Marriage

[teamsaint]

I once went to a Stiff little Fingers gig, which was, as many of their shows were at that time, being ruined by some utter idiots who wanted to fight rather than listen to Suspect Device and Nobody's Hero. It was chaos.
An intensely frustrated Jake Burns had the house lights turned on the area of worst offenders, and , in a rather illiberal and un Jake like way, told the rest of crowd to sort the idiots out, if they wanted the music to carry on. I don't suppose he felt very proud of his outburst,but we all knew how he felt.

[french frank]

I once went to a Stiff little Fingers gig, which was, as many of their shows were at that time, being ruined by some utter idiots who wanted to fight rather than listen to Suspect Device and Nobody's Hero. It was chaos.
An intensely frustrated Jake Burns had the house lights turned on the area of worst offenders, and , in a rather illiberal and un Jake like way, told the rest of crowd to sort the idiots out, if they wanted the music to carry on. I don't suppose he felt very proud of his outburst,but we all knew how he felt.

The equivalent here is when I move a thread to the Diversions Forum (Open). This allows people to go on insulting each other but it isn't public, so doesn't give the whole forum a bad name. It's kind of Hall of Shame.

It's a way of sticking everyone on 'Ignore' - though you can peep if you really want to.

When it abruptly disappears, you'll find it here - I'll call it Marriage ....

[Bryn]

When it abruptly disappears, ...

The sooner the better. Too often are threads such as this disrupted by spiteful comments against either contributors or protagonists not actually members, and thus unable to defend their position. When such attacks occur, it is all too easy to respond within the discussion, rather than referring the disruption to a moderator.

[Flay]

one question is this

Marriage has always been defined in terms of a union between a woman and a man. To be legitimate (in English law at least) it requires consummation.

Is that TRUE or just "received wisdom" ?

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Section 1, paragraph 12 (a) and (b) I believe (grounds for divorce)

[Demetrius]

I don't understand; how would either a marriage or indeed civil partnership contract - which is between two people either of the same or opposite sex - obligate either partner to pay for a parent-in-law's medical care at all, irrespective of whether or not such payment could be afforded?

Might be something that is only a lawful concept in my neck of the woods, but here it's like this: if your parent needs to be cared for and you have enough income or assets, you will have to pay for their care. However, if you're married, and can't pay for your parents care, your partner can be called to serve, as he has a sufficient income (his/her assets are safe, in this case). It's called family income, meaning that if he/she earns more money while you earn less, your partner owes you alimony, which then can be used for the parent in need. In itself all good and fine and even somewhat in keeping with the old concept of family; but if that particular parent did just about nothing for its child and its bloody best against the partner ....

It was an example why a heterosexual couple, even with children and a long lasting relationship might choose not to be married. In my experience, the decision to marry or not is seldom a predominantly sentimental one, but one of assessing advantages and disadvantages.

Some of these disadvantages have developed in Germany during the last decade, at the same time as as recognision of same-sex partnerships was gradually increased. I believe a drop in opposite sex marriages hereabouts to be a direct consequence of the former, not the latter development

[amateur51]

I thought I would die laughing while watching the news a couple of nights ago as a bunch of tory activists from the shires presented a letter of complaint at No 10. Does anybody want to re-elect a bunch of ageing dinosaurs like these? ( I speak as a 77 year old but still frisky velociraptor myself)

One point. Both the C of E and the Catholic church are specifically banned from performing gay marriages under the act. Unlike the other denominations they will not be able to choose whether to do so or not, and there are those in both churches who object to that. Naturally, the Catholic Church would prefer to dictate terms to its followers rather than be told what to do by Parliament.

As a gay atheist in a civil partnership I'm not yet clear whether a second ceremony in a registry office would bring any additional legal benefits to us. Recognition of gay marriage status might be an improvement for work and travel in Europe, I suppose, but the situation is still very confused.

I still believe strongly that if gay couples sincerely wish to have their commitment recognised by a religious marriage, their wishes should be honoured. So many homosexual people feel that for all their lives they have stood at a window looking in from the outside, and this has to stop.

Sadly a pertinent and powerful image based entirely in the reality of many people's lives, Ferret - bravo! :ok::ale:

[amateur51]

You titled this thread 'good news'. I've no idea how old you are, but anyone old enough to be posting on this forum should be aware that any news is rarely unambiguously 'good' (or, come to that, bad).

Leaving aside some peoples' religious objections (which the atheists on this forum seem happy to either mock or make light of), there is the additional concern that this will now make church functionaries who object to homosexual wedlock vulnerable to charges of 'homophobia' - if they would prefer not to officiate at homosexual marriage 'ceremonies' or have their churches used for such a purpose.

I see that the appalling 'Stonewall' group is up to its nasty tricks: threatening to 'out' the closeted homosexual Tory MPs who voted against the bill. Are homosexuals, closeted or otherwise, supposed to walk in lock-step behind this proposed legislation?

Oddly enough, the usually noxious Peter Tatchell has distinguished himself over this issue this good deed should lift him a couple of rungs in hell.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-8217347.html

Come now, Mandy - even the Daily Mail admires Tatchell these days :laugh:

[amateur51]

Well heterosexual marriage is nearly always connected with having children, more so than homosexual marriage. Of course there will be some married heterosexual couples who do not have children for all sorts of reasons, but they will be the minority.

Does that make their marriage any less real though?

The point you make is ... silly

[ahinton]

Does that make their marriage any less real though?

The point you make is ... silly

...and has already been revealed as such on the other thread, albeit for other equally valid reasons. Mr Pee, to be fair to him, has there made it clear (as indeed he does in what you quote from him here) that he does not object to heterosexual couples marrying even if they know (or don't) before doing so that they're unable to have children or if they have no intention to start a family; he's also admitted that a marriage between two people of opposite sex need not be consecrated or even subsequently blessed in a Church for it to be valid as a marriage in his eyes. Where that series of tolerances appears to leave many of us in an even greater degree of perplexity is in the question of why these stances should apply only to heterosexual couples.

[amateur51]

Just to round things off ...

Same-sex couples will be able to get married in England and Wales after new measures became law. The government's controversial legislation on the issue received Royal Assent on Wednesday.

The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat leaderships all backed the proposals, which were finally approved by MPs and peers earlier this week.

It is expected that the first gay and lesbian wedding ceremonies will take place by summer next year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23338279

:biggrin:

[french frank]

How odd - my last post has not emerged at the top of the New Posts list :erm:

Bump

[MrGongGong]

Just to round things off ...

Same-sex couples will be able to get married in England and Wales after new measures became law. The government's controversial legislation on the issue received Royal Assent on Wednesday.

The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat leaderships all backed the proposals, which were finally approved by MPs and peers earlier this week.

It is expected that the first gay and lesbian wedding ceremonies will take place by summer next year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23338279

:biggrin:

About time and a great step IMV

(Huge grin)