Civil Partnerships for different sex couples.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 14766
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 14766

Guest
Just been reading about the couple who’ve campaigned for Civil Partnerships between hetero couples (as opposed to marriage) and have just completed the ceremony.

I don’t get it.

I don’t understand why they didn’t just get married in a civil ceremony.

can anyone explain? What are the practical differences?
 


Just been reading about the couple who’ve campaigned for Civil Partnerships between hetero couples (as opposed to marriage) and have just completed the ceremony.

I don’t get it.

I don’t understand why they didn’t just get married in a civil ceremony.

can anyone explain? What are the practical differences?
May not wanna be married, but iirc having a civil partnership allows you to do stuff with pensions and the like as if you were married or some such.
 
May not wanna be married, but iirc having a civil partnership allows you to do stuff with pensions and the like as if you were married or some such.
In a nutshell. There's just a move away from traditionalism and religious ceremony, however there's prevailing legislation in place that only benefits "married" couples.
 
I love you, but not enough to get married. Please will you civil partner me so that I automatically get the house when you snuff it.

It was brought in so that the government didn’t need to give gay couples all the same benefits as straight couples. Loads of gay couples converted theirs to marriages when gay marriage was permitted and campaigned that civil partnerships weren’t the same as marriage and they needed equal rights.

I’m not sure why straight couples are now clamouring for fewer rights just to say “up yours” to what they consider to be an old fashioned tradition, when in reality marriage is whatever the couple decides to make it. It’s not even expected that a woman changes their name, and I can’t remember the last wedding I was at where they mentioned “honour and obey” etc.
 
Last edited:
You can have a non-religious civil wedding so I really don’t see why you’d need a civil partnership unless I’m missing something.
Saying “fuck you” do the dated patriarchal system of marriage, by entering into a partnership that was invented to give gay couples the illusion of marriage whilst giving them fewer benefits as straight couples who could get married.
 
So what rights do married couples have that civilled partnered dont?

As far as i can make out the only differences are that churches dont do them & dont take each others surname (which you dont really have to do with marriage anyway)
 
Just been reading about the couple who’ve campaigned for Civil Partnerships between hetero couples (as opposed to marriage) and have just completed the ceremony.

I don’t get it.

I don’t understand why they didn’t just get married in a civil ceremony.

can anyone explain? What are the practical differences?

Marriage/ civil partnerships etc.It's all just outdated BS designed to be some sort of contract for assets
 
I may be being a bit provincial about the whole thing, but it seems the kind of straight couple that would get one of these are the kind that would combine their surnames or he takes her surname name.
.... shall not argue with that. Little lad called "Wheatgrass" in a pink dress.:lol:
 

Back
Top