• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
sarahbell

Let's all be civil

Recommended Posts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44627990

 

A heterosexual couple have won their legal bid for the right to have a civil partnership instead of a marriage.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41, from London.

The court said the Civil Partnership Act 2004 - which only applies to same-sex couples - is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such an easy one -- I've no idea why 'something which only applies dependant on sexuality' could ever be regarded as acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m being really thick here but what exactly is the difference, to all intents and purposes, of a civil marriage and a civil partnership?  Why couldn’t the pair of them go down the registry office?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TheBlueCat said:

Fine, but why did they want one in the first place?

they'll turn out to be edward and tubbs and they dont want too much snooping into their 'relationship'.

Its probably entirely on principal, if them thar gays can be miserable togther without getting married, then i dont see why 1 man and his sister in a rural community cant be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TheBlueCat said:

Fine, but why did they want one in the first place?

Because they are ideologically indoctrinated virtue signalling wankers.

Quote

The couple, who met in 2010 and have two children, said the "legacy of marriage" which "treated women as property for centuries" was not an option for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

The couple, who met in 2010 and have two children, said the "legacy of marriage" which "treated women as property for centuries" was not an option for them.

 

Because there's nothing women hate more than  getting married.

Especially the wedding.

If it was down to them there would be no ceremony at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, One percent said:

I’m being really thick here but what exactly is the difference, to all intents and purposes, of a civil marriage and a civil partnership?  Why couldn’t the pair of them go down the registry office?  

Cos the option for them was only getting married.
Which is still seen as the giving of a woman to a man by some.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

Good.

I can't remember where it ended up but there were two elderly sisters who lived together trying to get similar as otherwise they risked losing the house in which they'd always lived.

The tax breaks arising from marriage should be available to all those with a co-dependence IMO.

IIRC they were refused the right to civil partnership because they were close blood relations, and siblings may not marry under civil and canon law. 

But since they were women and therefore, even if they were incestuous lezzers, this would not result in any inbred children so I'm not sure what the problem was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

IIRC they were refused the right to civil partnership because they were close blood relations, and siblings may not marry under civil and canon law. 

But since they were women and therefore, even if they were incestuous lezzers, this would not result in any inbred children so I'm not sure what the problem was. 

Possibly a hangover from the days when all that stuff was heavily stigmatised if not illegal (more so for men than for women) and male/female marriage was heavily encouraged to say the least with even singledom being discouraged and having disadvantages.   

That was not that long ago and maybe all that was religious interpretation/establishment opportunism of some sort.  Attitudes emerging out of one tunnel and by the looks of things in time maybe going to enter another tunnel with the way things are currently looking.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.