|
Post by jean on Jun 3, 2012 23:25:10 GMT
Why are you so obsessed with nay's opinions, anyway? ...I can't answer for him. We're not joined at the hip, you know. He's just so fascinatingly awful, marchesa. And you know, nearly every time he starts one of his gay-marriage threads on your board, you do tend to repeat your posts from there on MCL. Sometimes they need putting into context.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 3, 2012 23:35:46 GMT
No, I don't "tend" to do anything of the sort.
I post MY opinions where I see fit. I don't quote nay here or on MCL and I don't refer to him either. You are the one who imports other people's stuff wholesale from elsewhere since you seem short of your own original material.
I occasionally respond to nay's views on The Science Board. That's what message boards are about. Geddit?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 3, 2012 23:44:43 GMT
There is nothing wrong with "men" as such, jean. Or do you think otherwise?
I'm a feminist and I have no problem at all with men. Being pro-women does not imply being anti-men. At least not in my universe. Yours must be different.
p.s. jean seems to have decided to remove the post I was replying to. She said something about nay having a "natural authority" being a man, implying, I think, ironically, that I was susceptible to it.
Well, I must admit I am a bit susceptible to nay. I've always been a fan. He's the best all round writer on message boards that I know (sorry, Nick!) I don't share all his views but I'm not going to fall out with him over the differences. Live and let live.
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Jun 4, 2012 1:08:27 GMT
And you know, nearly every time he starts one of his gay-marriage threads on your board, you do tend to repeat your posts from there on MCL. but it's you jean. that keeps linking to them and dragging them over.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 4, 2012 6:39:17 GMT
p.s. jean seems to have decided to remove the post I was replying to. She said something about nay having a "natural authority" being a man, implying, I think, ironically, that I was susceptible to it. Yes, someting lke that. I was going to improve it, and then I couldn't be bothered. You're a strange sort of feminist though, marchesa, to write this:
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 4, 2012 6:46:45 GMT
I post MY opinions where I see fit. I don't quote nay here or on MCL and I don't refer to him either. No, what you've done is take a post you've written agreeing with someone on your board (not always nay) and posted it on MCL where it doesn't make much sense without the context it was written for. I'm sure nay is really rather pleased to have an audience wider than the coterie of like-minded bigots you've got over there (nick being a spectacular exception on the thread we're talking about).
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 4, 2012 10:26:17 GMT
I see you've dragged over the point I made to your board, marchesa, and accredited it to me.
It's all right, I don't mind - though obviously I'd rather you let me do it myself, in my own words. (Note that I only ever quote nay in a place where he could reply if he chose.)
Of course I'm not looking for a new definition of consummation to replace the old one. I think it's pretty much irrelevant anyway. There are many other grounds for divorce, and it's probably only Catholics who want an annulment to whom it's valuable.
If it wasn't for joe's obsessive searching for grounds on which to deny marriage to homosexual couples, I don't suppose anyone would be thinking about it at all.
The fact remains, though, that consummation as traditionally defined inviolves sexual satisfaction for the male partner, but not necessarily for the woman.
I find that interesting, and not without significance.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2012 10:55:06 GMT
Really? I don't think "consummation implies anything at all about "satisfaction" jean, for either partner. Seems merely mechanical in import, and a one-off effort to boot!
Is ejaculation part of legal "consummation"? Do tell, you seem to be the expert!
I think your concern with the purported absence of sexual gratification amongst married women is a bit outdated jean. VERY 1960s, if I may say so.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 4, 2012 11:20:06 GMT
Well, since the consummation of a marriage (as traditionally understood) is its being in a state to fulfil its primary purpose of producing children, I think ejaculation would normally be expected, don't you?
Or is it a frequent occurrence that the male, after a bout of frenzied penetrative activity, becomes flaccid without reaching orgasm, so that possibility would have to be written into the definition?
I don't really know. A more usual problem, I'm told, is that they are not able to get it up in the first place, which would definitely constitute non-consummation.
But I see nay has found something else to worry about:
I suppose if you're a silly old man, that would be a cause for concern.
But under my new definition, he'd be able to get his annulment.
(Don't you just love that quaint, old-fashioned claims his conjugal rights?)
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 4, 2012 11:29:26 GMT
You're right there, marchesa - and as I've already said, nobody would even be thinking about this if it weren't for nay's obsession.
How many threads has he started now on the topic of consummation in homosexual relationships?
You'd do much better to consider Nick's
Beautifully and compassionately put.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2012 12:25:24 GMT
What Nick says is probably true. But marriage is not part of the Welfare State where equal provision of benefits is required to be disbursed impartially.
The procreation of children is a rather important "technicality" and most people see "marriage" as a uniquely male-female nexus, for very good reason.
Gays can participate in legally binding contractual partnership relations already. What's the problem?
There isn't one - there is just a highly ideological, politically motivated minority of a minority determined to bend the Church to its will. It's nothing to do with "civil" marriage, it's to do with bashing the traditional values of the Church and forcing priests to conform to the politically correct agenda of the Equality Police despite their sincerely held beliefs.
Anyone who has any regard or respect for freedom of belief should accept the validity of the rather unexceptional and widely held traditional values of the Church ( and lots of other folk, too) towards marriage and their resistance to changing their practice and belief for the sake of a vocal minority who already have access to all the effective rights and duties of married folk anyway.
It's just a political gender agenda that a media savvy minority of zealots are trying to railroad through a weak PC government machine.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 4, 2012 12:41:50 GMT
Gays can participate in legally binding contractual partnership relations already. What's the problem? And how nearly we did not get even that! Nay now reveals (You never seem to have much to say about all those gay clergy to be found in the higher reaaches of Anglo-Catholicism, marchesa. Are they OK because they're men? Or can they be assumed to be true believers, as the mythical lesbians cannot?)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2012 14:31:10 GMT
I think it is taken as given that there are many homosexual men in the Church (RC as well as C of E) as in other male dominated occupations like the armed forces.
What has changed in the last decades is the ordination of women and the influx of feminist/lesbians with what I see as their overt agenda to colonise the C of E and advance their own gender politics.
What sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose and are those ecclesiastical ladies ladling on the sauce with a vengeance! There are now more female ordinands every year than male.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 4, 2012 20:36:12 GMT
There are now more female ordinands every year than male. Just do one thing for me, would you, marchesa? The next time you drop in to evensong, count the number of men in the congregation. And then count the number of women. Or the other way round - it doesn't really matter. Those figures should give you all the information you need to work out why there are more women ordinands than men.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 5, 2012 8:39:23 GMT
I have no doubt you are right jean, about the proportion of women in the C of E's congregations. But what proportion of those faithful women parishioners are lesbians, do you think?
Have a guess!
Just to spell out my point in case you don't "get it". IF there are fewer lesbians in the typical female Evensong congregation than in the population as a whole this would indicate that lesbians as a sub group are not particularly drawn to participate in Evensong. This would throw the OVER representation of lesbians amongst the ordained female clergy into even more stark relief and would be even MORE worthy of explanation.
But this is all surmise because, as far as I know, there has been no survey of the sexual preferences of the average female church attender.
Statistics are SO fascinating!
|
|