Civil partnership vs marriage?

This is not a post about if ti is right or wrong, frankly i don't care.

I just don't know what the difference is...surely a civil partnership has the same joining legaly as a marriage?

i'm not sure i think it as to do with the churches because they don't want same sex people to be allow to get married could be wrong

but legally speaking, is a civil partnership not the same? I mean if a man and lady get married in the center thingy, its a legal marriage, so why can * not get one of those?

because to many people in churches don't want it there still a lot of people in this country living the past.

so the church controls the law side of it? like they get get "married" in a civic center cause of the church?

But say they break up would they have to split and devide stuff if they had a civil partnership like with a marriage?

i'm not sure hayley

Hayley wrote:but legally speaking, is a civil partnership not the same? I mean if a man and lady get married in the center thingy, its a legal marriage, so why can * not get one of those?

The legal implications are the same for a Registry Office Marriage & a Chrich Marriage. A Civil Partnership, however, is not a marriage as such - it's a legal agreement between two men or two women. It holds the same legal implications, though.

Steve wrote:because to many people in churches don't want it there still a lot of people in this country living the past.

Not true. People get married in Church for two reasons
1. They want a big, white wedding with all the trimmings & photos they can look back on etc
2. They are religious & want a marriage to be made before God.

Neither reason has anything to do with living in the past!

Hayley wrote:so the church controls the law side of it? like they get get "married" in a civic center cause of the church?

But say they break up would they have to split and devide stuff if they had a civil partnership like with a marriage?

As I said - your legal rights are the same in all three partnerships.

The Church (any Church) has no legal rights over any partnership.

Caryll wrote:

Hayley wrote:but legally speaking, is a civil partnership not the same? I mean if a man and lady get married in the center thingy, its a legal marriage, so why can * not get one of those?

The legal implications are the same for a Registry Office Marriage & a Chrich Marriage. A Civil Partnership, however, is not a marriage as such - it's a legal agreement between two men or two women. It holds the same legal implications, though.

Ah right, i see. Still dunno how its not basically the same thing, just called two names lol

It's three things, really.

Religious, legal between a man & woman and legal between a same sex couple.

Most Religions won't recognise same sex marriage (plus you get problems when two people are of different religions/divorced etc), so you need at least two legal partnerships, and there is such strong opposition still to same sex 'marriage' that they decided to call it a slightly different thing.

vote for female to be bishops which was reject if that isn't living in the past i dread to think what is, i'm sure i heard on question time or whatever its call female will have to wait 100 years before they get a vote again

100 years!

can you imagine a female pope though lol

yea we all meant to have all equal rights

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 gave same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities similar to those in a civil marriage. Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors. There is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a civil partnership.

I was going to put the link in, but it put an asterisk for one of the words so it didn't work.

I also read that it's more or less the same, but that you don't need witnesses when signing the...whatever it is they sign

Steve wrote:vote for female to be bishops which was reject if that isn't living in the past i dread to think what is, i'm sure i heard on question time or whatever its call female will have to wait 100 years before they get a vote again

The vote was for Church of England only.

Hayley wrote:100 years!

can you imagine a female pope though lol

Wouldn't happen anyway, cause the Catholic Church doesn't even allow women Priests, let alone Bishops/Cardinals/Pope!

this why less and less people are going to church they not moving with the time

Caryll wrote:

Steve wrote:vote for female to be bishops which was reject if that isn't living in the past i dread to think what is, i'm sure i heard on question time or whatever its call female will have to wait 100 years before they get a vote again

The vote was for Church of England only.

Hayley wrote:100 years!

can you imagine a female pope though lol

Wouldn't happen anyway, cause the Catholic Church doesn't even allow women Priests, let alone Bishops/Cardinals/Pope!

i really thought that trend was done away with a few years back and you could be a catholic woman priest
goes to prove iv little knowledge of the church
(dont need to answer if you dont want to caryll)do you agree with this ????
in todays equel rights

Caryll wrote:

Steve wrote:vote for female to be bishops which was reject if that isn't living in the past i dread to think what is, i'm sure i heard on question time or whatever its call female will have to wait 100 years before they get a vote again

The vote was for Church of England only.

Hayley wrote:100 years!

can you imagine a female pope though lol

Wouldn't happen anyway, cause the Catholic Church doesn't even allow women Priests, let alone Bishops/Cardinals/Pope!

Oh, I don't know. America has a black president, and it was less than a century ago people were quite happy gathering around as a community to do horrific things to people simply because of their race. Who knows what progress can be made in a century?

thought it was marriage for gays etc

well it is but it time all the church got in the 21 century well just my opinion away

bigwazza wrote:

Caryll wrote:

Steve wrote:vote for female to be bishops which was reject if that isn't living in the past i dread to think what is, i'm sure i heard on question time or whatever its call female will have to wait 100 years before they get a vote again

The vote was for Church of England only.

Hayley wrote:100 years!

can you imagine a female pope though lol

Wouldn't happen anyway, cause the Catholic Church doesn't even allow women Priests, let alone Bishops/Cardinals/Pope!

i really thought that trend was done away with a few years back and you could be a catholic woman priest
goes to prove iv little knowledge of the church
(dont need to answer if you dont want to caryll)do you agree with this ????
in todays equel rights

The women who became Priests & Bishops a few years ago were part of a schismatic group that broke away from the Catholic Church & have since been reconciled (well, most of them). The Catholic Church has never, and probably will never, ordained women priests.

Personally, I wouldn't want to see women as Priests, but that's an in depth argument that I'm not prepared to go into here. Just my own view after studying the Bible & seeing the results of women vicars.

Steve wrote:well it is but it time all the church got in the 21 century well just my opinion away

Modernism has nothing to do with religion, and religion has nothing to do with modernism. I agree that there are areas where all Churches could do with moving with the times a bit more, but if they relax the rules too much then all respect for the leaders of the Churches will disappear - as it already has in the Anglican Church.

I really don't like discussions about politics & religion.

I'm not religious but I think that the Christian faith is set out as a certain way that doesn't and can't coexist with today modern way of life. Unless they chance religion it won't be able to last properly and had already "changed" due to modernization. It's not the same as it was at the start and never will be. It's change with the times or don't exist.

Hayley wrote:I'm not religious but I think that the Christian faith is set out as a certain way that doesn't and can't coexist with today modern way of life. Unless they chance religion it won't be able to last properly and had already "changed" due to modernization. It's not the same as it was at the start and never will be. It's change with the times or don't exist.

No religion can coexist in modern day. Not properly. I mean, holy books written thousands of years ago; if people follow those rules properly, people would say they're being traditional and not moving with the times. I don't think people who believe in the Bible or Quran or whatever else should have to move with the times. I mean, they're meant to be the word of God, so if God wanted us to do things differently, there'd be a new holy book. So I think moving with the times is just a case of people wanting to make religion seem more appealing to the modern people.

To an extent, Tara, you're right.

But the Bible was written for people who lived 2000 years ago; the message is the same today, but life has changed dramatically & the letter of the Bible can't be followed although the Spirit can.

ANattyRat wrote:

Hayley wrote:I'm not religious but I think that the Christian faith is set out as a certain way that doesn't and can't coexist with today modern way of life. Unless they chance religion it won't be able to last properly and had already "changed" due to modernization. It's not the same as it was at the start and never will be. It's change with the times or don't exist.

No religion can coexist in modern day. Not properly. I mean, holy books written thousands of years ago; if people follow those rules properly, people would say they're being traditional and not moving with the times. I don't think people who believe in the Bible or Quran or whatever else should have to move with the times. I mean, they're meant to be the word of God, so if God wanted us to do things differently, there'd be a new holy book. So I think moving with the times is just a case of people wanting to make religion seem more appealing to the modern people.

if they dont move the time at some point in the future (well in this country maybe others) the religious will die out.

Steve wrote:if they dont move the time at some point in the future (well in this country maybe others) the religious will die out.

No, religion won't die out, but some of the organised religions will.

People will still have a faith & will still pray to a God - that's religion. They just might not need somebody to organise it for them.

The Anglican Church has been dying for many years & will be one of the first to go.

in the last 10 years it jump from 15% to 25% who dont believe in anything

Yes, maybe, but many people still believe in a God. Actually, the Pagan religion is making a comeback. When they do polls about Faith & what people believe in, they rarely put Paganism on there, so it gets left out.

I know several Pagans.

I like the natural gods type things, like sort of pagan, but again i would not go as far as to say i follow it. I don't know dates or anything about it or celebrate anything.

but i am the anticrist, i got chucked out of church when i was 2

I got told once you should never discuss Religion, Politics and the other

Hayley wrote:but i am the anticrist, i got chucked out of church when i was 2

I take it you were a bit lively as a toddler?

Chiara wrote:I got told once you should never discuss Religion, Politics and the other

Absolutely...........therefore we all discuss them anyway!

Chiara wrote:I got told once you should never discuss Religion, Politics and the other

Don't be silly, controversial topics are the best

I have to admit that I try not to get into deep arguments about either politics or religion - I feel strongly about both so I tend to get a bit het up!

I don't give a * about either, so naturally i make a big argument about it anyway ahhaah

Yeah i must have been hehe. Dad punched the godly man cause i was left outside by a road for like an hour