Homosexuals and marriage.

If the majority within that state voted yes on legalizing it, yes. That rarely happens, however, and many states here have DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act), which Obama is attempting to overturn.

 

i feel like iamnotaman is one of those people who it is impossible to win an argument against, because every time you make a valid point against him he covers his ears and starts shouting "LALALALALALALALALA."

female game-playing. i'm jealous of you guys in a way.

 

Odon, you'd need to trawl thro the pre-legislation consultation shit... from the beginning of time. Early on it was religion. Then it was public policy issues too - of the sort I mentioned.

Ofcourse its exactly my point. A man and a woman *can* have kids. And if they cant, its not their fault. I mention it earlier.

All male female couples are worthy of marriage , apart from those on long term prison stretches etc. If you dont like my defintion, then you dont like Britain's Judeo Christian traditions, and you dont like the ancient rights and principles our social, legal and political system is based upon. Do some research. You might not like the argument. But it is what marriage is.

If you understand how laws are created, you'll understand that a government doesnt have the power to pass certain laws eg Westminster cant say "Scotland can fuck off and become separate".

Its like saying the word "father" is "male, female or a gerbil". Ofcourse "father" is male, as is any legislation relating to it. No matter what a vote in Parliament says.

The appropriate action is to have a "Cohabitation Act". Just like yu cant have a "Female Fathers Act".

Otherwise its silly on public policy grounds. And impossible on legal grounds, due to the way our system is.

 

I am a little unclear what you mean by female game-playing. The only thing that springs to mind is drag. If that is to what you are referring, I have certainly had my fun.

 

I knew this pic would cum in handy someday.. :love:

 

it was a reference to the convoluted system women have come up with as far as dating. where they make almost imperceptible hints that the guy is expected to pick up on and react accordingly to, while pretending to not care about anything or be interested in the woman, but occasionally he has to show just a little bit of interest, but only at the right moment, etc. it's commonly referred to as a game, particularly by women. i'm surprised if you haven't heard about this.

completely off topic anyway.

 

Ok well go away and look at how the laws on marriage in Britain actually developed. And how we arrived at a defintion of marriage. I actually did this shit on how laws exist... as a lawyer.

Then come back and tell me why we should have a "Female Adult Baby Fathers Act" and redefine the word "father".

If gays want xyz, then the appropriate course of action is simple... go for Cohabitees Act. Lots of people wouldn't have a problem with it.
NOT to try and redefine words which cant be redefined.
Its like passing a law to call red traffic lights green.

 

I'm just wondering what song he's singing in the other pic...

 

I see what you mean, though I have never seen it in action. The girls in high school and the women I have met in my life were more mature than that. Besides, I believe the game is more an over=dramatization due to television rather than based on a majority reality.

 

Who says so?

With regards to marriage, no I don't like our Judeo Christian traditions.
This bill, as far as I am aware, doesn't seek to change them.
What we are talking about is what the law does and does not allow.
If you can find in our current marriage law all of the bizarre caveats you speak of, for e.g: A benefit to society. Older people also get married. But for different reasons. So the State supports it as a "consolation" type thing - fair enough.
I have a feeling you will struggle to find anything to support it under current UK marriage legislation.
I think you mentioned 'originally' - why do you say 'originally'?

 

1st bit, well ok. Certain other groups were excluded. Chronically mentally disabled, children, and same sexes...

Ofcourse the bill is a gigantic change from J-C traditions. Infact, it looks like it might even try and rewrite religions, which is jawdroppingly bizarre.
Its even forcing registry clerks (maybe churches?) to go AGAINST their religious vows and views.

I havent read the latest statutory consultation stuff. But I know the historical stuff supports my claim. Unfortunately I cant c and p to here.

Its one thing to say "add a Cohabs Act" (which I disagree with anyway).
But you simply cant redefine words that have existed for millenia.
For instance, we have ancient rights, things like habeus corpus, which relate to our freedom. And Parliament cant overrule these. So Parliament cant say "well actually freedom doesn't relate to being locked up, it relates to wearing red trousers".

And so its the same with trying to define marriage as a "same sex" agrement.

"Originally" - cant find it. What I mean is, marraige was defined many centuries ago. Its so clear cut, no-one's ever seen the need to define it in recent years. Because you dont redefine words like "father" etc.
Everyone knows what was meant, and what they are.

What was the problem with homosexuals asking for a Cohabitation Act instead? Its exactly like saying "father is mother". Legally, the Constitution doesn't allow these redefinitons. Altho I suspect the whole thing will be "fudged".

PS for some reason, I cant add another other options? Is the poll locked?
I wanted to add pt 1...

 

Don't be so melodramatic

No it isn't. Have you not read about the opt out/in and the triple lock?

Perhaps so. We are not talking about ancient history, though.

I don't think so either.
Isn't that why we have 'spouse'.
Is a 'spouse' a male or female, legally speaking?
Wasn't it the case a 'wife' had certain marriage rights and a 'husband' had certain marriage rights, and they were not the same.
Now a 'spouse' has the same rights, right?

Why do you think the CoE is exempt, and other religions have 'safeguards'.
Religion doesn't have the soul right of the word 'marriage' as much as it thinks it does.
Also not all religions/churches want to be bound by other religious dogma, and want to be able to perform same sex marriages.

What you seem to be saying is the law has chopped and changed over the years and that's perfectly ok.
But marriage is only between a man and a woman.
It does seem to boil down to a word rather than any current legalities.
I think you are wrapping yourself in knots trying to argue religion and the law entwined - they are not the same thing anymore.

I can't remember how it works.

 

Marriage should be about love, not everybody gets married with the intentions of having children, or for monetary benefits.

Society needs kids to be looked after, way too many out there have no one, no family to love them, no life ahead, society needs to help them before bringing more and more children into this mess. Just because a child has a female and male parent is no benefit to society, think how many dysfunctional families exist, people that have children without intention too and end up not actually giving a crap, yet those who truly truly want and deserve children are denied that chance because of their sexuality.

Society benefits from nothing anyway, there is no such thing as society. We like to think there is, you know, all working towards the greater good - lol, as if.

I think gay marriage, and adoption, should be completely legal just like any other marriage and adoption. I couldn't care less if god said no to homosexuality, if god even existed he would have flooded us lot already, we are beyond corrupt (and no, that is nothing to do with homosexuality).

There are too many kids with no homes and no families, and there are too many homosexual couples that want nothing more than a child to love and are willing to give children a chance.

Saying no to gay marriage, is denying others the happiness they deserve.

 

Can people watch this that are not in the UK?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-21340781

 

Well it won't be legal where I live for a loooong time, so I don't really care for now.

 

It is legal here. I fully support the right of any two consenting adults to marry if that is what they wish to do.

If they choose to be in a committed relationship instead of marriage I support the right to equivalent rights to spousal.

 

I didn't see the option where the state is supposed to have no involvement at all in any marriage.

Let private prenup contracts and their voiding be resolved among privately hired lawyers, let ceremonies be private or in the confines of a church, on the dime of the interested parties.

I don't see why a bureaucratic clusterfuck paid for by my tax money should figure in the private lives of any individual whatsoever.

 

How dare anyone think they can tell me what to do with my life I will love whom ever the fuck I want and marry what ever the fuck I want. If someone was so great that I wanted to marry them and spend the rest of my life with them, who the hell does anyone think they are to tell me I can't !

 

Obviously you can be married and nobody can say otherwise. Who is stopping you? Like Cherea said (Ok I paraphrase): 'go sort all that shit out yourself'.
It's after your death there might be a problem.