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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
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
Why should they have too?
It comes down to the question of what harm does it do anyone else if co-habiting couples can get the same rights as married people? No-one has yet answered that question...
TBF Amira, you were saying how the UK was worse in every way than Dubai, and was just getting worse. Whereas public flogging, whether they 'knew the law' or not, is classed as torture and is a breach of international human rights.
I can't remember the last person to be kidnapped by the security forces either actually. When the police arrest you, they read you your rights, and must tell you then why they are arresting you. I don't think anyone has been arrested yet for their political beliefs alone.
It's not a debate about religion, but merely disputing your implication earlier that religion and 'values' in Dubai mean it's a much better off country. We have a free and independent press, which is why a lot of bad stuff gets reported, as a link posted earlier by me said, Dubai has a censored press.
Independent organisations such as amnesty paint a different picture though, and whilst Dubai isn't the worst country in the world by far, it's no haven like you are painting it.
What's that saying about glass houses and stones?
What if co-habiting couples don't want the same rights? It shouldn't necessarily be automatic, that's my problem with it. If I move into rented accomodation with my girlfriend when I'm 20, does that mean should I be in a bad motorbike accident, she gets the decision whether or not to turn off my life support should the doctor feel I don't have a chance, even if it was against my mother's wishes (as I believe the system works, anyway).
Well, not quite the same.... in some countires, for example, the press is owned by the ruling families, so they don't report on things that make the government look bad.
But on a more relevant note, which branch(es) of Islam believe that rather than the wife inheriting, she is inherited?
What harm?
Well, it removes rights from you nearest blood relative, for a start. Something so fundamental should require you to make a legal statement that your "chosen person" is who you want to have those rights instead.
Or don't you think that the right to decide whether your organs are harvested, or whether the life support should be turned off, is that important to you...
Sorry but that's crap and completely separate from the issue of "rights".
Marriage, in a religious sense, should be about love and nothing more. Marriage in a legal sense is about rights and nothing more.
It doesn't "stand for" anything, it's a social contruct.
Ah, the post-religious west thinks that marriage is about love, not property. Its why we don't do arranged marriages.
That's not harming other people is it? And as someone who's married it does me no harm if someone who isn't married gets the same rights.
Currently your parents have the choice and not a cohabitee, legally there is nothing which the girlfriend could do in such circumstances. Which is how it should be, until you decide otherwise.
Remember the act of divorce is the removal of rights, the cancelling of a contract if you like.
I am sorry this turned into Blagsta attacking where i live, if he wants i can throw in a hell of a lot more than what hes throwing at me and he will be shocked beyond belief but it is neither the time or the place. If he wants to attack the UAE he can feel free to start a new thread about it and i will happily contribute what i disagree with.
What is marriage to you? A union blessed by God, recognised by God, and the state? Or something along those lines, anyway... When you or your husband dies, the other will be afforded certain rights, for example you / he will be the next of kin.
What people who live together want, is a way to have those rights, but without going through the ceremony of being blessed by god (as it was originally), or now, going through the charade of being blessed by 'the state', as if a loving couple aren't quite a loving couple unless they ask for blessing.
Personally, I hope to get married one day, with all the tradition, but there are many who don't. And it's not fair if because of their belief that it is a charade, they aren't given the same rights. I don't see why you can't just get one of those DIY forms from WH Smiths, fill it out with your name, and send it off to the government to register as a couple. You can do it for divorce and a will, so why not for that?
Marriage should mean more than just a legal contract, it's more of a spiritual sharing, pledging each other's 'souls' to each other, in some sense. But for those who love each other and don't believe in it, they could go through and just have a 5 minute jobby to make it official (but surely thats making more a mockery of marriage), or there should be an alternative for them to register as a long term / committed couple. Maybe it could be a stop gap even. Marriage is so final, I firmly believe that you should only marry someone when you're 100% (or near as) you will never divorce them, whereas so many people jump into it without thinking because they're loved up.
So if I hardly speak to my parents, but am living with someone (and may have done so for years) my parent's rights would come above hers?
We're not talking about co-habitees about flat-mates or just some random person we're going out with, but someone your in enough of a relationship to share a house and bed with.
Yea, what I meant was, if this goes through and a cohabitee gets all those rights of my spouse (as I believe they would have that choice if I was married), isn't that premature without my consent?
It does if you are the closest relative. It could be your parents, your sibling or your child and you effectively would not have any right regardless of the wishes of that relative because the state has decided that the person they moved in with automatically has precendence of you...
Someone earlier (Kermit?) said that what you are in effect arguing for is state assumption of a "relationship" whereas the current situation is that one of personal choice.
Yep. Becuase you have not chosen to change their status as next of kin.
This is an opt in issue.
Yes, at least I think so.
Others seem to think that the state should make an assumption based on the fact that you share a house. I don't think that's enough.
Well once they're over eighteen I have no choice in who they marry either, so it doesn't really make much difference.
If my daughter's do move in with someone I'd assume that much of my rights as parent of what happens in the worst case scenario (God forbid) should go to the person to who they are closest at that time (ie who they live with), not the person who they were closest too when they were twelve.
Now I might hope that any decision would be by mutual consent, but that's a different argument...
Are we arguing over how many angels dance on a pin?
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be opt-in, I am arguing that marriage shouldn't be the only way to op-in...
ETA - though in some circumstances (such as long term committments, children, house) there should be an assumption that the closest relative is the person they lived with
On top of that, there are new privately owned newspapers such as 7days, Emirates post, emirates today amongst others which are very contraversial bringing up many interesting acticlesdaily.
No branch of Islam believe the wife is inherited as opposed to recieving inheritance. The responsibility of the wife gets transferred to the oldest living brother of the husband, his father or if she has an old enough son to him. And she does receive an inherritance in shari'a law.
How do you think arranged marriages work? A mother finds a girl asks for her and her son marries her without them getting to know eachother?
Traditionally a mother would know a girl, decide that she was suitable for her son and ask the girls mother if she can marry her son. They get engaged (which is pretty much a courting period) and get to know eachother, if they dont like eachother then it goes no further.
Nowadays, a man meets a girl (at work typically) and tells his mother or sister, who in turn go to meet the girl and they get engaged, get to know eachother and if they like eachother have a legal wedding ceremony and depending on the family will either have the wedding a few weeks later or a few months later.
Yeah it does becaus ethen it is their choice and not the states.
I agree and it's certainly the route which I personally would take, but again that is through choice. Personally, I think that is very important. State assumption is rarely, if ever, a good thing.
I agree.
But I also think you shouldn't need to go as far as marriage, should you not wish to get married. I don't see why a scrap of paper saying:
I [name] and I [other name] wish to transfer all rights of next of kin to each other, including rights to inherit estate etc. etc.
Signed: [name] [name]
Witness:
Solicitor:
or something like that, shouldn't be enough. I mean, it would be a proper legal document, but marriage is quite a big thing, and there are lots of reasons people might not want to get married. I mean, who was it that said someone they knew couldn't marry their partner because the ex wouldn't agree to a divorce?
Ah, in that situation the children would have next of kin rights anyway.
The question, again raised earlier, is at what point should (heaven forbid
I believe that it should be from the moment that someone signs over those rights and I really struggle to understand why people find it so difficult to accpet that concept.
A legal contract should apply. At the moment the easiest form of that contract is through marriage - we all know what it means and what the ramifications are. Cohabittee rights would just make things a damned sight more difficult.
If you really want someone else to have those rights, give them to her/him.
But the State assumes something either way. It either assumes that for unmarried people it should be the parents (or closest blood relative) or it assumes that its the person who you live with...
How so? This is part of what I don't understand.
If you are happy to spend the rest of your life with someone, if you want what is yours to be theirs, then how is it a "big thing"? Surely it is the expression of those wishes to others so that they also know...?
Sorry, can't answer that one but isn't there ground for divorce without both signatories? Wouldn't that, in itself, constitute "unreasonable behaviour"?
True, but that is the assumption from birth until the person affected makes a decision to counter what the state assumption is... thus it is in their hands alone.
Marriage means a lot of things to me, it means if something happens to me or my husband...we have the responsibility to decide what to do. After-all i no longer speak to my family and wouldnt want my life in their hands. If something happened to him i would want to receive his/our properties and his pension/salary and life insurance.
Long-term committed couples should get what they have agreed upon with their partner. So whats the harm in writing a will? That way they get everything they want, legal recognition of who they want to be their medical proxy, their next of kin/in-case of emergency person, who they want their life insurance, property and finances to go to. But still, there should be some differences between married couples and co-habitees. For example, the way married couples enter into prenups and a wife will get half of her husbands estate, co-habitess should get what they entered the relationship with or what they contributed in the relationship (i think someone already suggested this)
It is, but there may be reasons people don't want to enter into it, for example not wanting to 'need' blessing, more of a notification to the government. A stupid example: I don't need to go through a ceremony, wait for objections, have witnesses standing by to get a SORN certificate for my bike
Marriage might be just a hole to jump through for a lot of people, which is ok, but for some, like me, I'd only marry someone if I was 110% sure I was ready. So it's a big leap, and people who are living together and don't want religious / state blessing, but want to be afforded those rights, should have an easier way than marriage to sign them over.
I'm not sure, the only thing about divorce I think I know is that you need to have spent so long seperated first...
Well being married it works for me, but if I don't want to get married for whatever reason they're should be a simple alternative. Its not beyond the wit of lawyers to draft legislation which defines what a long-term relationship is (in terms of people living together)
If MoD can recognise partners of the opposite sex if they were in a substantial relationship at time of death in regards to pensions (and MoD are shit at dealing with soldier's families) I can't see why the rest of the state should find it so difficult
http://www.veteransagency.mod.uk/pensions/death.html
Why should there be an alternative? Isn't that the point?