Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    I just mean in part 6.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't see what the problem would be, bar needing to add extra legislation to section 6 if extending over the whole UK.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I would support implementing a UK-wide law to supersede devolution, but I can only find marriage as a devolved issue in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
    That would cause terrible issues with the devolved regions, better just stick to England, and recommend that the other nations follow suit.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I find the concept of prenuptual agreements distasteful, except perhaps to provide for children, be they adopted, from a previous relationship, or of the couple.

    Civil partnerships should be included in any Bill, even though there may be very few entered into in future now that same-sex couples can marry.

    If we don't think marriage should be a devolved issue any more, then the law ought to be changed by a separate bill.

    Finally, I agree with the time limit.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    I find the concept of prenuptual agreements distasteful, except perhaps to provide for children, be they adopted, from a previous relationship, or of the couple.

    Civil partnerships should be included in any Bill, even though there may be very few entered into in future now that same-sex couples can marry.

    If we don't think marriage should be a devolved issue any more, then the law ought to be changed by a separate bill.

    Finally, I agree with the time limit.
    Agreed

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    That would cause terrible issues with the devolved regions, better just stick to England, and recommend that the other nations follow suit.
    I'll probably extend this to Wales but I'm thinking that a separate bill should take power from Scotland and NI if that's what people want. Especially since It may compromise this bill given that the left especially have previously defended devolution in division.

    (Original post by barnetlad)
    I find the concept of prenuptual agreements distasteful, except perhaps to provide for children, be they adopted, from a previous relationship, or of the couple.

    Civil partnerships should be included in any Bill, even though there may be very few entered into in future now that same-sex couples can marry.

    If we don't think marriage should be a devolved issue any more, then the law ought to be changed by a separate bill.

    Finally, I agree with the time limit.
    Civil partnerships are included by virtue of the word homosexual but I'll clarify in the notes.

    I won't move on prenuptial agreements.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Civil partnerships are included by virtue of the word homosexual but I'll clarify in the notes.

    I won't move on prenuptial agreements.
    OK
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Marriage is devolved I believe. The Scots had gay marriage before we did.
    I don't recognize this so called "gay" marriage. A marriage is between a man and woman. I don't care what the law says. No one gets to change the definition!!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I don't recognize this so called "gay" marriage. A marriage is between a man and woman. I don't care what the law says. No one gets to change the definition!!
    The law doesn't get to change the definition of a legal entity? That's rather novel.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The law doesn't get to change the definition of a legal entity? That's rather novel.
    Marriage isn't simply defined by the law, it's an ancient institution that predates recorded history and originated thousands of years ago. No one, be it the gays or the people who believe in bestiality gets to change the definition.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Marriage isn't simply defined by the law, it's an ancient institution that predates recorded history and originated thousands of years ago. No one, be it the gays or the people who believe in bestiality gets to change the definition.
    If it is a societal construct then surely society gets to define it, are you suggesting that interracial marriage should be criminalised again? Or how about that we should remove any age requirement?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If it is a societal construct then surely society gets to define it, are you suggesting that interracial marriage should be criminalised again? Or how about that we should remove any age requirement?
    Even interracial marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. The age requirement isn't too important as it's different in different countries. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman period. No one, not the gays, nor the people who believe in bestiality gets to change the definition.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Even interracial marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. The age requirement isn't too important as it's different in different countries. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman period. No one, not the gays, nor the people who believe in bestiality gets to change the definition.
    So you disagree with same sex marriage, so we cannot redefine marriage to include it, but you were born after interracial marriage, and after age restrictions were imposed, therefore those changes are okay. The definition of societal constructs are defined by the society. Why I'd is that polygamy is frowned upon in the western world but is accepted in the Arab world? Our societies are different, thus we define marriage differently. Why odd it that we now see interracial marriage add acceptable and CHANGED THE DEFINITION to accommodate it when we didn't before? Society changed. Why do we now largely accept same sex marriage? Because society has changed.

    To suggest that a societal construct should be defined according to society millennia ago, and not today is patently absurd.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you disagree with same sex marriage, so we cannot redefine marriage to include it, but you were born after interracial marriage, and after age restrictions were imposed, therefore those changes are okay. The definition of societal constructs are defined by the society. Why I'd is that polygamy is frowned upon in the western world but is accepted in the Arab world? Our societies are different, thus we define marriage differently. Why odd it that we now see interracial marriage add acceptable and CHANGED THE DEFINITION to accommodate it when we didn't before? Society changed. Why do we now largely accept same sex marriage? Because society has changed.

    To suggest that a societal construct should be defined according to society millennia ago, and not today is patently absurd.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Even polygamy in the arab world is defined between a man and a woman as the one man is married to each woman. Marriage has always been defined this way for thousand of years and if you wish to bend over for gay media propaganda go ahead. Marriage is between a man and a woman full stop. Just because homosexuals are tolerated doesn't mean they get to change the definition of marriage, nor do the people who believe in bestiality get to change the definition. Homosexuals want to enforce this change anyway they can but they will not succeed. A marriage has always been for thousands of years between a man and a woman. No one gets to change the definition period.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you disagree with same sex marriage, so we cannot redefine marriage to include it, but you were born after interracial marriage, and after age restrictions were imposed, therefore those changes are okay. The definition of societal constructs are defined by the society. Why I'd is that polygamy is frowned upon in the western world but is accepted in the Arab world? Our societies are different, thus we define marriage differently. Why odd it that we now see interracial marriage add acceptable and CHANGED THE DEFINITION to accommodate it when we didn't before? Society changed. Why do we now largely accept same sex marriage? Because society has changed.


    To suggest that a societal construct should be defined according to society millennia ago, and not today is patently absurd.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Even interracial marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. The age requirement isn't too important as it's different in different countries. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman period. No one, not the gays, nor the people who believe in bestiality gets to change the definition.
    I reckon that gay marriages have been performed since marriage itself came about. Marriage originally was a simple trade, I give you some animals and you give me your son/daughter, that is what marriage was, nothing to do really with the union between a man and a woman. The earliest signs of gay marriage is probably the marriage of Serge and Bacchus in 100 A.D. so anyone that tries to bring the "tradition" argument to play needs to wake the **** up. JD, brilliant.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Even polygamy in the arab world is defined between a man and a woman as the one man is married to each woman. Marriage has always been defined this way for thousand of years and if you wish to bend over for gay media propaganda go ahead. Marriage is between a man and a woman full stop. Just because homosexuals are tolerated doesn't mean they get to change the definition of marriage, nor do the people who believe in bestiality get to change the definition. Homosexuals want to enforce this change anyway they can. A marriage has always been for thousands of years between a man and a woman. No one gets to change the definition period.
    You are still failing to explain why it is acceptable to redefine marriage to either allow or disallow polygamy, to introduce or change age restrictions, to abolish forced marriage, to allow interracial marraige, these are all changes to the definition of marriage, and therefore you should be opposed to those too, instead you have bent over to people who want to marry those from other races; you have bent over to those who want to end polygamy; you have bent over to those who wish to enforce age restrictions on marriage; you have bent over to those who want to end forced marriage.

    You don't want marriage redefining compared to how it was millennia ago, then stop just being a homophobe, be a racist too, support child sex too, support polygamy too. Oh, I forgot, you oppose it not because you care about the definition of marriage, you oppose it because you hate homosexuals.

    And it really does not matter one bit whether you support gay marriage or not, there is this thing called the law, if you don't want to have to acknowledge gay marriage, there are plenty of backwards countries for you to emigrate to.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Even polygamy in the arab world is defined between a man and a woman as the one man is married to each woman. Marriage has always been defined this way for thousand of years and if you wish to bend over for gay media propaganda go ahead. Marriage is between a man and a woman full stop. Just because homosexuals are tolerated doesn't mean they get to change the definition of marriage, nor do the people who believe in bestiality get to change the definition. Homosexuals want to enforce this change anyway they can but they will not succeed. A marriage has always been for thousands of years between a man and a woman. No one gets to change the definition period.
    You don't seem to understand how languages work.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I reckon that gay marriages have been performed since marriage itself came about. Marriage originally was a simple trade, I give you some animals and you give me your son/daughter, that is what marriage was, nothing to do really with the union between a man and a woman. The earliest signs of gay marriage is probably the marriage of Serge and Bacchus in 100 A.D. so anyone that tries to bring the "tradition" argument to play needs to wake the **** up. JD, brilliant.
    You are an imbecile. You are also an insult to all of your ancestors. Keep believing what the gay propaganda media want you to believe. Marriage has always been defined between a man and a woman. Homosexuality may have existed in the past but it was never defined as a marriage.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    You are an imbecile. You are also an insult to all of your ancestors. Keep believing what the gay propaganda media want you to believe. Marriage has always been defined between a man and a woman. Homosexuality may have existed in the past but it was never defined as a marriage.
    Rather than call me an imbecile why don't you do some research

    This'll get you started.
    https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourc...0and%20bacchus

    Jammy Duel is absolutely right in what he says, if you want the original meaning of marriage preserved then why don't you believe in it being a mere trade agreement anymore?
 
 
 
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
Do you like carrot cake?

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.