What no riots and protests for unequality, no mega stars using their stage to voice their opinions - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

What no riots and protests for unequality, no mega stars using their stage to voice their opinions

£0.00 @
If you are in gay/same sex relationship you can get married or have a civil partnership If you are a heterosexual relationship your only option is marriage? 3 court judges denied a heterosexual… Read More
philphil61 Avatar
2m, 6d agoPosted 2 months, 6 days ago
If you are in gay/same sex relationship you can get married or have a civil partnership

If you are a heterosexual relationship your only option is marriage?

3 court judges denied a heterosexual couple the right to have a civil partnership although they did mention it's potentially a breach of Human Rights.

No I'm not gay and never will be.
I was "forced" into marriage after a 20 year relationship from "threats" from Social Services

I'm posting this thread in support of Equality but I know there'll be little support from the LGBT community although they want our support every time - and they get it with protests and such...go figure!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146
philphil61 Avatar
2m, 6d agoPosted 2 months, 6 days ago
Options

Top Comments

(3)
9 Likes
Glamwampam
An opposition to Pu--y Riot is needed, C-ck Riot needs to be formed, Then they need to join forces and stick it up em

Neither of those words offend the swear filter. Look! Pussy. Cock. ;) Equality at it finest.
6 Likes
moneysavingkitten
Glamwampam
An opposition to Pu--y Riot is needed, C-ck Riot needs to be formed, Then they need to join forces and stick it up em
Neither of those words offend the swear filter. Look! Pussy. Cock. ;) Equality at it finest.

I was googling pussy and cock and ended up here :|
5 Likes
philphil61
shadey12
philphil61
When reading "forced" and "threats" bear in mind Social Services were involved ;)
I was thinking shotgun. should be equality for all apparently an mp is trying to change it or bring in another bill, haven't read up on it much.
Shotgun would have been a much more romantic event ;)
I also didn't know that the "new" civil partnership "law" excluded heterosexual relationships until reading
My other point is that there were lots of protests and support for the LGBT community but where is the support for heterosexual couples?
How about reading the Judgment?

The judges agree that the law is unjust, but also that Parliament should have time to correct their mistakes themselves. The Supreme Court itself may strike down this un-equal treatment anyway, but the courts are not dismissing this out of hand.

As for you making up non support from the LGBT community? Let's just say such rabid hyperbole isn't helpful.

I agree that civil partnerships should be available to everyone, and the Govt needs to change the law. The reason why civil partnerships exist in the first place however was because of rights of marriage being denied to others, not to deny rights to straight couples. That right being fixed of course means that civil partnerships need a new purpose which requires a change in the law, that is what the court was saying in their judgement statements.

Edited By: Stop_It on Feb 21, 2017 15:46

All Comments

(52) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#2
When reading "forced" and "threats" bear in mind Social Services were involved ;)
1 Like #3
philphil61
When reading "forced" and "threats" bear in mind Social Services were involved ;)


I was thinking shotgun. should be equality for all apparently an mp is trying to change it or bring in another bill, haven't read up on it much.
3 Likes #4
What no riots and protests for unequality, no mega stars using their stage to voice their opinions

Probably because straight people haven't been persecuted for hundreds+ years like homosexuals have.
1 Like #5
shadey12
philphil61
When reading "forced" and "threats" bear in mind Social Services were involved ;)
I was thinking shotgun. should be equality for all apparently an mp is trying to change it or bring in another bill, haven't read up on it much.
Shotgun would have been a much more romantic event ;)

I also didn't know that the "new" civil partnership "law" excluded heterosexual relationships until reading

My other point is that there were lots of protests and support for the LGBT community but where is the support for heterosexual couples?
#6
We have something similar here in France called PACS ( Pacte Civil de Solidarité) its open to all regardless of sexuality .The French will also recognise a UK Civil Partnership but the Uk wont obviously recognise PACS because its open to all and not just same sex couples.
2 Likes #7
Civil partnerships were introduced because " marriage " wasn't open to gay people,unlike str8 people who have had the ability since year 0.

I don't recall anyone fighting for civil partnership between a man and woman before they were introduced for gay folk, maybe that's because it didn't matter because marriage was good enough but now gay people have it, it's the next fashion statement. Yah, were in a civil partnership.
#8
RossD89
What no riots and protests for unequality, no mega stars using their stage to voice their opinions
Probably because straight people haven't been persecuted for hundreds+ years like homosexuals have.
I hear you and I agree with the basics of your statement

That said - most (or quite a lot of) people stood by in support of the LGBT community in their fight for equality even though they were "straight"

And why is Parliament allowed to create a law that goes against Human Rights?
If two men can get married or have a civil partnership
and two women can get married or have a civil partnership

Why can't a man and a woman get a civil partnership?
#9
rhinopaul
We have something similar here in France called PACS ( Pacte Civil de Solidarité) its open to all regardless of sexuality .The French will also recognise a UK Civil Partnership but the Uk wont obviously recognise PACS because its open to all and not just same sex couples.
Well done France
Vive la France
bon jour ;)
1 Like #10
It's very difficult to see what they're trying to gain from this unless it's just equality for equalities sake. They mention religion, but it's possible to have a civil ceremony and avoid religion altogether. Legally, they'd have less rights too.
Surely civil partnerships were always just a stop gap until society could accept gay marriage? The best thing to do would be to remove them altogether, and achieve equality that way.
1 Like #11
philphil61
shadey12
philphil61
When reading "forced" and "threats" bear in mind Social Services were involved ;)
I was thinking shotgun. should be equality for all apparently an mp is trying to change it or bring in another bill, haven't read up on it much.
Shotgun would have been a much more romantic event ;)

I also didn't know that the "new" civil partnership "law" excluded heterosexual relationships until reading

My other point is that there were lots of protests and support for the LGBT community but where is the support for heterosexual couples?
Probably because heterosexuality hasnt had much if any discrimination .They have been afforded the privileges of marriage and therefore dont have the following/support for when it needs it. Its only todays society that feels there should be more choice out there than just marriage in order to get the same financial and social privileges as marriage grants .
5 Likes #12
philphil61
shadey12
philphil61
When reading "forced" and "threats" bear in mind Social Services were involved ;)
I was thinking shotgun. should be equality for all apparently an mp is trying to change it or bring in another bill, haven't read up on it much.
Shotgun would have been a much more romantic event ;)
I also didn't know that the "new" civil partnership "law" excluded heterosexual relationships until reading
My other point is that there were lots of protests and support for the LGBT community but where is the support for heterosexual couples?
How about reading the Judgment?

The judges agree that the law is unjust, but also that Parliament should have time to correct their mistakes themselves. The Supreme Court itself may strike down this un-equal treatment anyway, but the courts are not dismissing this out of hand.

As for you making up non support from the LGBT community? Let's just say such rabid hyperbole isn't helpful.

I agree that civil partnerships should be available to everyone, and the Govt needs to change the law. The reason why civil partnerships exist in the first place however was because of rights of marriage being denied to others, not to deny rights to straight couples. That right being fixed of course means that civil partnerships need a new purpose which requires a change in the law, that is what the court was saying in their judgement statements.

Edited By: Stop_It on Feb 21, 2017 15:46
9 Likes #13
Glamwampam
An opposition to Pu--y Riot is needed, C-ck Riot needs to be formed, Then they need to join forces and stick it up em

Neither of those words offend the swear filter. Look! Pussy. Cock. ;) Equality at it finest.
4 Likes #14
philphil61
shadey12
philphil61
When reading "forced" and "threats" bear in mind Social Services were involved ;)
I was thinking shotgun. should be equality for all apparently an mp is trying to change it or bring in another bill, haven't read up on it much.
Shotgun would have been a much more romantic event ;)

I also didn't know that the "new" civil partnership "law" excluded heterosexual relationships until reading

My other point is that there were lots of protests and support for the LGBT community but where is the support for heterosexual couples?


The support isn't there because it isn't trendy to jump on the equality for heterosexual people bandwagon! Just like it's trendy at the moment to protest about a democratically elected leader in a different country!
#15
philphil61
RossD89
What no riots and protests for unequality, no mega stars using their stage to voice their opinions
Probably because straight people haven't been persecuted for hundreds+ years like homosexuals have.
I hear you and I agree with the basics of your statement
That said - most (or quite a lot of) people stood by in support of the LGBT community in their fight for equality even though they were "straight"
And why is Parliament allowed to create a law that goes against Human Rights?
If two men can get married or have a civil partnership
and two women can get married or have a civil partnership
Why can't a man and a woman get a civil partnership?

I agree that to deny a straight couple a civil partnership just because they are not a same gender couple seems wrong, but I don't think that the fight of the LBGTQ community for equal rights, which is why riots and protests over inequality occurred and why mega stars used their stage to voice their opinions, is at all comparable to this.
4 Likes #16
They really didn't think it through when passing the civil partnership act. It'll get changed at the supreme court.
#18
*Inequality
6 Likes #19
moneysavingkitten
Glamwampam
An opposition to Pu--y Riot is needed, C-ck Riot needs to be formed, Then they need to join forces and stick it up em
Neither of those words offend the swear filter. Look! Pussy. Cock. ;) Equality at it finest.

I was googling pussy and cock and ended up here :|
3 Likes #20
airfix
moneysavingkitten
Glamwampam
An opposition to Pu--y Riot is needed, C-ck Riot needs to be formed, Then they need to join forces and stick it up em
Neither of those words offend the swear filter. Look! Pussy. Cock. ;) Equality at it finest.
I was googling pussy and cock and ended up here :|

Sorry to disappoint :(
#21
RossD89
What no riots and protests for unequality, no mega stars using their stage to voice their opinions
Probably because straight people haven't been persecuted for hundreds+ years like homosexuals have.
Somebody pass the sick bag !

Edited By: waterloo on Feb 21, 2017 16:09
1 Like #22
I thought this couple wanted to get civilly partnered as a sort of protest against the "patriarchy of marriage" that's not really something that makes me want to start writing letters to my MP.
I'm surpised you're so worked up over it OP.


Edited By: Rom on Feb 21, 2017 16:21: ...
1 Like #23
OP.

I can see you are O U T R A G E D !
#24
philphil61

No I'm not gay and never will be.


Never say never, phil'. You hear of stirrings in later life, so no one can ever completely rule it out.



http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/rb4aRv16R-E/hqdefault.jpg
1 Like #25
A lot this comes down to the fact that Brits in general do not give a care about anything.

What you do get quite often is a vocal minority who get sensationalised by the press which makes you think we are having a fit over Trump or train prices etc. When in fact, most of us just carry on, maybe grumble or are so clueless looking at our phones!

Beware the lies and rage of who ever has thrown there toys out of the pram this week, there is a news story to be made out of anything!
2 Likes #26
Saturn
philphil61

No I'm not gay and never will be.
Never say never, phil'. You hear of stirrings in later life, so no one can ever completely rule it out.http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/rb4aRv16R-E/hqdefault.jpg
And I always thought philphil was an invitation :|
1 Like #27
groenleader
A lot this comes down to the fact that Brits in general do not give a care about anything.
What you do get quite often is a vocal minority who get sensationalised by the press which makes you think we are having a fit over Trump or train prices etc. When in fact, most of us just carry on, maybe grumble or are so clueless looking at our phones!
Beware the lies and rage of who ever has thrown there toys out of the pram this week, there is a news story to be made out of anything!
It's all fun and games until someone loses their job for wearing the 'wrong' shirt etc.

It could affect any one of us. Society really needs to learn how to tackle internet lynch mobs.
#28
Rubisco
Saturn
philphil61

No I'm not gay and never will be.
Never say never, phil'. You hear of stirrings in later life, so no one can ever completely rule it out.http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/rb4aRv16R-E/hqdefault.jpg
And I always thought philphil was an invitation :|


Not on this continent, I don't think. Anyway, I know at least one profile who will love this thread, so I will check back in later to see how it has evolved.
#29
I layman terms can some one please layout the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership?
Keeping in mind a marriage ceremony doesn't have to involve religion.
1 Like #30
rhinopaul
philphil61
shadey12
philphil61
When reading "forced" and "threats" bear in mind Social Services were involved ;)
I was thinking shotgun. should be equality for all apparently an mp is trying to change it or bring in another bill, haven't read up on it much.
Shotgun would have been a much more romantic event ;)
I also didn't know that the "new" civil partnership "law" excluded heterosexual relationships until reading
My other point is that there were lots of protests and support for the LGBT community but where is the support for heterosexual couples?
Probably because heterosexuality hasnt had much if any discrimination .They have been afforded the privileges of marriage and therefore dont have the following/support for when it needs it. Its only todays society that feels there should be more choice out there than just marriage in order to get the same financial and social privileges as marriage grants .

Apart from straight people 'living in sin' and couples/single women who had a child out of wedlock.
#31
Oneday77
I layman terms can some one please layout the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership?
Keeping in mind a marriage ceremony doesn't have to involve religion.
Currently living as a cohabitating couple does not allow you the same rights as marriage or AFAIK civil partnership

ie you can live as man and wife without marriage but when it comes to an end by death or breakup some parts of law are null and void.

HTH
1 Like #32
Rom
I thought this couple wanted to get civilly partnered as a sort of protest against the "patriarchy of marriage" that's not really something that makes me want to start writing letters to my MP.
I'm surpised you're so worked up over it OP.
yes and no
#33
davewave
Rom
I thought this couple wanted to get civilly partnered as a sort of protest against the "patriarchy of marriage" that's not really something that makes me want to start writing letters to my MP.
I'm surpised you're so worked up over it OP.
yes and no
I think most are missing the point.....the big picture

Ask yourself (not you davewave) what does EQUALITY mean?
And does the Equality Act actually make things equal or is it failing?

Edited By: philphil61 on Feb 21, 2017 17:20
#34
Fred.Smith
rhinopaul
philphil61
shadey12
philphil61
When reading "forced" and "threats" bear in mind Social Services were involved ;)
I was thinking shotgun. should be equality for all apparently an mp is trying to change it or bring in another bill, haven't read up on it much.
Shotgun would have been a much more romantic event ;)
I also didn't know that the "new" civil partnership "law" excluded heterosexual relationships until reading
My other point is that there were lots of protests and support for the LGBT community but where is the support for heterosexual couples?
Probably because heterosexuality hasnt had much if any discrimination .They have been afforded the privileges of marriage and therefore dont have the following/support for when it needs it. Its only todays society that feels there should be more choice out there than just marriage in order to get the same financial and social privileges as marriage grants .
Apart from straight people 'living in sin' and couples/single women who had a child out of wedlock.
And inter-racial marriage, forced marriage, etc etc. Nobody was free until recently. Any discrimination against women, gays, minorities et al was and is in historical terms only a slight delay in gaining rights that the vast majority of straight white males did not enjoy either.
#35
Should add 3 way civil relationships, in fact should be no limit. Just to be legally recognised as a couple or group or whatever so long as everyone is happy what's the problem?.
#36
philphil61
davewave
Rom
I thought this couple wanted to get civilly partnered as a sort of protest against the "patriarchy of marriage" that's not really something that makes me want to start writing letters to my MP.
I'm surpised you're so worked up over it OP.
yes and no
I think most are missing the point.....the big picture
Ask yourself (not you davewave) what does EQUALITY mean?
And does the Equality Act actually make things equal or is it failing?
No such thing as equality when it comes to men and women. Pretty much impossible for it to be so.
#37
shauneco
They really didn't think it through when passing the civil partnership act. It'll get changed at the supreme court.

Costing tens of millions in lawyer fees!
#38
RossD89
What no riots and protests for unequality, no mega stars using their stage to voice their opinions

Probably because straight people haven't been persecuted for hundreds+ years like homosexuals have.


Has it been in fashion that long?
#39
Fred.Smith
rhinopaul
philphil61
shadey12
philphil61
When reading "forced" and "threats" bear in mind Social Services were involved ;)
I was thinking shotgun. should be equality for all apparently an mp is trying to change it or bring in another bill, haven't read up on it much.
Shotgun would have been a much more romantic event ;)
I also didn't know that the "new" civil partnership "law" excluded heterosexual relationships until reading
My other point is that there were lots of protests and support for the LGBT community but where is the support for heterosexual couples?
Probably because heterosexuality hasnt had much if any discrimination .They have been afforded the privileges of marriage and therefore dont have the following/support for when it needs it. Its only todays society that feels there should be more choice out there than just marriage in order to get the same financial and social privileges as marriage grants .
Apart from straight people 'living in sin' and couples/single women who had a child out of wedlock.
Yes they had prejudice but they werent being discriminated because they were heterosexual.
#40
Graham1979
shauneco
They really didn't think it through when passing the civil partnership act. It'll get changed at the supreme court.
Costing tens of millions in lawyer fees!
Add two civil partners get one free ;). No body would be forced too commit their lives to each other. I agree would be a few interesting divorces but who are we to judge?.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!