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

Ergates

duchy wrote: »

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.

The proportion of different-sex couple who would be affected by the different pension protections is pretty small - they only apply to defined benefits accrued before 2005. Even then - there have been high-court rulings that these differences are discriminatory, so that may get changed anyway.

duchy wrote: »

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.

OK - but many other people don't agree with you about that.

To quote the Grauniad:
"The institution is entwined with the history of religion and with a view of women as property and second-class citizens. While many secular modern couples can accommodate that history in their understanding of how marriage has changed in recent years, many others can’t."

duchy wrote: »

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.

And many didn't.

pphillips

duchy wrote: »

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.

I totally agree with you that the majority of same sex couples saw civil partnerships as a stepping stone towards an equal marriage. Indeed at the time that same sex marriage was being brought in the argument was that civil partnerships were subordinate to marriage and that marriage was to be admired as "the gold standard".

barbarawright

As with gay marriage before it, I am completely baffled by the objections. CP for straight people who are not in a sexual relationship (which is assumed if you are married - thus adultery is grounds for the dissolution of a marriage but not a CP) will make some people happy and increase their financial protection. It's not going to become compulsory and nobody is going to ban marriage. Seriously, what harm does it do?

pphillips

Ergates wrote: »

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

It was only relevant for the purpose of putting your trivial objection to marriage into perspective.

Gavin83

barbarawright wrote: »

As with gay marriage before it, I am completely baffled by the objections. CP for straight people who are not in a sexual relationship (which is assumed if you are married - thus adultery is grounds for the dissolution of a marriage but not a CP) will make some people happy and increase their financial protection. It's not going to become compulsory and nobody is going to ban marriage. Seriously, what harm does it do?

It's not so much that I'm against it, it's just entirely unnecessary.

Some people can't seem to separate religion and marriage but that's their issue, not an issue of marriage. You make the point that CP can be used for those people not in a sexual relationship. However firstly this somewhat goes against the principle of it and secondly, as I've pointed out there's nothing stopping these people getting married. Two friends can get married just as easily as two friends can get a CP.

Besides, if people start abusing it to avoid tax I can see the Government closing it down pretty quickly.

It's the same with everyone isn't it, "everyone should pay more tax to increase services, except me"

barbarawright

Many pension plans don't allow for inheritance by anyone other than a spouse or civil partner. So two friends who share a house and possibly finances can't inherit. Financial security seems to only be the province of the married...

Nothing wrong with CP as a purely financial and social arrangement. I wouldn't marry my gay best friend but I can imagine being his CP should we choose to live together.

Ergates

pphillips wrote: »

It was only relevant for the purpose of putting your trivial objection to marriage into perspective.

So, the logical fallacy of relative privation. Well done.

pphillips

Ergates wrote: »

So, the logical fallacy of relative privation. Well done.

I found putting your argument into perspective helpful in dismissing your worthless objections to marriage as a fallacy. I think you will find that "the logical fallacy of relative privation" means appealing to a worse problem, but in your case the so called problem does not exist - it is simply a figment of your imagination.

Ergates

pphillips wrote: »

I found putting your argument into perspective helpful in dismissing your worthless objections to marriage as a fallacy.

So, you found using a logical fallacy to dismiss an argument you don't like useful. Presumably because you don't actually have a valid argument of your own. That isn't the type of thing you should admit to.

pphillips wrote: »

I thing you will find that "the logical fallacy of relative privation" means appealing to a worse problem

Yes I know that's what it means. That's why I wrote it. "Putting things into perspective" in this case means "How can you complain about these things I don't care about when there are worse things like forced marriage going on". If we accepted that as the basis for a valid argument, then there would be no point in objecting to anything less that being murdered (or torturered or <insert worst crime imaginable>. Clearly we don't - which is why it's a logical fallacy.

pphillips wrote: »

but in your case the so called problem does not exist - it is simply a figment of your imagination.

You seem confused.

An objection to something based on something intangible, such as it's "historical baggage" *cannot* be a figment of someones imagination. To argue that something inherently subjective is in someone's imagination is utterly nonsensical. That's like telling someone they're just imagining they don't like the taste of coffee.

You can argue, if you like, that marriage doesn't have a history of entwined with religion and treating women as property. But there's a pretty large body of evidence to prove you wrong.

You can simply state that you don't care, which is your right. Caring about things that don't directly impact you isn't mandatory.

You can also argue, if you like, that marriage has moved on from that, and everything is just fine now. But that's a subjective argument (i.e your opinion) and I can disagree with it (which is my opinion).

The Supreme Court however, has accepted that the objections and convictions of people like me are "genuine" and worthy of consideration. And, unlike you and me, their opinions on the subject *do* matter. I'm sorry if that triggers you.

laydee_carmelade

We'll be doing this as soon as it becomes law. One point everyone who is saying marriage can be nontraditional and equal, you have to put your father's name and occupation on the marriage certificate, but not your mother's. Not very equal, is it?