A friend of mine has asked me to officiate their wedding and since they know I'm a Pope they said I could incorporate Discordianism. What do people think would be in a Discordian Wedding?
Considering that a wedding is about them and not you, I'd say very, very little.
For starters, you should snub a few key people. Or send them a follow-up invitation with a wrong address on the other side of town.
Then when they finally do show up, they should throw a--traditionally a golden apple, but any type of solid metal object that can be held in the hand will do, through the glass window, and START A WAR [also make sure to GO TO THE STORE to stock up on FIRE]
In fact maybe better if it's not a golden apple, otherwise they'll suspect you immediately.
Hi Danjanon!
You may be interested in reading about a classic Discordian wedding. Back in the 90s, this is actually one of the first pages I found which mentioned Discordia: http://www.ginohn.com/wunder201005/wedding/index.html
These guys named Gina and John had a Discordian wedding. It took place in the woods.
When the party gathered, Gina was already up in the tree. The groom arrived, climbed into the tree, and sat with her there. The priest was late to the wedding due to wearing plate mail. The ceremony, in his mind, was fusing the two individuals together into one being.
"John and Gina. Gina and John. Two people who are about to become one person. I will call this person Ginohn!"
(http://www.ginohn.com/wunder201005/wedding/Graymael.jpg)
Pretty good wedding, from the sound of it. They had skits. And the priest's word that they were married was basically a dare.
QuoteHere are some simple guidelines you might try (and who knows if they'll work?) to experience a fulfilling marriage:
Love each other. Do not stop doing this. Ever. If you stop, um, start again.
Take time to be together. Is something preventing this? KILL IT.
Respect each other. Love alone is not sufficient.
Listen to each other. Now and forever, you are both teacher and student.
Support each other. Stand back-to-back during melees.
I urge you -
I challenge you -
I DOUBLE DOG DARE you - to do these things, and do them well.
- mod note - since this is about interpreting Discordia, and not about a group project, I'm going to move this to the Principia subforum. If we don't keep this place organized, it'll become self aware and destroy us.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 07, 2012, 02:09:07 PM
Considering that a wedding is about them and not you, I'd say very, very little.
In this light,
- make it your personal mission to ensure there are no hotdogs at the event
- under NO circumstances, ask Eris to "bless" their marriage
- at the afterparty, maybe request the DJ to play some nice KLF
Quote from: Danjanon on February 07, 2012, 02:04:52 PM
A friend of mine has asked me to officiate their wedding and since they know I'm a Pope they said I could incorporate Discordianism. What do people think would be in a Discordian Wedding?
A very, very disappointed bride.
:lol:
TBH, I incorporated some Discordia into my wedding-- but it was more from a "the universe is random, and up to us to give it meaning" kind of way.
Also, we drank wine and broke stuff. I think Mrs LMNO's family thinks we're Jewish now.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2012, 03:19:43 PM
Quote from: Danjanon on February 07, 2012, 02:04:52 PM
A friend of mine has asked me to officiate their wedding and since they know I'm a Pope they said I could incorporate Discordianism. What do people think would be in a Discordian Wedding?
A very, very disappointed bride.
I declare my marriage retroactively Discordian. God knows I was disappointed. Often.
I really love the "double dog dare" component in that ceremony. If I ever marry again I want something like that in mine.
Danjanon, I have performed officiated three weddings so far, and I would say that your best bet is to keep any Discordian touches on the zen side and stay away from the pinealist side.
Quote from: Nigel on February 07, 2012, 03:37:07 PM
I really love the "double dog dare" component in that ceremony. If I ever marry again I want something like that in mine.
Danjanon, I have performed officiated three weddings so far, and I would say that your best bet is to keep any Discordian touches on the zen side and stay away from the pinealist side.
I like that, myself.
The marriage ceremony shouldn't be about you, it should be about them. If you know them, do what will resonate for THEM.
The wedding is really for the bride. My advice, as your spiritual advisor, is to tell your friend to let his wife - possibly with help from both mothers - plan it.
Leave the Discordian stuff for afterwards.
Trust me on this one.
Discordian wedding story: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31574.0.html
Quote from: Cramulus on February 07, 2012, 04:13:56 PM
Discordian wedding story: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31574.0.html
I agree. It's not a
real Discordian wedding unless you arrange for an infant to CHOLERA SPRAY HOSE all over everybody.
Holy beans there's a lot to reply to here.
@LMNO, PhD: It's their 3rd wedding in two years and it's mostly to appease those in Australia who couldn't make the first two. As far as I know, it's going to be a very casual affair, which is why I'm officiating. But I fully agree with what you're saying. Breaking things kicks arse *nods*
@Triple Zero: Starting a war may be a little bit extreme as an introduction to Discordian for some of our friends and family, but Hell is it appropriate! I may do the snub-invites for my own wedding. No Hot Dogs check. Now that you've mentioned it, you're totally right that invoking a blessing from Eris is a bad idea. No one wants that on their head.
@Cromulus: That is fan-bloody-tastic! I am forwarding that to my fiance as we speak. I am now a Universal Life Church Monastry Minister :D
@The Good Reverend Roger: She's Hindu and open to all religions. I told her about Discordianism and she was genuinely interested.
@Luna: lol
I think that covers everything I wanted to reply to
Quote from: Danjanon on February 08, 2012, 01:02:40 PM
@Triple Zero: Starting a war may be a little bit extreme as an introduction to Discordian for some of our friends and family, but Hell is it appropriate! I may do the snub-invites for my own wedding.
But also maybe not. I think Roger said it, a lot of it is for the bride and her mom. DONT under ANY circumstance snub that part of the family.
QuoteNow that you've mentioned it, you're totally right that invoking a blessing from Eris is a bad idea. No one wants that on their head.
Yeah. Check the "Surprise me, Eris" threads somewhere in these forums (use
"Surprise me Eris" site:principiadiscordia.com in Google, should probably work)
Have three Bridesmaids, who disgrace themselves by squabbling over some bauble or other. Make them fight it out in a big tub of lime green jelly.
I like bb's idea :fap:
One of the great things about this religion is that you don't HAVE to be weird all the time.
There's also no fucking brand name here. There is no "Discordian Wedding" or "Discordian Music" or any of that shit. You do something because you LIKE it, not just to be deliberately weird. The whole point of this garbage is THINK FOR YOURSELF, SCHMUCK, not "how can we show how zany we are?"
Odds are, a frivolous approach to a wedding will lead to a frivolous approach to a marriage, and that never fucking ends well.
Just saying.
Quote from: Danjanon on February 08, 2012, 01:02:40 PM
@The Good Reverend Roger: She's Hindu and open to all religions. I told her about Discordianism and she was genuinely interested.
Yeah, great. How about her mother? If you think an affronted mother in law is not an issue, then you have another thing coming.
Quote from: Danjanon on February 08, 2012, 01:02:40 PM
@LMNO, PhD: It's their 3rd wedding in two years and it's mostly to appease those in Australia who couldn't make the first two. As far as I know, it's going to be a very casual affair, which is why I'm officiating. But I fully agree with what you're saying. Breaking things kicks arse *nods*
So basically, no one is going to mind if it's a bit of a weird thing. In my experience Australians aren't that attached to traditions anyway, and it's the third ceremony (I assume with 0 divorces in between). So you can goof it up a bit.
Roger, you're absolutely right. Discordianism isn't all ha ha, hee hee; that's what I like about it. Behind all the zaniness there's a solid philophy which THINK FOR YOURSELF, SCHMUCK is an important part. When I started this thread I was kinda hoping for equal parts zany and thoughtful.
There's a time and a place for zany. A wedding... not so much. Screw up that day, and the bride, the bride's mother, SOMEBODY will want a large enough piece of your hide to make a toilet seat cove.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 07, 2012, 04:33:48 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 07, 2012, 04:13:56 PM
Discordian wedding story: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31574.0.html
I agree. It's not a real Discordian wedding unless you arrange for an infant to CHOLERA SPRAY HOSE all over everybody.
Will you DISCORDIAN MARRY ME, Zilch? I promise there will be angry prairie dogs and no hot dog buns.
I don't know about this whole "If you don't take your wedding seriously, you're gonna fuck up your marriage" thing. Gina and John up there are still together. If my last GF and I had tied the knot, we wanted a silly ceremony like the Ginohn one. I think our parents would have understood.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 09, 2012, 02:15:55 PM
I don't know about this whole "If you don't take your wedding seriously, you're gonna fuck up your marriage" thing. Gina and John up there are still together. If my last GF and I had tied the knot, we wanted a silly ceremony like the Ginohn one. I think our parents would have understood.
Silliness because that's the bride and groom is one thing, that's fine. Adding crazy for the sake of the officiant, on, "sure, add a touch if you want," is more iffy.
If you ask me, the whole concept of marriage is "a bit iffy".
Quote from: el sjaako on February 09, 2012, 12:32:23 AM
In my experience Australians aren't that attached to traditions anyway, and it's the third ceremony (I assume with 0 divorces in between). So you can goof it up a bit.
Difference between Australia and the South: In Kentucky, the third ceremony comes after two divorces, a few trial separations, countless domestic disputes, the resulting restraining orders, a couple of bar fights, several jail terms, and at least one child with a third party. Because you can't stop true love.
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
If you ask me, the whole concept of marriage is "a bit iffy".
Balls.
Quote from: navkat on February 09, 2012, 01:52:49 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 07, 2012, 04:33:48 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 07, 2012, 04:13:56 PM
Discordian wedding story: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31574.0.html
I agree. It's not a real Discordian wedding unless you arrange for an infant to CHOLERA SPRAY HOSE all over everybody.
Will you DISCORDIAN MARRY ME, Zilch? I promise there will be angry prairie dogs and no hot dog buns.
ARE YOU PONDERING WHAT I'M PONDERING, NAVKAT????
Yes, but where are we going to get 40 gallons of personal lubricant?
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 08:11:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
If you ask me, the whole concept of marriage is "a bit iffy".
Balls.
So what are the advantages? And who wins them?
If you're thinking "winning" and "advantages," yes, your concept of marriage is, in fact, "iffy."
Quote from: Luna on February 09, 2012, 09:50:40 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 08:11:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
If you ask me, the whole concept of marriage is "a bit iffy".
Balls.
So what are the advantages? And who wins them?
If you're thinking "winning" and "advantages," yes, your concept of marriage is, in fact, "iffy."
If there's no advantages or reward in it, then why bother with it? Why should a relationship between two people who love each other need any kind of legal or religious sanction at all?
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 10:00:06 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 09, 2012, 09:50:40 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 08:11:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
If you ask me, the whole concept of marriage is "a bit iffy".
Balls.
So what are the advantages? And who wins them?
If you're thinking "winning" and "advantages," yes, your concept of marriage is, in fact, "iffy."
If there's no advantages or reward in it, then why bother with it? Why should a relationship between two people who love each other need any kind of legal or religious sanction at all?
I've told this story before, I'm sure.
A couple friends of mine lived together for years... never got married. He had a stroke. Out of the blue thing, he was reasonably young, nobody expected him to have any health problems younger than I am now, I think. His girlfriend had to get permission from his family, a family from whom he had been estranged for, literally, DECADES, just to visit. All decisions about his care were made from halfway across the country, by people he wouldn't even exchange Christmas cards with.
I could give a flying fuck about religious sanction, but legal recognition? That's important.
Quote from: Luna on February 09, 2012, 10:09:19 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 10:00:06 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 09, 2012, 09:50:40 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 08:11:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
If you ask me, the whole concept of marriage is "a bit iffy".
Balls.
So what are the advantages? And who wins them?
If you're thinking "winning" and "advantages," yes, your concept of marriage is, in fact, "iffy."
If there's no advantages or reward in it, then why bother with it? Why should a relationship between two people who love each other need any kind of legal or religious sanction at all?
I've told this story before, I'm sure.
A couple friends of mine lived together for years... never got married. He had a stroke. Out of the blue thing, he was reasonably young, nobody expected him to have any health problems younger than I am now, I think. His girlfriend had to get permission from his family, a family from whom he had been estranged for, literally, DECADES, just to visit. All decisions about his care were made from halfway across the country, by people he wouldn't even exchange Christmas cards with.
I could give a flying fuck about religious sanction, but legal recognition? That's important.
Didn't he have any say in who cared for him? If The legal recognition regarding an individual's own wishes is dependent on marriage, then
that's almost like State co-ercion to get wed. And a pretty poor reason to marry.
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 11:31:28 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 09, 2012, 10:09:19 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 10:00:06 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 09, 2012, 09:50:40 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 08:11:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
If you ask me, the whole concept of marriage is "a bit iffy".
Balls.
So what are the advantages? And who wins them?
If you're thinking "winning" and "advantages," yes, your concept of marriage is, in fact, "iffy."
If there's no advantages or reward in it, then why bother with it? Why should a relationship between two people who love each other need any kind of legal or religious sanction at all?
I've told this story before, I'm sure.
A couple friends of mine lived together for years... never got married. He had a stroke. Out of the blue thing, he was reasonably young, nobody expected him to have any health problems younger than I am now, I think. His girlfriend had to get permission from his family, a family from whom he had been estranged for, literally, DECADES, just to visit. All decisions about his care were made from halfway across the country, by people he wouldn't even exchange Christmas cards with.
I could give a flying fuck about religious sanction, but legal recognition? That's important.
Didn't he have any say in who cared for him? If The legal recognition regarding an individual's own wishes is dependent on marriage, then
that's almost like State co-ercion to get wed. And a pretty poor reason to marry.
He had a stroke, and dropped like a stone. Was unconscious (or unresponsive, there's no knowing, really) until he passed.
Then, his family claimed his remains and had him buried "back home," in a state he hated.
As the system stands, saying, "we are married," by filing a marriage license (religious claptrap aside) hands you a laundry list of rights, including the right to make medical decisions for each other. (The Human Rights Commission compiled a list of those rights, here: http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples .)
There is considerable logic in being able to declare a long-term partner with whom you intend to share a life. Joint property, the ability to claim retirement from the other person's pensions...
But, hey, believe what you like. Say you think the system is fucked... But don't pretend it doesn't matter.
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 08:11:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
If you ask me, the whole concept of marriage is "a bit iffy".
Balls.
So what are the advantages? And who wins them?
Well, here's one that's near & dear to me right now: On Sunday, my wife was utterly incapacitated by an incredible tooth infection that swelled up out of nowhere. It was so bad, it affected her eyesight.
I was able to authorize medical care for her, because she was in no position to do it for herself. I was also allowed to stay with her in the hospital. If I wasn't married to her, she would have had to try to explain her problems when she was in too much pain to think, and I would have had to wait at home, wondering what was going on.
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 11:31:28 PM
Didn't he have any say in who cared for him? If The legal recognition regarding an individual's own wishes is dependent on marriage, then
that's almost like State co-ercion to get wed. And a pretty poor reason to marry.
And if the affected person is unable to communicate?
Also, no matter how you feel about this sort of thing, ceremonies are important to domesticated primates. They matter. Some might argue that they shouldn't, but that doesn't change the nature of the beast.
Also people give you a buttload of money and kitchen appliances.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 09, 2012, 11:57:48 PM
Also people give you a buttload of money and kitchen appliances.
Usually only the first time around. :lulz:
Quote from: Billy the Twid on February 09, 2012, 11:57:48 PM
Also people give you a buttload of money and kitchen appliances.
Damn, all I got was a shitload of booze. Said booze did, in fact, outlast the marriage. I still have a bottle. I intend to crack it after the divorce is final.
Do I get my toaster for the next wedding?
Quote from: Luna on February 09, 2012, 11:39:14 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 11:31:28 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 09, 2012, 10:09:19 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 10:00:06 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 09, 2012, 09:50:40 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 08:11:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
If you ask me, the whole concept of marriage is "a bit iffy".
Balls.
So what are the advantages? And who wins them?
If you're thinking "winning" and "advantages," yes, your concept of marriage is, in fact, "iffy."
If there's no advantages or reward in it, then why bother with it? Why should a relationship between two people who love each other need any kind of legal or religious sanction at all?
I've told this story before, I'm sure.
A couple friends of mine lived together for years... never got married. He had a stroke. Out of the blue thing, he was reasonably young, nobody expected him to have any health problems younger than I am now, I think. His girlfriend had to get permission from his family, a family from whom he had been estranged for, literally, DECADES, just to visit. All decisions about his care were made from halfway across the country, by people he wouldn't even exchange Christmas cards with.
I could give a flying fuck about religious sanction, but legal recognition? That's important.
Didn't he have any say in who cared for him? If The legal recognition regarding an individual's own wishes is dependent on marriage, then
that's almost like State co-ercion to get wed. And a pretty poor reason to marry.
But, hey, believe what you like. Say you think the system is fucked... But don't pretend it doesn't matter.
I wasn't pretending it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter to me.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 11:51:55 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 08:11:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
If you ask me, the whole concept of marriage is "a bit iffy".
Balls.
So what are the advantages? And who wins them?
Well, here's one that's near & dear to me right now: On Sunday, my wife was utterly incapacitated by an incredible tooth infection that swelled up out of nowhere. It was so bad, it affected her eyesight.
I was able to authorize medical care for her, because she was in no position to do it for herself. I was also allowed to stay with her in the hospital. If I wasn't married to her, she would have had to try to explain her problems when she was in too much pain to think, and I would have had to wait at home, wondering what was going on.
Sorry to hear that, hope she's OK. Our NHS is far from perfect, but emergency (or any other) medical treatment doesn't need any third party authorisation.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 11:53:57 PM
Also, no matter how you feel about this sort of thing, ceremonies are important to domesticated primates. They matter. Some might argue that they shouldn't, but that doesn't change the nature of the beast.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good wedding as much as the next man. But when the ceremony (And the reception) is over, I still get to go home unmarried. Which suits me just fine.
Quote from: Nigel on February 10, 2012, 12:53:23 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 08:11:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 09, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
If you ask me, the whole concept of marriage is "a bit iffy".
Balls.
So what are the advantages? And who wins them?
Legal next of kin.
Over here, you can grant next of kin status to your partner without having to be married.
It would be interesting to see the percentages of couples who live together x couples who are married for the US compared to the UK. I have no idea how they match up, but I'd bet there are far more unmarried couples over here. (Per head of capita)
Quote from: BadBeast on February 10, 2012, 02:57:15 AM
I have no idea how they match up, but I'd bet there are far more unmarried couples over here. (Per head of capita)
That probably has more to do with the fact that the UK isn't a Christian Nation like the U.S.
Or so people keep telling me.
Quote from: kingyak on February 10, 2012, 03:36:29 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 10, 2012, 02:57:15 AM
I have no idea how they match up, but I'd bet there are far more unmarried couples over here. (Per head of capita)
That probably has more to do with the fact that the UK isn't a Christian Nation like the U.S.
Or so people keep telling me.
The US are the ones who make such a big pretence about the separation of Church and State. (Then elect leaders on the strength of their religious beliefs) Here we make no such pretence. We're far less religious as a Nation than you, but our triumverate of Crown, Church, and Parliament has worked quite well now for centuries.
I realise your post was light hearted, but I don't think anywhere in the World is
"A Christian Nation like the U.S" :lulz:
ETA; Even the US!
Quote from: BadBeast on February 10, 2012, 03:56:46 AM
Quote from: kingyak on February 10, 2012, 03:36:29 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 10, 2012, 02:57:15 AM
I have no idea how they match up, but I'd bet there are far more unmarried couples over here. (Per head of capita)
That probably has more to do with the fact that the UK isn't a Christian Nation like the U.S.
Or so people keep telling me.
The US are the ones who make such a big pretence about the separation of Church and State. (Then elect leaders on the strength of their religious beliefs) Here we make no such pretence. We're far less religious as a Nation than you, but our triumverate of Crown, Church, and Parliament has worked quite well now for centuries.
I realise your post was light hearted, but I don't think anywhere in the World is
"A Christian Nation like the U.S" :lulz:
ETA; Even the US!
Granted, it's ridiculous over here how entwined with a nominally secular republic (atheistic, at least, by default) is with Christianity.
I don't know how marriage works in the UK, but in the US, it's not even just about health proxies. There are literally over a thousand rights a spouse has in the US just based on the fact that a marriage took place, a lot of them small and subtle. A marriage, at the heart of it, is a very complex contract that you can still enact with anybody, or even multiple parties, it's just that it would take over a thousand pieces of paper and over a thousand signatures times 2. It's part of the reason why gay marriage is such a big deal, and why gay marriage should be recognized on a federal level. I live in Massachusetts, which is one of the now 7 gay marriage states, and we can only guarantee rights to gay couples with a few hundred rights since the whole of the US doesn't recognize it and withholds those federal rights (some of which are tax related). This also comes down to DOMA, one bit of legislation that is glaringly un-Constitutional. I did a paper on DOMA and its unintended consequences for my US government class.
DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) basically flies in the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, which states that records enacted in one state is valid in all states of the Union. It's unambiguous. But under the Clinton administration, DOMA, which states that neither the Federal government nor any individual state government is required to recognize legal gay marriage in any individual state that allows it. The paper that I wrote pointed out that some states recognize civil unions without recognizing gay marriage, which allows, say, a gay and lesbian couple to marry in Massachusetts, and then the men and women to have heterosexual marriages in Texas, since the Massachusetts marriages are not recognized. So then, what do we have here? A legal clump of tetragamy!
We have similar in NL. Since '98 we got the "registered partnership", which grants all the same rights as legal marriage except for a few differences concerning children born or adopted into this partnership, which is very complicated--they do in general have joint parental authority over the child unless there is a third legal parent in which case the other partner is the step-parent and has duties towards the child, but they don't automatically become parent unless the father acknowledges or adopts the child and for partnership between two women it is again different--VERY COMPLICATED but it's basically marriage especially if there are no kids involved.
Since 1998 when registered partnership got introduced, it's been open for same-sex couples right away. But it's also being used by couples with similar opinions as BadBeast that don't really see the need for the actual marriage marriage thing, but still want the legal advantages of partnership.
When in 2001 we opened marriage for same-sex couples (it's explicitly not described as "gay marriage" because it's an amendment to the Dutch law on marriage to state that a marriage can be between two persons of the same OR different sex, not a special or different "kind" of marriage), the only thing that basically changed was the ceremony part and the name part of it. Whether the Church allows it depends on the church in question--but the Churchly wedding part is optional anyway and not many people do it because the legal ceremony is allowed to be held anywhere (you need some official person and he'll declare the place a temporary extension of the Town House), so you can just make that part all nice and memorable without involving any deities.
What also changed in 2001 is that you could easily switch between a marriage and a registered partnership. I suppose this was mostly for those gay couples that had already got a registered partnership but wanted a marriage for real. But they made it so that you could also easily switch back from marriage to registered partnership. And since the latter could be more easily ended, this gave way to a legal construction known as the "flash divorce". But they closed that loophole in 2009.
See I think that might be the trick, even if you don't play, you're still playing some ridiculously complex game :lol:
Quote from: BadBeast on February 10, 2012, 02:57:15 AM
Over here, you can grant next of kin status to your partner without having to be married.
It would be interesting to see the percentages of couples who live together x couples who are married for the US compared to the UK. I have no idea how they match up, but I'd bet there are far more unmarried couples over here. (Per head of capita)
The only way to do that here is through marriage or adoption.
Quote from: Nigel on February 10, 2012, 04:23:27 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 10, 2012, 02:57:15 AM
Over here, you can grant next of kin status to your partner without having to be married.
It would be interesting to see the percentages of couples who live together x couples who are married for the US compared to the UK. I have no idea how they match up, but I'd bet there are far more unmarried couples over here. (Per head of capita)
The only way to do that here is through marriage or adoption.
i think next of kin comes after marriage partner in precedence of authority here, right? (i.e. marriage partner is a separate and higher state than next of kin)
this is a big problem imo, because the only argument that i have heard against getting govt. completely out of the marriage business is this status issue. and what if you want to have this status granted for a non-romantic partner? why can't you have ultimate authority in these cases be given to a close friend? this would still be an issue even if we abolished the restrictions on who can marry who.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 10, 2012, 04:23:27 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 10, 2012, 02:57:15 AM
Over here, you can grant next of kin status to your partner without having to be married.
It would be interesting to see the percentages of couples who live together x couples who are married for the US compared to the UK. I have no idea how they match up, but I'd bet there are far more unmarried couples over here. (Per head of capita)
The only way to do that here is through marriage or adoption.
i think next of kin comes after marriage partner in precedence of authority here, right? (i.e. marriage partner is a separate and higher state than next of kin)
this is a big problem imo, because the only argument that i have heard against getting govt. completely out of the marriage business is this status issue. and what if you want to have this status granted for a non-romantic partner? why can't you have ultimate authority in these cases be given to a close friend? this would still be an issue even if we abolished the restrictions on who can marry who.
Power of attorney can be used instead, but that opens the person using the PoA up to civil action, which isn't the case with a spouse.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2012, 05:43:52 PM
Power of attorney can be used instead, but that opens the person using the PoA up to civil action, which isn't the case with a spouse.
what does this mean?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 05:45:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2012, 05:43:52 PM
Power of attorney can be used instead, but that opens the person using the PoA up to civil action, which isn't the case with a spouse.
what does this mean?
It means that in some states, exercising a power of attorney can be actionable in court, if the decision made turns out to not be in the best interests of the person being represented by the person holding the power of attorney.
oh. ok, so it opens up the person to being sued by the other person...
so, a marriage partner is immune from civil action?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 06:11:55 PM
oh. ok, so it opens up the person to being sued by the other person...
so, a marriage partner is immune from civil action?
When making decisions in place of a spouse? Yeah. You can't be sued, for example, if you "pull the plug" on a braindead/etc spouse, if the inlaws don't like it.
NOTE: This is a state level thing, so I can't speak for all states, here. Some states are
weird.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 09, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
Yes, but where are we going to get 40 gallons of personal lubricant?
Hah! I always said if I get married again, I'm giving tiny bottles of Astroglide wrapped in purple chiffon as the wedding favors. I mean, who actually EATS those stale Jordan Almonds, anyway? AMIRITE?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2012, 06:14:27 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 06:11:55 PM
oh. ok, so it opens up the person to being sued by the other person...
so, a marriage partner is immune from civil action?
When making decisions in place of a spouse? Yeah. You can't be sued, for example, if you "pull the plug" on a braindead/etc spouse, if the inlaws don't like it.
NOTE: This is a state level thing, so I can't speak for all states, here. Some states are weird.
ah. so you weren't just referring to civil action on part of the represented...
well... if you have power of attorney, but can't make decisions on behalf of the person without fear of being sued by a third party, what the hell is the point?
:?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 06:19:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2012, 06:14:27 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 06:11:55 PM
oh. ok, so it opens up the person to being sued by the other person...
so, a marriage partner is immune from civil action?
When making decisions in place of a spouse? Yeah. You can't be sued, for example, if you "pull the plug" on a braindead/etc spouse, if the inlaws don't like it.
NOTE: This is a state level thing, so I can't speak for all states, here. Some states are weird.
ah. so you weren't just referring to civil action on part of the represented...
well... if you have power of attorney, but can't make decisions on behalf of the person without fear of being sued by a third party, what the hell is the point?
:?
It legally allows you to act. It doesn't necessarily protect you from civil action. It CAN'T, otherwise the represented and others affected would have precisely zero recourse if someone misused the PoA.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 11:53:57 PM
Also, no matter how you feel about this sort of thing, ceremonies are important to domesticated primates. They matter. Some might argue that they shouldn't, but that doesn't change the nature of the beast.
It
is sorta necessary, even if you do it privately. Just that same way promises are important, declarations are important, music is important. There's a feeling of satisfaction with getting things
said. with making yourself heard. We do it here all the time: ranting and kvetching and carrying on because yes, we could keep all this shit in our heads for it to still be true but it's way more comforting and I'd even venture to say,
useful to have that shit "out there" and be validated or at least acknowledged.
Also: Legal marriage has worked in this country for 220 years. It has only become an issue since Gay marriage became a credible option. The GOP homophobic response was DOMA. The Libertarian homophobic response was to propose abolishing marriage entirely.
Not calling you a homophobe, Iptuous, just saying that's where the notion originated.
Quote from: navkat on February 10, 2012, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2012, 11:53:57 PM
Also, no matter how you feel about this sort of thing, ceremonies are important to domesticated primates. They matter. Some might argue that they shouldn't, but that doesn't change the nature of the beast.
It is sorta necessary, even if you do it privately. Just that same way promises are important, declarations are important, music is important. There's a feeling of satisfaction with getting things said. with making yourself heard. We do it here all the time: ranting and kvetching and carrying on because yes, we could keep all this shit in our heads for it to still be true but it's way more comforting and I'd even venture to say, useful to have that shit "out there" and be validated or at least acknowledged.
It's a whole lot of necessary, for a great many people.
Simple answer to BadBeast: If you find the entire notion of marriage to be iffy, then you haven't met the right person yet.
LMNO
-speaks from experience.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2012, 06:21:54 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 06:19:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2012, 06:14:27 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 06:11:55 PM
oh. ok, so it opens up the person to being sued by the other person...
so, a marriage partner is immune from civil action?
When making decisions in place of a spouse? Yeah. You can't be sued, for example, if you "pull the plug" on a braindead/etc spouse, if the inlaws don't like it.
NOTE: This is a state level thing, so I can't speak for all states, here. Some states are weird.
ah. so you weren't just referring to civil action on part of the represented...
well... if you have power of attorney, but can't make decisions on behalf of the person without fear of being sued by a third party, what the hell is the point?
:?
It legally allows you to act. It doesn't necessarily protect you from civil action. It CAN'T, otherwise the represented and others affected would have precisely zero recourse if someone misused the PoA.
mm. that makes sense. but then, that is the situation with marriage, though? and it's useful in it's place there...
it's a levels of trust thing?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2012, 06:25:22 PM
Also: Legal marriage has worked in this country for 220 years. It has only become an issue since Gay marriage became a credible option. The GOP homophobic response was DOMA. The Libertarian homophobic response was to propose abolishing marriage entirely.
Not calling you a homophobe, Iptuous, just saying that's where the notion originated.
ya. i believe you. and that's a shameful origin, but if we had a legal arrangement of trust that allowed people to act in the manner that marriage did for anyone you choose, wouldn't it be better? then you wouldn't have the gov't involved in an aspect of culture beyond the legal ramifications, denying the socially conservative from complaints about ruining the sanctity of their past four marriages.
and Jay could rest easily knowing that Silent Bob would be able to make the decisions that he wants him to when his hairbrained schemes finally land him in the hospital. (is what comes to mind when i think about 'hetero life partners' :) )
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 10, 2012, 06:32:25 PM
Simple answer to BadBeast: If you find the entire notion of marriage to be iffy, then you haven't met the right person yet.
LMNO
-speaks from experience.
That's not necessarily true. It's rare but some couples genuinely don't need it. Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel are still together and are anti-marriage. Some people are really okay with just leaving that open and making their promises a la carte.
Balls. Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell are cyborgs, and have no legal recourse for marriage, as the state does not recognize them as human.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 10, 2012, 06:41:38 PM
Balls. Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell are cyborgs, and have no legal recourse for marriage, as the state does not recognize them as human.
and 'pulling the plug' is an option a liiiitle too accessible for their comfort, huh?
:lol:
Maybe why they live in Vancouver now.
There is also considerable social weight behind being married.
True story: I didn't marry until late. I was an adult for a LONG time before I finally tied the knot with the NYEX. It wasn't until the first time I visited extended family after the wedding (2 months or so) that I heard my aunt tell an off-color joke. I was, literally, speechless. At that point, I started picking up on little stuff... Being included in conversations that I never had been, little things... I was suddenly being treated like a grown up.
Being married puts a bit more social pressure on working shit out when there are problems... and fucking up means more. Cheated on your girlfriend and she left you? Damn, hope the new one is hot. Cheated on your WIFE? You're an asshole.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 06:33:29 PM
ya. i believe you. and that's a shameful origin, but if we had a legal arrangement of trust that allowed people to act in the manner that marriage did for anyone you choose, wouldn't it be better?
Not for me. I am such a fan of marriage, I do it every few years or so. :lulz:
Quote from: navkat on February 10, 2012, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 09, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
Yes, but where are we going to get 40 gallons of personal lubricant?
Hah! I always said if I get married again, I'm giving tiny bottles of Astroglide wrapped in purple chiffon as the wedding favors. I mean, who actually EATS those stale Jordan Almonds, anyway? AMIRITE?
That's a BRILLIANT idea!
Are those the almonds covered in chocolate with a sugar shell, kind of like an M&M except they look like tiny bird eggs or pebbles? I got those too. I think I ate them though, but I didn't really like them.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 10, 2012, 04:23:27 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 10, 2012, 02:57:15 AM
Over here, you can grant next of kin status to your partner without having to be married.
It would be interesting to see the percentages of couples who live together x couples who are married for the US compared to the UK. I have no idea how they match up, but I'd bet there are far more unmarried couples over here. (Per head of capita)
The only way to do that here is through marriage or adoption.
i think next of kin comes after marriage partner in precedence of authority here, right? (i.e. marriage partner is a separate and higher state than next of kin)
this is a big problem imo, because the only argument that i have heard against getting govt. completely out of the marriage business is this status issue. and what if you want to have this status granted for a non-romantic partner? why can't you have ultimate authority in these cases be given to a close friend? this would still be an issue even if we abolished the restrictions on who can marry who.
It's the hierarchy of next-of-kin; the spouse is at the top, then (I believe) children, then parents, then siblings, and so on outward through the web of relatives. Of course, if a child or sibling is still a minor they're skipped over when it comes to making legal decisions.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 06:33:29 PM
ya. i believe you. and that's a shameful origin, but if we had a legal arrangement of trust that allowed people to act in the manner that marriage did for anyone you choose, wouldn't it be better? then you wouldn't have the gov't involved in an aspect of culture beyond the legal ramifications, denying the socially conservative from complaints about ruining the sanctity of their past four marriages.
and Jay could rest easily knowing that Silent Bob would be able to make the decisions that he wants him to when his hairbrained schemes finally land him in the hospital. (is what comes to mind when i think about 'hetero life partners' :) )
So... we should invent something that does exactly what marriage does, make it available for anyone, but call it something different?
Why should we call it something different? Why not just make marriage available for anyone?
Quote from: Nigel on February 10, 2012, 09:34:21 PM
Why should we call it something different? Why not just make marriage available for anyone?
Well that's what the Dutch did since 2001. And our cornerstone of society hasn't crumbled nearly as much as yours ... since 2001. See some people blame 9/11, but what if it has been your lack of equal marriage rights all along?! ;-)
marriage is a compact between two people (for now! :p) that they are devoted to each other for life.
there is usually a ceremony for public acknowledgement so that they are held accountable by the community/friends/family.
there is no reason that this cannot be done by anyone right now.
my friend got married to his new husband not too long ago. here in Texas.
they had a fantastic ceremony. i have no doubt that they will grow old together in love for the rest of their lives as a married couple.
"legal recognition of marriage" appears to be a setup that allows certain legal rights and privileges between one man and one woman (regardless of whether they even intend to follow the compact of an actual marriage.)
This setup is something that various people may want, and i see no reason that it should be denied to anyone. And this is regardless of whether they are or intend to marry. i should be able to have this setup with a friend. why not?
and if we made this generic setup, then the govt. wouldn't have any reason to involve themselves in actual marriage at all. the promise between two people would not have the appearance of being contingent upon some damned legal fiction. the social conservatives that feel that the institution of marriage is something they have a monopoly on would not be able to limit it.
it seems win-win. what's the argument against it?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 10:02:01 PM
marriage is a compact between two people (for now! :p) that they are devoted to each other for life.
there is usually a ceremony for public acknowledgement so that they are held accountable by the community/friends/family.
there is no reason that this cannot be done by anyone right now.
my friend got married to his new husband not too long ago. here in Texas.
they had a fantastic ceremony. i have no doubt that they will grow old together in love for the rest of their lives as a married couple.
"legal recognition of marriage" appears to be a setup that allows certain legal rights and privileges between one man and one woman (regardless of whether they even intend to follow the compact of an actual marriage.)
This setup is something that various people may want, and i see no reason that it should be denied to anyone. And this is regardless of whether they are or intend to marry. i should be able to have this setup with a friend. why not?
and if we made this generic setup, then the govt. wouldn't have any reason to involve themselves in actual marriage at all. the promise between two people would not have the appearance of being contingent upon some damned legal fiction. the social conservatives that feel that the institution of marriage is something they have a monopoly on would not be able to limit it.
it seems win-win. what's the argument against it?
I agree with you completely and it seems like we're saying the same thing, except that IMO the government has a very good role in recording the contract, and should always fulfill that role, along with recording things like births, deaths, and property deeds. Otherwise, it's all a bit meaningless, and how would anyone confirm that someone was actually your spouse? The government NOT recording it would open the door to all kinds of horrible fraud, which is, if I recall, the entire reason public records exist in the first place.
In other words, we already have the entire structure in place; all we need to do is remove the sex-based limitations.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 10, 2012, 09:34:21 PM
Why should we call it something different? Why not just make marriage available for anyone?
Well that's what the Dutch did since 2001. And our cornerstone of society hasn't crumbled nearly as much as yours ... since 2001. See some people blame 9/11, but what if it has been your lack of equal marriage rights all along?! ;-)
LOL! It probably is!
yes, it would seem that we are, for the most part in agreement.
the distinction that i am making is that the contract should be separated from the cultural concept of marriage: "to love and to cherish, 'til death do us part"
the govt. really doesn't need to be involved in that. (and as in the example of my friend, isn't.) but the appearance of the govt's ability to grant this "privilege" is what seems to be causing no end of trouble with the socially conservative.
as far as the legal rights, of course the govt. needs to recognize the contract in order to provide for it. but why shouldn't this be completely generic and up to the individual? and if that is the case, why should it be called 'marriage'?
Trip mentions removal of gender requirements in Belgium, but can he enter into an equivalent arrangement with a friend? if so, why distinguish between the two? and if not, why not?
And even to get to the same point that they are at here in 'merica.... well. good luck. maybe in some states, but not in others. it'd be a long time coming here in the bobble belt.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 10, 2012, 09:34:21 PM
Why should we call it something different? Why not just make marriage available for anyone?
Well that's what the Dutch did since 2001. And our cornerstone of society hasn't crumbled nearly as much as yours ... since 2001. See some people blame 9/11, but what if it has been your lack of equal marriage rights all along?! ;-)
It's because we have Freedom™, and you don't.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 10, 2012, 10:34:43 PM
yes, it would seem that we are, for the most part in agreement.
the distinction that i am making is that the contract should be separated from the cultural concept of marriage: "to love and to cherish, 'til death do us part"
the govt. really doesn't need to be involved in that. (and as in the example of my friend, isn't.) but the appearance of the govt's ability to grant this "privilege" is what seems to be causing no end of trouble with the socially conservative.
as far as the legal rights, of course the govt. needs to recognize the contract in order to provide for it. but why shouldn't this be completely generic and up to the individual? and if that is the case, why should it be called 'marriage'?
Trip mentions removal of gender requirements in Belgium, but can he enter into an equivalent arrangement with a friend? if so, why distinguish between the two? and if not, why not?
As far as I'm aware, yes I can. Did you read my other post ITT where I gave a brief overview of the Dutch marriage and registered-partnership system?
I could pick either marriage or registered-partnership depending on which one I prefer and I'd have nearly the same rights (where it differs are some rights concerning kids, and I'm actually quite curious why that is, some of it seems out of practical reasons, others I don't know and might have been amendments from more conservative voices, I dunno).
The point is, whether you call it marriage or not, there *needs* to be some kind of legal framework for people that want to spend their life together, in the sense that their partner is also given rights that would otherwise defer to the family, among other things.
I kind of agree that calling it "marriage" sort of gives it a bit more of a religious connotation than just the contract it would otherwise be. But then, if it's used for the same purpose why not call it what it is? And I think it's extra cool that here if you don't want to call it that, you can get the registered-partnership variety, with most of the same rights.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2012, 10:39:13 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 10, 2012, 09:34:21 PM
Why should we call it something different? Why not just make marriage available for anyone?
Well that's what the Dutch did since 2001. And our cornerstone of society hasn't crumbled nearly as much as yours ... since 2001. See some people blame 9/11, but what if it has been your lack of equal marriage rights all along?! ;-)
It's because we have Freedom™, and you don't.
This Freedom(TM) sounds intriguing, would you recommend it for savages such as like my people?
"Marriage" is a social and legal convention; any religious connotations are purely invented. What religion?
I appear to have missed that :oops:
that's awesome! registered partnership. i like that.
Nigel, good point. I was just thinking because I assume historically it's always been religious (either catholic or protestant, over here).
Iptuous, yeah, I only dug into the specifics on the Dutch Wikipedia today (never really had any reason to find out before) and I must say I'm pleasantly surprised with our laws indeed. Even though the specifics are complex as fuck, but then, a non-registered partnership break up after several years of living together is complex as fuck as well, unless you've been smart about it (which we thankfully were: not sharing the bills for big household purchases but considering if we were to break up, not that we will--except we did--who would want to own this, and then making sure it mostly sort of evens out).
By the time we get to the wedding in Australia the bride and groom will have already had two weddings, one legal and one Hindu. In Singapore everyone is required to have the court wedding for legal purposes before their religious ceremony. Personally I think it should work that way everywhere, keeps things clear and separate.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:49:52 PM
This Freedom(TM) sounds intriguing, would you recommend it for savages such as like my people?
Certainly. I'm all about educating the heathen.
Freedom
TM is all about doing whatever you like, as long as whatever YOU like is the same as what WE like. You can't have Freedom
TM if people run around all unregulated, after all. That's not
safe. And you can't be Free
TM if you aren't safe, because smudgy people and socialists will come and take your stuff. And maybe even raise your taxes. And then the Gay people will convert your children and Obama will close down your church and make you a Muslim. Furthermore, they'll take your guns and then you can't defend yourself against
Those People, who exist only to rape your White daughters. And then, they'll put an end to NASCAR, and cut off everyone's mullets, which is against Jesus.
Finally, some guy named Bidet will come and take away your toilet paper, like they do in France.
Oh my.
That sounds complicated, but worthwhile. I'll have to see what Geert Wilders thinks, after all, he's the Party For Freedom(TM).
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 11, 2012, 12:16:34 AM
Oh my.
That sounds complicated, but worthwhile. I'll have to see what Geert Wilders thinks, after all, he's the Party For Freedom(TM).
Well, I'm glad You People have at least made a start on FREEDOM.
http://turtledove.wikia.com/wiki/Freedom_Party
:banana:
we're getting better and better at it, too!!
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 11:05:03 PM
Nigel, good point. I was just thinking because I assume historically it's always been religious (either catholic or protestant, over here).
Iptuous, yeah, I only dug into the specifics on the Dutch Wikipedia today (never really had any reason to find out before) and I must say I'm pleasantly surprised with our laws indeed. Even though the specifics are complex as fuck, but then, a non-registered partnership break up after several years of living together is complex as fuck as well, unless you've been smart about it (which we thankfully were: not sharing the bills for big household purchases but considering if we were to break up, not that we will--except we did--who would want to own this, and then making sure it mostly sort of evens out).
You've got to keep in mind that historically speaking, marriage has existed in some form in every culture on every continent, in every religion. It has coexisted with religion, which also exists in every culture, but it is not inherently religious. Some cultures treated marriage as an irrevocable life-bond, some have treated it like a form of ownership, some have treated it as a temporary arrangement, but in all cultures, the one thing marriage has in common is that it is a way of announcing to the community that two (or more) people have decided to form a family unit, and that they wish to be henceforth treated as a family unit by the community.
Quote from: Danjanon on February 11, 2012, 12:03:36 AM
By the time we get to the wedding in Australia the bride and groom will have already had two weddings, one legal and one Hindu. In Singapore everyone is required to have the court wedding for legal purposes before their religious ceremony. Personally I think it should work that way everywhere, keeps things clear and separate.
The marriage is the contract; the wedding, really, is the announcement of the contract to the community. In the States, it's customary to sign the contract in front of the wedding guests, but not all couples do, and in fact one of the couples I officiated the weeding of didn't do the legal marriage for a couple of years after their ceremony, for some financial reason.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 11, 2012, 12:13:56 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:49:52 PM
This Freedom(TM) sounds intriguing, would you recommend it for savages such as like my people?
Certainly. I'm all about educating the heathen.
FreedomTM is all about doing whatever you like, as long as whatever YOU like is the same as what WE like. You can't have FreedomTM if people run around all unregulated, after all. That's not safe. And you can't be FreeTM if you aren't safe, because smudgy people and socialists will come and take your stuff. And maybe even raise your taxes. And then the Gay people will convert your children and Obama will close down your church and make you a Muslim. Furthermore, they'll take your guns and then you can't defend yourself against Those People, who exist only to rape your White daughters. And then, they'll put an end to NASCAR, and cut off everyone's mullets, which is against Jesus.
Finally, some guy named Bidet will come and take away your toilet paper, like they do in France.
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2012, 12:40:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 11, 2012, 12:13:56 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:49:52 PM
This Freedom(TM) sounds intriguing, would you recommend it for savages such as like my people?
Certainly. I'm all about educating the heathen.
FreedomTM is all about doing whatever you like, as long as whatever YOU like is the same as what WE like. You can't have FreedomTM if people run around all unregulated, after all. That's not safe. And you can't be FreeTM if you aren't safe, because smudgy people and socialists will come and take your stuff. And maybe even raise your taxes. And then the Gay people will convert your children and Obama will close down your church and make you a Muslim. Furthermore, they'll take your guns and then you can't defend yourself against Those People, who exist only to rape your White daughters. And then, they'll put an end to NASCAR, and cut off everyone's mullets, which is against Jesus.
Finally, some guy named Bidet will come and take away your toilet paper, like they do in France.
:lulz:
My head is entirely too full, these days.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 11, 2012, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2012, 12:40:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 11, 2012, 12:13:56 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:49:52 PM
This Freedom(TM) sounds intriguing, would you recommend it for savages such as like my people?
Certainly. I'm all about educating the heathen.
FreedomTM is all about doing whatever you like, as long as whatever YOU like is the same as what WE like. You can't have FreedomTM if people run around all unregulated, after all. That's not safe. And you can't be FreeTM if you aren't safe, because smudgy people and socialists will come and take your stuff. And maybe even raise your taxes. And then the Gay people will convert your children and Obama will close down your church and make you a Muslim. Furthermore, they'll take your guns and then you can't defend yourself against Those People, who exist only to rape your White daughters. And then, they'll put an end to NASCAR, and cut off everyone's mullets, which is against Jesus.
Finally, some guy named Bidet will come and take away your toilet paper, like they do in France.
:lulz:
My head is entirely too full, these days.
Gotta squeeze that stuff our of there.
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2012, 01:22:42 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 11, 2012, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2012, 12:40:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 11, 2012, 12:13:56 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2012, 10:49:52 PM
This Freedom(TM) sounds intriguing, would you recommend it for savages such as like my people?
Certainly. I'm all about educating the heathen.
FreedomTM is all about doing whatever you like, as long as whatever YOU like is the same as what WE like. You can't have FreedomTM if people run around all unregulated, after all. That's not safe. And you can't be FreeTM if you aren't safe, because smudgy people and socialists will come and take your stuff. And maybe even raise your taxes. And then the Gay people will convert your children and Obama will close down your church and make you a Muslim. Furthermore, they'll take your guns and then you can't defend yourself against Those People, who exist only to rape your White daughters. And then, they'll put an end to NASCAR, and cut off everyone's mullets, which is against Jesus.
Finally, some guy named Bidet will come and take away your toilet paper, like they do in France.
:lulz:
My head is entirely too full, these days.
Gotta squeeze that stuff our of there.
You can only have so much Holiness
TM, and then your pance fill up.
Quote from: navkat on February 10, 2012, 06:38:39 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 10, 2012, 06:32:25 PM
Simple answer to BadBeast: If you find the entire notion of marriage to be iffy, then you haven't met the right person yet.
LMNO
-speaks from experience.
That's not necessarily true. It's rare but some couples genuinely don't need it. Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel are still together and are anti-marriage. Some people are really okay with just leaving that open and making their promises a la carte.
I lived with my ex for 10 years, had 2 kids, split up, didn't have any Court or Legal involvement at all. Since we split up, everything has been great. Informal and functional. I could always just turn up and see the kids whenever I liked, shit, we haven't even nearly argued in over a decade. I get on well with her bloke, she's had another kid, there's been no acrimony whatsoever, and we're still really close.
Didn't Kurt Russell find Goldie Hawn unconscious in the water, suffering from amnesia, and lie to her? Said she was actually married to him. when . . . hang on, :x
The Prop 8 decision had some text that addressed why calling gay marriage "marriage" instead of something else was important:
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/02/07/420667/pop-culture-proposition-8/ (http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/02/07/420667/pop-culture-proposition-8/)
While we're adding links about prop 8. Prop 8 the musical!
http://youtu.be/Ug3YkVhkemg (http://youtu.be/Ug3YkVhkemg)