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
Does that mean you were against civil partnerships too?
What's not "compassionate" about it?
Do actually object to a civil partnership or is your reason simply "I don't want to"?
Surely the problem is that it is broke - at least for some people. People who aren't married for whatever reason suddenly find themselves in dire positions when for no fault of their own the realtionship breaks down or the partner dies. These are stressful enough times anyway without the added complications of trying to get yourself treated as next of kin.
The only benefit I can see is that some people get to avoid saying they are married whilst being effectively married, which seems strange.....
The fact that you're appear unconcerned about countless thousands losing their homes or visiting rights towards children when their partner dies or separates, simply because they have committed the grand capital crime of not getting married, despite having been in relationships every bit as loving as committed as married couples- or in some cases, far more.
That's what's not compassionate about your stance.
As NQA has said, clearly it is broken, and it needs fixing. Laws and rules should adapt to people and society, not the other way around.
I'd rather said it's married people who effectively are cohabitating.
There's a lot of rhetoric in your posts, but not much opinion.
Why should I have to explain myself the reasons anyway? Did we all wake up in China this morning?
The "institution" of marriage involves a commitment, and with it comes responsibility to each other. The law recognises this by granting certain financial incentives to get married.
I do accept that cohabiting couples may be "every bit as loving as committed as married couples- or in some cases, far more". That's not being questioned, but that isn't the point. When children are involved, especially, there is a role for marriage and I think an incentive to marry is not a bad thing.
With regard to your last paragraph that appears to be the conventional thinking, though in today's world I don't think it longer applies.
But what is so bad about expecting people who want shared rights to make public their relationship through marriage or civil partnership?
It's only an "institution" if you make it one.
10 minutes in a registry office, £50 down, and hey presto, you have all the rights you want. No religion, no rings, just a commitment. You don't even have to tell anyone.
You don't need to change anything.
You are co-habiting.
But so are lots of other people who AREN'T in a relationship. Where do you draw the line?
If you want the rights you have to take the responsibilities that come with it.
If you don't want the responsibility, then you don't get the right.
Gay people should have the right to publicly declare their responsibilities, and now they do have that right. But you should actually have to take on some responsibility before you get tax evasive rights.
Property rights are not an issue if co-habitees are sensible enough to get their house in order. If you're both on the mortgage you're safe anyway, and MIRAS has been abolished.
And you don't see that ever being forged, hm?
But why should they? I admit I did, so I'm not anti-marriage myself, but if you don't agree with marriage why should you be forced into an institution you don't agree with when with a bit of work by MPs and Civil servants a perfectly adequate system can be devised which protects you, your partner and any children.
So a person doesn't agree with marriage, but wants all the benefits that marriage entails?
So a person doesn't agree with marriage, but wants to sign a legal document that says they have tax and property rights, and that they are committed to each other?
Sounds like those people want to have their cake and eat it.
The most bizarre thing is that these "anti-marriage" people actually do want to get their relationship legally recognised, which is all marriage is about. They want to sign a witnessed form to say they have rights. Isn't that all a marriage is?
I don't think for one second that these rights should be given by default. People should have to opt in to legal commitment, not opt out of it. If you don't want to sign a bit of paper saying the other half gets half, then don't. But don't then whinge when the other half trades you in for a better model and tells you to sod off.
they're being put in place to give laywers even more work
haha my sentiments after some thought on this
if you want some to have inheritance rights, put it in the will
Which, in effect, is all that a marriage ceremony entails.
I really struggle to understand why people would want these right but cannot go through a simple ceremony.
It doesn't harm me, nor does it harm anyone else if someone gets married or not.
So if Aladdin and his partner don't want to get married, but want some legal protection in case (god forbid) he gets knocked over tommorrow I can't see what business it is off the state or anyone else to turn round to his other half and say 'tough, about getting compensation you may have lived together xx years and shown real committment but you should have been married'
Want those rights?
They are not denied, except by their own actions.
When it comes to wills and inheritance anyone should have the right to give it away to anyone else.
You and others make it sound as if getting married was some kind of uber-important commitment that brings all sorts of "resoponsibilities" alien to anyone else.
The point is, nowadays, it isn't and it doesn't. It's not exactly difficult to get divorced, or even walk away and not bothering with a divorce is it? The biggest responsibilities come towards any children that couple might have produced... and for such responsibilities it doesn't really matter whether you're married or not.
So it seems to me that non married people have many if not all of responsibilities of married couples, yet none of the benefits.
Do you think that's right?
Unless I got it all wrong and all of you guys who got married didn't do it because you wanted to 'officialise' your loving relationship in the eyes of God/the state (delete as appropriate) and to celebrate your relationship it to the world, and instead simply got married as a tax saving scheme.
Is that what it is? Does marriage means little more than a bit of red tape and a financial scheme to most married people?
They can.
The legal problem occurs when there is no will.
We do? I thought it was the other way around, that you were making it sound like somethinguber-important, or some uber-step which you aren't prepared to take.
You know the risks attached to that decision, so why are you griping about it?
It's not about tax avoidance, because let's face it that doesn't actually exist anymore.
It's in part about love, and in part about protecting the future of your souse.
You have chosen not to do that, I have taken the opposite view. Our relationship hasn't changed on iota. The right of my wife to be my next of kin has. Personally, and I cannot really tell you why I feel like this, but personally I would be offended if she hadn't wanted to take that step, to protect me, to give me rights in unfortunate circumstances. If she could ont have done that then I would have had a nagging doubt about how much I really meant to her.
The marriage vows are about declaring that you are a single entity (gosh how I miss klintock at times
It is, in essence, as much a legal agreement as anything else. Funnily enough, that seems to be what cohabitees want. When they can already do that.