I Don't Understand..

[Iluvspikey]

Can somebody tell me, what is the differene between a civil partnership, and a gay marriage? I thought the original thinking behind a CP was to allow the transfer of property to another (eg council property tennancy if one on lease died), they can already adopt children, call yourself by any name as long as it isnt to defraud - so what's the big hoo-haarr over 'marrige'

[jackthehat]

Perhaps there could be a new word introduced for any post-menopausal women wanting to marry/re-marry? After all, there won't be much re-producing going on in those relationships, either.

I'd be quite happy for heterosexual couples to get CP'd, providing gay couples can get married.

[jim360]

That wouldn't change necessarily with marriage, though -- not immediately, anyway -- as laws are almost never retrospective. In the future it would be beneficial I'm sure.

[ludwig]

SP, I think if all the legal differences were eliminated between CP and marriage, gay people would still want to be married. It would still eventually boil down to an argument about the word, all other things being equal.

[Sharingan]

I could have chosen a lot less savoury adjectives than 'primitive' to describe it Jim to be honest. I actually find opposition to this bill repulsive and backward.

[sp1814]

The other difference that some do not like is that a civil partnership is a dry formal agreement, much like a business contract. Everything else around the civil partnership ceremony is 'pretend'. It mimics the protocols of a wedding, but everyone knows its not really a wedding.

Some people I know don't like that element. And I believe that argument carries some weight.

The phrase "I'm entering into a civil partnership", doesn't have the same romantic connotations as, "I'm getting married".

[anneasquith]

I do wonder. if/when this law is past. how many gay couples will actually be running up the aisle ?or is it more a case of we can do it if we want.!

[jim360]

Some of it probably is, Sharingan, but not all of it.

[LazyGun]

An interesting article on all of this from 2010, which delves in to the background a little;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

[sp1814]

anneasquith

There were five times more many gay couples entering civil partnerships that the government estimated back when it became law:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jul/31/civil-partnerships-popular-expected-figures

I can see a surge of gay coupes in CPs, converting them to marriages (apparently, it will cost £100).

[Sharingan]

That's a matter of opinion Jim, you think one thing I clearly think another. It's discriminatory that gay [people cannot marry and have the same emotional, financial and social security as straight people. 'Parent A and Parent B' sounds fine to me and Sweden and the other 13 countries where gay marriage is legal really do seem to have managed, or is it relevant which is the ' mother' and which is the 'father', surely they should have exactly equal rights. Or not?

[RATTER15]

I'm with Sharingan on this, these views are primitive... I also accept that if heterosexual couples want a Civil Partnership then that should also be permitted.

[jim360]

I don't oppose the Bill, don't see it as a waste of time and think that religious arguments against it shouldn't be considered. But such inflammatory language and "oh it's fine to me" is fundamentally disrespectful. People have grown up with an idea of marriage as a particular relationship, and it's completely understandable that many of those people are opposed to or uncomfortable with the idea of that definition suddenly changing. I'm arguing for respect for these people. Is that so unreasonable?

Dismissing everyone who opposes this as a bigot or primitive is just downright rude. Arguing that they are wrong, which is a reasonable position, can be done without name-calling.

[jomifl]

The way it seems to be going is that some gays want to be recognised as being different but also accepted as equal, the old 'cake and eat it' scenario. They won't be happy until only homosexuals are allowed to use the word 'gay' anyone who does so who is not gay will be called a 'bigot'. :-)

[Sharingan]

So you're happy to dismiss religious people's viewpoints but just not someone whose stuck in the mud with their thinking processes jim? THAT'S really disrespectful. Either acknowledge everyone's opinion or just involve the people it will actually matter to, you cna't just pick and choose what you personally think, that's really wrong. Oh yeah and you haven't answered my question about why you think 'parent A and parent B' is such a bad idea?

[jim360]

No it's not. Religion shouldn't be a part of state law, was what I meant, so that you oughtn't be able to argue against a law on purely religious grounds.

I never said "Parent A" and "Parent B" was wrong either. But it does change a definition for people who are mother and father at the moment. It's not surprising that some people who are used to identifying as that are unhappy at the change. The point then is that it does affect current relationships, or at least how they are recognised in law, which matters to some people.

[Sharingan]

But religion is key to forming a lot of people's opinions especially on this, so how if you poll straight people about it do you ever expect religion to play no part in their decision making process? I bet there is a (very strong probably) correlation between people opposed to this and their religious beliefs. Of course current relationships will be (slightly) affected but not negatively so I don't think that ought to be a major consideration to be honest. Women getting the vote changed quite a lot, as did equal pay etc. Levelling any under represented faction up to equal status in any area changes things, just not usually for the worse, and this is in my opinion, no exception.

[FredPuli43]

Is there any objection now if a gay couple call themselves married, though they are but civil partners ? If there is, what is it?

Has there been any objection if a couple in a "common law marriage" call themselves married, when strictly they are not?

Has there been any objection from any church if a Christian couple married only in a Register Office call themselves married?

Ah, the subtleties of language and its usage ! The idea of homosexuals deciding to commit to each other so they can have homosexual sex forsaking all others, for as long as they both shall live is repugnant to some people; we know the bible is against it; so recognizing that commitment as 'marriage' is equally repugnant. If these pervs must do it, call it something else, by gad. By Jove, it never happened in my day.

[jim360]

The point, ultimately, is that I agree with you that this will be a change for the better. I just don't think it's necessary or right to be so rude about all who oppose it.

[sara3]

civil partnership - would you like to cover the legal issues?
marriage (gay or otherwise) - would you like to take vows and declare your love?

choice and equality. if you don't like it, don't do it.

[Iluvspikey]

Up until 2016, Bill, and then if the woman hasn't paid any pension contributions, she will not be able to claim against her husbands cpntributions - this has been done to stop money going abroad mosty, but it will effect women here too