 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Pa Marmo wrote: | | ronrat wrote: | | I don't understand it. Pass the legislation and if the churches want it stopped tell the parasites to pay rates and tax. Their choice. |
And then what, after the gays, is it three way marriages, marriage to animals, inanimate objects, yourself, where does it stop? |
Next they'll let black and white people marry, Catholics and Protestants and men and women of non-childbearing age. It's political correctness gone mad!
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pa Marmo wrote: | | And then what, after the gays, is it three way marriages, marriage to animals, inanimate objects, yourself, where does it stop? |
That must be a taking the p1ss post surely 
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Or what? |
|
|
|
|
KenH 
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Pa Marmo, I hope you are not serious? I haven't read anything from you for a long time but if that post was serious I hope to never read anything from you again!
_________________
Cheers big ears |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Pa Marmo's point is rather stretched, but i understand it. The term "marriage", like all words, has a concept boundary. The boundary, across many centuries, has been a commitmemt between a man and a woman. It used to mean a lifelong commitment, to be upheld and borne tenaciously despite all of life's vicissitudes, and the decay of that has eroded much of its fixed meaning. Perhaps that erosion makes its boundary less worth defending, but if it ceases to apply to a man and a woman, it changes meaning further, and it is not too much of a stretch to imagine it referring to other types of union.
I am quite happy to support legal equality between heterosexual marriage and a form of committed union between gay people, but i regret the use of the term marriage to denote it, as I suspect there are other agendas behind the appropriation of that term.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
But surely we've (i.e. everyone has) been over this so many times: marriage is a concept that has changed substantially in the last century alone, let alone over the course of human history.
That concept boundary you refer to was once limited to the religious sphere (i.e. being something that could only be consecrated by the church), to people of the same race (see anti-miscegenation laws in the US) or same religion (see various doctrines in Ireland and elsewhere). Marriage was at times not voluntary, but arranged by authority figures. Divorce was unlawful. Marriage with children was quite recently considered acceptable, and if you go back far enough in the Judeo-Christian tradition, so was polygamy. Yes, in all of these cases, the construct was explicitly heterosexual; but when you compare it with all of the many quite fundamental changes that I've listed above, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples doesn't look particularly radical nothing at all like marrying pets or pot plants, or novelty weddings between strangers in Vegas (oh wait, that last one already happens).
Your post makes it sound as if marriage is and has historically been an absolutely concrete social idea that is only now about to be fundamentally altered. That's simply false I can't put it any other way. I have to admit I'm surprised that you still look so darkly on an idea that many conservatives in the West have long since come to accept.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | Pa Marmo's point is rather stretched, but i understand it. The term "marriage", like all words, has a concept boundary. The boundary, across many centuries, has been a commitmemt between a man and a woman. It used to mean a lifelong commitment, to be upheld and borne tenaciously despite all of life's vicissitudes, and the decay of that has eroded much of its fixed meaning. Perhaps that erosion makes its boundary less worth defending, but if it ceases to apply to a man and a woman, it changes meaning further, and it is not too much of a stretch to imagine it referring to other types of union.
I am quite happy to support legal equality between heterosexual marriage and a form of committed union between gay people, but i regret the use of the term marriage to denote it, as I suspect there are other agendas behind the appropriation of that term. |
I read where you're coming from but I think you're letting Pa Marmo off the hook just a little by using the words "a little stretched". Marriage to animals etc. Enough to shake the chardonnay out of my latte.
Rather than the romantic view of marriage you seem to indicate I've always thought marriage the institution as it were was about property relations in historical terms.
Marriage these days should be about commitment & the gender of the two getting married should be of no consequence.
What is your view of Tony Abbott's contribution, that is marriage is where a man protects his wife & children?
I'm not setting the question as a gotchya question or for entrapment but it shows me he really does belong to the worst aspects of the 1950's, sorry 1850's.
Although Mae West coined it best:
"Marriage is a fine institution, it's just I ain't ready for an institution"
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | | Pa Marmo wrote: | | And then what, after the gays, is it three way marriages, marriage to animals, inanimate objects, yourself, where does it stop? |
That must be a taking the p1ss post surely |
Nope. PM expresses religious fundamentalist views and logically that view is necessarily consistent.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Pa Marmo wrote: | | ronrat wrote: | | I don't understand it. Pass the legislation and if the churches want it stopped tell the parasites to pay rates and tax. Their choice. |
And then what, after the gays, is it three way marriages, marriage to animals, inanimate objects, yourself, where does it stop? |
Next they'll let black and white people marry, Catholics and Protestants and men and women of non-childbearing age. It's political correctness gone mad! |
If you don't want to marry a person of the same sex then don't, but don't prevent others who want to.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| KenH wrote: | | Pa Marmo, I hope you are not serious? I haven't read anything from you for a long time but if that post was serious I hope to never read anything from you again! |
Of course he was serious.
You can be sure he doesn't support abortion and euthanasia either or believe in climate change.
No doubt a Trump supporter also. 
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
KenH
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | | KenH wrote: | | Pa Marmo, I hope you are not serious? I haven't read anything from you for a long time but if that post was serious I hope to never read anything from you again! |
Of course he was serious.
You can be sure he doesn't support abortion and euthanasia either or believe in climate change.
No doubt a Trump supporter also. |
So a 60 year old white male?
_________________
Cheers big ears |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
Your post makes it sound as if marriage is and has historically been an absolutely concrete social idea that is only now about to be fundamentally altered. That's simply false I can't put it any other way. I have to admit I'm surprised that you still look so darkly on an idea that many conservatives in the West have long since come to accept. |
I'm surprised by your point here, as it suggests to me the opposite of what it suggests to you. All of the permutations you describe, several of which are clearly undesirable, have in common the idea that the concept of marriage is primarily a contract between a man and a woman in which children should be raised. This has very nearly collapsed since the introduction of easy divorce by "progressives", who thereby ushered in the world of multiple stepfathers and child vulnerability which followed. So it may be that there is little of value left to defend in the long-sanctioned normative meaning of marriage ; but i do not see why gay people could not have their union denoted by a diferent word, since it is such a breach with meaning.
In any event, this is not a vital issue, in my mind. The really socially-important battle (durability of heterosexual marriage) was lost long ago, and thus it does not much matter what we call a marriage as a result. I just wanted to defend Pa Marmo against what seemed to me reflex outrage, as he had a debatable point.
On the last point, i think you are confusing the "conservatives" in modern conservative parties with Conservatism as espoused by its philosophers (Hobbes, Burke, Scruton et al). Most modern conservative parties are essentially libertarians who outsource moral questions to the mass market, with little attachment to forms of life which are tested and justified by their historic proof and moderation.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | Pa Marmo's point is rather stretched, but i understand it. The term "marriage", like all words, has a concept boundary. The boundary, across many centuries, has been a commitmemt between a man and a woman. It used to mean a lifelong commitment, to be upheld and borne tenaciously despite all of life's vicissitudes, and the decay of that has eroded much of its fixed meaning. Perhaps that erosion makes its boundary less worth defending, but if it ceases to apply to a man and a woman, it changes meaning further, and it is not too much of a stretch to imagine it referring to other types of union.
I am quite happy to support legal equality between heterosexual marriage and a form of committed union between gay people, but i regret the use of the term marriage to denote it, as I suspect there are other agendas behind the appropriation of that term. |
I read where you're coming from but I think you're letting Pa Marmo off the hook just a little by using the words "a little stretched". Marriage to animals etc. Enough to shake the chardonnay out of my latte.
Rather than the romantic view of marriage you seem to indicate I've always thought marriage the institution as it were was about property relations in historical terms.
Marriage these days should be about commitment & the gender of the two getting married should be of no consequence.
What is your view of Tony Abbott's contribution, that is marriage is where a man protects his wife & children?
I'm not setting the question as a gotchya question or for entrapment but it shows me he really does belong to the worst aspects of the 1950's, sorry 1850's.
Although Mae West coined it best:
"Marriage is a fine institution, it's just I ain't ready for an institution" |
A few things :
The point about " marriage to animals" had the same effect on you as marriage of two men would have had a generation ot two ago. That's really the point - where is the boundary of this concept, and what is to define it ?
Abbott's point seems to imply that a past that will not come back is still present, so it is just silly. The question is very rarely "how do we get a vanished past back?" It's always "given human nature, what are the implications and risks vs rewards if we do this now ?". I might add, too, that blurring the meanings of words mkkes truth harder to hold, more negotiable, and that is always meat and drink to the powerful.
Finally, I dont think marriage is romantic or primarily about property. I think the essence of its social utility was the promise of a stable and safest place to raise children, that most essential - one might almost say sacred - of human duties. Unfortunately we lost that quite recently.
I appreciate your trying to understand where i am coming from, though, even if you disagree.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Pa Marmo
Side by Side
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Nicks BB member #617
|
|
|
|
|
Pa Marmo
Side by Side
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Nicks BB member #617
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | | KenH wrote: | | Pa Marmo, I hope you are not serious? I haven't read anything from you for a long time but if that post was serious I hope to never read anything from you again! |
Of course he was serious.
You can be sure he doesn't support abortion and euthanasia either or believe in climate change.
No doubt a Trump supporter also. |
I certainly do not support abortion, its the murder of the most defenceless of all, the unborn child in the womb.
As for euthanasia, if you want to kill yourself, then have at it, its not real hard, there are heaps of easy ways. I just don't want it state sanctioned as it will become a slippery slope. First it will be voluntary, then it will be, hey grandads old and sick and costs too much to care for, off he goes. Its already happened in Denmark. Then it will be, hey, your baby has downs syndrome or some other congenital defect and they will force your hand.
Of course I believe in climate change, its called the weather, it changes all the time. I just don't swallow the whole seas are going to rise, which has never yet happened, world is going to cook bunkum.
Now, as for Trump, although I wouldn't call myself a Trump supporter, I am so glad they got him over that heinous lying reprobate Clinton.
But hey swoop, you keep making ridiculous assumptions about someone you never met, you fit right in with those on here who can't have a debate, they have to resort to name calling, labelling and attacks, like I said, left wing lunacy.
_________________
Genesis 1:1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
