|
|
Post by ncsonde on May 25, 2013 16:51:59 GMT
He remained Catholic to the end of his days. He was excommunicated, actually. Very clearly, this is not true. If it was, it would have at some point in history been part of the legal definition of "marriage" - either by the State (which came first) or by any of the Churches. None of them have ever mentioned the procreation of children as being part of the intrinsic qualifications for marriage. On the other hand, what they have always done, right at the very start, is mention property rights. That's what "marriage" is about - who is entitled to inherit your property when you die. But no one has ever said it's anything to do with "rights". It's to do with what you've always said it's about: status, respect, social recognition. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 27, 2013 8:54:34 GMT
I, personally, don't see the debate as about status and respect, Mr Sonde. But that is what those agitating for change are demanding. THEY think they are being deprived of something important by not being able to marry. In fact all THEY are deprived of is the capacity to make babies with their own sex and that is Nature's doing, not society's.
Marriage is a social convention that has grown up around sexual reproduction. All societies have, in one form or another, the recognition of the relationship of biological parenthood between the parents and with the child (except those that don't understand reproduction yet!). They may not all give it exactly the same form of words but it is recognised and it is BETWEEN procreators not any old random pair of folk!
The fact that some some heterosexual married folk cannot or choose not to procreate is neither here nor there. Nor is the fact that many procreate outside marriage. The point is that marriage between parents and family formation, whether small nuclear families or wider kin networks, are an essential part of the social structure in all societies. I don't think you can argue that for homosexual coupling. So why try to shoehorn gays into an institution inappropriate for them? You might as well demand that eunuchs take the leading role in porn movies. Sorry, but they just have not got the functional capacity! Spirit willing, no doubt, but body not co-operating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 2, 2013 14:13:47 GMT
Grace Dent: "Whatever one’s views are on David Cameron, I have respect for his firmness during the gay marriage debate in standing up to party bigots. Because that’s what you are – by my definition of bigot – if you oppose gay marriage because you happen to think that a large swathe of British society is not quite equal to you. Or maybe as holy as you. Please self-identify as a bigot. Gosh, that word stings, doesn’t it? IME 'traditionalists', ie people who do not agree with same-sex or polygamous marriage, do not do so because they see the people that want to enter into them as unequal to themselves. They may think that what they want to do is either wrong, or is not wrong but not something that deserves special recognition or is of value to society, either. At least she admits she is making up her own definition of the term. But then why would she expect a word being used incorrectly to sting people. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 4, 2013 18:20:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Jun 5, 2013 10:52:29 GMT
I suppose you must have missed this one. Are you aware of the prescribed Sharia penalty for homosexuality? Given as a fatwa by recognised umela in this country? I'd sign up to Marchesa's petition ASAP if I were you. |
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Jun 5, 2013 11:26:04 GMT
I suppose you must have missed this one. it's by Riazat Butt -  |
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Jun 5, 2013 13:49:59 GMT
I suppose you must have missed this one. it's by Riazat Butt - Isn't it a shame that in 2013 so many people have so many hang-ups about sex? Well, the article was from 2009 but still. And yes, Pippa, the writer of the piece does have a name which some people use for bottom. Well spotted! But my favourite funny name is still Hugh Janus...  |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 5, 2013 16:23:50 GMT
Surely that's not what pippa meant?
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 5, 2013 16:24:58 GMT
From the debate in the House of Lords: Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Michael Berkeley): ...In my recent maiden speech, I mentioned the centenary of my godfather, Benjamin Britten, Lord Britten of Aldeburgh. When I think of his wonderful relationship with the tenor Peter Pears and, if I may put it like this, the musical children that resulted from it—works such as “Peter Grimes”, “Billy Budd” and the “Serenade”—I cannot but recall that theirs was for many years an illegal, criminal relationship, if in every other conceivable way a marvellous and inspiring marriage. Mercifully, times have changed.
In the other place, we heard dire warnings that this is only the beginning of homosexual aspiration. To many loving couples it is the beginning of the end—the beginning of the end of an inequality that they feel does not accord their love the same profound dignity as is given to men and women. Since many men and women who get married have no intention of creating children, to see marriage as instituted purely for procreation, wonderful though that is, is to take a somewhat narrow and blinkered view of where we now are in our society. This House, and indeed Parliament, must now be visionary. In 50 years’ time, probably much less, I suspect that we will look back and see gay marriage as having been as inevitable as the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women and the decriminalising of homosexual acts between consenting adults... |
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Jun 5, 2013 17:05:09 GMT
[qyearsuthor=jean board=general thread=873 post=16306 time=1370449498]From the debate in the House of Lords: Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Michael Berkeley): ...In my recent maiden speech, I mentioned the centenary of my godfather, Benjamin Britten, Lord Britten of Aldeburgh. When I think of his wonderful relationship with the tenor Peter Pears and, if I may put it like this, the musical children that resulted from it—works such as “Peter Grimes”, “Billy Budd” and the “Serenade”—I cannot but recall that theirs was for many years an illegal, criminal relationship, if in every other conceivable way a marvellous and inspiring marriage. Mercifully, times have changed.
In the other place, we heard dire warnings that this is only the beginning of homosexual aspiration. To many loving couples it is the beginning of the end—the beginning of the end of an inequality that they feel does not accord their love the same profound dignity as is given to men and women. Since many men and women who get married have no intention of creating children, to see marriage as instituted purely for procreation, wonderful though that is, is to take a somewhat narrow and blinkered view of where we now are in our society. This House, and indeed Parliament, must now be visionary. In 50 years’ time, probably much less, I suspect that we will look back and see gay marriage as having been as inevitable as the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women and the decriminalising of homosexual acts between consenting adults...[/quote] What a load of convoluted, dishonest twee bo11ocks! Whatever it was it was not a marriage. . Mercifully, times have changed. I agree with that . Homosexuals were treated abominably. Thankfully that has finsihed To many loving couples it is the beginning of the end—the beginning of the end of an inequality that they feel does not accord their love the same profound dignity as is given to men and women. They already have equality They simply cannot have marriage as currently defined What they do want is a profound re-definition of an institution hundreds of years old to suit their selfish demands Since many men and women who get married have no intention of creating children, to see marriage as instituted purely for procreation, wonderful though that is, is to take a somewhat narrow and blinkered view of where we now are in our society Whilst some people (where does he get the many?) undoubtedly have no intention of having children, to assert that procreation is not a central feature of marriage, and further, that such a view is 'blinkered and narrow' is outrageously extreme . This House, and indeed Parliament, must now be visionary. No they must not. They must support traditional marriage and not seek to profoundly modify it to suit the crass demands of a vociferous minority, possibly damaging the concept of marriage in the process. In 50 years’ time, probably much less, I suspect that we will look back and see gay marriage as having been as inevitable as the abolition of slavery, Here we go. Crass dishonesty Sib-text - homosexuals today are the 'slaves' of yesterday Utter ermined bo11ocks M'Lord |
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Jun 6, 2013 0:32:26 GMT
Surely that's not what pippa meant? you didn't get it? - raise that butt? a non de plume surely. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 6, 2013 7:20:01 GMT
you didn't get it? - raise that butt? But would a journalist who wanted to be taken seriously give herself a nom de plume for people to snigger at? Anyway, that's not really how you pronounce Riazat, is it? |
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Jun 6, 2013 10:27:02 GMT
you didn't get it? - raise that butt? But would a journalist who wanted to be taken seriously give herself a nom de plume for people to snigger at? lighten up Jean - doesn't mean she or i cant indulge in a bit of humour, does it. well not in the queen's english, no. but being a scouser you should be able to hear different accents. try chewing on a beer can sandwich. oh never mind, i did think you hadn't got it. it was just a throw away quip anway, not intended for pawing over at great length... tsk! |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 18, 2013 11:22:16 GMT
I imagine you believe this since you have chosen to make it your signature, pippa.
Would you care to explain precisely WHO is keeping you and me obedient and passive and precisely HOW? Or is the internet just one big plot, the same internet, actually, that permits your fav whistleblowers to spread the truth?
C'mon! You don't want us to think you are paranoid, do you?
|
|
|
|
Post by allman on Jun 18, 2013 23:02:09 GMT
:-XGood question!
|
|
