In the real world marriage, including same sex marriage is a flawed and imperfect institution because of patriarchal and cult influences. But in the real world, the right-now world, it's wrong to oppose the fight to protect and expand same sex marriage simply because it's a very imperfect institution. Marriage evolved as a way to protect men’s private ownership and insure the labor of women and children.

The leftist view of marriage is that the state should have minimal interest in partnering except for defending the rights of women and the welfare of children. And that religious cults should be banned from any sort of interference in partnering; it’s up to partners to call the shots and the only other interested party is the state which has an interest in protecting women and children. Everyone, partnered or not, gay or straight, should have the same rights, tax privileges and etc.

Partnering arrangements should be easy to get in and out of. While people should be held strictly accountable for the welfare of children in their care, society has to accept ultimate responsibly for their welfare. Part of that is mandatory training in parenting skills. Another is to encourage everyone to parent all children. Society should insure that all children have decent housing, good medical care and good nutrition.

Sooner or later these kinds of revolutionary social goals will be the norm. In the meantime if GLBT folks want to get married most of us will continue to encourage and fight for them just as we fight for all the parts of our agenda and all the segments of our communities.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Monkeychops, you're dead wrong. Civil marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious marriage and religion never has and never will OWN marriage. The two are totally different models. The secular state issues marriage licences, NOT religious cults. If people want a religious marriage, let the cults issue them instead but don't trample down on my right to have a civil marriage by choice. In France, religious cults only solemnise marriages, the civil ceremony is the binding one and solemnisation of the marriage in a religious edifice isn't mandatory. The rest of the civilised world should follow suit. Civil Partnerships, PACS, Domestic Partnerships and all other non-marriage unions will NEVER be the universal standard and they have no portability. Seven countries and several states in America have abolished them, proof enough they're not equal.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

And after the crimes and the shite they've promoted (and are still promoting!) against us, why would anyone want anything to do with them?

If someone really is a gay Christian, then fair enough give special rights for ministers (who are willing) to bless the civil ceremonies or something…..but leave the actual churches and institutions out of it; they don't want us, and as far as I'm concerned they can go and swivel aswell!

(Report comment to the moderator)

An American chap mentioned on here a while back a really good concept. Basically, for legal purposes, EVERYONE who entered into a partnership, be it a church marriage, Registry office marriage or civil partnership would be declared in a "legal partnership" ceremony. That would then be considered a binding legal marriage. If others wish to do it in a church or bungee off a bridge, that is entirely up to them, but it has no legal standing.

If many are not willing for homosexuals to be married, turn the argument on its head and ensure that everyone has to comply with a legal ceremony. The bottom line is that way, everyone gets the same deal, and all the religious nuts cannot complain we are "stealing" their idea.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

People from different religions could marry for secular purposes.

It's just that (as in every secular ceremony) the Church and religion wheedled themselves in, as it gives thempower

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

2) Does it say anywhere if the respondents to the survey were all straight? The results might include gay people too- although if so, that 4% figure is very low!

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

I say we should take back the institution they have hijacked. "

100% agree

"Yup yup, I'm trying to pronounce partnership in 2 sillables, all I get is par'n'ship."

thats why both words "unions" and "partnerships" aren't acceptable….they're both clumsy aint they….marriage is much better and fitting for a civil institution…after all the institution was man made originally not a religious thing

(Report comment to the moderator)

I think this constant tiptoeing around religious people so that they don't get offended is ludicrous when they have no qualms offending the gay community, calling us all sorts of names.

I say we should take back the institution they have hijacked.

Yup yup, I'm trying to pronounce partnership in 2 sillables, all I get is par'n'ship.

(Report comment to the moderator)

If the state is to regulate people's unions, there is no argument for keeping straights and gays in different boxes.

I can't wait for this Civil Partnership non-sense to be out of the way and for the institution of marriage to be gender-neutral in this country.

(Report comment to the moderator)

if they want to have their own word for marriage let them find a new word for it….they hijacked a term and now claim its theirs…well it isn't and people should know that…there should be more in the media about the history and origins of civil marriages and their previous alternative names and formats to educate people about that fact

religious people cannot be allowed to lie about their ownership of an institution in such a way and it should be the medias duty to scrutinise those lies

marriage is our term…NOT the other way round

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)