|
In line with the vote on Gay Marriage in the UK, we now have the Pink Hammer back in the Lounge. 
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
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage is an absurd and painful experience.
I see no good reason why homosexuals should be spared.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Shed Petition[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see why they wanted it so badly - it's not as though there are any tax breaks.
*This is an in-joke between me and my wife that the month after we got married, tax breaks for married couples were abolished here in the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
Quite right too. Why should single people be discriminated against in the tax system?
|
|
|
|
|
Because you don't have kids, you have a smaller house, your bills are less, you get to do what you want and you're happier so we have to make you sad somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
Too f***ing right.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
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[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I am glad I am not gay.
Don't get wrong, I would love the lifestyle of free love, flamboyant clothes, and great parties, it is just the pain I couldn't take.
---------------------------------
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[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly hope that is doing it wrong. 
People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: I had a doctor shove his finger up there not so long ago
You really need to check the credentials of people you meet in the public toilets in the park.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm really happy that a Government that was voted in during a recession and at a time when it looks like we are going to have a third dip for the first time ever, has took the time to put something as important as this through, without a mandate. I'm also hoping they turn their attention to other pressing matters like the hunting ban next.
|
|
|
|
|
War and Rumours of War.
The Economy in the Toilet.
Rising Food Prices and the dangers of civil unrest that it could cause.
Failing Hospitals.
Child Sex Scandals.
Border and Immigration Controls not fit for purpose.
Fortunately some people can get married now, so all is well.
---------------------------------
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[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
This Tory MP[^] voted against as they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.
So, which one is it, man or woman?
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Shed Petition[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like a man but has the name of a woman so I'm stumped.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you misunderstand, she believes that the marriage should be between a particular man and particular woman. That way there'd be only one married couple in the UK, thus reducing the cost of the proposed tax incentives.
That said, she looks diesel to me, so I understand your confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
My point, exactly. Of course they could get 'married' before in a Civil Partnership at a Registry Office but that wasn't good enough. Now they can get married in an establishment that preaches against them.
|
|
|
|
|
Bring on the Pink Hammer. I love ham despite its pinkness
There was of course nothing to stop any of these people getting married before to anyone of the alternate gender who would have them. There was an oversight by the UK state to recognize their otherwise partnered status in the legal and tax systems.
Now thanks to the desparate and selfish need of a very small minority for validation of their lifestyle you are married if the state says you are and not if it says you're not.
2 men go into a council office and come out married. That's what this is about right?
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 )
People will say this won't happen. When it happens they'll say it was the law of unintended consequences. Only when it happens to them will they actual consider doing something about it.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Faithfull wrote: There was of course nothing to stop any of these people getting married before to anyone of the alternate gender who would have them.
So what's the problem then? Now we're just playing semantics you say civil partnership, I say marriage.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: Now thanks to the desparate and selfish need of a very small minority for validation of their lifestyle.
 this is the sort of nonsensical rant I expect from the BNP, or those people who don't have the intellectual self-honesty to join the BNP and end up in UKIP. Wanting equality is selfish????? Also it is the duty of government to stand up for minorities rights, otherwise they'll be trampled on.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: state says you are and not if it says you're not.
That is pretty much the case from a legal standpoint, and has been for a long time (if you include the Church as part of the state). Common-law couples don't have the same standing in law as married ones.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: People will say this won't happen.
People will say what the council worker is illegal. Not only that, the same scenario could play out it the landlord/tenant were male and female, doesn't happen now won't happen later.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: you say civil partnership
No I don't.
Keith Barrow wrote: Wanting equality is selfish?????
No. Having equality and wanting special treatment at everyones expense is selfish.
Keith Barrow wrote: That is pretty much the case from a legal standpoint, and has been for a long
time (if you include the Church as part of the state). Common-law couples don't
have the same standing in law as married ones.
No. 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. The fundamental difference between freedom and slavery.
Keith Barrow wrote: doesn't happen now won't happen later.
Has already been happening at a low level since civil partnerships were introduced and will only get worse.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
