Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 16:35:58 GMT
I'm sorry but now that the traditional meaning of marriage has been consigned to the dustbin of history it seems nonsensical to want to invent arbitrary new ones. I think tradition still plays a part here. The idea of two consensual adults getting married doesn't change the commitment they have to each other, which has traditionally and morally been better than living the bachelor and more slutty lifestyle. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 16:37:15 GMT
That's just your personal preferred formulation. For all we know you could have found it in a Christmas cracker. What about Mohammed's instead? He'd likely say that marriage is a union between one man and four others, genders to be agreed. Why is yours preferable to his?
(this to Monte)
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 15, 2023 16:40:41 GMT
But why can't I marry Daisy if it would make me happy? I think she loves me too so that will be double the happiness. All goodness according to Dave. At least I'm not being venal like Norman Tebbit who mulled over marrying his son for tax reasons. Don't be so hard hearted. Just imagine you could marry your cat if you wanted. Marriage should be consensual between two human beings. "I do" was my acceptence of the ball and chain. Trying to marry an animal would be considered animal cruelty. That would trigger me. Why human beings when it was always a man and a woman for many thousands of years. To be clear I have no objection to two men having a civil partnership with all the same benefits as marriage. Since the subject currently is morality is morality purely that which is the accepted norm and not specifically that which is law. To go back to the original subject are we morally obliged to take many 'refugees' or are we legally obliged in terms of international law. It seems that many want it to be both. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 15, 2023 16:47:10 GMT
I'm sorry but now that the traditional meaning of marriage has been consigned to the dustbin of history it seems nonsensical to want to invent arbitrary new ones. No it hasn't. Marriage is the joining together of two people who love each other and wish to publicly announce that love in a formal ceremony. Marriage is the joining together of a man and a woman. The original argument used to create civil partnerships was the legal standing of both parties. No doubt it was the inch and a mile scenario. Not sure how much further they can go but we all may be surprised the ongoing gender wars are possibly part of the next step wherever that takes us. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 15, 2023 16:53:07 GMT
That's just your personal preferred formulation. For all we know you could have found it in a Christmas cracker. What about Mohammed's instead? He'd likely say that marriage is a union between one man and four others, genders to be agreed. Why is yours preferable to his?
(this to Monte)
Because like beastiality, bigamy is a criminal offence in this country. Do you have any comparisons which are not illegal? Are you going to compare gay marriage to someone marrying an inanimate object next? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 16:55:55 GMT
Marriage should be consensual between two human beings. "I do" was my acceptence of the ball and chain. Trying to marry an animal would be considered animal cruelty. That would trigger me. Why human beings when it was always a man and a woman for many thousands of years. To be clear I have no objection to two men having a civil partnership with all the same benefits as marriage. Since the subject currently is morality is morality purely that which is the accepted norm and not specifically that which is law. To go back to the original subject are we morally obliged to take many 'refugees' or are we legally obliged in terms of international law. It seems that many want it to be both. To answer your latter part, are we democratically consensual? Going by popular opinion and elected manifestos I would say not to the levels that have been imposed. Morally we should help where we can, which I am sure is generally accepted. International Law is a beast of its own and not something either of us have any part in making, so I, personally, do not feel it should supersede the wishes of both people and elected government on these matters, othewise it can do a lot of damage. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 16:59:20 GMT
That's just your personal preferred formulation. For all we know you could have found it in a Christmas cracker. What about Mohammed's instead? He'd likely say that marriage is a union between one man and four others, genders to be agreed. Why is yours preferable to his?
(this to Monte)
Because like beastiality, bigamy is a criminal offence in this country. Do you have any comparisons which are not illegal? Are you going to compare gay marriage to someone marrying an inanimate object next? Polygamy is not illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 15, 2023 17:03:50 GMT
What is the principle that now draws the line between marriage and other arrangements?
It used to be "A marriage is a lifelong, exclusive union between a man and a woman"
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 15, 2023 17:08:35 GMT
Because like beastiality, bigamy is a criminal offence in this country. Do you have any comparisons which are not illegal? Are you going to compare gay marriage to someone marrying an inanimate object next? Polygamy is not illegal. Polygamous marriages are not legally valid in the UK. researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05051/SN05051.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 15, 2023 17:13:01 GMT
But why can't I marry Daisy if it would make me happy? I think she loves me too so that will be double the happiness. All goodness according to Dave. At least I'm not being venal like Norman Tebbit who mulled over marrying his son for tax reasons. Don't be so hard hearted. Just imagine you could marry your cat if you wanted. Beastiality, unlike homosexuality, is a criminal offence. As for marrying my cat (or anyone else for that matter) I agree with Marx on the subject. ''marriage is a wonderful institution but who wants to live in an institution''. If Daisy self identifies as a woman its not bestiality... |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 17:14:14 GMT
@orac
Indeed, for 1500 years the Church mandated consensual lifetime monogamous unions which encouraged nuclear households and high status for women, something unique to European society and a cornerstone of civilisation. Now that has been swept away what is to replace it? The Church was also able to force monogamy on kings and emperors. Elsewhere, Solomon was famous for his 300 wives and 700 concubines, and Chinese emperors had hundreds of wives, whom they serviced systematically according the timing of their menstrual cycles so as to have as many children as possible. The Incas of Peru permitted polygamy according to military rank: commanders had thirty wives while lesser officers had fifteen, eight, or seven, according to rank. Is that what's next? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 17:19:25 GMT
@monte.
Polygamous marriages executed elsewhere, where such marriages are valid (eg Pakistan) are not illegal in the UK. The spouses in such relationships can even qualify for state benefits.
There are probably thousands of such marriages in the country, all recognised by Sharia law if not by anyone else except for the DWP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 15, 2023 17:21:54 GMT
Indeed, for 1500 years the Church mandated consensual lifetime monogamous unions which encouraged nuclear households and high status for women, something unique to European society and a cornerstone of civilisation. Now that has been swept away what is to replace it? The Church was also able to force monogamy on kings and emperors. Elsewhere, Solomon was famous for his 300 wives and 700 concubines, and Chinese emperors had hundreds of wives, whom they serviced systematically according the timing of their menstrual cycles so as to have as many children as possible. The Incas of Peru permitted polygamy according to military rank: commanders had thirty wives while lesser officers had fifteen, eight, or seven, according to rank. Is that what's next? So now you have gone from invalid and unlawful comparisons to ancient history in order to invalidate gay marriage. Why don't you just come out and say that you wish to discriminate against homosexuals because you hate poofs. It would be a lot more honest. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 15, 2023 17:28:19 GMT
@monte. Polygamous marriages executed elsewhere, where such marriages are valid (eg Pakistan) are not illegal in the UK. The spouses in such relationships can even qualify for state benefits. There are probably thousands of such marriages in the country, all recognised by Sharia law if not by anyone else except for the DWP. As I said, not legally valid in this country. Sharia law has no legal standing in the UK. It is nothing more than voluntary arbitration and cannot be legally enforced anymore than your vicar can legally stop you coveting your neighbour's ox. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 15, 2023 18:28:07 GMT
Indeed, for 1500 years the Church mandated consensual lifetime monogamous unions which encouraged nuclear households and high status for women, something unique to European society and a cornerstone of civilisation. Now that has been swept away what is to replace it? The Church was also able to force monogamy on kings and emperors. Elsewhere, Solomon was famous for his 300 wives and 700 concubines, and Chinese emperors had hundreds of wives, whom they serviced systematically according the timing of their menstrual cycles so as to have as many children as possible. The Incas of Peru permitted polygamy according to military rank: commanders had thirty wives while lesser officers had fifteen, eight, or seven, according to rank. Is that what's next? So now you have gone from invalid and unlawful comparisons to ancient history in order to invalidate gay marriage. Why don't you just come out and say that you wish to discriminate against homosexuals because you hate poofs. It would be a lot more honest. It was not discrimination a gay man had equal rights in marriage as any other person. |
|
