c4countdown

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?

It's retarded that there is even a debate.

BUT good things have come out of it. For example, all of the raging homophobes have outed themselves.

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.

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".

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.

As an unmarried dad, I agree with Gev.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Has anybody else ever maxed a curry?

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.

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.

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").

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.

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.

What if they were gay footballers?

Matt Morrison wrote:What if they were gay footballers?

There was one ever but he died.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:What if they were gay footballers?

There was one ever but he died.

Two.

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.

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.

*There's a reason for marriage right there

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.

*There's a reason for marriage right there

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.

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.

*There's a reason for marriage right there

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.

Lesley Hines wrote:the civil-partnershipped* couple

*There's a reason for marriage right there

The preferred adjectival form is "civilised".

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:the civil-partnershipped* couple

*There's a reason for marriage right there

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.

So I wonder where they stand on snowballing?