family issue

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Slyfox, Apr 19, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. why is it that the armed forces reconise gay couples but not an unmarried couple with there own home and 2 children, im asking because im posted to germany and cant claim a thing to help support my family back in the uk because im not married ,its like my children dont exist in the eyes of the army. or am i missing somthing.
  2. Nope - we had to "git hitched" to get a quarter and associated "benefits" although we had been "an item" for several years (and owned a house together!)

    Unmarried hetro couples are so hard done by now as far as "rights" are concerned, even Stonewall's Peter Tatchell's waded in!

  3. The MOD does not recognise homosexual couples any more than it recognises heterosexual couples. The key point is that it recognises, and provides housing and associated benefits for, those couples that are legally married or have formed a civil partnership.

    If you choose not to formalise your relationship, be it hetero or homosexual, then you simply deny yourself the opportunity to gain these benefits - the choice is yours.
  4. Very nice PAW. I am only guessing here but I am assuming (I know I shouldn't) that it is MUCH cheaper to get one of them partnerships than to get married, with all the ceremony that is expected off family members etc...
  5. i understand that but why,my girlfriend and i are in our 30s and have been together for 6 years neither of us believe that we should be married to provide a secure home for our children we are secure enough, surley having children is just as big a comitment as being married or being in a civil partnership im not after a quarter i have my own home i just want to know why i have to be married for my children to be reconised as mine by the army,and im the bread winner for my household,seems a shame this is such a problem still in the modern army.
    (a civil partnership is between same sex couples only and i have nothing against that or married couples) this is a children thing . if there worried about every tom dick and harry jumping on the band wagon with any old tart why dont they draw a line say (if you have children of 3 years and above and are still with the mother of that child with proof that should be enough to to get allowances and a quarter, if required
  6. I can understand your sentiment but by saying they don't recognise any relationship that has not be 'made official' haven't they already drawn that line, just not where you would like it?
  7. If it is no big deal.. just get hitched ... quick job in the registry office.. and then bingo... cheap cheap half price... simple..
  8. Society exists because there are rules. To remain in the safety of the tribe one had to accept that there were things one had to do and things one must not do. The Army society has rules regarding what is necessary to get the full range of benefits. You have chosen not to fall into step with those rules. No condemnation from me for this but I do support the idea that full membership of a society includes compliance with the norms and standards of that club. You two are different - some see that as a threat. I'm sure that what you have chosen in terms of your particular relationship is what works for you. Unfortunately, not for the Army. It's their rules and it is their money.
  9. I get this question all the time (I am the Unit EOA, amogst other really good jobs), I can understand the ignorance of the younger soldier, but it has ceased to amaze me why the older soldier cannot see why?

    The striaghtforward answer is, it is the law.

    But surely you can see the host of problems the army would have if every young couple claimed an entitlement to a house. I won't entertain the angle of children - so what, lots of unmarried couples have children.

    If you don't want to get married - then more power to you, you say that having children is just as big a commitment as getting married. I say no it isn't. Your legal duty to your children stops when they are 18, your legal duty to your wife will last for ever (unless the marriage is dissolved obviously). You will owe the same duty to your children (whilst they are under 18) whether you are married our not. So how can the commitment be the same - it isn't - there are thousands of unmarried couples and the army recognises that, hence you need to be married.

    This one is easy.

    The army will recognise your children as yours irrepective of whether you are married or not - if this were not the case, when a soldier divorces, or becomes a widower, then the army would not recognise his children.

    There is no problem within the army with recognising this - your perception is skewed I grant you.

    Now we are getting somewhere.

    The army are worried about soldiers jumping on the band wagon, your rules about children are open for severe criticism - what about if I am unmarried and my child is 2 do I not get a house, what about if I have 2 children but only was is above 3, do I only get half a house, what about if I get a house and my "girlfriend" runs off - do I lose the house?

    There is a line in the sand - hence you have to be married/have a civil partnership.

    The reason people do not want to get married is becasue of the legal commitment - you can dress it up however you like but that is the bottom line. If that is not the case then any legal repercussions shouldn't bother you in the event that your marriage dissolves and there should be no substantive reason to prevent you tieing the knot.
  10. thankyou all i was only after the children bit, i was told that they didnt exist in the eyes of the army if i wernt married.
    that anoyed me alot,but as i have just read that info was wrong thanks again,we would have only got hitched if the case with my children were true,panic over thanks again