What do you guys think of those people (women mostly) in India who get married to animals (rats, snakes etc.)? I don't know much about their constitutional laws but are such marriages 'legal'? Or is that just a local custom/ritual for which they just use the word marriage?
U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Thank you for politely pointing out my typo, it is civil interaction such as this that makes these threads constructive.
Key differences between marriage and civil union, by the way: taxes, Social Security survivor benefits, joint parental/adoption rights, immigration and residency for foreign partners, next-of-kin status for hospital visits, durable power of attorney, inheritance, Medicare, recognition across state lines, and the ability to take sick/bereavement leave for an ailing partner/child. Civil unions are a step up from having had nothing at all many years ago, but they are still clearly second-rate in some critically important ways. I'm not married, but if I were ever to be turned away from my wife's bedside when she were dying in the hospital, I'd probably end up facing charges for trespass or assault. Or both.
Errrrr .....I am nor aware of any such instances. Though lot of strange and weird shit happens in remote villages and tribal areas. They are not legal though even if they are supported by the community.
Once you go rat, you never go back. Or um, so I've been told. Pretty sure it's just ritual, although dog marriage does bring to mind my friend Paul's first rule of life for men:
Don't marry a bitch.
That's a load of shit, especially inheritance you can pass your money to whomever you see fit and if you dont state your intentions the government will take it whether you are straight or gay
They're definitely illegal though they do happen by local custom occasionally. The popular reason i'm aware of is that sometimes people are considered to have horoscopes unlucky for their first spouses and its a custom to try and get the bad luck out of the way by getting them married to a tree or some creature.
Its mostly dead as a practice... sufficiently rare so that its reported as big news whenever the media uncover an event.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is standard practice that blood relatives get control over who gets to see a hospitalized patient. So if your same-sex partner is in an accident and lies near death, and if his parents get there before you do, and they don't like you and have never approved of their son's sexuality, as I understand it, you're shit out of luck because they can insist that you not be allowed in to see him, even if you've been together for 30 years. Incidentally this can also cause problems for heterosexual patients when there is some sort of family feud, or a girl/boyfriend who isn't liked. The lack of rights for a gay partner with regard to issues of medical treatment and decision-making is an area that can lend itself to gross injustice during the most trying of times, as partners can often find themselves completely shut out of the decision-making process during worst-case scenarios like accidents or severe incapacitation. Consider the case of Sharon Kowlaski for an example of how fecked you can be if your gay partner is injured, and the family doesn't particularly like you.
As for inheritance, yes, you can pass it on to whomever you like, and yes, the state likes to get a cut whenever there's something left to be passed on. However in heterosexual marriage, in the absence of a will the surviving spouse automatically inherits, and the inheritance is not taxable at the state or federal level. Gay partners must be designated in a will or they receive absolutely nothing. In addition, whatever they do get (where there is a will) is taxable at both the state and federal level. One can of course get an attorney and make a will, but this costs money. Money which heterosexual couples are spared, because the marriage license alone grants them this right/benefit.
This is Sharon Kowalski with her partner, Karen Thompson. These are the sort of people who threaten the very existence of our society, if former Arkansas Governor/current Fox pundit/recent dark-horse Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is to be believed: "There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is standard practice that blood relatives get control over who gets to see a hospitalized patient. So if your same-sex partner is in an accident and lies near death, and if his parents get there before you do, and they don't like you and have never approved of their son's sexuality, as I understand it, you're shit out of luck because they can insist that you not be allowed in to see him, even if you've been together for 30 years. Incidentally this can also cause problems for heterosexual patients when there is some sort of family feud, or a girl/boyfriend who isn't liked. The lack of rights for a gay partner with regard to issues of medical treatment and decision-making is an area that can lend itself to gross injustice during the most trying of times, as partners can often find themselves completely shut out of the decision-making process during worst-case scenarios like accidents or severe incapacitation. Consider the case of Sharon Kowlaski for an example of how fecked you can be if your gay partner is injured, and the family doesn't particularly like you.
As for inheritance, yes, you can pass it on to whomever you like, and yes, the state likes to get a cut whenever there's something left to be passed on. However in heterosexual marriage, in the absence of a will the surviving spouse automatically inherits, and the inheritance is not taxable at the state or federal level. Gay partners must be designated in a will or they receive absolutely nothing. In addition, whatever they do get (where there is a will) is taxable at both the state and federal level. One can of course get an attorney and make a will, but this costs money. Money which heterosexual couples are spared, because the marriage license alone grants them this right/benefit.
This is Sharon Kowalski with her partner, Karen Thompson. These are the sort of people who threaten the very existence of our society, if former Arkansas Governor/current Fox pundit/recent dark-horse Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is to be believed: "There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived"
Good reasons for allowing gay people to marry.
Personally I don't give a flying feck about how marriage is defined in the scriptures, because I think whatever definition is in the scriptures probably worked 2,000 years ago but not today. However, if a gay couple believe in the scriptures enough to want to call their relationship a marriage, then they should be allowed to. I don't think it's the state's business to regulate this though.
But we have secular weddings. So why this call to the scriptures?
that is the entire problem we have with all the 'religiously' motivated voters....I believe they are sincere in what they are doing but they cannot understand the constitution keeps church and state seperate...
...and the GOP exploits their beliefs....by trying to win elections on these wedge issues....
Not trying to fuel the fire here but the constitution does not actually keep the church and state separate from the way I understand it. It states that the country can have no "official" religion.
There is clearly no separation based on references to God all through the governemnt. Money, swearing of oaths, etc.
There is clearly no separation based on references to God all through the governemnt. Money, swearing of oaths, etc.
Eric Holder is to be the new attorney-general.
Jobs for the boys.
Jobs for the boys.
"Favouritism where jobs or other patronage is given to friends and acquaintances". Holder doesn't fit this phrase, he seems well-qualified for the position. Trial attorney in the U.S. Justice Department from 1976 to 1988, when he appointed to serve as a judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. By Ronald Reagan. Left that post in 1993, was named U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by Clin-ton. Promoted to Deputy Attorney General in 1997, held the office through the remainder of Clin-ton's term, in 2001. He's no Harrriet Miers.
Obama's Attorney General
I'm sure WWITT would say that Miers and Brown of Katrina fame were eminently qualified people.....the right wing is a joke....and are a fast dying [in]breed....
Plus why wouldn't Obama put his people in place. It's his administration. If they are qualified there should be no problem, no matter the administration.
Relax. The party is a mess right now but to say is dying is a bit over the top. Each party goes through phases of (un)popularity. Jimmy Carter didn't exactly help his party when in office.
Appearantly Al Qaida is not down with Barry Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/obama.alqaeda/index.html
Come on Bush!! Can't you at least knock Zawahiri out of the box before you leave office. This guy pisses me off.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/obama.alqaeda/index.html
Come on Bush!! Can't you at least knock Zawahiri out of the box before you leave office. This guy pisses me off.
I see what you're saying but the US government is not secular. There is no state relgion but there is clearly religion in it's foundation. Just not a particular denomination.
religion does appear to have a lot of influence but I think it's just that, an appearance to placate voters in the bible belt.
Maybe, but I think that would a somewhat synical view. I think it is also a component carried over from when the country was founded. I am not a religious person but I see nothing wrong with religion. I have a major problem with extremism, of any kind.
Unless were are talking extremely hot women.
I believe the Republican party will eventually decide to come to the middle...it wont be easy....but that is the only way for them to survive....and that will be good for the country....as glad as I am with our victory this cycle....prolonged power in one party's hand wont be helpful for anyone.....
Those two are so thoroughly discredited, no one will defend them now, especially Brownie. Although I'm sure had it been a topic of discussion when he was appointed, plenty of people would have said he's perfectly qualified, stop whining, he'll do a heckuva job. Miers, for the first few days after being chosen for the post, might have gotten lukewarm support from a few professional partisans in the pundit class, but after a week or so no one could back her with a straight face, if I remember correctly.
Two awful appointments. Miers being by far the most laughably bad, Brownie inevitably displaying the highest level of incompetence, since Miers didn't get the job. It's almost ironic that some Republicans can point to things like the mishandling of Katrina, and use it as evidence in support of their argument that "government just doesn't work", we need to have less government, very little government, in some areas no government at all, let the markets decide. But that's ridiculous. If the executive branch adheres to a core philosophy that government is the enemy and we have to tear it down, when those same people then proceed to get rid of all the competent staff and replace them with party cronies who are owed a favor, and the agencies are managed in such a way as to deliberately weaken them from the inside...yes, government failure is inevitable. But that is not evidence of the inadequacy of government - more the inadequacy of an attitude toward government that says it's the primary obstacle to bettering our society.
Letting the market decide, and taking down government, have been key themes in political discourse in this country over the past...what, 20 years or so, maybe 25? When everyone was getting rich in the 1990s, it seemed like maybe we were on to something, but at the moment, I think even many in the Republican party see the need to rethink their attitude toward the utility of government. I doubt they'll really change the party's orientation on this issue, they've been too attached to it for too long, and the "Democarts want big government, more of your tax money, irresponsible spending" has beena great hammer for them to bash the Dems over the years. But Bush has spent us into massive debt, and his administration has bungled People aren't so keen any more on letting the markets decide everything.
If Obama plays his cards right, focuses on a few key issues like health care, and appoints competent people who are able to make government agencies work more effectively in ways that everyday citizens take notice of, it's possible that there could be a real shift in Americans' attitudes over the next 5-10 years. With health care in particular, if citizens see that their tax money is coming back to them in the form of having better access to health care, which is quite literally a life-saver in many cases, it could change a lot of minds, undo the "Government=Bad" that has been drilled into our heads since the 1980s, and still is today, every single day, by cretins like Limbaugh and Hannity who repeat it over and over and over and over. If Obama's administration, not just the man himself but his entire staff, appointees, and the agencies they run, can accomplish enough over the next four years, even hard core fans of the aforementioned cretins could see their faith in GovernmentBad dented, and at the very least their hold over millions of centrist voters could be significantly weakened. This would please me on many levels.
Blah, blah, blah. feck me, I need a hobby. This is getting ridiculous.
I agree 100%.
Even there, extremism can be a danger. Talking too much about them can be either a symptom or a cause of an underlying issue that is not receiving sufficient attention. Consider this clip...I have a major problem with extremism, of any kind. Unless were are talking extremely hot women.
the vote count is growing....
http://scoreboard.dailykos.com/map/
Obama got 52.7% of the vote......at this time....
http://scoreboard.dailykos.com/map/
Obama got 52.7% of the vote......at this time....
Not true.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
Art. 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli ... the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ...
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
The US was founded on the basis of Enlightenment thinking. Some of its founding fathers were world class Enlightenment thinkers. It is clear in the constitution that there is to be separation between church and state. In no way can the United States be thought of as founded on religious principles. It was founded as a secular state where no religion would be favoured over another, and religious freedom would be available to all. That's why you have such weird and unusual Christian sects and Europe doesn't.
4 million people are expected to attend Obama's inauguration, hopefully it all goes smoothfully heard it would be the largest gathering of people in history
How in the world do you have 20k+ posts in just over a year? you're on course to be the highest poster on the caf in a couple of years...
Sorry to go off topic but I just noticed it.
What is the usual/past attendance?
Sorry to go off topic but I just noticed it.
What is the usual/past attendance?
The most ever was 1.5 million for LBJ, I was at one of Reagans as I lived in Gerogetown at the time, don't know how many were there as I couldnt do math or read at the time; that said the Obama one is going to dwarf all others by some distance
You know, I will be there!!!
Got a caravan heading to DC at 3am... With an estimated 3-4 million people, I'm still afraid that will not be early enough to get my parking spot. Going to have to throw the bikes on top of the Hondo (Condo) Odyssey. My goal is to take video of King George's hellicopter leaving the White House from the vantage point of the Lincoln Memorial. Down on the Mall will be too crazy.
Intersting though it won't be anywhere near the largest gathering of people in history.
"In January 2007, more than 70 million Hindu pilgrims from around the world gathered at Allahabad (also known as Hindu holy city of Prayaga) in India for the Ardh Kumbh Mela, the world's largest religious festival and also the world's largest gathering."
There have been several 5 mn+ gatherings of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_gatherings_in_history
Must have heard it wrong could have sworn the BBC newcaster said it was which I found suprising, probably just the US then
I lolled. Thank you.Does Dick Cheny know this?
I keeeeed, I keeeeed.
Jokes aside Cheney is probably smarter than most of the people on here
jokes aside Hitler was smarter than most on here....
Im sure Garry Glitter was smarter than most here.
I seriously doubt that