tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post2708266065835407696..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: Equal marriage & the passionate mode of politics...Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-37921121600971138502013-07-01T08:37:50.307+01:002013-07-01T08:37:50.307+01:00People can join the armed forces for purposes spec...People can join the armed forces for purposes specific to themselves, travel, adventure, comradeship, unemployment, but the reason we have armed forces is national defence. There is a difference between the public purpose served by marriage and an individual's reason for marryingAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03806214488444844217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-14181516015745180512013-06-30T11:27:17.489+01:002013-06-30T11:27:17.489+01:00So when two oldies have a "silver wedding&quo...So when two oldies have a "silver wedding", both way beyond their procreative years, they have offended against Roman law? If a couple find either one or both of them infertile, they shouldn't get hitched? I know a fair few couples now who are both married and not wishing to breed. Should they have been refused the banns? And then what about the adopters? They can be a man and a woman, or two men, or two women: the bonds will be just as parental for either combination.<br /><br />Marriage fulfils a variety of purposes, often quite specific to the couple, and allowing same-sex marriage opens up those same purposes to all loving adult couples. It's for that, and it's for genuine equality.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14644673713851357873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-49094295052007900052013-06-28T22:21:48.638+01:002013-06-28T22:21:48.638+01:00Emotions do (always? frequently?) have a cognitive...Emotions do (always? frequently?) have a cognitive aspect: you are pleased at something; you are afraid of something.<br /><br />I agree that paying attention to our emotional reactions is part of that process of reflective equilibrium: broadly, balancing our more theoretical beliefs against more concrete judgments. So I think you're right to reflect on what you are emotionally reacting to and you gave some sense of that in the post: roughly, the celebration of a moment of commitment by those who care about the couple. That is important and I don't dismiss the awareness of that reaction as being a relevant consideration in your reflection. But I suppose I would simply say it's not enough. There are other things going on which concentration on the emotional reaction conceals, quite apart from the fact that emotions are rather erratic cognitively: we tend to get emotionally swept away despite ourselves. (The example that came to my mind was the film Zulu: I always find myself fighting back the tears during it, but I don't really think there is anything very glorious about marching into someone else's country and then massacring them with superior technology when they fight back.)<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for absolving me of grinchitude! I agree there is something vile in the public chewing over of people's intimate lives. I think I'd in part put that down to marriage (and indeed love) being essentially a pre-legal reality which the state recognizes rather than creates, but that takes us into the relationship of nomos (law) and phusis (nature) which, as the Greeks couldn't solve, I feel confident in predicting I couldn't either!Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-38334331982911478662013-06-28T19:30:53.874+01:002013-06-28T19:30:53.874+01:00Lazarus,
I was rather hoping this might catch you...Lazarus,<br /><br />I was rather hoping this might catch your eye and I'd benefit from a response. You're not being grinchy at all. Indeed, you put your finger on the critical and interesting point - about emotion's role in politics. As I gestured towards at the beginning of the piece, my own mode is not - I think - generally one animated and kicked about by strong passions. I'm reminded of one of my favourite quotes, from Buchner's play about the Death of Danton. The (admittedly rather addled and paranoid) figure of Robespierre says that "his thoughts spy on each other". In his case, this was a statement of anxiety and of a self being pulled apart. I've always thought of the phrase differently. "I feel is", I recognise, a terrifically beguiling thing. I've always found, in my personal life as well as my political interests, that having your thoughts spy on each other, checking your passions, exploring your responses - that's often a golden way towards wisdom, self-protection, and modesty about the self-serving or self-indulgent turns which your feeling spirit can pull you towards.<br /><br />On twitter, I described the experience above as being "emotionally radicalising" for my support for these reforms, rather than the emotion being their root and justification. But what sort of additional information is it? Does it enhance the case for change, as I see it, or leave it unaltered, accompanied by a sentimental experience underlining its political significance for friends and comrades? It is something I'm happy to admit that I've to think about more. Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-32062722166500160112013-06-28T15:30:27.909+01:002013-06-28T15:30:27.909+01:00I agree with Lazarus. As Bertrand Russell observe...I agree with Lazarus. As Bertrand Russell observed, “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex. It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.”<br /><br />What marriage does specifically is to create the juridical bond of filiation between men and their children. “Marriage points out the father” is a maxim going back to Roman law [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1] To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing. If that is the public purpose of marriage, then it is difficult to see what purpose same-sex marriage serves.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03806214488444844217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-62610578160091947512013-06-28T15:28:36.905+01:002013-06-28T15:28:36.905+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03806214488444844217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-38282345925099909262013-06-27T12:21:18.224+01:002013-06-27T12:21:18.224+01:00Apologies for being a Grinch, but 'tis my natu...Apologies for being a Grinch, but 'tis my nature...<br /><br />There's far too much to say in a combox and I may come back this on my blog. I suppose the most obvious point is the role of emotion in politics. If this were simply a report of an emotional experience, then perhaps the only thing to say would be an acknowledgment, and then to give it that space for reflection that any profound experience requires. But insofar as it seems to be suggesting that the emotions are themselves an argument for a political process, then they don't really replace the (familiar) arguments that we're engaged in on same sex marriage. For example, given that the opposition to same sex marriage is normally based on the procreative function of marriage, it would clearly be foolish to judge the nature and success of an institution on an emotional response to what is only the public starting point of a very long process. (Rather like judging how good a home is by how one felt about signing the missives.) <br /><br />On a broader issue, I think one of the difficulties about this debate is precisely that it does raise strong emotions on both sides. It's not unique in that (cf. independence) but it is precisely when feelings are at their strongest that we need to be strict with ourselves and concentrate both on the arguments but also on political virtues such as civility and compromise. I'm sure you didn't mean it like this, but the sense of emotional conviction that pervades the piece doesn't promise sympathetic treatment for conservative dissenters in the aftermath of the change.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-58710894183241587162013-06-25T11:42:51.430+01:002013-06-25T11:42:51.430+01:00Much obliged, Edwin.Much obliged, Edwin.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-438135623300695732013-06-25T11:42:11.902+01:002013-06-25T11:42:11.902+01:00Kind of you to say, Doug. On the novel, never say ...Kind of you to say, Doug. On the novel, never say never! I suppose every angsty writer type eventually gives it a crack... Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-84308268136599954092013-06-25T05:30:39.898+01:002013-06-25T05:30:39.898+01:00Yes, agree with Doug a lovely piece. Many thanks ...Yes, agree with Doug a lovely piece. Many thanks for this LPW. Just the thing to lift the spirits!Edwin Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05317173893948248954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-7097693121153991272013-06-24T23:17:59.832+01:002013-06-24T23:17:59.832+01:00What an absolutely fantastic article, LPW. If we n...What an absolutely fantastic article, LPW. If we never get the chance to buy an Andrew Tickell novel, I feel an opportunity will have been missed!Doug Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15017218581660887134noreply@blogger.com