Closest thing to "civil partnership" for couple who are not same-sex.

HanSpan

Person_one wrote: »

From basically all your posts! :rotfl:

"we could really do with the legal and financial benefits of marriage."...
but we don't want all the rest of it that comes with it

The end was not explicitly written in that sentence but was perfectly clear from other things within that post and, those I have written since.
So no I don't want exactly the same as a marriage but by another name.

Petra_70

HanSpan wrote: »

Err where are you getting that I want something exactly the same as marriage but with a different name?

Person_one wrote: »

From basically all your posts! :rotfl:

HanSpan wrote: »

"we could really do with the legal and financial benefits of marriage."...
but we don't want all the rest of it that comes with it

So no I don't want exactly the same as a marriage but by another name.

I agree with Person One, and the rest of the people who have said similar. You DO want exactly the same as marriage - but by another name; you just don't realise it. And do tell us, what is 'the rest of it that comes with it?' :huh:

I have never seen so many bizarre posts and with such odd and peculiar and frankly incorrect assumptions about marriage. I have also never seen someone so much in denial on here before either.

missbiggles1

If you want to be a wild, free, unfettered creature who loves where they will, unconstrained by society's rules then go ahead and do it and keep your self respect.

Don't lose your dignity and compromise your principles by putting yourself (and the person you love) in a second class marriage which you can escape from easily.

I've lived happily (mostly) with several people and been married happily (the second time) but if someone told me I was only good enough to contract a second rate contract with but not good enough to marry I'd tell them exactly where they could stick their civil partnership!

Petra_70

missbiggles1 wrote: »

If you want to be a wild, free, unfettered creature who loves where they will, unconstrained by society's rules then go ahead and do it and keep your self respect.

Don't lose your dignity and compromise your principles by putting yourself (and the person you love) in a second class marriage which you can escape from easily.

I've lived happily (mostly) with several people and been married happily (the second time) but if someone told me I was only good enough to contract a second rate contract with but not good enough to marry I'd tell them exactly where they could stick their civil partnership!

Utterly brilliant post. :j:T:)

I have to say; the attitude of the OP, and people like her makes me so angry. (Oh *I* am not going to conform to society and get married, but I want everything that marriage brings financially, and all the protection it brings.)

What IS their problem with being married? IMO, all this talk of how they will NOT get married, because 'it used to mean ownership of the woman' is an utter crock. It does not mean that now! So that is a lame excuse!

All it is, is she just doesn't want to be seen to be 'conforming' to what society expects, and thinks she is all cool and new age by refusing to conform to what society expects. Such a hipster.

It's such a cheek really. WE HATE MARRIAGE BUT WE WANT ALL THE ADVANTAGES THAT GO WITH IT.

Do me a favour! :mad:

mgdavid

mai_taylor wrote: »

I think you are making in far too complicated. Give notice, pop to your local registry office, ceremony is 10 minutes max. You can do it in jeans with two witnesses off the street. Job done.

Far too simple; some people are just wired in the head such that they cannot help finding difficulties to fret over, where none exist for the rest of us. Such a first world problem!

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

Or alternatively you could research them yourself !


You asked me if I thought CP's are a good idea...............

I have gay friends and family and having talked to them and what it meant I fall into the camp that welcomed it as a stepping stone to full equal rights for same sex couples but now sees it as redundant as equality has been achieved with equal marriage for all. I fully expect it to be ended.

Like another poster I can't understand with your social conscience causing you to reject marriage because of its associations with oppression in the past why on earth you would want a union founded on giving same sex couples some but not all the rights of marriage. Surely that too is oppression ?

I think becuase the rituals associated with it aren't oppressive, purely the application of it in terms of being only allowed for gay couples - making it available for different gender couples would actually remove that differential and is I think why many gays are supporting the equal civil partnership campaign.

HanSpan

lazer wrote: »

The high update of PAC's in France could be more to do with the differences in legislation.

I think it is much easier to enter a PAC's, and definitely easier to get off - a official letter to dissolve it is all that is required.

I doesn't require the same documentation as a marriage does, its a simple declaration.

A PAC's can also be individually drawn up. can include property rights, and can include if assets are owned in common or separately.

Civil partnership and marriage in the UK are identical (Almost in terms of property rights, future pension rights, next of kin, inheritance etc).

It is unfair to compare civil partnership with PAC's

Reading that then if I had a total free choice I'd have PACs instead of civil partnerships here too! It sounds like that would suit me far better.

In terns of the stats I was using PACs purely becuase that is the only stats I've found. If I find any others I will happily share them!

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

:T:T:T

Looks like you need to do this yourself OP
Don't forget to come and share your findings with us.

Nice try! But it wasn't me that asserted there were huge differences between other versions of civil partnerships and marriages, so the onus is not on me to prove it!


For myself I have done sufficient research to find that, whatever the rules are attached to those other civil partnership-like things, none of them are recognised in the UK between heterosexual couples. The specifics of each are therefore irrelevant to my situation and the options that may or may not be available to me and I haven't the time to engage in that degree of digging just for entertainment.

mumps

HanSpan wrote: »

If I could bann all the partiarchal traditions from all marriages and totally disassiciate them from the giving or selling of a woman from one man to another I wouldn't mind, but as long as the norm is for a woman to give up her name, be given away by one man to another, wear virginal white etc etc then I will never be comfortable with it.
I want the legal protections afforded to couples who marry for me and the man I have lived with for 25 years, yet I really don't want to take part in something I find so uncomfortable.

Is it still the norm for women to be given away by one man to another, wear virginal white? I've been married along time and neither of those things happened to me. I did change my name but I had personal reasons for that.

HanSpan

Petra_70 wrote: »

I agree with Person One, and the rest of the people who have said similar. You DO want exactly the same as marriage - but by another name; you just don't realise it. And do tell us, what is 'the rest of it that comes with it?' :huh:

I have never seen so many bizarre posts and with such odd and peculiar and frankly incorrect assumptions about marriage. I have also never seen someone so much in denial on here before either.

I do NOT want to be married, and if what someone else has said about the PACs is true that would in fact suit me far better if it were available to me. I would actually far far prefer to have a legal agreement that only lasts for as long as we choose to stay together.

I don't believe I have made incorrect assumptions about marriage.
I have said that I do not feel comfortable with getting married (fact) that I don't want to be a "wife" (fact) that I do not want to take part in something where the majority still choose to include practices in the marriage, and rituals at the ceremony, which reflect the historical oppression of women - even IF I don't have those rituals (fact).
I have also said that I would find it difficult to get married then not tell anyone - I would - I find it very difficult to lie (fact).

As far as I can recall the only "assumptions" I have made are about my own feelings, which I'm pretty sure I am better placed to judge than others.