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.
Options
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
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?
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.
It's not exactly interfering with their financial affairs, is it? It's allowing basic protection and rights. Two completely different things.
Who about those who are cohabitating because they can't afford to get married for 3, 4, or 5 years yet?
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.
Like the Americans say, go fucking figure.
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
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?
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.
Are these accurate statements?
- 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.
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 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...
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.
That depends entirely on the parent or parents in question.
ETA- I googled this for your interest: http://www.2-in-2-1.co.uk/university/publicbenefit/index2.html
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.