h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Adultary is one of the, I believe, four main reasons why a marriage can be ended. This does not exist in a CP as it is assumed that homosexual men are incapable of being monogomous. It's one of the many stereoptyes which heterosexuals have of us.

Whilst I take your point about unreasonable behaviour, again that is something from marriage and not relevent in CP. I believe you can only really dissolve a CP if the situation is beyond repair, so to speak.

>>This does not exist in a CP as it is assumed that homosexual men are incapable of being monogomous<<

Nonsense. It's because adultary is an archaic word that has close connections with religious ideas such as sin. It also specifically refers to marriage - the government is refusing to call CPs marriage, so it can't put in a condition that requires marriage as part of it's definition. Being unfaithful falls under the banner of 'unreasonable behaviour', which is one of the reasons for dissolving a CP

Sorry Rillington, but that statement says more about you than it does about the people making the laws. You've decided that all straight people think all gay people are promiscuous and that's the reason for the law.

Why does that say more about me than it does about lawmakers?

I do believe that heterosexuals in general see us as promiscuous and unable to be sexually faithful, hence having sex with someone else not being grouds to end a CP like it is for marriage.

I accept that adultary is an old-fashioned word steeped in religious meaning but it's still an accurate word to use for the point I am wanting to make.

>>Why does that say more about me than it does about lawmakers?

I do believe that heterosexuals in general see us as promiscuous and unable to be sexually faithful, hence having sex with someone else not being grouds to end a CP like it is for marriage<<

Because you've stated many, many times that you don't really have any heterosexual friends and that you spent very little time in the company of straight people. Heck, at times, you've made it sound like you have an aversion or a phobia to them.

Since you don't spend much time in the company of straight people, you can't know what their thinking annd what their attitudes are so you're just guessing.

I accept your reasoning for your original statement.

You are right that I tend to steer clear of heterosexuals for a number of different reasons and those heterosexuals I do chat to online understand my reasons and don't see me as heterophobic. However I do feel uncomfortable away from the gay bars etc and would, for example, not willingly go into a non gay bar, for example. For me it's basics safety and fear of the consequences if I don't behave in a heterosexual way away from the gay bars.

Rillers, you are heterophobic. You come across as being someone that's been too busty being gay to be yourself. You have a serious chip on your shoulder.

>>For me it's basics safety and fear of the consequences if I don't behave in a heterosexual way away from the gay bars<<

And this is exactly my point. Explain to me what you mean by acting in a heterosexual way.

Are you saying that when you're not in gay bars you sleep with women? Because that is the only behaviour that is definitively heterosexual.

Apart from sleeping with women, there is no behaviour that is either gay or straight - at least not to anybody who's more mature than a teenager. All gay men look and behave like straight men and all straight men look and behave like gay men.

Oh and Rill, I want to call you on something you said a few years back, about how Leeds is very gay-unfriendly. I've lived here for a good few months now and I've not seen this antipathy towards gay guys - in fact I've found it to be quite a nice, welcoming place which isn't as clique-y as Manchester.

Starting at your final point:

I'm actually moving out of Leeds this weekend because of how it is here. Many others have commented to me how bad it is. I think there is this general lack of respect for us in Leeds which shows in many ways such as heterosexuals being horrible to us in the few remaining gay bars, no gay club or gay night, virtually no form of gay community and the fact that people don't seem to care as everything that is tried is just never supported and allowed to die. Am delighted to be leaving Leeds, following in the footsteps of a friend and another friend is seriously thinking of leaving Leeds too.

With regard to differing behaviour, I am talking about the consequences of things like holding hands in public, looking at the same sex in a non gay bar and the like. These issues are a srelevent as ever despite changes in the law.

>>With regard to differing behaviour, I am talking about the consequences of things like holding hands in public, looking at the same sex in a non gay bar and the like<<

How do you know what goes on in a non-gay bar? Again, you've said that you never spend time in such establishments.

I go out in "straight" places on a regular basis, and I often look at other guys (seriously, how do you avoid it?) especially after I've had a skinful when I become simply lecherous. ter've been chatted up in non-gay places, one of my best nights ever was dancing close and slow with a guy I'd fancied for years - in a straight place. Still yet to be beaten up because of it.

And as I've said previously I've held hands with a guy in public - heck I was at it this weekend in rural Northern Ireland, where the local 'mob' (they were lovely folks, there were just so many of them!) was buying me drinks, not lynching me.

As Roy/Socket says, you're heterophobic and I'd bet folding money that on your rare encounters with straight folk, your attitude gets you the unfriendly treatment you need to reinforce your world-view.

Nice of you to call me heterophobic. Only one person ever has done before. I take thigns as they are and it is the attitude of heterosexuals whichs tops me being able to be myself in the way that heterosexuals are. I like to think you can see why that bothers me.

The reason for adultery not being grounds for dissolution are quite simply that CPs are not exclusively aimed at people in relationships. In a CP there is no requirement for the two parties to be in an intimate relationship with one another, hence there being no need for consumations.

HM Government estimates that 5% of CPs will be between two parties involved for purely business reasons or reasons other than for the purpose of a registered homosexual relationship.

Therefore it is deemed that adultery would be a ridiculous reason for dissolution as CPs account for the possibility for having relationships outside of the Partnership.

Lots of gay love,
Babs x

That is actually a very good point Babs and I'm glad you have reminded us of that.

It then brings on the arguement that any two non-married people, such as family members, should be able to enter into a legal situation and I would imagine that, in time, this will be the case and those two people could be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.

I guess this underlines that our relationships really ARE seen as inferior by society and in law also.

I don't necessarily think it automatically means that ... there have been many instances in the not-too-distant past (and possibly even now) where a gay man and a lesbian (or possibly a straight person and one of those two) have married purely to obtain particular legal rights, which include residential rights for a non-resident partner. To argue that all CPs are based on romantic/deep-meaning relationships is indeed erroneous, but you could say exactly the same for "straight marriages" as well.

In any case, I'm pretty sure I've never heard any serious suggestion from politicians to extend civil partnerships to straight couples or to family members closer than first cousins (which is the closest possible relation for straight marriage as well).

I would have no problem with CPs being extended to cover male and female partnerships, personally. Indeed I would encourage this, in line with the amendment proposed in the House of Lords when the Bill was being read in that House.

I think the big cause of the general acceptance by the LGBT community of CPs is that the 'pink press' have built up gay people's beliefs that we live in this perfect, equal world when this is simply not the case.

The organisation of which I was formerly head held the policy that CP's are a form of "sexuality apartheid" and we strongly supported the case of Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger to have their Canadian marriage recognised as a marriage within the UK.

Also, in response to the above post, of course marriage - as all other contracts - will be abused by people wishing to use them for their own gain, so indeed I expect the same to be true of CPs as well.

I would agree with you, at least in part ... the situation is still not perfect and I would like to see marriages become gender-independent so there is full equality regardless of sexual orientation. I would also argue that Civil Partnerships should be extended to and cater particularly for e.g. polyamorous relationships (such as they do in the Netherlands).

However, I would still argue that the introduction of Civil Partnerships has been a great step forward in society's acceptance of gay people. Not only do CPs legally recognise gay relationships on a similar level to "straight" civil marriages (something which had been denied to gay people for 40+ years beforehand), but the predominately positive reaction of the general public has shown how far gay rights have come over the past 50 years or so. Naturally there is still a way to go - including this issue of marriage - but I'm pretty confident that we're heading in the right direction.

I would argue that Civil Partnerships serve to higlight the inequality in the status of relationships between L/G people and straight people. The fact that they are so welcomed by the general public perhaps indicates a general acceptance by the public at large that L/G people should be able to register a relationship by using the CP mechanism but that they should not be given equal status to heterosexuals who can enter into marriage. Perhaps I'm wrong and the world is moving along nicely... I'm just a bit cynical about how much progress has been made.

On a personal ground I don't believe in extending any form of legal recognistion to those in polyamorous relationships; I don't find such relationships morally acceptable and I don't think they should be encouraged.

Also you are incorrect about the Netherlands. In the Netherlands it is not permitted for any person to be in a civil partnership with more than one person at any one time, or to be in a CP and a marriage at the same time (the same as in England and Wales). The case you refer to was mis-reported. The only difference is that you may be in a registered relationship with one person but have an agreement to cohabit with another (but there is no legal recognition of this, and it does not constitute a relationship).

OK, my mistake on Dutch Civil Partnerships ... they are indeed only for couples (although they can apply for both gay and straight couples), though the difference between those and full marriage is to do with whether or not the child of one partner is "adopted" by the other partner.

As for the inequality of status between LGBT and straight relationships ... I'm certainly not denying that there are differences between civil marriages and CPs, which could be interpreted as CPs being inferior to marriage. I also agree that if true, full equality for all relationships is to be achieved, the Government should make full civil marriages available for gay couples.

Granted, the establishment of Civil Partnerships is certainly a compromise measure to give LGBT people legal spousal status while allowing the word "marriage" to remain for straight couples so that the general public could accept it. While it does sound like the Government was being half-hearted about introducing "gay marriage" (or whatever the terminology for it should be), looking through the Civil Partnership Act 2004 itself, it is probably one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation in recent years. (It covers the procedures for forming and dissolving CPs, property and financial arrangements, next-of-kin rights and guardian rights over children in a relationship, among other things.) While there are a few areas which differ from "straight" civil marriage and may be the cause of inequality as far as legal spousal status goes, these could certainly be changed by future amendments and, if full gay marriage were to come in, the Act would be a good framework for implementing that.

The major negative point about the Act is that it currently shies away from calling it "marriage", but a large proportion of the press coverage on CPs actually did refer to them as "gay marriages" (with or without the quote marks), which is also what a lot of the public in large now call them. (Probably because "Civil Partnership" is too much of a mouthful for people to say a lot of the time!)

Naturally I can't say whether the public's reaction would have been quite as positive if they *were* "full" gay marriages, but I would guess that as time goes on, society as a whole would become more accepting of the idea and there would be the political will to actually make that happen. That's why I'm not especially sceptical about the current situation ... while there is still some way to go, significant progress has already been made.

Anyway, I'm aware that I might be sounding a bit like a broken record on this particular issue ... so could we cover something else for a bit?

>>The reason for adultery not being grounds for dissolution are quite simply that CPs are not exclusively aimed at people in relationships<<

Sorry Babs, but you're wrong. GT this month has a good article on civil partnership dissolution which had the reason in exact legal-ese. It's what I've already said - legal adultary can only take place in the context of a marriage, and it can only take place between a man and a woman.

Yes, the government could change the legal definition of adultary, but what's the point? It's an archaic idea linked to religious principles very few people hold these days. If the government is to change it, they may as well remove it from the books altogether.

Incidentally, very few divorce cases cite adultary as 'unreasonable behaviour' these days, because the adulterer and adultress need to be named. Anybody named in a divorce or CP dissolution case has the right to defend themselves, dragging the whole affair into court and the public.

The whole "people could use CPs for purposes other than marriage" argument is a red herring. All legislation and contract have loopholes, including marriage and CPs. It's just the nature of the beast.

I think it is more common than you think for gay men and lesbians to marry, usually for fear of the social ramifications of not doing so. There was a report on the news about just that issue a couple of weeks ago whereby many members of the Asian lgb community are doing just that. Mind you, they still have to consumate the marriage don't they.

Indeed, politically there has been no mention of extending CPs to heterosexuals but I see no reason why they shopuldn't be. Some heterosexuals would prefer to be happy with the legal arrangement. This happens in many countries across the world where heterosexuals can enter into legal arrangements as well as marry and take advantage of the legal arrangement which is the only option available for same sex couples.

You're right that the pink press does sometimes portray that we live in a world where we are equals but we all know this actually is not the case and the fact that our relationships are considered inferior by denying us the ability to marry proves the point.