|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2015 20:54:19 GMT
I just find it weird that a church that has several of it's people in positions of national power can still pick what it wants to follow of the basic law... Then again, I find the whole idea of a house of lords with unelected people wacky as all and I find the idea of a hereditary ruling class a bit wacky... the Bushes and the Kennedys notwithstanding. (edit: I will add the Clintons to the list if Hillary does get elected president) |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 26, 2015 7:40:03 GMT
Here is the problem, the Church has recognized the new law, and has left it to a vicar-by-vicar decision as to if they will/wont sanction such.
Cowards way out.
They did... see above.
Wont work, its political, its toxic, marriage is a way into the country, and "sham marriage" is govt. problems?...
Marriage gives you political status.
It gives you tax status, it gives you certain legal rights, and lots of other things too numerous to mention, the Govt is in it up to its neck.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 26, 2015 7:42:54 GMT
Historically, (read on) Its the place where all the people "With money", the main and largest contributors to the UK taxes, are supposed to have their say on how the country is run.
That was the historical beginnings of such.
As it is at the moment, I think many of us are a bit hazy on who-does-what-to-whom-and-how-much.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 26, 2015 12:20:13 GMT
Here is the problem, the Church has recognized the new law, and has left it to a vicar-by-vicar decision as to if they will/wont sanction such. Cowards way out. They did... see above. Wont work, its political, its toxic, marriage is a way into the country, and "sham marriage" is govt. problems?... Marriage gives you political status. It gives you tax status, it gives you certain legal rights, and lots of other things too numerous to mention, the Govt is in it up to its neck. The Church has accepted same sex weddings exist and that they will be performed in other denominations and civil ceremonies , but they have not change canon law to allow vicars to perform those marriages, Synod has not changed this stance as yet. There may be debate in the church communitiy as to weither this should change but it has not happened . You are right about the Legal status of marriage though, in this country, for instance my Aunt lived with her partner for many years but they were not married, when the partner died many of the pension rights died with them leaving my Aunt in a very difficult position. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 26, 2015 14:43:38 GMT
I think there is a misunderstanding on the "government out of the marriage business" comment - by that, we mean, the government no longer bases the rules on whether the people are having sex. the government now bases the rules on the same basis as a business relationship. perhaps as a side effect, it will no longer be a gateway to immigration.
the end goal of the exercise is that churches all have set rules around who may or my not have sex with each other - and for the government to legitimize a sexual relationship that the church forbids is to create a situation in which the government and the church are issuing conflicting rules - and in the US, the solution is in the constitution: the government may not make rules that place one church's beliefs over another's however, no church may dictate that people must either affiliate with the church, or must follow its rules.
for example, in the Utah death penalty debate: the splinter group of the LDS church that believes in blood atonement may not make a law that requires the death penalty to involve shedding blood. however, they could conceivably petition for a law that allowed a member to donate blood to the red cross as a convicted criminal.
so currently, in the US, the argument is over whether the government is forcing the church to approve of homosexuality, or the church is attempting to ban homosexuality. the reasonable solution Lokifan and I are suggesting is for the government to sidestep the issue by structuring their rules such that they do not presume sexual activity. the state just sanctions the legal and fiscal relationship; and if the people want to seek sanction from a church, they simply choose a church that is willing to sanction their living arrangements.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 27, 2015 7:16:39 GMT
Perhaps by that the Govt needs to get further into the subject rather than retire.
[Note, all below open to debate, just some "If I ruled the world" ideas that may or may not be useful?.].
Is this person "Fit and proper" to enter the country.
As you say, same as business partnerships,
Perhaps the right to enter the country should be divorced from the right to be married, as in, sure, go ahead, get married,
BUT.
That new person must prove on their own right they have the right to be in the country, have any rights to welfare, and must stay in the relationship for [x] number of years to accrue enough points to be a full partner.
They MUST apply and take full citizenship of the country they wish to live in...
Being married is not an automatic right to citizenship.
They must also be married IN the country having first been approved of as a visitor to the country with a visor, and married by the Govt approved method, not some jump-a-broom "local" method of some remote tribe in never-heard-of-it-land, (with allowances made for those in approved countries or those blessed by the pope etc...)
Further, if that person then divorces they must then if they have not already apply for visor, as visitor, immediately until they can prove their right to stay as a "citizen"
If not, they face deportation back to whence they came.
Children?
Who gets to keep them.
If its the one who gets deported, they go with them, until old enough to decide on their own where they want to live, and can be supported by the parent who retains citizenship...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 27, 2015 8:40:10 GMT
In the US, just getting married doesn't grant citizenship.
At best it gets you a "green card" and you can become a permanent resident (and start working), but that takes a bit of time. Yes, they are then eligible for some benefits.
The normal way to become a citizen is by passing the citizenship test after being a permanent resident.
A friend of mine was married twice to citizens of different countries. It was a real pain just getting the green card for each.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 27, 2015 10:29:38 GMT
In the US, just getting married doesn't grant citizenship. At best it gets you a "green card" and you can become a permanent resident (and start working), but that takes a bit of time. Yes, they are then eligible for some benefits. The normal way to become a citizen is by passing the citizenship test after being a permanent resident. A friend of mine was married twice to citizens of different countries. It was a real pain just getting the green card for each. Nor does marriage here grant automatic citizenship, you have to apply in a similar way to the U.S. and pass the citizenship test. It is easier to gain residence rights, similar to your green card. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Mar 27, 2015 15:24:44 GMT
On gay cakes, it turns out to be illegal not to make a gay cake in europe, if you advertise that you make custom cakes. Case in Ireland: link |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 27, 2015 15:31:28 GMT
On gay cakes, it turns out to be illegal not to make a gay cake in europe, if you advertise that you make custom cakes. Case in Ireland: linkI find the fixation with sexualizing characters in kids' TV shows to be irritating - no matter which side of the debate does it. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Mar 27, 2015 15:57:11 GMT
and that would have been a great reason to refuse making that cake...and perfectly legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 27, 2015 16:06:00 GMT
and that would have been a great reason to refuse making that cake...and perfectly legal. "I'm sorry, but that design includes copyright protected images" but if you have done a cake for someone else with a copyrighted image, it falls apart. "I won't do it because I'm politically opposed to that guy" would be a safer reason. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 27, 2015 16:29:57 GMT
On gay cakes, it turns out to be illegal not to make a gay cake in europe, if you advertise that you make custom cakes. Case in Ireland: linkWell, first off, there's no mention of EU laws. Only UK and Northern Ireland laws. Law in question explained here: Wikipedia: Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) RegulationsSecondly, it seems the bakery could have avoided this if they had made it clear in their advertisements that they do not make custom cakes "depicting, describing or otherwise refering to any type of sexuality". But, as we all know, hindsight is 20/20. If you put yourself in their shoes, you'd probably agree with me that there's no reasonable universe in which they should have seen this coming and included that line in their terms of service. Lesson learned (hopefully). This whole "equality" thing has gone way over board. We're coming up to a point where if your opponent is a homosexual, a different race than you, vertically challenged, vision impaired, chronologically gifted or dyslexic, you have no rights. If you're a heterosexual, able bodied white person, you WILL lose, because you're the devil and you're what's wrong with the world. Don't believe me? For the guys here, round up a couple of straight friends and try walking down the main street of your town, all of you wearing nothing but a spiked collar, a leather thong, a pair of assless chaps and a pair of boots of the sort that would make Eddie Izzard proud to call you a friend. Oh, and one of you has to carry a sign that says "I'm straight and I'm proud!" See how far you get before you're confronted by the cops. Change the sign to "I'm gay and I'm proud" and call the whole thing a parade and people will gladly bring their kids to watch. "Look mommy! That man has a chain connecting his nipple to his *BEEP*! That's weird!" "We don't use that word! It's not nice! You can't just say people are weird! That's intolerant!" |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 27, 2015 16:41:50 GMT
On gay cakes, it turns out to be illegal not to make a gay cake in europe, if you advertise that you make custom cakes. Case in Ireland: linkWell, first off, there's no mention of EU laws. Only UK and Northern Ireland laws. Law in question explained here: Wikipedia: Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) RegulationsSecondly, it seems the bakery could have avoided this if they had made it clear in their advertisements that they do not make custom cakes "depicting, describing or otherwise refering to any type of sexuality". But, as we all know, hindsight is 20/20. If you put yourself in their shoes, you'd probably agree with me that there's no reasonable universe in which they should have seen this coming and included that line in their terms of service. Lesson learned (hopefully). This whole "equality" thing has gone way over board. We're coming up to a point where if your opponent is a homosexual, a different race than you, vertically challenged, vision impaired, chronologically gifted or dyslexic, you have no rights. If you're a heterosexual, able bodied white person, you WILL lose, because you're the devil and you're what's wrong with the world. Don't believe me? For the guys here, round up a couple of straight friends and try walking down the main street of your town, all of you wearing nothing but a spiked collar, a leather thong, a pair of assless chaps and a pair of boots of the sort that would make Eddie Izzard proud to call you a friend. Oh, and one of you has to carry a sign that says "I'm straight and I'm proud!" See how far you get before you're confronted by the cops. Change the sign to "I'm gay and I'm proud" and call the whole thing a parade and people will gladly bring their kids to watch. "Look mommy! That man has a chain connecting his nipple to his *BEEP*! That's weird!" "We don't use that word! It's not nice! You can't just say people are weird! That's intolerant!" my town used to have an even called the redhead roundup, which culminated in a beauty pageant. it was ended as being socially inappropriate. now we have a gay pride festival which culminates in a beauty pageant - but that's okay. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 27, 2015 16:56:27 GMT
my town used to have an even called the redhead roundup, which culminated in a beauty pageant. it was ended as being socially inappropriate. now we have a gay pride festival which culminates in a beauty pageant - but that's okay. And there's the same problem with race. If a black man stands up (for whatever reason), puts his fist in the air and proclaims, "I'm black and I'm proud!", he's a civil rights activist at best and a dunce with no situational awareness at worst. If a white man stands up (for whatever reason), puts his fist in the air and proclaims, "I'm white and I'm proud!", he's a common racist at best and a rabid white supremacist at worst. Conclusion: Because white people long ago did terrible things to people of other races, white people these days are not allowed to be proud of who and what we are. We are born wrong and forced to walk on egg shells around people of different color than us. This is called "equality" and if you have something against it, you're a racist. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 27, 2015 17:01:02 GMT
my town used to have an even called the redhead roundup, which culminated in a beauty pageant. it was ended as being socially inappropriate. now we have a gay pride festival which culminates in a beauty pageant - but that's okay. And there's the same problem with race. If a black man stands up (for whatever reason), puts his fist in the air and proclaims, "I'm black and I'm proud!", he's a civil rights activist at best and a dunce with no situational awareness at worst. If a white man stands up (for whatever reason), puts his fist in the air and proclaims, "I'm white and I'm proud!", he's a common racist at best and a rabid white supremacist at worst. Conclusion: Because white people long ago did terrible things to people of other races, white people these days are not allowed to be proud of who and what we are. We are born wrong and forced to walk on egg shells around people of different color than us. This is called "equality" and if you have something against it, you're a racist. you don't even have to refer to race. in another part of the internet, I said a dead daddy wasn't much worse for an infant than a serial jailbird daddy, and was branded a hateful racist and a blight on society who had no redeeming value. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 27, 2015 17:27:51 GMT
you don't even have to refer to race. in another part of the internet, I said a dead daddy wasn't much worse for an infant than a serial jailbird daddy, and was branded a hateful racist and a blight on society who had no redeeming value. That's because you have yet to grasp how the new system works. During an argument, someone says something silly and you go, "Yes, but... Logic!" Then they go, "Yes, but... RACIST!" and you automatically lose. Those are the new rules. Learn them or be an outcast. I've personally chosen the second option on numerous occasions. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 27, 2015 18:08:50 GMT
Yes, too often accusations are used to shut down debate.
Of course, the latest is "triggers" and "checking your privilege".
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 27, 2015 18:09:42 GMT
With fist in the air (for whatever reason) I'm an outcast and I'm proud!
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 27, 2015 19:19:31 GMT
Funny thing is, when I point all these things out, most people I talk to will automatically assume it's because I'm against equal rights.
Not at all!
By all means, let all people of all genders, races, faiths and sexual orientations from all over the world have the same rights!
But why does it always have to be at the expense of someone else's?
If women suddenly get special treatment over men, homosexuals over heterosexuals, blacks over whites and so on, it has nothing to do with "equality" any more. That's just turning the tables, making the former victims become the new bullies.
Am I against "Gay Pride" parades? Not at all. They can be as proud as they want to be, but is it too much to ask that they're proud with their clothes on and without publicly behaving in ways that would get any straight person thrown in jail for lewd behavior?
Am I against women in positions of power? Nope. But is it too much to ask that they're actually qualified for the job and not hired over more qualified men, just because they're female and the company needs to fill some silly "equal rights quota"?
Am I against black, hispanic, middle eastern or asian people having the same rights as me? Can't say that I am. But is it too much to ask that they don't by default have MORE rights than me, just because they're NOT white? Is it too much to ask that I have the same rights as them to think and speak for myself without automatically being labeled a bigot as soon as I voice my opinion about someone's BEHAVIOR and not their race?
Can I respect your right to be homosexual? Sure, if you can respect my right not to be and my right not to have your sexuality thrown in my face at every opportunity you get.
Can I respect that women want the same opportunities and pay as men? Sure, if they're willing to do the same work under the same circumstances.
Can I respect your race and the fact that you're proud of it? As a matter of fact, I don't CARE about your race and I think it's a silly thing to be proud of. It's not something you've achieved! So, you had slightly more brown parents than me... Big whoop! It's just genetics! You don't see me starting a "Blue Eye Pride Association", do you?
GET OVER YOURSELF!!!
And once you've done that, maybe you'll be able to hear that it is in fact not your skin color I have a problem with, but your self-righteous sense of entitlement and obviously narcissistic view that anyone who doesn't like you must be a racist, because it's completely out of the question that you might just be behaving like a run-of-the-mill idiot!
|
|
