Civil partnerships for straight couples

corf999

Lily-Rose wrote: »

I agree! :T:T:T

If you really really want the same 'rights' and 'equality' as married couples have, then GET MARRIED!

Otherwise, just shut the fluff up moaning. These people must lead such blessed lives if this is all they have to gripe about.

To be fair marriage is very outdated in modern society, with its history of family contracts, selling the woman and being hijacked by religion. It been part of the reason for keeping women repressed across the centuries.

Its extermely sexist in my opinion and I am very surprised many (most?) woman still "desire" it.

I would welcome a civil partnership for straight couples and I would consider it - however I have ruled out marriage as an archaic practice that should be long dead.

Andypandyboy

Once the legalities are over everyone is free to define their marriage/roles how they see fit. If it turns out to be sexist, archaic, etc in practice then that is down to the individuals concerned, not the state of marriage. Those issues are going to occur within that same relationship whether married, co habiting, or in a CP.

ravilious_fan

corf999 wrote: »

To be fair marriage is very outdated in modern society, with its history of family contracts, selling the woman and being hijacked by religion. It been part of the reason for keeping women repressed across the centuries.

Its extermely sexist in my opinion and I am very surprised many (most?) woman still "desire" it.

I would welcome a civil partnership for straight couples and I would consider it - however I have ruled out marriage as an archaic practice that should be long dead.

Weddings (with the woman dressed in white, being given away by her father, etc) are outdated and fanciful but marriage isn't. It's saying you love and want to be with that person for the rest of your life.

Lily-Rose_3

corf999 wrote: »

To be fair marriage is very outdated in modern society, with its history of family contracts, selling the woman and being hijacked by religion. It been part of the reason for keeping women repressed across the centuries.

Its extremely sexist in my opinion and I am very surprised many (most?) woman still "desire" it.

I would welcome a civil partnership for straight couples and I would consider it - however I have ruled out marriage as an archaic practice that should be long dead.

I despair for humanity. I really do.

You have obviously not listened to ANYTHING anyone has said on this thread.

If you think that marriage is such a disgusting, out-dated, repugnant, sexist, farcical embarrassment to humanity, then DON'T get married. That is your choice! But I, and many millions of women are happy to do so, because it's what we want to do.

And if you refuse to get married - ever - that's fine too; but don't complain because you're not getting the same rights as married people.

Person_one

Feminists and equality campaigners (some male, mostly female) have spent decades, centuries even, fighting to make marriage the egalitarian, empowering, incredibly useful instrument it is today.

I actually think its rather insulting to dismiss all those changes and all that hard work and act like its still the sexist institution it was, and cry discrimination. As well as being a glaring example of straight privilege and insulting to same sex couples who have genuinely been discriminated against for so many years.

Marriage comes with a long and fantastic history of people striving to make something better. Civil partnerships come with a short and embarrassing history of a country unwilling to treat gay people like equals. Why is that better? Just because of a bit of terminology? Rubbish.

arbroath_lass

Lily-Rose wrote: »

And if you refuse to get married - ever - that's fine too; but don't complain because you're not getting the same rights as married people.

Why not? Is that all marriage is about? Acquiring rights?

missbiggles1

ravilious_fan wrote: »

Weddings (with the woman dressed in white, being given away by her father, etc) are outdated and fanciful but marriage isn't. It's saying you love and want to be with that person for the rest of your life.

I'd put it more strongly and say that you're going to be with that person for the rest of your life. That's why it's a vow (promise) and not just a wish.

(And, of course, people do break their vows.)

missbiggles1

arbroath_lass wrote: »

Why not? Is that all marriage is about? Acquiring rights?

Legal rights (and responsibilities) are the foundations of marriage, just as they're the foundations of society.

arbroath_lass

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Legal rights (and responsibilities) are the foundations of marriage, just as they're the foundations of society.

If they're the foundations of society then why can't they be the foundations of a civil partnership between two people of the opposite sex? (As they are in a civil partnership between two people of the same sex).

missbiggles1

arbroath_lass wrote: »

If they're the foundations of society then why can't they be the foundations of a civil partnership between two people of the opposite sex? (As they are in a civil partnership between two people of the same sex).

CPs were a temporary arrangement - you don't have temporary foundations.