Equal marriage

[ahinton]

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?)

Point taken, but what does this have to do with whether or not third parties should be entitled to influence decisions on whether or not couples marry or who marries whom, pace SG, or indeed to the legal aspects of the marriage contract? Deriving pleasure from (participation in) a/the sexual act and the extent to which any participant therein, male or female, married or otherwise, hs its own importance but that does not identify it as a determinant in whether anyone should - or would want to - commit him/herself to a marriage contract.

"Consommation" reminds me of sell-by/use-by dates, so perhaps it can be brought into an answer to SG about "commitment" when circumstances conspire to determine that such commitment may have outlived its desirability and/or usefulness.

Anyway, just as those who live in glass houses are supposed not to throw stones, so those whose attitude to every aspect of the institution of marriage seems to border on the contemptuous might at least coisnder doing the rest of us the courtesy of ceasing and desisting from pontificating about it.

[jean]

Point taken, but what does this have to do with whether or not third parties should be entitled to influence decisions on whether or not couples marry or who marries whom...

Nothing.

Except for who marries whom - it's been a popular argument against gay marriage that such a marriage could not be consummated, and could not therefore count as a marriage at all.

Deriving pleasure from (participation in) a/the sexual act and the extent to which any participant therein, male or female, married or otherwise, has its own importance but that does not identify it as a determinant in whether anyone should - or would want to - commit him/herself to a marriage contract.

It's a better determinant of what ought to constitute a marriage than the traditional definition of consummation. That's all.

[ahinton]

Nothing.

Except for who marries whom - it's been a popular argument against gay marriage that such a marriage could not be consummated, and could not therefore count as a marriage at all.

Well, it's clear that neither of us agrees with that stance.

It's a better determinant of what ought to constitute a marriage than the traditional definition of consummation.

Well, maybe so, but that, to me, is in part because that very "traditional" definition is now increasingly coming to be discredited. I watched with dismay on last week's Question Time from Brighton on BBC1 when a woman in the audience inveighed against same sex marriage as contrary to Christian tradition and beliefs (although, since she semmed to be in a minority of two, I had to admire her courage!) and, a little later, another of similar mind spouted forth about marriage being all about children (i.e. presuming "consummation" as a fundamental law of the conduct of marriages). It was deplorable enough to hear the way in which the Christian fundamentalist introduced her question based upon opposition to same sex marriage, but it was worse still when her confederate pontificated not merely about that but also about marriage and children as though somehow so indelibly linked as to be broadly synonymous; what price women beyond child-bearing age, women unable to conceive, men and women who want to commit themselves to one another but can and want to do so without having to have children to prove it - should they be barred by law from marrying?

[jean]

But I'm not arguing with you!

[ahinton]

But I'm not arguing with you!

No, jean, I know that! We're broadly on the same wavelength here, methinks. I just wonder what gets into some people's heads that guarantees that they retain, against such powerful odds and in wilful ignorance and disregard of the views, aspirations, desires and feelings of others, a most narrow-mindedly bigoted view of something as important as the institution of marriage as though it can be of no possible social value or relevance unless it conforms 100% to their stance on it and cannot possibly adapt to social change.

[Flosshilde]

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

Considered by whom? Plenty of people managed to procreate without being married, as I suggested. It's only within the legal framework of marriage and its prohibitions about adultery that it could be certain who the father of a child was (in theory), and, if there was any doubt, that the husband could discard his wife and the suspect child.

[jean]

By whom? By the Church, principally. They were making the rules.

Why else do you think that it was considered a sin (though only a venial one) for a married couple to have sex without the intention of conceiving?

[Sydney Grew]

. . . another of similar mind spouted forth about marriage being all about children . . . her confederate pontificated not merely about that but . . .

A descent to loaded and disparaging terms such as "spouted forth" and "pontificated" (rather like "régime" or "anti-demoscratic" in another context) is a sure sign that a writer does not himself have much of a case!

[ahinton]

A descent to loaded and disparaging terms such as "spouted forth" and "pontificated" (rather like "régime" or "anti-demoscratic" in another context) is a sure sign that a writer does not himself have much of a case!

This one doesn't need a case; substitute suchever words as you wish for those that you appear to disagree with and leave the remainder intact and the "case" makes itself.

[Flosshilde]

By whom? By the Church, principally. They were making the rules.

Why else do you think that it was considered a sin (though only a venial one) for a married couple to have sex without the intention of conceiving?

I think that you are muddling the idea that procreation should only happen withing marriage with marriage being specifically for procreation. The rules are about sex being for procreation, and sex only being permissable within a marriage, which is not quite the same thing as procreation being the reason for marriage. But I don't think any of the churches are too concerned about the procreation bit - otherwise they would carry out fertility tests before they married a couple.

The state also made rules about marriage, & at a point in history (I'd have to research exactly when tha was) the state's rules became the rules that ruled.

[Sydney Grew]

Let us think of Mrs. Ruskin.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_Richmond.jpg

[jean]

We think about her all the time.

But even if john had been able to 'consummate' the marriage, it would not necessarily have been much fun for her.

More is required for any modern definition of marriage that the performance of the quaintly-named 'sex act'.

[amateur51]

We think about her all the time.

But even if john had been able to 'consummate' the marriage, it would not necessarily have been much fun for her.

More is required for any modern definition of marriage that the performance of the quaintly-named 'sex act'.

Perhaps we'd all be a lot better off (and find is easier to 'commit' and to 'uncommit' to the relationship) if we acknowledged that marriage, like ratatouille, has a myriad recipes with a basic framework.

[jean]

Yes, of course; and that's what most of us are doing, now.

But it doesn't help us to argue against those who hold to an outdated definition if we fail to recognise where there convictions come from.

[Flosshilde]

Their convictions come from an erroneous belief that the institution of marriage hasn't changed, ever. Whereas it does change, to accommodate whatever the current ideas about marriage are.