Ireland votes on Gay Marriage

[Kymmy]

So you're arguing about a name for something they offered as a stopgap as they were not willing at that time to call it by the other name due to others not wanting us to have marriage. Even in other countries that introduced it it was a way of bringing in same sex unions even if offered to opposite sex couples as a by-effect



If you feel strongly about it the please campaign for it, I won't argue against your rights to a legal marriage...woops civil partnership .

As for international limitations its not up to the UK but for everyone else to recognise it. That's a lot of rules in a lot of other countries that need changing.

Originally Posted by Kymmy

So you're arguing about a name for something they offered as a stopgap as they were not willing at that time to call it by the other name due to others not wanting us to have marriage. Even in other countries that introduced it it was a way of bringing in same sex unions even if offered to opposite sex couples as a by-effect

:rotfl:

If you feel strongly about it the please campaign for it, I won't argue against your rights to a legal marriage...woops civil partnership .

As for international limitations its not up to the UK but for everyone else to recognise it.

No ,you have completely misunderstood the whole argument ,I suggest you read the provided links for a better understanding of why civil partnerships should be an alternative to marriage for opposite sex couples

[Kymmy]

Yet there is no difference between the UK civil partnership and a legal marriage unlike other countries civil unions which has profound legal differences.

Also the gay marriage argument was about equality yet your asking for less (if you are talking about a civil union and not a UK partnership) which is a whole other thread and nothing to do with gay people.

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Yet there is no difference between the UK civil partnership and a legal marriage unlike other countries civil unions which has profound legal differences.

Also the gay marriage argument was about equality yet your asking for less (if you are talking about a civil union and not a UK partnership) which is a whole other thread and nothing to do with gay people.

We are talking about civil partnerships being open to opposite sex couples in the same way they are open to same sex couples.Opposite sex couples are forced into marriage to gain legal equality ,for some that is fine ,it is what they want for others it's not at all what is wanted .My partner wants to be my partner ,not my wife and the perceived subservience to me that title means.

[Kymmy]

Yet civil unions in most countries have differences in rights, laws and choices of rights differences to marriage.

If you wish to fool yourself into thinking that the UK civil partnership isn't marriage by another name then you carry on. You do though have the choice of a civil contract between you and your partner where you give each other legal rights which are lacking in a common partnership and again recognised by few countries.

As this is nothing about gay marriage there's not a lot else to say in this thread and I recommend you start a fresh one based on civil unions and the UK abortive attempt at introducing their own version and why its not a true civil union and not open to everyone.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

.My partner wants to be my partner ,not my wife and the perceived subservience to me that title means.

Well you need to get over your perceived issue, as there is no subservience in being a "wife" or for that matter a "husband". Unless you let your partner dominate or control you, in which case I would suggest you shouldn't of married them.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The judge is confused to, Peter Tatchell and Fiona Miller are confused to, the thousands of people that support them are confused but you're not muddle headed at all on this

Nope I'm totally clear headed..

Here is a list showing the differences between Marriage and Civil Partnership.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...f_table_1_.doc

The current discussion is about, IMHO, a valid post-hoc change of reason for a civil partnership - when CPs where introduced, it was to give gay couples legal protection (Because they couldn't get married). Since Marriage Equality has been introduced, Civil Partnerships are (mainly) superfluous - if they are to be kept, they should be open to the same groupings as marriage (ymmv).

[Kymmy]

The documents dated 2013 so the bottom section won't take into account the tax/pensions of married same sex couple but it would presently read the same as the civil partnership side due to the tax rules having to have a primary tax earner. All the other entries just dictate the fact that a civil partnership can't be called a marriage and vice-versa.

In general there is literally no difference apart from the first one to get old or die is denoted as the primary (male for some archaic reason) for tax/benefit purposes

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Nope I'm totally clear headed..

And all the other people I mentioned are not then presumably?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

The documents dated 2013 so the bottom section won't take into account the tax/pensions of married same sex couple but it would presently read the same as the civil partnership side due to the tax rules having to have a primary tax earner. All the other entries just dictate the fact that a civil partnership can't be called a marriage and vice-versa.

In general there is literally no difference apart from the first one to get old or die is denoted as the primary (male for some archaic reason) for tax/benefit purposes

The 'archaic' reason could be the fact that men on average die younger than women.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Russ

The 'archaic' reason could be the fact that men on average die younger than women.

Could be, but why not change it to "Primary" or similar instead of male especially in a female same sex marriage/partnership?

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Could be, but why not change it to "Primary" or similar instead of male especially in a female same sex marriage/partnership?

Possibly because every other piece of legislation, filing system and database since forever has been made with 'male' and 'female' as built-in assumptions, and this was the easiest way to ensure all those systems and processes could continue to be used without administrative foul-ups (or inadvertant lawbreaking). Changing everything that is affected as a knock-on would take a very long time and cost a lot of money.