to not understand why anyone would want a civil partnership?(390 Posts)
I've been wondering this because of all the media coverage of the equal marriage bill. Civil partnerships were brought in as a sop to gay people who wanted to get married - hopefully soon they will be able to marry just as straight couples can. And I agree that everyone should be treated equally so if civil partnerships remain for gay couples then straight couples should be allowed to have them as well.
But wouldn't it make more sense to do away with civil partnerships altogether? I don't understand why someone would choose a CP over marriage - as I understand it it's the same commitment but with fewer legal rights. Can someone explain this please?
I'm so disappointed she didn't answer any of my questions . I really expected to be educated, to look at her arguments and say [lightbulb] I now understand why it would be earth-shattering to allow same-sex couples to marry.
I think, though, she lost any respect she might possibly have had with the sentence "in my view most gay people are fine" - it smacks of "some of my best friends are black" and is always followed by a "but"
I do like Isindebus's ditty though
"female gender gay person with a male inclination"
I'm still not entirely sure what the, er, woman meant by that.
I'm sorry to continue the derail, but that phrase is going to be imprinted on my mind as a perfect example of a grammatically correct phrase which carries no meaning at all.
PS, you guys were brilliant. Well done for not losing your rags.
Jux - it's a classic example of someone who's not that bright trying to find what they believe is a clever and 'look how non-biased I am, honest!' way to say something that there is at least one perfectly short, easy and commonplace term for.
I love the way she's confused gender with sex and clearly thinks that being a lesbian is about being like a man. It's like somebody from a 70s sitcom has suddenly stumbled out of a time machine and is trying to engage with 2013 understandings and politics.
I was going to explain how, apart from the presumption that lesbians must be sexual predators, lesbian gym teachers in changing rooms is a totally different thing than male ones being there, not least because, in our misogynist society, it is sadly commonplace for a small number of men to prey on women and girls. It's a 'thing' in our society, whereas there is just not a 'thing' where lesbians prey on other females. Obviously, a small number do, but the numbers are so small that it can't be considered a 'thing' or a threat. Even female paedophiles are nearly always hetero, or, sadly, are most likely to abuse their own offspring, ie not be a public threat.
But there would be no point, as I don't think Childrens Tories could grasp or accept that.
oxford after pondering more that's more or less the conclusion I came to ...and also I think the male PE teacher in with the girls would make me uncomfortable because in general and IME men are more visually aroused if that makes sense -like looking at magazines etc -letchy ...impressions of old men lusting after school girls as in Britney oops video -yuck!
...whereas women (again in general) it is more a mental thing if that makes sense - so actually I really wouldn't worry about the lesbian gym teacher....
(OMG just thought now about how that works with a male homosexual gym teacher but as I have DDs don't have to think about it...not that I did anyway - I really must stop avoiding thinking about what I really do have to think about ...)
Erm, I don't think that's the reason why lesbian or gay teachers wouldn't be a threat (or less of a threat), as it still works on crass stereotyping. It is entrenched in our society that females exist for the 'male gaze', and leading on from that, are at his sexual disposal. Homosexuals of either sex haven't been up with that sort of cultural presumption about their sexual 'rights'.
Also, are people still operating under the unconscious presumption that gays and lesbians are somehow more predatory, or automatically fancy more people more often? Didn't that became a really offensive and embarrassing thing to think back in the early 90s?!
Childrens Tories seems to be assuming that only people who have any control over their libido are female heterosexuals. I'm afraid, unlucky, that something like that is what seems to underlie your comment too.
Way back in the 60s when I was growing up, there were some men who would try to ensure their backs were up against a wall if they met a gay man. They seemed to think that all gay men would jump them if they let them see their arse. Mightily ridiculous.
Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, don't lust indiscriminately and uncontrollably after every person they meet. It's complete madness, and unutterably sad, that there are still people who think like that.
We are all the same.
Thank you for the way you saw off CSN - as a Christian reading through the exchange, I was cringing at the thought she'd expect me to agree with and support her.
BTW, I think one of the problems is that people confuse "marriage" and "wedding". You can have a "church wedding", which is a one-off ceremony. There is no such thing as "church marriage". Marriage is the ongoing relationship and partnership. I would support a situation in which ALL the legal stuff was civil and then people could have whatever religious (or other) folderols that they want.
Just wanted to say that Sdeuchars has a really interesting point. If "wedding " is what we can all equally have if we choose to then "marriage" becomes an ongoing action or actions that build that ongoing relationship and partnership.
Now that makes sense to me.
The whole thing for me is fundamentally about equality,
I may or may not want to get married or civilly partnered or to jump the broom or hand-fest but what I do want is the same rights and respect as my sister and friends. I expect my government and society to treat my relationship, my family and our rights and responsibilities as part of that society in the same way as they would any other family.
Part of the "values" that I believe the UK has mean that we believe in justice and fair play and protection for all; not the might of the majority and the tyranny of the most powerful. That naive view is often challenged but I still hold to it.
And, after a monster hijack of this thread fwiw I think that if we hadn't fudged the issue back in 2004 then we would have just passed an equal act and CPs would not exist for anyone.
Great points from all three of you above. SDeuchars, don't worry, sensible people know that the majority of Christians aren't ignorant loons. Isin, I agree with the stuff about the fudging in 2004. It just made no sense back then and look where we are now. And it goes without saying that I totally agree with everything you say about equality.
PS SD, the legal side of things IS already actually civil - the ony thing that truly legally marries you is the witnessed signing of the marriage certificate.
Yes, Oxford, I know that but few people seem to.
Another area of discrimination is that churches generally have a perpetual license from the local authority for conducting religious weddings. Most have someone authorised as a registrar and can carry out a wedding whenever is convenient. If they want to carry out civil partnerships (which has been possible since 2011), they have to purchase an additional license annually and some councils choose to price it prohibitively.
The problem with CP (and civil marriage) ceremonies is also that they have to (by law) be completely separate from any religious element. The church I attend could choose to carry out a CP ceremony but the legal bit would have to be done without reference to God. So we could have a service followed by a legal union or vice versa but it could not be entangled as happens with a wedding.
I'm not sure if it is even legal to carry out a civil marriage in a church (not saying anyone would want such a thing, but it is a logical extension).
So what I posted before was shorthand for saying that I think we should have a situation similar to that in France - everyone (gay or straight) should have to trot along to the register office for the sole civil union process to make the partnership legal with all appropriate legal and civil rights (tax, inheritance, adoption, etc.).
After that you could have any additional bits as required, whether humanist, pagan, Christian, massive party, whatever. None of those things would confer the legal rights.
I never said or thought because someone was gay they were more promiscuous/has less control/ more predatory ...in fact not sure how you drew that conclusion from what I wrote?
I do think I have to disagree on the male/female thing - irrespective of sexuality -always generalisations but I do think there are big differences between men and women
Pornographic magazines for women not v. successful - fifty shades another matter ...-for men the opposite is true ..images and not much reading ...
And having lived and worked with men from all walks of life/backgrounds - IME (and the intelligent,well educated ones can hide it well) strip away the pretense (esp give them a few drinks let their primitive brain emerge a bit ) and they do think with their dicks ...
(good genetic reasons for that ...men have to invest very little in sex, women -potentially 9 months danger to health - so have to be slightly more selective )
And it is actually our expectations as a society that keep that in check...not the other way round ...
I really will bow out now ...
i just got an email from the labour party celebrating the gay marriage bill and stating ... 'I am delighted that we are so close to having equal marriage in our country, and so very proud of our party.'
made me feel cross
SDeuchars, I didn't know that's how the French did it, but yes, that would be ideal.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.