[ChristmasNeeve]

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

[ChristmasNeeve]

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