Heterosexual Couple Win Court Case for Civil Partnership. I don't understand it.
Comments
-
I think the issue is that some people see "Marriage" = Married in a church. OK, technically there is no basis for this, but as churches only do marriages and not civil partnerships, so I can understand why there is a close connection between the word "marriage" and the church.
So if you wanted to get "married", but were anti-religion, a Civil Partnership seems a good compromise?
Surely its about choice - they do not want to be "Married" as they are anti-religion?
Why can't they just have a civil marriage in a registry office, in that case?(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
truely ridiculous, that in this day and age that a straight couple have to get married (regardless of type of ceremony) to get equal benefits ... Looking forward to the law being changed0
-
Fireflyaway wrote: »The fact they are making a fuss makes me think they are just wanting [STRIKE]equality[/STRIKE].
Wanting attention more like!0 -
truely ridiculous, that in this day and age that a straight couple have to get married (regardless of type of ceremony) to get equal benefits ... Looking forward to the law being changed
You could have a long wait then.
The ruling hasn't forced the government to allow 'straight' couples the right to a civil partnership, it will force the government to make a decision one way or another. Either abolish CP's or allow them for everyone.
Now that they are obsolete in the sense that same-sex couples can marry the sensible thing to do would be to abolish them as they were nothing more than an insult to begin with.Accept your past without regret, handle your present with confidence and face your future without fear0 -
peachyprice wrote: »Now that they are obsolete in the sense that same-sex couples can marry the sensible thing to do would be to abolish them as they were nothing more than an insult to begin with.
I genuinely don't see Civil Partnerships as an insult. I understand the reasoning behind their introduction (as a sop to those who didn't want homosexuals to be able to 'marry') but they exist in other countries as an alternative to marriage so I really don't understand why people are getting so worked up about this. They are simply a formal and legal recognition of a partnership, that's all. They aren't the 'same' as marriage so if people want something different, why not allow them to have it? It strikes me that if people are so keen on the idea of marriage (whatever that is to them) then why force other people to do it if they don't want to? It's hypocritical for someone to get married when they don't believe in it, just for the benefits - it's just as daft as a short marriage (or multiple marriages ...) being given weight in law when long-term committed relationships aren't, or the fact that the government would recognise my relationship and co-habitation in some contexts (i.e. if I tried to claim benefits) but wouldn't recognise those factors in others (i.e. if I wanted to make a medical decision for my partner if he wasn't able to do that for himself).0 -
I genuinely don't see Civil Partnerships as an insult. I understand the reasoning behind their introduction (as a sop to those who didn't want homosexuals to be able to 'marry') but they exist in other countries as an alternative to marriage so I really don't understand why people are getting so worked up about this. They are simply a formal and legal recognition of a partnership, that's all. They aren't the 'same' as marriage so if people want something different, why not allow them to have it? It strikes me that if people are so keen on the idea of marriage (whatever that is to them) then why force other people to do it if they don't want to? It's hypocritical for someone to get married when they don't believe in it, just for the benefits - it's just as daft as a short marriage (or multiple marriages ...) being given weight in law when long-term committed relationships aren't, or the fact that the government would recognise my relationship and co-habitation in some contexts (i.e. if I tried to claim benefits) but wouldn't recognise those factors in others (i.e. if I wanted to make a medical decision for my partner if he wasn't able to do that for himself).
I don't see the introduction of CPs for gay couples as an insult but I'd be insulted if someone invited me to join him in one because he didn't find me good enough to marry. I'm neither second class nor second rate.0 -
Tabbytabitha wrote: »I don't see the introduction of CPs for gay couples as an insult but I'd be insulted if someone invited me to join him in one because he didn't find me good enough to marry. I'm neither second class nor second rate.
Fair enough, but those are your values and not mine. I actually find that a little offensive, in that you seem to be suggesting that if one partner prefers not to marry they are somehow saying that their partner isn't good enough, or is 'second rate'. Other posters in this thread seem to have suggested that people who don't get married somehow don't 'love' each other as much as married people do. I could marry someone for money, or for a visa, or to hide a homosexual relationship, out of fear or insecurity or for a myriad of other reasons that have nothing to do with love or respect. Marriage shouldn't be the only way of legitimising a long-term, committed relationship as that allows attitudes like that to flourish - and that's exactly what caused the problem in the first place. People didn't want 'the gays' to marry because they didn't want them to be able to legitimise their relationships in the same way as hetero couples. So, they created an alternative in Civil Partnerships, something that was different enough to marriage to let the government look like it was making progress without upsetting the traditionalists. Now that straight couples are looking at Civil Partnerships people are using the same argument against them, and are still saying that marriage is the only legitimate way to recognise a relationship. That doesn't really make a lot of sense.0 -
Fair enough, but those are your values and not mine. I actually find that a little offensive, in that you seem to be suggesting that if one partner prefers not to marry they are somehow saying that their partner isn't good enough, or is 'second rate'. Other posters in this thread seem to have suggested that people who don't get married somehow don't 'love' each other as much as married people do. I could marry someone for money, or for a visa, or to hide a homosexual relationship, out of fear or insecurity or for a myriad of other reasons that have nothing to do with love or respect. Marriage shouldn't be the only way of legitimising a long-term, committed relationship as that allows attitudes like that to flourish - and that's exactly what caused the problem in the first place. People didn't want 'the gays' to marry because they didn't want them to be able to legitimise their relationships in the same way as hetero couples. So, they created an alternative in Civil Partnerships, something that was different enough to marriage to let the government look like it was making progress without upsetting the traditionalists. Now that straight couples are looking at Civil Partnerships people are using the same argument against them, and are still saying that marriage is the only legitimate way to recognise a relationship. That doesn't really make a lot of sense.
It's also a view held by those who campaigned for gays to be able to marry, despite the fact that, for many peoples, CPs offered the same advantages legally as marriage and the bits that were different could have been tweaked.
If something is considered second best by one part of the community I don't see how it can be considered equally as good by another part.0 -
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.I think this job really needs
a much bigger hammer.
0 -
Tabbytabitha wrote: »It's also a view held by those who campaigned for gays to be able to marry, despite the fact that, for many peoples, CPs offered the same advantages legally as marriage and the bits that were different could have been tweaked.
If something is considered second best by one part of the community I don't see how it can be considered equally as good by another part.
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards