Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Yea)
Line 15: Line 15:
  
 
::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years.  People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
 
::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years.  People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::::So are we saying that morals change with time?  Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism".  Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change.  How do we synthesize that concept with this?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
  
 
==Nay==
 
==Nay==

Revision as of 17:38, August 29, 2007

While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that, by its raison d'etre, includes young children?

Romeo and Juliet is a rather sexually charged play, and let us not forget that the protagonists are children, Juliet herself being thirteen years old. While no sex explicitly takes place in the action of the play, the protagonists are secretly married and it is not difficult to imagine what typically happens on a wedding night.

Should we condone this play, let alone discuss it, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

Yea

It's been around for over 400 years. I seriously doubt it's our place to condone it. Ozark 16:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough, but should we here at CP be discussing it? There is an article about it, and we strive to keep our entries family-friendly. Is a sexually charged drama involving a 13 year old girl family-friendly?--Porthos 16:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
I would hardly call it sexually charged. Bohdan 16:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
It is not sexually charged in an open and obvious way, but it would have been impossible for it to be so in its day. Shakespeare uses some creative means of injecting sexual innuendo into the play. For example, take Juliet's line: "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die." The dagger/sheath metaphor is glaring. Not only that, but it sexualizes death in a rather disturbing way. And what about the fact that a 13 year old girl gets married (and presumably consummates her marriage)?--Porthos 16:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years. People married much younger in the past. Maestro 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
So are we saying that morals change with time? Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism". Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change. How do we synthesize that concept with this?--Porthos 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Nay