Most people still oppose gay marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples, a Government report revealed yesterday.
More than half believe homosexual marriages should not be allowed and two thirds think the adoption of children by same-sex couples should not have become legal nine years ago.
The findings from the Office for National Statistics suggest the Coalition’s plans to upgrade civil partnership laws to let gay couples describe themselves as married may prove unpopular.
15 Comments
We are all born heterosexual, anatomically equipped for reproduction. There are no homosexuals, just heterosexuals who have a mental issue that makes them favor same-sex sodomy over their natural condition. Yes, I know, other species also have this mental issue, but that doesn't make it normal.
"may prove unpopular"?
Reality bats last, and the social engineers are going to have a shocking confrontation with it, once it becomes clear to the parents in the UK that the forcible homosexualist indoctrination of their children is what these "laws" intend.
Of course the woeful, morally disoriented post-Christian governing elites in the UK have already watched their cities burn, so we ought not be surprised that they should elect to double down on stupid.
Since our legal system requires that all citizens be treated equally, I believe we are moving in the right direction in giving equal marriage rights to both straight and gay couples.
Roberto: Since our legal system requires that words have meanings, I believe we are moving in the right directions in differentiating between marriage, and all the forms of human relationships which are not marriages.
Once this necessary distinction is retained, it follows that we already have full marriage equality.
All are equally free to marry, Roberto.
Even you!
Provided of course you can find an eligible spouse who will have you.
Roberto,laws do not and should not require that right and wrong behavior be treated equally,and the wrongness of same-sex sexual activity is not mitigated AT ALL by the perpetrators citing their inclination for it regardless of its cause.PERSONS of any sexual orientation HAVE equal rights in regard to marriage,whose entire use and purpose is the exclusion of same-sex couples.
Deb: Thanks! It is wonderful to be able to assist civilization in overcoming this present, awful threat in the form of the marriage corruption movement.
But we Christians would do it anyway, even without such kind encouragements as yours
" I believe we are moving in the right direction in giving equal marriage rights to both straight and gay couples."
Despite adamant denial and willful blindness to the contrary, marriage between a man and a woman already turns a blind eye to sexual orientation. Thus, those who call themselves homosexual already enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals.
From Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
"Homosexuality is NOT a civil right."
Homosexuality is much more complex than an ignorant view of it from an offspring of a brilliant man who understood what homosexuality is. We are not a sexual behavior, nor are you. we are humans that happen to be attracted to our same gender, and NOT attracted to the opposite gender. I'm talking about the desire to find a soul mate, companionship, love, etc... STOP talking about us like we are a deviant choice of "lifestyle" trying to recruit your kids, until you fully understand all the complexities of human nature.
Posting this article is a glaring example of how NOM is NOT about "protecting marriage", but simply ANTI-GAY. Not that there's anything wrong with being proud of that, it just makes you look a little hateful.
Markus,if you don't understand that an attraction being toward the same sex makes it unconscionable to gratify it,and the cause of that attraction can not absolve you of the responsibility never to do so,you do NOT "understand what homosexuality is",but only the rationalizations offered for indulging it in the face of the indefensibility of doing so.
Mike Brooks: I would offer you, personally, the concept that the categories homosexual and bi-sexual and heterosexual, are constructs. On what scientific basis do we know who is what? When did the idea of making these words from adjectives to nouns start? Do we simply ask for a "raise of hands" to know who is what? Would that be scientific? Instead, let's abandon those terms and take the perspective that these terms refer to behavior, not nature. We are all prone to certain behaviors if our environment leads us to believe we are one of the other. But those categories are biased constructs - circular reasoning. In reality, based on private behavior, we cannot know anything applicable to civil legislation (because it is private info), or the info cannot be validated. I take the position that we can all tend to homosexual behavior if we are traumatized with respect to the opposite sex. It is a simpler hypothesis than the vague constructs the advocates of homosexual behavior propose. If it is a behavior, and it is a choice, there's hope to be able to change that behavior. That's better than being trapped into that "nature".
Obviously, the British government doesn't care what its subjects believe. They've succeeded in turning their subjects into sheeple. They are the nanny that will take care of their subjects from cradle to grave. They will continue their destructive social agenda as they please. Until, of course, the sheeple stand up and say enough is enough.
Our founders were correct. Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
I think when Markus is rationally able to separate the issue of his sexual orientation from the actual rationale for the eligibility requirements for marriage, and internalizes the fact that his sexual orientation is not a factor, he'll feel a lot less on the defensive. Fact is, opposite-sexed close kin can't get a marriage license either, groups can't get a marriage license, and neither can same-sexed parents/kids, or SS siblings. And the reasons for that have nothing to do with homophobia. Frankly, making it a matter of sexual orientation is short-sighted at best.
Barb..isn't this really a case of the opposite?...the homosexual lobby is demanding a frivolous liberty that damages everyone's security.