Cameron: "Let's export gay marriage!"

[Richard Barrett]

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.

I think the point being made by our Neanderthal correspondent is that everything else about the definition of marriage might be mutable, but the heterosexuality part isn't, being in some way more fundamental than all these trivial details like one person owning another etc. - although of course nothing is adduced in support of this view except "I said so".

[Mr Pee]

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.

Whatever answers you give, Scotty, you will be accused of not answering. The problem is not that you don't answer, but that you don't give the answers they want. Trying to convince the liberal lefties who seem to be in a majority on these boards that any view other than theirs might actually be valid is like trying to get a stream to flow uphill.

Good luck.

[scottycelt]

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!

.
.

You never disillusion me, Sydney, quite the opposite! In fact I always enjoy your highly original posts though you may well not thank me for saying so!

In a previous post I did say 'until recent times'. Dictionaries are only being amended because of meddling, social-engineering politicians in various parts of the western world, not because of a slow progression to change through common usage. Some dictionary compilers anticipated the change in law and amended the definition accordingly.

That is perfectly understandable. In this case dictionaries can only reflect a definition that's in line with the new secular reality. It is not their job to omit a new definition however idiotic and state-imposed.

So I certainly have no beef with the dictionaries!

[Richard Barrett]

Dictionaries are only being amended because of meddling, social-engineering politicians in various parts of the western world, not because of a slow progression to change through common usage.

Welcome to la-la land, please drive carefully.

[scottycelt]

Whatever answers you give, Scotty, you will be accused of not answering. The problem is not that you don't answer, but that you don't give the answers they want. Trying to convince the liberal lefties who seem to be in a majority on these boards that any view other than theirs might actually be valid is like trying to get a stream to flow uphill.

Good luck.

Yes, I used to think it a 'challenge' Mr Pee, but I fear you are absolutely correct.

I don't believe any of them are that stupid that they honestly fail to spot my answers.

It's just part of the usual tactic in order to avoid answering my own questions!

And now that ahinton's pal has suddenly appeared I think it might be a good idea to listen to some music instead?

[MrGongGong]

Welcome to la-la land, please drive carefully.

:thumb: :beer: :calvados:

[pilamenon]

What David Cameron has proposed and seen through is undoubtedly a good thing for large numbers of people, as amateur51 points out, and a source of indifference or strong to mild approval for large numbers of others. But we should respect the right of a large minority to object to what they see as a fundamental change to an institution that they cherish. This objection will diminish with time, which isn't to say it is of no import. Overall, however, Western culture has been moving towards a more liberal view of same sex relations for a long time, and this change is part of that process. What the long-term holds, however, is anyone's guess.

[Arcades Project]

Yes, I used to think it a 'challenge' Mr Pee, but I fear you are absolutely correct.

I don't believe any of them are that stupid that they honestly fail to spot my answers.

It's just part of the usual tactic in order to avoid answering my own questions!

And now that ahinton's pal has suddenly appeared I think it might be a good idea to listen to some music instead?

I swore - at myself - I wouldn't, but what the hell. You have not answered my question & it isn't a diversion - it's at the heart of the matter. For centuries a major part of the definition of marriage (certainly in Europe & then latterly North America) was that on marriage the wife lost all autonomous rights. She became her husband's property. She could own no property of her own, she could not divorce her husband (he could divorce her), she could not object to him having sex with her even if she didn't consent. There was no such thing as marital rape. These weren't quaint, mutable, customs: they were at the heart of the definition of marriage, based on the notion that man was God's primary creation & woman secondary. Women in marriage existed as adjuncts of their husbands, not as autonomous individuals, & that was regarded as an essential, divine sanctioned, time immemorial, absolute truth about marriage.

Pressure for change, campaigning, in the face of hostility from those who said marriage would be rendered meaningless by the change, led to the Married Women's Property Acts of 1870, 1882, 1884, & 1893. As for marital rape:

Several countries in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia made spousal rape illegal before 1970, but other countries in Western Europe and the English-speaking Western World outlawed it much later, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. Most developing countries outlawed it in the 1990s and 2000s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape Shocking how the old attitude, that a married woman effectively belongs to her husband, took so long to be at least legally outlawed.

With the Married Women's Property Acts there wasn't a change of custom, practice: there was a change in the definition of marriage. Same sex marriage is another change in the definition of marriage (it broadens the scope of marriage).

You do not respond to reasoned argument. You pretend that's what you are doing while all the time evading the point. & your claim that lexicographers act because of a state imposed definition is insulting to lexicographers. They work to strict & high standards of methodological consistency. Whether you or Mr Pee like it they are acting in response to a change in popular usage.

[amateur51]

Just had a vision of a busy pub in a part of Cheshire that's not Alderley Edge (apparently). The door opens and a gingery wiry Scotsman enters clutching his battered dictionary. As he makes to hail the regulars so gathered, there is suddenly as mass stampede for the door.

[jean]

...In this case dictionaries can only reflect a definition that's in line with the new secular reality...

The secular reality overtook the religious reality some time ago - otherwise we wouldn't be able to get divorced and (horrors!) married to someone else afterwards.

[Richard Barrett]

The secular reality overtook the religious reality some time ago - otherwise we wouldn't be able to get divorced and (horrors!) married to someone else afterwards.

And we'd be living on a flat planet.

[scottycelt]

I swore - at myself - I wouldn't, but what the hell. You have not answered my question & it isn't a diversion - it's at the heart of the matter. For centuries a major part of the definition of marriage (certainly in Europe & then latterly North America) was that on marriage the wife lost all autonomous rights. She became her husband's property. She could own no property of her own, she could not divorce her husband (he could divorce her), she could not object to him having sex with her even if she didn't consent. There was no such thing as marital rape. These weren't quaint, mutable, customs: they were at the heart of the definition of marriage, based on the notion that man was God's primary creation & woman secondary. Women in marriage existed as adjuncts of their husbands, not as autonomous individuals, & that was regarded as an essential, divine sanctioned, time immemorial, absolute truth about marriage.

Pressure for change, campaigning, in the face of hostility from those who said marriage would be rendered meaningless by the change, led to the Married Women's Property Acts of 1870, 1882, 1884, & 1893. As for marital rape:

Several countries in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia made spousal rape illegal before 1970, but other countries in Western Europe and the English-speaking Western World outlawed it much later, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. Most developing countries outlawed it in the 1990s and 2000s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape Shocking how the old attitude, that a married woman effectively belongs to her husband, took so long to be at least legally outlawed.

With the Married Women's Property Acts there wasn't a change of custom, practice: there was a change in the definition of marriage. Same sex marriage is another change in the definition of marriage (it broadens the scope of marriage).

You do not respond to reasoned argument. You pretend that's what you are doing while all the time evading the point. & your claim that lexicographers act because of a state imposed definition is insulting to lexicographers. They work to strict & high standards of methodological consistency. Whether you or Mr Pee like it they are acting in response to a change in popular usage.

Ahhhhh, I get you now!

You are not really interested in the subject we are supposed to be discussing you'd much rather go on a feminist harangue?

I regret that I am, in turn, not much interested in feminist harangues, to be honest!

As for dictionary compilers (lexicographers, if you must) I actually expressed great sympathy and understanding for their plight, in my response to Mr Sydney Grew.

I now see my problem. If you can't find the time to read my posts how can I reasonably expect you to see any of my answers?

I apologise profusely!

[ahinton]

Yes, I used to think it a 'challenge' Mr Pee, but I fear you are absolutely correct.

I don't believe any of them are that stupid that they honestly fail to spot my answers.

It's just part of the usual tactic in order to avoid answering my own questions!

And now that ahinton's pal has suddenly appeared I think it might be a good idea to listen to some music instead?

I have no idea which "pal" that is supposed to be and would hope that I have more than one(!), but please tell us where your answer is to that specific question about the change in the ways in which marriage has been accepted and understood over centuries in the West, because i am not alkone in being unable to find it; it's all too easy to "fail to spot" your answers if, as seems to be the case, you have failed to provide them!

[ahinton]

You are not really interested in the subject we are supposed to be discussing you'd much rather go on a feminist harangue?

I regret that I am, in turn, not much interested in feminist harangues, to be honest!

So where is the "feminist harangue" in what you've been trying to respond to? Has it something to do with the arising of a charge of rape within marriage that for many generations did not apply and was understood to be a right under the licence of marriage? (though even then only that a man could lawfully rape his wife, though not a wife her husband).

As for dictionary compilers (lexicographers, if you must) I actually expressed great sympathy and understanding for their plight, in my response to Mr Sydney Grew.

That being (or not) the case), as I noted, dictionaries do not dictate - they report.

I now see my problem.

That I fear I must still doubt!

[Arcades Project]

Ahhhhh, I get you now!

You are not really interested in the subject we are supposed to be discussing you'd much rather go on a feminist harangue?

I regret that I am, in turn, not much interested in feminist harangues, to be honest!

As for dictionary compilers (lexicographers, if you must) I actually expressed great sympathy and understanding for their plight, in my response to Mr Sydney Grew.

I now see my problem. If you can't find the time to read my posts how can I reasonably expect you to see any of my answers?

I apologise profusely!

What are you talking about? What "feminist harangue" (& my God you hate women don't you?) I'm talking about a fundamental change in the meaning of marriage in the C19 which meant women were no longer legally regarded as chattel. That wasn't just a change of practice: it was a change of meaning. Whereas compared to that, same sex marriage is just an extension of existing practice.

In other words, your claim marriage is something that has remained fundamentally unaltered century after century is wrong. It changed with vast repercussion & significance in the C19.

Of course, it's perfectly possible you think a married woman should be her husband's property. Perhaps you should start a campaign to get back to good old fashioned, real marriage, before social interference, crazed feminists who resented being their husband's possessions & being allowed no autonomy or indeed property of their own & their sympathisers wrecked things?