?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile PenUltimate Productions Website Previous Previous Next Next
Poem: "Hope of the Future" - The Wordsmith's Forge — LiveJournal
The Writing & Other Projects of Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
ysabetwordsmith
Poem: "Hope of the Future"
17 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
ysabetwordsmith From: ysabetwordsmith Date: August 7th, 2011 09:13 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Thoughts

Emotional intimacy is certainly one factor. Bonding is another: the establishment of a close, long-term relationship equating to family. English has a lot of lexical gaps in this area, and mainstream culture has a very limited view of what constitutes family. The only legal options for creating formal bonds are sexual (marriage) or parental (adoption). People who want something else are just shit out of luck.
the_vulture From: the_vulture Date: August 7th, 2011 10:05 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Thoughts

Why can't you have a non-sexual marriage? (Or am I just reading that point wrong?)
ysabetwordsmith From: ysabetwordsmith Date: August 7th, 2011 10:16 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Thoughts

It's possible to have a non-sexual marriage. However, people assume that married people have sex and that the base purpose of marriage is procreation. Regrettably America only offers one form of marriage. Some other cultures offered MANY forms -- depending on whether or not children were desired, or property was involved, how many people were involved, what timeframe was intended, etc. There have been legal squabbles over whether people with particular conditions, including infertility, should be allowed to marry at all. There are often consanguinity rules because of the assumption of reproduction.

There is little opportunity for two people to designate themselves as significant others in a nonsexual way that conveys the same effects as marriage for people who are functioning as a social unit. Civil union, available in some areas, is deliberately left inferior to marriage and is often looked down on accordingly. That's awkward. In addition to the social ineptitude, there are practical considerations: the state's only legitimate interest in people's sex life has to do with the socioeconomic effects; i.e. such people often do major things like buying houses together and are enmeshed in each other's lives, and so that needs to be accounted for in taxes, pension benefits, emergency decision-making, etc. The lack of coverage for some types of family arrangements doesn't just cause headaches for the individuals themselves, but for everyone who interacts with them.
the_vulture From: the_vulture Date: August 7th, 2011 10:46 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Thoughts

And if two people of opposite gender simply live with each other long enough, then they risk being considered bound by common-law marriage, whether they want to or not. Kinda crazy, innit.
17 comments or Leave a comment