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
Nor that in a free county people should have to explain their beliefs...
A 'casually cohabitating' couple would not qualify though would it?
Rather your argument gets more and mroe bizarre as you try to find ever more complex and impossible scenarios in an attempt to find holes in a perfectly straightfoward and logical proposal.
Yes, and I can do that through a number of ways already. But there is far more to it than just who the house belongs to. But never mind, pretend that's not the case.
A simple and will and an opt-out clause (if applicable) would take care of all such worries.
Do you mean, if it is good for a few million married couples, why isn't it good for a few million unmarried ones?
Flattered as I am at the thought, these proposals aren't planned for my benefit but for those of several million people.
It really is very very simple. For whichever reasons, ever-increasing and significant numbers of people cohabitate without getting married. Why they haven't got married isn't a concern of anyone. Chances are many of them are going to in the near or mid term future. But the fact remains that today, in Britain, such people exist in large numbers but they have little protection if one partner dies or leaves the other.
A proposal has been made so such people don't find themselves in such predicament.
That should be the end of the story.
What you should be confused about (I certainly am) is why a group of married people would mount such rabid opposition to the idea even though it won't affect them one iota.
It really is beyond comprehension.
What every other bugger? How many loving, stable, cohabitating relationships do you know where one partner doesn't want to share anything with the other in case of a split up?
Yes, and in most cases they have already. But It's far more complex than just who owns the house or who will inherit this and that, just as getting married is far more complex than just 'signing a document' but you are either completing ignoring these points or not getting them at all, so I'm starting to wonder how many more times I can be arsed to repeat them.
Would you, therefore, accept the proposal to educate the general public and make them aware that cohabiting relationships do not offer the same protection in these circumstances and that they should get married if they view the relationship as loving, stable, and long-term?
Would that solve the problem you are highlighting?
As for 'justifying' my beliefs, I don't think I have to mre than I have done already.
You continue to fail to understand me. I have never said that a married couple or their relationship are more significant than that of an unmarried couple.
Well all they need to do is to opt out if they are worried.
Why can't there be more than one solution?
FYI, millions of couples live together for a few years before they get married. Not everybody can afford to get married right away. Are you happy to leave such people exposed to an uncertain fate because of this bizarre oppostion to a bill designed to help others?
Or should we all simply cease 'living in sin' and stay with our parents or on our own until we get married?
Perhaps this is what it all boils down to... because I have to say I've run out of ideas as to why would anyone other than a fervently religious person have a problem with a law designed to give protection and help to others.
Caring society indeed.
what about if a couple live together but dont see the need for these things? is there any way to opt-out
You need to register a birth to get rights as a parent and for the baby. Should that also change? What if I don't want to register the birth of my baby?
There is clearly quite a bit of misinformation about the rights and responsibilities cohabitating couples have. The government should certainly make it clear that there isn't such thing as a common-law spouse and that at present people could find themselves in a precarious situation.
And then the government should say that it has plans to put an end to such inequality and to protect the millions of people who choose to spend their lives together without getting married.
What rights are those? I doubt anyone is going to take your child away.
Protect them from whom?
You have to register a birth to get these rights.
The amount you're talking about would be miniscule anyway. It'd be up to the partner to pay maintenance in case of a separation, for instance- not to the taxpayer.
Well if you believe registering your child at birth goes against your fundamental principles, raise the matter up. Perhaps there'll be enough of you and the government will listen.
I wouldn't have anything against it.
You haven't justified these "fundamental principles", and to be honest I don't think you ever will.
"A marriage is a committed relationship between or among individuals, recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants. This dual nature, a binding legal contract plus a moral promise, makes marriage difficult to characterize."
People like co-habitees who want certain rights for each other should be able to get them without getting married. I do think these should be opt-in rights though.