scholarly journals Public sex, private intimacy and sexual exclusivity in men’s formalized same-sex relationships

Sexualities ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 136346072110281
Author(s):  
Brian Heaphy ◽  
James Hodgson

This article revisits the personal stories that younger male civil partners told about their sexual practices, in what most termed their ‘marriage’, to generate insights into the extent to which they succumbed to the dangers that critics of same-sex marriage foretold. It provides a baseline analysis against which the findings of future studies of both heterosexual and same-sex marriages and civil partnerships can be compared. The data we discuss are comprised of joint ( n = 25) and individual ( n = 50) interviews with couples. Participants’ stories about ‘public’, ‘private’ and ‘exclusive’ sex can appear to support the predictions of some key critics. Participants tended to make commitments to sexual monogamy and link their sexual practices to deepening couple intimacy. However, viewed as stories of socioculturally shaped and biographically embedded sexual practices, they offer insights into the more complex relationships between civil partnership, marriage, sexual exclusivity and intimacy. On closer examination, they suggest it is not simply the case that civil partnership or same-sex marriage (and marriage more generally) ‘imposes’ heteronormative sexual conventions but that relational biographies are significant in shaping simultaneously conventional and deconstructive approaches to married sexuality. Partners in formalized same-sex relationships do not simply follow heterosexual norms. Rather, they juggle the often contradictory norms of mainstream and queer sexual cultures. Understanding the implications for marriage as an institution requires approaches to analysis that do not pose heterosexual marriage as the ‘straw man’ of queer analysis.

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Alexander Maine

This article explores ‘bad’ sex in an age of same-sex marriage, through an analysis of the ‘homoradical’ as a rejection of both hetero and homo-normativities. Drawing on qualitative data from 29 LGBTQ interviewees, the article considers resistance to the discursive privileging of same-sex marriage in the context of Gayle Rubin’s theories of respectability and sexual hierarchies. These hierarchies constitute a ‘charmed circle’ of accepted sexual practices which are traditionally justified by marriage, procreation and/or love. It examines non-normative sexuality through the example of the lived experiences of non-normative, anti-assimilationist identities, particularly non-monogamy, public sex, and kink sex, showing how the ‘homoradical’ deviates from the normative practices that same-sex marriage reinforces.


Author(s):  
Lawrence YUNG

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.Mark Cherry’s article identifies claims regarding individual autonomy, gender neutrality, and rights to sexual freedom as taking a commanding place within the secular liberal recasting of the family to grant same-sex marriage the same legal status as heterosexual marriage. Cherry refers to Plato’s proposal of abolishing family in Republic (Book V) as a precursor to reforming the family to engineer currently favored versions of social justice. This paper adds to the discussion on family and social justice with an explication of this proposal of abolishing family and a comparison with the Confucian ideal of Great Unity.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 122 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.


Author(s):  
Xudong FANG

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.本文由兩個部分構成,第一部分闡述了不反對同性婚姻合法化的理由,逐一討論了對同性婚姻合法化的五種反對意見,認為它們都不成立。第二部分論述了儒家推崇異性婚姻的原因,其主要考慮是同性婚姻不能像異性婚姻那樣可以提供倫理的完整性。作者強調,作為公民權利,同性婚姻可以被自由追求,但作為儒家則以異性婚姻為婚姻的理想模式。前者事關權利,後者事關“善”,有各自的界限,不得逾越。This paper consists of two parts. In the first part, the author refutes, one by one, five objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage, including arguments grounded in naturalness, origin, reductio ad absurdum, compromising traditional marriage, and Jiang Qing’s doctrine of particular human rights. The strongest reason for advocating the legalization of same-sex marriage is the doctrine of equal rights. As contemporary people, we have no reason to deny that all individuals have equal rights. The second part discusses why Confucianism prefers heterosexual marriage. The main consideration is that same-sex marriages cannot provide ethical integrity, as heterosexual marriages do. The author emphasizes that, as a civil right, same-sex marriage can be pursued freely, but for a Confucian, heterosexual marriage is the ideal mode of marriage. The former concerns what is “right,” whereas the latter relates to what is “good.” There is an insurmountable boundary between right and good.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 423 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.


Think ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (43) ◽  
pp. 81-90
Author(s):  
James S. Spiegel

Proponents of same-sex marriage often defend their view by appealing to the concept of justice. But a significant argument from justice against same-sex marriage can be made also, as follows. Heterosexual union has special social value because it is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence. What has special social value deserves special recognition and sanction. Civil ordinances that recognize same-sex marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special social value of heterosexual unions, and to deny such special social value is unjust.


Author(s):  
Xiaohu DENG

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.Fang Xudong’s paper is in general well-argued. However, I raise two considerations to facilitate further discussion. First, I suggest that Jiang Qing’s idea of particular rights deserves further examination. In particular, it seems reasonable to claim that there are indeed fundamental differences between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage. Second, I suggest that Confucianism need not embrace the idea that heterosexual marriage is the only way to fulfil Confucian values.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 180 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.


2019 ◽  
pp. 92-94
Author(s):  
Jane Sendall ◽  
Roiya Hodgson

This chapter discusses the scope of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) which came into force on 5 December 2005 and the formation of civil partnerships. It outlines civil partnership and same-sex marriage under The Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013. It also explains the differences between civil partnership and marriage. The CPA 2004 enables same-sex couples to form legally recognized civil partnerships. Once a partnership has been formed, civil partners assume many legal rights and responsibilities for each other, third parties, and the State. It does explain that adultery, however, is not a fact to establish the ground for dissolution of a civil partnership as it is in marriage.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Susan Heenan ◽  
Anna Heenan

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in an exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on family relationships, marriage, same sex marriage, civil partnership, forced marriage, and cohabitation, beginning with a discussion of the absence of a widely acceptable definition regarding the concept of ‘family’. It examines how marriage was defined in Hyde v Hyde (1866), and the definition of civil partnership under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The concept of ‘common law marriage’ and the rights of those cohabiting is considered, along with the importance of formalities to end marriage and civil partnership. It also highlights the rights of parties to a marriage or civil partnership to acquire rights over property during the relationship on the basis of trusts law or proprietary estoppel. Finally, it looks at calls to reform the law in relation to cohabitants, particularly with regard to joint ownership of property.


Author(s):  
Stephen Gilmore ◽  
Lisa Glennon

This chapter examines the law surrounding the formation of the formal relationships of marriage and civil partnership, including the law on nullity. It also explores, by way of contrast, non-formal cohabiting relationships. Topics discussed include void and voidable marriages, sham marriages, forced marriages; the development of gay and lesbian rights; the road to same-sex marriage and the extension of civil partnership to opposite-sex couples; and the legal consequences of marriage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document