Strange marriage law in the Western countries!

as do the 4 ex-horries . . .

PlanetPakistan wrote:

eowyn wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:I am not too convinced Hass



Secondly what if a woman cant get pregnant? what is the man suppose to do then? end the relationship?

The man and woman have to except the situation, most people don't marry just to procreate. Out of interest what if a man isn't able to get his wife pregnant, what should she do?

so trapped then?
If a man isn't able to make a woman pregnant then woman should have the RIGHT to get another husband AS LONG as she gets a WRITTEN permission from the 1st huband(same rule both ways)

I am surprised no one agrees with me when it seems very obvious that current marriage laws in the west are strange to say the least.

My answer to all this crap over gay marriages is simply to repeal the Marriage Act. If you want church recognition of your union get it. If your church doesn't want to marry you get another church or start a new one (the tax benefits are supposed to be awesome). There's hardly if any difference between a pastoral blessed, civil or de facto union nowadays. I've never been married in my life but i guarantee if I find a new dolly bird Mrs qmy will be able to take me to the cleaners and the lack of a marriage certificate won't matter squat.

So get the government out of it and let people do it anyway they want but with the existing legal protections that cover any form of union.

Are you talking about arranged marriages, PP?

PlanetPakistan wrote:I am not too convinced Hass

Why are Tiger Woods's actions NOT considered illegal yet it is illegal for a man to marry another a valid permission from his wife? surely Tiger's actions are far more insulting to women.

Secondly what if a woman cant get pregnant? what is the man suppose to do then? end the relationship?

Tiger's actions were insulting to his wife. It is a matter for them to sort out. He made a commitment to her and he broke it. As a result she has decided to divorce him. We don't police people's sex lives. What you do with a consenting adult is your own business and I consider government interference in this sphere a gross abuse of power.

Marriage on the other hand is different. Property, wealth and possibly children are involved. Two people who sleep together one night don't have anything binding them together legally. They are free. Married people however have had some of their freedoms curtailed. Throughout history when men have been allowed to add more and more women to their harem it has consistently resulted in women losing more and more of their freedom. The state has no place recognising an institution that has a significant tendancy to undermine the rights of an entire class of people.

That's unfortunate for the exceptions, but we also have age of consent laws which remain in place even though some 15-year-olds are perfectly capable of giving consent. But removing consent laws would lead to an entire class of people (in this case children) being abused by those with more power.

Western societies have liberalised their marriage laws over the past century. We now have no-fault divorce laws, which means either party can eventually leave for whatever reason they like. No one is trapped. An infertile couple can decide to stick together out of love or can choose to move on and try their luck with someone else. Whereas marriage used to be a straight-jacket, now it is just a light coat. No one is trapped.

Bradman wrote:My answer to all this crap over gay marriages is simply to repeal the Marriage Act. If you want church recognition of your union get it. If your church doesn't want to marry you get another church or start a new one (the tax benefits are supposed to be awesome). There's hardly if any difference between a pastoral blessed, civil or de facto union nowadays. I've never been married in my life but i guarantee if I find a new dolly bird Mrs qmy will be able to take me to the cleaners and the lack of a marriage certificate won't matter squat.

So get the government out of it and let people do it anyway they want but with the existing legal protections that cover any form of union.

I think that things will probably head in this direction eventually, although you'll never get the government out of it completely. That type of change is also a long way off so we have to work within the current framework for the time being.

That being the case the major Australian political parties should man up and introduce gay marriage or civil unions - too bad both sides are absolutely gutless.

Isn't this a bit like goat f*ckers from matebeleland thinking western countries have very strange laws on goat f*cking?

PP lives in Miami doesn't he? Aren't they semi-civilised there?

He doesn't seem to understand the concept of marrying for love at all.

PlanetPakistan wrote:my uncle in Pakistan married twice because of that reason...

Both of his wives lived together until and now his kids are about my age and have been very succesful(both of them are doctors)

Farking great. Wives live together , kids become doctors, No wonder the West has it wrong.

thanks for the reply hass, i will reply later

eowyn wrote:PP lives in Miami doesn't he? Aren't they semi-civilised there?

He doesn't seem to understand the concept of marrying for love at all.

WTF Eowyn? how did you come up with that conclusion?

p.si am in orlando

I came to that conclusion because you seem to think it's ok to dump your partner just because they can't have children, that's not marrying for love is about.

eowyn wrote:I came to that conclusion because you seem to think it's ok to dump your partner just because they can't have children, that's not marrying for love is about.

your conclusion is so preposterous that i am just going to assume that you were joking.

Now you can go back to your "civilised" world.

Hass wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:I am not too convinced Hass

Why are Tiger Woods's actions NOT considered illegal yet it is illegal for a man to marry another a valid permission from his wife? surely Tiger's actions are far more insulting to women.

Secondly what if a woman cant get pregnant? what is the man suppose to do then? end the relationship?

Tiger's actions were insulting to his wife. It is a matter for them to sort out. He made a commitment to her and he broke it. As a result she has decided to divorce him. We don't police people's sex lives. What you do with a consenting adult is your own business and I consider government interference in this sphere a gross abuse of power.

Marriage on the other hand is different. Property, wealth and possibly children are involved. Two people who sleep together one night don't have anything binding them together legally. They are free. Married people however have had some of their freedoms curtailed. Throughout history when men have been allowed to add more and more women to their harem it has consistently resulted in women losing more and more of their freedom. The state has no place recognising an institution that has a significant tendancy to undermine the rights of an entire class of people.

That's unfortunate for the exceptions, but we also have age of consent laws which remain in place even though some 15-year-olds are perfectly capable of giving consent. But removing consent laws would lead to an entire class of people (in this case children) being abused by those with more power.

Western societies have liberalised their marriage laws over the past century. We now have no-fault divorce laws, which means either party can eventually leave for whatever reason they like. No one is trapped. An infertile couple can decide to stick together out of love or can choose to move on and try their luck with someone else. Whereas marriage used to be a straight-jacket, now it is just a light coat. No one is trapped.

How is that NOT a trap?

If a woman is allowing her husband(or vice versa) to marry some one else then why is it NOT better than a husband secretly sleeping with another woman(or vice versa). How can you any one claim that Tiger's actions are NOT damaging for his kids? So why should adultery be less of a "crime" than marriage with another woman WITH the 1st wife's consent.

PlanetPakistan wrote:

mynah wrote:Are women allowed to have more than one husband in Pakistan?

No and i don't really agree with it. A woman should be allowed to have a second husband as long as the first one agrees.

Quite a few muslim countries including Pakistan are not known for their freedom and they TRY to go strictly by the book(Quran) yet countries in the west bolster about about freedom all the time which makes this particular law very strange.

Just proves what women knew secretly all along: Men need women more than women need men...

PlanetPakistan wrote:

eowyn wrote:I came to that conclusion because you seem to think it's ok to dump your partner just because they can't have children, that's not marrying for love is about.

your conclusion is so preposterous that i am just going to assume that you were joking.

Now you can go back to your "civilised" world.

The only laughable part is a Pak supporter pontificating about what is deemed civilised.

taipan wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:

eowyn wrote:I came to that conclusion because you seem to think it's ok to dump your partner just because they can't have children, that's not marrying for love is about.

your conclusion is so preposterous that i am just going to assume that you were joking.

Now you can go back to your "civilised" world.

The only laughable part is a Pak supporter pontificating about what is deemed civilised.

You never have anything productive to add.

PlanetPakistan wrote:

taipan wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:

eowyn wrote:I came to that conclusion because you seem to think it's ok to dump your partner just because they can't have children, that's not marrying for love is about.

your conclusion is so preposterous that i am just going to assume that you were joking.

Now you can go back to your "civilised" world.

The only laughable part is a Pak supporter pontificating about what is deemed civilised.

You never have anything productive to add.

No, except for the part you have dumped Pakistan to live in a "civilised" world.

taipan wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:

eowyn wrote:I came to that conclusion because you seem to think it's ok to dump your partner just because they can't have children, that's not marrying for love is about.

your conclusion is so preposterous that i am just going to assume that you were joking.

Now you can go back to your "civilised" world.

The only laughable part is a Pak supporter pontificating about what is deemed civilised.

And what's even more laughable is a South African pontificatingabout being civilised, jeez.

Makaveli wrote:

taipan wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:

eowyn wrote:I came to that conclusion because you seem to think it's ok to dump your partner just because they can't have children, that's not marrying for love is about.

your conclusion is so preposterous that i am just going to assume that you were joking.

Now you can go back to your "civilised" world.

The only laughable part is a Pak supporter pontificating about what is deemed civilised.

And what's even more laughable is a South African pontificatingabout being civilised, jeez.

Yeah right.

We chucked our cheat out qunt.

Oh look, taipan in being a pathetic petty moron shocker.

doremi wrote:Oh look, taipan in being a pathetic petty moron shocker.

Oh look, Dori being a pathethic qunt living in a civilised country

Great!
So just because i disagree with the FL marriage law i should move back to Pakistan

Terrible stuff as usual from taips

Well quite...

....also, Henry the Eighth would like a word...