Big wedding when you're already married

[Deleted]

Your opinion/definition is not invalid... Your stance that everyone must use your definition, or inform you if they are not, so that you know how to properly feel about the event and are not deceived, is invalid

[shanendoah]

And I'm pretty certain I never called your arguments illogical.

[Angel!]

Apr 24, 2012 16:45:51 GMT -5 Firebird said:

Sorry, I had to ask it that way to hopefully get you to see how illogical, in my opinion, your position on this is.

It annoyed me because you should have known the answer. We've talked about gay marriage before and you know where I stand, so it's ridiculous and insulting to ask me a question that implies I am against gay marriage when you know perfectly well I'm rabidly in favor of it.

Actually I don't think it was a ridiculous question. Your position seems to be that it is only a real marriage if a piece of paper is signed & registered with the govt. It stands to reason that you may feel that therefore gay people not legally wed have fake marriages. After all, the govt. doesn't consider them married, so why should you? It honestly doesn't fit with everything else you have said - shouldn't your actual response be "no they aren't married, but they should be allowed to marry".

And it isn't your strong opinion on this that is rubbing people the wrong way. It is the fact you have a strong opinion combined with thinking that you have an absolute right to know someone's legal marriage status. It stands to reason that someone with an opinion as strong as yours will judge a person based on the information that you feel is your right to know.

I guess it comes down to semantics, I am fine with a wedding being used to celebrate a commitment with or without legal paperwork. I am fine with someone using the term husband or wife with or without legal paperwork. You are ok with those uses of the words only when legal paperwork goes along with them.

[Firebird]

We are making our case and pointing out where your arguments have led us to the conclusions we have made about your case.

My problem is when you wrongly state my conclusions. That frustrates me, as I often go to great lengths making sure my posts are clear. Ask me for clarification if you don't understand, but don't wrongly restate my opinion and claim that it's how I feel about something.

[Firebird]

It is the fact you have a strong opinion combined with thinking that you have an absolute right to know someone's legal marriage status.

See #4 on the previous page. I don't have an absolute right to know anything. Your marriage is your business. However, I do consider it deceptive if you hide the fact that you're legally married (or not, as the case may be).

[Firebird]

Actually I don't think it was a ridiculous question. Your position seems to be that it is only a real marriage if a piece of paper is signed & registered with the govt. It stands to reason that you may feel that therefore gay people not legally wed have fake marriages.

Fair enough. I really meant that DARK should have known better since he and I have discussed this before and he knows full well that I think it's ridiculous that gay people can't get married legally. It has always been my position that they should be able to get married as much as straight couples should. Since they can't, none of this applies to them in my mind - but I should have taken pains to make that a lot clearer.

[Firebird]

Your stance that everyone must use your definition, or inform you if they are not, so that you know how to properly feel about the event and are not deceived, is invalid

See #4 on the previous page. No one has to use my definition or tell me anything. But since a lot of people, myself included, assume that a wedding of a straight couple includes a legal commitment, I consider it dishonest to do it some other time and not tell anyone.

[Angel!]

Apr 24, 2012 17:21:39 GMT -5 Firebird said:

It is the fact you have a strong opinion combined with thinking that you have an absolute right to know someone's legal marriage status.

See #4 on the previous page. I don't have an absolute right to know anything. Your marriage is your business. However, I do consider it deceptive if you hide the fact that you're legally married (or not, as the case may be).

Eh. I'm not going to find it now, but somewhere along the way you used the phrase "I have a right to know".

I guess you consider it deceptive because a wedding to you means a legal change in status. Others don't find it deceptive because we don't think that wedding has to be tied in with the legal status change.

Semantics. You feel deceived because it doesn't go with your definition of wedding.

[Firebird]

I guess it comes down to semantics, I am fine with a wedding being used to celebrate a commitment with or without legal paperwork. I am fine with someone using the term husband or wife with or without legal paperwork. You are ok with those uses of the words only when legal paperwork goes along with them.

Actually I'm "fine" with it (in the sense that I wouldn't treat them any differently) in all these cases too. If you introduce me to the guy standing next to you and say, "This is my husband," it's not like I'm going to immediately demand to see the marriage certificate. It wouldn't even occur to me to question you. You say he's your husband, he's your husband.

However, do I think it's dishonest to use that term when you are not legally married to the man (and you COULD be)? Yes, I do. I don't CARE if you're being dishonest per se, I'm not going to treat you any differently. But I think it's dishonest.

[quince]

I can see how someone would have something they consider a wedding/commitment ceremony/etc, if what their relationship means to them does NOT include all of the legal rights/responsibilities/etc, but some of them, and some additional ones, and other levels of commitment.

Or maybe they want to get some legal crap in order but aren't ready for what THEY consider marriage to be...it might include children, sexual exclusivity, the inclusion of family in the relationship, etc. So they get "married" for legal purposes, but don't think of themselves that way.

The hell of it is when you say you're married, whatever that means to YOU, other people assign their own meanings to it. I would have preferred to get legally married to get our rights/responsibilities in order without ever telling anyone.

But I'm with FB on not wanting to be lied to, if not with the way she values weddings. I also see the POV of not actually lying to people, but not thinking it's any of their business what paperwork is signed. If you actively deceive someone, kind of not nice.

[Sum Dum Gai]

And yes, you are picking on me - mostly for having a different opinion than you do. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but let's call it what it is.

I asked you a couple questions, and I disagree with you. Neither of those are picking on you. If you're interpreting my posts that way I'm sorry.

[Firebird]

Eh. I'm not going to find it now, but somewhere along the way you used the phrase "I have a right to know".

I think I said that in the context of "if I was paying for the ceremony," not "if I was attending the ceremony as a guest." And if I didn't, then I should have and that was my bad.

I don't think I have a right to know anything unless I'm paying for a ceremony. If I'm paying for a wedding, then I deserve to know whether it's a wedding.

Remember my OP where I said I didn't give a crap about this particular situation because I had no dog in the fight, but I said that IF I were someone who DID have a stake in it (like one of the parents paying) then I could see myself caring a lot? ALL of my posts on this thread have been made with that context in mind.

[Firebird]

I asked you a couple questions, and I disagree with you. Neither of those are picking on you. If you're interpreting my posts that way I'm sorry.

You know I don't mind questions and you know I don't mind disagreement. If this were our first conversation, then everything you asked would have been valid. It's the way you asked that first question that I didn't like because it struck me as needlessly argumentative. The question itself was reasonable.

[Sum Dum Gai]

My problem is when you wrongly state my conclusions.

I don't think I did wrongly state your conclusions. Every time you've clarified your position you've made it clear that you have a double standard on this issue regarding gay couples. I find that weird. That's just my opinion, you don't have to share it, you can even call me an idiot for having it, but that's the way I feel.

I don't understand accepting non legal marriage among gay couples, but not accepting it for straight couples. Seems weird to me. That's all.

[Angel!]

Apr 24, 2012 17:28:39 GMT -5 Firebird said:

Eh. I'm not going to find it now, but somewhere along the way you used the phrase "I have a right to know".

I think I said that in the context of "if I was paying for the ceremony," not "if I was attending the ceremony as a guest." And if I didn't, then I should have and that was my bad.

I don't think I have a right to know anything unless I'm paying for a ceremony. If I'm paying for a wedding, then I deserve to know whether it's a wedding.

Man...You are going to make me go find it aren't you. I really don't think that is what you said.

And you aren't being picked on any more than me here (unless you are picking on me ) . It is the nature of a message board that people are overly analytic of every word you type & will question you on everything. Welcome to doxie's world

[Sum Dum Gai]

Needlessly argumentative??? It's like you don't know me at all. I live to be argumentative! It's what gives my life meaning and purpose.

[thyme4change]

lets say I was paying for DDs wedding, and found out she secretly eloped weeks ago.....wouldn't matter to me a bit.

Especially if it was the day of the wedding. Way too late to cancel. That money is gonzo - might as well enjoy the party!

[Firebird]

Every time you've clarified your position you've made it clear that you have a double standard on this issue regarding gay couples

You say double standard and I ask how can you have the same standard when different sets of couples have different legal abilities?! Again, it's apples and oranges.

Say you have a 18 year old college student and a 21 year old college student. Both are college students, so both should be able to drink, right? Yet one legally can and one legally can't. So I say that if the 18 year old pretends to be 21 in order to be able to drink, that's being deceptive. And you're saying "but you don't care if the 21 year old drinks, right?!"

You're saying that because one college student has the legal right to drink, it's ridiculous to think that the college student who doesn't have the legal right to drink shouldn't lie in order to drink.

If that's a double standard, then I'm guilty.

[Angel!]

Apr 23, 2012 15:08:52 GMT -5 Firebird said:

But she acknowledges that to many of her family and friends, the legal piece of paper day was indeed her "real" wedding day. I think people deserve to know what they are attending. If it's a religious ceremony and the start of your true marriage in your mind, fine, then there should be no problem with telling people that.

If they don't want to attend your wedding just because it's not the official legal start to your marriage, that's THEIR problem. Obviously they're not very good friends if they don't want to celebrate just because it's not the legal beginning of your marriage. But they have a right to know.

Aha! You were even talking about me. You said guests should know they aren't attending a legit wedding.

[Firebird]

And you aren't being picked on any more than me here (unless you are picking on me [image] ) . It is the nature of a message board that people are overly analytic of every word you type & will question you on everything. Welcome to doxie's world

No, I'm not picking on you (at least I wasn't meaning to pick on you) and I don't really think anyone is picking on me. I'm getting defensive/frustrated because this is one of those subjects where I write something, I think I'm being clear, and then someone says "okay so you think X?" and I'm like

[Firebird]

Aha! You were even talking about me. You said guests should know they aren't attending a legit wedding.

Okay, you caught me. My bad. I don't have a right to know if you don't want to say.

[Sum Dum Gai]

You say double standard and I ask how can you have the same standard when different sets of couples have different legal abilities?! Again, it's apples and oranges.

Yeah, but I personally don't care whether the marriage in question is legal. For all I care two people can sincerely promise to spend the rest of their lives together, cut their fingers open and comingle blood to secure that bond, then ritually slaughter a chicken to bless the union. That to me is a totally valid marriage as long as the feelings and commitment behind it are sincere. I don't give a damn whether the state recognizes it. I personally do.

In that sense gay and straight couples are on the exact same footing. You don't need the government to recognize jack shit if the definition of marriage is standing up in front of your friends and family and promising to remain faithful to your partner.

[Angel!]

Apr 24, 2012 17:32:13 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

My problem is when you wrongly state my conclusions.

I don't think I did wrongly state your conclusions. Every time you've clarified your position you've made it clear that you have a double standard on this issue regarding gay couples. I find that weird. That's just my opinion, you don't have to share it, you can even call me an idiot for having it, but that's the way I feel.

I don't understand accepting non legal marriage among gay couples, but not accepting it for straight couples. Seems weird to me. That's all.

I have to say I agree with Dark here. If you are going to argue a couple needs a marriage license to be married & have a wedding, then it follows that many gay couples have fake marriages.

I believe that isn't how you feel, but your logic doesn't follow. You are just changing the rules as you go along to fit with your beliefs.

Either a license makes a marriage or it doesn't, how would you know these gay couples are committed enough to marry (by your standards) if they don't have to prove it through legal marriage?

[midjd]

Let me explain my position, because I agree with FB, but maybe not for the same reasons.

It's a casualty of the profession, but I have a problem when terms with specific legal definitions are misused. Thyme's "Schmoopy" is the perfect example. EVERYONE in a committed relationship is free to call their - whatever - their "Schmoopy". You love em, you want to be together, they're your Schmoopy. But to call them your husband - or your wife - when you are not married (but are able to legally marry) implies a legal relationship that does not exist.

I ran into this while helping DH's uncle and his SO (whom we had all assumed was his wife, they've been together 30 years, but no common-law marriage here) with their wills. You can CALL yourself married all you like, but when it comes time to pull the plug, you might as well, like Hoops said, be calling yourself the President of the USA.

Everyone has their pet peeves. The misuse of specific legal terms is one of mine. I can guarantee things I do bother other posters waaaay more. So I don't wanna fight about it, especially since I've already been called a bully today

[Firebird]

Everyone has their pet peeves. The misuse of specific legal terms is one of mine. I can guarantee things I do bother other posters waaaay more. So I don't wanna fight about it, especially since I've already been called a bully today

Thank you, Mid. This is approximately how I feel. It doesn't apply to gay couples because they CAN'T legally marry, so I don't think it's "changing the terms as I go along" to say that this bugs me only with straight couples. It simply doesn't apply to gay couples. It's not their fault the stupid states won't recognize their right to marry - and it isn't mine either.

When they can get married, then it will bug me to hear them say "husband" or "wife" when they're not legally married also. But currently they can't, so how could it bother me when they CAN'T do it?

[Firebird]

I can't go read the whole thing - but why is fb upset about this "sham"? Does she think it's a present grab, and folks who elope a few weeks earlier don't deserve gifts?

Firebird is not upset about this particular sham. Firebird can imagine being upset if Firebird was one of the parents funding the event or a close friend of the couple who thinks she is attending their legal marriage because they're pretending it is when it isn't and she finds that deceptive.

[Firebird]

Either a license makes a marriage or it doesn't, how would you know these gay couples are committed enough to marry (by your standards) if they don't have to prove it through legal marriage?

A license DOESN'T make a marriage. It makes a LEGAL marriage, which for straight couples I differentiate from a "we're committed to each other" marriage. I personally make that distinction; that doesn't make it MY standard for every living straight couple alive.

But I think I'm done explaining my position because we're in a deadlock. Either you fundamentally misunderstand what I'm trying to say or you fundamentally disagree with the way I feel. Probably a combination of both.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. I only get frustrated when the disagreement stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of something I'm saying, which I feel it is in this case.

[Deleted]

Apr 24, 2012 16:30:53 GMT -5 8 Bit WWBG said:

...:::"But I figured you were smart enough to know you weren't obligated to answer and all would be well if you just ignored the question. Thanks for answering though.":::...

Its not the answering that is the issue though: the question being asked already did the damage.

I do realize that most people have the best of intentions, and that some questions are "normal to ask" and that each individual asker does not know we've bickered over the issue (marriage, the last name, kids... whatever) at the time they ask the question.

None of that changes the fact that I and I alone have to deal with the aftermath of the feelings which were dredged up by the question.

ETA: so my point is that I wish some people would just consider the consequences or implications before "robo-asking" the typical questions.

I get your point. It's like when I was first getting to really know a friend of mine. I knew her Mom had died when she was 7. One day she mentioned it and I asked her how did her Mom die. She told me she came home from school one day and discovered her Mom, who'd committed suicide with a gun.

I was horrified that I'd even asked, and she almost had to calm me down I was so worried that I'd unintentionally upset her by bringing back those memories.

At the same time, almost any question you ask when you're getting to know someone has the potential to remind them of something unpleasant. "Are you from here?" may remind someone of the tragic reason they recently relocated, "Are you married?" may remind someone that their SO just left them for their sister, and on and on.

How are we to ever get to know one another if all questions are taboo?

[Firebird]

How are we to ever get to know one another if all questions are taboo?

I think it's a combination of knowing your audience and using common sense. For people you don't know well, staying away from obviously personal questions such as "When do you think you'll have kids?" is probably a sound approach.

For people you know better, I think you get a little more license to ask something that might turn out to be painful (like the question you asked your friend about her mom), because your friend probably knows you don't mean any harm.

And in all cases, you can take your cues from the person in question. If someone mentions that they got married a month ago all bright-eyed and happy, you're probably safe enough asking how they met their spouse (and of course, whether or not they're legally married ). If you ask someone about their kid and they kind of avoid the subject, don't follow up with more questions.

[Deleted]

Do you mean I can't go around asking people to show me their marriage license? lol

My neighbor and I were chatting last week. He told me that one time he and his wife were visiting some old friends of his that had been married for years. My neighbor's wife walked toward the entertainment center to look at some pictures on display next to their marriage license. The friend's wife literally ran over and knocked the marriage license behind the entertainment center and said "you don't want to see that!". Of course my neighbors came to the conclusion that something wasn't right with the marriage license and they probably weren't really married. They never would've thought that (and still didn't care) if the wife hadn't called attention to the license by knocking it over. And why even have it on display if you don't want it seen?

People are just weird.

Anyway, I agree with your post, those are pretty much the guidelines I use. I was just responding to WWBG's wish that people consider the implications and consequences before asking the typical questions. Just about ANY question could have implications and consequences for SOMEone.