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.

Are civil partnerships for gay couples a good idea?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
(possibly should be in P&D, but because it is the the poll question, I've dropped it into anything goes. ETA: Ooops got a it heavy for anything goes)

I don't know how to answer this one. I'm for Civil Partnerships, but against it being restricted to gay couples.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I said yes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    if its omething thats for gay people, why should straight people have a ay in whats good for a gay person?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All for it!
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Not sure what exactly changes with a "civil partnership". Is it like a marriage? If yes, why would straight people do that instead of one? If not, then why is it compared to one?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Zalbor wrote:
    Not sure what exactly changes with a "civil partnership". Is it like a marriage?
    Very much so, except "marriage" has religious connotations and more legal reasons for disolving it
    If yes, why would straight people do that instead of one?
    because they want to.
    because they don't believe in segregation.
    because they don't like the religious overtones of marriage.
    because they don't want to take part in an instituiton that discriminates based on sexuality.
    because they don't want to have their union ended in a couple of years time when on of them undergoes gender reassignment.

    Why should your sex stop you from declaring a civil partnership with another person?
    Why should same sex parters be ghettoised?
    If not, then why is it compared to one?
    because "gay marriage" is easier to understand; creates conservative uproar leading to increased newspaper sales; and damn it, gay people want to just "get married" like everyone else, not "register a civil partnership" ("sorry mate, I'm married" has a better ring to it than "sorry mate, I'm in a registered civil partnership")
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It basically gives the same rights to gay couples as married couples have.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Very much so, except "marriage" has religious connotations and more legal reasons for disolving it
    That's where I got confused.

    Over here, if you don't want a religious marriage, you can have what's called a civil marriage. It's performed by a judge. Such a thing has existed since before I was born (I'm 20). Didn't anything like it exist over there until recently?
    Though here people aren't allowed to be married to someone of the same sex (yet, I hope).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Very much so, except "marriage" has religious connotations and more legal reasons for disolving it

    because they want to.
    because they don't believe in segregation.
    because they don't like the religious overtones of marriage.
    because they don't want to take part in an instituiton that discriminates based on sexuality.
    because they don't want to have their union ended in a couple of years time when on of them undergoes gender reassignment.

    Why should your sex stop you from declaring a civil partnership with another person?
    Why should same sex parters be ghettoised?

    because "gay marriage" is easier to understand; creates conservative uproar leading to increased newspaper sales; and damn it, gay people want to just "get married" like everyone else, not "register a civil partnership" ("sorry mate, I'm married" has a better ring to it than "sorry mate, I'm in a registered civil partnership")

    I think you're taking this a bit too seriously.

    Marriage doesn't really have religious connotations these days, the amount of marriages that take place in receptions probably outnumbers the traditional church weddings.

    And I don't think you're being "ghettoised" Traditionally, marriages take place between male-females, I think it's just an acknowledgement of the difference between same sex marriages and one's that aren't. And gays can get married, Elton John and his partner got married a few weeks ago, you can say you're married if you're gay all ya want, no one is stopping you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Zalbor wrote:
    That's where I got confused.

    Over here, if you don't want a religious marriage, you can have what's called a civil marriage. It's performed by a judge. Such a thing has existed since before I was born (I'm 20). Didn't anything like it exist over there until recently?
    It's a bit messier - unlike the US, the UK doesn't give much credance to any marriage not registered - including "common-law". In the UK, anglican churches are able to register marriages, and other churches can have an "authorised person" that can register marriages, otherwise, a registry office official can attend your wedding service, or you can have a civil wedding ceremony at a registry office. There is a strict prohibition an any religious content (including the mere mention of dieties, or even the soul) occuring within a registry office ceremony
    you may see a lot of cut'n'paste in these links:
    marriages civil partnerships

    The problem is the form of a registry office wedding follows that of a Christian wedding, so some people feel it is merely a secular copy of a religious thing - which they don't want.
    (yet, I hope).
    now that's ambiguous :p
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    now that's ambiguous
    What do you mean by that?
    In case you didn't understand what I meant (I admit I didn't say it clearly), I said it's not allowed to happen, but I hope that in the future it will be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    I think you're taking this a bit too seriously.
    I strongly disagree. For the government to create a new thing that is discriminatory is deeply worrying - but that kind of discussion definately belongs in P+D
    I think it's just an acknowledgement of the difference between same sex marriages and one's that aren't.
    those differences being?
    And gays can get married, Elton John and his partner got married a few weeks ago, you can say you're married if you're gay all ya want, no one is stopping you.
    I've been saying it for the last decade, but when it comes to forms I'll stick with "cohabiting" for my marital status for the time being.

    I just don't think it's fair that the straights still have to have that "excluding all others" bit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Zalbor wrote:
    What do you mean by that?
    I'm sorry, it was meant to be a humorous thow-away, because in addition to the most likely meaning (as explained) it could also mean quite the opposite - I found humour in the image of the arch-conservative, feeling the pillars of his existance crumble, fears the left will soon impose their perverse agenda, if they haven't already - you never know with those pinko commie states like California.

    Sorry
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Ahh ok. Sorry, I just wasn't sure about the meaning of "ambiguous" you see.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    because they don't believe in segregation.

    because they don't want to take part in an instituiton that discriminates based on sexuality.

    No offence, but as a straight bloke i'm hardly going to get a civil partnership rather than get married to fight the power or whatever...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are civil partnerships for gay couples a good idea? Reply to Thread

    No. In no way. Never. Not ever. Ridiculous idea. Madness. Idiocy. Etc
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    why?

    straight people have marriage?
    why cant gay people have civil partnerships
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why cant straight people get the same rights with out been married? Its prejudice damn it!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can? If you cohabit for 2 years or more then you can officially adopt the status of "cohabiting couple", giving you many of the rights of married couples.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you get married in a civil venue e.g. a hotel or a registry office then this is a civil wedding. There are no religious implications.

    I don't believe that straight couples should be allowed civil partnerships because then either marriage becomes superior to civil partnerships or the other way round. Either way one would become the "second class" option. If straight people could do both it then gay people should be able to as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doofay wrote:
    No offence, but as a straight bloke i'm hardly going to get a civil partnership rather than get married to fight the power or whatever...
    But some might...

    To be fair, if I wanted to dedicate myself to a man legally and I could choose, I'd probably go with Civil Partnership because I'd want to make the statement that there's more to love than what's in somebody's pants... Well technically I'd have a handfasting but... -shrug-

    I don't think people should be allowed religious "marriage" unless they are involved in the church by some degree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doofay wrote:
    You can? If you cohabit for 2 years or more then you can officially adopt the status of "cohabiting couple", giving you many of the rights of married couples.
    many?
    as far as I can see it is limited to a share in the estate inthe event of the other cohabitees death
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the government marriage is called civil union, then yes, they should have that right. If it is called civil marriage or something, then no, they should not be forced to have something different then what other couples have. Really, if the government can decide who can and can't get married, what is next? People with a certain age gap can't get married?

    Although, I wonder whatever happened to the two couples in the states. Both couples had someone have a gender reassignment so there was one that was a male who was a female marrying a female and a male who was a female marrying a male (I can't exactly the gender of the roles involved, but that's the basic idea). If the judge ruled against one couple, it would set precedent for the other couple to get married.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    many?
    as far as I can see it is limited to a share in the estate inthe event of the other cohabitees death

    Click
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doofay wrote:
    You can? If you cohabit for 2 years or more then you can officially adopt the status of "cohabiting couple", giving you many of the rights of married couples.

    i should have lived with my housemates for another year, and cohabited with them
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK, we've thrashed the "gay" bit about. Now how about the "couples" aspect?

    Poly relationships get quite tangled, surely having a legal framework would be a benefit?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What you mean civil partnerships for three or more people?

    Why the hell not?

    The only problem is what if one wants to opt out?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be fair, if I wanted to dedicate myself to a man legally and I could choose, I'd probably go with Civil Partnership because I'd want to make the statement that there's more to love than what's in somebody's pants... Well technically I'd have a handfasting but... -shrug-



    god you sound like luby but shes more on the straight and narrow

    :lol:





    they're a good idea, all registry office ceremonies should be called a civil partnerships imo with only churches etc having power to marry people
Sign In or Register to comment.