|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK civil partnerships not for heterosexual couples??
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm sorry for hijacking this thread but I just read the article and I find this interesting.
In continental Europe, the prohibition of a religious ceremony without a previous civil marriage is very much the norm. In Belgium, it is even in the Constitution. (For us, the Anglo-Saxon situation is the weird one ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) This is mostly a heritage that we got from Napoleon. He was very big on registering things, so national marriage registries were set up in the countries he conquered. To have those it was easier to have just one institution that can officiate marriages.
In the Netherlands informal marriages happen, but they are rare. They can mostly be divided into three categories:- There are some ceremonies in alternative groups, especially among Wiccas, where it's difficult to define whether they are marriages or not. People are "tied together" for life or for a shorter fixed period. Are these marriages? Similar ceremonies also happen in Humanist circles.
- Elderly Surinam Hindus sometimes enter in religious marriages where neither the couple nor the Hindu minister are very much aware of Dutch culture. Most of them don't know that Article 449 exists.
- Cohabitation isn't allowed in Muslim circles. So young couples who want to live together but who are still unsure about marriage enter a Muslim marriage to have their parents off their back.
Once again I'm sorry, but I find this interesting. Especially the last one I find rather funny.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Very interesting, thanks.
I don't know if your last point is funny, exactly. AFAIUI Islam has a longstanding tradition of temporary marriage. I knew a foreign student who tried to get a friend of mine to enter into one with him. It makes Islam a rather liberal religion when compared with Christianity. Or at least one which has a certain degree of authorised openness about such things, whereas Christianity is very murky at best.
The idea of temporary marriage was discussed in Germany a while back, but I think it was rejected with a degree of disgust. You do wonder why, though, when our secularised societies are okay with so many other kinds of domestic arrangement.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Very interesting, thanks.
I don't know if your last point is funny, exactly. AFAIUI Islam has a longstanding tradition of temporary marriage. I knew a foreign student who tried to get a friend of mine to enter into one with him. It makes Islam a rather liberal religion when compared with Christianity. Or at least one which has a certain degree of authorised openness about such things, whereas Christianity is very murky at best.
Did you read the entire link? Whilst contemporary Shi'a use practice as a loophole, it was not created as a liberal policy. More as one to give men licenced nookie whilst on travel.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
I suspect the state ban on religious marriages without a civil marriage first (or concurrent), was to prevent deception. In particular that one or both parties might think they were being legally married when they were not or cases when the couple was trying to deceive a third party (e.g., rich aunt Susan who gave large gifts to nephews and nieces upon marriage).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In France, Travellers have a longstanding practice of traditional marriage which endures to this day.
Up until the mid-20th century, it was to all intents and purposes impossible for them to marry legally, because the time they could stay in a municipality before being moved on was not long enough for the banns to be properly published.
Interestingly enough, it was a sedentary pentecostal pastor who, at the time of the Gypsy Revival, helped get this state of affairs changed. He clearly believed, as I do, that marriage is first and foremost a civil institution for all-comers, not just people of faith, and has a strong "social recognition" factor.
However, many Travellers still have only a traditional marriage, for the simple reason that it allows them to collect single mother benefits.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Do you mean religious marriage? Because traditional marriage is a meaningless term without describing whose tradition and what time period.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Aaah, much appreciated.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Of course I know that the Catholic church will not normally conduct a Catholic marriage unless the couple have already married in a civil ceremony.
(I say normally, for there are odd occasions when the Church will conduct a marriage ceremony without the civil marriage having taken place.
In these instances the Catholic marriage would not be recognised by the state and would not have the benefits conferred by the civil marriage)
Are you sure about that in the UK at least? I know we would be in enormous trouble if we tried that. A marriage is a contract made between between two people before an official celebrant and at least two witnesses. So if they have no civil marriage before, or more usually as part of the religious ceremony, then what you have is a situation where two people have made an oral contract of marriage, but have no written contract. It is a legal minefield.
We have it drummed into us the importance of checking the marriage schedule before conducting the wedding, just in case the couple don't have legal permission to marry, to avoid this very situation.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
The only time I knew of this was over 50 years ago in a Central European country . An old couple, one male and one female were living together 'without benefit of clergy'. They were asked if they wished to marry . They did , but they didn't want to lose the pension benefits which came from being two single people as the state pension for a married couple was lower than that for two single people.
The bishop offered them the possibility of marrying simply in God's sight. Only the Good Lord would know that they were married and that might materially affect their place later in Paradise. Even if the world ,at that time, might have thought of them as 'public sinners' the Good Lord would know better..
I doubt if this happens very often and views of marriage and extra-marital sex are quite different 50 years down the line. To make a marriage legal in Scotland, you ,of course ,need to fulfill all the conditions imposed by the state.
To make as marriage canonically acceptable in the Catholic Church you need to fulfill all the conditions imposed by the Church, but in the final analysis the Church cannot be constrained by the State as to whom it offers its sacraments.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The rational method is the state administers marriage and doesn't give a monkey's about whatever else the couple does do long as it violates no law.
Personally, I think that if your God exists, S/He doesn't give a monkey's either. Ceremonies are for people.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Very interesting, thanks.
I don't know if your last point is funny, exactly. AFAIUI Islam has a longstanding tradition of temporary marriage. I knew a foreign student who tried to get a friend of mine to enter into one with him. It makes Islam a rather liberal religion when compared with Christianity. Or at least one which has a certain degree of authorised openness about such things, whereas Christianity is very murky at best.
Did you read the entire link? Whilst contemporary Shi'a use practice as a loophole, it was not created as a liberal policy. More as one to give men licenced nookie whilst on travel.
I did read the link, yes.
The point is, the ruling had one use in the past, and can be adapted to another today. Christianity has no obvious loophole for serial monogamy, except that Jesus believed in 'love'. Yet a degree of serial monogamy is tolerated by many, perhaps most of the world's Christians. However, it seems to be a behaviour without a theology.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Nikah mut'ah hardly makes Islam liberal. It is only conservative practitioners who desire a loophole. Liberal Muslims don't need one.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Maybe so. I don't know to what extent liberal Muslims are inclined to slip out of a religious into a secularised mindset when it comes to sexual matters. My sense is that there's always a sense of needing to justify their actions theologically - but then, my experience is of fairly traditional Muslim communities. The Muslims you mix with are probably more liberal and intellectual.
Christians, particularly Western Christians, are sometimes said to have a historical tendency to compartmentalise their religion. If so, then I suppose 'loophopes' are hardly necessary; it's just a matter of keeping religion in its place.
But with regards to the topic, temporary marriage strikes me as an interesting idea. In a secular culture it could potentially be useful to couples who want to build something together and need to be legally protected and supported, but who don't want to promise to spend an eternity in the same relationship. Civil partnerships could evolve in this direction.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But with regards to the topic, temporary marriage strikes me as an interesting idea. In a secular culture it could potentially be useful to couples who want to build something together and need to be legally protected and supported, but who don't want to promise to spend an eternity in the same relationship.
Yes, a time-limited "marriage" would be very different from a current marriage or civil partnership. If you go into such an arrangement intending it to be short-term, you need to set out at the start exactly what happens to communal property at the end of the term. You get to be responsible for your children whatever.
Perhaps it's not so different from a marriage with built-in prenup?
quote:
Civil partnerships could evolve in this direction.
I don't think that's an evolution - I think it's a completely different thing.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think that's an evolution - I think it's a completely different thing.
This is what I've been discussing with Eutychus. Going this direction, rather than amending the current law to include straight couples, would make more sense. Provided there was enough interest to justify the effort.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
There was at one point a plan in the Channel Island of Guernsey to have "civil unions" as the legal instrument and have the word "marriage" reserved only for religious ceremonies.
Guernsey is that small a jurisdiction that there was some hope this minor revolution would be achievable.
However, in the end they appear to be going for SSM with the ambiguity persisting.
[ 05. February 2016, 06:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The whole point, it was argued, was that it was not "doing the same thing" - above all, in social terms.
I'm not sure what the motivations of the couple in the OP are, but do they not have a point that if an arrangement is dependent on the sex of the two people entering into it, it is discriminatory?
Apologies for the delayed reaction, but yes: in the sense that if they want the right to have some people socially treat them as second-class and "not really married", who are we to prevent them?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I fear your objective answer in the first part of your sentence is drowned out by the part after the colon; pity.
Why can't you dispassionately entertain the idea that some people might actively not want the associations of marriage?
French law makes it notoriously difficult to establish straight/gay proportions, but according to a 2010 figure on this page a whopping 95.5% of those entering into a PACS in France are not of the same sex.
In other words, there has been a massive uptake of the provision - which I understand to be the nearest equivalent to a UK CP - by straight couples.
Do you really think they all merely seeking 'the right to have some people socially treat them as second-class and "not really married"'?
[ 05. February 2016, 11:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I fear your objective answer in the first part of your sentence is drowned out by the part after the colon; pity.
Why can't you dispassionately entertain the idea that some people might actively not want the associations of marriage?
French law makes it notoriously difficult to establish straight/gay proportions, but according to a 2010 figure on this page a whopping 95.5% of those entering into a PACS in France are not of the same sex.
In other words, there has been a massive uptake of the provision - which I understand to be the nearest equivalent to a UK CP - by straight couples.
Do you really think they all merely seeking 'the right to have some people socially treat them as second-class and "not really married"'?
The answer to that is wrapped up in vast questions about what marriage actually means, and I wouldn't assume that the answer in France is the same as the answer here. The histories are very different, including the whole question of whether marriage is a 'civil' or 'religious' thing.
All I can tell you is that for many homosexuals, civil unions is very much seen as a thing that was created for the express purpose of not giving us marriage. For this homosexual legislative drafter, the vast number of complications that were added by creating a whole new category were created for the entire purpose of excluding from an existing category that could have been changed with only a few words.
Maybe in France the creation of PACS was about something different - about supplying a status for people who didn't want marriage. But the perception in many other places is that civil unions were created for people who did want marriage, and was intended as a consolation prize.
It's a really key question: was a new category created for people who didn't want the old category, or to keep people out of the old category?
[ 05. February 2016, 12:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The fact that PACS does not necessarily involve an intimate relationship is also rather crucial. That alone means it will not be seen as simply a marriage substitute. It is suitable for people who would never consider being married and are not in fact 'couples' in the sense we're talking about.
But in that sense, it is not in fact equivalent to the laws in many other places.
[ 05. February 2016, 12:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a really key question: was a new category created for people who didn't want the old category, or to keep people out of the old category?
I suspect that the answer (in the British context) is "Neither: it was the closest thing to what was really wanted that Parliament and public opinion were prepared to support at the time". A fudge, yes - but not (IMO) one arrived at with malicious intent. YMMV.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that PACS does not necessarily involve an intimate relationship is also rather crucial. That alone means it will not be seen as simply a marriage substitute. It is suitable for people who would never consider being married and are not in fact 'couples' in the sense we're talking about.
But in that sense, it is not in fact equivalent to the laws in many other places.
However, the interesting thing is that in Britain intimate relations are not considered to be legally essential to SSM. Gay couples can't divorce on grounds of non-consummation, or of adultery, if it occurs between two partners of the same sex.
So it could be argued that sexual acts and even the absence of such acts are legally irrelevant to SSM. Straight couples don't have an equivalent framework, because the laws around heterosexual marriage still recognise non-consummation and adultery.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a really key question: was a new category created for people who didn't want the old category, or to keep people out of the old category?
I suspect that the answer (in the British context) is "Neither: it was the closest thing to what was really wanted that Parliament and public opinion were prepared to support at the time". A fudge, yes - but not (IMO) one arrived at with malicious intent. YMMV.
You do not describe a 'Neither', you describe the second condition orfeo posits. Whether it was malicious or not is irrelevant to that.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, the interesting thing is that in Britain intimate relations are not considered to be legally essential to SSM. Gay couples can't divorce on grounds of non-consummation, or of adultery, if it occurs between two partners of the same sex.
So it could be argued that sexual acts and even the absence of such acts are legally irrelevant to SSM. Straight couples don't have an equivalent framework, because the laws around heterosexual marriage still recognise non-consummation and adultery.
I shall have to access the actual law to see the wording, but from the government's own site describing the conditions for divorce, no one can divorce based upon a partner having sex with someone of the same sex.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I shall have to access the actual law to see the wording, but from the government's own site describing the conditions for divorce, no one can divorce based upon a partner having sex with someone of the same sex.
As was pointed out upthread, "unreasonable behaviour" is grounds for both divorce and dissolution of a civil partnership. So anyone can divorce based on their partner's same-sex extracurricular activities, without the partner channelling Bill Clinton in defense.
(Civil partnerships are certainly aimed at "couples", as evidenced by the fact that they carry the same cosanguinity bars as marriage. Everyone's favourite pair of elderly sisters are unable to contract a civil partnership.
The fact that "sex" is not required is I think more a reflection of nobody really wanting to make a list of acts that would be deemed acceptably sexual from the point of view of consummating a same-sex marriage. Note that consummation is also not required for the marriage of a same-sex couple to be valid.)
[ 05. February 2016, 13:21: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
My understanding is that 'irretrievable breakdown of the marriage' is the catch all phrase for the granting of a divorce certificate in the UK.
This could affect traditional marriages as well as same sex marriages.
As 'ceremonies are for people' the word marriage really refers to a state of being 'married'
The ceremony could also be called a 'wedding'.
While a civil wedding ceremony could simply be a piece of bureaucracy, most couples wish to enhance the bureaucratic form filling with some sort of ceremony which emphasises the 'rite of passage' which the marriage ceremony is.
For many people there are three important events in life - birth,marriage and death. We have little control over birth and death but the marriage state is one of our own choosing and marks a time when our next of kin ceases (in many instances) to be our parents and starts to be our spouse.
If one of the ideas of SSM is equality before the law for homosexuals,then there should be the same equality for heterosexuals to enter a civil partnership,as long as the law permits civil partnerships.
Again as in every instance we have to know what is meant by 'civil partnership'
My son lives in a country where civil partnerships have never been heard of. He wished to return to the UK to marry in a traditional (some might say antiquated) wedding ceremony.
When filling out a form for the registrar, he wrote that his parents were in a 'civil partnership' because they had been in partnership for a long time and were always civil to one another.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Obviously, anyone can get divorced if they want to; we've made that fairly straightforward in our culture. But it seems odd that straight people have recourse to non-consummation and heterosexual adultery as reasons, but gay people don't have recourse to non-consummation and SS adultery.
It could reasonably be argued that if non-consummation and SS adultery aren't legally important in SS unions then there should at least be an option for straight people to enter legal unions for which non-consummation and heterosexual adultery are also legally irrelevant.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Svitlana, it basically comes down to no-one wanting to get into the details of what "consummation" actually involves for a homosexual couple. People don't want to try to define the mechanics of homosexual intercourse.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a really key question: was a new category created for people who didn't want the old category, or to keep people out of the old category?
I agree, and I agree mileage may vary from country to country.
My honest impression was that the PACS was introduced with a view to it being "not quite SSM", with all the potential for stigma you refer to, but it very quickly took on a life of its own, which I suspect a lot of laws in all countries do.
Today, whatever the original intent, to judge by the figures (95.5%!) it seems to scratch a social itch in a way marriage does far less. So I while I can understand where you're coming from in your post-colon phrase (!), I still think you're being unfair.
quote:
The fact that PACS does not necessarily involve an intimate relationship is also rather crucial. That alone means it will not be seen as simply a marriage substitute.
I don't know the figures here, but I suspect the vast majority are marriage substitutes.
What's really fun with this example is the way it has everyone swapping their arguments.
I seem to remember when discussing SSM that you had all sorts of arguments about intimacy (along the lines, as I recall, of "heavy breathing behind the bike shed" in your memorable words) being irrelevant to the essential nature of marriage (which, again as I recall, was all about "companionship"). Now, suddenly, it's terribly important!
French law commits married partners to "living together", that's all. No word about sex or intimacy. The nearest we get is when approaching the thorny topic of childbearing; a non-consummated marriage is grounds for annulment (historically, I suppose, due to the failure to provide an heir), but of course that line of thinking takes us straight back to whether the natural ability for a couple to conceive is a "normative" component of marriage these days. Tricky.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Svitlana,
ISTM, the law should have been rewritten to exclude the mention of gender. And the consumption bit is an antiquated bit of silliness.
Forthview,
"Traditional Marriage" as you appear to use the phrase, is not only insulting, but inaccurate. When two women form a union in a religious ceremony, they are having a traditional marriage.
CP's are marriage, BTW. Just discriminatory ones.*
*In the UK and similar.
[ 05. February 2016, 15:27: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Today, whatever the original intent, to judge by the figures (95.5%!) it seems to scratch a social itch in a way marriage does far less. So I while I can understand where you're coming from in your post-colon phrase (!), I still think you're being unfair.
And if we were discussing French couples, I would accept that. But we're not. In fact we're largely discussing your surprise that the entire world is not France.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I seem to remember when discussing SSM that you had all sorts of arguments about intimacy (along the lines, as I recall, of "heavy breathing behind the bike shed" in your memorable words) being irrelevant to the essential nature of marriage (which, again as I recall, was all about "companionship"). Now, suddenly, it's terribly important!
I am quite sure I would never have suggested that intimacy is irrelevant. What I would have said is that it is not necessary to get married in order to have sex (or to procreate in heterosexual cases).
That marriage is not necessary for sex does not translate to the reverse proposition, that sex is not necessary (or relevant) for marriage.
[ 05. February 2016, 15:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
People don't want to try to define the mechanics of homosexual intercourse.
When they do, they get it wrong anyway. Scissoring. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My honest impression was that the PACS was introduced with a view to it being "not quite SSM", with all the potential for stigma you refer to, but it very quickly took on a life of its own,
See, this is the thing: CP in the UK didn't take on a life of its own, it remained true to its original intent.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Svitlana,
ISTM, the law should have been rewritten to exclude the mention of gender. And the consumption bit is an antiquated bit of silliness.
Forthview,
"Traditional Marriage" as you appear to use the phrase, is not only insulting, but inaccurate. When two women form a union in a religious ceremony, they are having a traditional marriage.
CP's are marriage, BTW. Just discriminatory ones.*
*In the UK and similar.
I don't understand your reference to 'traditional marriage'. I don't think I've used that term in this thread, certainly not in relation to SSM.
What I've done is pointed out that the law pertaining to SSM and to marriage between couples of the opposite sex is indeed different with regards to the legalities of non-consummation in particular, and potentially with regard to adultery, where the parties are of the same sex. Hence, it's not precisely true to say that there's absolutely no difference between the two.
Non-consummation might be an outdated concept, but it still exists. Where I might possibly agree with you is that if we remove both non-consummation and adultery (whether between persons of the same sex or opposite sexes) from the legal concept of marriage then there would be greater equality. It would also separate marriage from the concept of sexual exclusivity (which human beings seem to be highly ambivalent about anyway), and also acknowledge that not all marriages, whether gay or straight, involve sexual activity. Couples could then be encouraged to negotiate their boundaries on a personal level, rather than expecting the legal contract of marriage to do that for them.
In short, I seem to be saying that either marriage or civil partnerships need to be re-invented. Since we're so fond of the word 'marriage' it looks as if it might be simpler to completely re-draw its cultural and legal significance than to go down the French route of creating a PACS style alternative.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: And if we were discussing French couples, I would accept that. But we're not. In fact we're largely discussing your surprise that the entire world is not France.
I know this is a mainly Anglo-Saxon forum, and I feel that it is good sometimes that there are people who can offer a different perspective. In quite a lot of things, you are the exception.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
LILBuddha -I think once again we have to define what is meant by 'tradition' or ''traditional'.
I think that there is a long tradition of marriage being considered as a state of a man and a woman living together,pooling their resources and each complementing the other.
I do not for one minute doubt that for millennia some women have lived together as the equivalent of what people would see as marriage partners. Certainly within Europe, there is no long tradition of two women having gone through the bureaucratic formulas provided by the state to be recognised by the state as a married couple.
It is in that sense that I use the words 'traditional marriage ceremony' The use of the words was most certainly not meant to be insulting.
There is no reason to suppose that one is trying to be insulting by indicating that a marriage ceremony between a man and a woman is a traditional feature of European, if not indeed world society.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Forthview,
Prior to the advent of the struggle for SSM, the term traditional marriage meant a ceremony with the customs of one's cultural group as opposed to a pure civil ceremony.
Including SSM doesn't affect that definition.
It does affect the common recent adaptation to define OSM.
Traditionally one wouldn't use it that manner.
Svitlana, that portion of that comment was directed towards Forthview.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Forthview,
Prior to the advent of the struggle for SSM, the term traditional marriage meant a ceremony with the customs of one's cultural group as opposed to a pure civil ceremony.
Including SSM doesn't affect that definition.
It does affect the common recent adaptation to define OSM.
Traditionally one wouldn't use it that manner.
...whereupon lilbuddha goes and with great ease hides behind spiral staircase, such are the contortions that s/he has performed in order to show that everyone else is mistaken in their understanding of the term 'traditional marriage'....
[ 05. February 2016, 20:39: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Post some examples of the use of the term in that manner prior, then.
You claim twisting, I see it as stripping away the pretense.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
You know damn well that when people, most people, talk about 'traditional marriage' they mean marriage which is, perhaps among other things, between persons of different sexes. That is something which has always and everywhere been a characteristic of marriage in European and European-derived societies(or near as makes no difference always and everywhere in case you are going to tell me that there is some semi-deciphered manuscript somewhere suggesting that there might possibly have been a custom which looked something like SSM in some obscure corner of the Med two or three millennia ago).
Now, that is of course no reason to deny the extension of marriages to same sex couples. And I understand your comment upthread to mean that when two women marry, where such a thing is possible, they mean to subscribe to the traditional values of the married state, or at any rate some of them. If that is what you are saying I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. But traditional marriage it ain't. It's none the worse for that, and it might become traditional, in time, but it's not what people mean by traditional marriage now, and you know it.
[ 06. February 2016, 15:12: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You know damn well
No, I do not know this. I do know that my Gran, and people in her generation,* oft spoke of traditional marriage being with a religious ceremony with all the smells, bells and candle-wax. As in "I wish X would have had a more traditional ceremony" as opposed to a more pared down or purely civil ceremony.
The "tradition" of hetero marriage is the tradition of oppressing SS relationships and LGBT folk in general. Hard to have a marriage if your very existence is taboo.
BTW, a quick web search confirms my case, not the one you make.
*Which I find amusing as well.
Tradition
noun
1. as far as I can remember
2. what makes me comfortable
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I think that a traditional marriage is the one without the blacklights?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that a traditional marriage is the one without the blacklights?
Unless you are of the Goth tradition, in which case they are mandatory.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You know damn well
No, I do not know this. I do know that my Gran, and people in her generation,* oft spoke of traditional marriage being with a religious ceremony with all the smells, bells and candle-wax. As in "I wish X would have had a more traditional ceremony" as opposed to a more pared down or purely civil ceremony.
Ok, you know damn well that when people talk about 'traditional marruiage' in this context...
But there you go again, being twistier than Oliver Twist and Chubby Checker playing Twister while listening to Twisted Sister's greatest hits.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
I do know that my Gran, and people in her generation,* oft spoke of traditional marriage being with a religious ceremony with all the smells, bells and candle-wax.
No, that's a traditional wedding.
[ 07. February 2016, 16:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Good gods, even the fear of dancing. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Wedding = marriage. Both are terms for the joining of two individual units into one unit.
You couldn't keep marriage for yourself so now you wish to create a seperate catagory of marriage. Fine, just don't pretend that is not what is occurring.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Wedding is the ceremony. Marriage is a term which is sometimes used for the ceremony but which has a wider sense of the institution, as in 'Evelyn and Hilary [see what I did there? Inclusive, eh?] had a 45 year marriage'; 'marriage is for life'; 'marriage is not for life'- none of which could possibly apply primarily to the ceremony. Two women could have a traditional wedding (well, traditional in all respects except that until very recently the parties would always have been of opposite sexes) and they could subscribe to (some or all of) the traditional values and behaviours of marriage. But that's as far as it goes, for the moment. Doesn't necessarily mean that two women can't contract a marriage. Does mean that until such time as SSMs have become well established practice, and perhaps most people have half-forgotten that anyone ever made a fuss about them, SSM is not, in our society, traditional marriage- yet.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You know damn well
No, I do not know this. I do know that my Gran, and people in her generation,* oft spoke of traditional marriage being with a religious ceremony with all the smells, bells and candle-wax. As in "I wish X would have had a more traditional ceremony" as opposed to a more pared down or purely civil ceremony.
Ok, you know damn well that when people talk about 'traditional marruiage' in this context...
But there you go again, being twistier than Oliver Twist and Chubby Checker playing Twister while listening to Twisted Sister's greatest hits.
hosting
This is getting too personal. Please desist or take it to hell.
thanks,
L
DH Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
It's not worth it. I'll step away.
[ 07. February 2016, 20:49: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
