The pope. Popeing about.

[Castiel]

I am going to disagree here. Due to marriage having some particular defined differences, mainly legal, financial and the next of kin thing. There should be some sort of legal demarkation in status. Especially as some people do not want those differences. With there being no concept of common law spouse in the UK and a simple, cheap method of marriage I think marriage has its place. The social acceptance or not of being married is long past with cohabiting couples not being seen as at all unusual.

Why should there be any legal demarcation? Why should should any couple be forced to pay for rights that they should have automatically.

Social acceptance is entirely dependent upon the social demographic in which you live. What is perfectly acceptable on a council estate is not within other sections of society.

My main criticism is the rights of Fathers to access to children and the unmarried Fathers basically have no rights over their children even if they are in a long term relationship with the Mother and live as a family unit. Also Pension rights for long term couple and inheritance rights also, all of which should be rights for everyone who chooses to live together for a specified length of time automatically. You should not be required to pay for these rights, which is what Marriage essentially is.

This was never going to be the case though. It was never about forcing churches to hold ceremonies they did not agree with. Even if Civil Unions had been called marriage there was still no legal requirement for a church to hold such a union. So we now have a situation, due to pressure primarily from religious bodies, of seperate, but not quite, equal.

Personally I feel they should have made all marriages civil and if you want to have a religious blessing that was entirely up to both you and your respective faiths.

Pressure from Gay Rights groups are looking to overturn these bars to church same sex weddings, much like the adoption issue.

 

[RDM]

Why should there be any legal demarcation? Why should should any couple be forced to pay for rights that they should have automatically.

Because some people do not want these rights (and responsibilities). So effectively forcing them onto them is silly when there is a perfectly acceptable and cheap alternative available to get said rights (and responsibilities).

Social acceptance is entirely dependent upon the social demographic in which you live. What is perfectly acceptable on a council estate is not within other sections of society.

I have a wide spectrum of friends from various backgrounds and frankly none of them look down on people not being married. It seems that you don't have to live on a council estate not to be bigoted...

My main criticism is the rights of Fathers to access to children and the unmarried Fathers basically have no rights over their children even if they are in a long term relationship with the Mother and live as a family unit. Also Pension rights for long term couple and inheritance rights also, all of which should be rights for everyone who chooses to live together for a specified length of time automatically. You should not be required to pay for these rights, which is what Marriage essentially is.

And if a couple does not want to have these rights why should they be forced to have them? Fathers rights are a completely different matter and marriage really doesn't help a great deal there if the parents are seperated.

Pressure from Gay Rights groups are looking to overturn these bars to church same sex weddings, much like the adoption issue.

Well, they have failed quite miserably on the marriage stakes haven't they?

 

[Castiel]

Because some people do not want these rights (and responsibilities). So effectively forcing them onto them is silly when there is a perfectly acceptable and cheap alternative available to get said rights (and responsibilities).

Whether they exercise those rights is entirely up to them. We should not be forced to pay to acquire them.

I have a wide spectrum of friends from various backgrounds and frankly none of them look down on people not being married. It seems that you don't have to live on a council estate not to be bigoted...

It's not universal and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

And if a couple does not want to have these rights why should they be forced to have them? Fathers rights are a completely different matter and marriage really doesn't help a great deal there if the parents are seperated.

No one is suggesting they be forced to exercise those rights if they do not wish to. Marriage indeed does confer rights on the Father that are not available to unmarried fathers.

Fathers have no rights to consent to medical treatment, no legal right to see their children, or going to Parents evenings at schools, or to take them on holiday without written consent form the mother and so on. Married Fathers do have and retain all these rights. There was a recent change in the law that allows certain rights to access for unmarried fathers if the child was born after 2003 and the father is named on the Birth Certificate, but essentially it is still the domain of the married father and this in my opinion is wrong, all these rights should be automatic regardless of the marital status of the couple.

Also next of kin and inheritance laws are exclusively the domain of married couples, again these should be available to all without the need to pay expensive legal fees to obtain them outside marriage. The same with property rights, the powers of the court to adjust property rights in the event of divorce is not available to unmarried couples, why not?

Again no-one is being forced to exercise these rights, but at the same token people should not be forced to pay for them either.

Well, they have failed quite miserably on the marriage stakes haven't they?

So far. The same can't be said with other things such as adoption.

 

[RDM]

Again no-one is being forced to exercise these rights, but at the same token people should not be forced to pay for them either.

So how exactly do you acquire said rights or not acquire them if you do not want them? I can certainly see the argument for making marriage cheaper, but it isn't exactly expensive when you consider the benefits.

If you are unmarried and do not want your partner to have next of kin rights or property rights or pension rights? What do you do if they get given automatically?

 

[BunnyKillBot]

People seem to want to get married too young too, perhaps it's a status thing? I guess that's why divorce rates are quite high.

That is because marriage is a religious covenant adopted into secular society and held as a contract. It is meant to be till death do us part, but to most it is no more than till cheat on me you do.

Being married is not about staying in love. Its about holding an unconditional vow that says i might not be right now, but i know i am going to be.

 

[RDM]

That is because marriage is a religious covenant adopted into secular society and held as a contract.

Nope, originally it was a civil contract adopted into religion and is finally getting itself back to where it started...

It is meant to be till death do us part, but to most it is no more than till cheat on me you do.

Being married is not about staying in love. Its about holding an unconditional vow that says i might not be right now, but i know i am going to be.

However in the real world sometimes divorce is a much better option than staying in a failing relationship.

 

[Castiel]

So how exactly do you acquire said rights or not acquire them if you do not want them? I can certainly see the argument for making marriage cheaper, but it isn't exactly expensive when you consider the benefits.

If you are unmarried and do not want your partner to have next of kin rights or property rights or pension rights? What do you do if they get given automatically?

Don't live together.

 

[RDM]

Don't live together.

So if you want to live together you automatically get tagged as "married"? Also who keeps track? If a man lives with more than one woman who gets the "marriage" rights? If you are staying apart for a while (for work or any other number of reasons) are you no longer considered "married"?

And so much for not forcing people to have the rights. You get them if you live together regardless of if you want them...

 

[Castiel]

So if you want to live together you automatically get tagged as "married"? Also who keeps track? If a man lives with more than one woman who gets the "marriage" rights? If you are staying apart for a while (for work or any other number of reasons) are you no longer considered "married"?

And so much for not forcing people to have the rights. You get them if you live together regardless of if you want them...

No one is forcing them to exercise anything. If you don't want the rights that come with being a Father, don't have children, If you don't want the rights of co-habiting don't live together or make a legal agreement stating such prior to living together.

I think that anyone should be able to opt-out of rights they have, but they should not have to pay to obtain those rights to begin with.

Anyway I think we are going to have to agree to disagree as we will just go around in circles. I simply believe that all rights should be automatic and inferred free of any charge unless a legal reason can be proven as to why those rights should not be applicable, be it a pre-existing agreement or legal argument otherwise. People should not have to pay for a certificate of marriage to gain basic rights that they should have anyway.

 

[RDM]

No one is forcing them to exercise anything. If you don't want the rights that come with being a Father, don't have children, If you don't want the rights of co-habiting don't live together or make a legal agreement stating such prior to living together.

If you don't want the rights of marriage don't get married? Oh hang on, no, you are arguing for them to happen regardless just by co-habiting...

Interesting that you shyed away from actually answering any of the problems your "automatic" rights throw up.

I think that anyone should be able to opt-out of rights they have, but they should not have to pay to obtain those rights to begin with.

So campaign for a civil marriage to be free? The cost isn't exactly astronomical so should be easy enough to bear for taxation. Would cost maybe £23m or so.

 

[Castiel]

If you don't want the rights of marriage don't get married? Oh hang on, no, you are arguing for them to happen regardless just by co-habiting...

Interesting that you shyed away from actually answering any of the problems your "automatic" rights throw up.



So campaign for a civil marriage to be free? The cost isn't exactly astronomical so should be easy enough to bear for taxation. Would cost maybe £23m or so.

read it again.

As for fathers rights, why should the rights of a father be tied to marriage?

 

[RDM]

read it again.

As for fathers rights, why should the rights of a father be tied to marriage?

Read my posts again.

 

[Castiel]

Read my posts again.

I simply believe that all rights should be automatic and inferred free of any charge unless a legal reason can be proven as to why those rights should not be applicable, be it a pre-existing agreement or legal argument otherwise. People should not have to pay for a certificate of marriage to gain basic rights that they should have anyway.

In essence pay to opt out, not be forced to opt in.


As for marriage rights; keeping track is simple enough. People keep records of rental, mortgage, joint accounts and such so it shouldn't be difficult to ascertain the length of time a couple have cohabited.

More than one cohabitation; most rights are only incurred during the cohabitation. If you are cohabiting and one partner dies then you should be treated with the same rights that married couples enjoy. In the case of separation there is no reason that it cannot be the same as divorce, again if you choose not the exercise said rights then opt out prior to separation or prior to cohabiting.

Fathers rights should be completely separate from marriage, each Parent should have equal rights under the law regardless of their marital status.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Nope, originally it was a civil contract adopted into religion and is finally getting itself back to where it started...

*Sigh* your such a troll. Given both a historical and multi-cultural context it is impossible for anything you or I say on this to make absolute sense. Divorce rates vary magnificently from culture to culture, historical and present. Henry VIII's schism with the catholic church being a turning point in terms of our little island allowing divorce and strengthening the bonds of contractual, whimsical, marriage.

In the West we hold a disney-esque picture of Love and Marriage that is beyond the scope of possibility. Fairytale love is as a religious love and as such the majority go into marriage with an expectation that exceeds reality. That is the true reason for the high divorce rates of this era.

God is a covenant maker; an unconditional promise regardless of action. People are contract breaker. We promise things, then we go back on them. We hurt people time and time again and nobody, not even you, is free of that.

However in the real world sometimes divorce is a much better option than staying in a failing relationship.

In some, very, very rare circumstances on a case by case basis, yes.

 

[RDM]

I simply believe that all rights should be automatic and inferred free of any charge unless a legal reason can be proven as to why those rights should not be applicable, be it a pre-existing agreement or legal argument otherwise. People should not have to pay for a certificate of marriage to gain basic rights that they should have anyway.

But the default state is "single". A marriage is a contract conferring aditional rights and responsibilities due to that contract. If you want to have those additional rights and responsibilities, take out the contract? What you seem to want to do is force people to take on those rights and responsibilities without conciously entering into that contract.

In essence pay to opt out, not be forced to opt in.

So force rights and responsibilities gained via a contract onto everyone, rather than allow people to choose to enter in to them?

As for marriage rights; keeping track is simple enough. People keep records of rental, mortgage, joint accounts and such so it shouldn't be difficult to ascertain the length of time a couple have cohabited.

Yet is it going to be considerably more expensive than the current system for no actual gain. Other than giving people the rights and responsibilities they may not even want, or cannot be bothered to get. Also how long do you need to cohabit before you get the full rights? A day? A week? A month? A year? Several years? If it is a day and your girlfriend stays overnight and you die, she gets everything? If it is a year and you die before that year is up, tough luck to your partner? Maybe we clear it up by having a small legal document to say you are officially cohabiting?

More than one cohabitation; most rights are only incurred during the cohabitation. If you are cohabiting and one partner dies then you should be treated with the same rights that married couples enjoy.

You have just made hundreds of tax lawyers really happy by giving them a massive loophole through which to avoid probate.

In the case of separation there is no reason that it cannot be the same as divorce, again if you choose not the exercise said rights then opt out prior to separation or prior to cohabiting.

So, if you are going away to work for six months, are you still considered "married"? Or do you have to sign a bit of paper to say you are still married? If you are still married and while your spouse is away you do the dirty on them and have a mistress, are you married to them too?

Fathers rights should be completely separate from marriage, each Parent should have equal rights under the law regardless of their marital status.

No issue with that at all. Obviously both parents would have the responsibilities that go along with that too.

 

[RDM]

*Sigh* your such a troll. Given both a historical and multi-cultural context it is impossible for anything you or I say on this to make absolute sense. Divorce rates vary magnificently from culture to culture, historical and present. Henry VIII's schism with the catholic church being a turning point in terms of our little island allowing divorce and strengthening the bonds of contractual, whimsical, marriage.

No, seriously, the religious links to marriage in English Common Law came after the civil links. It started as a civil contract. There have been very few periods in the UK where you have needed to have a religious ceremony.

Not to mention if I was a troll I might point out that it would be "*Sigh* You're such a troll." On a more serious note, since when does it becoming trolling to disagree with someone?

In the West we hold a disney-esque picture of Love and Marriage that is beyond the scope of possibility. Fairytale love is as a religious love and as such the majority go into marriage with an expectation that exceeds reality. That is the true reason for the high divorce rates of this era.

Which has little to do with the religious nature of marriage but the lack of fore-thought people put in to getting married.

God is a covenant maker; an unconditional promise regardless of action. People are contract breaker. We promise things, then we go back on them. We hurt people time and time again and nobody, not even you, is free of that.

Unless God doesn't exist, in which case the above it pretty much a moot point as marriage becomes ONLY a contract between two people.

In some, very, very rare circumstances on a case by case basis, yes.

So you would advocate a couple stay married even if they no longer love each other and have no desire to stay with each other? Why?

 

[Castiel]

But the default state is "single". A marriage is a contract conferring aditional rights and responsibilities due to that contract. If you want to have those additional rights and responsibilities, take out the contract? What you seem to want to do is force people to take on those rights and responsibilities without conciously entering into that contract.

Not forcing anyone, they can opt out, much like people can opt out of responsibilities within marriage with pre-nups.

So force rights and responsibilities gained via a contract onto everyone, rather than allow people to choose to enter in to them?

again not forcing, choose. the default situation should be to have those rights.

Yet is it going to be considerably more expensive than the current system for no actual gain. Other than giving people the rights and responsibilities they may not even want, or cannot be bothered to get. Also how long do you need to cohabit before you get the full rights? A day? A week? A month? A year? Several years? If it is a day and your girlfriend stays overnight and you die, she gets everything? If it is a year and you die before that year is up, tough luck to your partner? Maybe we clear it up by having a small legal document to say you are officially cohabiting?

cohabiting as in living as if you were married. quit being a troll.

You have just made hundreds of tax lawyers really happy by giving them a massive loophole through which to avoid probate.

not really. A Will is still a Will.

So, if you are going away to work for six months, are you still considered "married"? Or do you have to sign a bit of paper to say you are still married? If you are still married and while your spouse is away you do the dirty on them and have a mistress, are you married to them too?

That would entirely depend upon whether you absolve yourself of all financial responsibilities regarding cohabitation.

No issue with that at all. Obviously both parents would have the responsibilities that go along with that too.

Indeed, and is the main reason why I am against marriage having such rights that are not available to everyone who live in the same situation as a married couple just without paying to obtain that certificate.

 

[RDM]

cohabiting as in living as if you were married. quit being a troll.

I give up.

 

[Castiel]

I give up.

This is the kind of thing that you either agree with or not, no matter how much we debate whether to opt in or opt out of rights is the correct default option it is a personal opinion and they rarely change.

I am married, (big White Church wedding and all that), but I have several reservations over the rights, especially of fathers and those who have cohabited as if they were married for many years and their financial and parental rights either on the death of a partner or separation.

 

[RDM]

This is the kind of thing that you either agree with or not, no matter how much we debate whether to opt in or opt out of rights is the correct default option it is a personal opinion and they rarely change.

That isn't why I am giving up. I am giving up because it seems that disagreement and pointing out flaws is now trolling. As you have no desire to have a proper discussion and would prefer insults, then I am bowing out.