2015 post UK election discussion

[marty mcfly]

Again, you're ignoring my point about the costs of subsequent litigation, which is the main reason as to why it's not a practical idea.

On the issue of the romance, it's a difference for opinion. I think you should go into marriage for the right reasons. Opening negotiation on who pays for what when you divorce is not a nice way to start.

Again, if people want a prenup, fair enough, but why you would make it compulsory of beyond me.

The subsequent cost of litigation would only happen after the marriage breaks down.

If that happens with a court agreed pre-nup that litigation is ALOT less than it would be otherwise.

Your point makes no financial sense except the initial cost which I've outlined ways that could be reduced and funded.

 

[SNova]

LOL

It's true.

 

[bluemangroup]

It's true.

Sometimes. Most of the time it's empty rhetoric.

 

[SNova]

Sometimes. Most of the time it's empty rhetoric.

And for those 'sometimes' it needs to be reformed.

 

[Allezfan]

Perhaps also when two people go for the same job but are equally qualified.

Oh come on, if that was true men wouldn't generally have better jobs than women.

 

[marty mcfly]

Are you really arguing that men are discriminated against in sexual offences law? I think it's been firmly established that the law does not work in favour of women who are victims of sexual offences and is in desperate need of reform. This is evidenced by the poor conviction rates and sentences handed out to offenders, both of which are disproportionate.

Except ofcourse that the legal definition of rape is where it says the sexual intercourse with a woman, surely if it was equal at the very least it would be sexual intercourse wih an individual:

"The actus reus of rape originally defined within the Sexual Offences Act 1956 was ‘unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman'. The 1976 amendment of the act was incorporated as an extenuation to this definition, with the addition of the term ‘without her consent', however “the 1976 act made no attempt to set out what was meant by the phrase ‘without her consent”

Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-...he-legal-definition-of-rape.php#ixzz3ZpMQ64yM

Whether you agree or disagree with the issue the fact remains the law isn't gender neutral which is what I said.

 

[bluemangroup]

And for those 'sometimes' it needs to be reformed.

Not sure it does. Reform could cause more harm than good for the people that aren't murderers or terrorists or rapists.

 

[Allezfan]

The defenition of rape in england is "1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents."

A man can legally be the victim of rape. A woman cannot legally be a rapist, though.

 

[marty mcfly]

Oh come on, if that was true men wouldn't generally have better jobs than women.

Why would that be the case?

You are assuming everyone is the same and has the same desires, ambitions and attributes to achieve them in life?

How many men have had their wives prefer to stay at home after kids? There's nothing wrong with that but for the married men what would your wife say if you said you wanted to be the person to stay home.

Discrimination exists. Some people think it's to correct a larger discrimination in society and therefore OK and that's their view however only an idiot thinks it doesn't exist at all.

 

[Blue 1]

Perhaps there should be a separate MUH Men's Rights thread?

 

[Allezfan]

Why would that be the case?

You are assuming everyone is the same and has the same desires, ambitions and attributes to achieve them in life?

How many men have had their wives prefer to stay at home after kids? There's nothing wrong with that but for the married men what would your wife say if you said you wanted to be the person to stay home.

Discrimination exists. Some people think it's to correct a larger discrimination in society and therefore OK and that's their view however only an idiot thinks it doesn't exist at all.

I don't believe that women are more likely to get jobs than men, all things being equal. Because a) I've been to a lot of interviews and didn't see that and b) they've done tests where they've sent the same cvs with male and female names and the male name gets a better response, c) most of the highest earners in society are men and d) female unemployment is very high.

Give me one reason to think otherwise and I'll consider it but you haven't.

 

[marty mcfly]

The defenition of rape in england is "1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents."

A man can legally be the victim of rape. A woman cannot legally be a rapist, though.

It's been recently amended. I couldn't find the more recent amendment. Obviously they wanted to cover male on male rape however as you've said women are still never even considered that they could be guilty. You've proved my point so can we forget this issue?

 

[SNova]

Not sure it does. Reform could cause more harm than good for the people that aren't murderers or terrorists or rapists.

It needs to be amended to stop those foul human beings from abusing it though.

 

[marty mcfly]

Perhaps there should be a separate MUH Men's Rights thread?

I've no interest in men's rights. I just want the law to see people as individuals not different genders, races or any other crap.

 

[Allezfan]

It's been recently amended. I couldn't find the more recent amendment. Obviously they wanted to cover male on male rape however as you've said women are still never even considered that they could be guilty. You've proved my point so can we forget this issue?

2003 isn't that recent.