Rupert_Baehr Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 You are obviously not a football or sports fan. Because a they dont allow "equality". You must be either male or female. They dont allow mixed teams. The opposite should be true with marriage. Perhaps they should have equality in boxing? Saying it doesnt matter what biological sex you are is barking. LMAO! - I could be a bicycle or a tricycle AFAIK there is nothing in any proposed legislation which would require 2 males (or 2 females, or 2 bicycles, or 2 tricycles) to get married, but if they wanted to - why should anybody stop them? As I said, I have (quite strong) religious beliefs. My beliefs are my own business and I'm quite happy that others should have different beliefs. - It's no skin off my nose. If, in sport, males and females could compete with one another (and I don't have any argument against that) would that mean that they were obliged to compete against one another? I've met one or two female boxers I wouldn't care to meet in a ring. It seems to me that most of those who are 'against' homosexuals marrying (or garrying) one another seem to think that if they are permitted to do so, it will (in some mysterious way) dilute their own relationship. I do feel sorry for those insecure inadequate people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 AFAIK there is nothing in any proposed legislation which would require 2 males (or 2 females, or 2 bicycles, or 2 tricycles) to get married, but if they wanted to - why should anybody stop them? If marriage means very little, then its not a big deal. Let the mad woman marry her dog, why does it matter? It did matter when marriage was recognised in the tax system, and it is Tory policy to bring that back. So the mad woman who marries her dog will be paid a tax advantage for doing so. The tax system has created children as a cash cow, not it wants to bring marriage into the tax system too. Recognising marriage in the tax system was one of David Camerons major promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 'Marriage' means a great deal to me- It's one of the sacraments. I don't give a stuff about what it means to you (or anybody else.) Do you know of any heterosexuals who have been told that they will be forced to marry people of the same sex? If the mad woman wants to marry her dog (or garry it) how would that affect me? - If she died unmarried, she could bequeath her entire estate to her dog and nobody would challenge it. The dog would inherit. The dog wouldn't get much say in her terminal care - but then again, dogs do talk a 'load of crap' at times. If my friend (who happens to be queer) finds that when his partner goes into hospital with a terminal illness he is denied the rights my (female) partner and I enjoy as a 'matter of form' that does offend me. If the Tories bring back the 'Married [man]s tax allowance', then -as far as I'm concerned - it's not a problem - but that tax allowance should apply to ALL couples. Not just those of a certain sexual preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but i have newsnight on in the background and just heard one of the panel state the 1949 marriage act does not specify that the people getting married must be of opposite gender - the 1971 act made same sex marriage illegal. wouldn't it be easier to repeal the later amendment? or is that too simple a solution? 1. The Marriage Act 1949 did not make new law. Its Long Title reads thus: An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the solemnization and registration of marriages in England with such corrections and improvements as may be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. 2. Part I defines marriages that are void or voidable. The original wording is at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/76/part/I/enacted The revised wording is at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/76/part/I 3. As far as I can see, there is no 1971 Act. Even the revised wording does not contain any new prohibition of homosexual marriage. Edited May 27, 2013 by Jeffrey Shaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 If the Tories bring back the 'Married [man]s tax allowance', then -as far as I'm concerned - it's not a problem - but that tax allowance should apply to ALL couples. Not just those of a certain sexual preference. It should be about giving advantage to those couples that are intending to bring up children, in a secure and long lasting relationship. It is the duty of the state to ensure the next generation are the best that they can be. It is not the states duty to interfere with adults living arrangements; they can make any legal nuptuals they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 That leaves open the question of 'legal'. What's wrong with civil partnerships, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaf andy Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 1. The Marriage Act 1949 did not make new law. Its Long Title reads thus: An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the solemnization and registration of marriages in England with such corrections and improvements as may be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. 2. Part I defines marriages that are void or voidable. The original wording is at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/76/part/I/enacted The revised wording is at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/76/part/I 3. As far as I can see, there is no 1971 Act. Even the revised wording does not contain any new prohibition of homosexual marriage. ah, i see. this means, shock horror, a political-type person was talking bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 ah, i see. this means, shock horror, a political-type person was talking bull. A gay activist was talking bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaf andy Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 A gay activist was talking bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01xq3n7/Question_Time_23_05_2013/ 23:45 onwards. gave up as i have sky broadband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01xq3n7/Question_Time_23_05_2013/ 23:45 onwards. gave up as i have sky broadband. When people speaking about gay marriage get called biggots, it is bullying people to conform to the PC view. The same thing happened with immigration, people could not discuss immigration without being called a racist. So they didnt disicuc it, we now have UKIP. Equal right activists should be more worried about losing our right the free speeech/argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now