Bizarre homophobia…
There’s this strange cover of grey smoke-like matter covering the sky and partially obscuring the sun. And it seems to be depositing a strange, viscous liquid. Experimental sampling by direct touch and taste has determined the liquid to be non-poisonous, non-corrosive and pH neutral; most likely water. Water falling from the sky. How odd. Is this a common meteorological occurrence anywhere else? It’s been doing this for over 24 hours now and I’m starting to get a bit worried.
Frankly, I don’t see the problem behind simply calling them “civil unions” or what have you. If it is a matter of upholding the sanctity of “marriage”, which I am for, then why not just call it something else and have the same legalities?
Derek KGB, Atlanta, GA, USA
If it’s exactly the same as “marriage”, why not just call it “marriage”?
I have no problem with a change in the law to give homosexual partners certain legal rights, but marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman. The concept simply does not apply. Frankly it’s as absurd as someone wanting to marry their pet cat.
Alan, Blackpool, UK
Marriage to your cat isn’t legally recognised because it’s not mutually consensual. Just as you can’t have sex with someone without their consent, or with a child under any circumstances (since any consent would not be legally sanctioned), just as you can’t take someone’s property without their consent, just as you can’t take someone’s life without their consent (or even with their consent, thanks to more squeamish, nosy, religious hand-wringing), you can’t legally marry someone (or something) without their consent. Since two adults of sound mind, regardless of their sexuality, are able to provide legally recognised consent, the argument becomes moot. This is a subtle point often missed by people who are idiots.
Same sex couples living together should have the same legal rights in terms of tax, inheritance, etc. as married couples, but it is simply inaccurate to pretend that it is marriage. Marriage is about providing a stable platform for a couple to have and rear children. This requires one male and one female.
Albert, UK
Really? So are you going use a different term for the marriages of heterosexual couples who are infertile?
Yes, it is wrong by definition and is diametrically opposed to the way God wants us to live.
Johnny, Ely, UK
Another genius. This religious (and metaphysically facile) argument highlights the need for a religiously-biased legislators to butt out of secular, democratic (a tautology) affairs.
To be fair, the majority of people on the page do get it.
I don’t understand why gay marriage is such a problem. Supporters of traditional marriage argue family values and understanding. That is just what the gay community wants. 1966 blacks and whites could not marry. 1900 Catholics and Protestants could not marry. The world is changing. Where is the threat of gay people who clearly love each other wanting to commit to each other? Ridiculous.
Mary Ann, NY USA
Why shouldn’t gays and lesbians have the same rights to be miserable as the rest of us? I’ve been married and divorced three times. Let them have a go at it! Maybe they can teach us something.
Janet Breid, Columbia, Missouri, USA
I think it’s the wrong move and giving the wrong message to a supposedly Democratic land. People that know they are gay, will always know they are gay, regardless of others opinions, religious or otherwise. Who is anyone to question another persons love and commitment to another person?
Clare, London
Exactly!
From BBC News
