Most people in Britain want to keep the current definition of marriage unchanged, according to a new survey.
The survey showed that seven out of ten people agree that marriage should remain a “life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman”.
It also revealed that 84 per cent of respondents agreed that “children have the best chance in life if raised by their own mother and father in a stable, committed relationship”.
The ComRes poll was commissioned by Catholic Voices.
18 Comments
Biased loaded questions designed to get the answer Catholic Voice was looking for. Read the critiques of the poll all over UK websites.
"If history is anything to go by, it is not uncommon that, when it comes to persecuted or discriminated minorities, against whom the beast of majoritarianism roars its head, it is often only after the establishment of civil law that civility follows. "
It only makes common sense that the people of Britian support marriage as is. They understand the importance of it and so no need to change it.
Too bad they do not get to vote on it like we do here in the United States.
We don't "get" to vote on it in the U.S.! We have liberal judges who legislate from the bench and clearly violate the seperation of powers. Some even get a pat on the back or an award for breaking Constitutional law...LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!
"Biased loaded questions designed to get the answer Catholic Voice was looking for."
Pot;Kettle
We don't get to vote in the U.S.. Our judges legislate from the bench, clearly violating our Constitution, and they get the profile in courage award, as a reward! I HOPE THIS GETS POSTED THIS TIME
Did the poll ask if the people polled if they supported extending the marriage to same-sex couples? If not, how would those polled know they were casting their vote against same-sex marriage?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/catholic-voices-gay-marriage-poll_b_1333968.html. Just something to ponder.
Headline from HuffPo:
"Anti-Gay Catholic Group Manipulates Poll in Bid to Stop Equality"
No bias there, heh.
100 of 100 marriage corruption supporters agree; changing the meaning of the word marriage will have no effect whatsoever on society.
Conversely; 100 of 100 illegal immigrants agree that declaring amnesty on illegal immigration will, like wise, have no effect whatsoever on society.
Kind of makes me wonder that if, in fact, said changes would have no effect whatsoever on society then why bother; shouldn't we focus our energies on those thing that will improve our society?
For instance:
By enforcing our immigration laws we could free up $500 billion annually to shore up the worlds crumbeling mental health infrastucture...
@Bryce
Extending marriage rights is not the same as redefining marriage. I think if you ask around, a resounding majority will say they believe same-sex couples should receive the same rights as married couples. This is what I support. However, my support for "gay rights" as one would call it, stops there. Marriage is between a man and a woman and should stay that way.
@Zack -
There is no such thing as "couples' rights" in this country. We have individual rights, and as it stands now, each one of us has the same opportunity to get married as everyone else. Some people choose to get married, some people don't for any number of reasons. E.g., Some choose not to get married because they want their freedom; other choose not to because they prefer to have relationships with people of the same sex. All's fair; all's equal. Don't get sucked into the faux equality argument; it's a farce couched in emotion and hyperbole.
@Zack -
Ask yourself what benefits married male-female couples contribute to society (Here's a hint: they reproduce, the take responsibility for their offspring, the keep single moms and illegitimate children off the welfare dole, and keep illegitimate children out of orphanages). Now, ask yourself what same-sex couples contribute to society (here's a hint: nothing).
If the government is going to encourage certain behaviors through benefits, it should get something positive in exchange, not just try to make a certain minority people happy do'ntcha think?
Zack,I think it very harmful to give same-sex couples the same rights as married couples.There needs to be a public policy of preference toward the type of relationship critical to the public interest.To be in a same-sex couple is to need to get out of it,and a public policy that does not encourage the breakup of same-sex couples is the same as one that says alcoholics should keep getting drunk.
@ Bryce, My stands is that gay couples are a not issue and are not equal to heterosexual relationships. Nor should gay relationships be recognized in the public square. gay/lesbian relationships have no benefit to society so no need to sugar coat the reality... Those other relationships are behavioral issues where the morality of the matter remains in debate. I don't hate the person who engage in these relationships because I strong feel these people need serious mental help. That is where the public benefit comes in to play. For public protection, this is where the money should be invested and not in promoting unhealthy lifestyles or habits.
@ Bryce, My stands is that gay couples are a none issue and are not equal to heterosexual relationships. Nor should gay relationships be recognized in the public square. gay/lesbian relationships have no benefit to society so no need to sugar coat the reality... Those other relationships are behavioral issues where the morality of the matter remains in debate. I don't hate the person who engage in these relationships because I strongly feel these people need serious mental help. That is where the public benefit comes in to play. For public protection, this is where the money should be invested and not in promoting unhealthy lifestyles or habits.
Zack - Do you support extending marriage rights to gay couples?
And Zack, how would those rights be extended if not through marriage? Through civil unions? Many a NOM supporters are against civil unions because they apparently lead to same sex marriage. So... what's left?
Unfortunately Bryce, the accommodations available to couples via civil unions were not what the gay lobby truly was after. If they were after a stepping stone, they should have been up front about it before trying to tell everyone otherwise.