Home› Politics & Debate
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

Cohabitee rights

1…567911

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm just waiting for Aladdin to explain why he thinks his rights are more important than other people's.

    I'm also waiting for him to answer my post on the last page.

    *twiddles thumbs*

    Katralla, if you want "protection", would part of that protection not be from your partner dumping you on the street? Why would they do that? For the same reasons married couples divorce. Therefore your whole point is meaningless.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The arguement that there is a perfectly good arrangement in place is completely meaningless because we have proved it doesn't work- people don't get married but do want rights. Regardless of whether you disagree with the specifics of the reasons I've suggested as to why people aren't using marriage to get these right, they aren't therefore new solution required.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I'm just waiting for Aladdin to explain why he thinks his rights are more important than other people's.
    When have I said or indicated that my rights are more important than other people's? :confused:

    Scrapping the bottom of the barrel a bit now aren't we?
    I'm also waiting for him to answer my post on the last page.

    *twiddles thumbs*
    Which one? You were responding to Katralla. But if there are any new questions you had for me, please cut and paste them or ask again and I'll see what I can do.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why don't you re-read the thread?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    When have I said or indicated that my rights are more important than other people's?

    When you said that the fact that you had lived with you partner for more than six months meant that you right as "nexctof kin" was more important than her parents rights - even if she doesn't want you to be nok.

    The point we are trying to make is that the rights you are asking for already belong to someone else. You want the state to hand them over to you, we're saying that it should be a decision made by your partner. Legally.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well naturally it takes two to tango. Whoever suggested otherwise?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Well naturally it takes two to tango. Whoever suggested otherwise?

    Was that a response to me?

    If so, I don't understand...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes it was. Let me explain.

    My rights wouldn't come before anyone elses, contrary to Kermit kindly but cluelessly suggests. It would come to each couple to decide how their assets would be divided in case of death/separation. Therefore it would be our rights that come before those of our parents and our parents-in-law, not "my" rights.

    FAO Kermit: since you believe such thing presumably you also believe your rights as a married person come before your parents in law's. What on earth makes you think it's unnaceptable in one case but acceptable in the other?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    It would come to each couple to decide how their assets would be divided in case of death/separation.
    Hang on, I thought you wanted the state to decide how you divide the assets?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Hang on, I thought you wanted the state to decide how you divide the assets?

    Oh dear dear dear...

    When have I ever suggested that?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Oh dear dear dear...

    When have I ever suggested that?
    Well, that's the whole point of the legilsation - the law dictates the division of assets as it does for married couples.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have been saying all along that an opt-out clause should be in place. Even if it ends up being an opt-in clause instead, the whole point is that there will be a clause in place or other means to ensure couples have a choice.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I have been saying all along that an opt-out clause should be in place. Even if it ends up being an opt-in clause instead, the whole point is that there will be a clause in place or other means to ensure couples have a choice.
    You've changed your tune then.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Er... no I haven't at all.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    couples have a choice.

    The already do have a choice.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Er... no I haven't at all.
    Opt-in, opt-out - different from a system of rights by default.

    How would an opt-in system differ from marriage or civil partnership?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Now you are the one changing the tune. A moment ago you were suggesting I had said I wanted the state to decide on people's rights.

    Whether it is an opt-in or opt-out clause is a moot point. The actual point is that there will be a system in place by which cohabitating couples will have similar rights and responsibilities as married couples regarding issues such as inheritance, mainteneance and support, and that there will be provisions and ways for anyone to dictate a person other than their partner to receive such rights.

    Any further questions?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    opt-in or opt-out is extremely important actually, how would you manage an opt-out system?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Quite simple: anyone wanting to opt-out would sign a legal document.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Now you are the one changing the tune. A moment ago you were suggesting I had said I wanted the state to decide on people's rights.
    If you want to change a next of kin, or grant inheritance rights to somebody without signing any legal documents then you are reliant on the state deciding it for you. That's what you've been arguing for (I thought).
    Whether it is an opt-in or opt-out clause is a moot point. The actual point is that there will be a system in place by which cohabitating couples will have similar rights and responsibilities as married couples regarding issues such as inheritance, mainteneance and support, and that there will be provisions and ways for anyone to dictate a person other than their partner to receive such rights.
    It is absolutely fundamental to the argument whether it is opt in or opt out. Marriage is opt-in, pre-nuptual agreements are opt-out. I thought you wanted automatic spousal rights for cohabitees after a 6 month qualifying period?

    I think maybe there is some confusion. It's fine to argue for equal rights if your argument is based on the discrimination of one group of people by another, leaving them with no choices. The choice here is whether to sign a legal declaration as a marriage or civil partnership, or not to do so. That choice is available, and is an opt-in system i.e. you want the rights? sign for them.

    So which is it: opt-in or opt-out now?
    Any further questions?
    Not at the moment. :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    If you want to change a next of kin, or grant inheritance rights to somebody without signing any legal documents then you are reliant on the state deciding it for you. That's what you've been arguing for (I thought).
    And that's why I've said numerous times throughout the thread that this is far more than just inheritence rights and that as things stand issues such as maintenance and support are not covered by any existing provision. And that is why the new legislation is to be welcomed.

    This is point number 1 some people are failing to get.
    It is absolutely fundamental to the argument whether it is opt in or opt out. Marriage is opt-in, pre-nuptual agreements are opt-out. I thought you wanted automatic spousal rights for cohabitees after a 6 month qualifying period?
    And as I said, I do.

    But even if it the government didn't agree, even if the government made it opt-in, it would still be preferable to nothing. And no, signing a legal opt-in document is NOT the same as getting married, and that is why the new legislation is to be welcomed.

    This is point number 2 some people are failing to get.

    I think maybe there is some confusion. It's fine to argue for equal rights if your argument is based on the discrimination of one group of people by another, leaving them with no choices. The choice here is whether to sign a legal declaration as a marriage or civil partnership, or not to do so. That choice is available, and is an opt-in system i.e. you want the rights? sign for them.

    So which is it: opt-in or opt-out now?
    How many times do I have to explain that getting married is far more significant than just "signing a legal document" for millions?

    And how many times do I have to remind folks that there are many people out there who want to get married but can't afford it who live together first for a number of years, and who are currently without those basic rights and responsibilities?

    Those were points 3 and 4 some people are failing to get.

    How many times do I have to ask myself and others why a few people have such rabid opposition to a legislation that doesn't affect them at all?

    Is this some kind of combined wind-up exercise or something? :confused:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    How many times do I have to ask myself and others why a few people have such rabid opposition to a legislation that doesn't affect them at all?
    If you were pro-marriage, why would you support a piece of legilsation designed specifically to undermine marriage?
    Is this some kind of combined wind-up exercise or something? :confused:
    No, but we disagree on points 1 thru 4.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Quite simple: anyone wanting to opt-out would sign a legal document.
    How would you define people who were in for them to opt-out?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    If you were pro-marriage, why would you support a piece of legilsation designed specifically to undermine marriage?
    No I wouldn't, and I have acknowledged before I would understand why a religious person would think that way, even though I don't agree with it. But I am surprised because I didn't think some of the people here who are against it were the religious type to that extent.

    Anyways, if that if the case they should come clear and give the real reason why they are against the law instead of trying to imagine up complex legal scenarios in order to find imperfections with the new legislation.
    No, but we disagree on points 1 thru 4.
    Fair enough. I kind of guessed we did :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You haven't given us the reason why you won't just get married, and honestly, these are hardly complex legal scenarios.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    How would you define people who were in for them to opt-out?
    Just like with every other law and legislation in existence, ignorance is no defence. If the proposed two-year theresold is accepted, then it would be up to the couples to sign an opt-out clause document before the two years come up. It's not as if many people would be unaware of the options if this becomes law anyway.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :lol:

    How would you know how long they'd lived together?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    You haven't given us the reason why you won't just get married, and honestly, these are hardly complex legal scenarios.
    I have to a certain degree, and I don't need to explain any further, nor should I have to.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You haven't to any helpful degree at all, and while no-one is going to beat it out of you, it'd certainly help matters.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How would it help matters? The fact remains that millions of people don't want to do it. That should be the only reason needed. The laws of the land are suppossed to help and serve the people.

    Should we ban religion, on the basis that it cannot be explained and it's just a personal belief?
Sign In or Register to comment.