Evangelical extremist?

[ippy]

Christ on  a bike. You don't just flog a dead horse do you?

You get on it, rip it's head off and still expect it to move, and then you fuck it.

As has been pointed out many, many time before - this is nothing to do with secularists not wanting equal opportunity for civil partnerships - it is that government do not regard it as a high enough priority.

Go and talk to Theresa Maybe.

Don't be too hard on Vlad Trent, it's a bit of he doesn't really understand exactly what secularism is or consists of and he's finding it difficult to twist around the bits of secularism he nearly understands into his distorted version of the same.

ippy

[Hope]

Up to them really, and having removed the legal restriction for same-sex couples what all couples choose to do regarding marriage is their own business and not ours.

So, you're suggesting that the recent re-definition of marriage could be open to further re-definition?  How about marriage between 3 or 4 consenting adults, or between siblings (after all, that used to occur even fairly recently in some parts of the world).  By redefining marriage in the way that the UK Parliament did back in 2014, the whole topic of who can and can't marry gets thrown wide open.  After all, attempts have been made in other parts of the world to widen the definition even further; just because they haven't been successful yet doesn't mean that in a decade/generation or two they won't be.

[Gordon]

So, you're suggesting that the recent re-definition of marriage could be open to further re-definition?

Where did I suggest this, or even indicate that I thought further refinement of legal marriage was indicated? Clearly you have too much straw in your hands?

How about marriage between 3 or 4 consenting adults, or between siblings (after all, that used to occur even fairly recently in some parts of the world).  By redefining marriage in the way that the UK Parliament did back in 2014, the whole topic of who can and can't marry gets thrown wide open.  After all, attempts have been made in other parts of the world to widen the definition even further; just because they haven't been successful yet doesn't mean that in a decade/generation or two they won't be.

Feel better now?

This is nothing but a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy,

[Hope]

Where did I suggest this, or even indicate that I thought further refinement of legal marriage was indicated? Clearly you have too much straw in your hands?

I was taking this comment of yours 

what all couples choose to do regarding marriage is their own business and not ours.

on its next logical steps.  After all, it took the gay community a generation or two to have their form of relationship recognised in this way - why not other forms?

Feel better now?

This is nothing but a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy,

But it is also an example of logical forward-thinking.  Its only a slippery slope argument for you, because you don't want any additional freedoms to be considered or allowed.

[Gordon]

I was taking this comment of yours

So you did: but you only used the latter part of what I said, thereby changing the context. I've quoted what I said in full below and have underlined the bit you omitted, where I was clearly referring only to the recent legislative changes involve SSM and not the marriage free-for-all that you've implied I meant via your selective quoting.

Up to them really, and having removed the legal restriction for same-sex couples what all couples choose to do regarding marriage is their own business and not ours.

I'd have thought I was clearly referring to the recent legislative change in favour of SSM as it relates to couples - how on earth you've interpreted this to imply I'm up for redefining marriage in favour of polygamy as suggested in this ramble of yours, below, beats me.

So, you're suggesting that the recent re-definition of marriage could be open to further re-definition?  How about marriage between 3 or 4 consenting adults, or between siblings (after all, that used to occur even fairly recently in some parts of the world).  By redefining marriage in the way that the UK Parliament did back in 2014, the whole topic of who can and can't marry gets thrown wide open.  After all, attempts have been made in other parts of the world to widen the definition even further; just because they haven't been successful yet doesn't mean that in a decade/generation or two they won't be.

But it is also an example of logical forward-thinking.  Its only a slippery slope argument for you, because you don't want any additional freedoms to be considered or allowed.

More straw: not content with misrepresenting me, as noted above, you're now telling me that I'm trying to constrain marriage from further redefinition when I haven't even raised the issue - in fact it was you, as quoted above, hence my pointing out you'd leaped onto the slippery slope fallacy.

This is desperate stuff from you, Hope - you really do need to read for comprehension. 

[Hope]

So you did: but you only used the latter part of what I said, thereby changing the context. I've quoted what I said in full below and have underlined the bit you omitted, where I was clearly referring only to the recent legislative changes involve SSM and not the marriage free-for-all that you've implied I meant via your selective quoting.

But instead of referring to the legislative past, I was referring to the potential for a legislative future.  Contrary to your rather narrow thinking, I was looking at how a single change to a centuries-old definition could lead to further changes down the line.  I know that you like to think of this as 'slippery-slope' thinking, (which would seem to suggest that you have a negative attitude to change) but it often takes a single small step to start further change that, down the line, sees massive changes - some good, some bad.

More straw: not content with misrepresenting me, as noted above, you're now telling me that I'm trying to constrain marriage from further redefinition when I haven't even raised the issue - in fact it was you, as quoted above, hence my pointing out you'd leaped onto the slippery slope fallacy.

The every fact that you refer to the (negative) slippery slope fallacy concept suggests that you want the change to stop at the point we are currently at.

This is desperate stuff from you, Hope - you really do need to read for comprehension.

hereas you need to choose fallacy accusations with care, as they often hold connotations that you might not be wanting to portray.

[Spud]

How do you identify those you conclude aren't serious? To what extent couples make use of vows is surely a matter for them and is also a matter of personal taste. Tell me, Spud, do people who have a religious wedding ever divorce?

I'd have thought compatibility would be a factor long before any decision to marry, 

Do you honestly think that where people elect for a religious marriage that the cleric involved dispenses some kind or marital superglue? The 'watering down' claim is, of course, just the slippery slope fallacy.

As I said, we are talking about an ideal. Of course no one is faultless and we have to forgive, but it isn't impossible for a couple to stay together for life, wait until married before sleeping together, be one man + one woman etc

[Spud]

I even heard that the bride's veil is symbolic of waiting until they are married before kissing!

[Hope]

I'd have thought compatibility would be a factor long before any decision to marry, 

And just what does the term 'compatability' mean?  Its one of these terms that has very little meaning since there are so many aspects of a relationship that it could apply to.

[Nearly Sane]

As I said, we are talking about an ideal. Of course no one is faultless and we have to forgive, but it isn't impossible for a couple to stay together for life, wait until married before sleeping together, be one man + one woman etc

No one said it was impossible. But it's you talking about your ideal. Just a matter of your taste.

[Gordon]

But instead of referring to the legislative past, I was referring to the potential for a legislative future. 

Super - but in the point of mine you were replying to I didn't, yet you implied I had - and by selectively quoting me to misrepresented my position.

Contrary to your rather narrow thinking, I was looking at how a single change to a centuries-old definition could lead to further changes down the line.  I know that you like to think of this as 'slippery-slope' thinking, (which would seem to suggest that you have a negative attitude to change) but it often takes a single small step to start further change that, down the line, sees massive changes - some good, some bad.

Utter drivel - the leap onto the slippery slope was made by you and not me. Not that I'm surprised since you seem to fall into fallacies with ease, and I see from the above that you're still sliding!

The every fact that you refer to the (negative) slippery slope fallacy concept suggests that you want the change to stop at the point we are currently at.

No it doesn't, I haven't said or implied that, so please stop lying.

you need to choose fallacy accusations with care, as they often hold connotations that you might not be wanting to portray.

Nope - I accuse you of fallacies because you commit them with regularity: there are no 'connotations' beyond your reasoning deficits.

[Gordon]

And just what does the term 'compatability' mean?  Its one of these terms that has very little meaning since there are so many aspects of a relationship that it could apply to.

You'll need to ask Spud that: I was replying to him, pointing out that couples being compatible, or not, would probably be established to their satisfaction pre-wedding.

[Gordon]

As I said, we are talking about an ideal.

Which is just your subjective opinion, and is binding on nobody else.

Of course no one is faultless and we have to forgive, but it isn't impossible for a couple to stay together for life, wait until married before sleeping together, be one man + one woman etc

Only is that is what those involved choose - other choices are available.

[Outrider]

So, you're suggesting that the recent re-definition of marriage could be open to further re-definition?  How about marriage between 3 or 4 consenting adults, or between siblings (after all, that used to occur even fairly recently in some parts of the world).  By redefining marriage in the way that the UK Parliament did back in 2014, the whole topic of who can and can't marry gets thrown wide open.  After all, attempts have been made in other parts of the world to widen the definition even further; just because they haven't been successful yet doesn't mean that in a decade/generation or two they won't be.

I'm open to the redefinition. Multiple people, in principle, why not?

Siblings - why not? I'd suggest the potential for a lack of informed consent, the potential for hereditary problems to be magnified would both be important influences here.

Yes, there are any number of possibilities, and they have to be gauged on their own merits - this 'slippery slope' argument just gets pushed further and further back. If 'gay marriage' could lead to 'sibling marriage', then surely we should just ban 'marriage' as that leads to 'gay marriage'.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm open to the redefinition. Multiple people, in principle, why not?

Siblings - why not? I'd suggest the potential for a lack of informed consent, the potential for hereditary problems to be magnified would both be important influences here.

Yes, there are any number of possibilities, and they have to be gauged on their own merits - this 'slippery slope' argument just gets pushed further and further back. If 'gay marriage' could lead to 'sibling marriage', then surely we should just ban 'marriage' as that leads to 'gay marriage'.

O.

Or indeed that it was the Married Women's Property Act that started all this!

[Anchorman]

I even heard that the bride's veil is symbolic of waiting until they are married before kissing!

It's a lot older than that. The earliest reference is to a late Middle Kingdom egyptian 'coffin text' ".....her face was covered from her husband, as a praise to the Hidden one"
(The 'hiden one" being an epithet of the then relatively mi nor Theban deity Amun.

[Spud]

If 'gay marriage' could lead to 'sibling marriage', then surely we should just ban 'marriage' as that leads to 'gay marriage'.

O.

'Marriage' is the institution in which sex between a man and a woman not closely related should be confined. Nothing else can be called by the same term.

No one said it was impossible. But it's you talking about your ideal. Just a matter of your taste.

It's an ideal based on facts not taste.

[Brownie]

I even heard that the bride's veil is symbolic of waiting until they are married before kissing!

That must be why I chose a hat.

There is much symbolism and 'tradition' involved in wedding attire, none of which is important and all of which comes in and goes out of fashion.

Anchor, your Egyptology snippets are fascinating to me!

(As an aside, I can see Marge Simpson copied her hairstyle from Amun
http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/gods/explore/images/amun.gif )

[Nearly Sane]

'Marriage' is the institution in which sex between a man and a woman not closely related should be confined. Nothing else can be called by the same term.

It's an ideal based on facts not taste.

oh no it isn't

[Shaker]

'Marriage' is the institution

Who wants to live in an institution?

in which sex between a man and a woman not closely related should be confined. Nothing else can be called by the same term.

But it already is. You're too late - you're behind the times - the world has moved on for the better and history has passed you by.

The question then becomes, why are your beliefs so at variance with fact? (Though that would take us far beyond the present discussion, for unravelling why beliefs are so at variance with fact would take us to an explanation of religious belief itself).

Your "should be" is no doubt an expression of your own typically narrow, cramped, illiberal and ugly beliefs by which you personally are perfectly entitled to live, but thankfully are not binding upon anyone else.

It's an ideal based on facts not taste.

Which facts would these be? Given that you've just condemned yourself out of your own mouth that your beliefs do not in any way, shape or form rest on facts, so you're not exactly well placed to spout about facts.

Your "ideal" may well be yours, but your unfounded opinions - again - do not dictate the life choices of anyone else.

I am tremendously happy about that fact - and in this case, it is one.

[Gordon]

'Marriage' is the institution in which sex between a man and a woman not closely related should be confined. Nothing else can be called by the same term.

Doubly wrong, Spud: sex happens outwith marriage and 'marriage' is as currently defined by the local legislative body.

The horse hasn't just bolted: it has run the race, had a rubdown and is currently enjoying it's hay and oats. Events have moved on, Spud, and the reality is that UK marriage legislation doesn't match your personal preference, and now never will.   

It's an ideal based on facts not taste.

The only fact of note here, Spud, is that marriage legislation doesn't accord with your personal taste: which is just your opinion and of no more relevance than my opinion that mayonnaise should be immediately banned.

[Anchorman]

That must be why I chose a hat.

There is much symbolism and 'tradition' involved in wedding attire, none of which is important and all of which comes in and goes out of fashion.

Anchor, your Egyptology snippets are fascinating to me!

(As an aside, I can see Marge Simpson copied her hairstyle from Amun
http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/gods/explore/images/amun.gif )

Cheers.....
I won't even tell you about the AE condoms (some with tiny stones impregnated)......

[Brownie]

Mind boggling.  Tickly I presume.

[ProfessorDavey]

So, you're suggesting that the recent re-definition of marriage could be open to further re-definition?  How about marriage between 3 or 4 consenting adults, or between siblings (after all, that used to occur even fairly recently in some parts of the world).  By redefining marriage in the way that the UK Parliament did back in 2014, the whole topic of who can and can't marry gets thrown wide open.  After all, attempts have been made in other parts of the world to widen the definition even further; just because they haven't been successful yet doesn't mean that in a decade/generation or two they won't be.

Marriage wasn't 'redefined' - rather it was extended.

But on your main point - well sure if someone or a group wants to campaign to allow other couples (or larger groups) to be able to marry they are quite welcome to do so. However every suggestion would have to be considered on its individual merits - and allowing same sex couples to marry would be irrelevant to the example you used where the challenges against their validity would be entirely different. In the case of more than 2 people the issue is, of course, valid consent. In the case of siblings the issue is problems of heredity. Neither were points in the successful debate to extend marriage to include same sex couples.

But we can have the discussion at some time in the future if campaigners want to make their claim - I don't fancy their chances but in a free country they can make their case. Marriage has evolved through the centuries and will continue to do so - to think that the situation now is the 'perfect' one and must never be changed at any future time is rather arrogant don't you think. Consider how unacceptable our current situation would be if the 'definition' of marriage from, for sake of argument, 1400 was the same now.

[Outrider]

'Marriage' is the institution in which sex between a man and a woman not closely related should be confined. Nothing else can be called by the same term.

Why? Because your 'Big Boy's Book of Jewish Fairy Tales' says so (even whilst extolling any number of 'heroes' who don't comply with that restriction)? Marriage is a civil institution, and it's for society to determine what the scope and limits of it will be. In a society that values individual freedoms and personal liberties, that means that you need to justify restrictions, and 'my religion says so' only places a limit on your actions, not ours on a broader scale.

It's an ideal based on facts not taste.

What 'facts'? No-one's denying that it's written in a book you are interested in, but I've got books I'm interested in that have all sorts of arrangements for personal relationships: why should my book choices impact on your life options?

O.

Edited to adjust an egregious misuse of 'you're'!!!