| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:08 - Feb 21 with 2059 views | ThePitBoss |
By the look of her, I'd bet it's the bloke driving this one. |  | |  |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:09 - Feb 21 with 2049 views | itfcjoe |
They just need to get a life basically |  |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:09 - Feb 21 with 2043 views | MattinLondon |
If that's what they want why does it make them miserable? |  | | |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:14 - Feb 21 with 2022 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Spoken like a true patriarch. |  |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:16 - Feb 21 with 2015 views | Mullet |
They're just trying to prove a point aren't they? They've seen a gap and are having a wriggle in it. Utter waste of time and money over semantics.
I can't believe we had to entertain such a vanity project in some respects. But, now we rightly have (gay) marriage - all of it seems irrelevant. It's actually quite mean spirited in my opinion, given CP's were the gateway to getting equality for homosexuals. Common sense should prevail for these "academics".
Wouldn't surprise me if one or both of them have a book or a paper or two coming out linked to this. |  |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:17 - Feb 21 with 2009 views | ITFC1983 |
The guy on the right of this pic was walking past and handed the placard to hold up and didn't have a clue what was going on! |  |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:20 - Feb 21 with 1981 views | itfcjoe |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:16 - Feb 21 by Mullet |
They're just trying to prove a point aren't they? They've seen a gap and are having a wriggle in it. Utter waste of time and money over semantics.
I can't believe we had to entertain such a vanity project in some respects. But, now we rightly have (gay) marriage - all of it seems irrelevant. It's actually quite mean spirited in my opinion, given CP's were the gateway to getting equality for homosexuals. Common sense should prevail for these "academics".
Wouldn't surprise me if one or both of them have a book or a paper or two coming out linked to this. |
It's mentioned about the inequalities and hangovers about religious beliefs which are surely not there when a wedding is conducted by civil ceremony?
Excuse my ignorance, but what is different when you are married in a civil ceremony as opposed to a civil partnership? | |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:22 - Feb 21 with 1960 views | Mullet |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:20 - Feb 21 by itfcjoe |
It's mentioned about the inequalities and hangovers about religious beliefs which are surely not there when a wedding is conducted by civil ceremony?
Excuse my ignorance, but what is different when you are married in a civil ceremony as opposed to a civil partnership? |
Well quite. It is as far as I know, a technical or legal term denoting one is same sex.
But as someone who is unlikely to enter into any of them I'm probably not the best person to ask. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:23 - Feb 21 with 1949 views | itfcjoe |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:22 - Feb 21 by Mullet |
Well quite. It is as far as I know, a technical or legal term denoting one is same sex.
But as someone who is unlikely to enter into any of them I'm probably not the best person to ask. |
Asexual? | |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:24 - Feb 21 with 1927 views | Mullet |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:23 - Feb 21 by itfcjoe |
Asexual? |
Lazy | |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:31 - Feb 21 with 1888 views | soupytwist |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:20 - Feb 21 by itfcjoe |
It's mentioned about the inequalities and hangovers about religious beliefs which are surely not there when a wedding is conducted by civil ceremony?
Excuse my ignorance, but what is different when you are married in a civil ceremony as opposed to a civil partnership? |
I don't know the difference but I would suggest that most of the (perceived by them) patriarchal elements of marriage are a legacy of its religious origins. Take the religion out of it and I would suggest the patriarchal elements are largely removed too.
Of course, I may not sufficiently au fait with the nuances of gender politics to be correct here but if someone can point me to something suitably sandal wearing I'll gladly spend time educating myself*.
* - reading something more interesting instead. |  | | |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:33 - Feb 21 with 1868 views | chicoazul |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:17 - Feb 21 by ITFC1983 |
The guy on the right of this pic was walking past and handed the placard to hold up and didn't have a clue what was going on! |
I bet they're all atheists and cyclists and watch Doctor Who and play Quidditch. |  |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:34 - Feb 21 with 1863 views | Mullet |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:31 - Feb 21 by soupytwist |
I don't know the difference but I would suggest that most of the (perceived by them) patriarchal elements of marriage are a legacy of its religious origins. Take the religion out of it and I would suggest the patriarchal elements are largely removed too.
Of course, I may not sufficiently au fait with the nuances of gender politics to be correct here but if someone can point me to something suitably sandal wearing I'll gladly spend time educating myself*.
* - reading something more interesting instead. |
More culture than religion arguably. The stuff in the bible about "wives submit to your husbands" like lots of different ideas are a reflection of the authors and play off each other.
There's also a passage in the Old Testament which suggests women are God based on the translation. Scary eh? | |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:42 - Feb 21 with 1819 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:33 - Feb 21 by chicoazul |
I bet they're all atheists and cyclists and watch Doctor Who and play Quidditch. |
Whilst knitting their own yogurt. |  |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:46 - Feb 21 with 1799 views | Benters |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:33 - Feb 21 by chicoazul |
I bet they're all atheists and cyclists and watch Doctor Who and play Quidditch. |
Im a cyclist and am at one with nature i dont look like that ! |  |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:52 - Feb 21 with 1767 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:46 - Feb 21 by Benters |
Im a cyclist and am at one with nature i dont look like that ! |
These are the type of people who go around wearing their atheist credentials on their sleeves whist posting Eid Mubarak on facebook to show they are virtuous. | |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:53 - Feb 21 with 1761 views | Swansea_Blue |
The joy that is TWTD has meant that I've just spent 5 minutes randomly reading example marriage and civil partnership scripts I found online from a register office. There's nothing in them that is remotely patriarchal as far as I can see. So these two are basically complaining about the way other people may see their marriage. R.i.g.h.t.
So that was 5 minutes well used, even if my search history suggests I'm thinking of bigamy or coming out. |  |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:54 - Feb 21 with 1741 views | Benters |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:52 - Feb 21 by GlasgowBlue |
These are the type of people who go around wearing their atheist credentials on their sleeves whist posting Eid Mubarak on facebook to show they are virtuous. |
God help us . | |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:55 - Feb 21 with 1729 views | hype313 |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:53 - Feb 21 by Swansea_Blue |
The joy that is TWTD has meant that I've just spent 5 minutes randomly reading example marriage and civil partnership scripts I found online from a register office. There's nothing in them that is remotely patriarchal as far as I can see. So these two are basically complaining about the way other people may see their marriage. R.i.g.h.t.
So that was 5 minutes well used, even if my search history suggests I'm thinking of bigamy or coming out. |
Or 5 minutes of your life you will never get back. |  |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:56 - Feb 21 with 1728 views | Tollycobbold |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:22 - Feb 21 by Mullet |
Well quite. It is as far as I know, a technical or legal term denoting one is same sex.
But as someone who is unlikely to enter into any of them I'm probably not the best person to ask. |
You are that ugly? neither sex want you? That is unfortunate |  | | |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 12:03 - Feb 21 with 1698 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:55 - Feb 21 by hype313 |
Or 5 minutes of your life you will never get back. |
I look at it as an investment. It helps be deal with the pointlessness of it all. | |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 12:55 - Feb 21 with 1600 views | Guthrum |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:16 - Feb 21 by Mullet |
They're just trying to prove a point aren't they? They've seen a gap and are having a wriggle in it. Utter waste of time and money over semantics.
I can't believe we had to entertain such a vanity project in some respects. But, now we rightly have (gay) marriage - all of it seems irrelevant. It's actually quite mean spirited in my opinion, given CP's were the gateway to getting equality for homosexuals. Common sense should prevail for these "academics".
Wouldn't surprise me if one or both of them have a book or a paper or two coming out linked to this. |
All a rather meaningless semantic debate, especially given that various forms of entirely secular heterosexual marriage, with considerable liberty on the wording used, are available (and have been for decades). The "patriarchal baggage" thing is slightly facetious, given that the courts and government, to which they are resorting, also share similar heritages.
However, turning that around, it's also a somewhat trivial point to spend a lot of time and effort (not to mention money) defending.
After all, the exclusivity of Civil Partnerships only made sense when marriage was exclusive in the other direction. Now the latter isn't, there's no logical reason for preserving it with the former.
It may be impatience on the couple's part, that they have resorted to litigation as a means of campaigning. But I can't see that this ought to have got to the Appeal, let alone the prospect of the Supreme, Court.
Something which should probably have been tidied up at the same time marriage was equalised for same-sex couples. |  |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 13:11 - Feb 21 with 1541 views | Meadowlark |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:33 - Feb 21 by chicoazul |
I bet they're all atheists and cyclists and watch Doctor Who and play Quidditch. |
...and that's bad? |  | | |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 13:19 - Feb 21 with 1498 views | Guthrum |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 11:34 - Feb 21 by Mullet |
More culture than religion arguably. The stuff in the bible about "wives submit to your husbands" like lots of different ideas are a reflection of the authors and play off each other.
There's also a passage in the Old Testament which suggests women are God based on the translation. Scary eh? |
And the passage immediately after, which nobody much bothers to read, continues: "In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies", talking of sacrifice in the same terms as Jesus being crucified. It was not intended to be a one-way street.
The OT passage on the subject I like best is Proverbs 31:10-31, in which the idealised woman is portrayed as anything but weak, feeble and submissive, more like a hard-working, independent business owner. | |
| |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 14:52 - Feb 21 with 1412 views | Ryorry |
| Just seen this couple on the news on 12:55 - Feb 21 by Guthrum |
All a rather meaningless semantic debate, especially given that various forms of entirely secular heterosexual marriage, with considerable liberty on the wording used, are available (and have been for decades). The "patriarchal baggage" thing is slightly facetious, given that the courts and government, to which they are resorting, also share similar heritages.
However, turning that around, it's also a somewhat trivial point to spend a lot of time and effort (not to mention money) defending.
After all, the exclusivity of Civil Partnerships only made sense when marriage was exclusive in the other direction. Now the latter isn't, there's no logical reason for preserving it with the former.
It may be impatience on the couple's part, that they have resorted to litigation as a means of campaigning. But I can't see that this ought to have got to the Appeal, let alone the prospect of the Supreme, Court.
Something which should probably have been tidied up at the same time marriage was equalised for same-sex couples. |
I think there's probably a legal difference, which Sparks is obviously better qualified than me to comment on - but certainly when I got divorced, I was horrified at how the system (in c.1991) seemed to regard me as some sort of goods or chattel belonging to my husband, and swore I'd never get married again on account of that. There are considerations regarding the finances of an officially married couple too, which can be compex & difficult to untangle.
However, I'd never want to rule out a partnership with someone else that's recognised and accepted in the event of, e.g., a life-threatening illness to the partner (meaning medics are willing to impart info to you; you're able to sign documents on their behalf); because of shared assets such as a house - etc etc.
Maybe unless you've been in the situation, people don't get the subtle differences. Don't judge till you've been a mile in their shoes etc. I think the couple are perfectly justified in seeking this, which should be available to all & not just LGTs etc. As I say, Sparks might comment on whether 'common-law marriage' gives the same protections for the same kind of situations as I've described above.
Edit: I should have added that ex & myself were married by civil ceremony only. [Post edited 21 Feb 2017 15:09]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
