pathetically henpecked man, wasn't it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-3903914...source=twitter
pathetically henpecked man, wasn't it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-3903914...source=twitter
Have these ****s honestly got nothing better to do?Originally Posted by Burney
What could be more important than striving to defeat the patriarchy by rejecting the institution of marriage on the grounds that it was once oppressive to women?
It's a bit like refusing to go to Barbados because it used to be associated with slavery.
It does kinda make sense for people who want the legal benefits of being married but without having a wedding, as it would stave off the "what, you're getting married and not having a party???" questions from friends and family.What could be more important than striving to defeat the patriarchy by rejecting the institution of marriage on the grounds that it was once oppressive to women?
Cheapskates, you mean?
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
If pissing away all your life savings on a party that would almost certainly be ruined by assorted clinically diagnosed mental family members is being "cheapskates", then yes.
My word yes, when the law is forcing you into a situation where you might, theoretically, have to speak the phrase, "No, we're not having a party" then fascism has clearly crept in without our noticing. Pure evil.
You can book a registry office any time you like. All you need is a couple of witnesses. Job done. Why do you need some additional special status to achieve the exact same thing?
That's the one thing I noticed about getting married how incredibly easy it was to do.
You know what family can be like about this stuff. My mum would be upset if I got married but didn't have a wedding. A civil partnership would be easier to explain away .
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote