Interesting Stuff Thread

Mark Hamill

magicbastarder wrote: »

the system does allow this (assuming the couple are not same sex).
what it doesn't allow is for you to have the two together in the same ceremony, unless you're religious.

That's my point, the system shouldn't care about the ceremonies, it shouldn't even be aware of them, they have nothing to do with it. The system shouldn't care who you thank after filling a civil form, be it the christain god after registering a marriage, the muslim god after after registering a birth or Michael Schumacher after getting a driving licence.

shizz

Brilliant video made of a collection of videos taken from the ISS

I got a CITTA' DEL VATICANO 50 cent coin in my change today.

It is a 2011 one with Benedict on it.

It is interesting to me...

Hotblack Desiato

Tempted to stamp 'FTP' onto it and put it back in circulation? :pac:

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That's my point, the system shouldn't care about the ceremonies, it shouldn't even be aware of them, they have nothing to do with it. The system shouldn't care who you thank after filling a civil form, be it the christain god after registering a marriage, the muslim god after after registering a birth or Michael Schumacher after getting a driving licence.

I see your point. You think those getting married in a church should have to go down to the registry office afterwards to make it official in the eyes of the State.
But you are forgetting that there is always some kind of ceremony, even in a registry office. Its necessary because marriage is more than filling in a form. Its all about standing up in front of your tribe and making a public commitment.
Seeing as religions are so good at pomp and ceremony, the State has always trusted that a form filled out at a religious ceremony would have a suitable amount of "gravitas" which I think is fair enough.
What we are seeing now is that privilege being extended to various other kinds of gatherings.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

I see your point. You think those getting married in a church should have to go down to the registry office afterwards to make it official in the eyes of the State.
But you are forgetting that there is always some kind of ceremony, even in a registry office. Its necessary because marriage is more than filling in a form. Its all about standing up in front of your tribe and making a public commitment.
Seeing as religions are so good at pomp and ceremony, the State has always trusted that a form filled out at a religious ceremony would have a suitable amount of "gravitas" which I think is fair enough.
What we are seeing now is that privilege being extended to various other kinds of gatherings.

There is always a ceremony because people have been brought up to think that marriage is a strictly religious thing, and so even when they reject religion they still desire the ceremony. This shouldn't matter to the State. The State should have no opinion on religious ceremonies (once nothing illegal happens at them) and it should not give priviledge to certain religions or ideologies. The form signing can still happen at whatever ceremony people choose to have without the State specifically giving priveledge to any type of ceremony.

Turtwig

Locations of Population Densities.

ShooterSF

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its very simple - the government should just have a system where any couple, over 18, and acting of their own free will, can get registered on a civil marriage register (and then have the same rights/responsibilities any married couple currently has). Then people can have whatever private religious/non-religious/Klingon etc ceremony they want. If the government only cares about the civil register and has no say about the private ceremony, then we wont need to constantly have to get humanist weddings or gay marriages or whatever added to the law books as separate, possibly lesser, entities.

Why couple? Surely a group of humans should be just as able to become married?

magicbastarder

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The State should have no opinion on religious ceremonies (once nothing illegal happens at them) and it should not give priviledge to certain religions or ideologies. The form signing can still happen at whatever ceremony people choose to have without the State specifically giving priveledge to any type of ceremony.

but that's what this new bill will deal with, unless i'm reading you wrong?
they are (well, will be) licencing people to act as proxies for HSE registry staff without prejudice for their religious beliefs, and the people who are then getting married choose to do it in a format which they choose, which has both the religious aspect (if desired) and the legal aspect.

Hotblack Desiato

ShooterSF wrote: »

Why couple? Surely a group of humans should be just as able to become married?

Why stop there - Caligula married his horse didn't he?

Genghiz Cohen

Quick social experiment;

Ray D'Arcy said "fu*ked" in relation to the RCC, blood was called for.
This morning, Ryan Tubbs said "sh|t" in relation to "Beating the _ out of" a Piñata. Let's see who complains.

mikhail

ninja900 wrote: »

Why stop there - Caligula married his horse didn't he?

A horse can't consent.

I have thought about this problem, and I don't think there's a particularly good argument for limiting marriage to two people. (This is not to condone polygamy in the frequently seen version where children are married to elders.)

RichieC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ucVDpmFz-E&feature=colike

2 hours long, very interesting look at a town full of yankie kooks.

Mark Hamill

ShooterSF wrote: »

Why couple? Surely a group of humans should be just as able to become married?

Yeah sure, I was just saying couple because that's what's most common, but if three or four or a football team want to get married of their own free will, that's fine by me.

Mark Hamill

magicbastarder wrote: »

but that's what this new bill will deal with, unless i'm reading you wrong?
they are (well, will be) licencing people to act as proxies for HSE registry staff without prejudice for their religious beliefs, and the people who are then getting married choose to do it in a format which they choose, which has both the religious aspect (if desired) and the legal aspect.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong it too (I read it that it was specifically humanist weddings that where being added this time, not that there was a change of the whole law making it general), but what happens if a large amount of people suddenly want Klingon weddings? Will there need be an amendment to the law to allow for that ceremony? And then any further ceremony that becomes even somewhat popular?
If I read it wrong, and the law is now general and humanist ceremonies were just mention as an example (or the main motivation to change the law) then I have no problem with it once its changed.

recedite

The Bill proposes to extend the right to conduct civil marriages to nonreligious groups such as the HAI. A group of this nature must be a “philosophical and nonconfessional body”, have been performing marriage ceremonies for at least five years, and at least 20 couples must have participated in the ceremony.

Not just Humanists then, but not just any random club either. I think its a good progression. An evolution in thinking, if you like.
As for polygamy, well if marriage is a commitment, then surely there is a dilution of the commitment as the number of partners increases? Eventually you end up with a completely open arrangement. Like Quagmire for example, who is slightly committed to all the women in the world .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6qvJp4zPlY

ShooterSF

recedite wrote: »

As for polygamy, well if marriage is a commitment, then surely there is a dilution of the commitment as the number of partners increases? Eventually you end up with a completely open arrangement. Like Quagmire for example, who is slightly committed to all the women in the world .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6qvJp4zPlY

Well it's a commitment to a relationship imo not a number of people. I'm not ever gonna go looking for a polygamous marriage but I do feel polygamy gets a hard time because of how it's predominantly practised.
Anyway my preference would be to remove any state provided advantages to married over non-married rather than restrict who can marry each other.

Turtwig

We don't even get to see the full beauty of the world around us.



Can anyone spot the error?:)

recedite

ShooterSF wrote: »

Anyway my preference would be to remove any state provided advantages to married over non-married rather than restrict who can marry each other.

Again, this is problematic because the state advantages are basically tied up with who inherits your stuff when you die. In other words, trying to define who is a relative and who is not.

ShooterSF

Jernal wrote: »

We don't even get to see the full beauty of the world around us.


Can anyone spot the error?:)

1mm?

recedite wrote: »

Again, this is problematic because the state advantages are basically tied up with who inherits your stuff when you die. In other words, trying to define who is a relative and who is not.

That can all be worked around though. If one party dies it could be left to the others and when the last dies if they have no kids in the marriage split the possessions to each ones family or require a will be wrote out outlining who gets what before hand etc. It's not good enough to refuse people equality because it's hard.

recedite

Jernal wrote: »

Can anyone spot the error?:)

They have got the wavelengths mixed up when talking about the snakes and the bugs. Also I don't like the way they saturate an image with blue to simulate "bugs and birds" vision. A trichromatic pollinating insect would see the reds in addition to the UV colours. Why would the robin in the illustration have a red breast if the other robins couldn't see it? It would be as pointless as my ultra-violet shirt.

ShooterSF wrote: »

That can all be worked around though. If one party dies it could be left to the others and when the last dies if they have no kids....

I suppose so, as long as its all clearly defined in advance. Jernals puzzles are easier to figure out:)

recedite

recedite wrote: »

They have got the wavelengths mixed up when talking about the snakes and the bugs. Also I don't like the way they saturate an image with blue to simulate "bugs and birds" vision. A trichromatic pollinating insect would see the reds in addition to the UV colours. Why would the robin in the illustration have a red breast if the other robins couldn't see it? It would be as pointless as my ultra-violet shirt.


I suppose so, as long as its all clearly defined in advance. Jernals puzzles are easier to figure out:)

I assumed the redbreast was for cloaking purposes, they are unbelievably hard to pick out among fallen leaves :pac:

Pushtrak

Hotblack Desiato

Jernal wrote: »

We don't even get to see the full beauty of the world around us.

Can anyone spot the error?:)

The human eye can detect images at great distance, e.g. the Andromeda Galaxy. Is 2.6 million light years away far enough for ya?

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

I assumed the redbreast was for cloaking purposes, they are unbelievably hard to pick out among fallen leaves :pac:

The juveniles stay out of territorial disputes by being all-brown

Hotblack Desiato

Great graphic though, it's mind-blowing that all heavier elements, including those without which life could not exist, were created in the nuclear fusion death throes of long-dead stars.

joseph brand

The Atheism Tapes: Steven Weinberg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zyLbM76n6Q

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atheism_Tapes

Link above lists the other guests (which I haven't seen yet)

Bannasidhe

Ancient Apocalypse
Sodom and Gomorrah
Were Sodom and Gomorrah real cities, destroyed by a landslide caused by an earthquake? (R) on BBC4 NOW.

The Bible describes how Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in a storm of fire and brimstone. Could the inspiration for this story come from a natural apocalypse around the Dead Sea in the Middle East? Science tests out the extraordinary geology of the region - could an earthquake trigger a landslide capable of sweeping away whole cities?

Bannasidhe

sonicthebadger*

ninja900 wrote: »

Why stop there - Caligula married his horse didn't he?

An argument often used against gay marriage too. The old slippery slope, if we let people marry whatever adult(s) they want they'll start marrying chairs and horses and moons and killing babies and... yeah, not really.