Why the distinction between straight adultery and gay infidelity as “unreasonable behaviour”? Not that it’s an issue that affects all gay couples the same way, but surely infidelity is the same for straight people and gay people, and adultery is a reasonable term for both.
It seems like a needless semantic distinction unless ‘adultery’ as a term is only admissable in the event of a religiously sanctified marriage as opposed to a civil partnership. Seems like a double standard to me, that’s all.
flapjack, its because marriage and civil partnerships are not the same, and adultery is applied to heterosexuals because it always refers to married couples, be it a religious or civil marriage. Since civil partnerships aren’t marriage, if the courts used “adultery” as a reason for the breakdown of a civil partnership, it would have to acknowledge such a relationship as a marriage and as you are aware, none of us who are are gay can marry in the UK. Apparently, most British gay people don’t want that right, nor does the government want us to have it either, but you’re right, it is a double standard and unequal.
You are right, “Adultery” is something that is only possible in a “marriage” between heterosexuals as recognised by the Church and thus by God himself.
Any sort of “Partnership” is not a “marriage” and is not recognised by God, thus adultery cannot take place.
I think a survey of those of us in civil partnerships would say that we wanted marriage but had to accept less. Whether we were sold out by our “spokespeople” or they made a bargain with politicians to get something, anything, we won’t ever know.
If it looks like a marriage smells like a marriage and tastes like a marriage then IT IS A MARRIAGE whatever label you give it!