View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 19th, 2014, 8:30 am



Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Are you having a humanist wedding? 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 13483
Location: Gloucester
Re: "time defined unions".

I know of no such things in real life, the only one I can think of at the moment is that in a sci-fi series "The Liaden Universe" - I will appraise you of the little they say of it by email.

A quick scan through Google elicited no other titles or refs to TDUs, but I have not exhausted all possible search strings as yet!

_________________
Life's too short for doing the dusting.


January 30th, 2012, 7:36 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm
Posts: 5166
Location: Scotland
Alan C. wrote:
... my funeral will be conducted by my good friend Fia (of this forum) I can think of no one else I'd rather have :smile:

PS.
Fia it will be flights both ways after your past problems with the boats :wink:


:redface: This does, of course, assume you'll predecease me Alan. At the rate folk want me to do their funerals I need to find a longevity pill :) ...and if that worked knowing my luck with Shetland the sea will be pancake flat calm and the flights fogbound...


I'm in communication with KatieA now - poor love has now the Scottish aspect which is a PHD in itself - but a big forum :welcome: to KatieA. Have a wee delve, enjoy and respond...


January 30th, 2012, 11:33 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am
Posts: 8888
Location: Darkest Kent
Hi Katie and welcome to the forum! :D

I'd be delighted to help you....

...if only I had a fiancee.... :sad:


OTOH, I'd be delighted to discuss humanism and humanist weddings/marriages with you (in great detail, so you've been warned! :D ). I'd also recommend, most strongly, that you take a good look at the various threads on this forum, which I think will give you a huge amount of material to ponder. Be free to ask questions on any topic; you will find many posters willing to respond.

Best wishes for your research. :thumbsup:


January 30th, 2012, 11:55 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm
Posts: 10223
Location: Shetland
Quote:
Fia
knowing my luck with Shetland the sea will be pancake flat calm and the flights fogbound...
It's a bloody lottery Fia,
I shall strive to die at a convenient time. :smile:

_________________
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.


January 31st, 2012, 12:25 am
Profile

Joined: January 29th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 15
hi Thanks again for those of you who have responded since my last post - and for the welcomes.

I am sure there will be lots of questions coming everyone's way so prepare for general ignorance and much appreciated support of a young researcher.


katie :smile:


January 31st, 2012, 6:46 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: February 27th, 2008, 1:17 pm
Posts: 2975
Location: Greater London
Hello, KatieA, and welcome.

My partner and I aren't planning on getting married anytime soon, but it's something we might do eventually. I once vowed that I wouldn't get married until it became something that same-sex couples could do too. That's supposed to happen by 2015 in England and Wales, but Scotland will probably get there sooner. I wouldn't rule out a Humanist ceremony, but quite frankly I'd be just as happy with something very low-key at the local register office. Although, as I've discussed elsewhere with Fia, I don't like the fact that civil marriages have to be "solemnised", while civil partnerships don't (see the New York approves gay marriage thread). In many ways I'd prefer a civil partnership, but it bothers me that there isn't a simple verb for doing it. One doesn't get married; one enters into a civil partnership. Hmm. In France, apparently, the civil partnership is called Pacte de Solidarité Sociale, or PACS, and that has led to a few neologisms. The verb "se pacser" is used to mean "to enter into a civil partnership", and "pacsé" and "pacsée" are used in a similar way to husband and wife. Which is rather good, I think. Perhaps the UK could adopt those terms from the French, as they did with fiancé and fiancée. Anyway, that's all by the by, because civil partnership is not an option for opposite-sex couples, and there are no plans for it to become one. Time for another plug for Peter Tatchell's Equal Love campaign.

Emma


January 31st, 2012, 7:31 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 13483
Location: Gloucester
Quote:
"pacsé" and "pacsée" are used in a similar way to husband and wife. Which is rather good, I think. Perhaps the UK could adopt those terms from the French, as they did with fiancé and fiancée.
Let's be British about this, eh, what!

I thought the modern thing was not to "genderise" titles, why not "consort"? It has no gender and though it is usually used for the partner of a monarch it can be used for any spouse.

_________________
Life's too short for doing the dusting.


January 31st, 2012, 7:57 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 13483
Location: Gloucester
Not being "in the market" for such things I will admit to not looking into the idea of marriage in the past, oh, 40 years, or the rules that govern it. Listening with only half an ear (metaphorically!) to mentions on the radio gives one a fragmented picture.

Emma, I take what you said to mean that, a) civil marriages have to be "solemnised" and assume this means they need the "OK" of a church to give them legal status, and, b) like genders cannot get married and unlike genders cannot have a civil partnership?

Yup, I am up for any campaign to correct these errors! As I tried to intimate any couple, of whatever gender combination, should have the right to establish any kind of moral and ethical relationship - in this case "moral and ethical" means to their mutual advantage and the improvement of society.

One would hope that "advantage" did not mean cash for one partner and citizenship for the other or any similar relationship based on financial or other material gains alone.

And what price a church wedding when vicars run scams like the recent one in the news? Not the first case of this IIRC.

_________________
Life's too short for doing the dusting.


January 31st, 2012, 9:31 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm
Posts: 10223
Location: Shetland
Quote:
Dave
Emma, I take what you said to mean that, a) civil marriages have to be "solemnised" and assume this means they need the "OK" of a church to give them legal status,
Quite the opposite I think, Churches and religions have no say in the legality of a marriage,
Quote:
and, b) like genders cannot get married and unlike genders cannot have a civil partnership?
That's true.
Heterosexual couple make second attempt for civil partnership.

_________________
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.


January 31st, 2012, 9:55 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 13483
Location: Gloucester
OK, Alan, so what is this "solemnisation" then?

Anyway, who the hell wants a solemn wedding? Way Hey! Let your hair down (if you have any that is!)

_________________
Life's too short for doing the dusting.


January 31st, 2012, 10:54 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am
Posts: 8888
Location: Darkest Kent
I was going to mention civil partnerships for straight couples when I saw Alan's post. Can't be certain if it was the same couple (quite likely, though), but I heard a compelling argument on Radio 4 some months ago. When it was announced at the beginning of the programme (probably PM), I felt pretty dismissive, but when the legal distinctions were explained, I became convinced. (I did wonder though, if more variation should be available for everyone... Hmmm... food for thought.)

Dave :) Never mind "consort", how about "spouse"? "artner" may be OK, but it does tend to suggest a firm of stockbrokers , lawyers or (most amorous of all,) ....accountants.

Ema :) How I hate the expression "get" married! Grrr! How about, "marry" or "be married"? Much nicer!

For me, if I were to find the right partner in life, a wedding, for me, would be a) an offical and formalisation of my feelings for my beloved, (and I would hope, hers for me,) and our declaration to the world of our relationship; something to be pleased about, proud of, and to be celebrated. That's not compulsory, of course, (no pressure, Emma ;)) that's just how I feel.

So, just need to find that special one.....

She'd have to be special, to put up with me!


January 31st, 2012, 11:32 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm
Posts: 10223
Location: Shetland
Quote:
Dave
OK, Alan, so what is this "solemnisation" then?
No idea :shrug: best ask Emma. :)

_________________
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.


January 31st, 2012, 11:59 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm
Posts: 8570
Location: Huddersfield, England
Do people wanting to get married or have a civil partnership have to declare what gender each is? Do they have to prove it?

I think not.

Oh silly me - birth certificates! :smile:


February 1st, 2012, 6:59 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
Posts: 14576
jaywhat wrote:
Do people wanting to get married or have a civil partnership have to declare what gender each is? Do they have to prove it?

I think not.

Oh silly me - birth certificates! :smile:
Hmmm...Transgender People are Completely Banned From Boarding Airplanes in Canada

_________________
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon


February 1st, 2012, 12:56 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: February 27th, 2008, 1:17 pm
Posts: 2975
Location: Greater London
Dave B wrote:
Let's be British about this, eh, what!
All right. We could just take "pacsee", and use it for both sexes, like employee, nominee, referee, trainee, licensee, etc. But no, I wasn't being serious. I just think it's fortunate for the French that it's worked out that way. We do need our own terminology.
Dave B wrote:
I thought the modern thing was not to "genderise" titles, why not "consort"? It has no gender and though it is usually used for the partner of a monarch it can be used for any spouse.
Oh, but it's an awful-sounding word. And the verb "to consort" is already in use to mean "to hang about with", especially in the context of thieves, vagabonds and other disreputable characters.
Dave B wrote:
Emma, I take what you said to mean that, a) civil marriages have to be "solemnised" and assume this means they need the "OK" of a church to give them legal status
Ooh, no. They just need both parties to make a verbal statutory declaration, rather than just sign a written one. It's all in that other thread I linked to, and it's different in Scotland than it is in England and Wales. It probably seems a trivial thing, but it bothers me.
Dave B wrote:
and, b) like genders cannot get married and unlike genders cannot have a civil partnership?
Yes, sort of. Although I'd say "same-sex couples" rather than "like genders", because the state is interested in a rather crude definition of sex, rather than the more nuanced gender. A transsexual can only marry someone of the opposite sex to the one listed on his or her birth certificate. But transsexuals can get new birth certificates if they are granted a full gender recognition certificate by the Gender Recognition Panel. So, currently, a transsexual can marry someone of the same sex, provided he or she hasn't obtained a new birth certificate stating his or her new sex. Anyway, David Cameron, and the Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone have said that same-sex couples will be able to get married from 2015. But it's not at all clear, yet, what's going to happen with civil partnerships. Will they continue to be an option for same-sex couples only? Or will they be abolished? Or will they be offered as an option for everybody? So far, they're not saying.
Nick wrote:
Ema :) How I hate the expression "get" married! Grrr! How about, "marry" or "be married"? Much nicer!
Those options might be "nicer", but in many contexts (not all) they sound archaic. "I do not intend to marry" sounds like something a Jane Austen heroine might say. "I do not intend to be married" might work in certain contexts, but on its own sounds rather peculiar. "Get married" is a perfectly correct phrasal verb, and objecting to it is just word snobbery. :D

Emma (or Ema, or Em, if you prefer)


February 1st, 2012, 3:48 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: February 27th, 2008, 1:17 pm
Posts: 2975
Location: Greater London
How ridiculous! I note the following, however: "I want to stress that as yet, I have no confirmed cases of a trans person actually being refused boarding." Seems like something that needs to be tested.

Emma


February 1st, 2012, 3:54 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm
Posts: 1202
Location: Lake Como
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
How ridiculous! I note the following, however: "I want to stress that as yet, I have no confirmed cases of a trans person actually being refused boarding." Seems like something that needs to be tested.Emma

I think the spirit of the law is to to avoid "disguises" rather than genuine "trans". However, the point is 'what does the passport state' !

_________________
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience


February 1st, 2012, 4:29 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: February 27th, 2008, 1:17 pm
Posts: 2975
Location: Greater London
Gottard wrote:
I think the spirit of the law is to to avoid "disguises" rather than genuine "trans". However, the point is 'what does the passport state' !
I'd have thought the point was "What does the passport photograph look like?" But one is allowed to look slightly different from how one looks in one's passport photograph, isn't one? One can put on weight, or lose it; one can grow a beard, or shave it off, or go bald, or cut one's hair, or grow it, or dye it, or take off or put on glasses, or take off or put on heavy make-up. As long as the passport photograph shows one's face clearly, and one is prepared to show one's full face to passport control, then that ought to be all that matters.

Emma


February 1st, 2012, 5:03 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm
Posts: 1202
Location: Lake Como
In Switzerland and Italy photographs in identity docs. (driving licence, passport) must show the features of the person as it is at present: if wearing spectacles the photo must show it and the same if having beard. Photos anyway, must be updated every 5 years (but not sure).
Contact lenses must be specified in writing on the document.

_________________
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience


February 1st, 2012, 6:07 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
Posts: 13483
Location: Gloucester
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Gottard wrote:
I think the spirit of the law is to to avoid "disguises" rather than genuine "trans". However, the point is 'what does the passport state' !
I'd have thought the point was "What does the passport photograph look like?" But one is allowed to look slightly different from how one looks in one's passport photograph, isn't one? One can put on weight, or lose it; one can grow a beard, or shave it off, or go bald, or cut one's hair, or grow it, or dye it, or take off or put on glasses, or take off or put on heavy make-up. As long as the passport photograph shows one's face clearly, and one is prepared to show one's full face to passport control, then that ought to be all that matters.

Emma
Er, so going through customs wearing one's hair long and down, with trowelled on make-up (to cover the 5 o'clock shadow) and in a nice frilly dress when one's passport has a crew-cut, beard and Manchester United shirt in it is OK then? :wink:

Wonder how Grayson Perry copes? Or does he wear wigs I wonder? :D

_________________
Life's too short for doing the dusting.


February 1st, 2012, 6:09 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.