|
|
Re: : Celibacy: Everyday Presentations
Donna M. Lanclos (lanclos@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU)
Sat, 16 Dec 1995 16:29:38 -0800
I suppose I was just trying to be more specific, and to be clear about
what I consider the word "spouse" to connote (perhaps I should have used
the phrase "long-term" rather than "lifetime.") What might be insulting
in Mr Graber's typology is the implication that same sex partners are
not, in fact, spouses, since homosexuality was included in his typology
of celibacy.
Donna Lanclos
UC Berkeley
lanclos@garnet.berkeley.edu
On Fri, 15 Dec 1995, Lief M. Hendrickson wrote:
> On Dec 15, in response to a post by Bob Graber, Donna Lanclos wrote:
>
> >OK, but don't you think your typology of "spouselessness" is a bit
> >insulting to those people who consider their same sex partners to indeed
> >be spouses, in the "lifetime partner" sense of the word?
>
> What do you mean by spouses in the "lifetime partner" sense of the
> word if you don't mean spouses, per se. After a certain period of
> time has elapsed, aren't such "partners" really just holding out so in
> case a better opportunity comes along? So what's there to be insulted
> about?
>
> Besides, I believe Calif recognizes such "meretricious relationships"
> (using the legal definition of the term- rather then the literal
> dictionary definition) as common law marriages anyway. It's a fertile
> ground for the palimony lawyers!
>
|