FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Couple refused civil partnership

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The news on the radio just told a story about a straight couple who were refused the right to a civil partnership. Whats your thoughts on this?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The news on the radio just told a story about a straight couple who were refused the right to a civil partnership. Whats your thoughts on this?"

meh

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

None really, anything else happening?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't really understand why they are kicking off about it

If they dont want any religious ceremony then just do the registry office, all seems to be a waste of time to be honest.

I hope they are paying for this themselves though

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"None really, anything else happening?"

you have a daytime meet on Monday

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"None really, anything else happening?"

Iv just had a blueberry muffin

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iSTARessWoman
over a year ago

London

It's bullshit. If you don't want a 'marriage' but a civil union, should be entitled to it. Regardless if your sexuality

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"None really, anything else happening?

you have a daytime meet on Monday "

I wish, no one has messaged me about it yet

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"None really, anything else happening?

you have a daytime meet on Monday

I wish, no one has messaged me about it yet "

What you doing Monday daytime?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *agneto.Man
over a year ago

Bham

Just people who like to moan and try to cause controversy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm not sure what a civil partnership would achieve that a registry office wedding would or wouldn't. I'm assuming the difference is minimal based on the court's outcome

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"None really, anything else happening?

you have a daytime meet on Monday

I wish, no one has messaged me about it yet

What you doing Monday daytime? "

Well if I don't have any company, I'll be doing some work around the house, commonly known as housework

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's bullshit. If you don't want a 'marriage' but a civil union, should be entitled to it. Regardless if your sexuality "

Exactly my view too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I'm a big believer in equal rights. I believe that if gay people can get married, straight people should be able to have a civil partnership.

We will never be equal if different people are allowed different things

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *et-shortyMan
over a year ago

Manchester

Civil partnerships are just recognised marriages without the legal stuff that comes along with it.

They should be scrapped altogether now as gays can be married in church or civil ceremony, it's just a bit of legislation that's defunct

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's bullshit. If you don't want a 'marriage' but a civil union, should be entitled to it. Regardless if your sexuality "

This

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Why not if thats what they want.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orkie321bWoman
over a year ago

Nottingham


"Civil partnerships are just recognised marriages without the legal stuff that comes along with it.

They should be scrapped altogether now as gays can be married in church or civil ceremony, it's just a bit of legislation that's defunct"

I agree.

The civil partnership was only ever a "second class" version of marriage designed to try and appease same sex couples who wanted equal rights to heterosexual couples. Now they can have a proper marriage I think the option of civil partnership should be removed. Obviously existing civil partnerships should not be affected and should still be recognised but it shouldn't be a choice now for couples who want to "marry".

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"None really, anything else happening?

you have a daytime meet on Monday

I wish, no one has messaged me about it yet "

well Liverpool is a bit of a schlep for me poor injured feet

soz

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•

what's the actual difference between civil partnership and marriage anyway?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Life sucks... Could be worse ...a residential rehab

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *et-shortyMan
over a year ago

Manchester


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

"
.

No as far as I'm aware there's no legal rights with a civil partnership, it's just a recognised relationship

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"Civil partnerships are just recognised marriages without the legal stuff that comes along with it.

They should be scrapped altogether now as gays can be married in church or civil ceremony, it's just a bit of legislation that's defunct"

They didn't afford equal rights to marriages though, they had reduced rights, hence complaints. We had a government that wasn't brave enough to implement full equality.

I'm kind of thinking we should probably just have one option now but lack of church weddings for gays is perhaps the sticking point. The government will also perhaps declare that they will be withdrawn at some point for everybody.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

.

No as far as I'm aware there's no legal rights with a civil partnership, it's just a recognised relationship"

Well if there's no legal rights then I wouldn't bother doing it personally.

I thought it would mean you would have same rights as a married couple.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The bible decides

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orkie321bWoman
over a year ago

Nottingham


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

.

No as far as I'm aware there's no legal rights with a civil partnership, it's just a recognised relationship

Well if there's no legal rights then I wouldn't bother doing it personally.

I thought it would mean you would have same rights as a married couple."

Civil partnership does give the same rights as marriage, i.e inheritance, next of kin, tax rights. It is essentially the same as marriage but a different name.

The only real difference is by law a marriage has to be conducted in public but a civil partnership can be conducted in private. Also when a civil partnership is dissolved (divorce) adultery cannot be cited as grounds.

The whole purpose of civil partnership was to give same sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Now that same sex couples can marry legally civil partnership is defunct.

I read an interesting statistic earlier today. In 2013 there were over 5600 civil partnerships. In 2015 after the legalisation of same sex marriage the figure was less than 900 because same sex couples are choosing to marry instead.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

.

No as far as I'm aware there's no legal rights with a civil partnership, it's just a recognised relationship

Well if there's no legal rights then I wouldn't bother doing it personally.

I thought it would mean you would have same rights as a married couple.

Civil partnership does give the same rights as marriage, i.e inheritance, next of kin, tax rights. It is essentially the same as marriage but a different name.

The only real difference is by law a marriage has to be conducted in public but a civil partnership can be conducted in private. Also when a civil partnership is dissolved (divorce) adultery cannot be cited as grounds.

The whole purpose of civil partnership was to give same sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Now that same sex couples can marry legally civil partnership is defunct.

I read an interesting statistic earlier today. In 2013 there were over 5600 civil partnerships. In 2015 after the legalisation of same sex marriage the figure was less than 900 because same sex couples are choosing to marry instead."

So was I correct then ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some people just like to prove a point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London

[Removed by poster at 21/02/17 17:37:02]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London

Two people with too much time on their hands wanting to prove a point!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uddlybear2015Man
over a year ago

BEDFORD

Maybe it should be an option,since co-habitation has no legal standing. One for the law makers to ponder.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It is double standards because they allowed elton john to do it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It is double standards because they allowed elton john to do it."

It's no sacrifice

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•


"It is double standards because they allowed elton john to do it.

It's no sacrifice "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

"

This

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Civil partnerships are just recognised marriages without the legal stuff that comes along with it.

They should be scrapped altogether now as gays can be married in church or civil ceremony, it's just a bit of legislation that's defunct"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Civil partnerships were not equal to marriage though, there were subtle differences, outside of where they could be conducted.

They were introduced in part pandering to people who noisily were against gay people having more equality and to keep them outside of religious upheaval and indignation. We the taxpayer have had to pay for the duplicated efforts etc. I'm thinking that they should be scrapped. The daily tail brigade costs us all very dearly

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

The judgment was to refuse the petition but the judges have said that they don't think the current situation can remain and the government should look at it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

LOL sounds like the "reverse discrimination!!!" crowd is at it again. Its amusing that this pathetic attitude has now reached fever pitch...everyone wants to feel like they're being "discriminated against".

What I find most amusing is the couple itself. Apparently the woman feels that marriage is "patriarchal and backward" and feels that a marriage represents modern values. I saw the way she spoke at the press conference following the ruling...she seems to control the relationship and the man seems weak, easily led, doesn't even seem really convinced in the pointless crusade.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Meh its an unfortunate side effect of the crappy half measure way they had to introduce gay marriage it was a stepping stone in the vein of "seperate but equal" now the silly segregation has been dealt with it needs removing and existing partnerships converted to marriages.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

"

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The case is the law is the law. Often it's badly written and leaves room for interpretation, otherwise it's challenged and re-written. With every law. But the reality is that the letter of the law is followed unless altered by case law.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I want a civil partnership.

I do not want a marriage and all the baggage that comes with it.

It's very disappointing news, but understandable. The judiciary were always going to interpret the law that way. However it has brought the issue to a place where there can now be more campaigning and a change bought.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I want a civil partnership.

I do not want a marriage and all the baggage that comes with it.

It's very disappointing news, but understandable. The judiciary were always going to interpret the law that way. However it has brought the issue to a place where there can now be more campaigning and a change bought."

It comes with even worse baggage.

But i suppose on the plus side its the same mind set that means you're never short of a loo in the pentagon

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think is a shame their appeal got rejected and hope their appeal to the Supreme Court is better.

Although I did find an earlier comment here about marriage and baggage a bit of an odd one, what baggage does a marriage have that a civil partnership does not? Just after clarity on the point, not starting an argument.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think is a shame their appeal got rejected and hope their appeal to the Supreme Court is better.

Although I did find an earlier comment here about marriage and baggage a bit of an odd one, what baggage does a marriage have that a civil partnership does not? Just after clarity on the point, not starting an argument."

I feel, personally, that marriage has too many roots in heteronormative, patriarchal tradition for me. It's also very religious for me too - because I am religious and I was brought up religious.

Marriage also comes with it the assumption that you are "on the escalator" with your relationship. It is the next stage up from "dating", "living together" and the stage before you have kids - traditionally. I am not on the escalator.

And of course, it assumes monogamy as default.

I want a civil partnership because I want to gain the legal rights of a partnership in the eyes of our government. I will always be the lower earning one in the relationship with the person I live with and I wish to gain the legal rights that put me in a better position if something terrible should happen. I want next of kin rights, house rights, pension rights, etc. I do not want to be "married" in a public ceremony. I wish to sign the contract in private, since it is nobody else's business - other than the government.

I also want a civil partnership because it doesn't have sex as a central component. You can annul a marriage if you never have sex. You can cite sex as grounds for divorce. You can't do those things with a civil partnership - which is how a government contract should be. Sex should not play a legal part in government legislation of pensions/inheritance/tax. And I say that both for myself, and for my asexual friends who feel like they can't get married because they would never legally consummate it.

It's about having options and freedom. Getting the pension you are entitled to, for example, shouldn't come with the kind of terms and conditions that it currently does.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Thanks for the additional POV on it all. Had never considered the argument from that position, thanks for giving me a wider view point on it x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property"

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think is a shame their appeal got rejected and hope their appeal to the Supreme Court is better.

Although I did find an earlier comment here about marriage and baggage a bit of an odd one, what baggage does a marriage have that a civil partnership does not? Just after clarity on the point, not starting an argument.

I feel, personally, that marriage has too many roots in heteronormative, patriarchal tradition for me. It's also very religious for me too - because I am religious and I was brought up religious.

Marriage also comes with it the assumption that you are "on the escalator" with your relationship. It is the next stage up from "dating", "living together" and the stage before you have kids - traditionally. I am not on the escalator.

And of course, it assumes monogamy as default.

I want a civil partnership because I want to gain the legal rights of a partnership in the eyes of our government. I will always be the lower earning one in the relationship with the person I live with and I wish to gain the legal rights that put me in a better position if something terrible should happen. I want next of kin rights, house rights, pension rights, etc. I do not want to be "married" in a public ceremony. I wish to sign the contract in private, since it is nobody else's business - other than the government.

I also want a civil partnership because it doesn't have sex as a central component. You can annul a marriage if you never have sex. You can cite sex as grounds for divorce. You can't do those things with a civil partnership - which is how a government contract should be. Sex should not play a legal part in government legislation of pensions/inheritance/tax. And I say that both for myself, and for my asexual friends who feel like they can't get married because they would never legally consummate it.

It's about having options and freedom. Getting the pension you are entitled to, for example, shouldn't come with the kind of terms and conditions that it currently does."

But you dont feel an insitution created purely so that gay people where not equal to heterosexuals is not rooted in "heteronormative, patriarchal tradition"?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

"

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time"

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple"

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married. "

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Civil partnerships are just recognised marriages without the legal stuff that comes along with it.

They should be scrapped altogether now as gays can be married in church or civil ceremony, it's just a bit of legislation that's defunct

I agree.

The civil partnership was only ever a "second class" version of marriage designed to try and appease same sex couples who wanted equal rights to heterosexual couples. Now they can have a proper marriage I think the option of civil partnership should be removed. Obviously existing civil partnerships should not be affected and should still be recognised but it shouldn't be a choice now for couples who want to "marry"."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

"

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?"

Are you stupid or is it just your immaturity? Or both?

Because i like alot of others dont believe in marriage but wish to have the same legal rights as a married couple while in a civil partnership.

You shouldnt have to get married to have legal rights when living together in a civil partnership.

If your are too selfish to share what you have when living together in a civil partnership then i suggest you get a prenup or equivalent drawn up so you dont have to share any of your assets with the poor greedy gold digging woman whos unfortunate enough to choose to live with you !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?

Are you stupid or is it just your immaturity? Or both?

Because i like alot of others dont believe in marriage but wish to have the same legal rights as a married couple while in a civil partnership.

You shouldnt have to get married to have legal rights when living together in a civil partnership.

If your are too selfish to share what you have when living together in a civil partnership then i suggest you get a prenup or equivalent drawn up so you dont have to share any of your assets with the poor greedy gold digging woman whos unfortunate enough to choose to live with you !"

No im not stupid.

Are yoy a prude?

Who belives only married people should live together

You realise you can give your partner all the married stuff except tax exemption with a few simple documents such as a will.

You are NOT in a civil partner ship just because you live together stop saying that its 100% bollocks.

Civil partnership was a sexond class marriage to segregate gay people "seperate but equal"

Also prenups mean nothing in t he uk they are not recognised by law.

How long does somone have to live with you before they own half your stuff in this bizzare world of yours

What is wrong with wanting to live together but not bind yourselves and your asests to each other legally.

If your gf decides to take a year out of work to do w masters and you say to stay at yours to save costs, is she now your wife as youre suggesying she shoupd be,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?

Are you stupid or is it just your immaturity? Or both?

Because i like alot of others dont believe in marriage but wish to have the same legal rights as a married couple while in a civil partnership.

You shouldnt have to get married to have legal rights when living together in a civil partnership.

If your are too selfish to share what you have when living together in a civil partnership then i suggest you get a prenup or equivalent drawn up so you dont have to share any of your assets with the poor greedy gold digging woman whos unfortunate enough to choose to live with you !"

Only a small minority of women are gold diggers, you have obviously been unfortunate in choosing one as a wife. A little word of friendly advice, you really should try and let go of the bitterness you have over your broken marriage/relationship. It's not doing you any favours.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?

Are you stupid or is it just your immaturity? Or both?

Because i like alot of others dont believe in marriage but wish to have the same legal rights as a married couple while in a civil partnership.

You shouldnt have to get married to have legal rights when living together in a civil partnership.

If your are too selfish to share what you have when living together in a civil partnership then i suggest you get a prenup or equivalent drawn up so you dont have to share any of your assets with the poor greedy gold digging woman whos unfortunate enough to choose to live with you !

Only a small minority of women are gold diggers, you have obviously been unfortunate in choosing one as a wife. A little word of friendly advice, you really should try and let go of the bitterness you have over your broken marriage/relationship. It's not doing you any favours."

Who you directing it at? Not me I hope? If you are you havent read my thread properly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?

Are you stupid or is it just your immaturity? Or both?

Because i like alot of others dont believe in marriage but wish to have the same legal rights as a married couple while in a civil partnership.

You shouldnt have to get married to have legal rights when living together in a civil partnership.

If your are too selfish to share what you have when living together in a civil partnership then i suggest you get a prenup or equivalent drawn up so you dont have to share any of your assets with the poor greedy gold digging woman whos unfortunate enough to choose to live with you !

Only a small minority of women are gold diggers, you have obviously been unfortunate in choosing one as a wife. A little word of friendly advice, you really should try and let go of the bitterness you have over your broken marriage/relationship. It's not doing you any favours.

Who you directing it at? Not me I hope? If you are you havent read my thread properly."

You've made the comment about gold diggers have you not?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?

Are you stupid or is it just your immaturity? Or both?

Because i like alot of others dont believe in marriage but wish to have the same legal rights as a married couple while in a civil partnership.

You shouldnt have to get married to have legal rights when living together in a civil partnership.

If your are too selfish to share what you have when living together in a civil partnership then i suggest you get a prenup or equivalent drawn up so you dont have to share any of your assets with the poor greedy gold digging woman whos unfortunate enough to choose to live with you !

Only a small minority of women are gold diggers, you have obviously been unfortunate in choosing one as a wife. A little word of friendly advice, you really should try and let go of the bitterness you have over your broken marriage/relationship. It's not doing you any favours.

Who you directing it at? Not me I hope? If you are you havent read my thread properly.

You've made the comment about gold diggers have you not?"

Yes because the post i responded obviously finds it a problem sharing his assets with a partner hes living with?

Im all for equal sharing of assets in a civil partnership and having the same rights as a married couple.

I suggest you read the threads properly as its me who is FOR equality and want the same rights when living in a civil partnership as in marriage!

FYI ive never married and all my relationships have been great so no animosity here

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?

Are you stupid or is it just your immaturity? Or both?

Because i like alot of others dont believe in marriage but wish to have the same legal rights as a married couple while in a civil partnership.

You shouldnt have to get married to have legal rights when living together in a civil partnership.

If your are too selfish to share what you have when living together in a civil partnership then i suggest you get a prenup or equivalent drawn up so you dont have to share any of your assets with the poor greedy gold digging woman whos unfortunate enough to choose to live with you !

Only a small minority of women are gold diggers, you have obviously been unfortunate in choosing one as a wife. A little word of friendly advice, you really should try and let go of the bitterness you have over your broken marriage/relationship. It's not doing you any favours.

Who you directing it at? Not me I hope? If you are you havent read my thread properly.

You've made the comment about gold diggers have you not?

Yes because the post i responded obviously finds it a problem sharing his assets with a partner hes living with?

Im all for equal sharing of assets in a civil partnership and having the same rights as a married couple.

I suggest you read the threads properly as its me who is FOR equality and want the same rights when living in a civil partnership as in marriage!

FYI ive never married and all my relationships have been great so no animosity here "

So the gold digger comment was totally irrelevant then

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?

Are you stupid or is it just your immaturity? Or both?

Because i like alot of others dont believe in marriage but wish to have the same legal rights as a married couple while in a civil partnership.

You shouldnt have to get married to have legal rights when living together in a civil partnership.

If your are too selfish to share what you have when living together in a civil partnership then i suggest you get a prenup or equivalent drawn up so you dont have to share any of your assets with the poor greedy gold digging woman whos unfortunate enough to choose to live with you !

No im not stupid.

Are yoy a prude?

Who belives only married people should live together

You realise you can give your partner all the married stuff except tax exemption with a few simple documents such as a will.

You are NOT in a civil partner ship just because you live together stop saying that its 100% bollocks.

Civil partnership was a sexond class marriage to segregate gay people "seperate but equal"

Also prenups mean nothing in t he uk they are not recognised by law.

How long does somone have to live with you before they own half your stuff in this bizzare world of yours

What is wrong with wanting to live together but not bind yourselves and your asests to each other legally.

If your gf decides to take a year out of work to do w masters and you say to stay at yours to save costs, is she now your wife as youre suggesying she shoupd be,"

If you are living together as Man/Wife and have been for say 5/10 years then you should be entitled to the same finacial rights as a married couple regardless if you can show you have contributed to the other persons mortgage or bills or not.

Why should you walk away with nothing just because you arnt married after all that time youve invested in that relationg and home?.

This is why I am for Civil partnerships to be recognised so that couples who dont wish to get married for their own reasons still have the security of the same legal and financial rights as a married couple.

This is my opinion and the opinion of many others.

Whether you agree or dissagree with my opinion in your choice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?

Are you stupid or is it just your immaturity? Or both?

Because i like alot of others dont believe in marriage but wish to have the same legal rights as a married couple while in a civil partnership.

You shouldnt have to get married to have legal rights when living together in a civil partnership.

If your are too selfish to share what you have when living together in a civil partnership then i suggest you get a prenup or equivalent drawn up so you dont have to share any of your assets with the poor greedy gold digging woman whos unfortunate enough to choose to live with you !

Only a small minority of women are gold diggers, you have obviously been unfortunate in choosing one as a wife. A little word of friendly advice, you really should try and let go of the bitterness you have over your broken marriage/relationship. It's not doing you any favours.

Who you directing it at? Not me I hope? If you are you havent read my thread properly.

You've made the comment about gold diggers have you not?

Yes because the post i responded obviously finds it a problem sharing his assets with a partner hes living with?

Im all for equal sharing of assets in a civil partnership and having the same rights as a married couple.

I suggest you read the threads properly as its me who is FOR equality and want the same rights when living in a civil partnership as in marriage!

FYI ive never married and all my relationships have been great so no animosity here

So the gold digger comment was totally irrelevant then "

Irrelevant to you as you obviously dont read the posts correctly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?

Are you stupid or is it just your immaturity? Or both?

Because i like alot of others dont believe in marriage but wish to have the same legal rights as a married couple while in a civil partnership.

You shouldnt have to get married to have legal rights when living together in a civil partnership.

If your are too selfish to share what you have when living together in a civil partnership then i suggest you get a prenup or equivalent drawn up so you dont have to share any of your assets with the poor greedy gold digging woman whos unfortunate enough to choose to live with you !

Only a small minority of women are gold diggers, you have obviously been unfortunate in choosing one as a wife. A little word of friendly advice, you really should try and let go of the bitterness you have over your broken marriage/relationship. It's not doing you any favours.

Who you directing it at? Not me I hope? If you are you havent read my thread properly.

You've made the comment about gold diggers have you not?

Yes because the post i responded obviously finds it a problem sharing his assets with a partner hes living with?

Im all for equal sharing of assets in a civil partnership and having the same rights as a married couple.

I suggest you read the threads properly as its me who is FOR equality and want the same rights when living in a civil partnership as in marriage!

FYI ive never married and all my relationships have been great so no animosity here

So the gold digger comment was totally irrelevant then

Irrelevant to you as you obviously dont read the posts correctly."

As you clearly don't when you are questioning me over my marriage on numerous other threads.

But hey ho....all is fun in the forums

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But isn't the point of a Civil Partnership so you can have all the legal rights of a married couple but without getting married?

IE: So if you share a house regardless of who owns it then if you split you would be entitled to half ? Same as if you were married.

And also be able to half of everything else that a married person would be entitled to.

Some people don't want to get married for their own reasons?

But they still should have the same legal rights as a married couple if they are in a Civil Partnership.

And this is what I agree with.

Because you can invest alot of years into a relationship living together sharing your life together and if you're not married you dont have any entitlement financially if you split up.

Not true at all.

If you can prove youve made a financial contribution to joint assests ie a house you can claim your share of the equity.

Hence why you should never let your bf/gf pay for ANYTHING related to your property

You miss the point.

Why shouldnt you be entitled to the same rights as a married couple if you have invested time and effort into a long relationship? Regardless if you have invested any monetary money into paying the other persons mortgage or bills whos house your living in ?

You might just contribute to buying the food of give cash towards helping with some bills etc if you cant afford to pay more than that.

You should be given the same rights as being married if you are living together in a serious long term relationship.

And if you dont agree with that then dont live together.

Because it should be up to the people to decide if they wabt that responsibility.

Oherwise it negatively punishes the "successful or responsible partner.

Why should abyone get a share of my house simoly becsuse we've been shagging for a set period kf time

If thats how you feel then dont live with someone.

Simple

Thats utterly stupid logic, how about if you own a car you have to give a lift to any hitch hiker, dont like it don't own a car.

if thats how you feel get married.

Not stupid logic at all.

This is another of your posts where you age immaturity and selfishness shows!

We aren't talking about picking up a hitch hiker or having some random person staying over one or two nights !

We are talking of people living together in a loving long term relationship. A Civil Partnership as if you were married and to have the same legal entitlement as a married couple.

Some people don't want to get married for their own personal reasons and that shouldnt have an impact on their legal standing in a long term civil relationship.

If people are willing to take the step further in their relationship and live together as a couple then they should have the same financial rights as a married couple.

You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership.

Its called being in a relationship and being in a partnership.

When you are in a partnership and have taken the commitment of living together then you shouldnt have to get married just so you have legal rights .

Like I said if you dont want to take a relationship to the next level and be in a partnership then dont decided to live together.

No it shows your bizzare twisted logic.

If people wish to commit to that obligation they can get married.

If they dont want to they dont have to.

Why should people not be alowed to live together without getting leggaly tied into each other.

Its a trap and would have a very negative effect on society as people refuse to move thier partners into thier house any more.

"You shouldnt have to get married just so you have the same legal rights as a married couple in a serious relationship/partnership."

Yes you should 100% have to sign on a dotted line if you want to commit to such a legal obligation.

Why is the next level after dating marrige for you?

Why is it not

.dating

living together

then marriage?

Are you stupid or is it just your immaturity? Or both?

Because i like alot of others dont believe in marriage but wish to have the same legal rights as a married couple while in a civil partnership.

You shouldnt have to get married to have legal rights when living together in a civil partnership.

If your are too selfish to share what you have when living together in a civil partnership then i suggest you get a prenup or equivalent drawn up so you dont have to share any of your assets with the poor greedy gold digging woman whos unfortunate enough to choose to live with you !

Only a small minority of women are gold diggers, you have obviously been unfortunate in choosing one as a wife. A little word of friendly advice, you really should try and let go of the bitterness you have over your broken marriage/relationship. It's not doing you any favours.

Who you directing it at? Not me I hope? If you are you havent read my thread properly.

You've made the comment about gold diggers have you not?

Yes because the post i responded obviously finds it a problem sharing his assets with a partner hes living with?

Im all for equal sharing of assets in a civil partnership and having the same rights as a married couple.

I suggest you read the threads properly as its me who is FOR equality and want the same rights when living in a civil partnership as in marriage!

FYI ive never married and all my relationships have been great so no animosity here

So the gold digger comment was totally irrelevant then

Irrelevant to you as you obviously dont read the posts correctly.

As you clearly don't when you are questioning me over my marriage on numerous other threads.

But hey ho....all is fun in the forums "

Yes it is isnt it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nice to see another topic discussed pleasantly ye gods

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Nice to see another topic discussed pleasantly ye gods "

Lol its all good fun.

Thats why we love the forums

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ok heres the point.

You are effectively arguing foe the removal of choice from peoples lives.

.ie the restriction of rights

Therefore its up to you to prove the benifits.

You wish to deny people the right to live together without becoming married automatically by the state?

Why?

Is it simply because you are too much of a coward to speak to your partner and say "look i want to be in your will, i want power of attorney over you if you end up on life support and i want half your stuff if you ever break up with me" and go sign the legal documents to do that?

Also how does your arrangement work for our polyamourous types who have more than 2 people ina relationship in one house?

Does the state dictate which 2 become forcibly wed?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok heres the point.

You are effectively arguing foe the removal of choice from peoples lives.

.ie the restriction of rights

Therefore its up to you to prove the benifits.

You wish to deny people the right to live together without becoming married automatically by the state?

Why?

Is it simply because you are too much of a coward to speak to your partner and say "look i want to be in your will, i want power of attorney over you if you end up on life support and i want half your stuff if you ever break up with me" and go sign the legal documents to do that?

Also how does your arrangement work for our polyamourous types who have more than 2 people ina relationship in one house?

Does the state dictate which 2 become forcibly wed?"

Not at all.

The personal opinion of myself and many others think that relationships when living together as husband and wife. You should have you the same legal rights and entitlement as a married couple.

My opinion and the opinion of many many others.

Whether you agree with my opinion and that of others is irrelevant.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oodnitegirlWoman
over a year ago

Yorkshire

Let em have what they want. Can't be one rule for one and not the other.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok heres the point.

You are effectively arguing foe the removal of choice from peoples lives.

.ie the restriction of rights

Therefore its up to you to prove the benifits.

You wish to deny people the right to live together without becoming married automatically by the state?

Why?

Is it simply because you are too much of a coward to speak to your partner and say "look i want to be in your will, i want power of attorney over you if you end up on life support and i want half your stuff if you ever break up with me" and go sign the legal documents to do that?

Also how does your arrangement work for our polyamourous types who have more than 2 people ina relationship in one house?

Does the state dictate which 2 become forcibly wed?

Not at all.

The personal opinion of myself and many others think that relationships when living together as husband and wife. You should have you the same legal rights and entitlement as a married couple.

My opinion and the opinion of many many others.

Whether you agree with my opinion and that of others is irrelevant.

"

Then campaign to be able to sign on the dotted line not make it automatix.

I think you'll find while civil partnerships being open to straight people might be a relatively accepted view.

Automatically becoming married after x years of cohabitation is an extreme minority view.

You keep saying living together as husband and wife.

Lots of people dont want that they want to live together as boyfriend and girlfriend.

If they want to make a formal legal agreement they can easily do so.

Bur they should not be forced into a state mandated shotgun wedding.

And your "opinion" if you got it approved would dramatically affect my life and many others so its kind of relevent

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"Ok heres the point.

You are effectively arguing foe the removal of choice from peoples lives.

.ie the restriction of rights

Therefore its up to you to prove the benifits.

You wish to deny people the right to live together without becoming married automatically by the state?

Why?

Is it simply because you are too much of a coward to speak to your partner and say "look i want to be in your will, i want power of attorney over you if you end up on life support and i want half your stuff if you ever break up with me" and go sign the legal documents to do that?

Also how does your arrangement work for our polyamourous types who have more than 2 people ina relationship in one house?

Does the state dictate which 2 become forcibly wed?

Not at all.

The personal opinion of myself and many others think that relationships when living together as husband and wife. You should have you the same legal rights and entitlement as a married couple.

My opinion and the opinion of many many others.

Whether you agree with my opinion and that of others is irrelevant.

"

This would worry me.

My other half lives in my house for free. He has never really contributed to my household and has not given me a penny in nine months. He runs his business from my home.

I should know better and had better get some legal advice because I have three children and grandchildren and assets over a million. I don't want him to have half of anything he's not contributed to just because we're "playing house".

I bet those clamouring for legal rights are those who are not contributing jack financially.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok heres the point.

You are effectively arguing foe the removal of choice from peoples lives.

.ie the restriction of rights

Therefore its up to you to prove the benifits.

You wish to deny people the right to live together without becoming married automatically by the state?

Why?

Is it simply because you are too much of a coward to speak to your partner and say "look i want to be in your will, i want power of attorney over you if you end up on life support and i want half your stuff if you ever break up with me" and go sign the legal documents to do that?

Also how does your arrangement work for our polyamourous types who have more than 2 people ina relationship in one house?

Does the state dictate which 2 become forcibly wed?

Not at all.

The personal opinion of myself and many others think that relationships when living together as husband and wife. You should have you the same legal rights and entitlement as a married couple.

My opinion and the opinion of many many others.

Whether you agree with my opinion and that of others is irrelevant.

This would worry me.

My other half lives in my house for free. He has never really contributed to my household and has not given me a penny in nine months. He runs his business from my home.

I should know better and had better get some legal advice because I have three children and grandchildren and assets over a million. I don't want him to have half of anything he's not contributed to just because we're "playing house".

I bet those clamouring for legal rights are those who are not contributing jack financially.

"

No idea why but i always thought you where married to your partner.

Unlless this was years ago when i was on here first

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 23/02/17 11:34:49]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It is double standards because they allowed elton john to do it.

It's no sacrifice

"
lol yes, but it is strange how they allow those who are not religious according to the bible, they cant have both of the good world.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top