Classical pianist to wed pop star
NewsThe engagement has been announced on social media between the concert pianist Yoana Karemova and the prodigious Scottish pop singer Emeli Sande.
We wish them every happiness.
View this post on Instagram
Comments
MOST READ TODAY:
-
RIP
Russian ballet star, 39, ‘died in balcony fall’
The press service of the Mariinsky Theater has…
-
News
String quartet swaps half its players
The Doric String Quartet, on the road since…
-
Opera
Peter Gelb: How I, I, I saved the Met
From the general manager’s self-admiring Sunday sermon in…
-
Orchestras
Colon captures a controversial conductor
The Teatro Colón in Buenos Aires has appointed…
Best wishes. Grateful that the dog is missing from the photograph.
Did they split up with the chihuahua already?
1. A marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It’s good for anyone to have love in their life but let’s not allow the hijacking of this word.
2. What is prodigious about Emili Sandé?
Same-sex unions and marriage were commonplace in ancient Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome. The modern Abrahamic religions are the ones who “hijacked” the word.
At the time of my birth, no one would have understood the words wedding and marriage to have meant anything other than the joining of a man and a woman. The attempt to redefine the words for the benefit of homosexuals is very recent.
“At the time of my birth, no one would have understood the words wedding and marriage to have meant anything other than the joining of a man and a woman.”
1. No-one understood it as referring to the nmarriage of *one* man and *one* woman, since no-one would have complained of a contradiction when reading that David or Solomon had large numbers of simultanbeous wives.
2. There was a time when no-one would have understood the word “voter” as referring to anything but a man, and there have been places quite recently where a reference to the marriage of a man and a woman would have been understood as referring to a white man and a white woman or to a black man and a black woman.
3. It is not hijacking a word to realise that it applies appropriately to cases where people did not previously think of applying it.
‘No-one understood it as referring to the nmarriage of *one* man and *one* woman’
I didn’t say they did (although in most cases that’s what would have been understood).
‘There was a time when no-one would have understood the word “voter” as referring to anything but a man’
The meaning of voter remained ‘someone who votes’. There was no redefinition.
‘It is not hijacking a word to realise that it applies appropriately to cases where people did not previously think of applying it’
You are not extending the application of wedding and marriage; you are trying to redefine them. You’re moving from the well defined to something which needs further clarification (‘same-sex marriage’ for example).
You say you didn’t speak of marriage bas the union of one man and one woman. But you did speak of it as involving *a* man and *a* woman, which is often interpreted that way.
“The meaning of voter remained ‘someone who votes’. There was no redefinition.”
The meaning of “marriage” remained something like “intendedly permanent lifelong sexual and loving union”.
“You are not extending the application of wedding and marriage; you are trying to redefine them. ”
That depends in part on what is meant by “redefine”, and you nowhere explain that. People like you tend to use “redefine” as a gotcha, but it isn’t; because, for one thing, there are numerous kinds of redefinition. Some philosophers distinguish verbal definition from real definition. A lot of people use “define” simply to mean what is customarily associated or how they cujstomarily think of something, e.g. “I don’t want to be define as a victim;” “I don’t define myself as a victim.”
I am sure that once upon a time most people in the Uk would have regarded swans as by definition white birds; but then they found those pesky swans in Australia and realised swans could be black. Same with same-sex marriage.
“Same-sex marriage” may need clarification just now rather in the way “inter-racial marriage” once did, but it’ll settle down in time.
mr. Minch,
We can surely say that the world didn’t start at the time of your birth. And hopefully expect it will not end with your last breath.
Being much older than you and I, and with a much longer future ahead, the worid had changed a lot, and presumably will keep changing along all this big amount of time.
That’s fair and good. Best regards.
“A marriage is the union of a man and a woman.”
Just plain false.
James Minch is jealous.
Of what?
One has to laugh… At the time of writing, there are the predictable criticisms of my comment on homosexual marriage but no has rushed to Emeli Sandé’s defence.
The predictability of a comment is no reason to think it is inaccurate.
I didn’t say it was.
So why bother to mention predictability? If you didn’t mean ” predictable” as a put-down, it would have been just as relevant to tell us how many letters there are in “marriage”.
Truly, some people’s opinions are unworthy of a response.
THIS is a dumb place to argue the marriage topic. LIVE and LET LIVE – and go on with your own lives, for Pete’s sake, this is a music forum. 🙁
That’s the problem…the people that promote alternate definitions of marriage don’t let those who believe in the more traditional definition “just live.” They need to force us to bow to their beliefs, bake them wedding cakes, do flowers for them, etc…