Civil Relationships -v- Marriage

I simply don't get why civil partnerships continue to exist. The choice for heterosexual partnerships was, and still is, marriage or nothing. Now that homosexual couples have the right to marry, surely their choice should be exactly the same.

That said, I don't really see why you have to be in a sexual relationship with someone in order to benefit from all the legal benefits that either civil partnership or marriage bring, at least not if there are no children in the equation.

Mama as, no one could have put it better. Why indeed is equality not enough? What will be next I wonder.

Sorry, should have been MamaCaz, don't where the c went to.

But even if you are in a sexual relationship you do not have legal protection and I ask once again why would you want to force someone to marry if they do not want to?
CPs offer an alternative

I wouldn't force anyone to do anything they didn't want to do, Trisher. The choice between to marry or not to marry is just that - a choice.

I don't disagree with you about CPs offering an alternative, but personally I think that either it should be available to all couples regardless of sexual orientation (even including, possibly, platonic relationships where life and home are very much a long-term shared thing), or done away with completely now that homosexuals now have the right to marry if they wish to do so.

That's just my view, obviously, and I accept that not everyone will agree with me

I have posted on this thread previously but to précis: I am in a civil partnership with my partner of 25 years. We are opposite sex and live in France where couples can choose irrespective of sexual orientation how to legally register their partnership.

I was married for 20 years and it did not work for me. My partner was also previously married and it did not work for him.

About 42% of marriages end in divorce although this figure is a reduction from previous years.

One explanation for a slightly lower divorce rate is that couples are living together for longer, are more mature and many have children^ before ^they marry. These relationships are tested to some extent before marriage and therefore less vulnerable to divorce. This is the explanation reported by ONS and echoed by the Marriage Institute. I am merely reporting it.

However, those living together relationships, especially where there are children involved are not legally secured and on either death or separation there are no inheritance or benefit rights for the surviving partner or children. A civil partnership may be preferred by those couples who simply want the security of legal recognition of their relationship but without marriage.

However, the application to the Court which has prompted this case is not about testing their relationship. It's focus is discrimination and inequality.

I support civil partnerships because I do not want to be married again. There have been many other reasons already cited on this thread why marriage is not for everyone but security and peace of mind is important for most couples whatever the basis of their relationship.

As you say Lavande,many reasons for preferring CP over marriage have been explained on this thread.( oh I'm repeating myself again) . Perhaps some people do not read the whole thread.

If gay people can now have both a civil partnership and a marraige then I think it's only fair straight people get both, if not then its not equal rights