|
Tesseraction posted:Some legal rights, sure. The ability to spitefully veto their gender identity is not a right worth defending. The right of a person to not be bound to a marriage where their spouse has changed identity is. The solution for both parties is for easier divorce.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Wasn't there a brief period in Ireland where, due to the way they worded marriage laws, made opposite-sex marriages illegal? That must have been fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Edit: If we're considering it to be a medical illness, are there other 'treatments'? E.g. are anti-depressants a valid alternative to gender reassignment surgery, or is it a pale shadow of a treatment? Gender dysphoria has historically been classified along with the personality disorders due to its range of symptoms and outcome. To avoid absolutely any discussion as to why, or the models this works within, personality disorders are extremely difficult to treat in any context. The improvement in outcome of a patient-led transition is, inside these contexts, exceptional. Being unable to transition gives you a personality disorder that'll probably be untreatable and may kill you, is what to draw from this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:I didn't say it should - I was responding to your statement that "Surely you love the person you married, and it shouldn't matter if they start taking hormone pills." Right, but the hormone pills doesn't make your wife grow a big swinging dick. It might change their physiology slightly but it's primarily an anti-depressant. Not all trans men or women undergo major corrective surgery and certainly no immediately after coming to terms with their gender identity. If you can love a depressed spouse there's no major difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Wasn't there a brief period in Ireland where, due to the way they worded marriage laws, made opposite-sex marriages illegal? It's still illegal in Northern Ireland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The right of a person to not be bound to a marriage where their spouse has changed identity is. Which is why I said that no-fault divorce should be legal. I take issue with the right to veto at all, let alone for a 2-5 year period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
I'd assume, and I may be slightly unfair here UKMT, that anyone in UKMT who is married is probably going to have to deal with a depressed spouse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Do courses in the US vary by subject? I could imagine that America's hatred of Liberal Arts would lead to those courses being cheaper. I know that Harvard Law will put you about a half-mil in debt (one of our D&D regs is exactly this). At state schools worth mentioning here it's mostly the same tuition for anyone at the university and if it isn't then tuition will be differentiated by which school of the university you're in, so like someone in the college of business paying different tuition from someone in the college of arts. But at least in the University of Minnesota and University of Wisconsin systems, it was the same tuition for all undergrads. My understanding is that the difference usually comes from fees they tack on that every student is obligated to pay, Building fees, technology fees, lab fees, gym fees. So that everyone is subsidizing the sports majors, or the STEM majors, or whatever through fees.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Which is why I said that no-fault divorce should be legal. I take issue with the right to veto at all, let alone for a 2-5 year period. Then we simply disagree on this. If you go into marriage without expecting there to be constraints on your rights and behaviour as a result then you didn't do your research.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Green Wing posted:Fun fact: we were very close to the marriage (same-sex couples) act having, when it was a bill, a clause in it which would have done just that (the first bit, not the banning marriage bit). The clause was voted on in the public bill committee, and the division was 7 Ayes, 7 Noes. The Chair was bound by precedent to cast his deciding vote with the Noes and leave the bill unamended. Despite what the past years have taught me about hope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I'd assume, and I may be slightly unfair here UKMT, that anyone in UKMT who is married is probably going to have to deal with a depressed spouse. funnily enough, i'm guessing everyone here with an opinion on the marriage laws isn't actually married
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Right, but the hormone pills doesn't make your wife grow a big swinging dick. gently caress, I'm cancelling my order.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Then we simply disagree on this. If you go into marriage without expecting there to be constraints on your rights and behaviour as a result then you didn't do your research. Some constraints. Of course there should be a relationship of trust and mutual respect but that doesn't mean that you need your spouse's permission to solve a medical condition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Some constraints. Of course there should be a relationship of trust and mutual respect but that doesn't mean that you need your spouse's permission to solve a medical condition. When it affects the nature of the marriage that both parties legally agreed to then yes, it should.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:funnily enough, i'm guessing everyone here with an opinion on the marriage laws isn't actually married I'm divorced, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:When it affects the nature of the marriage that both parties legally agreed to then yes, it should. I'm not sure it making your dick go soft is really grounds for interfering with the medical treatment of your partner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Then we simply disagree on this. If you go into marriage without expecting there to be constraints on your rights and behaviour as a result then you didn't do your research. We're talking about how the law should be changed, not what it is right now
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Here's a map of signatures on the petition "Allow trans people to self-define their own gender" in England. An easy mistake to make, but Edinburgh East isn't in England.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Kinda surprised how poorly the GLBT petition is doing - 40,000 signatures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:When it affects the nature of the marriage that both parties legally agreed to then yes, it should. Then let it anull the marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:When it affects the nature of the marriage that both parties legally agreed to then yes, it should. interesting that flaps here feels entitled to his wifes' consent to medical treatment over contract minutae
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:interesting that flaps here feels entitled to his wifes' consent to medical treatment over contract minutae Knowing that your spouse will be have a say in your medical treatment shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Tesseraction posted:Then let it anull the marriage. Sounds reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Knowing that your spouse will be have a say in your medical treatment shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Absolutely. Overruling your spouse might be objectionable, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:interesting that flaps here feels entitled to his wifes' consent  Spangly A posted:to medical treatment oh phew
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Then let it anull the marriage. This looks a bit like the suggestion way back in my original post - do you think that's the solution that works least badly for all parties?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not sure it making your dick go soft is really grounds for interfering with the medical treatment of your partner. I feel like this kind of thing is sort of glossing over how big of a deal this can be for both people, and how difficult it can be for someone in a marriage to accept big changes in the person they married Which is exactly why they shouldn't be given a big 'gently caress you' button to press. Even a perfectly rational person shouldn't have that kind of power over their partner, in a difficult and emotionally charged situation it's even worse. It's not like it even makes the issue go away, in the end it's more spiteful than anything
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Absolutely. Overruling your spouse might be objectionable, though. I might find it objectionable, but then so might divorcees when presented with a maintenance bill. Getting married has consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Then we simply disagree on this. If you go into marriage without expecting there to be constraints on your rights and behavior as a result then you didn't do your research. A medical condition is not a behavior. That's the point. If i have to have diabetes treatment, my partner should have the right to say "No, you can't, cause i'm your legal partner". Yes, easier Divorce is a good thing, but removing this veto is needed because it is a horrible piece of legislation. It removes definition of self from the person, and to another. And from what it sounds like, it is being used out of spite, which is another reason to be shot of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
ban marriage imo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qthNLwFHiB4
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Sounds reasonable. *bangs gavel* Aaaaand that's a wrap everyone. Now, onto the new discussion: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-10476433.html Jeremy Corbyn's supporters are more working class than other candidates' Liz Kendall's tend to be wealthy. Anyone else surprised? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
StoicFnord posted:A medical condition is not a behavior. That's the point. If i have to have diabetes treatment, my partner should have the right to say "No, you can't, cause i'm your legal partner". But it is a right. Get a divorce.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Prince John posted:This looks a bit like the suggestion way back in my original post - do you think that's the solution that works least badly for all parties? Yes. My issue is your steadfast dedication to the veto.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I might find it objectionable, but then so might divorcees when presented with a maintenance bill. So does the maintenance bill or the life-affecting medical disorder bother you more here? I mean you're making a fairly good argument for the eradication of the legal concept of marriage otherwise
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Here's a map of signatures on the petition "Allow trans people to self-define their own gender" in England. That's really interesting; is there a map showing the whole UK? The "I wonder" sounds rhetorical, but I'm at a loss to think of any connections besides "they all seem like nice places to live" and "have large student/university populations [except Edinburgh East, and possibly Hove and Lewisham]"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:So does the maintenance bill or the life-affecting medical disorder bother you more here? What bothers me is people expecting there to be no consequences of getting married. It's simple to not endure the consequences of marriage: don't get married.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:I feel like this kind of thing is sort of glossing over how big of a deal this can be for both people, and how difficult it can be for someone in a marriage to accept big changes in the person they married I have limited sympathy for people who are not willing to invest the time into their significant other to figure out that they're not a significantly different person, regardless of what they look like. And I have even less sympathy for those unwilling to extend support to their partners if they were faced with something as difficult as transitioning. And I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who would like a way to legally impair their partners after the fact from completing their transition, just to be a dickhead. Many things are difficult, I expect people to deal with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
I hope Corbs buys a Pinarello Dogma with all that money and rides it everyday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:But it is a right. Get a divorce. You get a divorce. It doesn't mean that there should be a prevention of the GRC. I see no reason why marital status has any bearing on GRC at all. The right to gently caress up someone who has to deal with the very real issues they face in sorting out a GRC is not a right at all. Its straight up crap and should be gotten rid of and I cannot see why this even exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Wait, spouses in the UK can veto people getting necessary treatment?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
In other news, http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jan/14/mp-landlords-number-risen-quarter-last-parliament-housing-bill 40% of Tory MPs are landlords, including Cameron and Osborne. Not really a surprise, but holy gently caress conflict of interest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:05
|
|