Gay marriage thread

[jean]

It's worth remembering that when the Vicky Pryce was using the defence of marital coercion, and it was argued by some that such a defence was out of date, others argued that there was something about the very nature of marriage that could cause a man to coerce a woman as he could not in any other sort relationship whatsoever.

Is that what we mean by marriage being special?

[MrGongGong]

Is that what we mean by marriage being special?

Ask your husband

[jean]

...in the Everest region polyandry is common. It actually makes sense...

That may be so, but I'd much rather you did not introduce it as an example which might be adduced in favour of gay marriage - it will be leapt upon as endorsing the slippery slope argument, which in this context is exactly what it does.

[Pabmusic]

That may be so, but I'd much rather you did not introduce it as an example which might be adduced in favour of gay marriage - it will be leapt upon as endorsing the slippery slope argument, which in this context is exactly what it does.

Except that, as I tried to point out before, the slippery slope argument is a fallacy (that is an argument incapable of proving its point), since one would also have to demonstrate causation. Simply because one event occurred after another does not mean that the first event caused it. The fact is that we are discussing this subject only because a forum member opposed to gay marriage raised it; we are no doubt confirming his bias.

[french frank]

That may be so, but I'd much rather you did not introduce it as an example which might be adduced in favour of gay marriage - it will be leapt upon as endorsing the slippery slope argument, which in this context is exactly what it does.

And what might 'make sense' in the Everest region might not 'make sense' here.

The rules of 'marriage' have changed so much over the centuries (and those rules differ as between, for instance, the Catholic church and the Church of England ("The Church of England recognises as legally valid all marriages which are solemnised in accordance with and recognised by the civil law
of this country, whatever type of ceremony is used and irrespective of whether the marriage is one which is consistent with the Church’s teaching."

A Catholic 'marriage' is just that - one that is in accordance with the Catholic rules; one that doesn't, isn't a valid 'marriage'. Those rules can't be imposed on others.

Isabelle of France married - legally - Richard II when she was seven. It was a marriage. That would no longer be possible because views have changed and we have evolved the concept of an 'age of consent'.

'Marriage' was once a purely religious rite: now it need have no religious connection whatsoever - that is still 'marriage'.

At one time church courts could prosecute those who cohabited without being legally married - views have changed.

The marital coercion defence is only available to women - a legal point that again indicates that the modern view of 'marriage' has changed.

If one is complaining about the use of the word 'marriage' for same-sex ceremonies, which other changes in the view of marriage does one object to? And which does one accept? And why?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Except that, as I tried to point out before, the slippery slope argument is a fallacy

?

Surely Everest is a "slippery slope"?

[amateur51]

And what might 'make sense' in the Everest region might not 'make sense' here.

The rules of 'marriage' have changed so much over the centuries (and those rules differ as between, for instance, the Catholic church and the Church of England ("The Church of England recognises as legally valid all marriages which are solemnised in accordance with and recognised by the civil law
of this country, whatever type of ceremony is used and irrespective of whether the marriage is one which is consistent with the Church’s teaching."

A Catholic 'marriage' is just that - one that is in accordance with the Catholic rules; one that doesn't, isn't a valid 'marriage'. Those rules can't be imposed on others.

Isabelle of France married - legally - Richard II when she was seven. It was a marriage. That would no longer be possible because views have changed and we have evolved the concept of an 'age of consent'.

'Marriage' was once a purely religious rite: now it need have no religious connection whatsoever - that is still 'marriage'.

At one time church courts could prosecute those who cohabited without being legally married - views have changed.

The marital coercion defence is only available to women - a legal point that again indicates that the modern view of 'marriage' has changed.

If one is complaining about the use of the word 'marriage' for same-sex ceremonies, which other changes in the view of marriage does one object to? And which does one accept? And why?

Admirable clarity, french frank - many thanks

[amateur51]

?

Surely Everest is a "slippery slope"?

Everyone knows that Everest is the best double glazing - Ted Moult said so

[Pabmusic]

Admirable clarity, french frank - many thanks

I'll second that.

We had many posts about this early in this thread, but it's been so long that I'll repeat some of the points. There is only one test for the lawfulness of a marriage in the UK - does it conform to the requirements of the Marriage Act 1836 (in England & Wales, but there are similar provisions in Scotland and NI)? This makes lawful marriage a purely civil affair. It doesn't matter what the religious sect is, the marriage is not lawful unless it conforms to the 1836 act. In particular, the service has to be conducted by an authorised celebrant (in practice, a vicar of the C of E, or possibly another denomination - but there's no automatic authorisation outside the C of E) or by a civil registrar. This means that a registrar has to attend weddings conducted by non-authorised celebrants, to deal with the legal requirements such as signing the register.

Arguably, marriage in England & Wales has been a civil affair since the 13th century, but this gets a bit convoluted.

The point is that government, not any religion, defines marriage in the UK, and has done for centuries.

On the Richard II-Isabelle point, people may not realise that the age of consent (and of marriage) in England & Wales was 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy until it was increased to 16 in ... [wait for it] ... 1929!

[amateur51]

I'll second that.

We had many posts about this early in this thread, but it's been so long that I'll repeat some of the points. There is only one test for the lawfulness of a marriage in the UK - does it conform to the requirements of the Marriage Act 1836 (in England & Wales, but there are similar provisions in Scotland and NI)? This makes lawful marriage a purely civil affair. It doesn't matter what the religious sect is, the marriage is not lawful unless it conforms to the 1836 act. In particular, the service has to be conducted by an authorised celebrant (in practice, a vicar of the C of E, or possibly another denomination - but there's no automatic authorisation outside the C of E) or by a civil registrar. This means that a registrar has to attend weddings conducted by non-authorised celebrants, to deal with the legal requirements such as signing the register.

Arguably, marriage in England & Wales has been a civil affair since the 13th century, but this gets a bit convoluted.

The point is that government, not any religion, defines marriage in the UK, and has done for centuries.

Well worth repeating Pabs - this will incommode the denizens of Alderley Edge and Winchester I'm sure

[french frank]

Which underlines the distinction between what is (in the UK) lawful, and what any particular group cares to define as valid.

[Ferretfancy]

That may be so, but I'd much rather you did not introduce it as an example which might be adduced in favour of gay marriage - it will be leapt upon as endorsing the slippery slope argument, which in this context is exactly what it does.

I'm in favour of gay marriage, but that was not the point of my comment. I was merely illustrating the fact that every type of sexual contract can be found to be accepted as valid somewhere. Frankly, I'm beginning to find much of this discussion tedious, as possibly others are.

[scottycelt]

And what might 'make sense' in the Everest region might not 'make sense' here.

The rules of 'marriage' have changed so much over the centuries (and those rules differ as between, for instance, the Catholic church and the Church of England ("The Church of England recognises as legally valid all marriages which are solemnised in accordance with and recognised by the civil law
of this country, whatever type of ceremony is used and irrespective of whether the marriage is one which is consistent with the Church’s teaching."

A Catholic 'marriage' is just that - one that is in accordance with the Catholic rules; one that doesn't, isn't a valid 'marriage'. Those rules can't be imposed on others.

Isabelle of France married - legally - Richard II when she was seven. It was a marriage. That would no longer be possible because views have changed and we have evolved the concept of an 'age of consent'.

'Marriage' was once a purely religious rite: now it need have no religious connection whatsoever - that is still 'marriage'.

At one time church courts could prosecute those who cohabited without being legally married - views have changed.

The marital coercion defence is only available to women - a legal point that again indicates that the modern view of 'marriage' has changed.

If one is complaining about the use of the word 'marriage' for same-sex ceremonies, which other changes in the view of marriage does one object to? And which does one accept? And why?

You're confusing two issues here, IMHO. Marriage itself and any rules and qualifications which govern it.

Marriage MEANS (and has always meant) the union of a man and a woman. 'Same-sex Marriage' is therefore a total contradiction. Unless, of course, to echo Lord Dear and Humpty Dumpty, a word just means anything I want it to mean at the time.

Of course there can be separate (and changeable) rules and qualifications to enter that union. In civil terms the most obvious is age but religious organisations may have their own additional terms and conditions.

To change the actual meaning of 'marriage' is as silly to many of us as changing the meanings of 'man' and 'woman' themselves. Predictably the Government is now under huge pressure to allow heterosexuals to take advantage of Civil Partnerships in line with 'equal rights'. Apparently it never previously occurred to the majority of our MPs that this would be the logical result of their own proposals, and with all the unnecessary costs this will entail. Quite astonishing. This is before we even begin to ponder over any 'slippery slopes'.

Enough! ... I notice that Ferret, who I'm sure quite innocently again provoked this debate, is now apparently tiring of it. One cannot help but wonder why ...

[amateur51]

You're confusing two issues here, IMHO. Marriage itself and any rules and qualifications which govern it.

Marriage MEANS (and has always meant) the union of a man and a woman. 'Same-sex Marriage' is therefore a total contradiction. Unless, of course, to echo Lord Dear and Humpty Dumpty, a word just means anything I want it to mean at the time.

Of course there can be separate (and changeable) rules and qualifications to enter that union. In civil terms the most obvious is age but religious organisations may have their own additional terms and conditions.

To change the actual meaning of 'marriage' is as silly to many of us as changing the meanings of 'man' and 'woman' themselves. Predictably the Government is now under huge pressure to allow heterosexuals to take advantage of Civil Partnerships in line with 'equal rights'. Apparently it never previously occurred to the majority of our MPs that this would be the logical result of their own proposals, and with all the unnecessary costs this will entail. Quite astonishing. This is before we even begin to ponder over any 'slippery slopes'.

Enough! ... I notice that Ferret, who I'm sure quite innocently again provoked this debate, is now apparently tiring of it. One cannot help but wonder why ...

Possibly because of repetitive posts like this

It's going to happen, scotty whether you approve or not

[Nick Armstrong]

Time to slip the padlock back on this thread, ff? Your #1475 said it as well as it could be said, and scotty seems to have restated the contrary position as clearly as it could be said.

Isn't it time to light a metaphorical cigarette, lie back and listen to some music?