Re: LazyitiswesternindFebruary 10 2005, 11:21:54 UTC
2. "Engels etc" - shorthand for the historicity of marriage as a patriarchal institution. This one bothers Simon more than me, and it doesn't bother either of us nearly as much as it did. More recently I think that it has the nature of a personal and social contract; it's what you decide to make of it
( ... )
Re: Lazyitisscary_ladyFebruary 10 2005, 11:35:29 UTC
Re 2. All kinds of things have a history as patriarchal institutions. Voting, law & medicine spring immediately to mind as things that had to be prised from the unwilling grasp of man. Does marriage benefit man more than woman nowadays, the way it used to? I'd say not.
RE 3. Sorry, I'm feeling very un-intellectual and non-PC, but what constitutes a civil partnership? In what why does this differ from a civil marriage (ie. one in front of a registrar?). I think I'm missing something here that would allow me to understand the distinction you are making.
Re: LazyitiswesternindFebruary 10 2005, 11:55:44 UTC
I mean 'civil partnership' as in The Civil Partnership Act 2004 - passed in November last year: Stonewall article. How does it differ? Free of the weight of history, expectations, concordances that the 'marriage' label has, whether church or civil. Most other people probably don't feel that weight.
Please understand, I'm not criticising anyone else's - or your - reasons for getting married. I'm not evangelical about my reasons for not doing so - and I'm aware they're emotional rather than rational. It's just where my head is at the moment - and Simon's - and at long as we feel the same way as each other (and about each other!), that's OK. :-)
Re: Lazyitisscary_ladyFebruary 10 2005, 12:14:23 UTC
I think I may be beginning to understand a bit. But you are stuck in a bit of a loop it seems.
One of your reasons for not being married was that same sex couples were not being offered the same right. Now they are being offered a new and different right, you feel excluded from the choice that they are being offered.
So really you are stuck until
(1)Same sex couples are offered Civil and Religious marriages (it might be patriarchal in your eyes, but that doesn’t mean that there won’t be same sex couples who feel that it’s a right they should have)
And
(2)Mixed sex couples are offered Civil Partnerships.
Loop! Or a Moebius strip, even?westernindFebruary 10 2005, 13:41:15 UTC
Yes, I suppose logically we are. It would matter if it was a burning issue; but it only crops up occasionally, and then mostly in connection with pensions and other legal stuff.
Reasons 2 and 3 really are insignificant compared with my disinclination to do the organising thing!
Reply
Reply
Reply
RE 3. Sorry, I'm feeling very un-intellectual and non-PC, but what constitutes a civil partnership? In what why does this differ from a civil marriage (ie. one in front of a registrar?). I think I'm missing something here that would allow me to understand the distinction you are making.
Reply
Please understand, I'm not criticising anyone else's - or your - reasons for getting married. I'm not evangelical about my reasons for not doing so - and I'm aware they're emotional rather than rational. It's just where my head is at the moment - and Simon's - and at long as we feel the same way as each other (and about each other!), that's OK. :-)
Reply
One of your reasons for not being married was that same sex couples were not being offered the same right.
Now they are being offered a new and different right, you feel excluded from the choice that they are being offered.
So really you are stuck until
(1)Same sex couples are offered Civil and Religious marriages (it might be patriarchal in your eyes, but that doesn’t mean that there won’t be same sex couples who feel that it’s a right they should have)
And
(2)Mixed sex couples are offered Civil Partnerships.
Wibble.
Reply
Reasons 2 and 3 really are insignificant compared with my disinclination to do the organising thing!
Reply
Leave a comment