Indifference to equality in civil partnership.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Many of those who pleaded equality in the matter of extending the definition of marriage were silent over the inequality in Civil partnerships.

What more proof of humbug grey on the part of forum antitheists.

My idea that their interest was motivated by antitheism rather than equality are therefore borne out.

What a devious bunch.

[Shaker]

Many of those who pleaded equality in the matter of extending the definition of marriage were silent over the inequality in Civil partnerships.

Many were not - Peter Tatchell is the first and most obvious example that springs to mind, who campaigned vigorously (maybe still does, for all I know) for civil partnerships to be extended to opposite-sex couples.

Likewise, many people thought (myself included) that while on its face civil partnerships seemed to be a step forward, a move in the right direction, in practice they were a typically British fudge, a half-hearted, milk-and-water stopgap designed to appease the "icky" brigade (who are primarily religionists, inevitably). It should have been full marriage equality from the start - plenty of other countries have managed it, why not us? We got there in the end, but "in the end" is a nonsense because the "in the end" includes several years of more fudge than Devon can produce in a century.

My idea that their interest was motivated by antitheism rather than equality are therefore borne out.

Doesn't have to be just the one or the other, you know, Vlad

[Rhiannon]

Yes, I think the reason most in favour of marriage equality - not all of them atheists - haven't campaigned on civil partnership equality is because most people don't see them as necessary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Many were not - Peter Tatchell is the first and most obvious example that springs to mind.

Likewise, many people thought (myself included) that while on its face civil partnerships seemed to be a step forward, a move in the right direction, in practice they were a typically British fudge, a half-hearted, milk-and-water stopgap designed to appease the "icky" brigade (who are primarily religionists). It should have been full marriage equality from the start. We got there in the end, but "in the end" is a nonsense.

I have praised PeterTatchell in previous posts on this subject.
I do not believe Mr Tatchell to be an antitheists interested only in sticking one on the church under a pretext that was phony or secondary to the purpose of antitheism................whereas some of the folks around here..........

[Shaker]

I have praised PeterTatchell in previous posts on this subject.
I do not believe Mr Tatchell to be an antitheists interested only in sticking one on the church under a pretext that was phony or secondary to the purpose of antitheism................whereas some of the folks around here..........

Whereas you have absolutely no evidence whatever of their motivations being "phony", only innuendo and assertion. What a revelation

[Gordon]

I'm not silent - if they want it let them have it.

It was a fudge to start with, so as to not frighten too many (mainly theist) horses, instead of just removing discrimination within marriage. So if it is to remain as an option, and from what I've read for some (perhaps a minority) it is the option they prefer to marriage, I can't see that there should be a problem with amending what needs to be amended to let it happen without restriction.

That is the problem with interim fudges when followed by the full Fruit and Nut: you end up with both, and there will always be some who prefer the taste of the fudge.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I think the reason most in favour of marriage equality - not all of them atheists - haven't campaigned on civil partnership equality is because most people don't see them as necessary.

Argumentum ad populism

What about the equality issue?

The reason people on this forum didn't bother with it was because there was no antichristian mileage to be had for antitheists humbuggery.

Cut the guff.

[Rhiannon]

Argumentum ad populism

What about the quality issue?

The reason people on this forum didn't bother with it was because there was no antichristian mileage to be had for antitheists humbuggery.

Cut the guff.

Personally I think it likely they'll die a death. Not having access to CPs is nothing like as hurtful or demeaning as not having marriage equality.

[Gordon]

I take it, Vlad, that this is one of those threads where most of us say we have no problem but you won't take 'yes' for an answer, preferring instead your usual tactics of faux indignation followed by copious misrepresentation

[SqueakyVoice]

What about the quality issue?

Well, you've never had the slightest concern about quality before...

[Outrider]

Many of those who pleaded equality in the matter of extending the definition of marriage were silent over the inequality in Civil partnerships.

I spoke for it then, I still speak for it now.

What more proof of humbug grey on the part of forum antitheists.

Some with some evidence, not your typical flatulent dribblings about the Red Peril Anti-Theists ^TM.

My idea that their interest was motivated by antitheism rather than equality are therefore borne out.

Your idea will be borne out regardless of the evidence, because it's not about reality, it's about how you see the world and what you choose to look at to bear that out.

What a devious bunch.

So devious, in fact, that they massively over-run the forum, yet never leave a trace!!!!

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Personally I think it likely they'll die a death. Not having access to CPs is nothing like as hurtful or demeaning as not having marriage equality.

What about the equality and privilege issue?

[Nearly Sane]

Personally I think it likely they'll die a death. Not having access to CPs is nothing like as hurtful or demeaning as not having marriage equality.

I hope so, as others have noted they have worked as a stepping stone but seem to have been no one's end aim or ideal solution despite the lies that Vlad is touting in this thread as he is won't to do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I hope so, as others have noted they have worked as a stepping stone but seem to have been no one's end aim or ideal solution despite the lies that Vlad is touting in this thread as he is won't to do.

Apparently people want this and Mr Tatchell campaigns for it.

To have someone who uses a hyperbolic " no one " talk about me lying seems pretty ironical.

[Nearly Sane]

Apparently people want this and Mr Tatchell campaigns for it.

To have someone who uses a hyperbolic " no one " talk about me lying seems pretty ironical.

First of all adding those in, still mean no one (large sense) wanted the current solution with its segregation.

Second no one (small sense, on this board) has suggested that there shouldn't be equality across the board and that is what you lied about in your OP

And having corrected your lies, I will leaving your little mendacious thread alone.

[ProfessorDavey]

Many of those who pleaded equality in the matter of extending the definition of marriage were silent over the inequality in Civil partnerships.

Not me - I think that civil partnerships (if they continue to exist) should also be available to couples regardless of gender. And I have said so on several occasions on this MB.

I suspect however that the notion of civil partnerships may end up redundant, no longer necessary now that there is equal marriage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First of all adding those in, still mean no one (large sense) wanted the current solution with its segregation.

Second no one (small sense, on this board) has suggested that there shouldn't be equality across the board and that is what you lied about in your OP

And having corrected your lies, I will leaving your little mendacious thread alone.

I've made it clear that people were indifferent to it and views are only being expressed now that I have brought it up so you are misrepresenting me there.

They prove what I am saying though as there has been silence or indifference over this equality issue. One must continue to suspect other arguments made by antichristians and antitheists on equality grounds.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And having corrected your lies, I will leaving your little mendacious thread alone.

Nearly sane creeps in............ craps...............and creeps out again.

[Gordon]

They prove what I am saying though as there has been silence or indifference over this equality issue. One must continue to suspect other arguments made by antichristians and antitheists on equality grounds.

Don't be daft, Vlad, what we have here is the downside of creating one thing so as to avoid adjusting another thing, and then doing what was being avoided in the first place. I think you'll find that so far those responding think that CP's should be available to all or else scrapped as being inadequate from the outset.

[Nearly Sane]

I've made it clear that people were indifferent to it and views are only being expressed now that I have brought it up so you are misrepresenting me there.

They prove what I am saying though as there has been silence or indifference over this equality issue. One must continue to suspect other arguments made by antichristians and antitheists on equality grounds.

OK, tempted back. I have seen no post from you condemning wife beating, ergo by your 'logic' you support it. Forget about pissing on bonfires, stop pissing on your beliefs. There isn't  an atheist or anti theist on this board that could begin to damage the theist position as much as you do with your bitter posturing. If I could only begin to conceive that someone could have spent as long as you coming out with this stuff as a deliberate windup, I would conclude you were an antitheist trying to make theists look bad. You would be the ultimate POE. But my incredulity on that amount of dedication, leads me to think you are just a tedious lying no mark who doesn't actually understand or see that your approach is a constant pissing on the views of those theists who have any grace.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be daft, Vlad, what we have here is the downside of creating one thing so as to avoid adjusting another thing, and then doing what was being avoided in the first place. I think you'll find that so far those responding think that CP's should be available to all or else scrapped as being inadequate from the outset.

Yes but why have they been indifferent to this to this point yet vocal on extending the definition of marriage which has a huge antitheist bonus......whoops.......answered my own question.

[Gordon]

Yes but why have they been indifferent to this to this point yet vocal on extending the definition of marriage which has a huge antitheist bonus......whoops.......answered my own question.

My recollection of the thread at the time was a number of us pointed out that with SSM the need for CP's was redundant but our legislators didn't (or wouldn't) tackle CP's as part of the package - but getting SSM in was the priority.

So I'd say that CPs need reviewed in order to remove the limitation or bin the idea as redundant: this is a self-inflicted problem that needs fixed one way or another.

[Aruntraveller]

Yes but why have they been indifferent to this to this point yet vocal on extending the definition of marriage which has a huge antitheist bonus......whoops.......answered my own question.

Why does it have a huge antitheist bonus - why would extending marriage to loving couples have anything to fucking do with antitheism. Isn't it to do with two people loving each other, committing to each other, affirming their relationship before family, friends and society.

Fuck me, you could probably knit conspiracy theories out of diarrhoea.

[Shaker]

Why does it have a huge antitheist bonus - why would extending marriage to loving couples have anything to fucking do with antitheism. Isn't it to do with two people loving each other, committing to each other, affirming their relationship before family, friends and society.

Fuck me, you could probably knit conspiracy theories out of diarrhoea.

It would give him something to do, at any rate.

[Gordon]

Even for you,Vlad, this is a scummy thread: no more that wumming really.

I'll leave you to it!