Civil partnerships for straight couples

onlyroz

missbiggles1 wrote: »

To you need to modify something that's only based on an assumption?

Refusing to have sex is still grounds for marriage annulment.

Mojisola

onlyroz wrote: »

Refusing to have sex is still grounds for marriage annulment.

Only if the marriage was never consummated.

onlyroz

Mojisola wrote: »

Only if the marriage was never consummated.

Yes, but some people here have suggested that the institution of marriage should be extended to friends who want companionship and security, rather than just sexual partners.

Mojisola

onlyroz wrote: »

Yes, but some people here have suggested that the institution of marriage should be extended to friends who want companionship and security, rather than just sexual partners.

Don't they want a civil partnership rather than a marriage?

onlyroz

Mojisola wrote: »

Don't they want a civil partnership rather than a marriage?

If marriage was modified to allow for this scenario then a civil partnership would be entirely redundant.

Mojisola

onlyroz wrote: »

If marriage was modified to allow for this scenario then a civil partnership would be entirely redundant.

Except for the people who don't want to use the words husband and wife in the ceremony and who just can't cope with the idea of being married because of the historical connotations.

onlyroz

Mojisola wrote: »

Except for the people who don't want to use the words husband and wife in the ceremony and who just can't cope with the idea of being married because of the historical connotations.

I just don't get the argument that the whole institution of marriage should be thrown out the window and replaced because there are a few minor things in it that people don't like. Surely it's better to make marriage more inclusive than to provide something else which is virtually the same?


As I said on the other very long-winded thread, it's like refusing to vote because once women weren't allowed to vote. Or refusing to ride a bus because once black people were not allowed to ride with white people. Or refusing to join a golf club because they used to bar women.


Institutions change, usually for the better, and we should embrace this rather than whinge about the aspects that still aren't quite right.

JasX

duchy wrote: »

t the tradition that marriage had to be in a church

Do bear in mind that that also is a relatively recent 'tradition'

Ref the Christians nicking it from ancient roman tradition once they'd stopped being tossed to the lions by em

Mojisola

onlyroz wrote: »

I just don't get the argument that the whole institution of marriage should be thrown out the window and replaced because there are a few minor things in it that people don't like. Surely it's better to make marriage more inclusive than to provide something else which is virtually the same?

As I said on the other very long-winded thread, it's like refusing to vote because once women weren't allowed to vote. Or refusing to ride a bus because once black people were not allowed to ride with white people. Or refusing to join a golf club because they used to bar women.

Institutions change, usually for the better, and we should embrace this rather than whinge about the aspects that still aren't quite right.

I agree with you but there are clearly other people who struggle with "marriage" as it stands now.

I am married and have no problem being a wife but my interpretation of what that means isn't the same as my mother or my grandmothers. It seems a shame that some people's views are so coloured by history that they can't accept the institution.

I wouldn't have any problem with "marriage" becoming a "legal partnership" if enough people wanted the change. A change of name wouldn't affect how I live my life.

barbarawright

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I'm not sure whether you're putting this forward a a positive or a negative.

I'm just stating a fact. There *is* a legal difference between civil partnership and marriage and there are perfectly valid reasons why people should want a CP.