If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Scottish government proposes third category of weddings for people who don't believe in anything   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 41
    More: Interesting, civil partnerships, Scottish Government, same-sex marriages  
•       •       •

3431 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2012 at 12:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-31 11:21:18 AM  
I know who can play at the wedding...

s2.postimage.org
 
2012-12-31 12:27:38 PM  
Ahhh, the popular Meh... wedding
 
2012-12-31 12:28:12 PM  
I may not believe in God, but I do believe in the family; Mom and Dad and Grandma, and Uncle Todd who waves his penis.
 
2012-12-31 12:28:38 PM  
Live together? That's a tax'n.
 
2012-12-31 12:30:29 PM  
I find this hard to believe.
 
2012-12-31 12:31:14 PM  
Tell me again why the government should be involved in a private contract between two adults.
 
2012-12-31 12:32:01 PM  

lenfromak: Tell me again why the government should be involved in a private contract between two adults.


FFS, totally agree. This whole thing is just farking ridiculous.
 
2012-12-31 12:32:56 PM  
Scottish government proposes third category of weddings for people who don't believe in anything fairy tales

FTFY
 
2012-12-31 12:34:11 PM  
It's nice to see Humanism get some play.
 
2012-12-31 12:35:22 PM  
I think we already have that one.
 
2012-12-31 12:38:33 PM  
FTA: "Humanists believe, among other things, that people do not need a deity to determine what might be ethical or appropriate."

That's good, because when last I checked, we were fresh out of deities.
 
2012-12-31 12:39:16 PM  
/I do not support gay marriage.
//I voted for gay marriage in MD.
///I choose to not enter myself into a gay marriage.
////Why the fark is any government involved in any marriage.
//FIVE SLASHIES!
 
2012-12-31 12:39:44 PM  
Did anyone else click expecting to read something about sheep?

No? Just me? 'Kay
 
2012-12-31 12:40:02 PM  

Sybarite: I may not believe in God, but I do believe in the family; Mom and Dad and Grandma, and Uncle Todd who waves his penis.



Wave back?
 
2012-12-31 12:41:51 PM  

david_gaithersburg: /I do not support gay marriage.
//I voted for gay marriage in MD.
///I choose to not enter myself into a gay marriage.
////Why the fark is any government involved in any marriage.
//FIVE SLASHIES!



Whether government is or is not involved in marriage, you can be damn sure it'll be involved in divorce.
 
2012-12-31 12:43:41 PM  

Amos Quito: david_gaithersburg: /I do not support gay marriage.
//I voted for gay marriage in MD.
///I choose to not enter myself into a gay marriage.
////Why the fark is any government involved in any marriage.
//FIVE SLASHIES!


Whether government is or is not involved in marriage, you can be damn sure it'll be involved in divorce.


.
Whar are my slashies. Does the system have a slashie limit?
 
2012-12-31 12:50:31 PM  

lenfromak: Tell me again why the government should be involved in a private contract between two adults.


Who will arbitrate when a party reneges on the contract?
 
2012-12-31 12:53:40 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Amos Quito: david_gaithersburg: /I do not support gay marriage.
//I voted for gay marriage in MD.
///I choose to not enter myself into a gay marriage.
////Why the fark is any government involved in any marriage.
//FIVE SLASHIES!


Whether government is or is not involved in marriage, you can be damn sure it'll be involved in divorce.

.
Whar are my slashies. Does the system have a slashie limit?



Slashie limit at 4 (unless you cough up $5 for TF)

/Membership has its priveleges
 
2012-12-31 12:53:43 PM  
I thought the third type of Scottish wedding was the Man-Sheep thingee.

i1125.photobucket.com
What a typical Scottish Man may look like.
 
2012-12-31 12:53:58 PM  

david_gaithersburg: /I do not support gay marriage.
//I voted for gay marriage in MD.
///I choose to not enter myself into a gay marriage.
////Why the fark is any government involved in any marriage.
//FIVE SLASHIES!


well, for the ame reason you have to register a corporation or business partnership with the state..to make it official, but yeah, other than that it should completely hands-off by the state.  Marriage should be re-classified as a non-business partnership with the same rules applying to them as regular partnerships: You can form a partnership with whomever you want, and as many people as you want, and all inhertiance and offspring issues particularly in the event of the partnership's dissolution, should be agreed to and spelled out in advance, and the state's role is limited to standing <i> in loco parentis</i> for any actual or ptoential children making sure they aren't screwed over by the agreement  and that it provides them with statutorily-defined minimum acceptable levels of support (like the CS laws do now).
 
2012-12-31 12:54:00 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: lenfromak: Tell me again why the government should be involved in a private contract between two adults.

Who will arbitrate when a party reneges on the contract?


.
An arbitrator perhaps?
 
2012-12-31 12:58:00 PM  

gerbilpox: Did anyone else click expecting to read something about sheep?

No? Just me? 'Kay


www.scottish-wedding-dreams.com
Just don't go cheap on the groom's threads, you don't want cheap dye running all over her dress on their special night.
 
2012-12-31 12:59:31 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: lenfromak: Tell me again why the government should be involved in a private contract between two adults.

Who will arbitrate when a party reneges on the contract?


They could be adults about it:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-31 01:10:15 PM  

lenfromak: Tell me again why the government should be involved in a private contract between two adults.


Because a contract is a legal agreement which will inevitably lead to a disagreement in some form which, like any other contract, will end up before some form of governmental body for adjudication.

The more you define the terms up front the less likely you will need this later.
 
2012-12-31 01:13:00 PM  
Is having your chohnson cut off going to be part of the ceremony?
 
2012-12-31 01:19:36 PM  
/
//
///
////
V
V/
Six slashies!
 
2012-12-31 01:38:57 PM  
After the government issues a marriage license between two consenting, not grossly closely related, not already married to someone else secretly, adults, with a possible blood test chaser, shouldn't the ceremony just be whatever the couple decides? Elvis wedding, Trekkie wedding, naked wedding (could also be a Trekkie Betazoid wedding), guy with a funny hat and robes? What interest does the state have in party planning?
 
2012-12-31 01:40:58 PM  

lunkhed: /
//
///
////
V
V/
Six slashies!


Roman numeral slashies!

X/ Romanus slashus?
 
2012-12-31 01:43:50 PM  
I don't get it. Why don't the Humanists simply have civil ceremonies?
 
2012-12-31 01:46:16 PM  

HoratioGates: After the government issues a marriage license between two consenting, not grossly closely related, not already married to someone else secretly, adults, with a possible blood test chaser, shouldn't the ceremony just be whatever the couple decides? Elvis wedding, Trekkie wedding, naked wedding (could also be a Trekkie Betazoid wedding), guy with a funny hat and robes? What interest does the state have in party planning?


Because in the UK it's not a state registration followed by a ceremony of your choice. The state outsources the whole shebang to the guy with the funny hat and robes with the state recognising whatever ceremony they conduct as forming a valid union.
 
2012-12-31 02:17:45 PM  

UberDave: I know who can play at the wedding...

[s2.postimage.org image 325x325]


shomer shabbas?

//they're nihilists, donnie... they don't believe anything.
 
2012-12-31 02:21:31 PM  

jamspoon: Because in the UK it's not a state registration followed by a ceremony of your choice. The state outsources the whole shebang to the guy with the funny hat and robes with the state recognising whatever ceremony they conduct as forming a valid union.


uh, are you saying you think secular marriage doesn't exist in the UK?

Last two I've been to have been secular weddings.
 
2012-12-31 02:34:12 PM  

lenfromak: Tell me again why the government should be involved in a private contract between two adults.


Because a contract is inherently a government guarantee and the government eventually enforcing the terms of the contract has every right to dictate what can and cannot be included.
 
2012-12-31 03:03:38 PM  
I don't get it either. If they already have a non-religious option available, what exactly is the third category for?

/secular wedding
//hate to tell you religious types, but marriage does, has always, and likely always will entail some kind of contract, so the state has an interest
 
2012-12-31 04:09:08 PM  

Amos Quito: I find this hard to believe.


It might be good for business.

Scotland has a little town that's popular for weddings. Maybe they're tried to expand the market.


Gretna Green is one of the world's most popular wedding destinations, hosting over 5000 weddings each year in the Gretna/Gretna Green area, and one of every six Scottish weddings.[2]

It has usually been assumed that Gretna's famous "runaway marriages" began in 1754 when Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act came into force in England. Under the Act, if a parent of a minor (i.e., a person under the age of 18) objected, they could prevent the marriage going ahead. The Act tightened up the requirements for marrying in England and Wales but did not apply in Scotland, where it was possible for boys to marry at 14 and girls at 12 years old with or without parental consent (see Marriage in Scotland). It was, however, only in the 1770s, with the construction of a toll road passing through the hitherto obscure village of Graitney, that Gretna Green became the first easily reachable village over the Scottish border.

Link

/Almost got married there.
//Still managed to enjoy the "honeymoon."
 
2012-12-31 04:11:52 PM  

HighOnCraic: Amos Quito: I find this hard to believe.

It might be good for business.

Scotland has a little town that's popular for weddings. Maybe they're tried trying to expand the market.


Gretna Green is one of the world's most popular wedding destinations, hosting over 5000 weddings each year in the Gretna/Gretna Green area, and one of every six Scottish weddings.[2]

It has usually been assumed that Gretna's famous "runaway marriages" began in 1754 when Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act came into force in England. Under the Act, if a parent of a minor (i.e., a person under the age of 18) objected, they could prevent the marriage going ahead. The Act tightened up the requirements for marrying in England and Wales but did not apply in Scotland, where it was possible for boys to marry at 14 and girls at 12 years old with or without parental consent (see Marriage in Scotland). It was, however, only in the 1770s, with the construction of a toll road passing through the hitherto obscure village of Graitney, that Gretna Green became the first easily reachable village over the Scottish border.

Link

/Almost got married there.
//Still managed to enjoy the "honeymoon."


D'oh.
 
2012-12-31 05:54:34 PM  

lenfromak: Tell me again why the government should be involved in a private contract between two adults.


Because the two adults want all kinds of government benefits to accompany their contract.
 
2012-12-31 06:30:26 PM  
I don't know why anyone would consider marriage a contract. In any other contract, the person at fault for reneging on it would need to demonstrate just cause for doing so and would probably be expected to pay a penalty of some sort. Not marriage. In marriage, any one of the partners could declare "it's over" and abscond with half of the marital assets (and, if the person happens to be a woman, there's an 80 percent chance of her getting the kids and odds are good that she'll get the house too as custodial parent. I know a man whose ex-wife got 50 percent of his business, even though she had never set foot in the place.) It's no wonder women initiate 70 percent of the divorces (and usually at ages where they're young enough to remarry or hit the dating scene.).

It's no wonder so many men are refusing to "man up" and get married. I wonder in the future how many cohabitating couples are going to be declared defacto married by the gub'mint in order to increase tax revenue, institute alimony, gain more federal control over these relationships, etc.
 
2013-01-01 05:16:29 AM  

jamspoon: Because in the UK it's not a state registration followed by a ceremony of your choice. The state outsources the whole shebang to the guy with the funny hat and robes with the state recognising whatever ceremony they conduct as forming a valid union.


Most weddings in the U.S., I think, are performed by religious sorts (I don't have an exact breakdown)- priests, rabbis, etc, but there are other people, including some government officials, who are allowed to perform weddings. There is a marriage license, which you usually get from city hall. The sanctioned person performing the wedding fills in some of the information. It seems pretty outsourced already, and aside from some debate over who can get a license, it seems like a pretty good system.
 
2013-01-01 06:05:22 AM  
They're just now doing this?

I thought the choice to get married by someone who wasn't a religious minister and in non religious setting was easy in any civilized country. That's how my brother got married, there's a historic type building around here which rents a large room for these kinds of things.
 
2013-01-01 01:58:55 PM  

HoratioGates: jamspoon: Because in the UK it's not a state registration followed by a ceremony of your choice. The state outsources the whole shebang to the guy with the funny hat and robes with the state recognising whatever ceremony they conduct as forming a valid union.

Most weddings in the U.S., I think, are performed by religious sorts (I don't have an exact breakdown)- priests, rabbis, etc, but there are other people, including some government officials, who are allowed to perform weddings. There is a marriage license, which you usually get from city hall. The sanctioned person performing the wedding fills in some of the information. It seems pretty outsourced already, and aside from some debate over who can get a license, it seems like a pretty good system.


That's not how it works, you have to get a marriage license first, then you can either have the ceremony there or somewhere else with a licensed officiant. Typically you need 2 witnesses to vouch that the ceremony happened.

Depending on state a licensed officiant can be someone who filled out a government form, doesn't have to be a religious leader.

Legally the only thing required for the ceremony is declaration of intent (the "I do's") and the Pronouncement of Marriage (the kiss and the "I now declare you...").

Some European countries force everyone to have the legal ceremony at the appropriate government office and then the couple can choose to have another later.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report