Serious ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marriages

[PTADER]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Contd...

3rd & Final argument:

Section 12 (1) states that "A marriage solemnized in Singapore or elsewhere between persons who, at the date of the marriage, are not respectively male and female shall be void."

The "at the date of marriage" is not a clever loophole for exploitation just because it does not specify the need for one to continue remaining a male and the other a female, after the solemnization of the marriage.

The entire WC governing marriage is predicated on a man being a husband, and a woman being a wife, and continuing to be so after that all important visit to ROM. This starts right at the solemnization stage where the solemnizer is required by law (Section 23, WC) to ask the man to declare that he is willing to take the woman as his "wedded wife", and likewise for the woman to declare that she is willing to take the man as her 'wedded husband". If one of them cut his dick and two balls off after marriage, he cannot be and is no longer a "wedded husband". Neither are they "husband and wife".

Huge chunks of of the WC such as "Rights and Duties of Husband and Wife", "Maintenance of Wife, Incapacitated Husband and Children", "Divorce", etc as well as "Nullity of Marriage" that you are fascinated with, are predicated on the continuance of marriage after solemnization as one between man and woman. So Section 12 (1) is not quite the clever loophole that the too clever by half faggot crowd think they have found, and can readily exploit.

[TBC]

 

[PTADER]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Contd...

Pause, take a step back, clear your head and you will realise that if this two women's "marriage" are not voided and instead deemed as "valid", the subsequent Parts and Sections in the WC cannot apply to them. This is since all such Parts and Sections refer to "husband" and "wife", and not "husband" and "husband", or "wife" and "wife". So, under what Act is their "marriage" governed by then? And under what Act are the Courts empowered to, or can make rulings for these two since these Parts and Sections of the WC (including annulments) do not cover them as they cannot be, and both do not qualify as "husband" to each other?

What about the Adoption of Children Act if both suddenly decide they want to be mothers? Or what if one resorts to artificial insemination and produces a child? Under what law do you deal with the protection of the child of such "marriages"?

Pause and think about it. It's not as clear cut and simple as you, or the likes of the Kirsten Han bimbos like to think it is. It's Pandora box, is it not?

 

[scroobal]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

The point is discrimination exist everywhere. And society cannot afford to carry the burden across the board. We also cannot be rewarding segments for deviation norms. No issues if they chose to live their life in the way they feel.

The bigger issues are our discriminatory education, housing and self help conduct run on racial levels lines. I prefer to work on those that impact a wider segment with no sign of change.

The rift between cisgendered and transgendered members of the LGBT community has been brewing for some time. Things came to a head in 2015 when The Danish Girl was released, because a cisgendered male, Eddie Redmayne, was cast to portray a transgendered character (Lili Elbe). Redmayne played the role to critical acclaim and was nominated for an Oscar, but this stoked the flames further, both within the community, and between the community and 'mainstream' society which is still perceived to be prejudiced against LGBT.

Basically cisgendered gays are seen to have it good – they don't have an identity crisis, they can screw who they want, (modern western) society largely does not discriminate against them, they're able to hold down jobs, and even get married in some jurisdictions.

Transgendered people have it a whole lot worse: dangers of sex change, lifelong hormone replacement, lack of acceptance from society, no jobs, no legal provision for gender reassignment, and even imprisonment in some countries. Something like whether to go to the gents' or ladies' in public can become a highly charged issue.

 

[PTADER]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

You're evading the question: on what basis is the HDB discriminating between a single unmarried mum and a single divorced mum?

Cut out the bullshit. I have answered your question. That you don't like to hear "that is the rule" and proclaimed them as "ad nauseam" when the same answers are repeated does not mean I have not answered your silly, repetitive questions.

You brought up taxpayers' money. So I said: show me that it costs more to provide housing to the former than the latter.

You brought up morality (not me). So I said: show me how the former is more immoral than the latter to the degree that she's not entitled to the housing that the latter is.

BTW, I didn't use the phrase 'immoral bigots'. I used words like 'immorality' and 'immoral' because such judgmental terms are typical of the phraseology that bigots themselves like to use. Nothing at all about bigots being immoral.

Instead of spending your energy arguing and whinging endlessly and introducing a never ending and repetitive nonsense, why don't you take your cause to Hong Lim Park this weekend?

Convince the massive and bigoted taxpaying crowd why they should pay more in taxes for your friend to freely open up her legs for her dose of unprotected fucking.

I am sure you will go down as a legend and lioness in Singapore history if you are able to convince these immoral citizens and bigots that your friend is entitled to live the lifestyle that she wants to, and for them to fund her lifestyle and her fucking habits.

 

[PTADER]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

But ROM is NOT a party to the contract of marriage. If I understand the context of "applying to the Courts for divorce or to have a marriage declared null and void" under the Women's Charter, the applicant has to be a party to the marriage.

The WC does not provide for a situation where a 3rd party submits an application to the Courts for the same purpose and in the same way parties to a marriage do.

Yup, you are exactly right.

 

[yellowarse]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Pause, take a step back, clear your head and you will realise that if this two women's "marriage" are not voided and instead deemed as "valid", the subsequent Parts and Sections in the WC cannot apply to them. This is since all such Parts and Sections refer to "husband" and "wife", and not "husband" and "husband", or "wife" and "wife". So, under what Act is their "marriage" governed by then? And under what Act are the Courts empowered to, or can make rulings for these two since these Parts and Sections of the WC (including annulments) do not cover them as they cannot be, and both do not qualify as "husband" to each other?

I'll just address this part of your (fallacious) argument which is central to the whole issue.

The marriage was valid at the time of marriage, because said parties were of opposite sex. This is an incontrovertible fact. There was no fraud, no incest, no illegal rites, no underaged parties.

One of the partners underwent a sex change after the marriage. Now, the WC is silent on sex change after marriage. And contrary to your bigoted fantasies, the WC is silent on whether sex change after marriage is permissible; there's nothing in the WC to compel the partners to remain in their original gender.

Taking your distorted slippery slope argument to its logical conclusion, if Partner A goes for sex change, marriage is void because it's same sex relationship. And if Partner B also goes for sex change, then the marriage automatically becomes valid again, because it's now opposite sex relationship!

And all this while there's no provision for sex change post-marriage in the WC!

When there's ambiguity in the law, who decides? The courts, not you, not me, and certainly not the ROM. It may well be that an ex post facto application of the law is required here.

It's also dishonest of you to suggest that just because the couple is now a same-sex couple they don't come under the ambit of the WC. Again the prerogative in interpreting the WC lies with the judiciary. If the judiciary feels that the current legislation is inadequate, a bill can be tabled in parliament to amend it, as they did for transsexual marriages in 1997. That's what parliament is for.

 

[yellowarse]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Instead of spending your energy arguing and whinging endlessly and introducing a never ending and repetitive nonsense, why don't you take your cause to Hong Lim Park this weekend?

Convince the massive and bigoted taxpaying crowd why they should pay more in taxes for your friend to freely open up her legs for her dose of unprotected fucking.

I am sure you will go down as a legend and lioness in Singapore history if you are able to convince these immoral citizens and bigots that your friend is entitled to live the lifestyle that she wants to, and for them to fund her lifestyle and her fucking habits.

Again you're rehashing the same old bigoted tirade: Taxes and immorality.

I've already shown how you've got your knickers in a twist even as you played out more rope to hang yourself. I threw your arguments back at you, asked you to show cause, and all you can do is regurgitate the same old vomit and bring in Hong Lim Park. I'd expect you to have more imagination, rabid frenzy not withstanding.

Rest my case.

 

[Bonut]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Good point. The WC does not specifically preclude third parties from submitting a writ; it simply says 'any husband or wife'. Here's the exact wording of Section 104 of the WC:

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...2dbba" Status:inforce Depth:0;rec=0#pr104-he-.

Writ for nullity of marriage
104. Any husband or wife may file a writ claiming for a judgment of nullity in respect of his or her marriage.​

I must admit I don't have an answer cast in stone, but just an opinion.

I can understand your point that if the statute mentions "A", it doesn't specifically preclude "B". However, the same argument can be adopted vis-a-vis the phrase "at the date of marriage" in that it does not specifically preclude "after the date of marriage". I think this is where context comes into play.

The ROM is not any 3rd party. The ROM is the issuing authority. I would think that the authority that has the power to grant marriage licences will also have the power to revoke them. It's then for the parties to the marriage to apply to the Courts to have the marriage licence reinstated. It's like HDB taking away your flat or imposing a fine because the conditions of eligibility under which you were once qualified are no longer in existence because of your wrongdoing. The HDB does not need to go to the Courts to seek permission. But if you think the HDB is not justified in doing what they did, you, as the aggrieved party, will need to go to the Courts.

 

[yellowarse]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

I can understand your point that if the statute mentions "A", it doesn't specifically preclude "B". However, the same argument can be adopted vis-a-vis the phrase "at the date of marriage" in that it does not specifically preclude "after the date of marriage". I think this is where context comes into play.

There's a subtle difference between the former and the latter.

In the former, the statute states A as a criterion without excluding B. If A is not satisfied, then the question of whether B is allowed is open to interpretation (negative permission).

e.g. Women can vote in the election (A). Can men vote? (B)

In the latter situation, the statute states A as the criterion, and A is fulfilled. The question doesn't arise anymore, because the condition is already satisfied (positive permission).

e.g. Men are allowed into the dormitory (A). If you're a man, you can go in (A). No ambiguity here.

So in the case in question, the marriage did fulfil the criteria of 'between man and woman' at the time of marriage ... so there's no breach there.

So, if the breach came later (sex change), can you apply it retroactively, if the WC is silent on the need to maintain one's gender status indefinitely throughout the marriage? This (bolded) condition is never implied anywhere in the WC, so to assume it and act on it is very bad law. Ultimately only a court of law can provide clarity on this.

As to your assertion that an 'issuing authority' has the right to 'revoke', this is another assumption drawn from another government authority (HDB) governed by a different set of regulations.

If you comb through the WC carefully, it invests the ROM with the power to solemnize marriages and issue marriage licences, but all power to annul a marriage rests with the courts. If argument is that a post facto sex change automatically voids a marriage which fulfilled all legal criteria at the time of union, and that's within the ROM's purview, again there's absolutely nothing in the WC which provides for such a retroactive assumption. Do we then allow it or not?

Also, if an issuing authority can be automatically assumed to have revocation powers, why specify in the WC that nullity can only be granted by the court? Wouldn't it be administratively more efficient for the ROM to handle annulments as well?

The commonsensical solution to such a conundrum then is to refer it to the courts.

 

[PTADER]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Taking your distorted slippery slope argument to its logical conclusion, if Partner A goes for sex change, marriage is void because it's same sex relationship. And if Partner B also goes for sex change, then the marriage automatically becomes valid again, because it's now opposite sex relationship!

Try to relax. Don't get overly excited. It will help you see things clearly. Also, don't conflate two different issues as being one and the same by coming up with a never ending list of poorly thought out scenarios.

In your scenario above, the marriage is void when A goes for a sex change and is now the same sex as B.

But if B goes for for a sex change, the initial marriage which is already void, does not "become automatically valid again". But what is does mean is that B can now marry A legally - a "second" but now valid marriage (unlike the "first" and invalid) if you will - as both are now of different sex and this is provided for in the WC.

 

[PTADER]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

I'll just address this part of your (fallacious) argument which is central to the whole issue.

The marriage was valid at the time of marriage, because said parties were of opposite sex. This is an incontrovertible fact. There was no fraud, no incest, no illegal rites, no underaged parties.

One of the partners underwent a sex change after the marriage. Now, the WC is silent on sex change after marriage. And contrary to your bigoted fantasies, the WC is silent on whether sex change after marriage is permissible; there's nothing in the WC to compel the partners to remain in their original gender.

Taking your distorted slippery slope argument to its logical conclusion, if Partner A goes for sex change, marriage is void because it's same sex relationship. And if Partner B also goes for sex change, then the marriage automatically becomes valid again, because it's now opposite sex relationship!

And all this while there's no provision for sex change post-marriage in the WC!

When there's ambiguity in the law, who decides? The courts, not you, not me, and certainly not the ROM. It may well be that an ex post facto application of the law is required here.

It's also dishonest of you to suggest that just because the couple is now a same-sex couple they don't come under the ambit of the WC. Again the prerogative in interpreting the WC lies with the judiciary. If the judiciary feels that the current legislation is inadequate, a bill can be tabled in parliament to amend it, as they did for transsexual marriages in 1997. That's what parliament is for.

You are going on and on like a broken record over the same tedious and tiresome argument which you have already trotted out. Embellishing them with emotive and manipulative but irrelevant cries of of "bigotry" in no way strengthen your argument. It makes you look silly and desperate.

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and took it that you did care for this couple and this cause. Hence, I took the trouble to break down my messages into five separate and simple posts (Msgs 58 -62) and tried to spoon-feed you with them. I mistakenly thought it would be helpful and make it simpler for you. Clearly, I was wrong. Your doggedness in this matter is neither about the couple nor the cause that you pretend to care about. It is all about your little ego and silly vanities.

 

[PTADER]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Again you're rehashing the same old bigoted tirade: Taxes and immorality.

I've already shown how you've got your knickers in a twist even as you played out more rope to hang yourself. I threw your arguments back at you, asked you to show cause, and all you can do is regurgitate the same old vomit and bring in Hong Lim Park. I'd expect you to have more imagination, rabid frenzy not withstanding.

Rest my case.

You should have rested your case a long time ago instead of going on and on and on and on over the same tiresome nonsense like a broken record.

Spare me your manipulative but irrelevant "bigot" nonsense. Tell your good friend to learn how to close her legs or to use some form of birth control. Otherwise, if another baby pops out, borne of a different father, you will be back here with another lengthy bout of irrelevant nonsense in trying to elevate her to the status of a saint.

 

[PTADER]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Something posted by JT in the "NZ Gahmen Steals 100% Of Sinkie Quitters' CPF Monthly Payouts! Greedier Than PAP!" thread which is very relevant to one of the two themes in this thread.

We ask the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Justice Brendan Boyle to stop deducting money from the New Zealand superannuation payments of Singaporean permanent residents.

Why is this important?

The Singapore CPF savings fund is not a pension fund, it is private citizens’ personal savings. Thousands of Kiwis have worked in Singapore and collected their tax-free CPF savings.

However, Singaporean Permanent Residents of New Zealand have their CPF savings taxed 100% because the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Justice ruled that the monthly refund of one’s own CPF savings, “can be seen as a periodic allowance”. So the New Zealand government confiscates 100% of the amount refunded monthly to Singaporeans by the Singapore government through the superannuation due to them.

This is an appeal to all decent, fair-minded folk, especially those who worked in Singapore and collected their tax-free CPF savings.

https://www.allsingaporestuff.com/a...orean-pr-nz-100-their-monthly-cpf-collections

Not quite sure what the fuss is about. Unlike Singapore, NZ has generous social benefits that the likes of Saint Yellowarse and Saint Kirsten Hans of this world are constantly screeching for.

As I pointed out in the ROM thread, someone has to to pay for such generous social benefits. Call it tax, levy, theft, etc or whatever this disgruntled taxpayers want to. It does not matter. What matters is that if you want to live in a country with generous social benefits and generous safety nets, the money to pay for these benefits, as a simple matter of simple and sheer common sense, has to come from somewhere.

Don't live happily on such benefits when the money comes out of the pockets of others and then whinge self-righteously about "thefts" when the money for this very same benefits is taken out of your pocket.

 

[yellowarse]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Tell your good friend to learn how to close her legs or to use some form of birth control. Otherwise, if another baby pops out, borne of a different father, you will be back here with another lengthy bout of irrelevant nonsense in trying to elevate her to the status of a saint.

Instead of resorting to logical and sound legalistic arguments, all you can do is to go on obsessing about 'opening and closing legs' and 'birth control' and 'fucking wantonly'. Talk about emotive and broken record indeed.

As I said, I rest my case. Now stop foaming at the mouth and go get your shots.

 

[Papsmearer]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Instead of resorting to logical and sound legalistic arguments, all you can do is to go on obsessing about 'opening and closing legs' and 'birth control' and 'fucking wantonly'. Talk about emotive and broken record indeed.

As I said, I rest my case. Now stop foaming at the mouth and go get your shots.

Yellow, I warned you not to argue with him. You are clearly head and shoulders above him in logic, legal expertise and analytical thinking.

 

[eatshitndie]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Yellow, I warned you not to argue with him. You are clearly head and shoulders above him in logic, legal expertise and analytical thinking.

it's great dialogue. enjoy the bdsm nature of such discourse. we may all disagree, and we includes yellowarse and ptader, but there's one thing we "clueless" and "clowns" (as we are name-called by one) agree on, and that is the most incorrigible character assassin here is a fraud.

 

[kezgtree]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

..what abt ROMM..hear women must ask permisson from their male kin..like gdfather..father..bro or even younger bro...before they can get register...if all male kin dead..also must show certificate...does not matter if the woman already divorce several times....hear fr friend many moons ago...true or not...

 

[PTADER]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Instead of resorting to logical and sound legalistic arguments, all you can do is to go on obsessing about 'opening and closing legs' and 'birth control' and 'fucking wantonly'. Talk about emotive and broken record indeed.

As I said, I rest my case. Now stop foaming at the mouth and go get your shots.

What in the world are you blabbering about now??? From my very first response to you (Msg 9), I have referred you to the relevant Sections and Parts in the WC to try to help you understand that you are wrong, and to simple common sense principles that growth will be retarded, and the country cannot afford it, and the country and everyone would be worse off if every interest groups with their pet causes come along to demand their right to suck on the taxpayers' tits. That they stomp their feet, hold their breaths and shrieked "BIGOTS!!!" and "DISCRIMINATION!!!" when they don't get their way and are disallowed from sucking those tits is irrelevant.

Your problem is that you are impulsive and don't think carefully before you start shooting out your mouth. Even in your very first message in this post (Msg 3), you screamed "Fuck the bastards"; stupidly oblivious to the painful irony of pretending to be sympathetic to the "plight" of that unwed woman with the daughter (in that very same post), who is effectively a "bastard" child. Try using the word "bastard" to the woman and her child and watch their reaction.

You are unethical and manipulative. Quite obviously, that woman's and her daughter's value to you is not their purported "plight", but that their "plight" can be used by the likes of you to rail against the "evil" PAP whose every public policy must be wrong.

It is too-clever-by-half dummies like you and your ilk, with your half-baked manipulations and stupid attempts to use people for your own agendas, and not the 70% "gong kias", who will ensure that the PAP will continue to remain in power for the foreseeable future.

 

[PTADER]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

*Duplicate*

 

[PTADER]

Re: ROM becomes laughing stock of the world, invent new laws to annul same sex marria

Yellow, I warned you not to argue with him. You are clearly head and shoulders above him in logic, legal expertise and analytical thinking.

Clearly my mistake in engaging him in a thoroughly disrespectful manner. Had I known he was not just any inviting arse with a pursed butt-hole all smeared up in yellow goo and ready to be speared; but that he is actually Saint Yellowarse, patron saint of single women who like to splay their legs open, pop out babies whilst demanding the right to suck on the public and taxpayers' tits at the same time, I would have been a whole lot more respectful and extremely careful with my choice of words.

I hope God still has a place for me in heaven notwithstanding the fact that I have shown disrespect to one of his most important lieutenants.

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned.