[DouglasS]

Originally Posted by Greg!

Why the hell would you want to get a civil partnership (which is basically a second class marriage for gays introduced before same sex marriage was legalised) when you could just get married? This couple are clearly just attention seekers

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

[Greg!]

Originally Posted by DouglasS

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

There's loads of marriages that are humanist or non-religious. I'm not saying I disagree with the couple's point but the fact they spent thousands on legal feels suggests they just want attention and sympathy

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Greg!

There's loads of marriages that are humanist or non-religious. I'm not saying I disagree with the couple's point but the fact they spent thousands on legal feels suggests they just want attention and sympathy

Everyone should have the right without having to explain themselves to others. Their money is their own to do what they want with.

No doubt there have been many similar attention seeking allegations made towards gays for wanting to get legally married.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Greg!

There's loads of marriages that are humanist or non-religious. I'm not saying I disagree with the couple's point but the fact they spent thousands on legal feels suggests they just want attention and sympathy

Would you spend thousands just for attention?

It suggests to me that they're fighting for something they believe in.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by DouglasS

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

Marriage isn't a religious thing though, it's civil, religion doesn't have to play any part in it if they don't want it to, their reason is because of 'patriarchal baggage' which suggests they'd prefer a Civil Partnership because it's newer (unless I've totally misunderstood the meaning of that? seems a bit vague).

The whole point in Civil Partnerships was to be able to afford similar rights to gay couples that straight couples already get when marrying, they wouldn't exist to begin with if it wasn't for marriage being exclusionary of gay people, so now that isn't the case I don't see why they don't just abolish them. If they're going to keep them then sure open them up to everyone but I just really don't see what the point is in having them at all anymore. (Or keep Civil Partnerships and abolish marriage )

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by DouglasS

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

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.

[kirklancaster]

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.

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

[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.

[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?

[ChristmasNeeve]

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.

[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!

[Christmas Lights]

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 .

[ChristmasNeeve]

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

[Christmas Lights]

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 .

[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.