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

Gavin83

Rubik wrote: »

Please go back and find the post that clearly explains what adultery is, then revise this idiotic statement.

Is there really any need to be so rude about it?

The dictionary definition is: "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse." so it seems we're both correct. Therefore I'll take my statement back in regards to gender, as clearly it does matter. However, you can only commit adultery within a marriage.

Ergates

My partner and I have been together for 20 years and neither of us have ever had any interest in getting married. I'd consider a CP though - for the additional legal protection and IHT benefits it brings.

This is because marriage has thousands of years of history as a religious institution and I don't think you can separate the two. We're also not totally comfortable with some of the patriarchal aspects of it's history.

I'm glad this change is coming - but that doesn't mean I feel I've been discriminated against until now.

Ideally you'd be able to do it online or by post - I really can't be arsed with any kind of ceremony, even a short one.

BrassicWoman

Rubik wrote: »

Homosexuality and bisexuality are not the same.

Yes. Your comment indicated you are aware of homosexuals but not bisexuals. Therefore they are different

Rubik

BrassicWoman wrote: »

Yes. Your comment indicated you are aware of homosexuals but not bisexuals. Therefore they are different

Completely aware of bisexuals, thanks - my sister is bisexual.

Slinky

Cheeky_Monkey wrote: »

Some people will do literally anything to get in the papers and avoid paying tax :eek:

They can't do it because CPs quite rightly don't extend to blood relatives. Afterall, nobody wants to condone incest!

Indeed. Allowing same sex siblings to have a CP and you'll then get cries of there being discrimination against opposite sex siblings.......

Rubik

Slinky wrote: »

Indeed. Allowing same sex siblings to have a CP and you'll then get cries of there being discrimination against opposite sex siblings.......

The Utley sisters are calling for siblings in general - not just same sex siblings - to be able to enter into a civil partnership. They've been in the news a fair bit over the past couple of years. It's worth reading some of the interviews to understand why they want this change in the law.

It has been down to them that Lord Lexden introduced his Private Member's Bill Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) (Sibling Couples) Bill [HL] 2017-19 - it's now waiting for a date to be heard at the Committee Stage.

Red-Squirrel_2

Ergates wrote: »

This is because marriage has thousands of years of history as a religious institution and I don't think you can separate the two. We're also not totally comfortable with some of the patriarchal aspects of it's history.

The history of CPs is that they were introduced as a second best option for same sex couples because public opinion wasn't yet at the point that would have allowed gay marriage to be legalised.

Is that better?

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

The history of CPs is that they were introduced as a second best option for same sex couples because public opinion wasn't yet at the point that would have allowed gay marriage to be legalised.

Is that better?

To be honest i'm not sure if it was public opinion; I suspect it was pressure from both inside parliament and to some degree outside stakeholders such as religious organisations.


In any case, same sex marriage was never an issue from my perspective. Seemed perfectly reasonable.

Red-Squirrel_2

Comms69 wrote: »

To be honest i'm not sure if it was public opinion; I suspect it was pressure from both inside parliament and to some degree outside stakeholders such as religious organisations.


In any case, same sex marriage was never an issue from my perspective. Seemed perfectly reasonable.

My point was, its not exactly a long and noble history of equality, is it?

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

My point was, its not exactly a long and noble history of equality, is it?

Equality isn't really a thing anyway.


But that aside I'll say this - Today is better than yesterday and that was better than the day before.


What I often find is people use modern standards to judge the past, which is hardly a useful comparison.