Are You Woke?

[Stargazer]

The latest is that heterosexual couples have been granted their wish to be like same sex couples in being able to have a civil partnership. What is the problem with marriage which does not have to be a religious ceremony, can be Registry Office. So the binding commitment to one another is what counts. Choose your partner on Sale or Return possibly?

[ludwig]

It's got nothing to do with being 'woke'. The same options of marriage/partnership/whatever should be available to everybody equally.

They weren't until they made civil partnerships available to heterosexual couples. They now are.

If they want to remove any of those options, I personally couldn't give a toss, as long they remove them for everyone equally.

[New Judge]

//New Judge, is God mentioned in Civil Partnership or Register Service?//

Not as far as I know. Your point being what, exactly?

People who want to "legalise" their partnership have the option to marry in a religious establishment or do so in a Register Office or elsewhere licenced for weddings. Those who want their God to bless their union choose the former, those who don't choose the latter. Just what is it about a Civil Partnership that is not satisfied by a civil wedding? I used the word "justification" because I cannot see any reason for Civil Partnerships. They were introduced to address a problem and that problem has now been solved.

//Marriage has always been a religious, misogynistic type of ceremony...//

What on Earth do you mean, pixie? It doesn't have to be religious (see above) and why do you consider marriage to be misogynistic (i.e. the hatred of, contempt for or prejudice against women)?

//I wouldn't make a Civil Partnership the same at all, but make sure it was different....//

How (and why)? It is a ceremony to mark a union between two people. DO you want to make a circus of it?

[Cloverjo]

Some people say they disapprove of weddings because the woman is ‘handed over’ from her father to her husband. There was none of that in my wedding ceremony nor any mention of a god.

[pixie374]

It makes no difference to me, nj. I wouldn't do either. They are both outdated, but I don't see why others shouldn't have the choice of which they prefer.

[pixie374]

There is that, clover... it just historically is, and many women still change their names to show they are now owned by somebody else.
A bit of modernisation can't be bad, but I would leave marriages too, for those who like tradition.

[sevenOP]

//New Judge, is God mentioned in Civil Partnership or Register Service?//

Not as far as I know. Your point being what, exactly? /////

Reference to 'God'.

New Judge -"Just what is it about a Civil Partnership that is not satisfied by a civil wedding?"

Equating marriage to Religion.

New Judge---"How (and why)? It is a ceremony to mark a union between two people. DO you want to make a circus of it?"

Why would making it different "make a circus of it" ?

[New Judge]

//Reference to 'God'.

New Judge -"Just what is it about a Civil Partnership that is not satisfied by a civil wedding?"

Equating marriage to Religion.//

Why do you keep harping on about religion? There is no reference to God or religion in a civil marriage ceremony. In fact, having attended both a civil marriage ceremony and a Civil Partnership ceremony I have to say that I noticed very little difference of any substance at all between the two. People who equate the two have obviously not thought things through.

//Why would making it different "make a circus of it" ?//

It depends how different you try to make it and for what reason.

[sevenOP]

NJ, *//Why would making it different "make a circus of it" ?//

It depends how different you try to make it and for what reason.//*

That criteria would apply to anything.
I already told you "many people would rather have a Contract than 'marriage' which they associate with Religion ( mind control to some) ": and you said "Not as far as I know" to whether God mentioned in Civil Partnership or Register Service.
Posters have said they would rather have a CP choice for no religious reason.

[bednobs]

you are not allowed ANYTHING religious (words or music) in a civil wedding

[jackthehat]

I got married in a Register Office and can confirm that God was not invited nor did s/he muscle her/his way in, either.

[New Judge]

Exactly, jack. Why there is this concomitancy between marriage and religion is not clear. Anybody entering into marriage has a duty to understand what they are getting themselves into. If they are so badly informed that they believe marriage and religion are inevitably intertwined there's no reason why a different form of union (which is virtually identical in substance) should be devised to combat their ignorance.

[sevenOP]

NJ "Why there is this concomitancy between marriage and religion is not clear."

It is historical, not a thing to do with being badly informed nor a lack of comprehension.

[jackthehat]

People have been getting married for Millenia; long before religion was brought into the matter (by those with vested interests).
A non-religious wedding (such as mine) is as valid as one conducted in a church, but as I said God wasn't welcome and as bednobs stated s/he wouldn't have been allowed to attend even if we had been so minded to ask...
So, I think anyone rejecting getting married because they have associated it with religion actually *is* badly informed or lacking comprehension.

[sevenOP]

jth and NJ. I think what we have here with marriage/religion is a difference in mindset. I think you both are married but that is not that relevant.
Some people are more conformist/orthodox than others.
I guess you both fit the norm more than me; some folk see Christmas *slightly* differently but I see it vastly differently and would happily revert to a winter solstice celebration or really no celebration at all. ( for lots of diverse reasons)
Marriage was needed in the Past to protect women/encourage tribal bonds/ perpetuate the species etc, just like Religion MAY have been needed for lots of similar reasons.
Cannibalism may have been needed in the past, and inter-family sexual bonding may have been needed too, but lots of things 'needed' in the Past are not necessary for survival and species propagation now.
The status quo is the status largely because it is actively promoted as the status quo and large parts of it we would never be allow to change. ( doesn't mean it is the best or even necessarily 'right' )

So, jth "So, I think anyone rejecting getting married because they have associated it with religion actually *is* badly informed or lacking comprehension." Just because that is your opinion and possibly NJ's too, does not mean people holding a different view are "badly informed or lacking comprehension."

Of course I understand that is 'my opinion'.

[jackthehat]

SevenOP - 'Pairing' has, across the annals of time, been marked by some sort of ceremony; sometimes for the family, sometimes for the tribe, sometimes just for the couple concerned...

There is absolutely nothing to prevent anyone 'pairing-up' with anyone else. The problem occurs when the 'pair' want to be able to take avantage of the rights awarded to those more traditionally 'paired'.

That is the area which ought to be more properly addressed/tinkered with for the modern-age now that the Marriage v. Civil-partnership issue has been thrashed to death.