It may be our pre frontal cortex. Suck ideas in like a psychological vortex. This burning kind of imagination.
Second, marriage has always been understood as the bringing together of man and woman; it is a gendered, gender-specific, gender-complementary institution. Why was it never part of the gay rights battle against discrimination? Unannounced in any campaign manifesto, it was driven by the collusion of all three parties, driven at speed through Parliament in order not to give time for civil society to organize in response. This is goddamned truth. The fact that some marriages are childless, or do not last because of death and divorce , or involve adopting children, does not detract from this understanding. But neither of these things is what this legislation is trying to do.
It is the most painful kind of creation. What's the best part of neuroses? It is not quite psychosis. Garrett Jair Lang. Read next: I'm Tired I Am A Bullet. Matthew F.
Blowers III. Mind Ticks. Kalischa Mokhriby. If Others Only Knew. Sickboy Lecuyer. Regret Nothing. Jennifer Petersen.
The fact that some marriages are childless, or do not last because of death and divorce , or involve adopting children, does not detract from this understanding. Marriage has a meaning.
It offers a model, an understanding — what the Greeks call a telos — which makes it what it is. You may not want it, and you may not qualify for it, but you know — you used to know — what it stands for. The Church, which has long insisted that sex is for marriage, must now insist, counter-culturally, that marriage is for sex.
Second, marriage has always been understood as the bringing together of man and woman; it is a gendered, gender-specific, gender-complementary institution. Any two people. Third, marriage has been understood to be about fidelity.
The new version of marriage, then, is not about sex, not about a man and woman, and not about permanence and fidelity. What, then, is left? What makes marriage are all these elements: one man plus one woman, brought together through love and affection, sexually bonded for life, faithful to each other, in order to provide the best environment for the creation and rearing of children.
It cannot last. What will the effect be? It is too early to say conclusively.
The UK is one of just 15 nations to have dethroned conjugal marriage, and the first was one to do so was barely a decade ago. Here are three. What is it? Why do I need it?
If marriage has been redefined in one particular man plus woman why not in other particulars fidelity, permanence, restricting numbers to two? The arguments are incoherent, and further weaken the idea of marriage. Does the desire for equality have any part in these discussions? She told the House:.
The argument in favour of same-sex marriage has mostly centred on rights. Similarly, if there is a need for protection of rights to property and rights to make decisions, there are good reasons for the state to provide regulation. But neither of these things is what this legislation is trying to do. In this case, the state is regulating love and commitment alone, between consenting adults, without purpose to anything else. That feels curious to me, as I would normally consider that very much a private matter.
And there is the rub. If being unable to marry was a symptom of discrimination against gay people, why was it never mentioned on the marches? Why was it never part of the gay rights battle against discrimination? In countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the take-up has been small, and dwindles over time.
But that is wholly to deflect the point. That is why we must continue to speak up, and refuse to be labelled as anti-gay.