Yellow Fang
Legendary Member
- Location
- Reading
So this putative man you're not contemplating not marrying, might he vote Tory at all?
'Not the marrying type'
- Thread starter mudsticks
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
gbb
Legendary Member
- Location
- Peterborough
As a fella, I have no problem with 'traditions ' that have no relevance to modern day thinking. . Giving away' the bride for me personally was something my daughter wanted and expected (as do many women apparently) . It's just tradition, there are many that have no relevance, people still follow them, whatever it maybe. It's about choice, nothing else, as long as it's what everyone within the ceremony wants....no problem.
Of course, had my wife or daughter objected, youd respect that, I'm sure my wifes father would have respected that, as would I for my daughter but she was quite determined I did give her away. It's original meaning had no relevance to her, it's just a tradition and that was important even though it had no meaning. (Isnt it wierd how we follow such things but I guess they give people some comfort)
I just asked my wife. She doesnt think she would go along with the 'giving away' now , but she was happy for it to happen when we did, times change. Equally, she agrees, it's up to the individual. Some definately want it, if you dont, dont.
As the options grow, personally I wouldnt do a church marriage, I'm not religious, its be a little disingenuous of me to say all the words and not mean them (which is why we chose a civil funeral for dad who wasnt religious either). Equally, a marriage is about compromise, personally i dont see the relevance of giving away but if my partner or daughter wanted it because it was traditional, I'd happily, genuinely go along with it.
Of course, had my wife or daughter objected, youd respect that, I'm sure my wifes father would have respected that, as would I for my daughter but she was quite determined I did give her away. It's original meaning had no relevance to her, it's just a tradition and that was important even though it had no meaning. (Isnt it wierd how we follow such things but I guess they give people some comfort)
I just asked my wife. She doesnt think she would go along with the 'giving away' now , but she was happy for it to happen when we did, times change. Equally, she agrees, it's up to the individual. Some definately want it, if you dont, dont.
As the options grow, personally I wouldnt do a church marriage, I'm not religious, its be a little disingenuous of me to say all the words and not mean them (which is why we chose a civil funeral for dad who wasnt religious either). Equally, a marriage is about compromise, personally i dont see the relevance of giving away but if my partner or daughter wanted it because it was traditional, I'd happily, genuinely go along with it.
OP
OP
mudsticks
Obviously an Aubergine
Julia9054
Guru
- Location
- Knaresborough
As a feminist, I actually see this as progress. As a woman who was a little girl in the 1970s, nothing I could see of the adult women around me looked remotely attractive. I aspired to be the exact opposite of my mum and my friends mums who's hopes and dreams had to take second place to being wives and mothers. It is why many of my generation if we did get married did not change our names - to distance ourselves from our mothers generation.
Younger women look at their mother's lives and marriage to them does not signify the same things as it does to my generation. They are traditions without the oppressive significance.
To me, that is progress.
12boy
Guru
- Location
- Casper WY USA
To some, the formal commitment process of a wedding is a good thing and taken seriously. For others it is unnecessary and maybe to expensive. We catered our own and with the food for 30 people and a visit from a minister, it was maybe $200. My niece's wedding was $50 k.
Here's a tale:
While working at the Social Security office 3 people from Saudi Arabia. Although they had never lived in the USA, they had all been born heree to establish the right to citizenship, and all three wanted Social Security cards. The two youngest, college age only needed birth certificates and a statement as to why they hadn't gotten one earlier, but the recently married eldest had to provide proof of marriage since her married surname was not her maiden name. Reading that document I learned she had to pay a dowry of $50k, get a Dr's certificate of virginity and acknowledge she could not attend college, get a job or drive a car without first getting her husband's permission . So, although some of us may find marriage in the west patriarchal or restrictive it can be a lot more so elsewhere.
Here's a tale:
While working at the Social Security office 3 people from Saudi Arabia. Although they had never lived in the USA, they had all been born heree to establish the right to citizenship, and all three wanted Social Security cards. The two youngest, college age only needed birth certificates and a statement as to why they hadn't gotten one earlier, but the recently married eldest had to provide proof of marriage since her married surname was not her maiden name. Reading that document I learned she had to pay a dowry of $50k, get a Dr's certificate of virginity and acknowledge she could not attend college, get a job or drive a car without first getting her husband's permission . So, although some of us may find marriage in the west patriarchal or restrictive it can be a lot more so elsewhere.
OP
OP
mudsticks
Obviously an Aubergine
Yes there are some horrendously oppressive regimes around the world when it comes to womens rights.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep working to maintain our own though.
And of course we should do all we can to support the cause of those in other countries.
One of my yoga students can't visit her family in Iran, because of the research, and writing around women's rights, that she does here.
Iran used to be a modern progressive country with far greater equalities.
Advancement can easily be lost if we take it for granted.
iandg
Legendary Member
- Location
- Dumfries and Galloway
We got married because it was expected (and we got lots of presents to help us on our way). Been together since 1981, married 1987 (don't remember but remind myself by checking when Roche won the TdF). A civil partnership would have suited us better.
Beebo
Firm and Fruity
- Location
- Hexleybeef
I would hate to bring the conversation down to brass tacks but if you have a shared net worth of £350k you need to consider your tax arrangements.
A civil partnership makes huge sense. No one wants to die leaving their partner with a hefty tax bill on their property.
I know it’s a big sum, but in London it really isn’t that much. Almost every family sized home is over the inheritance tax threshold.
A civil partnership makes huge sense. No one wants to die leaving their partner with a hefty tax bill on their property.
I know it’s a big sum, but in London it really isn’t that much. Almost every family sized home is over the inheritance tax threshold.
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
Dubai takes a dim view to certain kinds of jiggy activities by foreign visitors. Are civilised and married people treated differently there?
Smokin Joe
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
Saying it's bad here but we should be grateful because it's worse somewhere else doesn't cut it for me, but I can see the point you make.
Mind you, had the church got it's own way over the years the Saudi experience would be one we ourselves were living.
Spoked Wheels
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bournemouth
Another thread got me musing.
Now that heterosexual couples are allowed to enter into civil partnerships, would some folks on here consider doing that instead of getting married?
I've never been the marrying type myself, for a variety of reasons.
But the availability of a 'civil partnership' alternative feels more modern, and equitable, and comes with less of the 'baggage' associated with trad nuptuals.
Plus of course in a 'Civil' Partnership theres a 'no swearing at each other' clause built in as standard
Has anyone on here tied the knot this way, or considered doing it??
My son is going to do just this. I'm old fashioned and I never understood why he won't married his partner of 12 years. I always put it to just been stubborn.
I've been married 42 years this year... hopeless trying to make me understand what's the advantage of Civil Partnership over marriage
OP
OP
mudsticks
Obviously an Aubergine
My son is going to do just this. I'm old fashioned and I never understood why he won't married his partner of 12 years. I always put it to just been stubborn.
I've been married 42 years this year... hopeless trying to make me understand what's the advantage of Civil Partnership over marriage
Has he tried to explain it to you?
Has his partner tried?
If you don't understand the underlying cultural and historical connotations of 'marriage' and how some people find them outdated, and distasteful, and therefore want nothing to do with them, then I guess you'll struggle to understand.
But I'm guessing you're happier he is doing this, rather than leaving things as they were?
Spoked Wheels
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bournemouth
Oh yes, my wife and I are happy, the whole family is.
His partner has always shown an interest in marriage. They get on very well, have two children and a very solid partnership but my son is stubborn.
I think his partner is worried about security in case anything happens to my son but he says she would be well protected.
cyberknight
As long as I breathe, I attack.
- Location
- Land of confusion
Cant find the exact quote atm but HHGTTG..
Jesus was nailed to tree for telling people to be nice to each other
Just before the law changed I heard an interview with one of the 1st people set to have a Civil Partnership.
Along with standard views about marriage and not being comfortable with it.
She also talk about other less common ones. They both felt uncombable saying vows in public even with very few present.
They had many times given in private a commitment to each other. Got the impression they are very private people.
The other one was an interesting one, They are both highly religious and firmly believe in equality and felt really uncombable.
With being allowed to have a formal wedding in church. Which is not an option for same sex couple's so to them it would be very anti equality.
So to them Civil Partnership was the best option it gave them legal standing as a couple but without any of the formal elements and be in conflict with how they feel about same sex rates.
Along with standard views about marriage and not being comfortable with it.
She also talk about other less common ones. They both felt uncombable saying vows in public even with very few present.
They had many times given in private a commitment to each other. Got the impression they are very private people.
The other one was an interesting one, They are both highly religious and firmly believe in equality and felt really uncombable.
With being allowed to have a formal wedding in church. Which is not an option for same sex couple's so to them it would be very anti equality.
So to them Civil Partnership was the best option it gave them legal standing as a couple but without any of the formal elements and be in conflict with how they feel about same sex rates.
