If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You are right, daft example. Mainly because your bike couldn't switch off your life support
Two things:
1. So you'd need to be less sure to hand over rights?
2. 110%? Is that even possible? Surely 100% is maximum? [/huge bug bear of mine]
What could be easier than saying a few words and signing a piece of paper?
Isn't whether should there be an alternative what we're debating?
I say there should (because it harms no-one) and you say they shouldn't (because they could get married)
No. I say it shouldn't because a) it removes rights from someone else and that should always be a conscious act and b) (as you mention) because there is already a system for allowing that to happen.
More simple that a marriage certificate?
Yes... I think people get hang ups over marriage because of the whole 'state says you're now a couple' thing.
Personally I don't have a problem with marriage, I'm just trying to come up with a solution for those who want the rights but for personal beliefs and political reasons don't want to get married.
:yes:
Surely it's them saying it?
Personally I think that the word "marriage" is the problem, not the act and not the implications. Maybe I am just cynical or missing a major point. Seeing as no-one has ever been able to explain it to me that's hardly surprising...
I can't see any "political" reason, other than the anarchism one and I am not sure I can understand the "personal belief" which asks for the rights but not the means to make it happen...
Unbelievable! You're defending flogging and stoning women for having affairs! You're defending state murder!
Sick.
I've already stated - you wanked on about how religion was what was needed in the UK. Well if stoning women to death is what relgion does for you, fucking keep it.
More circular arguing. :rolleyes:
I've got a solution to this. Remove the legal rights attached to marriage. Then, if couples want legal next of kin, they have to draw up a will. That way married couples and co-habiting couples have the same rights.
Sorted.
As far as I know marriage is a religious thing. Why bring political rights into it, and why should someone who's not religious do it (especially if they don't want to)?
It seems perfectly fine to me that if two people want to get married they should be allowed to, but if they don't want to (because they're not religious, or for another reason) they should be able to get the same rights.
Taking it one step further, perhaps people should be able to get married without getting any more rights automatically. Perhaps people who get married and want these rights should also just sign the papers for them, which would be irrelevant.
I don't see why getting married should change somebody's rights. Marriage is a religious thing, rights are a political issue. Even though I think of myself as religious, I believe religion and politics should work separately from each other.
Except it would be a shovel. Still may do the same thing, but they're not the same.
But how hard is a registry office wedding/ceremony? You give notice of wanting to get married, pick a date and show up. My parents did it in my mothers lunch break and she went back to work and nobody was any the wiser (ofcourse that was a formality they chose to make so they would be legally married in the UAE and UK). There was no religion, no family and no fuss...just some witnesses and that was it.
What can be easier than that? It need not be anything big at all, just a quick one hour thing with about 1hour of arranging before.
Why do you no longer speak to your family?
It might be an irrational belief, I grant you that. But seeing that we are have always been extremely accommodating to other irrational beliefs I don't see why we can't accommodate on this.
Maybe she got them stoned to death.
I can sit here and argue until im blue in the face but still we wont get anywhere, because i am stubborn and believe that if you want to be recognised as a legal heir/proxy/dependant then get married. Unfortunately people like Blagsta are also being stubborn and because of people like him the UK is needing to bring in new options for his other half to be legally recognised.
You will always have people on each end of the spectrum argueing and fighting for and against this notion but at the end of the day it probably wont get us anywhere...and if it goes through then people will start thinking, why should they get married when it is so easy to be recognised as a couple. I strongly believe that marriage is one of the last religious acts being practised and with this new movement coming in people will start to let go of their religious values and opt for the easier more convenient and cheaper (no wedding, outfits or receptions to pay for) alternative.
The "cheaper" bit will never happen. Everything is commercialised nowadays, and weddings are the worst one of the lot.
Exactly - this isn't a religious issue.
I was brought up Roman Catholic but abandoned that as I thought it was a load of tripe after studying it at school. That's another topic though...