Same Sex Marriage

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Post Reply
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Same Sex Marriage

Post by Gavin Chipper »

We don't have any discussions any more outside the spoiler threads. This needs to change. What do you make of this (edit - same sex marriage, not that no-one discusses anything)? Anyone? Rhys?
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Jon O'Neill »

It's retarded that there is even a debate.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Jon O'Neill »

BUT good things have come out of it. For example, all of the raging homophobes have outed themselves.
User avatar
Mark Deeks
Fanatic
Posts: 2443
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Mark Deeks »

Marriage, as far as I understand it, was traditionally supposed to be about creating a family unit in which to raise kids. But we're so far beyond that, what with all the loveless marriages in the world, that that idea got blown out the water about a jillion years ago. So yeah, no debate. Get it done.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

So the MPs have made their decision.

Expect an ODE4 to come along to redefine marriage.

Now language and Section 28 need to change. Interestingly, some MP-voting/Christian website "rates" an MP's votes based on Christian morals. Gareth Thomas, my local MP, who is utterly useless and doesn't properly represent us (he's only asked one question relating to Harrow in PMQs in this Parliament) has crosses against things such as "Voted against Section 28".
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I take a different view from the two main yes/no positions. If anything's retarded, it's that in the 21st century, we still have people's personal relationships being validated by the law. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no such thing as a legal marriage. This isn't the same as banning it - it's just decentralising it. Any religion or organisation can have their own recognised marriages with any rules they want, including three people getting married. Why the discrimination against them? So people can get married in a church in the arbitrary religion of their choice, and the marriage would be officially recorded and validated by that church, and these people can say they're married, and everyone else can simply choose whether they give a shit about it or not.

It's rubbish that we need legal marriage for stuff like children and safeguards when people split up. The fact is that lots of couples don't marry anyway, so the law needs to be robust enough to deal with that. If it's not, make it so it is. Also, coincidentally it came up in the news today that Chris Hunhe's wife can use some special legal joker that applies only to wives being coerced into something by their husbands. Total joke.

I don't officially register who my best friend is. Also, I went out for a curry with some friends recently, and I asked the guys running the restaurant how we officially register this event. They didn't seem to understand. Blatant discrimination on the grounds of event type.

So that's what I think.
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Jon Corby »

As an unmarried dad, I agree with Gev.
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7822
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Matt Morrison »

Gavin Chipper wrote:Also, I went out for a curry with some friends recently, and I asked the guys running the restaurant how we officially register this event. They didn't seem to understand.
Facebook, usually.

In other news, what curry did you have?

p.s. everyone knows I love the gays so that's that.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Matt Morrison wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:Also, I went out for a curry with some friends recently, and I asked the guys running the restaurant how we officially register this event. They didn't seem to understand.
Facebook, usually.

In other news, what curry did you have?

p.s. everyone knows I love the gays so that's that.
We usually go to this place that does poppadom, starter, main, side, naan (although you can ask specifically for a paratha) and rice for a set price. I normally have a poppadom for the poppadom round, onion bhaji for the starter, sag aloo for the main, mixed vegetable curry for the side, peshwari naan (so that no-one can call it cheating, although I do sometimes have a paratha) and pilau rice. I'm the only one to have ever maxed it. Sometimes they go on about how meat is harder to eat, but fuck 'em - don't eat meat.
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

Gavin Chipper wrote:I take a different view from the two main yes/no positions. If anything's retarded, it's that in the 21st century, we still have people's personal relationships being validated by the law. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no such thing as a legal marriage. This isn't the same as banning it - it's just decentralising it. Any religion or organisation can have their own recognised marriages with any rules they want, including three people getting married. Why the discrimination against them? So people can get married in a church in the arbitrary religion of their choice, and the marriage would be officially recorded and validated by that church, and these people can say they're married, and everyone else can simply choose whether they give a shit about it or not.

It's rubbish that we need legal marriage for stuff like children and safeguards when people split up. The fact is that lots of couples don't marry anyway, so the law needs to be robust enough to deal with that. If it's not, make it so it is. Also, coincidentally it came up in the news today that Chris Hunhe's wife can use some special legal joker that applies only to wives being coerced into something by their husbands. Total joke.

I don't officially register who my best friend is. Also, I went out for a curry with some friends recently, and I asked the guys running the restaurant how we officially register this event. They didn't seem to understand. Blatant discrimination on the grounds of event type.

So that's what I think.
UK law is becoming less defined by religion. If your ideas were the case, go and live in a Muslim country. There one can have as many wives as one wants simultaneously. This country does not legally accept polygamy because the government think that it is not feasible for one to show equal "love" towards each wife. I'm not sure which government introduced anti-polygamy laws, but I'm sure it goes back to a long, long time ago. I agree that civil liberties need to be curbed less, but I don't feel that what you have outlined is the case at the moment. The whole Chris Huhne thing is, well, a lot of hypocrisy as far as I'm concerned, but that's something completely different.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Mark James »

I wholeheartedly agree with Gev.
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
UK law is becoming less defined by religion. If your ideas were the case, go and live in a Muslim country. There one can have as many wives as one wants simultaneously. This country does not legally accept polygamy because the government think that it is not feasible for one to show equal "love" towards each wife. I'm not sure which government introduced anti-polygamy laws, but I'm sure it goes back to a long, long time ago.
So are you in favour of religion defining law or not? On one hand you say UK law is less defined by religion but the law against polygamy goes back a long, long time ago. What, like when religion informed the law? It's perfectly legal to have a wife and a mistress in secret yet it wouldn't be legal for three people in open honesty having a marital relationship together? That's fucking stupid. And where did you find out that that is the Government's reason? I doubt they give a shit about love. If they were they'd do more to prevent marriages of convenience or forced marriages.
Heather Styles

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Heather Styles »

Has anybody else ever maxed a curry?
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3956
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Ian Volante »

Rhys Benjamin wrote:If your ideas were the case, go and live in a Muslim country. There one can have as many wives as one wants simultaneously.
Citation needed.

Slightly more seriously, an MP made a fair case on the basis that marriage is as much a social event as it is a religious event, so disallowing everyone from doing in cos God says so is clearly bollocks. Anyone who believes what a god says can happily live by those rules without expecting the rest of us to do so. Or so one would hope.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Lesley Hines »

Marriage is an awful lot more than a bit of paper though. For example, it automatically redefines your next of kin, and intestacy, property rights, proxy decisions (should you become unexpectedly seriously ill, for example), etc. You need to go through an awful lot of paperwork to have it all set up the way you want if you're not married / in a civil partnership and want your beloved life partner to have the same rights as a spouse.

I'm all in favour of civil partnerships and think they should confer exactly the same rights as marriage, but I'm really confused about why same-sex couples would want the ceremony in church. I don't understand why, after centuries of persecution, couples would want their relationship validated by an institution that required a law change for them to perform the ceremony.
Lowering the averages since 2009
User avatar
Michael Wallace
Racoonteur
Posts: 5458
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
Location: London

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Michael Wallace »

Lesley Hines wrote:I'm all in favour of civil partnerships and think they should confer exactly the same rights as marriage, but I'm really confused about why same-sex couples would want the ceremony in church. I don't understand why, after centuries of persecution, couples would want their relationship validated by an institution that required a law change for them to perform the ceremony.
Isn't (part of) the point that there are plenty of religious groups who want to offer same-sex ceremonies? (And couldn't you say the same about say, women wanting to be bishops or something like that?)

I basically agree with Gevin on this, although I have long wondered why, if we do have to have marriage recognized by the government, we don't just say "Ok, everyone can get a civil partnership, and that's the one the government will believe. If you want to have your magical ceremony with a guy in a dress that's fine, but you have to get a civil partnership as well if you want it to mean anything legally." For me, the issue with civil partnerships is that they inherently distinguish people based on their sexuality, for apparently no reason ("oh, you're not allowed to get married, but you can have this other thing that is (almost) just as good but for some reason we call it something else").
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Lesley Hines wrote:Marriage is an awful lot more than a bit of paper though. For example, it automatically redefines your next of kin, and intestacy, property rights, proxy decisions (should you become unexpectedly seriously ill, for example), etc. You need to go through an awful lot of paperwork to have it all set up the way you want if you're not married / in a civil partnership and want your beloved life partner to have the same rights as a spouse.
But as I say, a lot of people don't get married anyway, so the law needs to be able to deal with this. They can simplify the paperwork. Have off-the-shelf contracts. It's much more logical to sign these things separately anyway and know and choose what you're doing than just "get married" and have it just happen automatically with most people having only some vague awareness of the legal ramifications.

To be honest, I think a lot of people that are in favour of same sex marriage on the grounds of equality simply haven't considered the alternative (i.e. scrap the legal concept of marriage altogether) and would agree with it if they had.
User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Rhys Benjamin »

I had a talk from local, useless MP Gareth Thomas, and one of my colleagues asked him about this (and homosexual adoption). He said that he has no problem with it - if two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry each other. He also said it is not the case that marriage is primarily for reproduction. He said that he would let his nephews be adopted by homosexuals as sexuality is not important. He also said he would not let his nephews be adopted by footballers.

I agreed with some of it. Reproduction is a priority but not the most important. I didn't agree with "sexuality is not important", and I didn't agree with the stereotype of footballers.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7822
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Matt Morrison »

What if they were gay footballers?
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Matt Morrison wrote:What if they were gay footballers?
There was one ever but he died.
User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3329
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Phil Reynolds »

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:What if they were gay footballers?
There was one ever but he died.
Two.
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Lesley Hines »

Michael Wallace wrote:" For me, the issue with civil partnerships is that they inherently distinguish people based on their sexuality, for apparently no reason ("oh, you're not allowed to get married, but you can have this other thing that is (almost) just as good but for some reason we call it something else").
That's a good point. Why is it only almost as good as? What's the difference between the two, other than the gender of the participants?

I've been thinking about this and think my problem is as follows (bear with me!):
Any religion / institution can perform any sort of bonding ceremony they like between any number of willing (and occasionally unwilling) participants of any age and sexuality
None of these are legally binding without a registrar
The Church of England is the only religious institution (I think) where it's not necessary to have an additional registrar for legal purposes; the officiant suffices as registrar
The Church of England opposed gay marriage.

Therefore logically my problem is either more with marriage as traditionally defined within the remit of the religious ceremony, or that the Church of England has the only official religious registrars.
A better solution might be to do away with marriage in favour of civil partnerships, or stop the Church of England having the power to act as registrar as well as religious officiant which is surely discriminatory in this day and age of religious freedom.

Maybe.
Lowering the averages since 2009
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Lesley Hines »

You guys remember the B&B owners who wouldn't let the civil-partnershipped* couple share a room, right? They're taking their case to the Supreme Court, although apparently their objection is only to non-married couples. I guess this legislation will help them, then. I also note it says they've got no problem with the couple's orientation, only sexual practice. One would query how they limit married couples' varied enjoyment of their relationships, then. :shock:

*There's a reason for marriage right there :lol:
Lowering the averages since 2009
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3956
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Ian Volante »

Lesley Hines wrote:You guys remember the B&B owners who wouldn't let the civil-partnershipped* couple share a room, right? They're taking their case to the Supreme Court, although apparently their objection is only to non-married couples. I guess this legislation will help them, then. I also note it says they've got no problem with the couple's orientation, only sexual practice. One would query how they limit married couples' varied enjoyment of their relationships, then. :shock:

*There's a reason for marriage right there :lol:
I wonder if they asked them what they get up to? Maybe it was on the hotel's check-in form:

ACCEPTABLE SEXUAL PRACTICES WITHIN THESE WALLS:
Penetrative vaginal sex (with a penis only)
Heavy petting (if your eyes are closed)
Intercrural frottage (as long as you're quiet)
Water sports (plastic bedding available on request)

BARRED:
No bum fun under any circumstances, may god smite thee down, pervert.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Lesley Hines wrote:You guys remember the B&B owners who wouldn't let the civil-partnershipped* couple share a room, right? They're taking their case to the Supreme Court, although apparently their objection is only to non-married couples. I guess this legislation will help them, then. I also note it says they've got no problem with the couple's orientation, only sexual practice. One would query how they limit married couples' varied enjoyment of their relationships, then. :shock:

*There's a reason for marriage right there :lol:
Was this the couple that said they wouldn't let them have a double room because they weren't married rather than because they were gay/of the same sex? I don't see how the legislation will help them though. Civil partnerships will still exist anyway, and also it's not as if they'd be helped by having their own "logic" used against them by being told they have to let a same sex couple have a double room because they're married.
User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3329
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Phil Reynolds »

Lesley Hines wrote:the civil-partnershipped* couple

*There's a reason for marriage right there :lol:
The preferred adjectival form is "civilised".
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Post by Lesley Hines »

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Lesley Hines wrote:the civil-partnershipped* couple

*There's a reason for marriage right there :lol:
The preferred adjectival form is "civilised".
Gah, then that's blown the argument again. I know lots of straight marrieds who aren't at all civilised, but all the gay ones I know are. I'd leave it as it is, then. 8-)

So I wonder where they stand on snowballing?
Lowering the averages since 2009
Post Reply