|
Post by thebfg on Feb 21, 2017 10:29:03 GMT
I know there are a vast range of people on here and what do you all think of this. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146A different sex couple were refused the right to a civil partnership on the grounds not being married is discriminating them. I've been with the misses now for 14 years in April. We're not married and have two kids. I know there are some perks of getting married but would it really be worth it. I know we could get married but why should we. But we should get some rights. We did give the kids my surname so we wouldent have to change it but haven't got married yet. Is there anything were losing out on just because we don't have a piece of paper.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 21, 2017 10:37:20 GMT
I just hope their legal action isn't being funded by the taxpayer. Since the option of marriage was available to them, I'd be curious to know why they felt it wouldn't be suitable for them?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 21, 2017 11:05:37 GMT
I just hope their legal action isn't being funded by the taxpayer. Since the option of marriage was available to them, I'd be curious to know why they felt it wouldn't be suitable for them? I'm curious too. We're not married but that's my fault for not asking. We don't think the world is out to get us because of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 11:21:06 GMT
We were 8 years together before marriage, already owned our house - no question of commitment to one and other.
Getting married felt like the right thing to do, it also saved a whole load of buggering about sorting stuff out if one of us snuffed it, or, should it go tits up working out what was who's!
It made no material difference to our day to day lives - the big day boiled down to having a big get together with family and friends to celebrate our life together so far, and look forward to what the future held.
I can think of only two examples were not being married had implications other than financial ones, both are identical - my two brothers have had boys with now ex partners, the two boys do not have our family surname as the mothers decided to give them theirs instead. Both were not happy about it, but, to be fair, they had big questions to ask themselves about the failure of their relationships over and above their sons not taking their surname!
These pair who have been refused the right to a civil partnership want to either shit or get off the pot - millions of others manage to either be married or cohabitate (a shite word but the only real fitting one) wasting time and money through the courts is a daft idea.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 21, 2017 11:22:31 GMT
Just read the Guardian story on this and apparently they reject traditional marriage on the grounds that it is a “sexist” and “patriarchal” institution. I'm not quite sure how these two objections are compatible since my understanding is that a large point of marriage is to provide a degree of legal security for the woman. I just wonder how many hundreds of thousands of pounds this three-year legal challenge has cost, at a time when thousands of people are homeless and thousands more have to rely on food banks for survival.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 21, 2017 11:24:47 GMT
The fact that same sex couples can choose either marriage or a civil partnership whereas different sex couples only have the choice of marriage is an inequality. The equalities act covers this, it's quite clear.
The obvious, and very simple solution is to scrap civil partnerships altogether. They were only created because marriage was not available to same sex couples but now that this have been addressed, there's no need for civil partnerships.
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Feb 21, 2017 12:38:17 GMT
Ricco is right, civil partnerships preceded same sex marriages and now same sex marriages' exist it rather makes the civil partnership redundant and as such should be struck from the statute book Phil
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 21, 2017 12:43:48 GMT
I think it is gross inequality that gay men are not allowed to become pregnant.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 21, 2017 13:54:19 GMT
It would probably be best to remove the civil partnership thing for new applicants altogether. The only argument against that may be christians who feel strongly that marriage is a thing in god's eyes only between a man and a woman, and yet are benders and want to get hitched to have equal rights in law to married couples. Yes of course they are confused by religious indoctrination and a maliciously confusing and bigoted god but I suppose it isn't their fault.
As to marriage being patriarchal, that is BS as a marriage is what you make of it. And it seems that in general, divorce is a matriarchal institution! Certainly, promising to "love, honour and obey" your husband is long gone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 14:47:52 GMT
I know we could get married but why should we. But we should get some rights. Why do feel you should have some rights when you won't sign up to the obligations that go with them?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 21, 2017 15:32:00 GMT
I know we could get married but why should we. But we should get some rights. Why do feel you should have some rights when you won't sign up to the obligations that go with them? I had not noticed that. Sorry I meant could. It was more rhetoric than anything. To be fair, we should get married but we always said saving for a house was more important. I'm happy anyway, I asked my local vicar, in jest if we were living in sin, he said it's ok now. I don't even know what we would gain out of getting married apart from the declaration of love and all that do I don't know what we're missing. I saw the two on the news. They seemed to have a point but I've no idea what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 21, 2017 15:35:47 GMT
I tend to take the approach that I don't need permission from the Church to be somebody's friend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 15:39:58 GMT
OK, understood. I just feel that couples should commit to each other before deciding to have children. I don't suppose they get called bastards today but they were when I was at school. Marriage or civil partnership is good for families and that, I suppose, is good for society. I don't complain that my taxes subsidise those with children even though my wife and I don't have any.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 21, 2017 15:40:22 GMT
Why do feel you should have some rights when you won't sign up to the obligations that go with them? I had not noticed that. Sorry I meant could. It was more rhetoric than anything. To be fair, we should get married but we always said saving for a house was more important. I'm happy anyway, I asked my local vicar, in jest if we were living in sin, he said it's ok now. I don't even know what we would gain out of getting married apart from the declaration of love and all that do I don't know what we're missing. I saw the two on the news. They seemed to have a point but I've no idea what it is. The whole idea that a marriage ceremony must cost a fortune and outdo the neighbours' wedding, is ludicrous. Why not just get married in a registry office, couple of witnesses, off down the pub for a pissup and that's it. £50 should do it. It is about your own commitment to each other, not about impressing the friends and relatives. Reasons to do it: As an unofficial partner you could for instance: Be denied attendance at partner's funeral let alone any say in how it's run, if the in-laws don't like you not have any say in the treatment and care of a seriously ill partner; not have automatic inheritance of partner's assets on death nor get the IHT relief not be entitled to a surviving spouse's pension and probably lots of other things
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 15:40:33 GMT
It would probably be best to remove the civil partnership thing for new applicants altogether. The only argument against that may be christians who feel strongly that marriage is a thing in god's eyes only between a man and a woman, and yet are benders and want to get hitched to have equal rights in law to married couples. Yes of course they are confused by religious indoctrination and a maliciously confusing and bigoted god but I suppose it isn't their fault. As to marriage being patriarchal, that is BS as a marriage is what you make of it. And it seems that in general, divorce is a matriarchal institution! Certainly, promising to "love, honour and obey" your husband is long gone. And that in a nutshell wraps the job up!
|
|