Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Could Britain ever legalise 2 women-1 man marriage?


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#21 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,880 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:07 AM

Why stop at gay marriage? Let's get rid of any moral ambiguity, eh? Sodomy is legal, whats next? bestiality ? Incest? Peodophilia? The country is a joke!


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#22 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,879 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:05 AM

The country is a joke!

 

 

so you'll be off to the bible belt then? where your attitudes should sit quite nicely.


"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#23 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 804 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:41 AM

Not sure this analogy works but I'll give it a go.

 

A question for people who are vehemently against gay marriage.

 

 

There are people out there who spend their weekends painting little orcs and gnomes and staging roleplay battles with their friends.  You may well think this is nerdy and geeky and, personally it's not for me, but if they want to do that that's fine.  That is there hobby.  My hobby is watching the rugby.  Do you feel in any way, that the fact that these are both hobbies means that the rugby is in any way deminished because it's lumped under the same description as fantasy roleplay?



#24 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,996 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:49 AM

Not sure this analogy works but I'll give it a go.

 

A question for people who are vehemently against gay marriage.

 

 

There are people out there who spend their weekends painting little orcs and gnomes and staging roleplay battles with their friends.  You may well think this is nerdy and geeky and, personally it's not for me, but if they want to do that that's fine.  That is there hobby.  My hobby is watching the rugby.  Do you feel in any way, that the fact that these are both hobbies means that the rugby is in any way deminished because it's lumped under the same description as fantasy roleplay?

So, each to their own. Yes?


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#25 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 804 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:52 AM

So, each to their own. Yes?

Yep.  I just don't see what the deal is and would really like someone to explain it to me.



#26 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,996 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:58 AM

Yep.  I just don't see what the deal is and would really like someone to explain it to me.

God botherers bothering.


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#27 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,996 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:59 AM

... or were you referring to the rugby bit?! :P


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#28 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,630 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:14 AM

If the government: -

 - abolished divorce

 - decreed that all married partners had to pool pension funds in perpetuity

 - would only pay state benefits into joint accounts

 - would only pay unemployment  benefits for a fixed total period of ten years in a lifetime

 

then, nowadays, the odds are that, no-one would want to get married or enter into a civil partnership unless they had lived together for many years.

 

Prior to the First World War, those caveats were effectively in place but people did get married because of convention and god-fearing religion.

 

We've got to accept that, for most people these days,  their concepts of marriage and religion are an affectation. Almost all the whingeing and protesting is a staged irrelevance.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#29 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 7,959 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:16 AM

We've got to accept that, for most people these days,  their concepts of marriage and religion are an affectation. Almost all the whingeing and protesting is a staged irrelevance.

Possibly the most sensible post I've seen on the subject.

 

I may need to lie down now  :tongue:


God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!

#30 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,286 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:23 AM

Why stop at gay marriage? Let's get rid of any moral ambiguity, eh? Sodomy is legal, whats next? bestiality ? Incest? Peodophilia? The country is a joke!

why stop at gay marriage?

 

because incest, bestiality and  paedophilia and  are harmful-that is why they are illegal.

 

why wouldn't sodomy be legal? How is it a moral issue?


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#31 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,286 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:24 AM

If the government: -

 - abolished divorce

 - decreed that all married partners had to pool pension funds in perpetuity

 - would only pay state benefits into joint accounts

 - would only pay unemployment  benefits for a fixed total period of ten years in a lifetime

 

then, nowadays, the odds are that, no-one would want to get married or enter into a civil partnership unless they had lived together for many years.

 

Prior to the First World War, those caveats were effectively in place but people did get married because of convention and god-fearing religion.

 

We've got to accept that, for most people these days,  their concepts of marriage and religion are an affectation. Almost all the whingeing and protesting is a staged irrelevance.

yes


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#32 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,700 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:53 AM

If the government: -

 - abolished divorce

 - decreed that all married partners had to pool pension funds in perpetuity

 - would only pay state benefits into joint accounts

 - would only pay unemployment  benefits for a fixed total period of ten years in a lifetime

 

then, nowadays, the odds are that, no-one would want to get married or enter into a civil partnership unless they had lived together for many years.

 

Prior to the First World War, those caveats were effectively in place but people did get married because of convention and god-fearing religion.

 

We've got to accept that, for most people these days,  their concepts of marriage and religion are an affectation. Almost all the whingeing and protesting is a staged irrelevance.

 

Crikey, spot on


Fides invicta triumphat

#33 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,680 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 12:01 PM

If the government: -

 - abolished divorce

 - decreed that all married partners had to pool pension funds in perpetuity

 - would only pay state benefits into joint accounts

 - would only pay unemployment  benefits for a fixed total period of ten years in a lifetime

 

then, nowadays, the odds are that, no-one would want to get married or enter into a civil partnership unless they had lived together for many years.

 

Prior to the First World War, those caveats were effectively in place but people did get married because of convention and god-fearing religion.

 

We've got to accept that, for most people these days,  their concepts of marriage and religion are an affectation. Almost all the whingeing and protesting is a staged irrelevance.

 

This last line has put it best I reckon.

 

As for polygamous (or polyamorous as they sometimes call it) marriages, I think it's an idea destined to end in failure. However, the fact that I don't like it is no reason that it shouldn't happen. After all, it doesn't affect me or my marriage. I suspect it will always be a fringe thing too. Despite the sexual revolution, the vast majority that participate in casual relationships still eventually desire a monogamous relationship. One person is hard enough to keep happy, more people leads to more inevitable complications.

 

There is however a difference between polygamy and gay marriage in that polygamy does genuinely create some potential problems and unpleasant side-effects when it comes to the raising of children and custody issues. It could harm a child to be split 3 or 4 ways in a divorce agreement and be damaging if the mother wanted a divorce and the rest didn't (including potentially other mothers). These could of course be resolved but gay marriage affects no heterosexual person and cannot produce children in this way.



#34 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,630 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 12:01 PM

Here's another thought.

 

Why don't we remove the legal status of marriage. You can marry who you want, when you want, as many people as you want and wherever you want .

 

However, none of this will have any bearing on your ability to claim nationality, state benefits, tax relief or accommodation.

 

 

Problem solved.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#35 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,286 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 12:54 PM

Here's another thought.

 

Why don't we remove the legal status of marriage. You can marry who you want, when you want, as many people as you want and wherever you want .

 

However, none of this will have any bearing on your ability to claim nationality, state benefits, tax relief or accommodation.

 

 

Problem solved.

largely for practical reasons: it's a contract.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#36 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,695 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:38 PM

At the risk of sounding like a Les Dawson joke, why would anyone want two bleeding wives? I'm with Stan

 

or worse, two ma-in-laws!!!



#37 T Dub

T Dub
  • Coach
  • 961 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:05 PM

I have no problem with same gender legal arrangements,I went to a male civil ceremony last year and it was a jolly good do

As regards 'marriage', the definition of which seems to be the problem or many, might it be possible to give religios blessing to same sex couples in an arrangement, maybe called 'garriage' or something, which has its own definition?

#38 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,286 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:33 PM

I have no problem with same gender legal arrangements,I went to a male civil ceremony last year and it was a jolly good do

As regards 'marriage', the definition of which seems to be the problem or many, might it be possible to give religios blessing to same sex couples in an arrangement, maybe called 'garriage' or something, which has its own definition?

why?


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#39 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,214 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:03 PM

What some people choose to 'forget' when discussing this issue, particularly while they are in their default mode of blaming it all on Christians, is that marriage as we have been applying it for hundreds of years in England was in fact a Christian construct.  Therefore, Christians do have a legitimate cause for complaint when a government barges in to redefine something that has existed in its fundamentals for hundreds of years and was established by their forefathers. 

 

Some legal elements of the traditional marriage construct have changed, mainly in relation to wives.  However, three fundamentals have remained steady: marriage is between a man and a woman, it is a publically professed commitment and is for procreation.  These three components have formed the basis of marriage for hundreds of years, including the non-religious form.  To enable gay people to become married is to change those fundamentals.  Therefore, it is to redefine marriage.  It is that redefining of marriage which is upsetting many Christians (and indeed those of Muslim and Jewish faiths also, since there are many shared fundamentals between the three religions 'of the book').

 

Polygamy is a different ballgame again.  Human beings may be sexually promiscuous but emotionally they (on the whole) crave something deeper, if not when young then when older.  Polygamy is a disasterous idea, and not just for the adults, and IMO should never be legalised.


Edited by Saintslass, 22 May 2013 - 08:07 PM.


#40 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,431 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:24 PM

What some people choose to 'forget' when discussing this issue, particularly while they are in their default mode of blaming it all on Christians, is that marriage as we have been applying it for hundreds of years in England was in fact a Christian construct.  Therefore, Christians do have a legitimate cause for complaint when a government barges in to redefine something that has existed in its fundamentals for hundreds of years and was established by their forefathers. 

 

Some legal elements of the traditional marriage construct have changed, mainly in relation to wives.  However, three fundamentals have remained steady: marriage is between a man and a woman, it is a publically professed commitment and is for procreation.  These three components have formed the basis of marriage for hundreds of years, including the non-religious form.  To enable gay people to become married is to change those fundamentals.  Therefore, it is to redefine marriage.  It is that redefining of marriage which is upsetting many Christians (and indeed those of Muslim and Jewish faiths also, since there are many shared fundamentals between the three religions 'of the book').

 

Polygamy is a different ballgame again.  Human beings may be sexually promiscuous but emotionally they (on the whole) crave something deeper, if not when young then when older.  Polygamy is a disasterous idea, and not just for the adults, and IMO should never be legalised.

 

The procreation argument in particular is a nonsense. Lots of infertile couples marry, and lots of married people also choose not to have children.

 

As for the rest of it, Henry VIII made a very public mockery of the Christian concept of marriage hundreds of years ago. People got over it eventually.

 

The new law doesn't force any religious bodies to marry gay people. They can feel as upset as they want about it, it is a free country we live in, but our elected Parliament has voted overwhelmingly and across party divides to change the law on this matter and they'll just have to learn to live with that. This is not a theocracy.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users