Hopefully comedians have the good sense to mock Smith for years to come

That would be the best and most fitting punishment

I can imagine a skit- Smith gives tips to someone banging his wife but then they jump off and say "Alright done! Next up I'll do a girl with hair" and he absolutely loses it

(Text message tips of course!)

I liked Chris Rock's 2016 jibe at Jada for boycotting something she was not invited to.

I don't find poking fun at someone's physical appearance funny at all, but violence should not be the answer.

Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes is far worst and cringier, but that is the Gervais brand of comedy and everyone seems to accept it including NBC who has got him back doing it for like 4 years.

The Social Media response is equally interesting than the act itself.

Stephen A Smith (who I enjoy listening to thoroughly) suggested Smith (an accomplished Black man) should not attack Rock (an accomplished black man) because it diminishes the overall accomplishments of black people. I wonder what Stephen A's position would be is Smith hit Gervais?

Making fun of a person's medical condition is not all funny. That said, violence is not the answer and Smith should be ashamed of his actions.

The only person who comes out of this ok is Jada, and I include in that all the pre pubescent boys on socials chucking about the Smiths marital status as though it's any way relevant. Perfectly demonstrated by our own socially regressed man child LV, above.

I haven't heard much commentary on that angle but yeah, Stephen A Smith is spot on

Will Smith is one of the most famous black men in the world, sitting in one of the most watched events of the year, and he acted out the negative stereotypes that black people have spent forever fighting against

The timing of the apology was conveniently right after murmurs of potentially losing the Oscar

Says a lot about the zeitgeist of Hollywood that an apology wasn't forthcoming sooner.

You could say there's one thing in it's favour- an event that was rapidly losing relevance and popularity has become a talking point again.

In this instance though, I doubt that all publicity is good publicity.

[Perfectly demonstrated by our own socially regressed man child LV, above.]

I think it's a indictment on Smith that he's more upset by a distasteful joke than he is by his wife banging other people

And I'm perfectly OK with it if my own moral compass on that question differs from that of Hollywood- or you Cram

Although, maybe not. Maybe he secretly hates it, and was taking his bitterness out on Rock? Only his psychologist has a well informed answer on that one

Was CODA really the Best Picture? I'm not convinced.

Jada is the problem here in this situation if you know
What she has done to wills confidence, the man is completely broken.
Doesn't make it right but he’s been pushed to the limit over the last year.

How other people manage their relationship is up to them.

"only his psychologist has a well informed answer on that one"

Yet you're fine making jokes

And your "moral compass"? How does slut shaming fit into that? You're judgemental, not moral. Don't worry, you're far from the only person to get that wrong.

The only place where an "open marriage" is considered a normal relationship is the corrupt, morally bankrupt world of Hollywood

If that sounds judgemental, fine with me

Of course we're all hypocrites with moral weak spots, myself included. I am not denying that nor suggesting I'm a shining example of moral excellence

But when a global superstar stands up for his wife while simultaneously desecrating his own relationship with her (again, under the standards of literally almost anywhere other than Hollywood), then I'll happily point out that it's a terrible example for the rest of us.

I'm surprised anyone would be remotely sympathetic towards a man introducing violence in a professional event over the light-hearted comments of a comedian. It's reported that Rock wasn't even aware of the medical condition. Regardless, even a distasteful joke doesn't warrant that reaction.

Smith might think he was defending his wife, but that's not defending her, that's acting like a primitive imbecile. It's embarrassing. Jada sent a far more powerful message with a simple eye-roll. It must also be embarrassing in an event that was set up with a distinctively racial theme, an all-black production crew, only for a black man to assault another black man on live tv. In one moment, Smith not only overshadows everyone's achievements, but he also completely undermines their social justice initiative.

"desecrating his own relationship"

Haha clutch those pearls

Well said rjd

How much more powerful would it have been if Smith managed to fire a friendly, but funny, jibe back at Rock- or simply used his award speech to mention how much he loves his wife, with or without hair, and with or without crappy humour.

In fact, Smith barely mentioned Jada in his acceptance speech.

What a missed opportunity

Surely a man can defend his wife from someone making comments about her condition and enjoy watching her get ploughed by the Dallas Cowboys back line.

These 2 are not mutually exclusive.

They're not mutually exclusive if your idea of marriage is just two people with legal rights over each other's financial assets for as long as they decide*, and nothing whatsoever more than that

*Unless they signed an agreement beforehand defining the terms over which they have rights over each other's assets, which being Hollywood, fair chance they did

I think Smith and Jada walking out would have sent the most powerful message about the joke. It would have maintained the focus on Chris Rock's fault by him being the reason the best actor Winner isn't there to collect his trophy.

Rock literally made a dock about the importance of hair for black women in culture. The idea that he wasn't aware of why Jada is bald is convenient and not terriblly plausible.

Again I há e no sympathy for Will Smith in this situation, but I do for Jada

Again, who are you to judge or mock what two people you don't know choose to do in their relationship?

Everyone's relationship is different and it should be. I guarantee you that my marriage is nothing like yours. Thankfully.

LV's views on open marriages make more sense in the context of his comment that the Oscars are one of the most-watched events in the world.

Feel free to join the rest of us in the 21st century any time you like.

People watch the weirdest things on TV.

@KR- they're nowhere near as watched as they used to be, but still have millions of viewers yes? Otherwise explain the worldwide interest in this story

@Cram again, if your idea of marriage is nothing more than a legal arrangement defining rights over assets, they yeah, anything goes in marriage

But that's a horrendously diminished, uninspiring and tragic idea of marriage

My idea of marriage is two people deciding what works for them. And fortunately we live in a soeicty that allows that.

Out of interest, why two people? Why not three or four? Five? Ten?

Why are you placing your moral expectations on the relationships of other people?

Who are you to define what other people choose to do in their marriages?

"Who are you to define what other people choose to do in their marriages?"

Isn't this Cram's argument?

Yes, it is.

But he's just spent 5 posts berating me for having certain expectations or understanding of what a marriage is

And he just turned around and did the same - he's saying marriage is between two people. Why? Why not more?

How much is it gonna blow your mind when I tell you I'm fine with that, if that makes people happy.

Not at all Cram. I resprct intellectual honesty

I respect you for being consistent and admitting that marriage is a meaningless word in your lexicon

If we're gonna use Cram's (And Hollywood's) definition of marriage

- Any number of people
- Any gender
- Being unfaithful is totally great
- Make sure you get a legal document beforehand so that you walk in defining what's yours, rather than coming in with a mindset of being permanently joined in every way including financially

Then there's literally nothing left

they're nowhere near as watched as they used to be, but still have millions of viewers yes? Otherwise explain the worldwide interest in this story

Or rather, literally nothing distinctive about marriage whatsoever

It's just some relationship between some people that happens to have some other name for absolutely no reason

Being unfaithful is totally great

So to fully finish the logic Cram, I suggest you stop even using the word marriage

That would be further consistency within your (and the Smith/Pinkett Smith) approach

How is anyone being unfaithful in an open marriage? It's this complete unwillingness to grasp a simple point that annoys me the most. Your "any gender" remark as though that's some kinda gotcha is quite telling to your 1950s view of the world.

If people are happy, why do you care?

Is it because you're unhappy with the limitations that your definition of marriage places on you? I hope this isn't the case and I know you'd never admit if you were but again, why do you care what happens in another's relationship?

"Unfaithful" seems to have caught the ire of both of you KR and Cram

How about, if marriage is a relationship with "no exclusivity required either sexually or emotionally" and if there's "nothing specific necessarily reserved ONLY for the other party/parties in the relationship, unless they so decide"

Then again I pose the question- what is a "marriage"? What is supposed to be distinctive or unique about it?

Why even have the word at all? Why don't we just say they're in a "relationship" and leave it at that?

So you think you know about Will and Jada's emotional relationship? Or that of any other relationship? Instead you'll just make up some definition on a whim to suit your argument.

Again, I'll ask, how does it affect you? You're so concerned with what other people are doing in their love life. It's creepy. Properly bloody creepy.

Don't take the discussion backwards

I'm not really fussed with what Will Smith or Jada Pinkett Smith do in their spare time, but I am fussed if we're calling an "open relationship" a "marriage", it's not, it's an unfortunate sham and a terrible example for the rest of the world from a global superstar.

To your credit, you've been honest and admitted that marriage is a word without meaning for you, other than "Some relationship where an undefined number of people do whatever makes them happy"

So again I'll ask- why are you even using the word?

What's distinctive about "marriage" to you, other than the requirement to throw a few dollars towards a lawyer if you no longer wish to use that title?

It's going to be different to me than anyone else. And that's exactly the point.

Meanwhile, nice transition to "I really don't care anyway" after spending the lAt hour showing you really do care what other people do in their relationship while still refusing to answer why it bothers you so much and how it affects you.

I hope you find some happiness and stop trying to hate on everyone else's. I won't hold my breath.

" Then again I pose the question- what is a "marriage"? What is supposed to be distinctive or unique about it?"

Depends on the culture and time in point in history if you want to be philosophical about it.

There's a legal definition and a surrounding infrastructure of rights and obligations if you don’t.


“ Why even have the word at all? Why don't we just say they're in a "relationship" and leave it at that?”

For many a reason - we define various relationships for various reasons.

Defacto (putative), guardian, parental/child, family/siblings/next of kin, power relationships (teacher/student; boss/employee).

Usually for legal reasons....like a marriage!

“ If we're gonna use Cram's (And Hollywood's) definition of marriage

- Any number of people
- Any gender
- Being unfaithful is totally great
- Make sure you get a legal document beforehand so that you walk in defining what's yours, rather than coming in with a mindset of being permanently joined in every way including financially”

When did people having a binding financial agreement (prenuptial agreement) suddenly become a bastardisation of a marriage?

A marriage is an exclusivity of two people (although not in the way you think it should be, clearly); gender is an irrelevant part of exclusivity of two people, so I don’t know what the problem is there.

I’m guessing your focus is about sex/“faithfulness” which is odd if someone isn’t being unfaithful. I’m not sure you can be unfaithful if it’s approved and transparent?

Setting a particular framework of exclusivity based on sex is odd given it’s never been truly throughout history….just as…

Plenty of marriages sustain unfaithful behaviour, it was a rather common thing throughout history particularly by those actually enforcing it in the feudal system.

Weirdly enough, sex doesn’t encompass the full aspect of what a relationship is - there are actually many parts to a relationship, and I’m pretty sure the sexual part becomes less prevalent as time progresses in marriage (does that diminish said marriage as no longer a marriage?)

The whole thing is an overblown load of crap. Highly over paid tossers. Where I grew up when you hit someone they didn't get up. It was hand bags at ten paces.

[still refusing to answer why it bothers you so much and how it affects you.]

I gave a partial answer- (I am fussed if we're calling an "open relationship" a "marriage") let me fill that out

Marriage is an important institution that sustains families and societies. Of course, that's an ideal and for myriad reasons the ideal is often unsustained.

However, the deliberate and transparent contamination and degradation of the ideal is something that *should* bother us all.

Much like respect towards others is something important that binds societies together. So if some celebrity behaves disrespectfully- everyone rightfully lays into them, as we expect role models to behave in a way that helps society bind together. In my mind, similar thing. Not identical but similar feeling to it.

But, I stated very early in this conversation that my moral compass is unique different to others. As is anyones. We all have our own views, and we're probably not gonna succeed in convincing anyone of our own. There you go. But, happy to elucidate my view - and listen to others - if it increases understanding even if we disagree more sharply than ever. Cheers

Closing thought

If one of my mates told me he was transitioning his marriage to an "open relationship", I would tell him why I thought that was a horrible idea, and not conducive to a healthy and fulfilling long term relationship with his wife, or good for the stability of his kids and family

I would expect, many of my mates would tell me likewise if my wife and I ever changed our views enough to announce similar

So I'm not being inconsistent or particularly judgmental by criticizing someone else's marriage.

I am putting my moral expectations on others though. But that's something we all do in various ways, especially the woke crowd who would probably be horrified with the old fashioned views I've expressed here

I don't think having moral expectations or standards is a bad thing. The whole debate is about what those standards in society should be.

" However, the deliberate and transparent contamination and degradation of the ideal is something that *should* bother us all."

What's the actual ideal though?

Marriage has changed throughout history.

It wasn’t all that long ago that marriage gave an effective legal right to rape.

For large swathes of time it was basically transactional for movement of finances to avoid women having any of it.

What particular version of marriage are you talking about?

Is it the more Christian-based one of family values where the main fellowship had a statistically high rate of domestic violence and drug/alcohol abuse vs the evidenced healthier dynamic from relationships that were excluded from marriage at the time?

It’s hardly an unchanged institution throughout time, it has fluctuated dramatically, as have the ideals.

I’m not particularly bothered by “contamination” and “degradation” of the institution by preventing a legal right to rape, allowing women to own finances, giving same-sex couples the same capacity as the significant portion of abusive drunken couples with histories of DV.

Seems weird to be so adamant about what marriage is, away from its current legal definition, given it’s context throughout histories and cultures.

Choosing “one version” is arbitrary.

And don't forget the many-an unfaithful king throughout history that presided and framed marriage in the context of what Australia sees today.

That’s a doozy of a "version of marriage".

[What's the actual ideal though?]

Taking my prompting from an ancient collection of documents that's gone out of fashion

As a starting point, bare minimum:

- Two people
- Becoming one flesh and committing themselves wholly to each other
- Putting the other first and sacrificing yourself for them
- Lifelong unless in cases of physical or emotional abuse. If you're "growing apart" you should try everything to make it work- and I'd suggest that means years of effort
- Exclusive sexually - which includes avoiding porn
- Exclusive "emotionally" although that part needs proper elucidation, it isn't straightforward

Pre-nups strike at the heart of the ideal, because they involve a conceptualized willingness to avoid the lifelong component before the marriage even begins. None of my mates have prenups. It's another reductionistic Hollywood hit on what marriage should be.

Of course I haven't met this ideal myself. Has anyone?

But it's worth aspiring to

And intentional changes from any ambition towards this list is a sad and unfortunate thing. Such is the way my close mates and I talk with each other, and such is the pedestal I place celebrities on- naively of course- much like my moral tastebuds prefer when celebrities are respectful, humble and grateful.

The legal definition is what it is, but that doesn't say anything about the ideal. Positive actions can't really be legislated anyway.

Many people will probably be offended by this post. It's an emotional topic. If that's you, I apologise.

In fact arguably I have violated my own marriage ideals- I should have called my wife (who is away tonight) instead of arguing about marriage ideals on hoops.com.au

That would have been an ideal action for my marriage

:-)

It's been great though

I think people are more offended by the self-defeating arguments you make and blatantly ignore...

It's weird to rail about traditions of marriage and then choose the aspects that have spent just about the least amount of time in history as "tradition" and were largely irrelevant aspects.

It’s a selection of things you’d like marriage to be, not what it is or ever was.

Which makes it weird to complain that marriage has changed or to define it whilst arguing that people shouldn’t be re-defining it, as if there’s one true version, which there isn’t and never has been.

Given the true aspect of marriage is the relationship of two people to exclusion of all others, I’d say an arbitrary definition by someone not part of said relationship fits squarely in the “exclusion of all others” aspect.

Dictating how said relationship ought to conduct itself outside of the realms of basic legal convenience undermines the exclusion of all others part.

You know, the one overriding consistent and traditional part of marriage that you somehow don’t include in your definition and appear to actively fail against?

Id say that’s odd and self-defeating!

LV, it might surprise you that your view of marriage is not a, or "the", traditional, original concept of marriage. Step out of your still-relatively-modern Christian perspective of marriage and you will see a lot of variation between concepts of marriage around the world. Even anthropologists struggle to define it. What do all concepts of marriage have in common? Sexual exclusivity is not the answer.

[It's a selection of things you’d like marriage to be, not what it is or ever was.]

I beg to differ on this

I think most "everyday people" in Australia today, such as the people I work alongside who most definitely don't share my faith tradition, would have a view of marriage which aligns with my view at least in the bare bones structure, such as

- Two people only
- Intention for a lifelong union
- Sexually exclusive- no bonking, kissing, or even contemplating any of this with anyone other than your spouse
- It's a good idea to avoid having a friend (of the same gender to the person you're married to) who's closer to you than your spouse

In fact I would suggest the majority of people in the *world* today would share that bare bones view of what marriage is, or should be

It's hardly something I've dreamt up in my own mind and idealised into something that never existed previously!

And clearly, to get back to this thread topic (off topic as it may be for Hoops), what Will Smith and Jada are doing isn't within that definition which most people hold

And that's a real shame, since it's a good ideal and they're looked up to.

Sue me for judging them.

[Given the true aspect of marriage is the relationship of two people to exclusion of all others,]

Again why two?

Plenty of cultures and faith traditions would differ

LV's weird newfangled nonsense makes no sense to me. Society is collapsing because of people like you. We need to go back to traditional marriage, where a man buys a woman from her father in exchange for some sheep in order to build an alliance between their families.

Rjd and KET

According to John Dickson- who has a phd in ancient history from Macquarie and who has, at various times lectured in history at top tier universities in Aus eg USyd, claims in an article I just looked up for the first time in a few years....

[All cultures we know anything significant about have affirmed the same core idea of marriage, as the union of a man and a woman. Evidence of any other concept of marriage is entirely lacking from the historical record, despite unsourced claims to the contrary. Even in polygamous cultures, where an elite male takes several wives, the classical definition of marriage is still operating: the man is thought to have several separate marriages, each involving a union between just one man and just one woman.

The customs and laws surrounding marriage have, of course, differed over time and throughout cultures. But the central idea of marriage is universal.]

Definitely came across like smith enjoyed the joke initially but then after seeing his mrs with a face like a slapped arse decided he needed to do something drastic to avoid the days, weeks, months of moaning he'd have to deal with back at the ranch. That or pretending hes cool with his wife being a slapper got too much. Hard to say.

If you sit in the front row of a comedy show, then there is a high likelyhood that some fun will be poked at you. It was an innocuous GI Jane joke. Compared to the body of CR's work, it was about as mild as it gets. I think she is lucky that he is a pro - he could have riffed on her for a full 30 minutes after that in a comedic beatdown.

Basically, if she is so sensitive about it, wear a wig. She ain't short of a quid.

"All cultures we know anything significant about have affirmed the same core idea of marriage, as the union of a man and a woman."

Yeah but you didn't need to post that because nobody argued it hasn’t been the case until recent times.

Nobody is under any illusion given being gay was a crime until very recently.

People of colour didn’t have rights resembling anything human either for long periods of time and by virtue of that also denied marriage which meant they didn’t need to bother to say that marriage is between a white man and a white women.

Gender was absolutely relevant at a point in time, as I stated earlier, it was largely used for financial transactions/ownership of finances that a women could not legally own themselves.

Similarly sex was highly relevant in marriage when it gave a legal obligation to sex and legalised rape for that particular relationship.

And then later in time, the female ownership, the legalised rape were no longer relevant, and the gender and sex parts became relics that today are inconsequential from a legal perspective at least.

I don’t think for a second that you view a marriage should encompass legalised rape and ownership of a females finances - in fact you’ve even said finances should be an intertwined affair (I think) - so that would make your view positively not traditional!

So, if you should probably rest your arguments about “tradition” because you’ve chosen aspects of how you think a marriage is or should be from different points in time.

You can’t really be against the meritorious evolution of marriage when you’re supporting one that at some point was an evolved version of it.

“ The customs and laws surrounding marriage have, of course, differed over time and throughout cultures. But the central idea of marriage is universal.”

Yes - the customs and laws have changed over time and by cultures!

Central idea being two people exclusion of all others - you can’t say it’s gender based when you live in a country, amongst 30 others, which excludes gender as a pre-requisite. Regardless of opinion, whether you agree or disagree, that makes it by definition not universal.

“ I think most "everyday people" in Australia today, such as the people I work alongside who most definitely don't share my faith tradition, would have a view of marriage which aligns with my view at least in the bare bones structure”

What’s the relevance of this? Population views change, laws change, hence the plebiscite result.

You start by arguing something should be x by virtue of traditional marriage (that was never really traditional), then you argue based on what “everyday Australians” believe, despite your less skeleton structured view on marriage having a direct contradiction to the majority of Australians on say, gay marriage as evidenced by the plebiscite.

You’re picking a point in time to decide when a marriage was “traditional”, you’re arguing it shouldn’t change but you want it to change again, you’re then relying on a broader view when many of your views are in direct contradiction to the broader view.

It’s very hard to be persuasive in your view when it’s so blatantly pick the parts you like and pretend it’s legitimised on the back of self-defeating arguments.

Your best bet would be to say “I believe marriage should be x because I believe people should behave like x and I have no qualms in putting that expectation on people, and if people try to put their own expectations on me, that’s just not right because I don’t like that”.

Because at least you’d get honesty on your side.

I think what you're missing here LV, is i’m not telling you what I think marriage should be, I’m telling you that your arguments aren’t framed properly regardless of the overarching opinion.

I keep telling you that you’re relying on the term "traditional" to legitimise your argument only to present a view of an evolved marriage, defeating whatever value you believe is in “traditional” (which nobody here has really debated, and lots of people here probably wouldn’t give a shit about the meaning of tradition).

But you’ve persisted down that line nonetheless - what’s the point, other than convincing yourself? Isn’t that something you can achieve by talking to your own inner-narrative?

I’m curious as to why you see the value of continuing down that line instead of taking a different approach?

KET- your whole argument is a strawman of monumental proportions

I've never once argued from "tradition".

I merely stated that my definition of marriage is based on my interpretation of what's fulfiling for humanity based on ancient wisdom.

But that is not the same thing as arguing from mere "tradition".

I have no issue with the reality that marriage has changed and evolved and hasn't taken exactly the same shape throughout the entirety of history.

But, you'll have to work hard to convince me (or most people, I suspect) that "open" sexual relationships are generally a good idea for the long term stability, fulfilment and health of the family unit. Or that "open" relationships are something worth celebrating for the wider society that family exists within.

And I'll add, there are plenty of good reasons why the definition of marriage I gave (or the underlying bare bones structure at least) are an ideal worth holding onto, and the best definition of marriage for the fulfilment of couples and their family unit.

Those reasons are rooted in social science, evolutionary psychology, child development etc.

I don't think you know what strawman argument actually means.

"And I'll add, there are plenty of good reasons why the definition of marriage I gave"

The one you justify through the “wisdom of the past” whilst somehow saying you’re not arguing tradition? What was the strawman argument again?

However you’d like to word it, reality is you’re using the past being the past as your reasoning whilst refusing to deal with the parts of the past you haven’t selected.

You’re lamenting the supposed degradation of marriage that’s already degraded from the version before and degraded by the version before that and so on so forth.

You’ve picked a version you like and saying this is how it should be because that’s how it was, framed by some hypothetical “everyday” person, a poisoned criteria which would equate to meritorious change to never be able to occur.

As I said - just say “marriage should be x because that’s what I think it should be”, as once you start relying on “past wisdom”, you open up to the “past wisdom” of rape, financial ownership and kings’ mistresses that fundamentally shaped marriage. If you want to rely on the credibility of the past, you need to tackle its entirety because at this point you’re completely ignoring the truest and most historical features of marriage.

You argued a litany of contradictions that are irreconcilable. You’ve monumentally fucked your point from go to woe.

“ Those reasons are rooted in social science, evolutionary psychology, child development etc.”

I don’t remember the part where marriage required children.

I don’t remember the part where unmarried people couldn’t have children either.

Why is this subject to discussion? If anything they should be ships passing in the night.

If we do care about social science and child development, then we’d be taking issue with Christians and the remarkably high domestic violence and drug/alcoholism rate, but I imagine it’s easier to shove that deep in the back of a closet given we appear to be arguing about what’s considered to now be a radical Christian view on marriage?

Even Catholics go “that’s a bit much”.

And I'll add, there are plenty of good reasons why the definition of marriage I gave (or the underlying bare bones structure at least) are an ideal worth holding onto, and the best definition of marriage for the fulfilment of couples and their family unit.

This reminds me of that famous interview Jordan Peterson gave to Cathy Newman in the UK at the beginning of...2018?

Where she constantly said "So what you're saying is....." yet she spent 30 minutes trying to put words into his mouth. Quite embarrassing moment for journalism

KET, your contributions in this thread are your Cathy Newman moment

I'm shocked LV's citing Peterson here.

I'm still laughing from "ancient wisdom" and now LV is comparing himself with Jordan Petersen. Best thread ever.

JP is irrelevant

Classic example of a dialogue where one person was so willingly misunderstanding and misrepresenting the other

KET has written several lengthy diatribes about marital rape, woman being treated as property, etc etc, none of which has any relevance whatsoever to anything I've said

It's fascinating seeing a really intelligent guy arguing against something or someone he's constructed in his own mind

"none of which has any relevance whatsoever to anything I've said"

Clearly it does by smashing to pieces the concept of “ancient wisdom” with which you rely.

I think everyone in the room gets it but you LV, I'm not sure you’ve guessed from the many responses by others?

Your points are a walking contradiction and then resorting to a strawman argument (this time correctly used - you may wish to use a dictionary in future) is irony and comical absurdity at its finest.

Why do you guys keep arguing with LV?

He has established an MO from his Melbourne United arguments to make a case for Point A, when challenged introduce argument B to argument C.

KET, just remind me of all the places where I suggested ALL ancient ideas are equally grand?

Which posts were they?

[
If we do care about social science and child development, then we'd be taking issue with Christians and the remarkably high domestic violence and drug/alcoholism rate]

This is a huge tangent and again irrelevant to the marriage ideals I listed

(As I said, marriage should involve putting the other first and loving them self sacrificially. Anyone engaging in DV is flatly contradicting my views on what marriage should involve)

However it's an interesting claim that you've made twice, so what's the evidence?

Actually according to sociologist Brad Wilcox...

"judging from studies here in the US, it looks like churchgoing may well help men steer clear of violence."

And

"In general, religion tends to impact married people quite positively."


https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/december-web-only/evangelicals-domestic-violence-christian-men-domestic-abuse.html

I'm sure Christianity Today is a completely unbiased source.

The author is Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, but sure, let's disregard anything he says about sociology because it's from a magazine with a Christian name

Makes perfect sense

LV,

I'm arguing as a critique of the contradictions in your argument, I am not fussed what your opinion is. My examples were to point out that the arguments you mount are so irreconcilable as to not operate properly.

When I’ve critiqued you, you haven’t argued back as to why it’s not a contradiction or irreconcilable, you’ve skirted it instead and then quoted some randoms that are apparently important to you but if I’m being totally honest gain no attention nor merit in my world.

I can quote some randoms back at you if you like, I’m sure I can find some just as condescending ones if that tickles your fancy. I can talk down to you like you’re a clueless child and I can throw around some sharp upper cuts for good measure.

Or, we can attempt to engage in good faith without needing to pull tribalistic "world against conservatives" shtick you seem to enjoy the moment someone questions your thinly veiled bait.

I’d like to offer you the opportunity to clarify any actual and genuine occasions where there was misinterpretation or cross purposes.

That way, I hope the actual points get addressed. Let’s start in reverse perhaps...

“This is a huge tangent and again irrelevant to the marriage ideals I listed”

Seems odd to criticise the relevance of something you’ve introduced, keeping in mind I was replying to “Those reasons are rooted in social science, evolutionary psychology, child development etc.”

“ let's disregard anything he says about sociology because it's from a magazine with a Christian name”

I don’t really have an interest in broadening our argument anymore than you do, so happy to agree to disagree, however you gotta be honest that posting a “Christianity Today” link is a provocative piss-take!

“KET, just remind me of all the places where I suggested ALL ancient ideas are equally grand?”

I was never under the impression you said that and I never laid that claim or implied that. Can you please show me where you interpreted me to claim that?

If I believed you said such a thing, I wouldn’t mount my argument as it would go against the entirety of the argument I levelled at you.

It’s just a totally bizarre take if I’m honest, curious to know where it came from.

“ KET has written several lengthy diatribes about marital rape, woman being treated as property, etc etc, none of which has any relevance whatsoever to anything I've said”

Diatribe means attack, I don’t think naming examples of features of marriage throughout history constitutes an attack….Could you explain where you interpreted it that way, or did you just misuse the word?

I might need the assistance of others if I’m not able to communicate how my examples of rape and womens finances are relevant to the structural argument made - I’ll try one more time….

“I merely stated that my definition of marriage is based on my interpretation of what's fulfiling for humanity based on ancient wisdom… But that is not the same thing as arguing from mere "tradition"….I’ve never once argued from "tradition".

To take a tradition is to take a long established practice, you listed out some long established practices, regarding them as ancient wisdom. Given I think everyone here understands what is meant, it’s a trivial objection to quibble about.

Whether you prefer to call it ancient wisdom or tradition is not of practical significance to the construction of the argument.

So…the crux:

You’ve argued that marriage is an important institution with an ideal. Do I need to quote this or can you accept that?

You’ve argued a list of ideals that you’ve taken prompt from ancient wisdom/tradition. Do I need to quote this or can you accept that?

You’ve constructed the ideal, and you’ve stripped it back a bit to bare bones to encompass what you believe to be every day Australians. Again, do I need to quote this or can you accept that?

“However, the deliberate and transparent contamination and degradation of the ideal is something that *should* bother us all.”

You argue that change to the ideal is an issue - (degradation/contamination can only be interpreted as change, as without change, there’s no contamination/degradation). Do you accept this?

I’ve argued that you have constructed your ideals based on a selection - not all - of many long standing practices of a concept that has differed and evolved throughout history.
Is that disagreeable?

I have argued that marriage has been throughout history a concept of financial ownership of a woman’s asset, a legalised rape, and a justifiable way of Kings to have wives and mistresses, whilst obliging the wife to complete loyalty.

I have argued that marriage now is completely different, where those features don’t exist and it is by and large a legal relationship - not much different to defacto - that provides a legal basis for intertwined finances and assets, and otherwise is left up to that couple to decide what the marriage is, to the exclusion of all others (ie, outsiders can’t decide that for them, because it’s not about the outsiders!)

You’ve placed the ideal of marriage in neither slot, reflecting perhaps an earlier point in time than what we see today. Do you agree with that?

My fundamental argument is, you’ve constructed an idea of marriage that’s vastly different to what it fundamentally has been (the financial ownership, the rape, the feudal aspects). So you’ve got a set of ideals or practices that were a change, and have now changed again.

But then you complain that change is something we should take issue with - and you place that argument with the value of it as an institution, and on long standing practices.

But it was an institution well before most of your features were really relevant, and it’s an institution after your features were shot down by legislation and/or free-willed people that don’t care for religion.

Any argument where value is placed on the past or preventing change as being long-standing is negated by that virtue. That means you are arguing that a definition or set of ideals from an arbitrary point in time, with arbitrary features are not in fact arbitrary and trying to assign special value that necessarily does not and cannot exist.

When marriage changed from legal rape and financial ownership of womens assets, the fundamental mechanics changed, it no longer was, for a large part, what it was meant and intended to do - it inherently failed to continue to be what marriage was at the time. Same thing can apply here and for any future iteration.

So when you argue something like “marriage ideal is x y z from ancient wisdom and this should be protected” the obvious question is why should it be protected any more than the version of marriage relating to rape and financial ownership was ever protected?

You haven’t provided an argument as to why that should be so, why your version should prevail, why a fluid concept should no longer be fluid, why it should revert to your idealic position and not any others from points in history.

And that is why I said it is irreconcilable and you haven’t argued why that isn’t so.

Thanks for your very detailed response KET

I'm not sure where your understanding of the history of marriage originates from, but it sounds like your legal education might form part of the basis, is that right?

I'm no expert on the history of marriage. But nor do I need to be, to suggest that certain ideals are worth aspiring to and celebrating.

However I will note, John Dickson (an expert in ancient history) said this (cherry picked quotations to avoid unnecessarily long quotes, while retaining the core message):

"The ancient Roman view of marriage offers a helpful illustration...… they saw marriage as a unique class of human bond that could (in principle) create and raise shared offspring."

He then quotes a treatise from from a 1st century Roman stoic philosopher.

“The quotation puts the lie to the common claim that ancient marriage was all about property, inheritance, and the power of men! There is no denying that patriarchy and hierarchy coloured ancient marriage—along with everything else—but the *ideal* for the Romans, as for other cultures, was the loving mutuality of a man and a woman as the proper context for raising shared offspring. That's what marriage was about.

These notions probably sound religious, almost biblical. Similar ideas are indeed introduced in the book of Genesis (Gen 1:27-28; 2:21-24) and reaffirmed by Jesus himself (Matthew 19:4-6). But this is simply because *all* cultures shared the same perspective.”

And

“It is perhaps the most basic truth of our existence that everyone comes into the world through the union of one man and one woman. All societies observed this fact and highlighted the male-female bond as a bedrock reality by giving it the unique title 'marriage’. This is why marriage has exactly the three defining features it does: (1) two people, (2) of the opposite sex, (3) who intend to stay together.”

So clearly Dickson- a former History lecturer- differs from your view that marriage was primarily “a concept of financial ownership of a woman’s asset, a legalised rape, and a justifiable way of Kings to have wives and mistresses, whilst obliging the wife to complete loyalty.” A middle ground interpretation might be that Dickson’s view is primary coloured by his historical knowledge and you see things through the lens of law.

Again though, none of that is really relevant. If I did further research and became convinced that humans had completely different ideals of marriage than what I’d ever imagined throughout history, it wouldn’t change my views on what marriage should ideally be.

The crux of your entire post was a very good question

“So when you argue something like “marriage ideal is x y z from ancient wisdom and this should be protected” the obvious question is why should it be protected any more than the version of marriage relating to rape and financial ownership was ever protected?”

Essentially, why are the marriage ideals I listed (post 298) worth defending, whereas other elements that have occurred within marriage are not?

If we imagine somehow that Bryce Cotton symbolises marriage, then my ideals are Cotton hitting the game winner. Or a stretch of 5 games where Cotton averages 30 and the Wildcats go 5-0. Or an MVP season (OK, this isn’t a great analogy since everybody recognises Cotton’s greatness…he wins the MVP most years! But stay with me as the central point is coming). Those other parts- rape, ownership, domestic violence etc- are the night Cotton goes 5 from 21 and the Cats get pumped. Or the night he does his quadriceps.

If I say that basketball fans should recognise Bryce Cotton as the epitome of the modern NBL shooting guard, I’m not suggesting we idealise his 5 from 21 night.

But why are the ideals I listed so great? Why are they worth aspiring to and celebrating, at an individual and societal level?

Some suggestions:

- They’re beautiful

- They reflect some of the highest virtues that humans are capable of living out

- They restrain untoward behaviour of males and equalise mating opportunities, which consequently benefits society

- They increase parental investment in children which improves outcomes for children. Of course, not every married couple has kids but most do, and that will never change. So marriage ideals that inherently encourage the stable raising of children (whilst children aren’t an essential element of marriage in and of themselves) are still desirable norms.

- They involve humans living in accordance with the way they were designed to live, by the designer of this universe (According to my own faith based view- of course many will disagree with this but the previous reasons I gave lack similar faith foundations)

Those are just a few compelling reasons

And yes, the Cotton analogy was imperfect but the central point is that, just because I referred to "ancient wisdom" on one occasion (one!) in this thread, doesn't mean I necessarily agree with every element or understanding of marriage that has been imperfectly acted out by imperfect humans throughout all of history!

I've been very clear about stating that I'm referring to an "ideal" that's worth promoting- and Smith contradicts that ideal, in fact, he specifically opposes my ideals- and I was criticizing him for that, and suggesting he isn't worth placing on any pedestal.

Ideals are almost mythical by necessity- they're standards which are impossible to meet. But still worth promoting.

LV - so much to unpack here.

Yes, I disregard a Christian Today newsletter as fact, please explain the likely hood of said newsletter having an article that says the opposite.

Here is an article by a professor explaining the benefits of using heroin. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/nyregion/Carl-Hart-drugs.html

Does this mean that because a professor says it we should all agree? BTW he is a psychologist at Columbia.

70% of marriages in Australia have actual infidelity. I'd therefore estimate that 80%+ would have at least thought/considered infidelity. Doesn't sound like many Australians actually agree that marriage is about any of your above diatribes.

Marriage has and always will be about property rights. That's why gay marriage was so important. Because prior to being given the right to marriage, gay couples who had their partner die could have all their property taken by their partner's family, if not in their name.

If you were born into Mormonism you'd agree that marriage can be between more than 2 people.

If you were a Hillsong member whose preacher just got caught at the very least behaving immorally, you'd forgive him, even after he reportedly hid his father's indecent dealings with children.

If you were Catholic you'd accept that women not being allowed to be ordained and priests being required to be celibate has no correlation to the abuse and subsequent cover-ups (and continued failure to report confessions of pedophilia) by the church.

It could be argued that your church and your god are nothing more than an opportunity taken to financially enrich people and make tax-free profits from people who are suffering and your beliefs are only related to the country you were born into and your upbringing.

Final example. If the catholic church wanted to, it could put its profits into actually helping the sick or just those fleeing from Ukraine. It is sitting on $6B Australian dollars conservatively. Not to mention the price of all the land and churches it owns around the world. But won't, because, like all churches, despite what it says, it is more about profits to convert more poor wretched heathens, than it is about saving heathens' lives to allow them to continue to worship their false idols.

That you idiots have managed to make this the most popular thread on this site in weeks really is a testament to your stupidity. Well done.

Barry Hall wants a rematch

He's prepared to take on Wil Smith.

Apparently the academy asked will Smith to leave but he refused

"... loving mutuality of a man and a woman as the proper context for raising shared offspring. That's what marriage was about."

Sounds a lot like the Smith's union.

Anyone got a favourite Will Smith meme to share from this event?

Will Smith has resigned from the academy! Not sure what the practical implications of that are though

It means he doesn't get to vote for the awards anymore. There are no other consequences.

He resigned so that there wouldn't be headlines about the Academy stripping his membership. It seems like they'd be too gutless to strip him of the award, so what other penalty could there be? Not invited to attend next year?