Friend Weddings & Annoying People

I think I’ve mentioned in the past that I enjoyed disappointing my Family Law lecturer at university.  My friend (I did have more than one, but he and I were in pretty much every tutorial together while most of the others we only saw in lectures and socially) and I would sit at the back of the tutorial being quiet listening to most people towing the party line of what is not necessarily politically correct thought, but what could be seen as just being “the right thing”.  We would then come up with the opposite, but had to be able to put up an argument rather than just disagreeing.

The problem with doing this in Family Law is that it actually reflects badly on you personally because of the subject matter.  Say that you think sentencing is too harsh, or that we should or shouldn’t be part of the EU and you just have an opinion.  You’re maybe controversial.  However, claim that Divorce Law should favour one sex over the other and you’re a sexist pig.  In my case, argue that gay people should not be allowed to get married or adopt and I’m a homophobe.  Thanks, Al.

This is why we agreed to being able to say that we were just exploring the subject after we’d annoyed everyone.

Arguing against gay adoption is easy by using paleo-reproduction.  Back when humans were hunter-gatherers, the only way to reproduce (which is, biologically speaking, our main life goal) was if a mummy and a daddy loved each other very much because their piping matched up (as a barmaid I knew in Pittsburgh once called it) to get the job done.  This can’t happen in a homosexual relationship.  (For those who say it can in some instances, that wasn’t what I meant by “the job”!)  Obviously, this isn’t the only basis on which to build an argument and DOES NOT reflect my own views on the subject, but it is an interesting one.

Reproduction is also the way to argue against gay marriage although it is massively more tenuous.  I covered some of this in a post at the weekend so don’t want to go over old ground (read In Love : Paper Towns if you want more detail).  The traditional (archaic?) idea of marriage is that it is designed to build a stable environment in which to raise children.  If the ability to produce children naturally is not there, then the remainder of the relationship is all that smushy stuff like love which is actually pretty easy to fake.  Therefore, two people could get married simply for the contractual benefits provided by the Law and the State.

(Again, it’s not my opinion but hopefully you can see that playing Devil’s Advocate like that opens up a lot more discussion than simply saying that everything should just be fair and nice and lovely).

In my Apple News feed this morning (it was a resolution to read more news) a story popped up from Tech Insider titled “Here’s why the world needs more ‘friend weddings’“.  It’s a story about the writer, Leanna, and her friend Michelle agreeing to marry each other if they both reach 45 years old in singledom.  Leanna talks about their relationship and says that she gets more from her relationship with Michelle than she has with a lot of men that she’s dated because a lifelong friend is there through “pivotal life moments”.

Leanna (I feel compelled to cite her by her first name rather than surname, for some reason!) quotes extracts of All The Single Ladies by Rebecca Traister, suggesting that while best friendship is not always the starter relationship for marriage, it forms the bedrock for other relationships.  The friends are not simply settling for each other.

“In fact, they may be doing the opposite, finding something vital that was lacking in their romantic entanglements, and thus setting their standards healthily higher.”

I don’t know whether Leanna is quoting the book when she says that a best-friendship is just as valid as a romantic relationship, or why she even needs to, but it does serve to highlight the strength that a good friendship can bring and, in those instances (whether or not it progresses to romance) it makes perfect sense to be able to legally recognise that bond if both parties so desire.

I agree with the majority of the article and there are some moot points in it.  The last line annoys me though in that ruins all the previous good work.

Thanks to the national legalization of same-sex marriage last year, Michelle and I could seal it with a contract.

Why the need to say “contract”?!  Yes, I know it is technically speaking, but…  One friend should not require a contract with another for their friendship.  I want to get married.  I want to have a massive party with all my friends during which I publicly declare my love and  commitment in all sorts of things to one really special person.  One of the other things I said to my lecturer is that the only real benefit of marriage is in its breakdown.  I would hate to think I’ve been proved right in one thing!

It’s not easy love, but you’ve got friends you can trust,
Friends will be friends,
When you’re in need of love they give you care and attention,
Friends will be friends,
When you’re through with life and all hope is lost,
Hold out your hand cos friends will be friends right till the end.

Friends Will Be Friends by Queen






Leave A Comment?