The Student Room Group

If homosexuals can get married why can't heteros have civil partnerships?

Seems fair to me...
To the best of my knowledge there isn't really any meaningful difference between the two (bar the name), though I'd be happy for some people more knowledgable on the law to correct me.
You can have a civil ceremony, how that compares to a civil partnership i don't know


Posted from TSR Mobile
:banghead:

You do realise people can get a non-religious wedding, which is literally all a civil partnership is?

They can get married now anyway.
Original post by Thomas2
Seems fair to me...


Because no one has campaigned for it, so the law has never changed. There's literally no advantage to it, so no one really cares about it.

I guess if you wanted to be totally fair then they should be able to, but I don't think anyone is willing to waste that much time and effort on changing such a trivial thing.
There's no need for it. The only reason civil partnerships exist at all is because until recently gay people couldn't get married, and civil partnerships were introduced as an alternative probably because gay marriage would have had even more opposition back then than it gets today.
Reply 6
Original post by Thomas2
Seems fair to me...


They can if they marry have it with someone of the same sex....

So its perfectly fair.
I say get rid of marriage for everyone and only have civil partnerships for everyone. And that includes polyamorous people as well.
I think it makes sense to use civil partnerships as a lower tier of marriage. It'd just involve two people signing a form, and all the legislative benefits of marriage, but without the cultural impact.
Reply 9
Original post by BefuddledPenguin
I think it makes sense to use civil partnerships as a lower tier of marriage. It'd just involve two people signing a form, and all the legislative benefits of marriage, but without the cultural impact.


What does that even mean?

Wouldn't a marriage at a registry office without witnesses do that?
Original post by Quady
What does that even mean?

Wouldn't a marriage at a registry office without witnesses do that?


By cultural impact I was referring to the whole wedding culture, this refers to big ceremonies and the fact that many people don't see you as a legitimate couple until marriage.
Original post by Zargabaath
Because no one has campaigned for it


ummm

yes they have:
http://equallove.org.uk/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30586950


I stand corrected then.
Although there's nowhere near the same amount of pressure on same sex civil partnerships as there is on gay marriage
Reply 13
Original post by BefuddledPenguin
By cultural impact I was referring to the whole wedding culture, this refers to big ceremonies and the fact that many people don't see you as a legitimate couple until marriage.


Don't have a big ceremoney then?

Would many people see you as a legitimate couple if you'd had a civil partnership?
Original post by Quady
Don't have a big ceremoney then?

Would many people see you as a legitimate couple if you'd had a civil partnership?


No, it'd be like cohabiting, only more official in legislative terms.
Reply 15
Original post by BefuddledPenguin
No, it'd be like cohabiting, only more official in legislative terms.


By 'more' you mean 'entirely'?

Quick Reply

Latest