 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Gay marriage' question
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 12 Dec 12 - 06:35 PM So if, as you say, that's just the nature of things, then why are you so opposed to same-sex marriage, which encourages stable relationships and would cut the statistics over time? There is a considerable difference between civil union and marriage. There is nothing that says heterosexual couples have to get married. They, too, can apply for civil unions, so why is it that so many hererosexual couples choose to get married? If you keep same-sex relationships in a sort of second-class catagory, such as allowing civil unions only, it tends to keep them "in the closet," at least socially. Whereas, the events of this past Sunday here in Seattle, and the public joy, NOT "in the closet," more than amply demonstrates what I'm saying. One of the big things about marriage is that it is not just a legal contract (which is all that a civil union is), it is a ceremonial announcement to society in general that this relationship—a state of marriage—now exists between these two people. No, Ake. The world is moving forward apace. If you choose to remain in the Dark Ages—well, that's your decision, I guess. Don Firth P. S. By the way, GfS, marriage, be it between same-sex or heterosexual couples, is NOT JUST about sex. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Dec 12 - 06:18 PM Don Firth: "Ake continues to roar out his bag of statistics, but NEVER HAS responded to the question of why he opposes promoting stable, monogamous relationships between same-sex couples, which WILL put a big dent in those statistics." ...unless they don't know their ass from a hole in her 'round'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 12 Dec 12 - 06:02 PM Don.... Homosexual Civil Unions have been available in many countries for quite a few years.....Civil Union encourages monogamy? Why then has there been no large dent in the current hiv/aids figures for male homosexuals? In my view young sexually active homosexuals have no time for "marriage" or monogamy. Sex between males obviously carries an inherant need for promiscuous behaviour. This would make sense as males of any species are genetically programmed to be promiscuous and the moral balance being the female child bearer and family structure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 12 Dec 12 - 05:27 PM Ake continues to roar out his bag of statistics, but NEVER HAS responded to the question of why he opposes promoting stable, monogamous relationships between same-sex couples, which WILL put a big dent in those statistics. His only response has been to assert that gays don't WANT to get married. This past Sunday's spate of weddings in Seattle shows just how bloody wrong he is. No, HIS problem lies somewhere else. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Dec 12 - 04:46 PM From the PBS News Hour: DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, there's a big disparity in this country, Ray. There's -- 12 percent of the American population is African-American. And of the new infections, close to 50 percent of them are among African-Americans. This said, what does it have to do with gay marriage? This conversation seems to have gone off the rails. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 12 Dec 12 - 02:13 PM I must say I find the latest pronouncement by Parliament to be most strange. At first, they were suggesting that all Churches should perform gay marriages. Now we have the proposal that Churches should not be forced to do so. Then the odd statement that under no circumstance may the Church of England or the Church of Wales be permitted to do any such thing. Why this sudden turnabout? As the Queen is the Head of the Church of England (and Wales) might she perhaps have put her Majestic foot down and refused to sanction it? (Secretly, so as not to bring down on her Royal Head the wrath of the hopeful gays of the Nation?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: saulgoldie Date: 12 Dec 12 - 02:09 PM Am I going to waste more keystrokes pointing out that Ake is just looking for ways to torment homosexuals, which is the very definition of "homophobic?" No, I am not. To hell with it. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Bill D Date: 12 Dec 12 - 01:46 PM Unabashed happiness is contagious... and inspiring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 12 Dec 12 - 01:41 PM Musket, if you do not believe the homosexual heath figures produced by CDC and HPA......attack them, not me. By the way, as you claim to use HPA, you will have noticed that the number of new infections amongst male homosexuals for 2011, is an all time high, well over 3000. Almost 70% of new cases of hiv are amongst male homosexuals, who make up only 2/3% of the population. The amount of misinformation being presented to the public by the NHS and other bodies is disgraceful. The latest infomation note from the NHS on hiv, makes almost no mention of the link between homosexuality and hiv, simply stating that there are more heteros suffering from hiv/aids worldwide than homosexuals... To mention factual health figures now appears to be viewed as bigotry or discrimination.......bad news for homosexuals I'm afraid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Dec 12 - 01:11 PM http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/60-moments-that-gave-me-the-chills-during-seattle Scroll down, and I doubt there will be a dry eye in the room when you finish looking at these photos. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge Date: 12 Dec 12 - 11:36 AM I`ad that Trevor, the dancing teacher, in my cab the other day. I did admire `is stripey pink blazer. `e said, "Oh, `allo luvvie. Could you get me down, (if you know what I mean), to my cottage in Chelsea please, Jim. I`m running late and I`ve got to get dolled up for my wedding." I said, "Blimey Trev. We don`t want to upset the `er indoors to be, do we? `e said, It`s not an `er it`s an`im. We decided to do the decent thing and turn our back on the cruel world." I said, "Sounds okay but you be careful to `oo you turn your back on!!" Whaddam I Like?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Musket Date: 12 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM Who'd be a politician? The bigots in Parliament need to be able to vote for something so we have a compromise between decent society and promoting hate. They are even going to revise The Equality Act. Revising The Equality Act also requires renaming it as it will no longer signify equality. It will mean that pathetic bigotry is legal so long as it is in the name of state sponsored superstition. If the object of the exercise is to make religion even more irrelevant, the government are carrying out their policy spot on. What's next? Old men in pointy hats replace elected politicians? Some idiot looks in a gilded old book and says, Yep, Akenaton is right, his outrageous health conclusions are based on fact not hate, and if the figures don't add up it's because God says we don't understand... Strange bedfellows, atheist bigots and old fools in dog collars. Bubblyrat might even start showing some respect for others and not type such crap as that one above. The Gay couple should accept the situation????? If I shit on your lawn, don't ring the police or council, accept my right to do so and don't be so selfish. I read that one twice because it was so close to parody and irony... Then I found it was genuine. Oh dear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: bubblyrat Date: 12 Dec 12 - 07:08 AM I think that gay couples who encounter perceived "discrimination" when declined the use of a double room in any "B&B" or small hotel ,on religous / moral grounds ,according to the religion / beliefs of the proprietors , should have the common decency to accept the situation and shew some respect for other people, instead of getting agressive and making a big fuss about it .How selfish !! There are still many,many people "out there" who feel that marriage is an institution for dedicated ,committed ,heterosexual couples who wish to formalise and legalise their relationship ,particularly with due regard for the future status of their issue. For those of a different sexual orientation,who wish to "secure" a same-sex union ,there are already tried-and-tested Civil Partnerships ; allowing these good people to actually Marry will ,I fear ,ultimately solve nothing and cause much distress to a great majority.Is it REALLY worth all the fuss and bother ?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Allan Conn Date: 12 Dec 12 - 07:06 AM I'm really confused by yesterday's news. I know that no religious body was to be forced to hold same sex marriages but I was really surprised that it is to be made illegal for gay marriages to take place in the Church of England or Church in Wales - and that it is almost being put forward as a progressive move. In other words any denomination can opt in excepting for English and Welsh Anglicans!Probably an unlikely scenario but what if the Scottish Episcopal Church decides it would let individual parishes go forward with same sex marriages if desired? There are some pro clergy amongst the said church which is Anglican and in communion with the CofE. You could then have the absurdity of English and Welsh Anglicans travelling up to Scotland to get legally married in the Anglican Church here!! Help out local hotels I suppose!! A pink lining in every cloud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 Dec 12 - 06:54 AM And you object to the improvement in those health statistics which would inevitably follow the establishment of stable monogamous relationships because...............? I know "monogamous" isn't quite the right word, but it gets the point across. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 12 Dec 12 - 05:12 AM Its all about the word. "Liberal activists" and a few homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage so that they can be the same. Unfortunately, the health statistics associated with their lifestyle and human biology determine that they are not the same, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 11 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM I don't know all the ins and outs of the matter, but I believe civil partnerships have been possible in this state for some time. Many of the couples who were married this past Sunday were already in civil partnerships, but as I understand it, there were two issues involved. There are certain things about marriage that touch on matters of inheritance and joint ownership of property. Some, but not all of this is covered in civil partnership. Among other things, should one of the couple be hospitalized, a spouse has rights, such as visitation, availability of information, and such, that a civil partner does not have. Also, many same-sex couples, some already in civil partnerships, want the ceremony and the recognition that goes with marriage, the announcement to and the acknowledgement of their friends and family that a state of marriage, not just a legal document, now exists between the two. As to the matter of churches: with the multiplicity of denominations in the U. S. rather than a "State Church," and with radically different beliefs regarding the issue, there are some churches (a fair number, in fact) that don't have a problem with it, and are ready and willing to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. I know about a half-dozen same sex couples who have been married in the church that my wife and I attend. The minister informed them, of course, that the religious ceremony had no legal status in Washington State, but they wanted the church ceremony anyway. The recognition of family and friends and the world at large. But now all that has changed. These folks are now legally married. As to the churches, if a given church or denomination is opposed to same-sex marriage, they are not required to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. As of this coming Monday (Dec. 17th), my wife Barbara and I will have been married for thirty-five years. As to the matter of "defense of marriage," someone is going to have to explain to me in detail how the marriages of Jamie and Eric, and Paul and Philip, have any effect whatsoever on Barbara's and my marriage. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: DMcG Date: 11 Dec 12 - 06:35 PM Don: in the UK the position sounds different to your Washington State case, if I understand you correctly. We have permitted civil partnerships between gays for a good few years now, which are pretty much marriage except in name. However, there are also a few other constraints like they cannot be celebrated in churches. This new law will tackle the issue of whether it can be called marriage and open the path to allow churches which want to to conduct the service. In my view the whole thing is a complete mess and we should have gone for, or had the arguments about, gay marriage in the first place. Introducing this odd stepping stone of partnership causes no end of uneccessary complications. What, for example, of the gay couple who wanted to marry but instead took what was on offer and had a civil partership? Do they 'upgrade' to marriage now? What is the role of civil partnerships when a marriage is available: are they two legally distinct things, and if so, what are the ramifications? If there is some continuing difference why should hetrosexual couples be denied civil partnerships? The more I think about the messier the whole thing gets, even without the problems for the churches and the way the established churches are more restricted than all the rest |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 11 Dec 12 - 05:56 PM The gay marriage bill passed in Washington State in the recent election. For those who keep insisting that "gays don't want to get married, they want to be promiscuous and spread HIV/AIDs," this past Sunday was the first day that same-sex couples could be married legally here. There were HUNDREDS of marriage ceremonies all over the city of Seattle. How many in the state as a whole, I haven't heard. I heard some interviews of just married people on the radio. Frankly, it was pretty damned touching! Lots of really happy couples out there! #### Be it noted that in the recent election, Washington State also legalized marijuana, to be licensed and taxed by the state. Some wag pointed out that the gay marriage law and the marijuana law were two coordinated issues, insisted upon by Christian Fundamentalists. It says in the Book of Leviticus that if two men lie together as man and woman, they shall be stoned. So—legalizing both gay marriage and possession of marijuana makes it possible to fulfill the Biblical injunction. . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Bill D Date: 11 Dec 12 - 05:24 PM ?? What 'identity' do you want? Are you for or against the new vote? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Raedwulf Date: 20 Oct 12 - 04:01 PM As noted, Jack, on that basis, I entirely agree! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Oct 12 - 03:44 PM I don't know the particulars, but the gay couple made a reservation, accepted by the B&B for two and showed up and did not get what they reserved. I think that is wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Raedwulf Date: 20 Oct 12 - 03:34 PM Howard, that's where we diverge then, I think. For such a small scale business, I do think they should retain the right to ask for whatever. There are, after all, so many other choices for the consumer. SaulG, I think, is being sarcastically flippant, but his first sentence does hold a lot of common sense. If you are a small enough business to be (potentially) on first name terms with your customers, and if you find your customers' beliefs conflict with your own, should you not be allowed to decline their business? If you are a large enough business that your individual customers start to become "the customers", that you no longer have a personal connectin with them, then, I think, you no longer have the right to discriminate between them. I realise that my proposition is imperfectly worded; I'm no lawmaker, I've no desire to make it more watertight. My point is that people should be allowed to apply common sense on the small scale, and should not be castigated if that common sense is not to others' tastes. Common sense is often, if not always, a subjective quantity. On the small scale, though, everyone has many choices. To be refused service, from whatever business, for whatever reason, should not be a reason to go to court. Unless it has been agreed & then refused as per my remarks above, of course! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Bill D Date: 20 Oct 12 - 01:45 PM A discussion of the "right to refuse service" issue |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Oct 12 - 01:13 PM Most of the Hotels I book into have a sign saying "We have the right to refuse service to any customer." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: saulgoldie Date: 20 Oct 12 - 11:10 AM Well, according to Rand Paul, the B&B owners have the right to choose whom to accept and whom to turn away, just as the clients have the right to choose another place to stay. Such is his sense of "Libertarianism." And according to poppa Paul, the sick have the right to choose whether to have health care or to die. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Howard Jones Date: 20 Oct 12 - 10:56 AM The trouble is if you are going to be part of the hospitality industry, even on a small scale, you have to be hospitable. By choosing to run a B&B you lose a lot of discretion over who you invite into your home, including people who may not share your beliefs. If you aren't comfortable with that then perhaps you are in the wrong business. If a Christian couple were refused a booking by a B&B there would be similar outrage, and quite rightly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Raedwulf Date: 20 Oct 12 - 08:13 AM I must admit, Richard I'm a little bit ambivalent about that judgement. I can see both sides of the argument, even though, maybe in part because, I am neither homosexual nor christian. The argument "You are running a business, therefore..." is obviously valid. The position "This is also our home..." I can also recognise. Putting myself in other people's shoes, I think I would act as follows... IF "my partner & I would like to book a room..." Oh, I'm sorry, we wouldn't wish to cause offense... OR "You'd like to book a room? Oh, I'm sorry, but this is also our home, and whilst I wouldn't wish to cause offense..." Amongst reasonable people, it doesn't strike me that this should cause a problem. Every coin has two sides. I am entirely of the belief that a person's sexuality is of no concern to anyone but themselves. But I am also of the belief that no-one should be allowed to force their beliefs on someone else. Not surprisingly then, I am resistant to any mainstream religion trying to claim the moral high ground. It does, though, also cut the other way. Ooo-er! ;-) If "Mr & Mrs" turned out to be "Mr & Mr", I think the B&B would have real grounds for complaint. If the B&B had accepted the booking but turned the couple away on the doorstep, I can understand the couple having real grounds for complaint (which is what I understand in the case that Richard has linked). If the B&B is not a B&B, but a hotel then they can be in no position to make such discrimination. But there must be respect on both sides. If it's just "You must accept what I am and I don't fucking care what you think", how have we advanced?. What's the difference between that point of view and the Crusades, the various Heresies, the Inquisition? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Raedwulf Date: 20 Oct 12 - 07:46 AM "We have a member called Muppet, who is not Musket." Thank you for reminding me, Jeri? (How are you, sir?) I don't think, though, that anyone will confuse my responses with any opinoin of the gentleman in question. "I'm just saying that the name calling is between you and Musket." Sorry, Jack, that's incorrect. There are at least three people who find Muppet's presentation execrable. I'm happy to put myself forward as speaking for us all without consultation, not least because I'm fairly sure I've disagreed with both MGM & gnu in the past, and they'll tell you if they don't agree with what follows. Engaging in a shouting match might be a bit juvenile. I'm sure you'll tell us we should walk away. But, assuming you choose not to, if you hurl words, and the other party throws bricks what do you do? In the metaphorical sense, which the internet is, you pick up the bricks and you throw them back, surely? That's all that MGM, gnu and myself have done. His opinion doesn't matter. He's as entitled to that, as we are to ours. That's just words. But his sneering ad hominem? That's a brick. Or does his alleged PhD make him special make him special somehow? (I also acknowledge your next post, which makes your position reasonably clear. I just, not surprisingly, think you're challenging the wrong person. I agree with Muppet sometimes. But not with the way that viewpoint is all too often expressed.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM In, perhaps, a parallel development, a UK court has awarded damages of £3,600 on the grounds of unlawful discrimination to a gay couple who were refused a double bedroom in a B&B by the owners on allegedly Christian grounds. Nick Griffin of the BNP called this state heterophobia - but he didn't stop there. Read more here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219993/Nick-Griffin-Twitter-rant-gay-B-B-couple-investigated-police-tweets-home-address Oh, poor Dick (short for "dickhead") - if he goes to jail he'll probably find a lot of his members (if there are still any left) in there to greet him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:46 PM I have not read all of this thread because tehre is such a load of bollocks on it. The English law of non-consummation is simply set out here http://www.lawteacher.net/family-law-resources/Non-Consummation-Marriage.php Argument about possible change is here http://protectthepope.com/?p=5293 US (presumably state) law on the topic may differ. Krinkle as usual was (at least as far as I read) simply spouting ignorance and prejudice. Some simple comments on US state laws and links to further material here http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml Please fellas - stick to the facts! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: John P Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:10 PM No, Saul, you were clear. My comment was an augmentation, not a disagreement. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 19 Oct 12 - 10:57 AM Perhaps I was not clear. What I meant was "As something to worry about, gay marriage is not on my radar." Of *course* I think it should be legal. In that regard, it *is* on my radar, along with the Republican "war on women." Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: John P Date: 19 Oct 12 - 10:32 AM Gay marriage doesn't even make it onto my radar. The only reason it makes it onto my radar as something to worry about is because people who want to legislate morality need to be stopped. People who think we live in a land where the majority rules need to be educated. People who claim to love the Constitution but then want to deny equal protection under the law need to be ridiculed. And the theocrats need to lose their tax-exempt status. If you want me to keep my nose out of your religion, you need to keep your hands off my laws. I am amused in a horrified way that the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of American are so vociferously anti-gay from a "morality" standpoint, given that both these organizations have engaged in massive child-rape conspiracies. And they want me to let them legislate morality?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: John P Date: 19 Oct 12 - 10:20 AM Good news! I just read in this morning's paper that another federal court has struck down the Defense (sic) of Marriage Act. I think this is the second time, and it was struck down for a different Constitutional reason. This means that when it gets to the Supreme Court, the anti-civil rights crowd will have to make their case on two fronts. If I'm remembering correctly, the first case said that the government has no compelling reason to deny the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law and the second one said that, according to the Constitution, all states and the federal government have to recognize legal marriages from any other state. Unfortunately, I don't have any reason to assume that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,saulgoldie Date: 19 Oct 12 - 09:05 AM I'm still waiting to hear exactly how knowing that there is a gay married couple somewhere in the world harms me. I also want to know how it would threaten my marriage. Sheeit! Myself and my wife can do that plenty well by ourselves. And I am hardly going to lose sleep thinking about somewhere there being a gay married couple. I have plenty of other things on my worry-about-it list that are far more important. Starting with military and environmental threats to humanity, increasing poverty among regular people as opposed to the wealthy, the appalling lack of medical care for many people, and the possible death of folk music. (However, if said death takes with it banjos and bodhrans, it may be a wash. Oh, and bagpipes. Them thangs ain't no damn good!) Gay marriage doesn't even make it onto my radar. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Oct 12 - 06:47 AM Precisely, Howard. Scroll up & you will find that my point, and my experience, have been identical to yours. So now, how about someone addressing the topic ~~ what difference would the word marriage make? ~~ rather than any MORE rehashing of all the moral arguments that got flogged to death leading up to Civil Partnerships being established eight [count them - 8!] years ago. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Howard Jones Date: 19 Oct 12 - 04:30 AM That depends on whether you're using 'moot' in it's UK or American sense. It does mean that same-sex couples are treated no differently by the law in this respect. This discussion has rather lost track of the fact that (in the UK anyway) a civil partnership grants substantially the same legal rights as marriage. The question is, or should be, a purely semantic one - should same-sex couples be entitled to call their union by the same name as the rest of us? For some, this is a question of equality. For others, the word "marriage" has a special significance, although it's hard to discern exactly what that is. My involvement in this discussion has been a genuine attempt to try to get them to explain, in terms which are not either irrelevant or circular arguments. So far I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Oct 12 - 06:43 PM So if it goes to the younger, regardless of gender then GDA's point is moot? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Howard Jones Date: 18 Oct 12 - 06:40 PM The point of the law is to remove confusion over the inheritance of property. The Law of Property Act 1925 provides that in the circumstances described the deaths are presumed to have occurred in the order of age, so the younger is presumed to have survived the elder. According to HMRC where the deaths are of husband and wife or civil partners and the elder died intestate, the intestacy rules apply as if the younger spouse or civil partner had not survived the elder. So yes, the law (nonsensical or otherwise) has caught up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Oct 12 - 03:48 PM "A heterosexual legally married couple are involved in a serious motor accident resulting in them both being found dead in the car. If in the event there is no medical witness to establish the time of their deaths, I`ve heard that in English law the male would be deemed to have died first thereby allowing his estate to be added to that of his dead wife. " That is a very strange and almost nonsensical law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Gda Music Date: 18 Oct 12 - 03:44 PM To return to the thread. A heterosexual legally married couple are involved in a serious motor accident resulting in them both being found dead in the car. If in the event there is no medical witness to establish the time of their deaths, I`ve heard that in English law the male would be deemed to have died first thereby allowing his estate to be added to that of his dead wife. In the event of those same circumstance occurring but to a different permutation of "married" couple, I just wonder if the present law has that eventuality covered, or maybe it has yet to be tested?. GJ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM I don't read most of what he says or what is addressed to him. Though I agree with him more than not. He is simply too abusive. It is just is not amusing to see two people call each other stupid and too much work to sort it out. I would not be talking about it now except that I am loading a computer and I am waiting for large files to download. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:41 PM Well, whatever your point, I am sure you mean well. So thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:38 PM I'm just saying that the name calling is between you and Musket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:36 PM Don't expect so for a second, Jack; ... or did you somewhat undermine your own point by troubling to post the question?! ☺〠☺~M~☺〠☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Oct 12 - 11:14 AM MtheGM Are Catters likely to be inclined to invest their time and energy to decide whether you or Blather has won a debate on this subject? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 18 Oct 12 - 11:07 AM Thar she blows. I mean, There he goes. On & on about "murder" and doesn't even know what the word means: or anyhow can't distinguish between figurative and literal use. No point saying any more about this last bit of maundering mumbo-jumbo. I leave it to Catters to decide which of us can express himself with some clarity and which is continually getting entangled in, and tripping up over, his verbal shoelaces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Musket Date: 18 Oct 12 - 10:44 AM But you didn't. Seems like your confusion to me, rather than my own. My confusion is how anybody can be in favour of murder and defend it as a rational viewpoint. Just as people think they can be in favour of discriminating against Gay people and still expect to be seen as respectable. If you want to defend any of that, go ahead. But as you talk bollocks on most subjects, I doubt I would be swayed by your ramblings on that one either. If anybody would like to see MtheGM ramblings, I suggest you go on just about any ruddy thread..... I doubt there is any hope for a MtheGM modified. I only use secateurs for pruning thank you very much. And judging by the quality of debate on these subjects, a trimming of the herd might be a good thing. Most rational contributors got bored a long time ago leaving idiots and yours truly, who has a huge fault. I can't help trying to confuse them with facts. Both funny and sad at the same time. Ah well, at least this is only bullshit land. At least I don't have to avoid getting into weird conversations with them in the pub. Which academic institute would deem to disown giving you half a mind? And did they or you ever find the other half? By the way. A PhD can be a higher degree, or it can a degree. It is only a higher degree if you have a bachelors or masters to begin with, and neither are a prerequisite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 18 Oct 12 - 03:42 AM My last post would have been better placed,perhaps, on the Too Obese To Execute thread, to which I refer all who would like to see Musket's confusions, irrationalities and non-sequiturs more amply demonstrated. ~M~ |