Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CrashedOutAndBurned

Pointless 'statement' Of The Week

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

Just like any young lovers, Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle are thinking about their future.

After five years together, the 26-year-olds are planning their life ahead and, naturally enough, they want to formalise their relationship.

For many straight couples in their position, the next steps would be obvious: get engaged, send out the invites to all their friends and family, put in the order for the champagne, then head down to the church or register office for a wedding.

But Katherine and Tom aren't most couples.

They don't want to get married. But they still want to make a lifetime commitment to each other. And they'd like greater legal and financial security than that offered by simply cohabiting.

So what's the solution? It's obvious, really: a civil partnership.

There's only one snag. Under the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, such arrangements are restricted to couples of the same sex.

Why do such silly 'statements' get coverage in the press? For thousands of years people get married but these two twerps decide to take a stand and want all the benefits with a different name on the jar to meet their vacuous, meaningless principles. They look like the sort of braying annoyances that disturb your coffee, their mop-haired Oscars and Tillies running amok.

_49660514_katherinetom_afp.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

Why do such silly 'statements' get coverage in the press? For thousands of years people get married but these two twerps decide to take a stand and want all the benefits with a different name on the jar to meet their vacuous, meaningless principles. They look like the sort of braying annoyances that disturb your coffee, their mop-haired Oscars and Tillies running amok.

_49660514_katherinetom_afp.jpg

I shudder to think what their children will look like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the answer to this

It's because it's illegal to marry your mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree they look like a couple of absolute divots. I reckon they do have a point.....:ph34r:

Equal rights and all. They take this to Europe and can't see how they can fail.

Maybe they just think the idea of marriage is not for them. They may have a point...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way, it would make more sense just to allow same-sex couples to marry and scrap the civil partnership idea altogether.

The 'reasons' why same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry shouldn't prevent different-sex couples becoming civil partners should they? I can't really see the problem -- other than, as I say, we should perhaps just scrap civil partnerships anyway, as they're just a work-around for a 'problem' which perhaps shouldn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree they look like a couple of absolute divots. I reckon they do have a point.....:ph34r:

Equal rights and all. They take this to Europe and can't see how they can fail.

Maybe they just think the idea of marriage is not for them. They may have a point...............

I agree (including the fugly part.)

I wouldn't want to get married for a number of years yet, but I am at the stage where I would make some commitment to partner to lock in some of the legal benefits.

OK, it's debateable whether we should be allowed to do that, but there's a million more pointless and stupid things printed in the press every day. Not sure why OP picked this one? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't want to get married. But they still want to make a lifetime commitment to each other

Am I missing something here? Last time I heard marriage was a lifetime commitment. Perhaps they have read so many celebrity magazines that they think a marriage only lasts 3 months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way, it would make more sense just to allow same-sex couples to marry and scrap the civil partnership idea altogether.

The 'reasons' why same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry shouldn't prevent different-sex couples becoming civil partners should they? I can't really see the problem -- other than, as I say, we should perhaps just scrap civil partnerships anyway, as they're just a work-around for a 'problem' which perhaps shouldn't exist.

"Civil partnerships" were a classic try-to-please-everybody compromise.

If they allowed "gay marriage" it would upset the god-botherers, Christian, Muslim, whatever.

But if they did not allow something marriage-like for the gays, they would be seen as "homophobic" and discriminatory.

So, we have civil partnerships, which end up not totally satisfying anyone.

And then people like these start testing the boundaries, and it all falls apart. Didn't some related people try to do civil partnerships for the inheritance tax benefits, and were told that they couldn't have a civil partnership because they were related? And that civil partnerships were really only meant for people who were doing each other up the bum. And lesbians, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe HE is being REALLY smart here

If you become a couple within a civil partnership and seperate later, do you avoid all the divorce implications? asset loss, spousal maintenance etc etc?

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree they look like a couple of absolute divots. I reckon they do have a point.....:ph34r:

Equal rights and all. They take this to Europe and can't see how they can fail.

Maybe they just think the idea of marriage is not for them. They may have a point...............

I doubt they'd win. As far as I am aware the only difference between marriage and Civi Partnership is the name. The Civil Partnership Act gave same sex couples the same same rights and responsibilities as married ones without actually calling the arrangement a marriage. The reason it wasn't called marriage was simply so as not to p1ss off the religionists and traditionalists.

The Act could just as easily have been called something like "The Extension of Marriage Rights Act" and could have contained the same wording as the CPA. If that were the case then these two numpties would have no case at all as winning wouldn't actually gain them anything in any practial terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Civil partnerships" were a classic try-to-please-everybody compromise.

If they allowed "gay marriage" it would upset the god-botherers, Christian, Muslim, whatever.

But if they did not allow something marriage-like for the gays, they would be seen as "homophobic" and discriminatory.

So, we have civil partnerships, which end up not totally satisfying anyone.

And then people like these start testing the boundaries, and it all falls apart. Didn't some related people try to do civil partnerships for the inheritance tax benefits, and were told that they couldn't have a civil partnership because they were related? And that civil partnerships were really only meant for people who were doing each other up the bum. And lesbians, obviously.

I think there has been some critisism of why people in a non sexual relationship should not be allowed to form a civil partnership. I mean, on the face of it, it does seem somewhat unfair from one point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe HE is being REALLY smart here

If you become a couple within a civil partnership and seperate later, do you avoid all the divorce implications? asset loss, spousal maintenance etc etc?

:blink:

No. The Civial Partnership Act simply allows same sex couples to avail themselves of the same legal status as different sex couples. When you think about it, it couldn't be any other way. It was an Act intended to make the law fair, you couldn't enact something to give legal rights to homosexuals that hetrosexuals weren't entitled to as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And they'd like greater legal and financial security than that offered by simply cohabiting.

<rhetorical>And how does that actually work out for the man then?</rhetorical>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't some related people try to do civil partnerships for the inheritance tax benefits, and were told that they couldn't have a civil partnership because they were related? And that civil partnerships were really only meant for people who were doing each other up the bum. And lesbians, obviously.

Great. An artificial legal relationship for the sake of mitigating government taxation.

Do gays have to do each other up the bum to qualify? Still confused about lesbians: what is it they actually do to make them different from others? And what if a gay and a lesbian want to have a partnership, and one of them has had a sex change?

Blaaaaah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't commenting on whether they had a point or not, just their tedious 'statement'.

'Ya-ya, darling, let's protest the injustice of marriage and civil partnerships for straights and gays alike by phoning up the papers and trying to get a civil partnership! That'll show 'em - we'll be like Emily Wilding Davison without the horse...'

I don't get being against gay marriage. If you don't like it, just make sure you don't marry someone of the same sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they want to make a commitment to each other and live together who's stopping them? Why care whether or not someone else has mumbled something and written their names down somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.