick Armstrong]

& answer came there none.

Bit of a harsh point to make at ten to 9 on a Sunday morning when the question had been posed just before 20 to midnight !!

[Mr Pee]

Bit of a harsh point to make at ten to 9 on a Sunday morning when the question had been posed just before 20 to midnight !!

Thumbs up smiley/emoticon.

[Arcades Project]

I would have asked the question again whether Flosshilde had "egged me on" or not. The change from a woman being, in marriage, her husband's property (which is what the situation was), the change such that it became possible for a husband to rape his wife (whereas previously she had no right to give consent, being his property - so he could do what he wanted with what was his) was not some mere change in practice: it redefined marriage. It did so because the idea of a woman as a man's property had a theological underpinning & could be claimed as historically an intrinsic & essential part of marriage: that woman was created for man's use in marriage. It wasn't just social custom, it was part of a structure of belief that situated men & women in differentiated relations to God. Marriage solemnised that.

Giraffes & elephants don't marry. They aren't human (I suppose you'll now insult same sex couples with the thin end of the wedge argument & start talking about a 'right' of humans to marry non-human animals following on from same sex marriage).

If you consult the OED, & the blog the editors of the OED run, on this subject, you will see that words do not have intrinsic meanings (that's a mystical idea, the remnants of which remain in our use / sense of onomatopoeia). They are socially contextualised & they change / mutate with use. Of course that doesn't mean an orange suddenly signifies a banana - the change would have no social / linguistic point. But it does mean words evolve, or sometimes slowly come to mean the opposite of earlier meanings (as with "silly"). In the case of marriage the word has evolved / is evolving, or, rather, the scope of its meaning has widened within certain cultural contexts (including the cultural context we inhabit).

All you are saying is that you are against same sex marriage. The 'theoretical' apparatus you adduce is spurious. The capital letters insistence on common sense is what people do when they don't have an argument, & think they don't need one because it is OBVIOUS.

I certainly have another life away from this forum so I'll make this my last post on this particular subject. There's little point talking to a brick wall, much less bashing my head against it.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . the MEANING AND DEFINITION of the word has always been the same ... ie THE OFFICIAL UNION OF A MAN & WOMAN. Nothing else. . . .

Not for much longer - the Oxford English Dictionary is preparing to change the meaning and definition:

http://www.blowingwind.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=42261

"The world’s most renowned dictionary of the English language has said the definition of 'marriage' will change to include gay people. Speaking to Gay Star News, an Oxford University Press spokeswoman said: 'We continually monitor the words in our dictionaries, paying particular attention to those words whose usage is shifting, so yes, this will happen with marriage.'

As it currently stands, OxfordDictionaries.com defines marriage as being a 'formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.' In a note, it already says marriage could also be '(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex'.

'We are constantly monitoring usage in this area in order to consider what revisions and updates we may need to make,' the Oxford University Press spokeswoman added. 'It’s worth pointing out that, as the Oxford English Dictionary is distinct from other dictionaries in being a historical record of the language, meanings of the past will remain, even while language changes and new ones are added.'

The definition of 'marriage' changed in a leading French dictionary before the law changed in France. Instead of defining marriage as between a man and a woman, the Larousse changed it to a 'solemn act between two same-sex or different-sex persons, who decide to establish a union'."

So sorry to have disillusioned the member!

.
.

[ahinton]

I would have asked the question again whether Flosshilde had "egged me on" or not. The change from a woman being, in marriage, her husband's property (which is what the situation was), the change such that it became possible for a husband to rape his wife (whereas previously she had no right to give consent, being his property - so he could do what he wanted with what was his) was not some mere change in practice: it redefined marriage. It did so because the idea of a woman as a man's property had a theological underpinning & could be claimed as historically an intrinsic & essential part of marriage: that woman was created for man's use in marriage. It wasn't just social custom, it was part of a structure of belief that situated men & women in differentiated relations to God. Marriage solemnised that.

Giraffes & elephants don't marry. They aren't human (I suppose you'll now insult same sex couples with the thin end of the wedge argument & start talking about a 'right' of humans to marry non-human animals following on from same sex marriage).

If you consult the OED, & the blog the editors of the OED run, on this subject, you will see that words do not have intrinsic meanings (that's a mystical idea, the remnants of which remain in our use / sense of onomatopoeia). They are socially contextualised & they change / mutate with use. Of course that doesn't mean an orange suddenly signifies a banana - the change would have no social / linguistic point. But it does mean words evolve, or sometimes slowly come to mean the opposite of earlier meanings (as with "silly"). In the case of marriage the word has evolved / is evolving, or, rather, the scope of its meaning has widened within certain cultural contexts (including the cultural context we inhabit).

All you are saying is that you are against same sex marriage. The 'theoretical' apparatus you adduce is spurious. The capital letters insistence on common sense is what people do when they don't have an argument, & think they don't need one because it is OBVIOUS.

I certainly have another life away from this forum so I'll make this my last post on this particular subject. There's little point talking to a brick wall, much less bashing my head against it.

I'm as sure that we all have lives away from this forum as I am that your question is a sensible one deserving of an answer provided that a realistic and credible answer to it exists; it would seem, however, that scotty believes that he has already answered it more than once and the fact that the rest of us cannot trace this answer anywhere appears to be of little consequence to him, hence the brick wall of which you fairly write - but scotty's middle name must be Hadrian, for it is a brick wall built by him for his own purposes.

There are both constancies and evolutions in what we accept as marriage; the recently passed legislation represents both an evolution and a constancy in that it broadens out what we previously understood marriage to represent so that it is open to loving couples irrespective of their gender rather than confined to couoles of the opposite sex, without in any sense undermining or otherwise altering marriage as it had previously been understood (and by previously I mean immediately prior to the passage of the legislation, of course, not the far earlier "man owns woman lock, stock and barrel" understanding of it that has long since passed mercifully into history).

[ahinton]

Not for much longer - the Oxford English Dictionary is preparing to change the meaning and definition:

http://www.blowingwind.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=42261

"The world’s most renowned dictionary of the English language has said the definition of 'marriage' will change to include gay people. Speaking to Gay Star News, an Oxford University Press spokeswoman said: 'We continually monitor the words in our dictionaries, paying particular attention to those words whose usage is shifting, so yes, this will happen with marriage.'

As it currently stands, OxfordDictionaries.com defines marriage as being a 'formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.' In a note, it already says marriage could also be '(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex'.

'We are constantly monitoring usage in this area in order to consider what revisions and updates we may need to make,' the Oxford University Press spokeswoman added. 'It’s worth pointing out that, as the Oxford English Dictionary is distinct from other dictionaries in being a historical record of the language, meanings of the past will remain, even while language changes and new ones are added.'

The definition of 'marriage' changed in a leading French dictionary before the law changed in France. Instead of defining marriage as between a man and a woman, the Larousse changed it to a 'solemn act between two same-sex or different-sex persons, who decide to establish a union'."

So sorry to have disillusioned the member!

.
.

Indeed; a dictionary would be of little use to anyone if it failed properly to follow and represent the outcomes of such events as changes in legislation. The purpose of dictionaries is not, after all, to dictate but to record; were one to trawl, for example, through successive editions of OED over generations, this obvious fact - and ample illustrative instances thereof - will become abundantly clear.