|
Re: Lezza queens
So they don't lez it up much;)
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 10720363)
Most of Gloucester aren't royals.
|
Re: Lezza queens
I was hoping this would be one of those meet-up threads.
unsubscribed! |
Re: Lezza queens
Originally Posted by roaringmouse
(Post 10719679)
As far as I'm aware, the legislation being rushed through does not alter the table of prohibited relatives one is allowed to marry. Therefore the legislation would allow marriage between such relatives as you mention. It is a serious point.
|
Re: Lezza queens
Can a raving Queen be a Lezza?
Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders
(Post 10720407)
I was hoping this would be one of those meet-up threads.
unsubscribed! |
Re: Lezza queens
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 10720239)
As far as I'm aware, no one is allowed to marry immediate family, regardless of sex.:confused:
Originally Posted by mikelincs
(Post 10720421)
Why wold it, all it does is to allow the couple to be of the same sex, and doesn't change the laws on marrying close relatives.
Marriages within prohibited degrees. (1) A marriage solemnized between a man and any of the persons mentioned in the first column of Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, or between a woman and any of the persons mentioned in the second column of the said Part I, shall be void. The list specifies those one cannot marry - i.e. a man cannot marry his daughter, father's mother, mother's mother, sister etc. While a woman cannot marry her son, father's father, mother's father, brother etc. The Marriage Act does not say "immediate family" for those one cannot marry, it states the actual relationship between the person that they cannot marry. Therefore, it would seem the current legislation that as far as I'm aware does not alter the table, would allow marriage between a mother and daughter, or father and son. The rush to get legislation through for gay marriage (which is really an attempt by Cameron for more votes at the 2015 election) has resulted in it not being thought through. |
Re: Lezza queens
Originally Posted by roaringmouse
(Post 10720747)
Marriage Act 1949:That can be found here - and the table mentioned in Part I can be found here.
The list specifies those one cannot marry - i.e. a man cannot marry his daughter, father's mother, mother's mother, sister etc. While a woman cannot marry her son, father's father, mother's father, brother etc. The Marriage Act does not say "immediate family" for those one cannot marry, it states the actual relationship between the person that they cannot marry. Therefore, it would seem the current legislation that as far as I'm aware does not alter the table, would allow marriage between a mother and daughter, or father and son. The rush to get legislation through for gay marriage (which is really an attempt by Cameron for more votes at the 2015 election) has resulted in it not being thought through. Is it illegal to marry one's daughter? My dear friend, Fritzl would be very grateful for any help on this matter |
Re: Lezza queens
Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders
(Post 10720407)
I was hoping this would be one of those meet-up threads.
unsubscribed! |
Re: Lezza queens
Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders
(Post 10720873)
Just wanting clarification for a friend of mine, who is too scared to ask himself.
Is it illegal to marry one's daughter? My dear friend, Fritzl would be very grateful for any help on this matter Norman Tebbit is madder than a box of frogs :blink: |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:11 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.