What's your opinion on the Internet Party?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › What's your opinion on the Internet Party?

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 15

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1072115 22-Jun-2014 17:25

alasta:
Fred99: As for me - I don't care if you or anybody else want to marry your cat. It's none of my business - and should certainly not be any business of government.

Good. This vindicates my view that marriage should not be administered by the state, and hence the entire same sex marriage debate was moot.

Marriage is an economic activity, like forming a company, of course it should be administered by the state.

alasta

6688 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1072123 22-Jun-2014 17:53

Glassboy:
alasta: Good. This vindicates my view that marriage should not be administered by the state, and hence the entire same sex marriage debate was moot.

Marriage is an economic activity, like forming a company, of course it should be administered by the state.

No, that's a civil union. A marriage is the same as a civil union but with a religious overly.

When civil unions were introduced in 2004 they should have replaced rather than complimented marriage.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1072125 22-Jun-2014 17:59

Glassboy:
alasta:
Fred99: As for me - I don't care if you or anybody else want to marry your cat. It's none of my business - and should certainly not be any business of government.

Good. This vindicates my view that marriage should not be administered by the state, and hence the entire same sex marriage debate was moot.

Marriage is an economic activity, like forming a company, of course it should be administered by the state.

While I was looking at the legislation WRT finding out what legal difference there was between being married - and being in a de-facto relationship (basically none), I realised that although we consider ourselves to be "married", we got married overseas, and as we've never registered our marriage in NZ, it carries no legal status whatsoever, nor does the NZ government have any record of us being "married".
So while the government may keep a register, it's basically a load of crock - there's no need for them to do even that.

alasta:

When civil unions were introduced in 2004 they should have replaced rather than complimented marriage.

Exactly.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79159 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1072128 22-Jun-2014 18:07

alasta:
Glassboy:
alasta: Good. This vindicates my view that marriage should not be administered by the state, and hence the entire same sex marriage debate was moot.

Marriage is an economic activity, like forming a company, of course it should be administered by the state.

No, that's a civil union. A marriage is the same as a civil union but with a religious overly.

When civil unions were introduced in 2004 they should have replaced rather than complimented marriage.

So you mean that all these years atheists never really got "married" even though they had a marriage certificate because they never had a "religious tone" to their marriage? Am I not married even though I have a marriage certificate but never had a religious ceremony?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1072138 22-Jun-2014 18:15

freitasm:
alasta:
Glassboy:
alasta: Good. This vindicates my view that marriage should not be administered by the state, and hence the entire same sex marriage debate was moot.

Marriage is an economic activity, like forming a company, of course it should be administered by the state.

No, that's a civil union. A marriage is the same as a civil union but with a religious overly.

When civil unions were introduced in 2004 they should have replaced rather than complimented marriage.

So you mean that all these years atheists never really got "married" even though they had a marriage certificate because they never had a "religious tone" to their marriage? Am I not married even though I have a marriage certificate but never had a religious ceremony?

I don't know. Our son (21 YO tomorrow) read what I posted above - and asked if that meant he's a bastard? I think the right reply is yes - if he stays in NZ (and votes for Colin Craig).

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1072151 22-Jun-2014 18:40

alasta:
Glassboy:
alasta: Good. This vindicates my view that marriage should not be administered by the state, and hence the entire same sex marriage debate was moot.

Marriage is an economic activity, like forming a company, of course it should be administered by the state.

No, that's a civil union. A marriage is the same as a civil union but with a religious overly.

When civil unions were introduced in 2004 they should have replaced rather than complimented marriage.

Traditional marriage is an economic act. Why do you think dowry and inheritance are so important everywhere. Under English law a proposal was a verbal contract, that's why in things like Jane Austin novels it's such a big deal. If proposals were rescinded courts could and did impose quite harsh financial penalties.

alasta

6688 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1072154 22-Jun-2014 18:48

freitasm:
alasta: No, that's a civil union. A marriage is the same as a civil union but with a religious overly.

When civil unions were introduced in 2004 they should have replaced rather than complimented marriage.

So you mean that all these years atheists never really got "married" even though they had a marriage certificate because they never had a "religious tone" to their marriage? Am I not married even though I have a marriage certificate but never had a religious ceremony?

Yes, I suppose that would be a valid assessment. Strictly speaking you are in a civil union, but the state labels it 'marriage' because of the confusing way in which these terms are applied politically and legally.

Backblaze

Backblaze Unlimited Backup. World’s easiest cloud backup. Get peace of mind knowing your files are backed up securely in the cloud (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1072156 22-Jun-2014 18:59

Glassboy:

Traditional marriage is an economic act. Why do you think dowry and inheritance are so important everywhere. Under English law a proposal was a verbal contract, that's why in things like Jane Austin novels it's such a big deal. If proposals were rescinded courts could and did impose quite harsh financial penalties.

Under English law, people have been boiled in oil for heresy - granted clemency for confession prior to execution (you got the choice of being dunked feet first or head first).
It's hardly a relevant example for the 21st century.

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1072157 22-Jun-2014 19:02

Fred99:
Glassboy:

Traditional marriage is an economic act. Why do you think dowry and inheritance are so important everywhere. Under English law a proposal was a verbal contract, that's why in things like Jane Austin novels it's such a big deal. If proposals were rescinded courts could and did impose quite harsh financial penalties.

Under English law, people have been boiled in oil for heresy - granted clemency for confession prior to execution (you got the choice of being dunked feet first or head first).
It's hardly a relevant example for the 21st century.

Of course it is. It's the basis for our current law, and part of the body of case law that is examined if the [written] statues are unclear.

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1072160 22-Jun-2014 19:06

Fred99:
While I was looking at the legislation WRT finding out what legal difference there was between being married - and being in a de-facto relationship (basically none), I realised that although we consider ourselves to be "married", we got married overseas, and as we've never registered our marriage in NZ, it carries no legal status whatsoever, nor does the NZ government have any record of us being "married".
So while the government may keep a register, it's basically a load of crock - there's no need for them to do even that.

The thing that I find interesting (I got married earlier this year) is that DIA don't establish or verify the identity of either party getting married. It appears they rely on the fact that the parties are making a legal declaration.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1072161 22-Jun-2014 19:07

Glassboy:
Fred99:
Glassboy:

Traditional marriage is an economic act. Why do you think dowry and inheritance are so important everywhere. Under English law a proposal was a verbal contract, that's why in things like Jane Austin novels it's such a big deal. If proposals were rescinded courts could and did impose quite harsh financial penalties.

Under English law, people have been boiled in oil for heresy - granted clemency for confession prior to execution (you got the choice of being dunked feet first or head first).
It's hardly a relevant example for the 21st century.

Of course it is. It's the basis for our current law, and part of the body of case law that is examined if the [written] statues are unclear.

Well fortunately, if someone tried to sue for rescinding an engagement for marriage, or for failing to deliver on a dowry, in this country the litigants would be laughed out of court, and laughed right into the tabloid press.

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1072162 22-Jun-2014 19:12

Fred99:
Glassboy:
Fred99:
Glassboy:

Traditional marriage is an economic act. Why do you think dowry and inheritance are so important everywhere. Under English law a proposal was a verbal contract, that's why in things like Jane Austin novels it's such a big deal. If proposals were rescinded courts could and did impose quite harsh financial penalties.

Under English law, people have been boiled in oil for heresy - granted clemency for confession prior to execution (you got the choice of being dunked feet first or head first).
It's hardly a relevant example for the 21st century.

Of course it is. It's the basis for our current law, and part of the body of case law that is examined if the [written] statues are unclear.

Well fortunately, if someone tried to sue for rescinding an engagement for marriage, or for failing to deliver on a dowry, in this country the litigants would be laughed out of court, and laughed right into the tabloid press.

Really? Are you a very experienced solicitor or do you just have an impressive knowledge of NZ case law? Feel free to PM your real name so I can check the Register of Lawyers.

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1072164 22-Jun-2014 19:14

freitasm:
alasta:
Glassboy:
alasta: Good. This vindicates my view that marriage should not be administered by the state, and hence the entire same sex marriage debate was moot.

Marriage is an economic activity, like forming a company, of course it should be administered by the state.

No, that's a civil union. A marriage is the same as a civil union but with a religious overly.

When civil unions were introduced in 2004 they should have replaced rather than complimented marriage.

So you mean that all these years atheists never really got "married" even though they had a marriage certificate because they never had a "religious tone" to their marriage? Am I not married even though I have a marriage certificate but never had a religious ceremony?

Well according to that definition it would probably be a good thing or you'd be a bigamist. :-)

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1072174 22-Jun-2014 19:23

Glassboy:
Fred99:
Glassboy:
Fred99:
Glassboy:

Traditional marriage is an economic act. Why do you think dowry and inheritance are so important everywhere. Under English law a proposal was a verbal contract, that's why in things like Jane Austin novels it's such a big deal. If proposals were rescinded courts could and did impose quite harsh financial penalties.

Under English law, people have been boiled in oil for heresy - granted clemency for confession prior to execution (you got the choice of being dunked feet first or head first).
It's hardly a relevant example for the 21st century.

Of course it is. It's the basis for our current law, and part of the body of case law that is examined if the [written] statues are unclear.

Well fortunately, if someone tried to sue for rescinding an engagement for marriage, or for failing to deliver on a dowry, in this country the litigants would be laughed out of court, and laughed right into the tabloid press.

Really? Are you a very experienced solicitor or do you just have an impressive knowledge of NZ case law? Feel free to PM your real name so I can check the Register of Lawyers.

Look for it yourself - then disprove what I've said. I'm not going searching for a needle (which I don't believe exists) in a haystack just to refute your claim that in NZ someone could sue for non-payment of dowry or breach of some agreement if an engagement to marry is called off.
No sorry - I won't PM you my real name. You make me feel uncomfortable.
Demanding dowry payments is illegal even in India (since 1961) - despite still clearly being in practice, and with a long history of the custom.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1072176 22-Jun-2014 19:29

It's a good thing that this thread is in the 'off topic' section because it's way off topic.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 15