Suffragette1 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 The legal definition of adultery, as you say, relates specifically to heterosexual couples. Dissolution based on unreasonable behaviour 'could' apply in the case where adultery has been committed. This is the information I have on Dissolution. Your partner has behaved in such a way that it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to continue to live with him or her. Both partners agree to the dissolution and have been separated for 2 years. They have been separated from their partner for 5 years. Their partner has deserted them for a period of 2 years or more. I know precious little about divorce, however, my understanding from the article (can't provide a link now that the ST is no longer free online) is that adultery is automatic grounds for divorce and less protracted. So yet again, gays are being discriminated against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah_kay Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I know precious little about divorce, however, my understanding from the article (can't provide a link now that the ST is no longer free online) is that adultery is automatic grounds for divorce and less protracted. So yet again, gays are being discriminated against. Pity the link is behind a "pay wall" The laws relating to marriage and divorce were applied to civil partnerships. This was to ensure equality between married couples and those in a civil partnership ... some equality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curriechick Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I know this is slightly off kilter and I am not making fun or being light-hearted. But I just wanted to say that if anyone that saw the gay married couple on Britain's Got Talent last week who danced beautifully and didn't see the love and pure adoration between them must have a heart of stone. They were so much in love it shone out of them and there was nothing shameful or un-natural about it at all it was beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Thought (some of) you might be interested in this analysis of Cardinal O'Brien's recent article on same sex marriage in the Daily Telegraph. Some of the points made may sound familiar to those who have been following this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 But you cannot base your argument on whether two people should get married on whether they are the same or not. Or, more commonly in this case, whether they can make babies or not. That's just - at best - extremely shallow thinking. Just to clarify my earlier position here.I havn't mentioned anything about babies that was someone else. I have said i believe in civil ceremony gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Here's yet another inequality. I've just an article in today's Sunday Tines magazine which states that you can't dissolve a civil partnership on the grounds of adultery, which is still defined as sexual relations between a man and a woman. Apparently, 'unreasonable behaviour' has to be cited instead and according to one divorcée, a more protracted and expansive process than divorce, due to being unable to avail themselves of adultery.Homosexual 'couples' are not the same as heterosexual couples, and should not expect to be treated the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Homosexual 'couples' are not the same as heterosexual couples, and should not expect to be treated the same. Why not ? They pay the same taxes as heterosexual couples, if you are going to treat them differently then they should at least be entitled to a refund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Homosexual 'couples' are not the same as heterosexual couples, and should not expect to be treated the same. And we should accept this because you've said it's so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Thought (some of) you might be interested in this analysis of Cardinal O'Brien's recent article on same sex marriage in the Daily Telegraph. Some of the points made may sound familiar to those who have been following this thread. Oh I like those, I think I shall ask if we can have those as smileys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 4, 2012 Author Share Posted April 4, 2012 Homosexual 'couples' are not the same as heterosexual couples, and should not expect to be treated the same. Why ever not? How do you suggest we do treat them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.