Originally Posted by annesingleton (Post 978612)

I don't agree with you or any of the arguments, I just think that if people of any persuasion feel a need to marry then they should be able to do so.
If the Church of England allow gay vicars then they should allow gay marriage.
As I've said before, I think the commitment is far more important than the marriage.
Speaking personally, I was married for nearly thirty years. I've been with my current partner for eight years (unmarried) and I'm far more committed to him than I ever was to my ex husband.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 978614)

As for marriage, it is a matter of personal choice

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 978578)

From what I can make of the results, people seem to have differing thoughts on the government's plans.

What is your thinking on the subject, that you see reflected in the poll result?

Perhaps it's me, but it seems that you haven't made your own view very clear.

With your last, quoted sentence, is your conclusion that happy families don't necessarily need a married couple at it's core?

Some people choose marriage, some don't.

So marriage really makes no real difference, when it comes to forming healthy, secure, happy relationships?

Originally Posted by Stumped (Post 978727)

nor is the begatting of children.

Originally Posted by Stumped (Post 978727)

I firmly believe in marriage between male and female, whether in church or not. Marriage is not a relationship to be entered into lightly by anyone, nor is the begatting of children. Civil partnerships are adequately suited to same sex relationships and should remain so.

Originally Posted by Stumped (Post 978564)

they deserve to be brought up in a proper stable environment - hence a mum and a dad, irrespective of whether or not they are married.

Originally Posted by Stumped (Post 978727)

Marriage is not a relationship to be entered into lightly by anyone

Originally Posted by Less (Post 978746)

Goodness me it must be Sunday, I haven't heard of a child being begat for such a long time.

Originally Posted by Stumped (Post 978727)

Civil partnerships are adequately suited to same sex relationships and should remain so.

Originally Posted by gynn (Post 978771)

It strikes me that opponents of "same sex" marriage are concerned at the diluting of the word "marriage"

But hasn't our language already diluted the word marriage? We have 'loveless' marriages, 'sham' marriages and even 'shotgun' marriages.

Same sex marriages will become accepted in time, but I'm intrigued to think of how the first "shotgun same sex" marriage will arise!

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 978767)

Don't be too harsh.

Some people like to keep to the old traditions.

They probably still label the young tots, born outside of lawful wedlock, as 'little bastards'.

It takes all sorts.

Live, and let live.

Originally Posted by Less (Post 978784)

I'm not being harsh, I just think that when people start talking like the Old Testament it should be compulsory that they have a sign saying, "Beware Of The Zealot", hanging on their garden gate.

:)

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 978806)

they'd like to see the heir to the throne of England, stoned

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 978768)

So, in your poll, you voted for the 'Stick to civil partnerships' option?