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

Ergates

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?

Yes. Regardless of *why* it came about, what it does is take the legal rights and protections and separate them from all the tradition crap.

pphillips

Why is the state giving virtually all the benefits of married couples to other people who have not given the same lifelong commitment?

The change to civil partnerships proposed by the government means that two unprohibited people of the same sex or opposite sex will be allowed similar benefits to marriage without the need for their relationship to be anything more than platonic. This will now open up further discrimination as it means that opposite sex and same sex friends are allowed to enter into civil partnerships but most opposite sex and same sex family members cannot.

Civil partnerships are therefore a ridiculous low-commitment union that should be abolished.

barbarawright

pphillips wrote: »

Why is the state giving virtually all the benefits of married couples to other people who have not given the same lifelong commitment?

The change to civil partnerships proposed by the government means that two unprohibited people of the same sex or opposite sex will be allowed similar benefits to marriage without the need for their relationship to be anything more than platonic. This will now open up further discrimination as it means that opposite sex and same sex friends are allowed to enter into civil partnerships but most opposite sex and same sex family members cannot.

Civil partnerships are therefore a ridiculous low-commitment union that should be abolished.

I have friends who have lived together for years but don't happen to sleep together. Allowing them to have a civil partnership will give them the same pension and inheritance rights as any other couple. Why is theirs not a lifelong commitment?How is it discriminatory? Not all meaningful relationships are sexual and it's insulting to suggest that marriage is the only way of committing to someone

Comms69

I thought marriages were sexless platonic commitments...

Red-Squirrel_2

Ergates wrote: »

Yes. Regardless of *why* it came about, what it does is take the legal rights and protections and separate them from all the tradition crap.

The tradition crap is totally optional with marriage or CPs.

pphillips

barbarawright wrote: »

I have friends who have lived together for years but don't happen to sleep together. Allowing them to have a civil partnership will give them the same pension and inheritance rights as any other couple. Why is theirs not a lifelong commitment?How is it discriminatory? Not all meaningful relationships are sexual and it's insulting to suggest that marriage is the only way of committing to someone

I didn't say that marriage is the only way of committing to someone, I accept there are other forms of commitment such as moving in together, living together for a long time or getting engaged. But non of these are the equivalent of marriage and the state does no recognise them as such. I just don't see the purpose of civil partnerships other than a snowflake union.

Leaving that aside, are you saying that all meaningful relationships should be allowed a civil partnership? What is on the table is blatant discrimination - it means that friends who have lived together for years are allowed civil partnerships but family members who have lived together for years are not.

Gavin83

pphillips wrote: »

Leaving that aside, are you saying that all meaningful relationships should be allowed a civil partnership? What is on the table is blatant discrimination - it means that friends who have lived together for years are allowed civil partnerships but family members who have lived together for years are not.

I can't believe you're actually debating this. A civil partnership is for a couple, family members cannot (legally) be a couple. It's nothing more than a very slightly cut down marriage with a different name.

Besides there is a flaw in your debate. Current there's nothing stopping two friends who live together getting married, that I'm aware of anyway.

pphillips

Gavin83 wrote: »

I can't believe you're actually debating this. A civil partnership is for a couple, family members cannot (legally) be a couple. It's nothing more than a very slightly cut down marriage with a different name.

Besides there is a flaw in your debate. Current there's nothing stopping two friends who live together getting married, that I'm aware of anyway.

It seems to me you are agreeing with me that civil partnerships are unnecessary.

Cheeky_Monkey

Rubik wrote: »

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.

So they've been attention-seekers and tax dodgers for a few years then

Ergates

pphillips wrote: »

Why is the state giving virtually all the benefits of married couples to other people who have not given the same lifelong commitment?

The change to civil partnerships proposed by the government means that two unprohibited people of the same sex or opposite sex will be allowed similar benefits to marriage without the need for their relationship to be anything more than platonic. This will now open up further discrimination as it means that opposite sex and same sex friends are allowed to enter into civil partnerships but most opposite sex and same sex family members cannot.

Civil partnerships are therefore a ridiculous low-commitment union that should be abolished.

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?