random marriage posts - Page 23 - Politics version 7.0 -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

a man who has lost his penis, previously gay. or still gay. it doesn't matter that much because he lost his freaking penis.

but now he decides to marry a woman. if she's heterosexual, that's okay? but not if she's homosexual? what if she is homosexual, but she "promises" that they will consummate the relationship if his penis grows back?

As you can see in the UK the marriage would be considered defective and voidable. In order to remedy this the man would have to consummate the marriage after his member "grew back" (or in a more likely scenario when he became potent after being impotent).

Last edited by Cwocwoc; 07-03-2013 at 10:00 AM.

07-03-2013 , 09:58 AM

#552

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Or they could just stay married. The fact that there is a condition that could be used to anull the marriage doesn't mean the marriage is actually nullified.

07-03-2013 , 10:11 AM

#553

Cwocwoc

banned

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,684

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Or they could just stay married. The fact that there is a condition that could be used to anull the marriage doesn't mean the marriage is actually nullified.

In the UK "Your marriage is defective". People can pretend anything which is my issue with the demands of sections of the homosexual community. They are asking us to pretend and call us names if we say respectfully "You are different but we accept those differences and accept your equal rights".

07-03-2013 , 10:46 AM

#554

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,420

they aren't different though. They are two legal adults who wish to enter into the contract of marriage and have the ability to consumate. Therefore, there is absolutely zero difference between a gay marriage and a heterosexual marriage, unless of course you are insinuating that gay sex is not actual sex, which you have failed to address thus far.

07-03-2013 , 10:52 AM

#555

Cwocwoc

banned

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,684

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

they aren't different though. They are two legal adults who wish to enter into the contract of marriage and have the ability to consummate.

One of them is the wrong sex for marriage as we know it and they can't consummate in the same way. That is why consummation is not a requirement with their quasi-marital civil partnerships in the UK.

07-03-2013 , 10:54 AM

#556

jmakin

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 30,120

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cwocwoc

One of them is the wrong sex for marriage as we know it and they can't consummate in the same way. That is why consummation is not a requirement with their quasi-marital civil partnerships in the UK.

There we go! finally you've said what you've been avoiding for the last few pages.

This was exactly your argument in OOT where you "changed your mind since then."

How is gay sex "wrong sex?" Also, you have yet to address the issue of impotent males. Should we only give civil partnerships to them? What about paraplegics? AFAIK their dicks don't work so well.

When you get down to the crux of your argument it's apparent that you don't want gays to have equal footing because you see their way of life as inferior. That's why people react to you the way they do, because you are extremely dishonest about it.

07-03-2013 , 10:54 AM

#557

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cwocwoc

So in the UK does a government bureaucrat come by on your wedding night to verify that the nasty was indeed done? Are you denied the benefits of being "really" married until that verification is successfully completed?

07-03-2013 , 10:55 AM

#558

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

unless of course you are insinuating that gay sex is not actual sex, which you have failed to address thus far.

I am pretty sure he didn't just insinuate this but in fact explicitly stated it multiple times over in "real" politics before he was booted.

07-03-2013 , 10:58 AM

#559

jmakin

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 30,120

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

I am pretty sure he didn't just insinuate this but in fact explicitly stated it multiple times over in "real" politics before he was booted.

He's been explicitly avoiding that argument because he knows how ******ed it is.

07-03-2013 , 11:03 AM

#560

Gizmo

Hottest Khaleesi

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 11,951

I mean i think he's either trolling and coming up with really asinine arguments just to see what it's like or he really does believe what he's saying, in which case he doesn't think the position is dumb.

07-03-2013 , 11:12 AM

#561

jmakin

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 30,120

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cwocwoc

Yea, seriously. Why can't black people just go back to using their own water fountains? They're different! I mean, they have equal rights, but lets please just stop pretending they are the same as white people. They still have their water fountains. Just not OUR water fountains. You know, 'cause they're different.

07-03-2013 , 11:29 AM

#562

Cwocwoc

banned

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,684

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmakinmecrzy

Black people are generally happy to admit they are black not white they just want to be treated the same as white people where it makes sense and equal legal rights. There are doubtless circumstances where it doesn't make sense to treat black people as though they were white due to their colour but using water fountains isn't one of them.

07-03-2013 , 11:38 AM

#563

Cwocwoc

banned

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,684

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmakinmecrzy

I haven't expressed ANY opinion in the post I have just given you the legal position as it applies to marriage and civil partnerships in the UK.

07-03-2013 , 11:50 AM

#564

BeaucoupFish

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,575

cwoc, in what ways (s) have you changed your mind, and why?

07-03-2013 , 11:57 AM

#565

jmakin

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 30,120

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cwocwoc

I haven't expressed ANY opinion in the post I have just given you the legal position as it applies to marriage and civil partnerships in the UK.

You literally just said gay sex is wrong sex. I'm asking you to explain that statement.

Why are you opposed to whites only water fountains? The blacks aren't being denied any drinking water. It's fair.

07-03-2013 , 11:59 AM

#566

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish

cwoc, in what ways (s) have you changed your mind, and why?

Well he used to think the "gay sex isn't actual sex" argument was good, now apparently he no longer thinks that it works (even though he still believes it).

07-03-2013 , 12:01 PM

#567

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmakinmecrzy

You literally just said gay sex is wrong sex. I'm asking you to explain that statement.

Are you talking about this post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cwocwoc

One of them is the wrong sex for marriage as we know it and they can't consummate in the same way. That is why consummation is not a requirement with their quasi-marital civil partnerships in the UK.

Because if you are then you're making a really bad point.

Last edited by Low Key; 07-03-2013 at 12:02 PM. Reason: p.s. screw you for making me read and quote a cowcow post

07-03-2013 , 12:07 PM

#568

Cwocwoc

banned

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,684

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmakinmecrzy

You literally just said gay sex is wrong sex. I'm asking you to explain that statement.

Read it again. I said one of the people was the wrong sex for marriage - which is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. I further said that civil partnerships in the UK do not require "consummation" to be effective and valid. As you can see from earlier links "consummation" is legally required in marriage in the UK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmakinmecrzy

Why are you opposed to whites only water fountains? The blacks aren't being denied any drinking water. It's fair.

They don't make sense as they drink in the same way.

07-03-2013 , 12:12 PM

#569

Gizmo

Hottest Khaleesi

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 11,951

We have literally gotten to the point of, "marriage between gay people can't be legal because it's currently not the law."

07-03-2013 , 12:14 PM

#570

Cwocwoc

banned

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,684

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish

cwoc, in what ways (s) have you changed your mind, and why?

The law was changed in 2003 in the Sexual Offences Act. Prior to that it was pretty clear what sex was and what is wasn't. Words change their meaning over time with usage so what wasn't true then is true now. This is how the argument went at the time. If you see a dog licking the private parts of another dog you don't say "Look at those two dogs having sex". Why should it be any different for humans ?

07-03-2013 , 12:16 PM

#571

Cwocwoc

banned

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,684

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizmo

We have literally gotten to the point of, "marriage between gay people can't be legal because it's currently not the law."

The way I'd put it is that in order to make marriage legal for gay couples it is necessary to redefine what marriage is in a big way.

07-03-2013 , 12:19 PM

#572

jmakin

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 30,120

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

Are you talking about this post?

Because if you are then you're making a really bad point.

It's an argument he's made a million times before and i'm trying to get him to just come out and say what he's been implying.

07-03-2013 , 12:19 PM

#573

Gizmo

Hottest Khaleesi

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 11,951

So it would need to become something other than a piece of paper you sign at the courthouse? Because that's the only thing that makes a legal marriage, a legal marriage.

Do they have common law marriage in Europe? And if so, how does that fit into your myopic view?

07-03-2013 , 12:27 PM

#574

jmakin

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 30,120

So cwoc, say you're right and we have to massively redefine sex and marriage. What real world negative consequences would this have? Are more traditional marriages going to end in divorce? Are we gonna see crime rise? What?

07-03-2013 , 12:30 PM

#575

gregorio

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 39,313

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cwocwoc

The way I'd put it is that in order to make marriage legal for gay couples it is necessary to redefine what marriage is in a big way.

Where in UK are you? In England/Wales aren't they about to have 3rd reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in the House or Lords in a couple of weeks, and isn't it expected to pass into law fairly eaisly. Seems marriage is going to be legal for gay couples in England and Wales soon without redifining what marriage is in a big way at all.

Page 23 of 57

First

3 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 33 43

Last

...

Page 23 of 57

First

3 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 33 43

Last