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.

Cohabitee rights

15791011

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I have (as much as anyone needs to know anyway) several times on this thread.
    Well, I'm not following, so let's make sure we're on the same page. What are these significant differences?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    And this is where you lose me. If your objection is state interference in the relationship, which you have mentioned earlier, then the same argument could be made as above.

    You haven't justified these "fundamental principles", and to be honest I don't think you ever will.


    I don't want and don't have to justify the fundamental principles I have against marriage to you or anyone else. And that should be all you need to know in a democracy.

    Okay, forget about me for a minute. Since the immense majority of couples who have plans to get married all along will still cohabitate for a number of years before hand, are you happy to left them exposed to events if one partner dies or leaves? Or do you propose that people should not live together at all until they marry?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Well, I'm not following, so let's make sure we're on the same page. What are these significant differences?
    I have explained as much as I have to a number of times now for the last few days. I suggest you re-read the thread.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    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.
    How would one "opt-in"? A civil partnership?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I have explained as much as I have to a number of times now for the last few days. I suggest you re-read the thread.
    I don't know why you're fighting so hard on this. I'm trying to work out what your point of view is, and I can't find it clearly in the thread. In fact, at the moment it looks like you've gone a bit mental.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I don't want to justify the fundamental principles I have against marriage. And that should be all you need to know in a democracy.
    It's not a strong argument then, if you are unwilling to justify your case.
    are you happy to left them exposed to events if one partner dies or leaves?
    Who would be "happy" about that? The reality is that they have an option which would prevent this scenario ever occurring. Them not taking that option is their own free choice and they should make it in full knowledge that without a legal agreement (e.g. marriage or civil partnership), the state has no business interfering in their financial affairs.
    Or do you propose that people should not live together at all until they marry?
    Who has suggested this? If you are cohabiting to test the relationship then it hardly seems comparable to marriage. If you are cohabiting because you don't like the idea of marriage, you should be made aware that your decision not to get the relationship legally recognised will potentially result in financial complications. Just like not saving for retirement will leave you pension-less.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm being driven to insanity by people asking the same question over again and again and again when I have already answered it numerous times, that much is true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Possibly, I'm genuinly trying to work out what you want, and what's wrong with what we've got. So help me out here.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    It's not a strong argument then, if you are unwilling to justify your case.
    I have already done so, as much as the case needs it.

    If that is not enough for you, it's not my problem. Millions of people and the government appear to agree with me so the problem is not clearly mine.
    Who would be "happy" about that? The reality is that they have an option which would prevent this scenario ever occurring. Them not taking that option is their own free choice and they should make it in full knowledge that without a legal agreement (e.g. marriage or civil partnership), the state has no business interfering in their financial affairs.
    It's not exactly interfering with their financial affairs, is it? It's allowing basic protection and rights. Two completely different things.
    Who has suggested this? If you are cohabiting to test the relationship then it hardly seems comparable to marriage. If you are cohabiting because you don't like the idea of marriage, you should be made aware that your decision not to get the relationship legally recognised will potentially result in financial complications. Just like not saving for retirement will leave you pension-less.
    Who about those who are cohabitating because they can't afford to get married for 3, 4, or 5 years yet?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Possibly, I'm genuinly trying to work out what you want, and what's wrong with what we've got. So help me out here.
    Read the thread then.

    Here, I'll give you a useful tip to save you time. Click on my username and search all my posts and that'll save you reading through the entire thread. Most of my posts for the last few days have been on this thread alone anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    Everyone involved in this thread is flogging a dead horse imo. You all disagree, you're not changing each other's minds, no one's giving any ground to the others' arguments, it seems a bit pointless.
    Exactly. It's a question of personal opinion. And yet, there are people here rabidly opposing a bill that has nothing to do with them and it would not affect them in anyway.

    Like the Americans say, go fucking figure.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    How would one "opt-in"? A civil partnership?

    Seems like a good idea. I had a look here: http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/civilpartnerships/ but the option for hetros is to have civil marriage (still a marriage) or nowt...

    I do see a potential problem with the civil partnership option though. Because same-sex couples only have the option of civil partnership and not marriage I assume (maybe incorrectly?) that the premise of the civil partnership is to make a declaration that, similar to marriage, has both a legal and connoted obligation. Allowing same-sex couples who want rights without marriage to form civil partnerships, would effectively downgrade the civil partnership leaving no marriage-type option for gay/lesbian. One option would be to keep the civil partnership as the purely legal option and allow same-sex to actually get "married". But, well, that ain't gonna hapen for a start, and it would similarly erode some of the meaning of marriage, which has historically always been man-woman... hmmmn :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Read the thread then.

    Here, I'll give you a useful tip to save you time. Click on my username and search all my posts and that'll save you reading through the entire thread. Most of my posts for the last few days have been on this thread alone anyway.
    Have you always been so arsey, or only when you appear to have no arguement? Ok, as Kentish has said, if you won't justify it, it can't be very good.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    Because same-sex couples only have the option of civil partnership and not marriage I assume (maybe incorrectly?) that the premise of the civil partnership is to make a declaration that, similar to marriage, has both a legal and connoted obligation.

    If a gay civil partnership, is basically a marriage in all but name, then why would it make a difference to a hetero couple to have a secular marriage/civil partnership? That's not very well worded, but I can't work out what's wrong with it, do you see what I mean?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why are you trying to ignore what I'm saying? :confused:

    I have already answered. Several times.

    In fact, I do find your asking the same questions (and not only this one but other questions as well) that have been asked and discussed several times before rather suspicious.

    Are you playing ignorance, pretend you haven't read the thread until now, or simply trying to wind me up?

    The answers are all there. Read the thread.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Er, no. I give up, I was actually trying, but if you're going to be like that, then sod it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Let's summarise the thread:
    Some people don't want to get married (for reasons unspecified).

    Some people (millions, perhaps) live together 'as if' married.

    Cohabiting couples would like legal protection when they split/die.

    Marriage provides legal protection for those eventualities.

    A proposed opt-out system for couples who are not living in a long term relationship but cohabit has been suggested.

    Are these accurate statements?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My arguement is that marriage should not be the only way to provide the legal protection for couples who live together for the reason that marriage does have other obligations and connotations that even if not specified legally are accepted by the majority of people as existing. I propose provision for the couples who want purely legal protection, on a signed for "opt-in" basis rather than an assumed right on the basis of a prescribed length of co-habitation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    My arguement is that marriage should not be the only way to provide the legal protection for couples who live together for the reason that marriage does have other obligations and connotations that even if not specified legally are accepted by the majority of people as existing. I propose provision for the couples who want purely legal protection, on a signed for "opt-in" basis rather than an assumed right on the basis of a prescribed length of co-habitation.
    What is opt-in if not marriage by another name? Would the rights be different? If not, what is the point?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Let's summarise the thread:



    Are these accurate statements?
    I'd say so. Though I would add:

    - A new proposal has been put forward so the millions of couples in a relationship who cohabitate have some of those basic rights and responsibilities as those who are married.

    - Everyone seems happy about this apart from (understandably) some religious people who claim this undermines marriage, and (not understandable at all whatsoever) a few married people who post at a certain message board.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I completely see what you're saying, and in theory marriage is the solution and is already in place. On a practical level, there are many couples who co-habit, would like these rights but do not wish to get married. As a single person :( I can't speak for them but I can imagine reasons why it is unwanted or impractical for them to get married whilst still requiring the rights. Can you not imagine any situations like this? Also, to prescribe marriage for these couples ignores the accepted meaning of marriage. I think most people accept that getting married is not just signing a legal document ascribing rights to their partner, so whilst you and I might see that it technically is (just a legal document), when applied or looked at emotively I at least can see the difference- therefore marriage by another name IS essentailly my proposal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    - Everyone seems happy about this apart from (understandably) some religious people who claim this undermines marriage, and (not understandable at all whatsoever) a few married people who post at a certain message board.
    Leave the religion for a minute.

    If we are in some agreement that marriage tends to be the most stable and loving environment in which to raise children, why would the government want to undermine marriage (and this proposal certainly does do that)?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I'd say so. Though I would add:

    - A new proposal has been put forward so the millions of couples in a relationship who cohabitate have some of those basic rights and responsibilities as those who are married.

    - Everyone seems happy about this apart from (understandably) some religious people who claim this undermines marriage, and (not understandable at all whatsoever) a few married people who post at a certain message board.

    I don't think these rights should be determined by anything other than the people involved in the relationship formally agreeing to it by signing a legal document though...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Leave the religion for a minute.

    If we are in some agreement that marriage tends to be the most stable and loving environment in which to raise children, why would the government want to undermine marriage (and this proposal certainly does do that)?
    I don't agree with that at all. Nor, I suspect, do many others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Leave the religion for a minute.

    If we are in some agreement that marriage tends to be the most stable and loving environment in which to raise children, why would the government want to undermine marriage (and this proposal certainly does do that)?

    Hell, ignore the children- they already get maintenance rights anyway. I wouldn't want me moving in with someone to be synonmous with me giving them a whole load of rights and visa versa.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I don't agree with that at all. Nor, I suspect, do many others.
    That wasn't an opinion, it was based on fact. But if you're disputing facts now then I guess this is pointless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is not a 'fact' at all that marriage is the most "stable and loving" environment in which to bring a child.

    That depends entirely on the parent or parents in question.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a generalisation, of course, but this whole debate has been based on generalisations.

    ETA- I googled this for your interest: http://www.2-in-2-1.co.uk/university/publicbenefit/index2.html
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Not from whom but from 'what'. Namely from finding themselves on the street with no maintenance or support, for instance, after their partner of 20 years has left them.

    Again, a method to protect them from that already exists.

    If you chose not to protect yourself the you cannot complain that you are lefdt unprotected.

    I love this idea of opting out, too. Such decisions should be opt-in, IMHO. Which is what marriage is.
Sign In or Register to comment.