You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Top trolling indeed.
It's a good question.
“Is it not the case that in Britain today, all other stable and loving couples are now able to formalise their relationships in legal terms, so vitality important where inheritance and its tax implications are concerned. If sibling couples are to be denied civil partnerships how does the government propose to address the injustice that will arise on the death of one of them, with the survivor having to sell the family home to pay inheritance tax from which civil partners are exempt.”
I dont doubt he asked the question with intent to shitstir, I personally am a big fan of civil & same sex arrangements. But I agree with Lord Bufton of Tufton that if partnership brings tax advantages either take them away or make them available to any couple to use.
[i]hat-tip; http://order-order.com/2015/09/09/tory-peer-let-brother-and-sisters-enter-civil-partnerships/#:ktWk4jSKrv6jPA [/i]
If that's really the key thing, and it's inherently not an unreasonable question, it should simply be the case that a will can be legally drawn up with a (single) nominated beneficiary who gets the benefits that we currently give to married/civil partnerships.
Lord Bufton of Tufton
Awesome name. If he doesn't look like this i'm going to be severely disappointed.
[img] https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6enTOfxejOe8SaqVca5JMKrD7v8qJ1FCdRbs7bVGa-BYubpFhHA [/img]
it should simply be the case that a will can be legally drawn up with a (single) nominated beneficiary who gets the benefits that we currently give to married/civil partnerships.
So no more inheritance tax if the parent leaves it all to one child.
Well there's your first exclusion...
[i]If that's really the key thing, and it's inherently not an unreasonable question, it should simply be the case that a will can be legally drawn up with a (single) nominated beneficiary who gets the benefits that we currently give to married/civil partnerships. [/i]
A will can't overrule Tax Law, but you can write it to take advantage of Tax Law.
[quote=Stoner ]I dont doubt he asked the question with intent to shitstir
Well I certainly remember the possibility being one of the strawmen used to object to same sex civil partnerships.
Though of course there is a very real slippery slope here - to expand on the point made by irc, if siblings can gain such advantages, what legal basis is there to prevent a parent and child also entering such a legal partnership?
A will can't overrule Tax Law
I was suggesting writing it into Tax Law first 😉
This was tested by two elderly sisters in the ECHR a couple of years ago and they failed. Interesting case though.
The point was argued in the [i]Burden[/i] case (cohabiting sisters) which ended up in Strasbourg where the court said that 'the relationship between siblings is qualitatively of a different nature to that between married couples and homosexual civil partners under the United Kingdom’s Civil Partnership Act. The very essence of the connection between siblings is consanguinity, whereas one of the defining characteristics of a marriage or Civil Partnership Act union is that it is forbidden to close family members ... The fact that the applicants have chosen to live together all their adult lives, as do many married and Civil Partnership Act couples, does not alter this essential difference between the two types of relationship ... As with marriage, the Grand Chamber considers that the legal consequences of civil partnership under the 2004 Act, which couples expressly and deliberately decide to incur, set these types of relationship apart from other forms of cohabitation. Rather than the length or the supportive nature of the relationship, what is determinative is the existence of a public undertaking, carrying with it a body of rights and obligations of a contractual nature.'
if partnership brings tax advantages either take them away or make them available to any couple to use.
Partnerships? Are you prejudiced against relationships of three or more people? 😀
AIUI the argument against siblings marrying is for fear of deformed kids so I see no reason why people who can't have children for whatever reason shouldn't get married now. Elderly brothers and sisters, same sex siblings etc.
...also I don't understand why only two people can be in a marriage. Historically I'd guess it was because that's how many it took to make babies - that reason has now gone so why impose an arbitary limit?
"whereas one of the defining characteristics of a marriage or Civil Partnership Act union is that it is forbidden to close family members"
That's just bollocks. One of the defining characteristics of marriage was that it was 1 man and 1 woman. We've changed that definition so we can equally change the 'forbidden to close family member's' bit. If we're going to be inclusive, let's be inclusive.
AIUI the argument against siblings marrying is for fear of deformed kids
That was my understanding too (that and it's a bit icky). In which case, now that same-sex marriage is legal, that particular problem wouldn't be an issue if say two brothers wanted to marry. Or for that matter, an infertile brother and sister. It's not something I think I'd particularly support, but "why not" is a compelling question.
I suppose the wording would need to be around incest. Two cohabiting brothers "marrying" for tax reasons or whatever like the two elderly sisters above would be a different case entirely to them marrying for incestuous reasons.
But then we're into the realms of 'sanctity of marriage' and 'what's the bloody point anyway when you've been living together and shagging like rabbits for the last two decades,' and that's a whole other can of worms. What are we saying here now, marriage is increasingly becoming an anachronism? And I think my biggest concern with this line of thinking is that it plays straight into the hands of the "what next?" bigots who've been saying from the start that same-sex marriage will lead to the fall of society. What next, marrying your mum / dog / toaster / six people at once?
Maybe all of those things should be acceptable, who are we to dictate who others choose to spend their lives with (so long as vulnerable people are protected)? I don't have the answers, but we live in interesting times.
The answer is simple. The state should not have a role in relationships between consenting adults. Just do away with marriage and civil partnership altogether as legal entities.
That was my understanding too (that and it's a bit icky). In which case, now that same-sex marriage is legal, that particular problem wouldn't be an issue if say two brothers wanted to marry. Or for that matter, an infertile brother and sister. It's not something I think I'd particularly support, but "why not" is a compelling question.I suppose the wording would need to be around incest. Two cohabiting brothers "marrying" for tax reasons or whatever like the two elderly sisters above would be a different case entirely to them marrying for incestuous reasons.
But then we're into the realms of 'sanctity of marriage' and 'what's the bloody point anyway when you've been living together and shagging like rabbits for the last two decades,' and that's a whole other can of worms. What are we saying here now, marriage is increasingly becoming an anachronism? And I think my biggest concern with this line of thinking is that it plays straight into the hands of the "what next?" bigots who've been saying from the start that same-sex marriage will lead to the fall of society. What next, marrying your mum / dog / toaster / six people at once?
Maybe all of those things should be acceptable, who are we to dictate who others choose to spend their lives with (so long as vulnerable people are protected)? I don't have the answers, but we live in interesting times.
Agree with every word. Marriage was a rather exclusive thing. The definition has been changed in order to make it a bit more inclusive. Given that I can't see how you can deny anyone else who wants to call their 'relationship' a marriage that right. The only argument against incest I can think of is deformed kids. As long as such relationships don't produce kids what harm do they do? So why can't they marry?
Just because a bigot presents an argument doesn't mean it's false, and in this case I'd struggle to logically justify denying three brothers the chance to be married.
To be fair, if a pair of siblings owned a house between them and one of them died the other one would only be liable for inheritance tax if the house was worth £1 million (so the one who had just died owned £500K worth of asset). I would imagine the number of batty old spinsters living together in a house worth £1M in this country probably can be counted on one hand.
e've changed that definition so we can equally change the 'forbidden to close family member's' bit. If we're going to be inclusive, let's be inclusive.
Only an idiot or a homophobe would say this. Which are you?
Maybe he's a homophone? Certainly sounds like it.
(sorry)
Damn I've split my sides!!
We dont have to laugh at a Mods jokes do we?
That's just bollocks. One of the defining characteristics of marriage was that it was 1 man and 1 woman.
It depends what point in time you're talking about: the institution is a social one and it has changed as society changed. It used to be an undivorceable union between a male and a female; then it was redefined to be one you could be divorced from; then it was defined so that the parties had to be men and women (adults); then it was redefined so that married people could own property separately when before it was a defining characteristic that all property was jointly owned; then it was defined so that men could be convicted of rape of women married to them, when before it was a defining characteristic that there was no issue of consent between married people; then marriage was defined again so that married people could be compelled to testify against each other in court...and so on. It's just not true that there has always been a unitary and single definition of marriage - and when you look at how marriage has changed over time, it's clear that a lot of things claimed to be defining characteristics actually weren't.
100 years ago a defining characteristic of a police officer was that it was a man. People would literally not have understood what you were talking about if you discussed a "female sergeant" any more than "dry water". It would have sounded like an absurdity.
In any case, the only basis on which the state permits Adam and Eve to get married but not Adam and Steve is that of sexuality. As a society we've decided that the state and the law shouldn't be in the business of discriminating on the basis of sexuality unless there is a remarkably good reason. There's no good reason here and so the state shouldn't do it. Churches and people like you are most welcome to treat gay marriages as not real or lesser if you want (much as I might think that divorcees or people of different races marrying is wrong), but the state and law shouldn't.
if partnership brings tax advantages either take them away or make them available to any couple to use
FFS man its about love that is why folks hook up
You Tories, always about the money 😉
Shakes head
Walks Away
thanks aracer and toys it works great
konabunny > if ever a post demonstrated why the forum needs a 'like' button, that's it.
all very clear kb, but it doesnt really make the distinction between cohabiting couples who wish to form a legal (for tax reasons) partnership (of any sex) and two "cosanguinous" people wishing to do the same.
all very clear kb, but it doesnt really make the distinction between cohabiting couples who wish to form a legal (for tax reasons) partnership (of any sex) and two "cosanguinous" people wishing to do the same.
No, it doesn't. There is still discrimination against siblings getting married because they are cosanguinous. There is also legal discrimination against the marriage of children, trees and corporations. There is no social consensus that the state and law should treat trees in the same way as adult people - if you think there should be, build it. But it one of those coniferous bastards said he wanted to marry my daughter, I'd kill im.
It depends what point in time you're talking about: the institution is a social one and it has changed as society changed. It used to be an undivorceable union between a male and a female; then it was redefined to be one you could be divorced from; then it was defined so that the parties had to be men and women (adults); then it was redefined so that married people could own property separately when before it was a defining characteristic that all property was jointly owned; then it was defined so that men could be convicted of rape of women married to them, when before it was a defining characteristic that there was no issue of consent between married people; then marriage was defined again so that married people could be compelled to testify against each other in court...and so on. It's just not true that there has always been a unitary and single definition of marriage - and when you look at how marriage has changed over time, it's clear that a lot of things claimed to be defining characteristics actually weren't.
100 years ago a defining characteristic of a police officer was that it was a man. People would literally not have understood what you were talking about if you discussed a "female sergeant" any more than "dry water". It would have sounded like an absurdity.
In any case, the only basis on which the state permits Adam and Eve to get married but not Adam and Steve is that of sexuality. As a society we've decided that the state and the law shouldn't be in the business of discriminating on the basis of sexuality unless there is a remarkably good reason.
Yup, everyone agrees the definition of marriage can change, and has. That was the point I and others were making - it's not constant.
However, the current definition of marriage *does* exclude all sexualities other than "unrelated couples". That exclusion *is* for no good reason.
Only an idiot or a homophobe would say this. Which are you?
I notice you're not saying it's wrong.
he answer is simple. The state should not have a role in relationships between consenting adults. Just do away with marriage and civil partnership altogether as legal entities.
This.
The alternative is having to decide which relationships are somehow "invalid".
It's the absolute genius of the conservative approach to marriage.
We start with the conservative proposition that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, because it was not Adam and Steve.
Most people move on from this to allow same sex marriages without much fuss.
Conservatives declare marriage to be nothing more than a neat way to avoid tax, so they ought to be able to marry their children.
Rather than just, you know, arguing for the abolition of inheritance tax, marriage now has to be redefined as the union between anyone who has taxable assets and someone they like enough to confer a tax relief on.
It's almost as though the "sanctity of marriage" stuff wasn't sincere to begin with...
🙂
nly an idiot or a homophobe would say this. Which are you?
I notice you're not saying it's wrong.
You are also wrong.
hat exclusion *is* for no good reason.
Yes it is. Quite obviously
Why, anagallis_arvensis?
This stuff isn't "logical". What we think of as a marriage responds to what people think is OK, which is shaped to a large extent by whether people know someone who does the thing in question.
We think of marriage (post same-sex marriage) as being a relationship between people who are almost certainly shagging* and are currently very serious about keeping it up and probably getting a joint cat and some furniture. That is (very broadly) what "marriage" actually [i]means[/i] in practice. A large majority have dropped the "man and a woman" thing effortlessly, because it is a criterion of entry, not a description of the practice. What you have to do to get a tax-driven definition to fly is to change what the whole thing is [i]about[/i], not who can do it.
Almost no-one knows someone who is shagging a parent or sibling and wants to move in together, keep shagging and get a cat.
One of two things would have to change:
1 - large numbers of people change their minds and start defining marriage to mean "an application for tax relief, which people enter into when they have tax liabilities" (as inheritance tax affects 1/5th as many people in the UK as being homosexual does, building a consensus around this would take some work); or
2 - large numbers of people realise that they know someone who is happily cohabiting in a sexual relationship with her brother and is instagramming pets and breadmakers with him without apparent weirdness.
We may have got to one of those points in 50 years, but at the moment almost no-one is actually in a non-abusive incestuous relationship, and most people don't think they've seen a marriage happen if the parties to it didn't kiss, with tongues.
🙂
*while understanding that some married couples never (or rarely, or no longer) do, for various reasons.
@BigDummy: I don't think it's acceptable to ban a certain 'type' of marriage just because most people think it's weird. A polygamous marriage or an incestuous marriage wouldn't hurt anyone, it wouldn't be compulsory.
That's fine, but it's also not something that (currently) a significant number of people want (how many poly triads does the average person know?). If it comes to pass that it is something that it is somewhat wanted, it'll happen. Until then, a load of people who don't want it arguing that theoretical people should be allowed probably won't make it happen.
That's fine,
Good.
PS: If you think I've got a problem with Sisters shagging or polygamy you obviously haven't seen my browser history. 😀
Indeed I have not. 😉
The poly "thing" is interesting. If you believe the internet, there seem to be a certain number of people trying. Or at least, a certain number of people rounding their unhappy compromises up to "polyamory".
[url= http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=20809707 ]"I don't think retaliatory polyamory is healthy or sustainable. ("I don't want to have other partners, but if you're going to have other partners, then so am I! Let's see how you like it!") And while you can focus on cultivating shared erotic experiences... your partner has made it clear that she needs—and intends to have—novel experiences that don't include you. And while her transgressions may mean the boundaries you've set aren't explicit or generous enough, it's likelier that your partner gets off on transgression. Some people do."[/url]
The poly "thing" is interesting. If you believe the internet, there seem to be a certain number of people trying.
Irrelevant AFAIC since I don't buy the argument that "If not many people want to do something it should not be allowed."
Again, as a matter of principle I don't disagree. But as a matter of practice, things that aren't wanted, don't tend to happen. If a large enough number of people decide they want polyamorous marriages, we'll have to grapple with the fairly annoying problem of actually making them work legally, for tax purposes, medical, adoption, divorce, birth certificates etc. etc.. Which is somewhat tricky (not impossible, just tricky) unless you accept that they're thoroughly patriarchal.
Imagine a British MP introducing a private members bill next parliament. The first thing that would happen would be that the 17 people in the UK who want poly marriages would complain that it wasn't quite what they wanted, triggering an argument on Tumblr that would go on for days, and eventually collapse under the weight of [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law ]Poe's Law[/url].
hang on !
... there's a forum on tumblr ? 😀 😯
(what's everybody's username ?)
EDIT: booo, was thinking of grindr or theotherone 🙁
as a matter of principle I don't disagree
Good, so we're both idiots or homophobes and wrong for some reason.
I took it for granted we're talking exclusively about the principle here since I assume nobody in this thread has any power to make every law of the land fair and logical, or time to campaign for that.
(how many poly triads does the average person know?)
I don't know how you'd define "average" in this context,but I know a few if it helps your statistics any.
Whereas I don't know any, so the average number of triads known by the average person (sample size: 2) is (few/2). HTH
"polyamory"
Is that where Mrs Hooley lives?