Britain - The Official Thread

[ExigeEvan]

A contract between two people is valueless unless it is supported by the law though. The fact is that marriage has legal implications, and therefore must be governed.

Such as?

You don't have to be married to share ownership of a house, or a bank account. Only issues like power of attorney, inheritance and benefits on death would be an issue AFAIK (I'm not married so I'm not aware of everything).

Are any of these that difficult to allow with marriage? Do they even need new laws?

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Let's all vote UKIP. At least something might change, whether good or bad.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Such as?

You don't have to be married to share ownership of a house, or a bank account. Only issues like power of attorney, inheritance and benefits on death would be an issue AFAIK (I'm not married so I'm not aware of everything).

Are any of these that difficult to allow with marriage? Do they even need new laws?

Like you I'm not married so I'm not sure either, but surely since there are such things as divorce settlements (legally enforced), it must be a consideration?

As an example the Managing Director of our company (my boss), is also the sole shareholder, he was worried that when he split with his wife she would make things difficult by expecting a share in, or, of the value of the company which he started during the 20 or so years they'd been married, which is now also worth a fair few quid. I can imagine (although I don't know) that it might be a reasonable claim, but also, had they not been married, I can't imagine (but do not know) that that claim would have been as strong.

 

[Famine]

Now, to the best of my knowledge, and without researching history of religion (absolutely no interest in it), or the English language (a timeline when words became about).

There was no word 'marriage'. This was a word created by Religion to describe two of their followers co-joining in the name of their said religion/deity. It was defined and recognised this was a MAN & a WOMAN.

To me this is the issue, it's a religious term, that essentially was created by religion, therefore do have 'ownership' over it (for a lack of a better word).

I laid this one to rest in the homosexuality thread.

The word "marriage" derives from the Latin maritare, meaning "to provide with a husband or wife". It predates organised Christianity and Islam - and the Proto Indo-European language that preceded it predates Judaism too. For those interested in the other terms, "husband" goes back to the Norse for "householder" and "wife"... wife derives from a Proto Indo-European word that means "clitoris".

When a gay guy marries another gay guy, is he provided with a husband or wife? Yep. How about his spouse? Yep, him too. Is that marriage? Yes it is.

Marriage isn't religious. Marriage is simply a sworn contract between individuals (two or more). I had a non-religious marriage and I don't see anyone in a pointy hat demanding I call it something else...

Marriage existed before any of the current religions existed.

None of them can lay claim to it as their own invention.

It does not belong to them.

It belongs to the people who chose to declare before others that they commit to each other.

That.

 

[Omnis]

Was there hot and dog before there were hotdogs? Them gay folk can git maritared all they want, long as they ain't call it marriage...

 

[homeforsummer]

there's a lot of surveillence going on, but nobody is actually watching.

And on that subject: Those speed cameras on the M25? None of them work. No convictions in the last 12 months.

 

[Omnis]

Was there hot and dog before there were hotdogs? Them gay folk can git maritared all they want, long as they ain't call it marriage...

Oh wait, this is the Britain thread. You guys do what you want.

 

[Famine]

Oh wait, this is the Britain thread. You guys do what you want.

Turns out we can't.

Who knew?

 

[Omnis]

You probably could if the people in parliament that supported gay marriage weren't also a bunch of communists.

 

[boiltheocean]

The 2011 census data is out and the big headline story is that for the first time ever London and Leicester now have White-British minorities.

Other statistics include:

27% have degree-level qualifications.
23% have no qualifications.

Number of cars and vans has increased from 11 per 10 households to 12 per 10 households.

46.6% are married, down from 50.9% in 2001.
0.2% (105,000) in a civil partnership.

13% in England and Wales born outside UK.

Christians down 13 percentage points to 59%.
Respondents with no religion up 10 points to 25%.
Muslim population up from 3% to 5%.

Population of England and Wales was 56.1m in 2011.

Population up 7% since 2001. Population grew in all regions.

 

[hellnback]

Famines Quote

I laid this one to rest in the homosexuality thread.

The word "marriage" derives from the Latin maritare, meaning "to provide with a husband or wife". It predates organised Christianity and Islam - and the Proto Indo-European language that preceded it predates Judaism too. For those interested in the other terms, "husband" goes back to the Norse for "householder" and "wife"... wife derives from a Proto Indo-European word that means "clitoris".

When a gay guy marries another gay guy, is he provided with a husband or wife? Yep. How about his spouse? Yep, him too. Is that marriage? Yes it is.

Marriage isn't religious. Marriage is simply a sworn contract between individuals (two or more). I had a non-religious marriage and I don't see anyone in a pointy hat demanding I call it something else...

Oh well call me institutionalised, despite my lack of religion, I still associate it with the religious intention/meaning.

Give them the same rights, call it something different, afterall if it's only about the equal rights, it doesn't matter what they call the union, really, does it???

 

[ExigeEvan]

Give them the same rights, call it something different, afterall if it's only about the equal rights, it doesn't matter what they call the union, really, does it???

Well yes, it does.

There are two men, one is purple, one is green. They both have a Ferrari, everyone calls it a Ferrari and it's the very same model of Ferrari. But purple man can call it a Ferrari and registers at the dvla as such and on the owners manual. The green man however has to call it 'Turd sandwich'. He has no choice in this because he is green and the dvla won't register it as anything else, and many people even still call it a Ferrari. However, those that don't like the greens insist on calling it a turd sandwich because they don't feel it's the same as a Ferrari because a green man has it.

Fair?

 

[arora]

Marriage isn't religious. Marriage is simply a sworn contract between individuals (two or more). I had a non-religious marriage and I don't see anyone in a pointy hat demanding I call it something else...
That.

You see me now?

 

[Famine]

Give them the same rights

"They" have them already - "they" are us and have the same rights as the rest of us. We just deny them, for some reason involving what they like to do with their genitals.

 

[hellnback]

What I was meaning that 'Civil Unions' in New Zealand, from what I can understand (this via news coverage of the topic), deny the man/man or woman/woman union adoption rights/approval by the 'state'. It probably in the end comes down to that issue. Kids.

It sounds like it could eventually go to a referendum for it to have equal rights as marriage, but most likely it will go to 'conscious vote' of the parliamentarians, but those involved in a man/man or woman/woman union want to abolish 'Civil Union' and want it recognised as Marriage.

However, even though the 'conscious vote' of our elected representatives is fine, that's what they're elected for, sometimes the way the vote goes in that scenario will go the way of the loudest minority view (likely to be the regilious believers), and the silent majority doesn't play it's hand.

In the end of the day it will come down to an individuals view, if they're against it, they will never call this union a 'marriage' per se, and as cliche as it is, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

To carry the cliche on, I suspose it really doesn't matter if the couple is man/woman, man/man or woman/woman. How the kid grows up, and if it becomes a productive, law-abiding member of society, will be dependant upon how the couple are themselves, also crucially also the kids individual beliefs.

Do we ever get to a Utopian society where is a licence to breed? But I guess that is a different topic.

 

[Famine]

What I was meaning that 'Civil Unions' in New Zealand, from what I can understand (this via news coverage of the topic), deny the man/man or woman/woman union adoption rights/approval by the 'state'. It probably in the end comes down to that issue. Kids.

That's an issue, but not the issue. The issue is telling a group of people they have different rights (including denying them from adopting other people's children and calling their marriages something other than marriage) than other groups.

The concept that marriage is about children just as much a diversion from the point as the concept that marriage is religious. Just as I know many people who got married in non-religious settings - my wife and I included - I know people who have married without any intent to ever have children and some who actively don't want them. One couple are nudging their fifties, so without a radical change of heart and throwing money at IVF, they've made good on it.


They all married - and you'd struggle to find an institution that failed to recognised it. So what's the reason these institutions fail to recognise a marriage between two winkies?

 

[hellnback]

Could it be as simple as 'intention' of 'marriage' originally was always deemed to be man and women? Only society has changed in time where man/man or woman/woman is now not so behind doors as it was, and those who say it wasn't are just kidding themselves, but now it doesn't hold the stigma it once did.

However the peoples thoughts in regards to marriage, traditional or otherwise, hasn't changed as rapidly???

 

[Famine]

Could it be as simple as 'intention' of 'marriage' originally was always deemed to be man and women?

For which we have no evidence.

Even if we did, we (well, some of us) recognise these days that a person is a person is a person and they should all have the same rights and be treated the same by the bodies whose job it is to preserve rights. Things that were "originally intended" to deny rights to groups shouldn't be tolerated now - like slavery.

Only society has changed in time where man/man or woman/woman is now not so behind doors as it was, and those who say it wasn't are just kidding themselves, but now it doesn't hold the stigma it once did.

You're joking, right? Pre-Christian societies were well into gayness. I mean boy howdy was there a lot of man on man in Roman society - they even kept male slaves whose job it was to... errr.... man-on-man - and the Greeks made them look like a bunch of prudes.

Christianity seems to have brought the closetting - which is odd as the New Testament, that differentiates Christian belief from Judaism, seems to be not all that bothered by it. In fact Christianity distinguishes itself by teaching unconditional love for fellow man...

 

[hellnback]

Although I guess we are getting off the subject somewhat, I suppose it is discussing how it came about that same-sex marriage isn't accepted as widely as maybe it should.

Exactly as you've pointed out, we've gone from a place where anything seemed to go with the Romans & Greeks. To a point where it was essentially not seen in public.

Now I summise a heck more than you, and I probably wrongly associate it to early ages/middle ages Britian, but Christianity came at a time in history where religion became a good way to control the uneducated, peasants etc. In the name of religion those in power managed it to control their kingdom through Christianity, and the teachings that may've changed a little over time, some of it towards their interests. To me it seems that the same sex stigma probably started about this time also. An act probably then communicated as taboo or, the devils work.

My question would then be, where was the point where same sex relationships were most frowned upon? Victorian England?

When did that start to diminish? When quality education became widespread? If so where is society in regards to making it so acceptable again? Although I believe we will not get back to Roman/Greek times...

Although when we turn this back to equality & marriage, it does appear Britain is not alone in having this discussion. Christian based nations seem to be at the crossroads in this subject, we, New Zealand are having it, Australia too I think, just this year America seems to have had a step on the road to acceptance. How far down the road each are seems to be associated with how strong the Christian base has remained.

Education. The pen is mightier than the 'sword' afterall.

 

[Danoff]

A famine has already pointed out, discussing when and why same-sex relationships became taboo is about like discussing when and why slavery came about. It's fun from a historical point of view, but it has no bearing on what is right and what we should do right now.

 

[Liquid]

So the Queen attended the Cabinet meeting today

Minor republican rumblings aside, it's gone down pretty well.

Thoughts?

 

[PeterJB]

Queen Elizabeth Land sounds like some rubbish theme park.

 

[axletramp]

Agreed. Or a warehouse store like Carpet Land, World of Leather and Pen Island.

 

[Liquid]

Well, I am grateful for the fact that out head of Government and head of State are two separate entities.

Some republicans are claiming the Queen shouldn't be involved in Parliament affairs, yet this is despite the Queen always being informed of what the Government is up to, and 'advising' them to some extent. She still rubber stamps all the laws that get put through.

 

[DK]

Agreed. Or a warehouse store like Carpet Land, World of Leather and Pen Island.

That sounds like a parody company in GTA.

 

[ExigeEvan]

So the Queen attended the Cabinet meeting today

Minor republican rumblings aside, it's gone down pretty well.

Thoughts?

And the Argentinian Government is too busy dealing with it's economic con-job to kick up a fuss, huzzah.

Agreed. Or a warehouse store like Carpet Land, World of Leather and Pen Island.

I had genuine reason to visit the penisland.net website a few months back, it was a fulfilling experience.

 

[Sphinx]

And the Argentinian Government is too busy dealing with it's economic con-job to kick up a fuss, huzzah.

It'll be a good distraction for them. Looking forward to the response.

 

[Liquid]

Ah, Malvinas.

The perfect distraction for the Argentinian Government while their economy crumbles.

Much like our Government distracting us with 'gay marriage' while our own economy is faltering once again.

 

[Sphinx]

Aye. I have to admit it distracted me for a split second. close call, I was almost taken in by the tactic. Crafty buggers.

 

[Famine]

I was interested by George Osbourne revealing to the Queen, that we still had some gold left. Just about everyone thought that when Gordon Brown sold 400 tons of gold at the lowest market price in history (in what now appears to be a secret bail-out of a US bank paid for by the British taxpayer), he'd dunked the whole lot of it.