All the action is happening on Facebook, Marco tells us.
(1) It is splendid to see this discussion happening on Facebook. This is the sort of thing I had hoped to find on Facebook. Well done!
(2) It is terrible that you have abandoned your blog, winstoninabox :(
(3) Nathanael, have you read an English translation of the Qur'an yet? Have you spoken to any Copts? I am afraid the only thing that really irritated me in this thread was your cavalier roundhead abandonment of 60% of Christian history (4th December 11:37).
(4) And last in order of importance, this whole argument is another illustration of our society's grotesque lack of any sense of proportion.
Civil marriage is an empty contract in our country. It has been white-anted by no-fault divorce, by the extension of the legal benefits of marriage to de facto couples, by the extension of the legal obligations of marriage to de facto couples, and by the refusal of the banks and the courts to countenance the level of trust traditionally expected between married people. I recognise there are good reasons for these changes, and they were made sincerely by people thinking they were doing the right thing. Nevertheless, their net effect has been to make civil marriage a contract unique in its lack of legal benefits or penalties for non-compliance to the parties to the contract. Those were the ditches to fight in. It is too late. So I don't care if such meaningless 'marriage' is extended to homosexual couples, or polyamatory relationships, or interspecific cohabitation, or pairings between blocks of granite considered by the Cult of Zorr to be avatars of the God H'jaa and Goddess P'zorth.
In the words of the Preacher of Ecclesiastes: 'Meaningless, meaningless! All is meaningless.'
You know, there are still some countries where homosexuals are killed. Not by their bigoted neighbors, but by the government. I think this is more important.
4 comments:
Jebus, I'm glad I've foresworn Facebook so I didn't have to walk through the middle of that firefight.
I find the arguments against gay marriage almost universally specious, but they are defended so aggressively by their propenents that contemplating joining the battle is dispiritingly weary to me. So I won't.
I take your point, Clam, about the watering-down of the institution, but my only comment on the subject (from the position of an intractable proponent of equal social rights, privileges and obligations) is to quote Ferris Bueller:
"I don't even have a piece of shit. I have to envy yours."
Jebus, I'm glad I've foresworn Facebook so I didn't have to walk through the middle of that firefight.
That's a load of rubbish - you would have either ignored it, or enjoyed the fireworks.
Nevertheless, their net effect has been to make civil marriage a contract unique in its lack of legal benefits or penalties for non-compliance to the parties to the contract. Excepting for penalties or rewards made by the counterparty - eg. poisoning or stabbing as punishments for adultery.
I don't quite agree. I don't think one sees the legal aspects until they are tested in court. Watered down, yes. Meaningless - not really.
I don't think one sees the legal aspects until they are tested in court.
Are these really legal aspects, or just sentimental ones? I am sure there are quantifiable differences in the courts (e.g., de facto male partners getting a worse deal with child visitation and a better deal financially, killers of bad husbands getting off lighter than killers of bad de facto male partners) but I am also sure we would find the magnitude of these quantifiable differences diminishing over time.
Post a Comment