Civil partnerships: Law to be changed for mixed-sex couples

Ergates

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

The tradition crap is totally optional with marriage or CPs.

Except it isn't with marriage.

You can do what you like for the ceremony (within limits), but you *cannot* separate marriage itself from it's history. It is, and always has been areligious institution at it's root.

pphillips

Ergates wrote: »

What a complete load of incoherent gibberish!! Literally *none* of the points you made makes a single bit of sense.

How is a civil partnership *any less* of a lifelong commitment than a marriage?

What, precisely, prevents two people in a platonic relationship from getting married?

How can you claim that allowing *more* people to do something is *increasing* the amount of discrimination? It's literally the opposite.

In what way to civil partnerships require a lower level of commitment than a marriage?

You seem to be missing my point which is this:

If you believe that civil partnerships and marriage have no real difference then what is the point of having both - you may as well abolish civil partnerships. On the other hand, if you think that civil partnerships is something different to a marriage then you should be able to define what the difference actually is.

Supporters of civil partnerships should be able to argue their continued existence by pointing to something concrete. For example they might say "we want civil partners to be open to anyone who wants one without discrimination". Something like that would make them an entirely different beast to a marriage that might or might not justify keeping them in existence.

Ergates

pphillips wrote: »

You seem to be missing my point which is this:

If you believe that civil partnerships and marriage have no real difference then what is the point of having both - you may as well abolish civil partnerships. On the other hand, if you think that civil partnerships is something different to a marriage then you should be able to define what the difference actually is.

If that was your point then I didn't miss it - it wasn't included in your original post.

To answer your question: Yes I think that a civil partnership is something different to a marriage. The difference is that it doesn't have the historical "baggage" that marriage has - i.e. the religious connotations and the sexism (treating the women as an item of property to be given away).

Also, given that civil partnerships already exist and that some people, for whatever reasons, prefer them - what is the benefit to society from abolishing them?

Red-Squirrel_2

Ergates wrote: »

Except it isn't with marriage.

You can do what you like for the ceremony (within limits), but you *cannot* separate marriage itself from it's history. It is, and always has been areligious institution at it's root.

A civil marriage has nothing to do with religion, it is at its root a financial contract.

pphillips

Ergates wrote: »

If that was your point then I didn't miss it - it wasn't included in your original post.

To answer your question: Yes I think that a civil partnership is something different to a marriage. The difference is that it doesn't have the historical "baggage" that marriage has - i.e. the religious connotations and the sexism (treating the women as an item of property to be given away).

Also, given that civil partnerships already exist and that some people, for whatever reasons, prefer them - what is the benefit to society from abolishing them?

But your answer does not point to anything concrete - you simply don't believe that marriage evolves over time or is capable of modernisation - that isn't a good argument.

I was not talking about abolishing civil partnerships retrospectively .

Ergates

pphillips wrote: »

But your answer does not point to anything concrete - you simply don't believe that marriage evolves over time or is capable of modernisation - that isn't a good argument.

I was not talking about abolishing civil partnerships retrospectively .

It doesn't need to point to anything concrete, and I'm arguing that you *cannot* separate marriage - as a concept - from it's history.

You can argue about that it's history doesn't matter if you like, but lots of people (me included) don't agree with you on that.

pphillips

Ergates wrote: »

It doesn't need to point to anything concrete, and I'm arguing that you *cannot* separate marriage - as a concept - from it's history.

You can argue about that it's history doesn't matter if you like, but lots of people (me included) don't agree with you on that.

That's a snowflake answer - most people object to the concept of forced marriage or child marriage but I have yet to meet anyone who objects to the concept of consensual marriage.

Ergates

pphillips wrote: »

That's a snowflake answer - most people object to the concept of forced marriage or child marriage but I have yet to meet anyone who objects to the concept of consensual marriage.

Which is relevant how? Has anyone here suggested that marriage be banned?

Civil partnerships exist. Abolishing them would be a action - a change to the current state of affairs. You're suggesting that we, as a society, should take that action and abolish them, yet you've not put forward a single coherent reason why that should happen.

Unions - either CPs or Marriages - are, very obviously, a deeply personal thing. If there is one area in life in which people should be able to go about things they way they want it should be this. You're speaking about it like it's some kind of tax code, or a mobile phone contract. Your use of the term "snowflake" is deeply telling.

NeilCr

Ergates wrote: »

Which is relevant how? Has anyone here suggested that marriage be banned?

Civil partnerships exist. Abolishing them would be a action - a change to the current state of affairs. You're suggesting that we, as a society, should take that action and abolish them, yet you've not put forward a single coherent reason why that should happen.

Unions - either CPs or Marriages - are, very obviously, a deeply personal thing. If there is one area in life in which people should be able to go about things they way they want it should be this. You're speaking about it like it's some kind of tax code, or a mobile phone contract. Your use of the term "snowflake" is deeply telling.

Very well said Ergates.

There is quite a bit of noise about this but, as you say, nobody seems to be able to put forward a valid reason for not having civil partnerships - something which doesn't affect them, anyway.

Agree about the use of the word snowflake, too.

duchy

Mrs_Ryan wrote: »

Me and OH have already decided what our CP is going to involve- just waiting impatiently now for the law to change!
It’s going to be an incredibly simple ceremony- close family only in the local registry office followed by a meal in the hotel where we’re going to book rooms for my family. I’m going to be wearing a dress from a website that i adore which hand makes retro style dresses. I’m fairly sure i’ll have a ring of some description but OH doesn’t want one. Our one concession is that I’m going to hold a party a few weeks later for all my friends and extended family back home so they can celebrate with us. Not interested in a massive showy ceremony- too old for all that caper part of me is wondering what on earth has happened to me as when I was engaged to my ex I was Bridezilla alright Nothing less than the full works would have done. Needless to say I didn’t go through with it- we split suddenly. That’s another reason I’m not arguing with OH :rotfl:
Technically- adultery could still occur in a same sex CP- if a bi person had one they could quite conceivably commit adultery with a member of the opposite sex but as Rubik says above- unlikely.

I was going to point out the bi part too.

Your CP sounds more weddingy than my wedding last month.
We got married outside (abroad) , a handful of friends and family , didn't bother with a meal as it was too hot just went back to the villa. The most Wedding like thing I did was rent a caracaturist to come to the villa for two hours then back into the pool.

I don't really see the difference between a CP and a civil ceremony except you don't have the same financial protection with pensions. I don't buy into rejecting marriage because it used to be an unequal partnership ....if anything I see marriage as a celebration of how far marriage has come in the equality stakes. I do find it vaguely offensive to couples who want to have it who are in valid relationships that there are some (sisters, cousins etc) who want to have it to avoid paying tax .

Civil partnerships were only meant as an interim step toward gay marriage anyway. Once we had equal marriage civil partnerships faded away , gay couples wanted the marriage option they had so long been denied. Many "upgraded" their civil partnerships to marriages so presumably certainly some saw CP as in some way lesser than marriage either in terms of financial protection or at a relationship level.