Technology14 mins ago
I Don't Understand..
99 Answers
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'
Answers
It's the word 'marriage.' They want to be able to say they're married, because straight couples can, and currently they can't. The big hoo-hah has come about because the church thinks that marriage is a religious concept distinct from any kind civil arrangement created by the state. This means they get to define what it means, and they currently define it as a...
08:32 Mon 20th May 2013
For hundreds of years Homosexuality was illegal then suddenly it is legal & change is expected overnight. These things take time to come into effect & now suddenly we are all equall. If now there is no difference between men & women ( as the pc brigade would have us believe) can I expect men to begin menstruating & becoming pregnant. Alright I am being stupid but is an absolute undisputed fact that men & women are not the same. It also follows that heterasexualls & homosexualls are not the same .
Marriage should in my opinion be reserved for male/female couples & Civil Partnerships remain for same sex couples but with the same benefits in law.
WR.
Marriage should in my opinion be reserved for male/female couples & Civil Partnerships remain for same sex couples but with the same benefits in law.
WR.
Not the same physiologically, WR. Is the issue of reproductive organs and gender identity all that matters? Is this sufficient in itself to treat people differently culturally and in law?
Is a woman or a homosexual less able to have feelings, or think, or love than a man?
You confuse equality of opportunity and equality of humanity with equality of physiology.
Is a woman or a homosexual less able to have feelings, or think, or love than a man?
You confuse equality of opportunity and equality of humanity with equality of physiology.
Sharingan
/// Sp has already answered this about an hour ago:- ///
/// ''The difference between marriage and civil partnerships is that if a gay couple enter a civil partnership today, they are only entitled to each other's pension benefits from the date that civil partnerships entered the statute books - December 2005. ///
So it's all boils down to 'Money' and nothing to do with the right to be called married, then that is simple to fix without the need for them to be 'Married', the government have only to change the civil partnership rules.
Sorted, job done, perhaps then we can get on with the real important matters.
/// Sp has already answered this about an hour ago:- ///
/// ''The difference between marriage and civil partnerships is that if a gay couple enter a civil partnership today, they are only entitled to each other's pension benefits from the date that civil partnerships entered the statute books - December 2005. ///
So it's all boils down to 'Money' and nothing to do with the right to be called married, then that is simple to fix without the need for them to be 'Married', the government have only to change the civil partnership rules.
Sorted, job done, perhaps then we can get on with the real important matters.
whiskeyron.
The Sexual Offences Act entered the statute books on 1967, effectively decriminalizing gay sex (although up until that point it wasn't technically illegal to be gay.
That was 55 years ago, so it could be argued that change isn't expected 'overnight'. It's been a journey of half a century.
The Sexual Offences Act entered the statute books on 1967, effectively decriminalizing gay sex (although up until that point it wasn't technically illegal to be gay.
That was 55 years ago, so it could be argued that change isn't expected 'overnight'. It's been a journey of half a century.
aog, what's your answer to my question at 11.07 ? Your link cited examples of heterosexual couples who wanted civil partnerships rather than marriage. Do you agree that "What's in a name?" applies and just as heterosexuals should be able choose to be, and call themselves, 'civil partners' rather than 'married' , homosexuals should be able to choose to be, and call themselves, 'married' ?
Not the same thing at all, AoG - Can you show me anything either culturally or in law that gender equality or equality for homosexuals does to oppress or suppress or subjugate a white heterosexual male?
How exactly is a white heterosexual males equality endangered by offering equality to women? How is a white heterosexual males marriage threatened or devalued or invalidated by allowing homosexuals to marriage?
How exactly is a white heterosexual males equality endangered by offering equality to women? How is a white heterosexual males marriage threatened or devalued or invalidated by allowing homosexuals to marriage?
sp1814
re-your 09.53 post.
/// The phrase "I'm entering into a civil partnership", doesn't have the same romantic connotations as, "I'm getting married". ///
So just a matter of words then, since I am not aware that it is unlawful for gays to say "I am getting married", then who is stopping them from using such a phrase?
/// Everything else around the civil partnership ceremony is 'pretend'. It mimics the protocols of a wedding, but everyone knows its not really a wedding. ///
How is a 'civil partnership ceremony' any difference from a 'Registry Office ceremony, both can be called a wedding, no one is stopping it from being so called, so how can everyone know it is not really a wedding?
re-your 09.53 post.
/// The phrase "I'm entering into a civil partnership", doesn't have the same romantic connotations as, "I'm getting married". ///
So just a matter of words then, since I am not aware that it is unlawful for gays to say "I am getting married", then who is stopping them from using such a phrase?
/// Everything else around the civil partnership ceremony is 'pretend'. It mimics the protocols of a wedding, but everyone knows its not really a wedding. ///
How is a 'civil partnership ceremony' any difference from a 'Registry Office ceremony, both can be called a wedding, no one is stopping it from being so called, so how can everyone know it is not really a wedding?
AOG
So seeing as it's just a word, why is there so much opposition to changing the meaning of the word to allow gay couples to get married - rather than pretending to get married? A civil partnership is not a marriage, but to reduce the whole argument to semantics is over-simplifying it.
It's about heterosexuals and homosexuals being treated exactly the same under the eyes of the law.
Incidentally, if/when it enters the statute books, I think that civil partnerships should be dropped.
So seeing as it's just a word, why is there so much opposition to changing the meaning of the word to allow gay couples to get married - rather than pretending to get married? A civil partnership is not a marriage, but to reduce the whole argument to semantics is over-simplifying it.
It's about heterosexuals and homosexuals being treated exactly the same under the eyes of the law.
Incidentally, if/when it enters the statute books, I think that civil partnerships should be dropped.
//Incidentally, if/when it enters the statute books, I think that civil partnerships should be dropped. //
yes but if that happened, it would leave those who don't wish to be encumbered with the institution of marriage at a distinct disadvantage financially. surely better to make both paths equally available?
yes but if that happened, it would leave those who don't wish to be encumbered with the institution of marriage at a distinct disadvantage financially. surely better to make both paths equally available?
FredPuli43
/// Do you agree that marriage is just a name and therefore it can be applied to homosexual couples just as some heterosexual couples think civil partnership should be applied to them ? ///
'Yes it is just a name' and as I have already said " who is stopping them from calling themselves married"? a heterosexual couple could go around saying "we are in a civil partnership" and no one could arrest them for saying that.
/// Your link cited examples of heterosexual couples who wanted civil partnerships rather than marriage. Do you agree that "What's in a name?" applies and just as heterosexuals should be able choose to be, and call themselves, 'civil partners' rather than 'married' , homosexuals should be able to choose to be, and call themselves, 'married' ? ///
No, because in this case it is not just a matter of "What's in a name" if you read the links you would not have failed to notice that gay 'civil partnerships' have certain advantages that are not enjoyed by heterosexual couples who choose not to marry.
/// They don't want to get married. But they still want to make a lifetime commitment to each other. And they'd like greater legal and financial security than that offered by simply cohabiting. ///
/// So what's the solution? It's obvious, really: a civil partnership. ///
/// There's only one snag. Under the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, such arrangements are restricted to couples of the same sex. ///
/// Do you agree that marriage is just a name and therefore it can be applied to homosexual couples just as some heterosexual couples think civil partnership should be applied to them ? ///
'Yes it is just a name' and as I have already said " who is stopping them from calling themselves married"? a heterosexual couple could go around saying "we are in a civil partnership" and no one could arrest them for saying that.
/// Your link cited examples of heterosexual couples who wanted civil partnerships rather than marriage. Do you agree that "What's in a name?" applies and just as heterosexuals should be able choose to be, and call themselves, 'civil partners' rather than 'married' , homosexuals should be able to choose to be, and call themselves, 'married' ? ///
No, because in this case it is not just a matter of "What's in a name" if you read the links you would not have failed to notice that gay 'civil partnerships' have certain advantages that are not enjoyed by heterosexual couples who choose not to marry.
/// They don't want to get married. But they still want to make a lifetime commitment to each other. And they'd like greater legal and financial security than that offered by simply cohabiting. ///
/// So what's the solution? It's obvious, really: a civil partnership. ///
/// There's only one snag. Under the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, such arrangements are restricted to couples of the same sex. ///
seriously, I couldn't care less if this law is passed now. or in the future. but when I go to a wedding I expect a man dressed as a man and a woman dressed as a woman,,,,,,,,,,and if anyone objects to this law then they are allowed to express their opinion as are homosexuals entitled to their opinion, but. I do wonder if some of the reasons hetrosexuals feel some disquiet re the issue is because they cant quite understand why same sex people would be attracted to each other and wish to '' make love'' to each other ?
AOG
I think your argument is in danger of collapsing in on itself.
Are you now saying that marriage is actually more than just a word? Because it now appears to be 'an institution'.
So that means that there are unspoken trappings accorded to the state of marriage that are not available to those in civil partnerships. If there weren't, why would any straight couple want to enter a CP.
If they were exactly the same, then straight couples would just get married, rather than wanting a CP, surely??
I think your argument is in danger of collapsing in on itself.
Are you now saying that marriage is actually more than just a word? Because it now appears to be 'an institution'.
So that means that there are unspoken trappings accorded to the state of marriage that are not available to those in civil partnerships. If there weren't, why would any straight couple want to enter a CP.
If they were exactly the same, then straight couples would just get married, rather than wanting a CP, surely??
anneasquith
Yes - there are a number of straight people who are entirely uncomfortable with the idea of gay sex. It's sad that they immediately think of sex, rather than love. I know what when any friend of mine announces his engagement, I don't start picturing him having sex with his future wife.
Some people are a little odd.
Yes - there are a number of straight people who are entirely uncomfortable with the idea of gay sex. It's sad that they immediately think of sex, rather than love. I know what when any friend of mine announces his engagement, I don't start picturing him having sex with his future wife.
Some people are a little odd.
/// It's about heterosexuals and homosexuals being treated exactly the same under the eyes of the law. ///
Yes but they are not are they? That is why heterosexuals want the same legal rights as those enjoyed by homosexuals in a civil relationship.
/// so how can everyone know it is not really a wedding? ///
/// Because the couple getting married will be of the same sex. ///
Well no one can change the fact that both are of the same sex, even if they they wish it to be called a 'real wedding'.
And are there any passing spectators, libel to say "it's not a real wedding, you know"?
Yes but they are not are they? That is why heterosexuals want the same legal rights as those enjoyed by homosexuals in a civil relationship.
/// so how can everyone know it is not really a wedding? ///
/// Because the couple getting married will be of the same sex. ///
Well no one can change the fact that both are of the same sex, even if they they wish it to be called a 'real wedding'.
And are there any passing spectators, libel to say "it's not a real wedding, you know"?
Latest Posts
Home & Garden15 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Body & Soul27 mins ago