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

B876 - Divorce Bill 2015 (Second Reading) watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    aye
    I am in favour of this, even if it could be improved slightly.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    There is nothing wrong with the word homophobe....

    The homosexual cause isn't to "destroy the institution of marriage".

    While he may have been an idiot, he was a great musician (a crap guitarist though) and came up with some brilliant quotes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    We all know your manager's a nonce, and scum doesn't even begin to describe yourself
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    It's not promoting homosexuality. It doesn't give them anything straight people don't have. It just isn't actively repressing it either.
    Gentlemen (and lady, I guess), might want to take a brief perusal through the above post.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Gentlemen (and lady, I guess), might want to take a brief perusal through the above post.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I gave up hope If that doesn't make him see sense I'm done

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    None of them violate the meaning of marriage according to your definition which is post those events and pre same sex, if you wish I can break out the bible, or Koran, or whatever other religious text tomorrow and find statements on marriage that support polygamy, oppose age restrictions, endorse arranged marriages, oppose interracial marriages and whatever else, and ones that support same sex marriage; your definition should be at least as old as such texts.

    Since we're talking of ancient definitions I guess I could even do it in Hebrew for you, or Arabic of you would prefer it down the Ishmaelite route, although admittedly the Ishmaelite path only starts distinctly about 20 generations on from Adam and Steve.

    If those aren't old enough I could do some research into ancient Rome and Greece and give it to you in Latin (although it would have to be classical Latin rather than old Latin) or ancient Greek. Actually, scratch that, they had same sex relationships and I imagine formalised them too as marriage, so I guess we need to go further.

    How about I brush off my knowledge of the ancient Egyptians (sorry, won't do it in hieroglyphs, too much effort to transcribe, photo and upload) and we think of marriage back then, there was definitely polygamy, many of the Pharaoh's had dozens, if not hundreds of wives, and definitely had, by our standards, child wives, and I'm pretty sure arranged marriages too, and most probably homosexual too, but I would need to double check that.

    Want to propose something more ancient? I suppose we could go to pre history, after all, the ancient Egyptians were one of the earlier peoples with history, and then things get a bit tricky.

    Okay, that's settled, given we're going by original definitions, marriage is between at least one male of our species, with potentially hundreds or thousands of females, with no minimum age, which can be arranged by their parents for them with no say from the female; also, quite possibly males together or females together, but that's irrelevant, because we have just determined that your definition does not square up with what it should be, and you are therefore perfectly willing to redefine marriage. Congratulations, you can now stop gay bashing.

    As for the last bit, I suggest you do a bit of research into the etymology of the words "man", " woman", "human" and the old Saxon word "Mann". Actually, by that, I mean simply read on. The word human comes via Latin (and several forms of English and French) so actually is irrelevant to this all, the rest is the important bit. Let's go back to pre Norman times. Back in the time of the Saxon kingdoms there are three words we are interested in, the first is wīfmann, from it we developed the words " woman " and "wife", should be pretty clear how these things happened. The next word is wērmann, the wēr prefix determines that we are taking about a male, it is a prefix that has largely disappeared, pretty much only existing now as the were- in werewolf; after the Norman conquest the prefix was dropped, mostly by the 13th century, hence having merely the mann bit, now just man, to refer to the male. I should hope you can work out for yourself what Mann meant, it was a gender neutral term to refer to ANY member of our species, whether they be male, female, gender fluid, whatever.

    Hence why one man (Mann) and one woman (wīfmann) is the endorsing of a woman to marry whomever the hell they wish.



    You're pretty solidly going to be in the minority there, criticising of spelling is going to be the weakest, as for the strongest, well, highlighting hypocrisy is generally a good one, and I suppose there is the lecture above too.

    And it was interesting to see you completely overlook to fact that your suggestions would mean we actually have no laws.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This might be the only time I ever, ever, ever say this. But I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thanks for standing up against this bigotry/stupidity PRSOM.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I gave up hope If that doesn't make him see sense I'm done

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It won't, but it's fun. Do you mind asking Toronto/Birch to shift the bits of the conversation that don't need binning (and carding) to the bar, or anybody who can actually tag ATM.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It won't, but it's fun. Do you mind asking Toronto/Birch to shift the bits of the conversation that don't need binning (and carding) to the bar, or anybody who can actually tag ATM.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm on mobile too I'm afraid but hopefully they'll see it tomorrow.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It won't, but it's fun. Do you mind asking Toronto/Birch to shift the bits of the conversation that don't need binning (and carding) to the bar, or anybody who can actually tag ATM.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Birchington toronto353
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Birchington Toronto
    Toronto's username is toronto353

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Toronto's username is toronto353

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeh, I know
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    **** it, I'll quote all the scriptures I can at him, Torah, NT, Koran, whilst very new, Guru Granth Sahib, the various Hindu scripts, being "the oldest religion in the world", it existed before the young earth lot believed the Earth was created, and I guess I can delve into Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Persian, etc theology and mythology too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    None of them violate the meaning of marriage according to your definition which is post those events and pre same sex, if you wish I can break out the bible, or Koran, or whatever other religious text tomorrow and find statements on marriage that support polygamy, oppose age restrictions, endorse arranged marriages, oppose interracial marriages and whatever else, and ones that support same sex marriage; your definition should be at least as old as such texts.

    Since we're talking of ancient definitions I guess I could even do it in Hebrew for you, or Arabic of you would prefer it down the Ishmaelite route, although admittedly the Ishmaelite path only starts distinctly about 20 generations on from Adam and Steve.

    If those aren't old enough I could do some research into ancient Rome and Greece and give it to you in Latin (although it would have to be classical Latin rather than old Latin) or ancient Greek. Actually, scratch that, they had same sex relationships and I imagine formalised them too as marriage, so I guess we need to go further.

    How about I brush off my knowledge of the ancient Egyptians (sorry, won't do it in hieroglyphs, too much effort to transcribe, photo and upload) and we think of marriage back then, there was definitely polygamy, many of the Pharaoh's had dozens, if not hundreds of wives, and definitely had, by our standards, child wives, and I'm pretty sure arranged marriages too, and most probably homosexual too, but I would need to double check that.

    Want to propose something more ancient? I suppose we could go to pre history, after all, the ancient Egyptians were one of the earlier peoples with history, and then things get a bit tricky.

    Okay, that's settled, given we're going by original definitions, marriage is between at least one male of our species, with potentially hundreds or thousands of females, with no minimum age, which can be arranged by their parents for them with no say from the female; also, quite possibly males together or females together, but that's irrelevant, because we have just determined that your definition does not square up with what it should be, and you are therefore perfectly willing to redefine marriage. Congratulations, you can now stop gay bashing.

    As for the last bit, I suggest you do a bit of research into the etymology of the words "man", " woman", "human" and the old Saxon word "Mann". Actually, by that, I mean simply read on. The word human comes via Latin (and several forms of English and French) so actually is irrelevant to this all, the rest is the important bit. Let's go back to pre Norman times. Back in the time of the Saxon kingdoms there are three words we are interested in, the first is wīfmann, from it we developed the words " woman " and "wife", should be pretty clear how these things happened. The next word is wērmann, the wēr prefix determines that we are taking about a male, it is a prefix that has largely disappeared, pretty much only existing now as the were- in werewolf; after the Norman conquest the prefix was dropped, mostly by the 13th century, hence having merely the mann bit, now just man, to refer to the male. I should hope you can work out for yourself what Mann meant, it was a gender neutral term to refer to ANY member of our species, whether they be male, female, gender fluid, whatever.

    Hence why one man (Mann) and one woman (wīfmann) is the endorsing of a woman to marry whomever the hell they wish.



    You're pretty solidly going to be in the minority there, criticising of spelling is going to be the weakest, as for the strongest, well, highlighting hypocrisy is generally a good one, and I suppose there is the lecture above too.

    And it was interesting to see you completely overlook to fact that your suggestions would mean we actually have no laws. Actually, not quite, we would be in the EU, the London assembly would exist with an elected mayor, the hit Friday agreement would have been accepted, northern Ireland would still be in the UK, the welsh assembly would exist, as would the Scottish parliament with tax setting powers, not that taxation wound be legal, and there would be a bunch of other directly elected mayors.

    Saying that, under the anarchy you suggest we souls have I guess none of those things would have actually happened.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    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
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    This might be the only time I ever, ever, ever say this. But I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thanks for standing up against this bigotry/stupidity PRSOM.
    I'm disappointed in you. You too want to destroy the institution of marriage. His whole essay is filled with bigotry and stupidity. It makes no sense at all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I'm disappointed in you. You too want to destroy the institution of marriage. His whole essay is filled with bigotry and stupidity. It makes no sense at all.
    You're one to talk about bigotry and stupidity.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    You're one to talk about bigotry and stupidity.
    I have no bigotry, I believe in the rights of all people be it the gays, pedophiles, murderers, people who engage in bestiality etc..

    It doesn't matter they should all get their rights but they do not get to hijack the word marriage or change its definition. They can have a civil partnership with the tax cuts and benefits given similarly to marriage. Marriage belongs to heterosexuals but rights to all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I have no bigotry, I believe in the rights of all people be it the gays, pedophiles, murderers, people who engage in bestiality etc..

    It doesn't matter they should all get their rights but they do not get to hijack the word marriage or change its definition. They can have a civil partnership with the tax cuts and benefits given similarly to marriage. Marriage belongs to heterosexuals but rights to all.
    You're the only one hijacking the word marriage and changing its definition, it's never in history been defined as a union between a man and woman, we're all tired of saying it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    You're the only one hijacking the word marriage and changing its definition, it's never in history been defined as a union between a man and woman, we're all tired of saying it.
    A marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman and has been for thousands of years. No one gets to change the definition, your trickery and deceit would not work to your benefit here. No one gets to change the definition!! If you want to make this about rights then we have nothing to argue about but if this concerns the word marriage then there's absolutely nothing to argue about. I've made my points clear not you not anyone gets to change the definition of marriage. Whether that be on behalf of the gays or people who engage in bestiality you don't get to change the definition. End of discussion.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Has he once yet provided a serious historical (non-religious) text where marriage is defined positively (e.g. more than out of convention) as a union between man and woman?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Well, in true JeremyOU style, I'll use some emojis...:

    - The Bill: :yy:

    - The rest of the thread: :rofl:

    -
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    This might be the only time I ever, ever, ever say this. But I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thanks for standing up against this bigotry/stupidity PRSOM.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Seeing over 6 pages devoted to this one kippers delusion are homophobia is rather disheartening. Maybe his plan is to keep fighting until he we can't be bothered to fight back?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Has he once yet provided a serious historical (non-religious) text where marriage is defined positively (e.g. more than out of convention) as a union between man and woman?
    No, so I got bored of pressing him.
 
 
 
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 agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.