[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Why did LGBTDDFTHNBCCE (or some other combination of initials which I have long-since lost track of) want the right to be legally married?

Marriage isn't just a certificate, it offers benefits that unmarried people do not have. The LGBT fought for the right to marry so they could have access to those benefits and rights that came with marriage that they didn't have before. I'm all for this couple getting a civil partnership if they want but it stinks of that childlike attitude of wanting something you basically already have because someone else has it.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by DouglasS

Marriage is generally seen as a religious unity, they may want to show their unity in another way...

This story is daft, if they want some kind of unity in a "non religious" way then they could go to register office and be done in 5 minutes .

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

This story is daft, if they want some kind of unity in a "non religious" way then they could go to register office and be done in 5 minutes

Exactly, I mean I doubt anyone is bothered either way but it does seem like a childish point proving exercise

[Tom4784]

I don't understand why Civil partnerships are still a thing though, they were a stepping stone to equal marriage and they've served their purpose. They should be phased out at this point.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Exactly, I mean I doubt anyone is bothered either way but it does seem like a childish point proving exercise

If all they want is some kind of marriage but not a full blown wedding ,then they could do it easily without much fuss .

I don't understand why a straight couple wants "civil partnership" . There's all kinds of short quick ceremonies. People even get married by "Elvis" in Vegas ! Lol .

[Alf]

I always thought marriage was just an excuse to have a party, and to recieve gifts to kit out your kitchen. I must have been wrong!

[arista]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44627990

Supreme court overruled this

Yes Title needs changing, please

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Alf

I always thought marriage was just an excuse to have a party, and to recieve gifts to kit out your kitchen. I must have been wrong!

Well that's the question ,do they want a marriage or just a wedding / party.
I get the impression they're wanting a fuss over nothing? . As I've said already they could just pop into the registry office with a few family & friends and be done in 5 mins and have a party afterwards.

Makes no sense why they want a special "civil partnership"

[bots]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Well that's the question ,do they want a marriage or just a wedding / party.
I get the impression they're wanting a fuss over nothing? . As I've said already they could just pop into the registry office with a few family & friends and be done in 5 mins and have a party afterwards.

Makes no sense why they want a special "civil partnership"

i thought they were more concerned that the woman is historically seen as subservient to the man in traditional marriage whereas a "partnership" is seen as something entirely different

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i thought they were more concerned that the woman is historically seen as subservient to the man in traditional marriage whereas a "partnership" is seen as something entirely different

Not in a civil ceremony, all that love honour and obey ****e is a mroe religious thing I think

[bots]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Not in a civil ceremony, all that love honour and obey ****e is a mroe religious thing I think

but i think it's the connotations that could be associated with marriage ... i mean to most sensible people in this day and age it doesn't matter a jot, but "partnership" doesn't have that connotation

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

but i think it's the connotations that could be associated with marriage ... i mean to most sensible people in this day and age it doesn't matter a jot, but "partnership" doesn't have that connotation

hhhmmm I don't know, I reckon they were still trying to prove some sort of a point tbh, marriage is a partnership, those are the connotations I'd associate with marriage But whatever, I don't think anyone is actually bothered whether they want a civil partnership or not, it's their motives which seem a bit odd to me and unbelievable. I mean if you want to talk about connotations, the first thing I think of when I hear civil partnership is "less than marriage but to keep gay people happy" and is the reason gay people fought to be able to marry because of those connotations

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Then they could get married in a non-religious ceremony. A civil partnership is basically marriage some of the legal benefits of marriage. I don't really understand why they'd want what essentially a lesser form of marriage.

If they want it then I say let them have it but it's senseless and it reminds me of children that only wants a certain toy because another kid has it and they don't, they don't need it, their toys are better but they want it just because.

Then why do gay couples choose marriage over civil partnerships when the two are very similar other than being childish and trying to prove a point? They don’t need it they want it because straight couples have it. Same difference!

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Marriage isn't just a certificate, it offers benefits that unmarried people do not have. The LGBT fought for the right to marry so they could have access to those benefits and rights that came with marriage that they didn't have before. I'm all for this couple getting a civil partnership if they want but it stinks of that childlike attitude of wanting something you basically already have because someone else has it.

The ‘benefits’ were to protect women with children who couldn’t work and make the necessary contributions to a pension. Not so much an issue for gay couples.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Then why do gay couples choose marriage over civil partnerships when the two are very similar other than being childish and trying to prove a point? They don’t need it they want it because straight couples have it. Same difference!

Except it isn't. Notice I said SOME of the legal benefits, not all. I also said in a later post that Civil partnerships were a stepping stone to equal marriage and thus are obsolete now. If you're calling gay people childish for wanting equal rights then that says it all, really.

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The ‘benefits’ were to protect women with children who couldn’t work and make the necessary contributions to a pension. Not so much an issue for gay couples.

Bit ignorant to think that this isn't a problem for gay people. Gay people have families too, there are stay at home gay parents that take care of the family as well, do you oppose them getting the same rights as their straight counterparts?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Then why do gay couples choose marriage over civil partnerships when the two are very similar other than being childish and trying to prove a point? They don’t need it they want it because straight couples have it. Same difference!

Equality Brillo, same reason women fight for the same rights as men........

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The ‘benefits’ were to protect women with children who couldn’t work and make the necessary contributions to a pension. Not so much an issue for gay couples.

Which in this day and age is an out dated concept and pretty sexist

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Equality Brillo, same reason women fight for the same rights as men........



Which in this day and age is an out dated concept and pretty sexist

If you can confidently say that anywhere near as many gay couples have children as straight couples I would strongly disagree - so not sexist in my opinion.

Besides I was talking of why the institution of marriage was created - ,mainly for the pritection of women and children. Theses days most people work and pay their own contributions, children or not.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

If you can confidently say that anywhere near as many gay couples have children as straight couples I would strongly disagree - so not sexist in my opinion.

Besides I was talking of why the institution of marriage was created - ,mainly for the pritection of women and children. Theses days most people work and pay their own contributions, children or not.

The number doesn't matter, families with gay parents (or just gay couples in general) deserve the same rights as families with straight parents or straight couples.

That whole statement is quite bizarre, people aren't entitled to same rights as other people are if there isn't enough of them? What a backwards way of looking at things.

[Withano]

I was always confused by straight couples wanting a civil partnership, because it always seemed like an insult really but somebody on here once explained why they personally wanted one

Originally Posted by Anaesthesia

There's a similar thread about LGTB+ rights but it seems mostly to be concentrated upon the right to donate blood for LGTB+.

I and many others are trying to campaign for the right for heterosexual partners to be permitted a civil partnership as an alternative to marriage, with the legal rights that come along with it. Should it not be our right to choose the terms of our relationships and have equal protection in the eyes of the law? Because right now we don't. I don't believe even that it's any part of any political agenda, and it should be.

If my partner were to die now, without having made a will, I would be completely incumbent upon his family 's grace as to whether or not I could continue living in our rented property, let alone whether I could afford it alone. I am also certain they wouldn't give a sh**. There are no "common law wife" rules.

Why should I not have the same protection in law as a same-sex couple?

Originally Posted by Withano

Oh weird, cant see any reason to only allow it for cetain types of couples.

Can I ask why you would prefer this option to a marriage or is that too personal?

Originally Posted by Anaesthesia

Haha, it's not that personal My partner is considerably younger than me, and he's Italian. His family have been against the relationship for the entire 11 years we've been together. I've never been invited to a single family event. His mother dreams of him marrying a younger, fully acceptable bride in a huge Catholic orgy of bull**** with everyone in the many extended families there, and tries to pretend I don't exist. I know we'll always be together, and I'd just like the law to say that we can be together and have rights in case one of us pops it. No ceremony, no fuss. Plus for me a wedding has religious connotations and I'm a heathen

TBH I could counter that question with, if civil partnerships were already available to same sex couples, why the huge campaign for marriage?

It IS weird, but sadly true...non same sex can't have one.

And PS - I actually wrote my thesis in Family Law about this exact same topic, 16 years ago...

I’m glad the couple in the story got their civil partnership, and I hope others will too in the future.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

If you can confidently say that anywhere near as many gay couples have children as straight couples I would strongly disagree - so not sexist in my opinion.

Besides I was talking of why the institution of marriage was created - ,mainly for the pritection of women and children. Theses days most people work and pay their own contributions, children or not.

The reason I said it was sexist was nothing to do with gay couples though

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The number doesn't matter, families with gay parents (or just gay couples in general) deserve the same rights as families with straight parents or straight couples.

That whole statement is quite bizarre, people aren't entitled to same rights as other people are if there isn't enough of them? What a backwards way of looking at things.

Why would people not planning to have children want ‘benefits’ - it all suggests some gay couples are just trying to prove a point and have what straights have - which takes me back to your original comments criticising the straight couple wanting a civil ceremony for being childish and trying to prove a point. They probably are, but if you don’t criticise the gay couples for doing the same it’s double standards and total nonsense.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Why would people not planning to have children want ‘benefits’ - it all suggests some gay couples are just trying to prove a point and have what straights have - which takes me back to your original comments criticising the straight couple wanting a civil ceremony for being childish and trying to prove a point. They probably are, but if you don’t criticise the gay couples for doing the same it’s double standards and total nonsense.

Why do you keep assuming gay couples don't have kids? A very outdated view on things.

Straight couples that don't have kids also get benefits from marriage. Why are you oso opposed to gay people getting the same?

You are comparing apples and oranges to such an extent it's laughable. A civil partnership is not the same as marriage. This straight couple wanting a partnership is not the same as gay people wanting equal marriage, not by a long shot. Civil partnerships weren't meant to be anything other than a stepping stone for gay people to have their own lite equivalent of marriage while the government worked on equal marriage. Civil partnerships should have been abolished as soon as equal marriage was introduced as it's obsolete now.

A straight couple demanding an obselete imitation of marriage is not the same as gay people fighting for the same bonuses and rights that straight people have always enjoyed. To compare the two shows how little you understand of the situation or of gay rights.