Thank you, ST. It won't help, because Fan reads things and assumes that they're literally true, despite any evidence to the contrary, but thanks for trying, anyway.
Change the 'Someone is wrong on the internet' to 'I'm being wrong on the internet' and that's definitely him. Oh and also he would be talking to himself, all of his family is made up
The argument as it started was: I wrote: Interestingly civil partnerships were made legal in 2004 and since then there have been less than 20 000 'ceremonies amongst gay people. hardly a rush PNP response: It was actually December 2005 and there have been more than 50,000. Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage so even those who get a civil prtnership today, do so under the 2004 ACT why? because as I FIRST wrote civil partnerships were made legal in 2004. The first line of your cut and paste states The Civil Partnership Act 2004 created civil partnership.
and you have a problem with reading. I wrote: Interestingly civil partnerships were made legal in 2004 and since then there have been less than 20 000 'ceremonies amongst gay people. hardly a rush PNP response: It was actually December 2005 and there have been more than 50,000. You were clerly wrong as even in ST's quotation the first sentence is that The Civil Partnership Act 2004 created civil partnership. your arguent now sems to be based on the first partnership taking place. This however was not your first dispute. Your first dispute was to suggest that the law was made in 2005. It clearly wasnt
look at what I first wrote and PNPs response The Act was created/made/put in law/ etc in 2004. I havent disputed when it came into force etc. Which wasnt what PNP was initially disputed His initial dispute was that the ACT wasnt made 'legal' in 2004. ven the quote formST states when it was created and its 2004 how is that hard to understand?
Created and put into law are not the same thing, that's why it's called the 2004 act (because they started working on it then) and it came into force in 2005 (it became law). Admit you're wrong
I am not Gay, Pikey or thick. If it is thick individuals you are looking then you need look no further that England where those from NI always beast English students in exam results. You are welcome Tobes
Sorry to sound like a boring conservative (which i am) but gay marriage is wrong. I don't see how it works, the whole point of marriage is typically that you start a family afterwards, which a same sex couple obviously can't do.
sorry tobe I am not wrong My exact quote was that ''Interestingly civil partnerships were made legal in 2004'' and they were If you look at what happened in Brighton and Hove, as of 2004 gay couples were able to put down their names in a book to declare their intent to enter into a civil partnership. over 100 people did so when it becme available in 2004.
Typically, an Act isn't made law straight away, so i can't see how you can be correct. I thought the Act came into force in about 2006?
I actually have no issue with the latter half of the argument, as in coming into force in dec 2005 If you look at my initial quote, which was disputed, I simply said civil partnerships were made legal in 2004. Ths they were - 2003 - British government announced plans to introduce civil partnerships - 30-03-2004 - The Civil Partnership Bill was introduced into the House of Lords. - 17 - 11- 04 it was passed by the House of Lords, its final legislative hurdle, - 18 -11- 2004 received Royal Assent interestingly those who register, pay a fee, then wait 15 days to 1 year before paying a second fee and being a 'partnership'
But the law only came into force in 2005 How ****ing hard is it for you to understand: Law comes into force = made legal. I'm not continuing any further, you're so obsessed about trying to be right when you're obviously wrong, I always end up wasting my life talking to you
Seeing as your whole point was that only 20,000 gay people had taken up the opportunity to pursue a civil partnership since 2004 Fan, you're clearly wrong on both counts. It's about three times the number of people that you claimed and they couldn't actually do it for nearly two of the years that you claimed. Cheers for another great example of your ridiculous way of thinking, though.
