Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Birchington toronto353
    I have moved some of the less relevant posts to the Bar. Any posts that cause offence should be flagged - the mods will then deal with them as they see fit.

    It's also a good opportunity to remind people to keep Bill discussions on topic and relevant - any off-topic chat should take place in the Bar.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    The first part of your essay demonstrates your bigotry and hatred of religion, although I don't expect you to be religious I would advise you to refrain from insults and do not dare make ludicrous accusations such as these.Your history lesson is appreciated but irrelevant. I think however you know what I mean by man and woman or if you like male and female. I'm not arguing in terms of the change of definition of a word but the change of definition of marriage that should never change and remain defined as a union between a man and a woman.No, I don't get your argument at all in the last paragraph, it makes no sense and in no way does my suggestion abolish laws. Your trickery and deceit aren't going to work here. All of your points are based on a flawed logic that if I oppose one thing I must oppose another. It is a completely ridiculous logic
    Wait, so now analysing something makes you a hater, interesting assertion there since it means I hate pretty much everything, including myself, my interests, and my studies.And you yourself argued that marriage should not be "redefined" because we never held a referendum on it, and thus surely anything else we are told to do or we define that has not gone to referendum also is meaningless, including almost every single piece of legislation ever, oh, and I guess your definition of marriage too.I suggest you get some lessons from some of the other kippers about debating, because merely making an assertion over and over does not make that assertion true, which is what you are doing and then dismissing any argument against it with a simple "nuh, yoo rong". You have consistently stated the definition of marriage, yet you have not yet put forwards anything to support this position that does not become hypocrisy.Now, which faith do you want marriage according to, they'll all define it very different to you?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I can't support this on the ground of s4. However, there are a few suggestions I'd make nevertheless:

    1) Amend s2(2) to allow for a more purposive construction (I suggest 'minimal' assets) - precise numeric values ought to be avoided on the ground that they allow for very literal interpretations (for instance, a pre-nup that allocates £1 in assets to one of the parties).
    2) I think that requirements of witnesses to a pre-nup should be included, as it's a situation where emotional duress can be extreme and thus the principle of freedom of contract not complied with.
    3) The correct way of referring to the MCA provisions is e.g. s1(2)(a).
    4) It's still 'adultery', not 'adulatory'.
    The problem with an interpretive value is that under the current legislation courts have been quite happy to rape the (usually male) richer spouse. This is an inequality that i wish to address.

    I don't see the need for this. It is a mutually agreed contract between two parties even if emotion may be involved.

    Thanks.

    Rats, forgot to amend 3.2.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    why are divorce fee's rising so much?

    I still think that prenup should be advisory only because things change.

    still don't like the maintenance stuff.
    I wanted it to provide a deterrent to divorce.

    I can't move on those two.

    Let's potentially compromise. Are there any amendments that can get an abstain from you and your Green comrades.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I wanted it to provide a deterrent to divorce.

    I can't move on those two.

    Let's potentially compromise. Are there any amendments that can get an abstain from you and your Green comrades.
    I don't think that that is a good idea. If you want to make divorce hard make marriage more expensive don't stop people getting a divorce.

    You would have to move on at least one of those two to get an abstain from me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    I don't think that that is a good idea. If you want to make divorce hard make marriage more expensive don't stop people getting a divorce.
    That won't stop people from divorcing, it will stop poor people getting married.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I don't think that that is a good idea. If you want to make divorce hard make marriage more expensive don't stop people getting a divorce.

    You would have to move on at least one of those two to get an abstain from me.
    Marriage costs thousands of pounds and yet many people get divorced, the problem is not that people enter into a marriage wrongly but that they lack the resolve of older generations and bailout. Apparently over 605 of divorce is requested by women too so feminism may have an impact here.

    Unfortunately I've tried to be reasonable and inform people of what i will move on and what i won't (a number of amendments for this reading and vote have been/will be made) however the core of the bill's ethos is not something i am willing to sacrifice.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    That won't stop people from divorcing, it will stop poor people getting married.
    And he's preventing poor people from getting divorced. If you make marriage more of an investment people are more likely to try and make it work. The only other option woudl be state sponsored marriage counselling before divorce but that is very dodgy.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Marriage costs thousands of pounds and yet many people get divorced, the problem is not that people enter into a marriage wrongly but that they lack the resolve of older generations and bailout. Apparently over 605 of divorce is requested by women too so feminism may have an impact here.

    Unfortunately I've tried to be reasonable and inform people of what i will move on and what i won't (a number of amendments for this reading and vote have been/will be made) however the core of the bill's ethos is not something i am willing to sacrifice.
    Are you saying that woman empowerment is bad? Why is divorce bad anyway?

    Then I doubt that this will pass.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    And he's preventing poor people from getting divorced. If you make marriage more of an investment people are more likely to try and make it work. The only other option woudl be state sponsored marriage counselling before divorce but that is very dodgy.
    Is increasing the cost of maintaining a marriage not making it more of a (financial) investment?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    And he's preventing poor people from getting divorced. If you make marriage more of an investment people are more likely to try and make it work. The only other option woudl be state sponsored marriage counselling before divorce but that is very dodgy.
    If people want to get divorced then that's their prerogative, making it harder for them will do nothing but increase the number of unhappy marriages, so I'm against this bill.

    If you want to make marriages work then make divorce easier and make prenups mandatory, don't make divorces more expensive and don't make marriages more expensive.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Are you saying that woman empowerment is bad? Why is divorce bad anyway?

    Then I doubt that this will pass.
    Perhaps feminism has nothing to do with empowerment of women now and is actually more about female supremecy, you know, like they accuse MRAs as being, whether the MRA is being satirical or not.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Are you saying that woman empowerment is bad? Why is divorce bad anyway?

    Then I doubt that this will pass.
    Overall no, i agree with some feminist concepts and on net would probably say that it's a positive. That said, i find it alarming that some feminists seem to believe that not a single negative has resulted from increased female empowerment (high divorce rates being one).
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    If people want to get divorced then that's their prerogative, making it harder for them will do nothing but increase the number of unhappy marriages, so I'm against this bill.

    If you want to make marriages work then make divorce easier and make prenups mandatory, don't make divorces more expensive and don't make marriages more expensive.
    Good.

    I don't like prenups. Personally I would make them illegal but I don't care enough to do that.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Perhaps feminism has nothing to do with empowerment of women now and is actually more about female supremecy, you know, like they accuse MRAs as being, whether the MRA is being satirical or not.
    Feminism is about equality, society still isn't equal.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Overall no, i agree with some feminist concepts and on net would probably say that it's a positive. That said, i find it alarming that some feminists seem to believe that not a single negative has resulted from increased female empowerment (high divorce rates being one).
    Why is divorce bad? Surely it frees people up to re-marry do you should like it as it promotes economic growth?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Good.

    I don't like prenups. Personally I would make them illegal but I don't care enough to do that.
    I don't like prenups either, what I said was merely an example of going about what this bill is attempting to achieve.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    If people want to get divorced then that's their prerogative, making it harder for them will do nothing but increase the number of unhappy marriages, so I'm against this bill.

    If you want to make marriages work then make divorce easier and make prenups mandatory, don't make divorces more expensive and don't make marriages more expensive.
    Are the older generations who stayed married less happy or did they simply ride out the unhappy period? Indeed, do you not agree that many divorced people are unhappy. Is there a particular measure you don't like (the only thing that explicitly increases the cost is the divorce charge on which i shall be consulting my colleagues).

    There was some support for mandatory prenups however i and others felt that it breaches the principal of individual liberty.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Are the older generations who stayed married less happy or did they simply ride out the unhappy period? Indeed, do you not agree that many divorced people are unhappy. Is there a particular measure you don't like (the only thing that explicitly increases the cost is the divorce charge on which i shall be consulting my colleagues).

    There was some support for mandatory prenups however i and others felt that it breaches the principal of individual liberty.
    They may have rode out the unhappy periods, and perhaps that's why they're still together. Many divorced people are unhappy too, and it's easy to see why devoting your life for the wrong person would make you unhappy.

    I believe that the state interfering in marriages in this fashion is itself a breach of individual liberty, which is down to my own ideology, and I tend to vote on practical implications rather than ideological ones. A removal of the divorce charge however would change my vote from a Nay to an abstain. However, I can't vote for something that makes divorce harder than it already is.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Why is divorce bad? Surely it frees people up to re-marry do you should like it as it promotes economic growth?
    The consequences for children. The increased demand for housing (more single people rather than co-habitation - less disposable income via lower economies of scale). Increased depression potentially. The devaluation of marriage. The simple moral argument that pair bonding and the symbolism of commitment from marriage should be maintained.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    My knowledge of this matter isn't great, so this is not a criticism, but how does a time-limit on the creation of an appeal strengthen the institution of marriage? I suppose it is not meant in the commonest way I've seen it, which is the validity and phenomenon of marriage in a cultural context, like a religious, or traditional one.

    I'm not overly concerned with the religious context (i'm atheist) but i do believe divorce to be broadly damaging to society. Putting a limit on the appeal period (i wanted it shorter but my colleague informed me that 6 years is a standard period in law) slightly increases the incentive not to divorce because you can't try bag the spouses lottery winnings in a decade as has happened. Not only that, but it's a matter of social justice, it's unfair that long after divorce one partner should live in fear of further assets being taken from them.

    Can you give an example to what a prenuptial agreement might be? (I know prenuptial means before marriage but I find it hard to apply it, or give good examples to it.)(It'd kinda help with applying the "an exception if no provision for children under 16..." part, sorry.)

    So your a really smart guy who's planning to start an app firm and you marry a lovely girl who's a bit slow. Your wealth is similar right now but you fear that if you become successful and suffer divorce that she will be entitled to around half the assets that you have largely gained on your back. In this case (or where one partner is already richer than the other) it is prudent to acknowledge that you may be one of the ~50% of couples that divorces and protect yourself accordingly stating that her maximum entitlement will be half the value of the house or a fixed settlement of £200k lets say.

    Since both parties must agree, one imagines that a happy negotiation will take place coming to a fair value.


    Should there be a maximum % financial settlements can be reduced by for adultery or desertion?

    I don't think that's required.

    Curious, currently, is there at all sexism where maintenance orders are due? (I'm not asking for studies though, so I'll take what it said as a large pinch of salt. It just seems like one of those things sexism is likely to happen in. )

    Well typically the female is the poorer spouse so as things stand, it is usually the male being bent over. An awful inequality.

    16 (personally) seems too low; perhaps it should be risen to "under 18s" (so inc. 16 and 17 years old.)
    genetic not necessary there; progeny kind of includes that in its definition.

    I've slightly pre-empted the fact that the age of suffrage and other stuff has always fallen to 16 after the prior two great repeals.
    Right, will amend 4.2.


    (Sorry, I have never really delved into this topic, but) do you mean every successful year in a marriage increases the price for a divorce? Is there a maximum % the divorce charge can rise by in a year, as well? I say maximum % because it seems a bit vague, and open for exploitation.

    Right now the divorce charge is £410 and will rise over time to cover the cost of administration via higher wages. This just sets a minimum to act as a disincentive to divorce. Since central government sets the rate (or the department of justice) it's highly unlikely they'd ever try make you pay through the nose so i don't think a maximum is required.

    Semantics.
    "opposite-sex" and "same-sex" marriages, otherwise it implies a specific sexual orientation for the constituents for the marriage.
    (Which reminds me, a proposal should be made for the dissolution of civil partnerships. I might do that one myself.)

    Also "same-sex couples", the added dash, a(n albeit declining) British thing.

    Hetero and homo mean the same to the above do they not?

    May I ask why it only extends to England? Is it just that you believe Wales should come to this decision itself or something? (Just seems an uncommon thing to do.)

    It will be extended to Wales for vote.

    May I also ask why this requires royal assent? (Or is it just the proceeding of things?)

    Happens with every bill, it's just the ceremonial process of our democracy.

    Are prenuptial agreements common?

    Not in the UK because our courts (presumably due to existing law) do not respect them as binding to the point that US courts do.
    Also please address questions to the author/party rather than the speaker.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 11, 2015
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.