?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Berketex bride

Well the good news is that feorag is here. The bad news is that she's getting married. I don't know what to say, I really don't...

Comments

purplerabbits
11th Jul, 2002 06:41 (UTC)
It's OK, I wasn't trying to bite your head off - hence the smiley... As for the serious bit, it's something I think, but it's certainly not something I get angry about or expect everyone to agree with me over or anything.
the_maenad
11th Jul, 2002 06:47 (UTC)
Argh. Sorry. I am not in a good state of mind today and am hypersensitive to perceived criticism.

I am also not in the right mood for a philosophical argument about why one should support one's friends even if they are doing things one does not wish for oneself. Marriage is by and large a crock, but we mostly need ceremony and ritual in our lives, and if Charlie and Feorag think marriage is a suitable one just as dmwcarol and Gary think handfasting is, who are you or I to say them nay?

Simon and I will never get married, and probably never even get handfasted or have another sort of commitment ceremony, but we reserve the right to have an enormous party at Bicon 2004 to celebrate our tenth anniversary together, and if we do you're invited. I hope our friends would accord no more and no less honour to that form of celebration than a marriage or handfasting.

I'm going to go and lie down, my head hurts again. Except that there's nowhere to lie down in this office. Feh.
ciphergoth
11th Jul, 2002 06:59 (UTC)
A commitment ceremony is a binding between (usually) two parties. In a marriage, it is between three, and the third is the State. I'm not going to go to the State's wedding. I'll be happy to attend its funeral though.
the_maenad
11th Jul, 2002 07:02 (UTC)
Heh heh. Nice point, but since it's currently impossible not to invite the State, like the bad fairy at the christening, there's not much option.

I'll be dancing with you on its grave with equal gusto.
ciphergoth
11th Jul, 2002 07:10 (UTC)
Eh? In what way not possible? As far as ceremonies to mark relationship go, it's possible and you and I know lots of people who've done it. The decision to invite the State is quite deliberate.

Indeed Charlie and feorag are even taking care to marry somewhere that gives a lesser recognition to same-sex partnerships; they've chosen *which* state to invite, on the grounds that Holland is the least worst. Of course it makes no difference; as soon as they return to Britain, it will be the British state that's their new partner.
the_maenad
11th Jul, 2002 07:11 (UTC)
Ceremonies, yes. Marriage, no.
ciphergoth
11th Jul, 2002 08:01 (UTC)
A marriage is precisely a commitment ceremony in which the State is one of the partners in the commitment. The choice to marry rather than go for another form of ceremony is precisely the choice to invite the State into your relationship.

So no, of course not.
djm4
11th Jul, 2002 07:23 (UTC)
Nice point, but since it's currently impossible not to invite the State, like the bad fairy at the christening, there's not much option.

sashajwolf and I are drawing up the invite list for our commitment ceremony at the moment, and the State is conspicuous by its absence from the list.
the_maenad
11th Jul, 2002 07:55 (UTC)
Yeah, but you're not getting *married*, are you (unless my understanding of the position is completely out of the ball park).
sashajwolf
11th Jul, 2002 11:26 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but I do consider it to be a marriage even though it isn't legally binding :-)
djm4
11th Jul, 2002 23:52 (UTC)
Well, firstly, in the post of Paul's that you replied to, he was talking about state-sanctioned marriages and commitment ceremonies, so if you were narrowing the debate you should really have said so. Secondly, to an extent I do regard the ceremony Liz and I will be having as a marriage; this is precisely because I don't regard the state as having a legitimate interest in our partnership, so losing the state from the ceremony doesn't change it in any way that means a lot to me.

Similarly, I don't consider exclusivity to be relevant to our partnership, so losing that aspect doesn't matter to to. And if what we're doing is a 'marriage', but without a copule of bits that I didn't want anyway and won't miss, I don't have a problem still thinking of it as a 'marriage'.

However, I realise that 'marraige' is a very loaded term for a lot of people here, and many people use it to make precisely the distinctions I'm rejecting here, so I wouldn't dream of insisting that other people call it that. 'Commitment ceremony' describes it just as well, (which is nobbut vaguely; you'd still need the four page essay version to know what it actually means to us).
ciphergoth
12th Jul, 2002 01:41 (UTC)
the_maenad: As far as I can tell, you can choose whether you want to be refuted by me or by David. Either you don't have to invite the state for it to be a marriage, in which case he's right, or you do, in which case I'm right. The difference isn't one of fact, but of terminology, and discussing which is right is about as meaningful as discussing whether submarines swim.
hfnuala
11th Jul, 2002 07:35 (UTC)
Oh, and the really fun thing about this is it impossible to discuss this honestly without my married friends being insulted.

And that annoys me because I have to accept they are bothered by me not rating marriage but *I* can't be insulted by the fact they obviously think marriage is better than living together long term.