If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
ps One doesn't have to be religious to be pro marriage. More marriages are taking place in registry offices than ever before - and as you know, no mention of religion or God is allowed at such marriages. I also don't see cost as a reason not to get married if your argument is based on the view of not seeing the point in marriage at all.
So does this all boil down to 'my side' is better than yours?
Perhaps we should start campaigning for the abolition of marriage... seeing as the 'live and let live' philosophy doesn't clearly work around here...
If some people want to make us comply with their beliefs and view of 'how things should be' or screw us other, what's the point of being nice?
Anyway, let's forget about this and let the wonderful world of football unite us.
The same could be said of civil partnerships, or even to the legality of homosexuality could it not? Gays were aware they had no rights as partners, so they should have simply lived with that instead of lobbying for a change.
No. Or at least it shouldn't. I've never been one to subscribe to that mantra. I'd rather have what's fairest.
It's only so much I can do. Seeing as there are millions of others like me and seeing as the government is looking to change the law, perhaps they can explain it better.
P.S. What are you doing posting while the football is on anyway?
I'll be out of the office in a minute and don't you expect me to post while a game is on (unless I'm in the office).
And how do you make a legal declaration of this?
I have no problem with people making a legal declaration to say that they want A to happen instead of B, that is a decision for them to make. I don't even care if you call this declaration marriage or not.
What I do care about is the state changing the legal status of people without explicit consent. You have yet to explain how and why it is right for the state to change the legal status of someone without them agreeing to us explicitly.
You have also yet to explain why, whilst you yourself are unwilling to sign a bit of paper to make your legal intentions clear, you are willing to force people to sign legal documents in order to preserve their legal status.
You have yet to illustrate how you can document your intentions without documenting them. Assumptions do not work. It is not for the state to assume that I want my girlfriend to have half of my house should we split up.
Assumptions do not work because they cannot protect people properly. Either they are drawn narrowly but explicitly, protecting the law but not people, or they are drawn widely and vaguely but do not protect people because the rules are too fuzzy to document properly. Assumptions do not replace specific instructions, and they can never do so, because they can never be tailored to each person.
You have also yet to explain whether any assumptions should override documents of intent, such as wills.
I am not against people having rights. I am against the state assuming that people want these rights, and I am against the state interfering in the way people conduct their personal business. If people want their legal status to change, they need to explicitly say so. If they want their girlfriend to own half the house, they need to put her on the deeds. If they want her to get it all upon death they need to draw up a will. I don't see the issue with that.
I now want you to explain why you do not feel people should have to explicitly document their wishes in order to ensure they happen as they wish. I also now want you to explain why people should have to go to the trouble of explicitly stating that they don't want their partner to get their house simply so that you don't have to go to the trouble yourself.
Silly me.
I really believe I have answered, at lenght and on several occasions, every last point you have raised.
But never mind, I shall, just for the last time I hope, address some of them again:
It's not changing their legal status at all, is it? It is to do (amongst other things) with providing maintenance and support for someone if you die or leave them.
If you don't, sign an opt out clause. Couldn't be simpler.
What "piece of paper" would that be? I hope we're not trying to pass off married as that yet again...
What assumptions anyway? Do you really believe that anyone, anywhere, could possibly argue they were not part of a long term loving relationship as cohabitees?
Good luck to them.
In the same way marriages might overrride wills. If someone doesn't want their partner to get their property, they should do an opt out clause. Just like some married couples manage do very well.
I wouldn't either. Only of course, that's only part of the story. Wills do not cover certain things, such as support and maintenance if one partner leaves the other.
Er... how much do you want to bet that the immense majority of cohabitating couples agree with "me" and the new legislation?
It has nothing to do with you as a married person, at any rate. You should let cohabitating couples decide what's best for them, seeing as it's only us this legislation would affect.
I've live with two guys for 9 months, am I going out with either of them?
Look, it couldn't be simpler: if you are in a relationship with one of them, then the new legislation would ensure you would be covered if your long-term partner dies or leaves you.
What's so damn difficult to understand about that?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Should be interesting when one person says they're an item and one denies it to stop his bitch of an ex getting half his house.
How likely is that?
And even if the system was opt-in, for the four hundreth million time, signing a document is not the same as getting married.
For marriage, it doesn't have to be any more or less than signing a document if you don't want it to be.
Funny thing is, anyone could use such tactics to discredit just about any law in existance, from those concerning homosexuality to those ruling thieving, attacking or killing others is wrong.
That is obviously not the case for millions. And yet, you would rather the law didn't get passed and those milllions of people were left in a vulnerable position or be forced to marry, simply because that's what you think people should do.
Nice.
I'm sorry if it's not what you want to hear. But answered I have. Repeteadly.
So you would have to sign a legal contract to say that you're a couple, ie get married.
His family would know. His friends would know. His work colleagues would know. His bank manager would know.
Please...
As pointed out ad infinitum already, even if an opt in system was adopted instead signing a simple declaration is still infinitely different to getting married. So, no, people should not have to get married.
Would know what? Seriously, look at the situation it's just a mess. You seriously want your assets divided based on an assumption?
One of the utility bills is joint, the gas bill is addressed to myself and John, John pays the electric and I pay the NTL. Are we together? It's a crap way to go about things. Opt-out makes no sense.
Legally, what you're asking for and what we've got are no different. If you can't be arsed to get married, that's your problem. Because I can't see why we need another level of legal crap when it's all already dealt with.
No. You try to make it sound as if it doesn't, because you profoundly disagree with the idea of cohabitees being given similar rights and responsibilities as married couples.
I've noticed how you have been ignoring my remarks about family, friends, colleagues and neighbours. Practically all individuals who were part of a cohabitating couple in a long term relationship would be able to prove so very easily, by the means of witness accounts if nothing else.
BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "NOT BEING ARSED TO GET MARRIED".
Forgive me for shouting. But seeing as (incredibly) the message hasn't got through yet, perhaps shouting will do the trick... :rolleyes:
And what's the difference between legally signing that you want your assets to go to your partner and have the benefits etc of that, and, well, legally signing that you want your assets to go to your partner and have the benefits etc...? Except one of them is called getting married and the other doesn't exist yet.
And in any case, what makes you think they don't want an opt out clause?
Bingo.
A great many people, for a number of reasons, do not want to get married. Which is something infinitely more complex and significant than just signing a simple declaration, regardless of what you and others might pretend.
And you really haven't been over it enough, because you as far as I can tell are doing nothing but bleeting because you've got issues.
ETA: As far as I'm concerned marriage is nothing more or less than you make it out to be. That's entirely your problem and if you're too [/insert adverb here] to go through with it, I don't see why any other legal document would make an difference.
What issues would those be?
Clearly millions of people disagree with you there.
No, I guess you wouldn't.
Why such intolerance? Millions of people do not understand religious beliefs at all and why people would have such beliefs, yet they don't go around demanding that such beliefs be banned.
I was going to ask you what is it to you but you have already indicated you might be 'pro-marriage'.
If only others were so forthcoming...