Two straight men get married... to win rugby tickets

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/12/marriage-two-straight-men-radio-competition-angers-gay-rights-group

Personally, I think that by doing it they are subjecting themselves to a profound indignity (though obviously shouldn't be banned), and it has united both sides of the marriage equality debate. It makes a mockery of the institution of marriage, and both traditionalists and marriage equality advocates have been outspoken in rejecting it.

Interestingly, some traditionalists have blamed the gays for this, as if a straight couple couldn't marry to win a competition, and as if gay people are to blame for what two straight men have chosen to do here.

I'm interested to know from the girls on the forum, if you met a guy and found out he'd done this (and particularly, if he was still married to his friend as it will take them two years to get a divorce), what would you think? Would it make you less likely to get into a relationship with him or marry him?

I have since read the DM article which really underlines the bromance-y aspect, which is in some ways a bit sweet. But I still think it is quite injurious to one's dignity

(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Ducki

I think people need to stop getting so upset and angry over events beyond their control. Who cares what people do to win rugby tickets?

Reply 2

young_guns

I just read the Daily Mail article, and it was interesting in that it came at it from a very different perspective, really underlining the bromance aspect and that one of them said they did it to "take their friendship to the next level", that they'd been best mates for 20 years and that they "spent so much time" with each other planning the wedding and "had to be very vulnerable with each other" and "share a lot of intimate details".

There was more a sense that it had some meaning in terms of their friendship, it wasn't just "Ah we're doing this to win the tickets". Obviously it was for that reason, but the DM article seemed to colour it with some more interesting motivations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2752926/Bromance-Two-men-got-married-NZ-outraged-gay-community-got-hitched-win-tickets-Rugby.html

I hope their curiosity gets the better of them on their honeymoon :wink:

Reply 3

Howbeit

Who cares if it's a 'mockery of marriage'? People need to get less ass hurt about things which have no effect on them whatsoever. Fine, marriage for you is something special that should be respected. So when you get married that's what it will mean to you and that will be special for you. For other people marriage has no such connotations and should be allowed to get married for whatever reasons they want.

Reply 4

young_guns

Original post by Ducki

I think people need to stop getting so upset and angry over events beyond their control.

Is that really an argument? It's like saying, "I can't do anything about the slaughter in Syria so I'm not interested and I don't care". Of course the particular facts are a bit different, but the principle is identical.

I feel slightly differently about it having read the DM article, but I also think its more than fair for someone to make a judgment about such things, either way.

Reply 5

young_guns

Original post by RobertWhite

For other people marriage has no such connotations and should be allowed to get married for whatever reasons they want.

Are you cool with sham immigration marriages?

Reply 6

Howbeit

Original post by young_guns

Are you cool with sham immigration marriages?

There is a difference between getting married for rugby tickets and using marriage as a loophole to provide illegal immigrants citizenship of the UK.

Reply 7

young_guns

Original post by Fizzel

Marriage is a joke anyway. You've got people who have been married 5-6 times in their life (till death do us part), people getting divorced after few days, drive through weddings in Las Vegas

Err, that doesn't happen in this country. The process both of getting married and getting divorced is more involved in England than it is in America, and I support that totally.

and its taken this for you to realise marriage isn't something people take seriously?

I'm not sure if that's a strawman or you genuinely believed I wrote in my OP that I only now realised that some people don't take it seriously.

The point is that this is a form which we haven't seen before, and it is worthy of criticism. That many people don't take marriage seriously is not an argument to simply throw your hands in the air and say we shouldn't care and the whole institution is worthless

Reply 8

young_guns

Original post by RobertWhite

There is a difference between getting married for rugby tickets and using marriage as a loophole to provide illegal immigrants citizenship of the UK.

A sham immigration marriage isn't providing a loophole for illegal immigrants to get citizenship, in fact illegal immigrants marrying a citizen does not provide a guarantee of residency.

I'm talking about where someone is legally in the country but marries a UK/EU citizen primarily or exclusively for the purpose of staying in the country, and often with money changing hands (i.e. an African woman here on a student visa pays me £10,000 to marry me in order to ensure she can stay in the country permanently)

You say that people should be able to get married for whatever reason they want. How is that different? You said, and I quote

So when you get married that's what it will mean to you and that will be special for you. For other people marriage has no such connotations and should be allowed to get married for whatever reasons they want.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 9

Howbeit

Original post by young_guns

A sham immigration marriage isn't providing a loophole for illegal immigrants to get citizenship. I'm talking about where someone is legally in the country but marries a UK/EU citizen primarily or exclusively for the purpose of staying in the country, and often with money changing hands (i.e. an African woman here on a student visa pays me £10,000 to marry me in order to ensure she can stay in the country permanently)

You say that people should be able to get married for whatever reason they want. How is that different?

I disagree. It is a loophole if the purpose of the marriage is solely to gain the other person citizenship of the UK. If the purpose is to keep someone in the UK you love then it's not a sham marriage. How is this not different? One is a major abuse of the system which isn't isn't in the public interest whereas gaining rugby tickets has no effect on anyone.

Reply 10

young_guns

Original post by RobertWhite

But remaining in the UK because your spouse is a UK citizen is not a "loophole", it's a legal fact and fundamentally tied to the estate of marriage.

In order to determine whether a couple (one of whom is a UK citizen and the other is in the country legally but on a visa) got married for love or for immigration purposes, you need to "make windows into men's souls", as Elizabeth I so eloquently expressed it.

So what we're talking about here are two people who have contracted a marriage for purposes contrary to the meaning of marriage; that is, they married for reasons outside the usual ones of love, security, making a life together, etc.

Marrying for rugby tickets and marry for immigration status (where the foreigner is in the country legally) are materially identical in that they are a marriage contracted for purposes other than that for which the institution is intended. I would say that they are differing in matter of degree, but not on the fundamental principle. To lean on legal terminology, while the particular facts may differ, the material facts are the same.

Reply 11

Howbeit

Original post by young_guns

Just because something is legal does not make it not a loophole. I believe sham marriages are a legal loophole, further demonstrated by the fact the government are implementing methods to prevent it. They differ in degree but I do not believe this is the defining factor. Allowing marriage for rugby tickets is in my opinion a constitutional right as all people should be allowed the liberty to do as they wish which has no effect on others. I do not think sham marriage falls into the same category which is fundamentally against the public interest, a principle which I think is the best method of determining whether the purpose of the marriage is appropriate.

Reply 12

DaveSmith99

Who cares? Do you also honestly think that a man and a woman have never got married for silly reasons before?

Reply 13

young_guns

Original post by RobertWhite

Just because something is legal does not make it not a loophole. I believe sham marriages are a legal loophole

What is your definition of a legal loophole? I think it would help to nail down some definitions so we're not talking at cross-purposes.

Allowing marriage for rugby tickets is in my opinion a constitutional right as all people should be allowed the liberty to do as they wish which has no effect on others

I didn't say anywhere in this thread that I thought it should be banned. In fact, I explicitly said I did not think it should be banned.

There is a pretty fundamental distinction between not thinking something should be banned on the one hand, and on the other taking that to mean that it also should not be criticised. Are you of the position that if something shouldn't be banned (like adultery or lying), it is therefore beyond criticism?

By the way, what do you mean "a constitutional right"? Whatever your opinion on the subject generally, it is absolutely clear that there is no such "constitutional right" to "do as you wish as long as it doesn't effect others".

In fact, the degree to which UK citizens could be said to have any rights that are constitutionally entrenched is a very dicey area. Could you elaborate on what you mean by saying it's a constitutional right?

I do not think sham marriage falls into the same category which is fundamentally against the public interest, a principle which I think is the best method of determining whether the purpose of the marriage is appropriate.

I think a sham rugby marriage is against the public interest. It is a complete waste of the courts time when they decide to get divorced, it is an abuse of public resources and an outrageous parasitism on the time of judges and court officials.

Also, given marriage confers financial benefits and protections paid for by the taxpayer, I do believe there are strong public interest and policy arguments to be made that it is not in the best interest of the public for friends to start marrying each other so they can take advantage of welfare and tax benefits that married couples get.

You cannot argue this rugby wedding costs the taxpayer nothing. There will be appreciable costs to the court system when they get divorced, even if it is entirely by consent

Reply 14

maryamzahid

not gonna lie but this article made me laugh.

Reply 15

TenOfThem

Original post by young_guns

I'm interested to know from the girls on the forum, if you met a guy and found out he'd done this (and particularly, if he was still married to his friend as it will take them two years to get a divorce), what would you think? Would it make you less likely to get into a relationship with him or marry him?

I would choose not to be in a relationship with someone who had done this as I do see it as making a mockery of marriage - I would feel the same if it were someone who had married a woman for similar reasons

Reply 16

Clip

This is the obvious danger of gay marriage.

Personally, I'm 100% for equality - especially LGBT rights

However, same sex marriage threatens the undermine the very institution in purports to aspire to.

This is the first indicator of it - two hetero mates getting married.

Obviously, as men there is no requirement for consummation. So it's legit. What next? Why can't two brothers get married? Two sisters? It's the most likely thing as soon as people realise that never mind a couple of rugby tickets - aggregated billions of pounds worth in inheritance tax is at stake.

Then what? Marriage is pointless because everyone is doing it for all the wrong reasons.

Reply 17

young_guns

Original post by TenOfThem

Well said, I completely agree. It raises questions about their judgment, and the degree to which they value the institution.

I mean, how would you feel if you were the girlfriend of one of these guys, and you had been hoping to get married in the future?

Having said all that, after reading the Daily Mail article, I suspect there's a little bit more to these two guys than meets the eye; they have an intense bromance, and I genuinely wonder what would happen on their honeymoon. For some people, all they need is an "excuse" to act on what they've always wanted to do?

Reply 18

young_guns

Original post by Clip

This is the obvious danger of gay marriage.

How is the danger "obvious" any more than men and women marrying for similar reasons, or for TV shows or in Las Vegas?

Personally, I'm 100% for equality - especially LGBT rights

Well, obviously not given what you're saying now.

However, same sex marriage threatens the undermine the very institution in purports to aspire to.

So to prevent the once in a blue moon event where two slightly crazy friends get married, we should prevent millions of gay people from having the opportunity to contract genuine, loving, committed marriages with one another? Are you ****ing serious?

To be honest, it doesn't really sound like you are "100% for equality". If you were serious and consistent, you would demand the abolition of heterosexual marriage to prevent the few marriages a year that occur for reality TV purposes.

What next? Why can't two brothers get married?

Uh, because it's illegal?

Two sisters? It's the most likely thing as soon as people realise that never mind a couple of rugby tickets - aggregated billions of pounds worth in inheritance tax is at stake.

You seem to be a bit slow so I'll help you out. Marrying a family member is illegal, whether gay or straight.

It's a sight to behold the utter hysteria and excitement with which you swooped into the thread saying that "this proves brothers will start marrying brothers and I support gay rights but we have to prevent gay marriage because it's better millions of gay people be denied access to the institution than have a few sham marriages a year, that's totally fair".

Or perhaps even more pertinent, your argument is, "To prevent a completely delusional, made-up situation that cannot happen [viz. brothers marrying brothers], millions of gay people should be denied the right to contract a genuine, loving marriage with one another". By the way, how does two brothers marrying take inheritance tax from the exchequer? Hmm?

Mate, your bigotry is showing. Better tuck it in. Or come out of the bigotry closet altogether and wear your colours out and proud

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 19

anarchism101

For me it's another reason to end statute law marriage; it tangles up the legal and ceremonial aspects of it too much. Instead, just have purely legalistic 'civil partnerships' for both gay and straight people, and let them deal with whatever ceremony they want or don't want for themselves.