Equal marriage

[Sydney Grew]

. . . The principle behind what I wrote was that marriage is and should be between two people who wish to marry one another and, accordingly, no third party/ies should influence, let alone determine, whether or not, where or under what circumstances such marriage takes place. . . .

So, looking at the matter from the other end - divorce I mean - if divorce is subject to the same principle - i.e. if it "is and should be between two people who wish to divorce one another and, if, accordingly, no third party should influence, let alone determine, whether or not, [or] where or under what circumstances such divorcement takes place" - if, I say, that is the Member's meaning, then "marriage" is essentially meaningless. As I have already suggested, we would do better to consult the people in Rome about the meaning of "commitment" rather than the Member! Is there no longer in the modern world question of an absolute moral choice, such as is expressed in the French word "engagement"?

[amateur51]

So, looking at the matter from the other end - divorce I mean - if divorce is subject to the same principle - i.e. if it "is and should be between two people who wish to divorce one another and, if, accordingly, no third party should influence, let alone determine, whether or not, [or] where or under what circumstances such divorcement takes place" - if, I say, that is the Member's meaning, then "marriage" is essentially meaningless. As I have already suggested, we would do better to consult the people in Rome about the meaning of "commitment" rather than the Member! Is there no longer in the modern world question of an absolute moral choice, such as is expressed in the French word "engagement"?

Oh if it's absolute moral choices you want then the leading expert on all such matters is Melanie Phillips.

I still worry about that poor Joshua Rosenberg most mornings around breakfast time.

[ahinton]

So, looking at the matter from the other end - divorce I mean - if divorce is subject to the same principle - i.e. if it "is and should be between two people who wish to divorce one another and, if, accordingly, no third party should influence, let alone determine, whether or not, [or] where or under what circumstances such divorcement takes place" - if, I say, that is the Member's meaning, then "marriage" is essentially meaningless.

I do not see how or on what grounds you extrapolate such a conclusion from what you write here. Marriage is a contract entered into by two people of opposte or same sex; divorce is a termination of a marriage contract tht has been entered into by two people of opposte or same sex.

As I have already suggested, we would do better to consult the people in Rome about the meaning of "commitment" rather than the Member!

I am not seeking to be consulted by anyone on this, but why consult "the people in Rome" (by which you presumably mean the highest authority within the Roman Catholic Church) about it when marriage is neither an invention of that Church or a contractual arrangement over which said Church has universal - i.e. monopolistic - jurisdiction? One does not have to be a Roman Catholic in order to be entirled by law to marry".

Is there no longer in the modern world question of an absolute moral choice, such as is expressed in the French word "engagement"?

What do you mean by "absolute moral choice" in the context of opposite sex or same sex marriage contracts and who should be entitled to enter thereinto as well as who should or should not be entitled to interfere with or seek to influence them?

[jean]

Without wishing to sound rude or presumptuous, though, might I question why you would be at all concerned about such matters in any case when you have already made it clear that you have no interest in or respect for the institution of marriage?

We all know the answer to that question - having no interest in or respect for the institution of marriage himself, dear old Syd is trying as hard as he can, in his very evangelical way, to bring all of us (gay ot straight) round to his way of thinking.

[ahinton]

We all know the answer to that question - having no interest in or respect for the institution of marriage himself, dear old Syd is trying as hard as he can, in his very evangelical way, to bring all of us (gay ot straight) round to his way of thinking.

The problem with that is that, given the said lack of interest in or respect for the subject, it's hard to detect in such observations much evidence of actual "thinking", which would surely presume at least some interest in or respect for the subject...

[Ferretfancy]

Oh if it's absolute moral choices you want then the leading expert on all such matters is Melanie Phillips.

I still worry about that poor Joshua Rosenberg most mornings around breakfast time.

As the civil partnership plans were being devised by the government, I went to a meeting of Stonewall to learn what was being planned. There had been a meeting at the Commons between a junior government minister, one of her advisers and various interested parties. The question of divorce was raised, and for civil partnerships this is termed dissolution. Naturally as the two separating parties might have property together, perhaps a shared business, the matter is very significant. We were told that all the grounds for dissolution would be the same as for heterosexual marriage. A questioner asked - " What about adultery? " " Ah ! " came the reply, "That's difficult because in law adultery is clearly defined, so a change in legislation would be required"

The definition of adultery is apparently that one one of the offending parties must possess a vagina, and therefore two men would not meet the definition. At that point
two lesbians asked " What about us ? " " Sorry, they said, you've got two ! "

[Sydney Grew]

. . . it's hard to detect in such observations much evidence of actual "thinking" . . .

How adroitly our modern Members skirt the question of commitment!

[ahinton]

How adroitly our modern Members skirt the question of commitment!

Really? What and/or who are "modern Members anyway? Any contract involves commitment on the parts of the parties entering into it but, whilst the marriage one is usually made with the intent of a lifetime commitment, life and circumstances are such that it doesn't always work out that way, hence divorce. So - no "skirts" here!

[jean]

How adroitly our modern Members skirt the question of commitment!

What on earth do you mean? It's all about commitment, which everyone but you recognises as something that some people feel they want to...commit to.

[jean]

The definition of adultery is apparently that one one of the offending parties must possess a vagina, and therefore two men would not meet the definition. At that point
two lesbians asked " What about us ? " " Sorry", they said, "you've got two ! "

Surely it is not merely the possession of a vagina that's at issue, but what you put, or don't put, in it?

A heterosexual marriage can be annulled - that is, deemed never to have existed - if it is unconsummated, which means that whatever else the parties may have got up to, no penis-in-vagina 'intercourse' has taken place. On this basis, a same-sex marriage cannot be consummated, and some have argued that this is enough in itself to rule out ss 'marriage'.

But the old definition depends on the primary purpose of marriage being procreation. I have a much better definition which will do for everyone.

[Flosshilde]

Go on, Jean - are you going to let us know what it is? :smiley:

And :ok: to Pulcinella's post earlier. When thos opposed said that 'civil partnership' is the same as marriage, that's one of the cases when it clearly isn't. Thankfully lesbian & gay people now have a choice (well, we will soon in Scotland)

[ahinton]

But the old definition depends on the primary purpose of marriage being procreation

Some might read into such an antediluvian notion that only pro-creationists should be entitled to marry...

[Flosshilde]

But the old definition depends on the primary purpose of marriage being procreation.

Or even economic - ensuring that a man's property (women didn't have any) went only to his descendants. Hence the importance of adultery - if a woman had sexual relations with anothet man, could her husband be sure that a child was his? - and the relative lack of interest (historically) in a legal marriage by people who didn't have any property. Now that pre-nuptial agreements are legally recognised under English law (apparently they already were in Scotland) adultery would seem to be less 'serious' as a ground for divorce?

[jean]

Or even economic - ensuring that a man's property (women didn't have any) went only to his descendants...

The primary purpose of marriage was considered to be procreation - the reason for that was at least in part economic.

[jean]

Go on, Jean - are you going to let us know what it is?

Whether the parties experience orgasm, of course.

That is pretty much a given for the man when consummation, as traditionally defined, takes place.

However there is no guarantee that the woman gets any sexual pleasure at all out of the 'sexual act' (is there really only one sort?)