Quote:
Originally Posted by gynn
One of the nastiest and most hateful aspects of modern society is institutionalised homophobia.
What gives any individual the right to say "Because of my narrow minded and bigoted opinions, you should not be able to live a fulfilled and happy life with your chosen partner'?
Equality is the aim of any civilised society, so if marriage is ok for one couple, its ok for ANY couple.
|
I am not homophobic, but I can't see why marriage is necessary(especially seeing as it won't be in church)....and why the terms of referenece to married couples should be changed to accommodate homosexuals. I do not wish to be reffered to as 'a party to/in marriage'.........this may seem like a small thing, but to many people(like myself) it is important.
Those who are in a same sex relationship, and have gone through a civil ceremony have the weight of the law on their side already.....they have equality with heterosexual couples.......I don't understand what is to be achieved by this change (which, by the way will cost businesses and governments loads of money - all forms which refer to husband and wife will have to be changed, websites etc).
I really do not care about someones sexual orientation. I would have thought that the government have far more weighty issues to deal with, which should take priority over this.
Lynn Featherstone, it seems has already made her decisions...despite the fact there is supposed to consultation taking place....now in my book, consultation means that there is an element of listening to both sides of an argument and coming to some sort of compromise.........it is worrying that this can be done in such a manner....it leads me to think that there are other issues which could also be dealt with in a similar way...and if t hat doesn't worry you - then it should.
These are elected representatives who are supposed to listen to those who put them in power.