Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Racing Teatray

Doing the civil thing...

Am I the only one who looks at this and thinks "what the f*ck"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146

What am I missing here? Are they just bigoted and trying to make a point? I cannot at the moment conceive of (i) why you would possibly care about this so much or (ii) of what it is that a civil partnership gives you that a standard civil marriage ceremony does not.

Speaking as someone who has himself had a civil ceremony and has been to several others, I can categorically state that you couldn't be objecting on religious grounds. A civil ceremony is the most determinedly unreligious experience going – you aren't allowed to say anything religious, do anything religious, or indeed play any music or have any readings read unless such music or text has been vetted in advance as being entirely secular in nature. You also cannot be rejecting on privacy grounds. There is no requirement for a civil ceremony to be public – you just need a witness apiece and the registrar. In fact I have been a witness at just such a ceremony – there were literally the six of us present (the couple in question brought their toddler along as well) in a tiny little private room in the local town hall adorned with some fake flowers and a portrait of Brenda the Second – no music, no reading. It was as dreary, municipal and perfunctory as even the most unromantic soul could possibly wish for. Equally, I've been to others that were big flamboyant events in country barns and whatnot that simply lacked the religious element.

I'm also struggling to believe that she's five years younger than him from those photos, but that's besides the point…
TreVoR

Completely agree. Storm in a teacup.
Nice Guy Eddie

I can't see what the advantage to this is over a marriage ceremony but then can't work out either why a gay couple can't get married in a church.

Too many people with opinions on subjects that have no baring on their lives but like to impose their values to the detriment of other people.
Twelfth Monkey

I didn't realise that this was how the law stood.  All options for being 'manacled together' (as Basil Fawlty put it) should be open to all.
JohnC

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
I didn't realise that this was how the law stood.  All options for being 'manacled together' (as Basil Fawlty put it) should be open to all.


+1

I think they were just trying to make a point that no-one else really understands or cares about. What a waste of time.
gooner

Some people really do overanalyse things. A marriage is what you make of it not what it stands for. Stating that it is an institution rooted in inequality is probably a long way from how anyone I know would describe their marriage. If you believe that as a couple you are equal, being MARRIED won't suddenly change that. Is she suggesting that, were they to wed, her husband would suddenly start beating her and forcing her to stay at home?!

I'm aware that many women (and indeed men) are treated in an abusive manner by their spouse and some religions view wives as a husbands property. Some countries even today do not believe that rape exists within marriage and Russia has legislated that a spouse can now legally be beaten so long as they're left with only bruises. But in Britain today that is not legally or morally acceptable and if they choose to live equally no one is going to stop them or question it.

I can't help thinking this couple avoid mentioning Christmas because there could be a non Christian in earshot or steer clear of the term 'expectant mother' lest the individual they're referring to is actually gender neutral.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

Maybe they are just after publicity and have no real firm views ???
Twelfth Monkey

Can't help but feel we're being a bit cynical, unless I've missed something they've said.  I agree that I couldn't be arsed personally, but if they believe that the law and choices open should be there for all, surely that's their lookout?
Big Blue

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
I didn't realise that this was how the law stood.  All options for being 'manacled together' (as Basil Fawlty put it) should come in a plain packet with only pictures of the ripped off male genitalia on the box as a warning of the dangers.


FYP.

Bob Sacamano

I'm not sure what to think on this. I'll have to ask Sybil.
Racing Teatray

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
Can't help but feel we're being a bit cynical, unless I've missed something they've said.  I agree that I couldn't be arsed personally, but if they believe that the law and choices open should be there for all, surely that's their lookout?


It is of course their look-out. But anyone who bleats about the "patriarchal baggage of matrimony" is categorically a prune. Anyone who cares about enough to fight it to the Supreme Court is a prune with an unfathomable axe to grind. It's a waste of court time.

I cannot think of any aspect of my married life that imposes "patriarchal baggage". I am just as much my wife's husband as she is my wife. We have, for want of a less toe-curling phrase, a voluntary partnership of equals.
simonp

Nice Guy Eddie wrote:
...but then can't work out either why a gay couple can't get married in a church.


Because the made up man in the sky will strike them down with a lightning bolt as soon as they step outside his holy house obviously!
PhilD

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
Can't help but feel we're being a bit cynical, unless I've missed something they've said.  I agree that I couldn't be arsed personally, but if they believe that the law and choices open should be there for all, surely that's their lookout?


The sensible thing is to make it the same for everyone. The opportunity was missed when civil partnerships were introduced rather than gay marriage. This is now just the end of that clean up operation.

Yes it’s a waste of time but a necessary one, the law needs changing and as the government aren’t doing it someone has to take it through the courts.
Racing Teatray

Is it really a necessary one though? In the grand scheme of things?
JohnC

I've no idea but I presume the shafting on the break up of a civil partnership is every bit as painful as divorce (or are the Civil Partnership rules enlightened enough to consider property owned before the partnership remaining the property of that individual?)

Unless there is some marked difference I see no point in the case.
PG

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
I didn't realise that this was how the law stood.  All options for being 'manacled together' (as Basil Fawlty put it) should be open to all.


I didn't realise that was how the law stood either. It does seem perverse that gay people can now get married but heterosexual people cannot embark on a civil partnership (for whatever reason they might want to).

But frankly, now that gay people can get married, it probbaly makes more sense to abolish civil partnerships. After all, as racing says, one can have a secular civil marriage.
PhilD

Racing Teatray wrote:
Is it really a necessary one though? In the grand scheme of things?


One less supposed injustice/discrimination for privileged people to moan about?!
gooner

simonp wrote:
Nice Guy Eddie wrote:
...but then can't work out either why a gay couple can't get married in a church.


Because the made up man in the sky will strike them down with a lightning bolt as soon as they step outside his holy house obviously!


Whilst I understand your point, I think I can see why Christians don't believe that gay marriage should be allowed in church and it's a fair grievance on their part given that No one would dare try and get an Immam to allow it in his mosque!
Tim

gooner wrote:
simonp wrote:
Nice Guy Eddie wrote:
...but then can't work out either why a gay couple can't get married in a church.


Because the made up man in the sky will strike them down with a lightning bolt as soon as they step outside his holy house obviously!


Whilst I understand your point, I think I can see why Christians don't believe that gay marriage should be allowed in church .....


Seems a bit ironic given that a large number of pulpit occupiers appear to be gay.
Twelfth Monkey

Keeping the turf to themselves...
Chris M Wanted a V-10

gooner wrote:
I think I can see why Christians don't believe that gay marriage should be allowed in church.....


or, as someone once said

"It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"
franki68

I was watching this last night thinking..why do they want a civil partnership ? I cannot think of one logical reason except they are very homophobic and wanted to make a point.
Bob Sacamano

Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
gooner wrote:
I think I can see why Christians don't believe that gay marriage should be allowed in church.....


or, as someone once said

"It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"


Since Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib she was clearly transgender and could be a Steve or an Eve.
Michael

Bob Sacamano wrote:
Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
gooner wrote:
I think I can see why Christians don't believe that gay marriage should be allowed in church.....


or, as someone once said

"It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"


Since Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib she was clearly transgender and could be a Steve or an Eve.


These stories get altered like Chinese whispers over time. Eve was clearly Adam's pet name for his dildo - ribbed for his pleasure.
PhilD

gooner wrote:
simonp wrote:
Nice Guy Eddie wrote:
...but then can't work out either why a gay couple can't get married in a church.


Because the made up man in the sky will strike them down with a lightning bolt as soon as they step outside his holy house obviously!


Whilst I understand your point, I think I can see why Christians don't believe that gay marriage should be allowed in church and it's a fair grievance on their part given that No one would dare try and get an Immam to allow it in his mosque!


Some Christians from some Churches. There is not universal agreement regarding homosexuality amongst the many denominations and some do allow gay marriages in their cribs. Not the biggies yet, though I think the CoE would have acquiesced had they not been barred by some other statute/law/rule thing.
gooner

PhilD wrote:
gooner wrote:
simonp wrote:
Nice Guy Eddie wrote:
...but then can't work out either why a gay couple can't get married in a church.


Because the made up man in the sky will strike them down with a lightning bolt as soon as they step outside his holy house obviously!


Whilst I understand your point, I think I can see why Christians don't believe that gay marriage should be allowed in church and it's a fair grievance on their part given that No one would dare try and get an Immam to allow it in his mosque!


Some Christians from some Churches. There is not universal agreement regarding homosexuality amongst the many denominations and some do allow gay marriages in their cribs. Not the biggies yet, though I think the CoE would have acquiesced had they not been barred by some other statute/law/rule thing.


I apologise if it seemed like a sweeping generalisation, I did mean to refer to the church in general rather than to suggest all Christians disagree with it. My wife does as she sees marriage, in religious terms, as being the union of man and wife and I'm willing to accept her viewpoint. Her brother is gay and she'd never object to him getting wed were he to find a partner he wanted to settle down with.
PhilD

I wasn’t defending/supporting christianity btw, as I find all religions to be a load of old nonsense!
gooner

PhilD wrote:
I wasn’t defending/supporting christianity btw, as I find all religions to be a load of old nonsense!


I agree with you. I can see why believing that there is a deity somewhere out there can be comforting for those who need to have some sense of purpose but the idea of wasting so much of ones time and money on worshipping is rather absurd - by which I'll point too the massive cost that must have gone towards the building of Cathedrals and the amount of time it must take out of ones day to go to prayer five times!

Given the vastness of our own galaxy, which is but a minute point in the Universe amongst many billions of other galaxies, the suggestion that a deity, if they do exist, is primary worried about what we're up to is one that smacks of utter arrogance on the part of mankind.
Michael

Humphrey The Pug

gooner wrote:
PhilD wrote:
I wasn’t defending/supporting christianity btw, as I find all religions to be a load of old nonsense!


I agree with you. I can see why believing that there is a deity somewhere out there can be comforting for those who need to have some sense of purpose but the idea of wasting so much of ones time and money on worshipping is rather absurd - by which I'll point too the massive cost that must have gone towards the building of Cathedrals and the amount of time it must take out of ones day to go to prayer five times!

Given the vastness of our own galaxy, which is but a minute point in the Universe amongst many billions of other galaxies, the suggestion that a deity, if they do exist, is primary worried about what we're up to is one that smacks of utter arrogance on the part of mankind.


Is it an issue within your marriage/relationship that both yourself and your wife have completely opposing views on religion?
PhilD

Thinking about the OP a bit more, how will people propose?

"Darling, I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you. Will you civil me?"
gooner

Humphrey The Pug wrote:
gooner wrote:
PhilD wrote:
I wasn’t defending/supporting christianity btw, as I find all religions to be a load of old nonsense!


I agree with you. I can see why believing that there is a deity somewhere out there can be comforting for those who need to have some sense of purpose but the idea of wasting so much of ones time and money on worshipping is rather absurd - by which I'll point too the massive cost that must have gone towards the building of Cathedrals and the amount of time it must take out of ones day to go to prayer five times!

Given the vastness of our own galaxy, which is but a minute point in the Universe amongst many billions of other galaxies, the suggestion that a deity, if they do exist, is primary worried about what we're up to is one that smacks of utter arrogance on the part of mankind.


Is it an issue within your marriage/relationship that both yourself and your wife have completely opposing views on religion?


Not really. She's a physicist so her views on our place in the Universe don't differ so much from mine. Usually when she goes to church on Sunday I either go to the gym or the allotment which is fine with her.
Big Blue

So when these civil partnerships break up is it a case of civil war?
Humphrey The Pug

gooner wrote:
Humphrey The Pug wrote:
gooner wrote:
PhilD wrote:
I wasn’t defending/supporting christianity btw, as I find all religions to be a load of old nonsense!


I agree with you. I can see why believing that there is a deity somewhere out there can be comforting for those who need to have some sense of purpose but the idea of wasting so much of ones time and money on worshipping is rather absurd - by which I'll point too the massive cost that must have gone towards the building of Cathedrals and the amount of time it must take out of ones day to go to prayer five times!

Given the vastness of our own galaxy, which is but a minute point in the Universe amongst many billions of other galaxies, the suggestion that a deity, if they do exist, is primary worried about what we're up to is one that smacks of utter arrogance on the part of mankind.


Is it an issue within your marriage/relationship that both yourself and your wife have completely opposing views on religion?


Not really. She's a physicist so her views on our place in the Universe don't differ so much from mine. Usually when she goes to church on Sunday I either go to the gym or the allotment which is fine with her.


Interesting that she is a physicist and yet believes in God, I always struggle how scientific types can also be religious.

Do your kids go to church with her, if so do you mind?

If I'm probing too much just let me know, I just find the whole thing of religion quite fascinating and whilst I'm not religious myself and neither is the wife, both of us were brought up in quite strong religious families, I'm Christened and also Confirmed and my dad had quite strong faith.

Whilst I don't believe that there is some man who made the earth in 6 days who is sitting up there on a cloud and watching our every move and I do think religion as a whole is generally bollocks, I do think or maybe I like to think that here is something out there to a degree but don't know what.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

What is/are the differences between a civil partnership and marriage when one man and one woman are "involved" ?
Bryan M

I am not remotely religious and tend to take the view of each to their own on those matters. I can see the point that some couples would want their partnership recognised in law without the religious conurtations implied by marriage. That said the civil marriage ceremony is completely anti religious - so maybe just a change in terminology is required.

I think all options should be open to all couples regardless of sexuality - that said I wonder if same sex couples being able to marry in all churches wouldn't be a pyrrhic victory....why you would want to get married/partnered in a place which doesn't align with your views/values is beyond me.
Mike Amos

Bryan M wrote:
I am not remotely religious and tend to take the view of each to their own on those matters. I can see the point that some couples would want their partnership recognised in law without the religious conortations implied by marriage. That said the civil marriage ceremony is completely anti religious - so maybe just a change in terminology is required.

I think all options should be open to all couples regardless of sexuality - that said I wonder if same sex couples being able to marry in all churches wouldn't be a Pyrrhic victory....why you would want to get married/partnered in a place which doesn't align with your views/values is beyond me.


This is a sensible approach but the religious institutions will not allow it.  They are far too busy moralising for all of us.  It really is time this was discontinued.  Not being a member of a religious sect I fail to see why they should get away with it.
PG

[quote="Mike Amos:573587"]
Bryan M wrote:
This is a sensible approach but the religious institutions will not allow it.  They are far too busy moralising for all of us.  It really is time this was discontinued.  Not being a member of a religious sect I fail to see why they should get away with it.


Quite. I utterly fail to see why "religion" is an excuse to not apply the laws of the land. Discrimination on grounds of sex, race, age etc etc is illegal, but seems to be OK for recognised religions.

I must say that when I hear a religious person raving on about gay people or women or gay priests, I'd like to have a studio over-dub the speech and every time they says homosexual / woman, replace it with "black / white man" as appropriate and then play it back to them and see if they find that an acceptable collection of views. Or have these people no sense of shame or irony?
Bob Sacamano

I think if religious institutions are legally and financially separated from the State they should be allowed to make their own rules about who they will and won't marry on their premises. It's nothing to do with anyone else.
Mike Amos

Bob Sacamano wrote:
I think if religious institutions are legally and financially separated from the State they should be allowed to make their own rules about who they will and won't marry on their premises. It's nothing to do with anyone else.


Only if they secede from the state and move abroad.  They are operating in a sovereign state rather than in a club.  Their flock are after all citizens and if they will not observe the laws they should perhaps consider going back to Rome?  I know, religions are laws unto themselves but, they are not.  Even a certain golf club is having to change its ways or lose the open.
Big Blue

The CofE is a state organisation, led by HMQ which is why this is such an emotive issue. Now if only there was a homosexual in the Palace.......

Also note no one in the U.K. is a citizen. We are subjects.
Mike Amos

Vatican city is a separate state within Italy with its own independent law making rights.  All other churches operate within nations or states and should abide by the laws of those nations/states.

They are allowed far more leeway than any other citizen would be and this should not be allowed.  I f they do not want to observe the laws of our nation they should be dealt with in the same manner as any other law breaker.

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum