Reply to We all need to read this WaPo piece about atypical marriages

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "We all need to read this WaPo piece about atypical marriages"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Asexual marriage is incredibly different from "sexual but not with spouse" marriage.

Asexual marriage is very, very common.
[/quote]

Is that covered in the wapo article is the wapo article all fringe quirky lgbtquia2+ things? [/quote]

There are two asexual woman who are married who are discussed.  I think male-female asexual marriages are common but often aren’t entered into with that explicit acknowledgement, so it’s different than what is covered in the article.  But anyone who studies history knows that these type of relationships are not new, they are just now getting additional governmental benefits.  But 200 years ago it wasn’t as important to be able to show a relationship to visit someone in the hospital, for instance, or make end of life care decisions.  As we become a more  legally regulated society, it’s more important to fit these relationships into specific regulatory categories.  [/quote]

So that’s a Yes, the wapo article mainly covers mainly fringe quirky lgbtquia2+ things. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics