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'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.
Scrapping the bottom of the barrel a bit now aren't we?
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.
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.
Was that a response to me?
If so, I don't understand...
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?
Oh dear dear dear...
When have I ever suggested that?
The already do have a choice.
How would an opt-in system differ from marriage or civil partnership?
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?
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? Not at the moment.
This is point number 1 some people are failing to get.
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.
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?
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.
Fair enough. I kind of guessed we did
How would you know how long they'd lived together?
Should we ban religion, on the basis that it cannot be explained and it's just a personal belief?