Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Explain why my missus is fighting with me.

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,672 ✭✭✭whippet


    OP ... did you get married in a church?


  • Options
    #63
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,571 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Nick Park wrote: »
    So your question should not be 'why is the missus fighting with me?' but rather 'why on earth am I fighting with my missus over something that doesn't really matter to me?'.

    Why not let her have her way on this one, and save the fighting for something that really matters to you?
    I disagree - I get the impression that the OP has, over time, reached a point where it isn't simple an indifference any more, it really does matter to him, and that position is no less important or valid than his wife's.


  • Options
    #64
    iamtony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭iamtony


    whippet wrote: »
    OP ... did you get married in a church?

    Who said I was married?


  • Options
    #65
    iamtony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭iamtony


    Squatter wrote: »
    Have you found a woman foolish enough to breed with you yet?

    That's not very nice!


  • Options
    #66
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,750 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    iamtony wrote: »
    Who said I was married?

    If you're not married you have zero rights in the matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    iamtony wrote: »
    Who said I was married?

    You're living in sin and had your bastard children baptised? :eek:

    You're going to hell one way or another :D


  • Options
    #68
    iamtony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭iamtony


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    Is this a sly thread to trot out your amazing and original thoughts as to why there is no god. Is the wife back talking to you yet?

    Yep we're all good. I did send her a text her an apology.
    This was a thread I started to try understand what makes her actually believe that organised religion had a bearing on going to heaven or not. I can't understand it and I was looking to see did you lot have the answer.
    I know she believed in a higher power but I didn't think she would of associated it with Christianity or anything like that.


  • Options
    #69
    iamtony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭iamtony


    wexie wrote: »
    You're living in sin and had your bastard children baptised? :eek:

    You're going to hell one way or another :D

    For some of the things I've done in life if there's a hell in screwed alright ha.


  • Options
    #70
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    smacl wrote: »
    A bit OT, and just a thought, but that sounds very much like personal data. I wonder if, by refusing to delete such a record at your request, the church is in breach of the new GDPR legislation? So far as I'm aware, as of next month, every organisation in the EU can only hold your personal information on file with your explicit consent.

    Been done

    https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Case-Study-8-03-Catholic-Church-Baptismal-Records/107.htm

    Parents gave consent for the minor.
    + If DP allows that what's to stop someone from requesting Social Welfare delete their data.

    smacl wrote: »
    Cuts both ways though, particularly if the OP has a major problem with those beliefs. I'm guessing if he'd married a Muslim woman or a Scientologist and he was objecting to the child being brought up in that tradition, he'd be getting a bit more sympathy here. Either way, it sounds like something they need to talk through on a more gentle footing. When you marry someone from a different tradition, these are the hurdles you have to get across.

    He's 10+ years into the relationship, he did not marry someone from a different tradition, they both came from the same tradition, he decided he is following a new conflicting tradition


  • Options
    #71
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,723 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    Been done

    https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Case-Study-8-03-Catholic-Church-Baptismal-Records/107.htm

    Parents gave consent for the minor.
    + If DP allows that what's to stop someone from requesting Social Welfare delete their data.

    GDPR represents a major change and EU wide strengthening of rights in relation to personal data though, so possibly no longer valid as a precedent. With respect to social protection, the church is not the state, membership is voluntary.
    He's 10+ years into the relationship, he did not marry someone from a different tradition, they both came from the same tradition, he decided he is following a new conflicting tradition

    I think a large number of people in this country are reevaluating how they feel about the role of the church in their lives. Are you suggesting that in the case of the couple, the Christian should get first dibs on how the children should be raised purely on the basis that they were there first? In any case, given that the OP and his partner have had all their kids outside marriage they could hardly be described as adhering to church tradition.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Mancomb Seepgood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭Mancomb Seepgood


    I was trying to remember the relevant section of the GDP that covered churches and personal data - it's Article 9,subsection 2(d),which also covers NGOs such as political parties or trade unions.

    https://easygdpr.eu/gdpr-article/9/

    That's said,I wouldn't be surprised to see someone testing it in the first few months,no one can be 100% certain how GDPR will pan out.


  • Options
    #73
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,723 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »
    I was trying to remember the relevant section of the GDP that covered churches and personal data - it's Article 9,subsection 2(d),which also covers NGOs such as political parties or trade unions.

    https://easygdpr.eu/gdpr-article/9/

    That's said,I wouldn't be surprised to see someone testing it in the first few months,no one can be 100% certain how GDPR will pan out.

    You could well be right. From a quick look around the web, it seems the CoI have put a fair bit of work into this, as can be seen here. Looking at their documents, there is an interesting paragraph on consent, which would accord with my understanding of how GDPR differs from previous legislation;
    Consent to the processing of personal data must be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous. ‘Free’ means real choice and control, for the data subject. If a parishioner is compelled to consent or has to endure negative consequences if they don’t, then the consent is not valid. Similarly, consent can be withdrawn at any time.

    From my reading of your own link, this means that baptismal records could be held but not disclosed to anyone other than the person involved. Not sure how this relates to historical data.


  • Options
    #74
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    smacl wrote: »
    GDPR represents a major change and EU wide strengthening of rights in relation to personal data though, so possibly no longer valid as a precedent. With respect to social protection, the church is not the state, membership is voluntary.

    not suggesting that the church is the the state but it collects records on behalf of the state, and in some instance due to the fire in the Records offices is the only holder of such information. if the DP decides that an individual have their baptism data erased as they are no longer a member can the same logic be applied to the marriage records. Membership is voluntary, but it comes with a free irrevocable life long membership and some rules for dealing with other members and non-members and a post-death bonus of an option on a nice plot on church grounds.

    I am quiet sure that someone will challenge both the Church and the State on what records can be held or not. My understanding is that the State does not get a wider exemption so the reason and the results may lead to interesting times ahead for all.
    smacl wrote: »
    In any case, given that the OP and his partner have had all their kids outside marriage

    The OP has neither confirmed nor denied that a marriage has taken place?
    smacl wrote: »
    I think a large number of people in this country are reevaluating how they feel about the role of the church in their lives. Are you suggesting that in the case of the couple, the Christian should get first dibs on how the children should be raised purely on the basis that they were there first? In any case, given that the OP and his partner have had all their kids outside marriage they could hardly be described as adhering to church tradition.
    The Christians, both of them were there first, they both decided to have children, they both apparently did not discuss how they wanted to raise their children, they both just meandered along using the tradition they were raised in. The OP has decided to follow a new tradition, the partner has not. She has a a right to her beliefs the same as he has. She has the right also to be treated with dignity and respect not bated in an argument over something that happened years ago.

    Look the OP could have just as easily revised his views on polygamy v monogamy, and decided that this idea of a single sexual partner leads to all sorts of heartbreak, violence and murder. Yes he would have a right to teach his childern about his beliefs. He does not have the right to force his partner into accepting those beliefs as valid.

    The OP needs to take ownership of his actions, as she was not fighting with the OP, the OP was fighting with her.


  • Options
    #75
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,157 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    From my reading of your own link, this means that baptismal records could be held but not disclosed to anyone other than the person involved.
    That's pretty much the current practice, SFAIK. You can obtain a copy of your own baptismal certificate, or your child's. But it's difficult to get a copy of someone else's; they need to get it and give it to you.

    smacl wrote: »
    Not sure how this relates to historical data.
    Not sure I take your point here. All baptismal records are related to historical data, surely? They give details of an event which occurred in the past.


  • Options
    #76
    iamtony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭iamtony


    Just to clear up the marriage thing. I'm not married. I'm with my partner 13 years. We have a 14 year old and an 8 year old(figure that one out ha). She wants marriage, I want it now because I want her to be able to claim a widows pension when I die. It will be in a registry office or hotel, definitely not a church.
    I've never believed in marriage because of the whole religious factor but legally it has to be done or your discriminated against.


  • Options
    #77
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    iamtony wrote: »
    I've never believed in marriage because of the whole religious factor but legally it has to be done or your discriminated against.

    Noone is discriminated against by not being married, we as a society offer certain people an additional set of protections, by following certain rules eg entering into a marriage contract. We may discriminated against particular people by the State definition of marriage. But the fact that an individual chooses not to seek the additional protection offered is not discrimination.


  • Options
    #78
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,723 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    iamtony wrote: »
    Just to clear up the marriage thing. I'm not married. I'm with my partner 13 years. We have a 14 year old and an 8 year old(figure that one out ha). She wants marriage, I want it now because I want her to be able to claim a widows pension when I die. It will be in a registry office or hotel, definitely not a church.
    I've never believed in marriage because of the whole religious factor but legally it has to be done or your discriminated against.

    Same. Myself and my partner also got married after we were together 19 years at the advice of our solicitor. Without being married, things like inheritance of jointly owned property and custody of the children can get complex should one person predecease the other. Nice having the kids there at the registry office, but neither of us really wanted to get married, it was simply a matter of pragmatism.


  • Options
    #79
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    iamtony wrote: »
    Just to clear up the marriage thing. I'm not married. I'm with my partner 13 years. We have a 14 year old and an 8 year old(figure that one out ha). She wants marriage, I want it now because I want her to be able to claim a widows pension when I die. It will be in a registry office or hotel, definitely not a church.

    LasVegas_Sign.jpg


  • Options
    #80
    iamtony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭iamtony


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    Noone is discriminated against by not being married, we as a society offer certain people an additional set of protections, by following certain rules eg entering into a marriage contract. We may discriminated against particular people by the State definition of marriage. But the fact that an individual chooses not to seek the additional protection offered is not discrimination.
    If I lost my job in the morning and needed help from the state my means would be tested based on her income because we are partners but if I died she wouldn't get the widows pension so to me that is discrimination and wrong!


  • Options
    #81
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    iamtony wrote: »
    If I lost my job in the morning and needed help from the state my means would be tested based on her income because we are partners but if I died she wouldn't get the widows pension so to me that is discrimination and wrong!

    If you were married and lost your job, would it be means tested too?

    If you both meet the criteria, you are both entitled to choose to enter into the contractual relationship of marriage, if one or both of you choose not to do so you are not being discriminated against you are choosing to remain strangers in law.

    As a stranger in legal terms you have both chosen to ignore the wider implications. She has no automatic right to be consulted on your medical conditions and treatment, she has no right to register your death. If you have not made a will your partner has no automatic inheritance right (and visa versa) and will be taxed as a stranger on anything inherited through a will. Pre jan 2017 even with your name on the birth cert, the State could have taken your childern into care on her death as you were not recognised as their guardian.

    The widows pension is direct benefit of having met the qualifying conditions ie the ability to supply the State with proof of marrige, you both have made a choice to remain single. As such through your own choice, you are no more discriminated against than any other single person who suffers the loss of someone.

    IMO you both should think about the consequences of not being married with shared and separate assets and your children not your partner being your legal next of kin. The religious bit is important to your wife but even if you both cant agree on a religious bit do the legal bit which is important to the State.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,723 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    The religious bit is important to your wife but even if you both cant agree on a religious bit do the legal bit which is important to the State.

    Agree entirely. After more than a decade you're probably together for the long haul anyway. FWIW myself and herself are still together 30 years in and being married didn't make the blindest bit of difference. Unlike the baptism thing, it's not something it makes much sense to avoid once you have kids and are planning on staying together long term.


  • Options
    #83
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,157 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    In esssence, marriage is the mechanism by which a couple engage social, legal, administrative, etc recognition of their relationship and their mutual interdependence. I don't think you can reasonably choose not to marry, and then complain when your relationship is unrecognised; you have chosen to avoid recognition.

    In some cases, of course, recognition will be extended anyway - as the O.P. points out, if he claims social assistance, the fact that he is cohabiting with someone will be factored into the means test. But the choice not to marry doesn't mean that people may not recognise the impact of the relationship; just that they are not obliged to do so. In general, they will recognise it when it's in their interests or to their advantage to do so. But when it comes the protection of their own interests, their own advantage, people will defer to the choice of the couple. They are adults, and capable of making their own choices about what is in their interests and to their advantage.


  • Options
    #84
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,723 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    In esssence, marriage is the mechanism by which a couple engage social, legal, administrative, etc recognition of their relationship and their mutual interdependence.

    Possibly worth pointing out that the social bit above is entirely optional. We didn't tell anybody we'd got married until after the event, with the only people attending in the registry office being the ourselves, our kids, the registrar and witnesses. It you're getting married for reasons of legal pragmatism, it doesn't actually need to be any more than this if neither of you want it. That said, Vegas with fake Elvises and loads of glam does sound like an absolute hoot if you've the spare time and moolah.


  • Options
    #85
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,157 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    Possibly worth pointing out that the social bit above is entirely optional. We didn't tell anybody we'd got married until after the event . . .
    Presumably you did tell them after the event? In that case you weren't seeking social recognition for your wedding (which is an event), but you were seeking it for your marriage (which is an ongoing relationship).

    On edit; you seek social recognition for your marriage not by inviting the world at large to your wedding, but by holding yourselves out to the world at large as married and, implicitly, inviting the world at large to treat you as married. Legal recognition and administrative recognition are just subsets of social recognition, really.


  • Options
    #86
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    smacl wrote: »
    Possibly worth pointing out that the social bit above is entirely optional. We didn't tell anybody we'd got married until after the event, with the only people attending in the registry office being the ourselves, our kids, the registrar and witnesses. It you're getting married for reasons of legal pragmatism, it doesn't actually need to be any more than this if neither of you want it. That said, Vegas with fake Elvises and loads of glam does sound like an absolute hoot if you've the spare time and moolah.
    Possibly worth pointing out that the social bit is entirely optional for the OP and his partner too, pre and post marriage. So nothing to stop them from starting the paperwork today.:D :D


  • Options
    #87
    iamtony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭iamtony


    I start a thread trying to understand the psychology of believing in a religion and now I'm getting married.... Possibly in Vegas. I'll set up the go fund me page now. Thanks guys!


  • Options
    #88
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    iamtony wrote: »
    I start a thread trying to understand the psychology of believing in a religion and now I'm getting married.... Possibly in Vegas. I'll set up the go fund me page now. Thanks guys!

    Err..no, you started a thread under the guise of trying to understand why your partner was fighting with you. She went to bed and you tried to pick a fight with us. :rolleyes: :D Sadly we have proved to be rather shallow people, so if it's a choice with your existential crisis and a good old soap opera that's curtain twitching good ....... Well congrats on setting the date.





    PS Please feel free to keep us updated on any bridezilla or groomzilla


  • Options
    #89
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,723 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Presumably you did tell them after the event? In that case you weren't seeking social recognition for your wedding (which is an event), but you were seeking it for your marriage (which is an ongoing relationship).

    On edit; you seek social recognition for your marriage not by inviting the world at large to your wedding, but by holding yourselves out to the world at large as married and, implicitly, inviting the world at large to treat you as married. Legal recognition and administrative recognition are just subsets of social recognition, really.

    Not really, P. We'd already been together for 19 years at this point and were (and still are) quite happy with our relationship. We hadn't planned on getting married on the simple principal 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. The registry office was no more than a necessary tying up of loose ends to protect the best future interests of our kids. Our relationship is no business of the world at large and I'm at a loss to see why it should be.


  • Options
    #90
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,157 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    Not really, P. We'd already been together for 19 years at this point and were (and still are) quite happy with our relationship. We hadn't planned on getting married on the simple principal 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. The registry office was no more than a necessary tying up of loose ends to protect the best future interests of our kids. Our relationship is no business of the world at large and I'm at a loss to see why it should be.
    For the reason you just pointed out; you want the world at large to recognise you relationship because your kids’ interests may be adversely affected if it doesn’t.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    iamtony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭iamtony


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    For the reason you just pointed out; you want the world at large to recognise you relationship because your kids’ interests may be adversely affected if it doesn’t.

    The problem is, as far as the state concerned, they do recognise the relationship when it suits them. They use expressions like common law wife but won't recognise that when it comes to things like a widows pension.


Advertisement