Two men are getting married, but Gay groups are horrified.

[BvBPL]

There is no reason to remove the assumption of sex.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Maybe they don't need to legislate it out, maybe they just need to update the definition of "consummate"? For example, if these two guys pick up a woman at a bar and perform the ol' Eiffel Tower maneuver, that could count as consummation.

 

[Farm Boy]

There is no reason to remove the assumption of sex.

But there is no reason to include it either. Building it in mostly seems to give ammunition to officious busybodies who demand their rightful say in the private lives of their countrymen.

 

[BvBPL]

There is wisdom in having a presumption of sex. People do still get married without being previously intimate. Allowing annulments for parties permits a relief valve for those that have entered into marriage without understanding they are incompatible.

 

[Farm Boy]

There is wisdom in having a presumption of sex. People do still get married without being previously intimate. Allowing annulments for parties permits a relief valve for those that have entered into marriage without understanding they are incompatible.

Hiya dere. I know the oldschool route. Live(d) it, on that token. There is no reason to include a sexual component rather than a simple window of time for annulment rather than divorce.

 

[BvBPL]

A window of time for annulment certainly makes sense as an additional option.

 

[Farm Boy]

A window of time for annulment certainly makes sense as an additional option.

The sexual component is an avenue for abuse if not already coupled with the window of time. Given that the rights conferred by the state are not sexual in nature allowing people to later claim lack of sexual activity in annulling, rather than divorcing, after a significant amount of time having enjoyed the opportunity and ability to exercise those rights.

 

[warpus]

It would be grounds for an annulment, not divorce. There is a presumption that sex is important to marriage. I don't think that's an unfair assumption.

It usually isn't, but asexual people get married too, as well as those who just don't have that big of a sex drive. Those people would be getting married with other reasons in mind, for the most part. It seems that we're disenfranchising them by insisting that marriage is always about sex.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

They could write their own vows.

They could, but society generally expects married people to practice fidelity to each other, not gallivant around with people to whom they're not married.

This said... it's easy to be judgmental when it's an abstract, but not so easy when it's a RL situation. I know of a formerly-married couple who were in one of the Alberta SCA groups. They had the sort of 'open marriage' in which either spouse could be with someone else as long as the other person knew and approved. When one of them started having encounters with people who were not known/approved by the other person, the married couple in question broke up and later divorced. The gossip surrounding this made the rounds of the SCA groups in Alberta, and those who told me expected me to take one side or the other: Was the person who strayed wrong, or was the other person wrong to be upset considering it was an open marriage?

Both of the spouses were very nice people, both had always been kind to me, and I decided this was none of my business. I refused to take sides and let it be known that any further gossip about it was something I wouldn't listen to. I have no idea how their lives turned out, but I wish them both well.

Can I safely assume that a woman can annul a marriage to a man if said man has impregnated a woman who hasn't given birth yet? Like she marries the man when the woman he impregnated is only 3 months pregnant? What's good for the goose...

I think it would depend on whether or not she and her husband were already in a relationship at the time the baby was conceived, and when the husband knew the woman was pregnant.

If the married couple didn't meet until after the baby's conception and the husband didn't know of the conception until after he married his wife, he's not at fault for not telling her something he didn't know about, that happened at a time when he hadn't met his wife-to-be.

Oh right? I thought we'd moved on from all that. And the only real grounds were irretrievable breakdown. Or indeed, simply mutual consent. Why anyone would want to remain married to someone who wanted a divorce is a curious idea. But I expect the reason might have something to do with money.

Of course it has to do with money. It probably also has to do with "staying together for the sake of the children."

It also has to do with pride. There have been a lot of divorces in my family, on my mother's side (starting with her; she and my father were divorced in 1971 and her second husband divorced her sometime during 2001-2002). In the first instance, I was 8 years old when it happened, and I'm glad they didn't 'stay together for the sake of the child'. The fighting and stress was enormously hurtful to everyone. In the second instance, I have no idea what prompted my ex-stepfather to be such a damn jerk, but she didn't want the divorce. However, in my opinion she's well rid of him.

 

[BvBPL]

It usually isn't, but asexual people get married too, as well as those who just don't have that big of a sex drive. Those people would be getting married with other reasons in mind, for the most part. It seems that we're disenfranchising them by insisting that marriage is always about sex.

Nobody is saying that.

 

[warpus]

Nobody is saying that.

"The government" seems to be saying that it's okay to insist that legally speaking a lack of sex can be used as a grounds for divorce.. or whatever is technically true that's sort of like that.

That's pretty much the essence of what I am disagreeing with, because it just doesn't work in a large enough number of scenarios.

 

[BvBPL]

Go write your MP then.

 

[warpus]

Go write your MP then.

I take this comment as a sign that you find my position unworthy of discussion.

That's fine, but you had a chance to say that several posts ago. Now you're just wasting everyone's time by beating around the bush.