Great News

[Matthew Faithfull]

If you want to understand why that's occuring you have to look at what's coming down the track from the EU. Next October/November they're planning to force recognition of existing Belgian? gay marriages EU wide. Our glorious and brave and PM knows this is coming and is taking a hit now rather then loose his whole party in 9 months time when they realize it has nothing to do with any matter of principle or personal belief on his part.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Nagy Vilmos]

JFC! It was a flippant remark vis-a-vis the ability to now report spam. Just calm down and remember that marriage as we view it today is NOT a religious thing. Religions recognised it but did not create it. If two individuals want to betroth themselves freely and willingly to each other than fair go to them. I'd like a wee bit of tax back [if I actually earned anything] but that's another story. I think forced or coerced unions are a far greater evil than two guys, or ladies, getting married.

---

Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett

[Jimmy Savile]

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

tax breaks for married couples were abolished here in the UK.

I'm confused most of the other commenters in this thread are indicating there are Tax Breaks for marriage?

[Keith Barrow]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Having equality and wanting special treatment at everyones expense is selfish.

????? Wanting equality and special treatment????? You do realise that this doesn't make sense.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

The difference is subtle but vital. State recognition of marriage or state definition of marriage. It's the difference between I recognise your right to ... and I grant you the right to .... but I'll take it away if you upset me.

So wrong it's unreal. A marriage is a contract (and is therefore subject to law), and currently needs to be done in the presence of a state offical (which includes Anglican Clergy) so, for example, catholics get married "twice" one by the priest, once by a registrar. This means it is under state control. Anything else isn't legally married in the UK (barring those married abroad).

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Has already been happening at a low level since civil partnerships were introduced and will only get worse.

Proof needed. And not just a link to some rabid website.

Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]

[Matthew Faithfull]

OK. I'm chilling :cool: Once again we seem to be agreeing to agree.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Keith Barrow]

That wasn't his argument. The timing is stupid and it wasn't in the manifesto. It is also a stupid move by David Cameron, but from my point of view that's a good thing.

Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]

[Dalek Dave]

Marriage existed well before religions were around. It is a sensible way of telling society "We Are A Couple And These Children Are Our Responsibility". Marriage, in its truest, most simplistic form, is merely a pair bonding for the purposes of procreation and joint raising of the offspring. (qv many animals pair bond for life for this reason, and I do not see Penguin vicars performing services or sussurating incantations over the happy couple). I can't wait to see a couple of lesbian muslims wanting the local imam to betroth them, or a couple of gay men looking for the priest to bless the conjoining of their union. In fact if we just accept a couple living together as a unit as a marriage per se (as it has been from time immemorial) then what is the problem? There are many heterosexual couple who have spent years together, raised children, bought houses etc who have never bothered standing in front of a wizard to be blessed, and yet in these enlightened days we do not consider them to be 'living in sin', merely a couple of people who are together. I was with Michelle for 10 years before we tied the knot, and we did it because we felt like it, not because of any moral or legal imperative. (Plus I fancied a party). People need to get a life and realise that just because some old book written in the desert by bronze age peasants says something is wrong, don't make it so. Societies change and evolve, and those that don't, go extinct.

--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]

[Maximilien]

All should be equal before the law of the land (wherever your land is); with the same privileges, responsabilities and rights. People should be able to get married and have their union recognized by the people and law of the land. After that, if you want to celebrate the marriage before the god of your choice , do so; if that god does not approve of your choices, choose another god. If you do not agree of other people's lawful choices, then maybe the problem is with you. The Gay marriage laws are ZERO cost laws; and eventually will make the economy grow, have you seen a simple gay marriage ? :laugh: :rose::thumbsup: (that's all I have to say on the subject).

Nihil obstat

[Jorgen Andersson]

Dalek Dave wrote:

it is just the pain I couldn't take.

Then you're doing it wrong, as a friend of mine would say. And no, don't ask for clarification. I have a naturally curious orientation, but it doesn't include that.

People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.

[Dalek Dave]

There are, but not income tax. One can move assets to a spouse to avoid capital gains, and of course, upon a death, the spouse inherits everything without attracting inheritance tax. This is not the case for unmarried couples.

--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]

[Matthew Faithfull]

Two things are clear. We're not going to agree and you're not going to get the point on state recognition vs state ownership, sadly few people do and that's why we're in the state we're in. I'll try one more time for the sake of others: Once this bill is passed the state will be able to declare you or I married without any contract or consent. They'll be able to decide that you and I are married because it's convenient for the state that it be so. As to proof I can offer you no more than having seen it happen with by own eyes, and no there's not a damn thing to be done about it because it's not illegal, that's the point.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Dalek Dave]

Listen, I had a doctor shove his finger up there not so long ago and it was bad enough. I would not wish for anything wider or longer to be inserted up my fundament.

--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]

[Gary Wheeler]

Too fucking right.

Software Zen: delete this;

[Matthew Faithfull]

Maximilien wrote:

All should be equal before the law of the land (wherever your land is); with the same privileges, responsabilities and rights.
 
People should be able to get married and have their union recognized by the people and law of the land.

We're in absolute agreement about that and of course none of that is changed by this new law.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[Jorgen Andersson]

I certainly hope that is doing it wrong. :~

People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.

[Keith Barrow]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

you're not going to get the point on state recognition vs state ownership

No, your not getting the point that the whole thing is state-sanctioned anyway.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Once this bill is passed the state will be able to declare you or I married without any contract or consent.

Pure scaremongering. There won't be any legal status as the contract hasn't been agreed upon by any of the parties involved.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

As to proof I can offer you no more than having seen it happen with by own eyes,

I suggest you report it to the police then. This also kind of undermines your point that introducing homosexual marriage will introduce this practice, given it is already happening.

Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]

[hairy_hats]

Why should you get tax back? It's your choice to do it, it should make absolutely no difference to one's tax status at all, any other setup is discriminatory.

[Matthew Faithfull]

I'm not sure I should bother but

Keith Barrow wrote:

the whole thing is state-sanctioned anyway

Just as is going out for a walk, so don't go asking the state for license to go out for a walk because they'll give you one and then I will need one to in order to do what I have always freely done before, especially if you're not really going out for a walk anyway but inventing something new and merely calling it 'going out for a walk'

Keith Barrow wrote:

There won't be any legal status as the contract hasn't been agreed upon by any of the parties involved

No contract will be required, the law is being changed, why is this so hard to grasp.

Keith Barrow wrote:

I suggest you report it to the police

What would they do. It's not illegal with civial partnerships!

Keith Barrow wrote:

This also kind of undermines your point that introducing homosexual marriage will introduce this practice, given it is already happening.

It's already happening with civil partnerships and I was already angry about it, now it will be able to happen with marriages as well as there is no longer any distinction.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

[CMullikin]

Dalek Dave wrote:

I do not see Penguin vicars performing services or sussurating incantations over the happy couple

Then you haven't been watching enough nature shows. :laugh:

The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin

[Worried Brown Eyes]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Except the 2 men were a landlord and his tenent. The landlord had gone along with his tennent out of the kindness of his heart to a benefits review to check the tenents qualification for housing benefit. The council official filled in a form, marked a register, falsely claimed that the tenent was a dependent of the landlord recieving succour from him ( the tenent was 2 months behind with the rent due to the councils reluctance to pay his housing benefit ). Nobody agreed to anything and the 2 men left slightly confused as to what had happened. The council now doesn't have to pay the tenent's housing benefit because his legal partner is rich. Oh and the land lord who was planning to get married next month to Arlene now cannot without being a criminal bigamist ( They'll only get around to abolishing the biggamy laws in the next parliament )

Hang on - am I reading this right (shortened to pick out the important bits) Two people can be put into a civil partnership without their consent by any council official? Sounds like a massive snafu - are there links to reports of this actually happening? Regards, Stewart