I could break some sort of record here....
The police have to record the relationship between ‘injured party’ and ‘offender’* for any crime. The choices are;

Partner – living separately
Partner – living together
Brother or sister
Step-brother or sister
Son or daughter
Parent or guardian
Work colleague
Friend
Acquaintance
School Colleague
Strangers
Neighbours
Former partner of intimate relationship
Family – Other
Same sex relationship
Forced Marriage

The only use of the word ‘marriage’ is in the context of it being ‘forced’. It annoys me that every level of bureaucracy in this country is embarrassed to mention that some people, through not fault of their own, despite all the advice and counseling given to them through school, college and via the media insist on such an anachronism as “marriage”. I know it’s such a 20th century idea, but honestly, there are some social scientists who reckon it might not be a bad thing…

I recently had to fill in some HMRC form (which the fuckers have probably scanned to CD and posted to scammers in Nigeria) and it took me most of an hour to strike through every single instance on the form that referred to my ‘partner’ and replace it with ‘wife’.

Why is the moral majority treated as the minority? Lest we offend the minority for their outré choices? Does that make and fucking sense whatsoever?


* Another example of PC gone mad, IMO. People aren’t “victims” of crime anymore – they are simply the “injured party” or “IP”. WTF?!? If they’ve been subjected to an horrific beating at the hands of some pissed up nutter, they are a victim of crime – surely we all understand that? And why aren’t people called ‘convicts’ or ‘criminals’ anymore? When did we agree to call them ‘offenders’, like they’ve committed some technical infraction, rather than smashing up some old ladies house for £15 of tat for their next fix. Cunts.

/ Did somebody say this was supposed to be funny? /
( Linbox has a serious dunk habit, Thu 22 Nov 2007, 23:36, 9 replies)

What's wrong with partner?
So is a monogamous, long term (and possibly now officially recorded) gay relationship qualitatively different to marriage?

I wouldn't say so.

Hence partner.

Also, the phrase moral majority sticks in the throat rather. The whole point of the way our society works is that the *minority* can be protected against the vicissitudes of the *majority* - unless of course you want populist mob rule.

Also, would you please remind me where in school or college we are indoctrinated against marriage?
(jizzools, Fri 23 Nov 2007, 1:30, closed)

I do the same thing on forms.
As for victims - they're only victims if they didn't start it.
(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Fri 23 Nov 2007, 2:24, closed)

To jizools:
By living in a democracy (i.e. our society), we have to accept that a by-product is that a majority can suppress the rights of any minority. For instance: a referendum on gay rights that is won 51% can repress the 49% minority.

I completely agree with what you're saying, I just thought it was an interesting point.

PS. Also I agree, moral majority does stick in the throat somewhat.
( thiswasmyclone, Fri 23 Nov 2007, 2:35, closed)

thiswasmyclone
Ah, I should have clarified it now... The example you give is exactly why we live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy...

For example, it has been the case historically that if polled, a majority of people support the death penalty.

Yet it has been outlawed since the 1960s.
(jizzools, Fri 23 Nov 2007, 8:47, closed)

"By living in a democracy (i.e. our society), we have to accept that a by-product is that a majority can suppress the rights of any minority."
No we DO NOT have to accept that. To accept that would be to accept Zyklon B showers and gas ovens, if the majority so chose.
(Musuko, Fri 23 Nov 2007, 13:17, closed)

Interesting, jizzools - thanks.
So with representative democracy who makes the final decision? It is just a case of the ruling government deciding by an internal/commons vote etc?

Musuko: I get your point, but I'm not saying that I agree with it, just that it is reality. Now, with jizzools new information it seems I was wrong to say so. But - nonetheless, in an everyday-type situation, the majority can and does suppress the minority. Your example is a perfect illustration. Zyklon B showers and gas ovens were used when the Nazis had a (grudging) compliance from the majority of the population. Remember - the Nazis got to power democratically. It was only when the wider international populace got involved in condemnation and action (hence creating an opposing majority) that it came to an end.
( thiswasmyclone, Fri 23 Nov 2007, 14:08, closed)

Pretty much, yes
The representatives decide like that. The idea is that they act in the interest of the people - not as proxies. This means that they may not always act according to the wishes of the people they represent.

This provides some moderation of often dangerously fickle public opinion - indeed, in the UK we go further by having an independent judiciary who can strike down laws, eg. if they violate a principle such as habeas corpus, and by being a bicameral legislature - the House of Lords, by being not directly elected, is even less beholden to public opinion.

These things allow the government to (hopefully) prevent oppression and discrimination against minorities, by protecting their liberties.

Also, Hitler was *not* elected - President Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor, after he was persuaded by leading German businessmen who financially supported the Nazi party.
(jizzools, Fri 23 Nov 2007, 14:23, closed)

Back to the earlier issue...
... I think marriage is great. I'm proud to have stood in front of pretty well everyone I know and sworn as solemnly as possible never to split up with my partner.

Turns out she didn't mean her vows quite as much as I did. Hey ho. Life goes on.

However, when faced with a list of "marital status" boxes to tick, I'm not sure what to pick.

I'm "divorced" and thus also "separated". I don't want to tick those though cos I don't like to define myself by someone else's bad choices. I'm kind of "single" (cos I'm not married), but also not "single" (cos I have a girlfriend). I don't live with her though, so does that relationship not count for anything?

If I marry my girlfriend I'll then (strictly) be able to tick "separated", "divorced", "married" and "living together" all at once. Just got to get "widowed" and I've got the whole set!
( teedyay, Fri 23 Nov 2007, 15:15, closed)

i think
it is very interesting to see such an earnest discussion of such a profound political idea as the "tyranny of the majority" (for that is the name of the idea) on b3ta. And by "interesting", I of course mean "worrying". The four horsemen must be warming up right now.
(Exiled Youth [witty comment], Fri 23 Nov 2007, 16:28, closed)