[Closed] Civil partnerships for all? Way too much time on your hands!

There seems to be some misunderstanding of how a CofE marriage fits in. As the CofE is the established church, you, subject to the church's rules re divorce etc., have the right to get married (and have a funeral) in Church and that ceremony is recognised by the state as a marriage. This contrasts with the continent where those countries whose law is based on the Napoleanic code only recognise a state wedding. You can have a marriage ceremony in a church but the state only recognises it when you go through the civil ceremony. (Note this is not a civil partnership but a marriage under civil law so equivalent to getting married before a registrar here).

@Digby, I'm curious as to why you think marriage is chaning for the better, divorce is at an all time record high or is the fact that its easier to get out of a bad marriage your point ?

Actually the divorce rate is at a 40 year low so quite the reverse - see [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12011714/Divorce-rate-at-lowest-level-in-40-years-after-cohabitation-revolution.html ]here[/url]

He is never wrong and now wrong twice on the same thread 😯
~is excited to see the reason given by Mr "only ever wrong three or four times"

Because by doing so they would require the clergy to perform the ceremony

Dont want to get into a big debate but it suprises me that people think you can separate marriage from the church. Why can my family not have the same protections as another without having to get married. Now I'll be honest its not something I will ever lose sleep over but it does bug me. Why should our societies values think that marriage is so valuable as to gain a tax break? Its bizare to me. To think I cannot have a positive family life without a pseudo religious but of paper and a worthless promise..

Dont want to get into a big debate but it suprises me that people think you can separate marriage from the church.

Registrar & two witnesses...

[quote=anagallis_arvensis ]Dont want to get into a big debate but it suprises me that [b]people think you can separate marriage from the church[/b]. Why can my family not have the same protections as another without having to get married. Now I'll be honest its not something I will ever lose sleep over but it does bug me. Why should our societies values think that marriage is so valuable as to gain a tax break? Its bizare to me. To think I cannot have a positive family life without a pseudo religious but of paper and a worthless promise..Of course they do - because it can be.

Explain? I cannot see it as anything other than a religous construct

Why was gay marriage such a big deal for people if marriage is not religious?

Because it excluded people for no reason.

It was illogical and discriminatory to prevent people from participating in a marriage.

The religious element is optional for everyone.

I too think civil partnerships are an irrelevance, now civil marriage is open to all.

but it suprises me that people think you can separate marriage from the church

why on earth couldn't you?

I got married last year, not in a church, not a religious ceremony, we're both Atheists, we are married, how is that in any way not separate from the church?

I'm not well informed enough to know the answers to the below to this so hopefully someone can explain and educate me....

Is this discussion specifically about Christian marriage in this country?
How does it work if you are Jewish/Hindu/Sikh/Pastafarian/Muslim/$INSERTRELIGIONHERE?

Presumably there are not several different kinds of married (for each religion) in the eyes of the law/state so I was under the impression you get married, but you can choose to have the ceremony performed by a person of your choice, who may or may not also have some religious standing, but the end result is still a (non-religion specific) 'Marriage' ?

In which case I find it hard to work out why there is such a thing as Civil Partnership and Marriage, if the Marriage is not tied to a religion then surely they are the same thing in all but word? (or should be!)

I also can't see how there can or should be any restriction* based on gender, sexuality, family, or requirement to reproduce on either a Marriage or a Civil Partnership, if we must have both then they should both be open to anyone?

*obviously you can't compel a religious person to perform a ceremony if it's against their beliefs but since you have the option of getting married in a non-religious way then is that a non-issue?

Because it excluded people for no reason.

Why was gay marriage such a big deal for people if marriage is not religious?

Basically it was just another thing they like to say was there and only they could decide what we did with it. As usual the evidence doesn't support this view but that doesn't bother them

But the sky fariests didnt want gay marriage because marriage is a religious construct surely?

wasn't the issue that they didn't want to be compelled to perform a ceremony that was against their belief?

which is rather different to saying that people cant 'get married' as otherwise would they not be laying claim to the entire concept of 'marriage' which is a bit big headed being that other religions also have 'marriage' and it also pre-dates current organised religions.

I can understand them objecting to being force to perform their ceremony, but not objection to the entire concept.

^ I guess that is the nub of the issue isn't it, that they treid to claim ownership of the concept of marriage in general?

EDIT - cross post with what Junky said I think

because marriage is a religious construct surely?

I can understand them objecting to being force to perform their ceremony, but not objection to the entire concept.

The civil partnership for all is an interesting question. Why should people who a shagging each other get tax breaks (and other faff reduction policies) that platonic friends don't?

The civil partnership for all is an interesting question. Why should people who a shagging each other get tax breaks (and other faff reduction policies) that platonic friends don't?

I thought we'd agreed there was no [i]requirement [/i]for sexy-fun-times?

which makes your point even more valid!

I think there is a requirement for [i]potential[/i] sexy-fun time, hence no brother sister CPs.

(I con't know the actual rules so could be wrong on some/all of this)

Clarity on that would be interesting, does that mean certain people in biological or traumatically induced situations would be genuinely not allowed to either get Married or form a Civil Partnership?

I certainly wasn't asked at any point if I was intending to get squelchy with Mrs A before being allowed to marry.

Why stop at two folk? Make it three/four/many. If there's no link to sex/procreation then why stop at siblings and not include offspring? I can see an issue with tax-collection etc though. Maybe it would just be more sensible to do away with these altogether.

Why stop at two folk? Make it three/four/many. If there's no link to sex/procreation then why stop at siblings and not include offspring?

Why stop at humans? 😕

Well, from a tax/benefits point of view we currently exclude non-human species.

Why stop at humans?

consent

All of this just continues to highlight some of the oddities of some social constructs and law doesn't it!

consent

What if your cat really loves you?

I mean... someone.

What if [i]someone[/i]'s cat really loves [i]them[/i].

I, and i think I speak for us all here, always saw you as some sort of pussy magnet

I thought we'd agreed there was no requirement for sexy-fun-times?

I, and i think I speak for us all here, always saw you as some sort of pussy magnet

That's twice in this thread I've had people poking fun at my attractiveness to women.

A man could get a complex 😀

If marriage pre dates religion when was religion invented? Surely it was a different religion thats all?

If marriage pre dates religion when was religion invented? Surely it was a different religion thats all?

Plenty of other animals stick with a partner to raise infants (most birds for example) and some form life-long bonds (e.g. swans, gibbons, wolves, penguins).

It seems quite possible that early humans were doing the same long before they had the mental faculties to start pondering about existence or gods.

^^^

Meow 😉

If marriage pre dates religion when was religion invented? Surely it was a different religion thats all?

In numerous patriarchal cultures, both ancient and modern the concept of marriage [between a man and woman] is tied to the concepts of virtue and paternity. i.e. a man does not wish to spend time and resources helping to rear offspring that are not his own and will not therefore perpetuate his genes. Religion(s) came along later and built upon these ideals, hence the prevalence in history of virgin brides and white dresses etc.

My understanding of the original concept of marriage i.e. 'pair-bonding' was that the public ceremony was both a celebration, affirmation and confirmation of the two people in the presence of their community. i.e. a man should not covet his neighbour's wife as he knows that she 'belongs' to another.

A man could get a complex

would imagine with marriage that in small communities people paor binded way before we had religion - it sems self evident we had children before we had religion whether we pair bonded is just conjecture but it seems likely as it clearly gives the offspring an advantage as two would be providing for it and not one.

Plenty of other animals stick with a partner to raise infants

And plenty of female animals will have sex with multiple males when in heat - the concept known as 'sperm wars'

In other animal groups, the males will fight each other for the females 'favours' ...

Bonobos are apparently very frisky and use sexual contact (both same-sex and opposite-sex) as a form of conflict resolution.

Plenty of other animals stick with a partner to raise infants (most birds for example) and some form life-long bonds (e.g. swans, gibbons, wolves, penguins).
It seems quite possible that early humans were doing the same long before they had the mental faculties to start pondering about existence or gods.

You first point has nothing to do with marriage but is about raising children as a couple. Why do we value marriage but not unmarried couples? ( as a aside dont confuse paor bonded animaks with monogamy)
Your second point is odd. Early humans had the same brains as us why would they not have the mental faculties to ponder where they came from?

Religion(s) came along later

Later than when and when?

Are there tax advantages to getting married?

Now I'm interested.

Why do we value marriage but not unmarried couples?

Because as uncomfortable as it may be, there is a lot of data to suggest that kids do better when brough up by married parents rather than by single parents or co-habiting but unmarried parents. It's demonstrated in both behaviour and exam results.

Its not proved that marriage per se causes this it seems more likely that those who get and remain married are more "stable" than those who dont and this is what causes the "advantage". Its hard to argue a formal ceremony and a licence makes one better able to bring up ones offspring.

Early humans had the same brains as us why would they not have the mental faculties to ponder where they came from?

Meow 😉

Stop it 😳

You first point has nothing to do with marriage but is about raising children as a couple.

No it's about pair-bonding as a biological drive.

"Marriage" (in its many many forms) is just human society trying to name it.

Your second point is odd. Early humans had the same brains as us why would they not have the mental faculties to ponder where they came from?

[img] [/img]

Do other primates have gods? And if they do, do they mate according to what they think those gods want?

Its not proved that marriage per se causes this it seems more likely that those who get and remain married are more "stable" than those who dont and this is what causes the "advantage". Its hard to argue a formal ceremony and a licence makes one better able to bring up ones offspring.

This is of course very true. Correlation is not cause and effect. But if you're the government, and you want to create policy that advances the welfare and achievement of children, particularly to enable social mobility, then you can see why there would be an interest in promoting marriage, or at least a strong stable union within which to bring up children.

If CPs acheive that more readily than marriage because the data shows that for what might well be nothing more than semantic/cultural reasons, people who would otherwise not get married are more likely to form CPs and if that results in kids doing better, then it's got to be worth consideration.

Religion(s) came along later

Later than when and when?

Paleolithic man may well have had deities/totemism and worshiped animals etc, but at that time man had not domesticated animals or argriculture. Therefore the foundations of modern 'society' and ensuing contructs (e.g. Judeo-Christian in the West) had not yet occured.

So I'm going to go out on a limb and say 'Religion came along' sometime between 300,000 and 10,000 years ago.

The evolutionary advantage of ensuring that the offspring you are expending resources nurturing and protecting though will pre-date any concept of organised religion.

Excellent explanation and what I was getting at.

This is of course very true. Correlation is not cause and effect. But if you're the government, and you want to create policy that advances the welfare and achievement of children, particularly to enable social mobility, then you can see why there would be an interest in promoting marriage, or at least a strong stable union within which to bring up children.

So why promote one over the other? Care to show me this data and how its been accounted for educational attainment or socio economic status as just two factors that could be causational?

Graham see that top one [i]Homo sapiens[/i]? They are humans the others are hominids not humans.

. Therefore the foundations of modern 'society' and ensuing contructs (e.g. Judeo-Christian in the West) had not yet occured.

What might those constructs be???

The evolutionary advantage of ensuring that the offspring you are expending resources nurturing and protecting though will pre-date any concept of organised religion.

True but I think that supports my point that marriage is a pointless religous construct (for me, for others it may be very important). Why does the state support mariage over other couples?

What might those constructs be???

exhibit A:

marriage is a pointless religous construct (

I think you've answered your own question there ...

Exactly so why are we arguing? 😀

So why promote one over the other? Care to show me this data and how its been accounted for educational attainment or socio economic status as just two factors that could be causational?

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11084932/Children-raised-by-married-parents-are-better-behaved.html ]Data[/url]

Not sure that says what you think it says.

Opening paragraph

A study published by the Department for Education shows that early education, family income and parents' marital status has a significant bearing on children's behaviour and exam results at 16