Tony Abbott incorrect on the history of marriage


A significant body of academic work shows that marriage and "other solemnised relationships" have not always been between "a man and a woman". Mr Abbott is incorrect.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-01/tony-abbott-incorrect-history-marriage/5053844


Abbotts is regular in being WRONG.

And as proof, we have crazy emperor nero, and polygamy (which still involves a man and a woman)

Shocking that someone is getting paid to write such piffle.

____ wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 11:18am:

Tony Abbott incorrect on the history of marriage A significant body of academic work shows that marriage and "other solemnised relationships" have not always been between "a man and a woman". Mr Abbott is incorrect. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-01/tony-abbott-incorrect-history-marriage/5053844 Abbotts is regular in being WRONG.

'Solemnised' or 'sodomised'  ;D

____ wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 11:18am:

Tony Abbott incorrect on the history of marriage A significant body of academic work shows that marriage and "other solemnised relationships" have not always been between "a man and a woman". Mr Abbott is incorrect. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-01/tony-abbott-incorrect-history-marriage/5053844 Abbotts is regular in being WRONG.

And your using the deviate incestuous homosexual Emperor Nero as your shining link???
The man was one very sick bastard.
Off to the colleseum with you.

____ wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 11:18am:

A significant body of academic work shows that marriage and "other solemnised relationships" have not always been between "a man and a woman". Mr Abbott is incorrect.

Mine was a special relationship. Tod, the Corroboree Frog (Pseudophryne corroboree) I fell in love with will testify to my statement about special relationships. We had a great 2 years together before the authorities broke us up. Some turd (probably a greenie) dobbed us in and that was the end of that. It's good to know the academic world is so understanding of "other solemnised relationships".

It is kind of sad that the deplorable standard of education has been a long term decline, particularly given the extremely almost non existent level of comprehension displayed in some posts here.

Nero, for example, was only one high profile example and, as clearly stated (but possibly not understood obviously) in the article - "While perhaps one of the more high profile examples, it is not the only one. And the fluidity of the definition of marriage is not limited to Roman emperors"

Please read the bold bit a couple of times to allow for the implications of the statement to sink in.

Oh, and reading all the way to the bottom (I realise that this is a particularly challenge because it requires slightly more concentration than a gold fish) the VERDICT is quite clearly articulated,

"The verdict

A significant body of academic work shows that marriage and "other solemnised relationships" have not always been between "a man and a woman". Mr Abbott is incorrect."

Obviously it is difficult to engage in the discussion thoughtfully with meaningful refutation of the work presented, given the first few posts at least. Clearly much easier to simply denigrate one of the examples given then move quickly onto hang a bit of left over shyte for the many authors of a number of works than actually apply some critical thinking to the facts presented. Which, ultimately is a pretty ludicrous thing, given the harsh reality that facts are not actually going to drive the thinking or response to whether or not Gay Marriage is eventually accepted or not.

It would seem far more credible to acknowledge that the position was only what Mr Abbott thought, and, despite there being a long tradition demonstrated of same sex unions etc, I (as in Mr Abbott) do not agree with solemnising said unions as I am not comfortable with them.... Or at least come up with a legitimate argument, because the current one is full of sh1t effectively.

Finally, I don't think Mr Abbott is the only person, leader or Australian PM that has got something wrong, however, he is in very good company of people who may struggle to admit getting stuff wrong....

It's always difficult following the self-righteous, but never mind.

Abbott is not wrong. He was clearly referring to the predominant history of western culture.
We are not going to take our cues from societies where polygamy is the norm, leaving aside the more extreme situations cited to bolster the doomed case for same-sex marriage.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 2:25pm:

despite there being a long tradition demonstrated of same sex unions etc

maybe you should read it again, if that's what you took from it.

The argument the article makes revolves around "a man and a woman" (ie singular) It doesn't establish a "long tradition of same sex unions" at all.

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 2:41pm:

It's always difficult following the self-righteous, but never mind. Abbott is not wrong. He was clearly referring to the predominant history of western culture. We are not going to take our cues from societies where polygamy is the norm, leaving aside the more extreme situations cited to bolster the doomed case for same-sex marriage.

Predominant....? Yeah right.

On the other hand, he was referring the overall Christianised version of history.

There are no cues being given, sheesh did you not read the article at all?

The article very simply and clearly articulates clearly that there is an extensive history of formalised unions (Marriage) being celebrated by a wide range of cultures (including some early Christian ones ironically) that were not specifically between a man and a woman - that is the issue, between a man (singular) and a woman (singular)....

I am making a wild guess you are pointing at me as the "self righteous" who is hard to follow, I acknowledge that is an assumption but that is all one can do, because you failed to identify which of the self righteous ones you actually meant. Of course, I did highlight that comprehension was somewhat questionable, that would now be confirmed with your comment of being hard to follow. It was pretty basic stuff I wrote, but, if there is something specific that you don't understand I am sure I can reframe it for you in several different ways in order to clarify. Just let me know the specific bits that you struggle with and I will get back to you at some point...

... wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 2:48pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 1st, 2013 at 2:25pm: despite there being a long tradition demonstrated of same sex unions etc maybe you should read it again, if that's what you took from it. The argument the article makes revolves around "a man and a woman" (ie singular) It doesn't establish a "long tradition of same sex unions" at all.

Good point and I stand corrected.

IT does in fact demonstrate that there is a long tradition of unions other than specifically being a man (singular) and a woman (singular), thanks for clarifying that, cheers.

blah blah blah... who gives a crap.  not me, not abbot and not the Australia parliament

next issue...

getting more BOGUS as the year drags on

Grendel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 6:21pm:

[size=20]getting more BOGUS as the year drags on

WHO Is?

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 3:09pm:

blah blah blah... who gives a crap.  not me, not abbot and not the Australia parliament next issue...

there was a time when I was on the  gays side .. let them bloody get married I couldnt careless..

but now I am over it.. in fact they take over its all about THEM.. so bugger it..

if I am asked to vote it will be a big fat NO>

and I couldnt careless what Nero was doing..you can betcha it wasnt nice.. didnt he murder his own mother.....sheeeees...a good role model i must say,.

cods wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 6:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 1st, 2013 at 3:09pm: blah blah blah... who gives a crap.  not me, not abbot and not the Australia parliament next issue... there was a time when I was on the  gays side .. let them bloody get married I couldnt careless.. but now I am over it.. in fact they take over its all about THEM.. so bugger it.. if I am asked to vote it will be a big fat NO> and I couldnt careless what Nero was doing..you can betcha it wasnt nice.. didnt he murder his own mother.....sheeeees...a good role model i must say,.

He did murder his mother, had an incestuous relationship with his sisters, regularly buggered male slaves,  totally insane, had Rome burnt down by his Praetorian Guard so he could rebuild it to his specifications, and also wanted his horse declared Co-Consul of Rome.
An absolute raving nutter.
In all, a fine role model for Green.

The thing I have never quite understood, is that most attitudes against gay marriage seem to be based somewhere down the line on Biblical teaching.  While the Bible states clearly (in the new testament at least)  that marriage is between a man and a woman, it also mentions several other things that are considered perfectly OK and not controversial at all in most western societies such as divorce and remarriage (when both partners are still alive).

Can someone explain to me why these are OK but same sex couples getting married are not?

I have no problems with marriage equality.  To my mind it is all good, will stop the whinging from the poo jabbers and bibs, braces and buzz cut set and even better, when it is implemented going to cause some lefties to do a bit of self fvcing examination of where they want a society to go. 

Going to be funny watching Brian defending Islamists carrying behead the sodomites placards on the streets outside where same sex marriages are held.