Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
Jun 17th 2015, 10:52 pm
#16
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
OK, but no tax advantages and no legal benefits. Otherwise all contracts, the types of contract, terms, etc. can and are defined by the state - to keep them minimally fair.
Personally I would like MORE limits on marriage, in fact a redefinition of something that causes pain and mayhem across the country on a daily basis is desperately needed. Specifically something like :
Personally I would like MORE limits on marriage, in fact a redefinition of something that causes pain and mayhem across the country on a daily basis is desperately needed. Specifically something like :
- I don't think anyone should be able to enter into a supposed 'lifetime' contract until they are at least 30. Before that, it's temporary only, coz they are too stoopid.
- You have to live together for at least a year first - a nice mirror to having to live apart for a year to get a divorce.
- Two marriages is the tops. You get divorced twice, you don't get to say "till death us do part" again with a straight face.
- Kids is a separate contract. No "you ****ed so you took on a 20 year responsibility" b*llsh*t.
- You get divorced, you take out what you put in.
- Lawyers are banned from divorces
- Religion is banned from marriage.
- In fact, swap their positions.
If I recall correctly, when I got married in the UK, we had to have an interview with the council to make sure the marriage was genuine. Interviewed separately, asked things like, spouse to be's birth date etc.
Jun 17th 2015, 11:14 pm
#17
has lost The Game
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Chippendale, Sydney
Posts: 8,735
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
Yet, if you go to Vegas, you can get married in a drive trough by an Elvis impersonator with no paperwork. Marriage really is such a lofty and noble institution...
S
Jun 18th 2015, 1:10 am
#18
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,404
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
And get it scrapped days later when you both agree it was a drunken mistake and laugh it off. A money back guarantee if you're not entirely happy with your purchase. Some questions asked.
Jun 18th 2015, 10:47 am
#19
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 0
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
If there is such a thing as the sanctity of marriage, not sure it exists in any great capacity anymore. Not sure I'd get married at all if I was 23 again, I'd spend the money on a house .
Jun 19th 2015, 2:59 pm
#20
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
It was before it was cheapened, redefined and scorned upon. It's was one of the pillars of our western civilisation.
Jun 19th 2015, 10:35 pm
#21
Frequent Flyer Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,994
Jun 20th 2015, 1:28 am
#22
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
Well, marriage used to be about necessity and politics. The plebs would get married for security/sex and the knobs for alliances and heirs.
Divorce was extremely rare, if you made that contract, you kept it (short of acts of parliament/beheadings), and the only way out was to run away (bigamy).
The religionists thought it was theirs - but in reality they were as much window dressing as now.
At the same time as the "equal rights for women" crowd were saying women shouldn't be treated as property, marriage was becoming an idea of 'a statement of love', rather than arranged marriages. Well, at least if you had money.
With divorce being accepted as a way out, marriage became more temporary for more people (though without the other aspects keeping up with that change). Feminists pushed this further, such that in reality marriage pretty much became "all pain, no gain" for men - though most didn't really realise it had been redefined out from under them.
Today they are talking about widening the catchment - without really addressing the massive faultlines that leave it in a precarious state (why do we need it again?)
Or in other words, marriage has been redefined over and over - we are on about version 6 or 7 of it, and people have increasingly lost track of what the hell they were trying to say in the first place.
Divorce was extremely rare, if you made that contract, you kept it (short of acts of parliament/beheadings), and the only way out was to run away (bigamy).
The religionists thought it was theirs - but in reality they were as much window dressing as now.
At the same time as the "equal rights for women" crowd were saying women shouldn't be treated as property, marriage was becoming an idea of 'a statement of love', rather than arranged marriages. Well, at least if you had money.
With divorce being accepted as a way out, marriage became more temporary for more people (though without the other aspects keeping up with that change). Feminists pushed this further, such that in reality marriage pretty much became "all pain, no gain" for men - though most didn't really realise it had been redefined out from under them.
Today they are talking about widening the catchment - without really addressing the massive faultlines that leave it in a precarious state (why do we need it again?)
Or in other words, marriage has been redefined over and over - we are on about version 6 or 7 of it, and people have increasingly lost track of what the hell they were trying to say in the first place.
Jun 20th 2015, 2:25 am
#23
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
Well, marriage used to be about necessity and politics. The plebs would get married for security/sex and the knobs for alliances and heirs.
Divorce was extremely rare, if you made that contract, you kept it (short of acts of parliament/beheadings), and the only way out was to run away (bigamy).
The religionists thought it was theirs - but in reality they were as much window dressing as now.
At the same time as the "equal rights for women" crowd were saying women shouldn't be treated as property, marriage was becoming an idea of 'a statement of love', rather than arranged marriages. Well, at least if you had money.
With divorce being accepted as a way out, marriage became more temporary for more people (though without the other aspects keeping up with that change). Feminists pushed this further, such that in reality marriage pretty much became "all pain, no gain" for men - though most didn't really realise it had been redefined out from under them.
Today they are talking about widening the catchment - without really addressing the massive faultlines that leave it in a precarious state (why do we need it again?)
Or in other words, marriage has been redefined over and over - we are on about version 6 or 7 of it, and people have increasingly lost track of what the hell they were trying to say in the first place.
Divorce was extremely rare, if you made that contract, you kept it (short of acts of parliament/beheadings), and the only way out was to run away (bigamy).
The religionists thought it was theirs - but in reality they were as much window dressing as now.
At the same time as the "equal rights for women" crowd were saying women shouldn't be treated as property, marriage was becoming an idea of 'a statement of love', rather than arranged marriages. Well, at least if you had money.
With divorce being accepted as a way out, marriage became more temporary for more people (though without the other aspects keeping up with that change). Feminists pushed this further, such that in reality marriage pretty much became "all pain, no gain" for men - though most didn't really realise it had been redefined out from under them.
Today they are talking about widening the catchment - without really addressing the massive faultlines that leave it in a precarious state (why do we need it again?)
Or in other words, marriage has been redefined over and over - we are on about version 6 or 7 of it, and people have increasingly lost track of what the hell they were trying to say in the first place.
Jun 20th 2015, 3:16 am
#24
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
Well, marriage used to be about necessity and politics. The plebs would get married for security/sex and the knobs for alliances and heirs.
Divorce was extremely rare, if you made that contract, you kept it (short of acts of parliament/beheadings), and the only way out was to run away (bigamy).
The religionists thought it was theirs - but in reality they were as much window dressing as now.
At the same time as the "equal rights for women" crowd were saying women shouldn't be treated as property, marriage was becoming an idea of 'a statement of love', rather than arranged marriages. Well, at least if you had money.
With divorce being accepted as a way out, marriage became more temporary for more people (though without the other aspects keeping up with that change). Feminists pushed this further, such that in reality marriage pretty much became "all pain, no gain" for men - though most didn't really realise it had been redefined out from under them.
Today they are talking about widening the catchment - without really addressing the massive faultlines that leave it in a precarious state (why do we need it again?)
Or in other words, marriage has been redefined over and over - we are on about version 6 or 7 of it, and people have increasingly lost track of what the hell they were trying to say in the first place.
Divorce was extremely rare, if you made that contract, you kept it (short of acts of parliament/beheadings), and the only way out was to run away (bigamy).
The religionists thought it was theirs - but in reality they were as much window dressing as now.
At the same time as the "equal rights for women" crowd were saying women shouldn't be treated as property, marriage was becoming an idea of 'a statement of love', rather than arranged marriages. Well, at least if you had money.
With divorce being accepted as a way out, marriage became more temporary for more people (though without the other aspects keeping up with that change). Feminists pushed this further, such that in reality marriage pretty much became "all pain, no gain" for men - though most didn't really realise it had been redefined out from under them.
Today they are talking about widening the catchment - without really addressing the massive faultlines that leave it in a precarious state (why do we need it again?)
Or in other words, marriage has been redefined over and over - we are on about version 6 or 7 of it, and people have increasingly lost track of what the hell they were trying to say in the first place.
Why on earth would anyone want to get married (whatever that means these days) in this free love, free sex, no-strings attached, no-commitments give away, throw away society?
Jun 20th 2015, 5:14 am
#25
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
Jun 20th 2015, 10:34 am
#26
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
Sorry, that was a lot squeezed into one sentence. My point is, traditional marriage is not consistent with the current state of western culture.
....In other news, I see they found that missing woman
:
Cheryl Redway, 64, found alive after more than two days missing in Northern Territory outback - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The daft pair.
If they were committed to the traditional marriage model they wouldn't have gone their separate ways. In a traditional marriage he wouldn't have let her go off on her own to find her way back to the camp and she would have respected her husbands opinion and followed him. Other than that, we all know how hopeless women are with their sense of direction! 
....In other news, I see they found that missing woman
:Cheryl Redway, 64, found alive after more than two days missing in Northern Territory outback - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The daft pair.
If they were committed to the traditional marriage model they wouldn't have gone their separate ways. In a traditional marriage he wouldn't have let her go off on her own to find her way back to the camp and she would have respected her husbands opinion and followed him. Other than that, we all know how hopeless women are with their sense of direction!
Jun 20th 2015, 10:42 am
#27
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
There is no 'traditional marriage'. It's changed and changed and changed again - trying to keep up with what people think marriage should be (which usually isn't what it's actually defined as in law).
Jun 21st 2015, 10:44 am
#28
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
And on the subject of marriage, an interesting graph of how marriage has been falling away:
http://www.randalolson.com/2015/06/1...ce-in-1-chart/
http://www.randalolson.com/2015/06/1...ce-in-1-chart/
Last edited by GarryP; Jun 21st 2015 at 10:53 am.
Jun 21st 2015, 12:23 pm
#29
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 65,493
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
Jun 22nd 2015, 10:14 am
#30
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,810
Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
I know a couple who married 2 years ago, both British, and they had to have an interview at the Registry Office - nothing big, just did they know each others birthdays, father's names, that sort of thing. Apparently it is because there are so many issues over people marrying just to stay in the UK