Heterosexual Couple Win Court Case for Civil Partnership. I don't understand it.

onomatopoeia99

Robisere wrote: »

All of the issues connected with relationships over the last 30 years or so, is what I no longer understand. I don't understand where it all started and I don't understand where it is going. But I do understand that there will be an increasingly larger number of confused children.

There have always been confused children. Previously it was because parents wouldn't talk about stuff to them, swept it under the carpet and frantically kept up appearances (e.g. staying locked in an unhappy marriage), or in one case that I know of, chucked out their daughter at 16 when she came out as a lesbian.


Things are way better now for a child that's different from the norm than they were 40 years ago, there's far more acceptance of differences rather than adolescents feeling compelled to hide their sexuality or gender disphoria.

Red-Squirrel_2

Robisere wrote: »

All of the issues connected with relationships over the last 30 years or so, is what I no longer understand. I don't understand where it all started and I don't understand where it is going. But I do understand that there will be an increasingly larger number of confused children.

What are you on about? Bit Victor Meldrew over there!

Tabbytabitha

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

There have always been confused children. Previously it was because parents wouldn't talk about stuff to them, swept it under the carpet and frantically kept up appearances (e.g. staying locked in an unhappy marriage), or in one case that I know of, chucked out their daughter at 16 when she came out as a lesbian.


Things are way better now for a child that's different from the norm than they were 40 years ago, there's far more acceptance of differences rather than adolescents feeling compelled to hide their sexuality or gender disphoria.

Better for a tiny minority perhaps, but at what cost to the vast majority?

Tabbytabitha

svain wrote: »

It has nothing to do with "second best" ... it is to do with having "options" and "equality" .... Agree with it, like it, or not, it should be the same regardless of whether you are straight or gay.

Then perhaps you should be campaigning for adultery to be an acceptable reason for divorce as it is in straight marriage.

Senseicads

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Better for a tiny minority perhaps, but at what cost to the vast majority?

What do you mean cost? Why would there be any cost? Kids are taught now that there’s nothing wrong with being of any sexuality at all. This means they are free to be whoever they are with no confusion, guilt or repression. They also understand that no matter what sexual orientation they are, others may be different or the same and all that is ok. Why isn’t that clear, obvious and wonderful?

Mojisola

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Better for a tiny minority perhaps, but at what cost to the vast majority?

There was more cost to society when people were frightened and anxious about being themselves but the damage was hidden away while the majority pretended everything was fine.

I'd rather live in a society where we can be ourselves and accept that others may be different but that's okay.

DigForVictory

Me, I assemble family trees for fun. If this Civil Partnership bit catches on then I will suddenly have a properly documented bride & her family. I'm all for it.

And if that seems a rather thin reason - a widowed-cousin-by-marriage died last moth & noone breathing remembers her maiden name. They weren't married in the UK and while I'm sure there are documents that will resolve it, they are international, and tricky to access.

Tabbytabitha

DigForVictory wrote: »

Me, I assemble family trees for fun. If this Civil Partnership bit catches on then I will suddenly have a properly documented bride & her family. I'm all for it.

And if that seems a rather thin reason - a widowed-cousin-by-marriage died last moth & noone breathing remembers her maiden name. They weren't married in the UK and while I'm sure there are documents that will resolve it, they are international, and tricky to access.

Surely you only have a bride if you have an actual wedding? From what some people posted earlier, for some that's the whole point of CPs.

MPD

The state denied some couples a right based on their sexuality, one of the couples wanted to exercise those rights so they asked to be able to do so. The state said no (that's the bit I don't understand) so the couple asked the courts to tell the state they were wrong, and the courts did exactly that.

If someone doesn't understand that then I would suggest they are being willfully ignorant. It doesn't matter if the couple do have other similar rights, they wanted this right and they were being discriminated against in not having it.

p00hsticks

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Surely you only have a bride if you have an actual wedding? From what some people posted earlier, for some that's the whole point of CPs.

I think that the poster is pointing out that if the 'bride' had had a CP rather than a wedding, her mothers details would have been recorded on the certificate, which would be helpful to anyone researching peoples ancestry