Northern Ireland’s first civil partnership ceremony
Thirty protesters turned up outside the City Hall to protest Northern Ireland’s first civil partnership ceremony at the City Hall this morning (sound file from Angelique Christafis). For once, Northern Ireland is somewhat ahead of the curve, since most ceremonies in England and Wales won’t take place until Wednesday.
Slugger photos here, from Charlotte!!The Civil Partnership Act 2004 gives gay and lesbian partners the legal means to be recognised should anything happen to the other, in terms of property and financial rights. It is becoming increasingly common across the world. According to Wikipedia the difference with hetrosexual marriage is slight:
* A civil partnership becomes legal on the signing of a register, rather than on the speaking of certain words as with marriage.
* It will not be possible to dissolve a civil partnership on the grounds of non-consummation or adultery, although both non-consummation and adultery can be grounds for dissolution of the partnership as they fall under the provision for unreasonable behavior.
* The legal definition of a traditional marriage is “life long” whereas the wording of civil partnerships is “long term” and “intended to be permanent”.
There are about 700 ceremonies due to take place throughout the UK, although the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar in the west of Scotland has banned any such ceremonies taking place, which has led to an interesting stand off.
There’s no sign yet of such provisions coming into force in the Republic. The Taoiseach is favour, as is the Minister of Justice. But as it stands, anything that even indirectly challenged the status of marriage would require a constitutional amendment.
It’s been mooted that a compromise deal that would allow two individuals in any relationship (eg elderly mother and carer daughter) to tie their financial and property affairs together, ie that could not be construed as an alternative to marriage, could be put through without such an amendment.
Adds: a reasoned Anglican argument against CPs.
Tags: civil partnership, gayrights, Belfast
The Church’s objection to homo sexuality is in the act.
There is nothing wrong with close friendships between men and men and women and women but I am sorry it isn’t natural to extend that to the sexual act. Leaving religion out of it – even from a pure Darwinian approach what purpose does it serve ?
In the absence of their being a gay gene it is at best some kind of psychological disorder or at worst just sexual experimentation.
I know for most of the gay community they dont feel that way and that is why I support these civil partnerships.
It should be equal rights for all and each to their own.
However I object to being told how to think about these issues and although I would teach my children tolerance to all, no matter what religion, race or orientation I wont be telling them that Homo Sexuality should be considered as an equal way to order society.
The Church is entitled to its own moral code but should keep it to matters impinging directly on themselves when it comes to protest.
I would be concerned that where this would lead to though are gay christians bringing pressure to bear on the church’s for similar treatment and I also object to equal adoption status for gay couples as well.
There are obviously some Christians who approach this subject from a biblical position that, nevertheless, is bigoted and unloving in advocacy. But there are plenty of supporters of gay marriage who are just as bigoted. The points made by Harry Flashman are important. If you believe that there should be civic partnerships between two people, why not between three or more? Yes, it sounds a bit kinky but people like TAFKABO should answer it.
The Church’s objection to homo sexuality is in the act.
Which Church? Some don’t object at all. Others object to the intention or even the orientation even without the act.
There is nothing wrong with close friendships between men and men and women and women but I am sorry it isn’t natural to extend that to the sexual act.
So, tell me John, where do I cross the line from right to wrong in your view? Holding hands? Is that OK? What about kissing? With the tongue? Or is the line crossed somewhere a bit more intimate?
The ‘not natural’ argument is clearly invalid. It is not ‘natural’ to climb into a fossil-fuel powered metal box and travel at 70 mph along an ‘unnatural’ motorway. But does that make it wrong?
The Darwinian argument is not just invalid but dangerous. Just because something does not serve a purpose in evolutionary terms, does that make it ‘wrong’? How about people with genetic disorders, are they ‘wrong’?
And the ‘biblical’ argument is not even worthy of comment.
Shouldn’t laws be made with the optimum balance between the individual freedom and the ‘common good’? With this in mind I am in favour of the civil partnerships, as it clearly enhances individual freedom without any impact on the common good.
First off, congrats to Shannon and Grainne. Met them last year, and they’re sound people. But who’da thunk an Ahoghillian would be first to get partnered off!
Willowfield
I don’t think this is a case of NI “leading the way”. The legislation was brought in by Direct Rule, whether people here agree with it or not.
It’s perhaps ironic that the only way the DUP could have “saved Ulster from sodomy” was through a local Assembly!
*snigger*
If you believe that there should be civic partnerships between two people, why not between three or more? Yes, it sounds a bit kinky but people like TAFKABO should answer it.
Let me set you straight (it’s impossible not to make these double entendres) on a few points.
you seem to saying that I have a responsibility to justify my opinions to you and everyone else.
Sorry to burst yer bubble of delusion, but I don’t.
You don’t run the planet, not everyone thinks like you,and more imortantly, you don’t have the right to dictate to me or others how we live our lives.
I already indicated that I think the civic parntership scheme should be extended to include other groups, including siblings and heterosexual couples.
As it happens, I live in France where me and my partner are planning to take adavanatge of the civic partnership scheme that runs here.We don’t want to get married, but we do want to protect ourselves and make sure we have all the legal advantages of being married.
The spurious examples of other relationships that don’t conform to the so called societal norm are irrelevant.
When “Incest pride”, or “polygamy pride” or “Man/dog love” pride start lobbying, we can discuss whether or not it is right, until then, let’s stick with what is happening now.
The world is changing, and the libertarians are setting the agenda.
Now you can come and join the rest of us as we try to make a happier more just society, or you can slink off to your churches of whatever flavour, and grumble about sodomy and sin.
What you cannot do is stop the rest of us from being free to live our lives as we please.
Get used to it.
Why do we need laws for this increasingly irrelevant state in the first place? As long as it’s not abusive, why not just let anything go? I think we all need a reality check on this one… monogamy is not natural so why have a law making it beneficial, gay, straight or otherwise? I’m not normally for the anarchist point of view but this seems logical to me.
i’m with you TAFKABO.
lock these antisocial troublemakers up with their medieval do as I say not as I do attitudes.
me think s some of them just need a good stiff……
talking to, to sort them out.
It is not for the gay community to resolve any of those issues.
Why are so many on this thread obsessed with sex? Gay couples who marry seek companionship, friendship, security and all of the other things that heterosexual couples seek from marriage, if it was just about sex who would bother?
While I agree with the ‘free to live as we please’ sentiment expressed by TAFKABO, unfortunately there is always going to be the need for laws, to protect that freedom while protecting the common good. I am genuinely interested to hear peoples views on the legalisation of incest / polygamy, as I think it is relevant to the current situation. Is it right that they are illegal, if such acts do not impinge on the common good / individual freedom?
Note: I am not trying to be provocative, and not suggesting that I wish to partake in incest / polygamy!
Polygamy is legal in certain parts of America is it not (or at least decriminalised) eg Salt Lake City where there are a lot of Mormons?
Polygamy is legal in many islamic and tribal regions of the world. Consensual incest is legal in some parts of the world. But should these also be legal here? What is the difference between legalising these, and legalising homosexuality (as in the 1980s)?
For me the question is not why we should legalise them rather why we ought to criminalise consenting adults that practice them?
And again, where is the incest community calling for such practices to be made legal?
Where are the polygamy pressure groups?
Homosexuality has been made legal because those who are homosexual have lobbied succesfuly to be allowed to live their lives according to them.
I get the impression that there is such little rational argument as to why homosexuals chould be banned from being and living like homosexuals that people are forced to make these unrelated comparisons.
Can anyone else hear the sounds of a million barrels being scraped?
Next you’ll be saying all peadophiles are gay men.
Why the need to make such a natural thing such as love between two people something sinister and seedy?
I notice no-one has debated my comments. You ask why there is an objection to Gays, I told you why yet all we get is insults from queers and sanctimonious liberals. No rational debate. Please tell me my facts are wrong if you feel they are.
The fact of the matter is that Gays will not be accepted and thats what this ‘marriage’ sham is all about. Gays want to make the unacceptable acceptable. I and others are entitled to have an opinion about this.
This opinion is on the homosexual lifestyle NOT the individual. How am I somehow ‘better’ than a gay person? I’m not. We all have flaws. The problem is when we don’t accept something as a flaw which obviously is.
Gays need time and effort to help them change their destructive ways. Make no mistake – stealing is the same as a homosexual act in the eyes of God. God does not differentiate with sin. If you don’t believe in God then you won’t believe what I just said on the religious side of things. However the facts which I highlighted in my earlier posts speak for themselves and are a-religious.
Christians take their morals from what the bible teaches. this teaches that homosexual acts are wrong. homosexual thoughts and desires should be resisted and not acted on. look up the verses and the subject yourself before you dismiss it.
the bible is the law for man to live by, it doesnt ever change. it doesnt conform to what current society thinks. this is what i believe.
people who believe this have a right to protest and put their point of view forward. its interesting to see the hatred poured out on this thread at the protesters. do you think they have no right to say what they believe in? are they somehow bad for speaking out?
most people here do not seem to believe in God at all. and so dont accept the law as stated in the bible. what do you base your morality on? is it just what you think current society thinks? if so, then you have no base for your morality as society is constantly changing. how can you judge whats right and wrong? if society passed laws to make murdering your sister legal, or marrying your pet legal, presumably you would go along with this as ok? if not why would you be against this if current society thinks its ok?
I don’t think i have ever suggested that people don’t have the right to have their opinions.
Neither am I arguing that the bible does not forbid homosexuality.
I’m just saying that this middle eastern fairy tale called the bible has nothing to do with me, so why should I listen to arguments based upon it?
Stop gurning and trying to make the persecuters the victims in this scenario.
To borrow a phrase
I don’t hate christians, I just hate christianity.
;-p
The world is changing, and the libertarians are setting the agenda.
Sadly, only in the bedroom. Would that they were elsewhere.
Polygamy is legal in certain parts of America is it not
No, absolutely not. The bulk of Mormons abandoned polygamy in the 1890s after the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act dissolved the LDS Church and deprived Mormons of their much of their property and many of their political rights, probably unconstitutionally. The Mormons had a weird relationship with the US Government then, they regarded the USA as the promised land and the American Constitution as virtually a holy text, but were often persecuted by the government. Either way, they ditched the polygamy to get on with the rest of things.
Some wacko splinters still keep up with it, but it sure as hell isn’t legal.
Some of the countries where the Anglican hierarchy gets most steamed up about homosexuality have more-or-less tolerated polygamy within the church as a ‘least worst option’.
what do you base your morality on?
Scripture, tradition and reason.
Please tell me my facts are wrong if you feel they are.
You don’t have facts, just a series of unsubstantiated assertions.
(Matthew 7:3)
You know, I’m always amazed at just how weak heterosexuality must be for those who are terrified of “gayness.”
The rhetoric of the argument boils down to “To even see this sort of behaviour sends grannies/ mothers/ children/ fathers/ brothers sexually awry. Everybody will want to do it, and it’s all downhill from there.”
The sodomy some of these people imagine must be really, really fantastically good if they believe heterosexuality doesn’t stand a chance when faced with it.
TAFKABO,
Anyone who comes onto Slugger and advances an opinion is entitled to be examined upon its logic. I don’t mind it being done to myself. That’s what debate is all about.
You support civic partnership. Fine. But if it is right for gay people, is it not right for other relationships that do not conform to societal norms to be covered in the same way and be given the characteristics of marriage? The fact that pressure groups for them do not exist is beside the point. You don’t seem willing to follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion. You don’t seem to have thought through your position.
Watchman,
I’ve seen social conservatives with no sympathy for gay issues play this particular shell game a million times before. I didn’t fall for it then and I hope no-one falls for it now – you just want to be able to say “you see, today it’s gay marriage, tomorrow, they’ll be letting people marry octopuses!”
Come on, Young Fogey, you can do better than that. I’m just interested to see if you draw a line anywhere and if so where and why.
Why are the supporters of civic partnerships not prepared to answer this?
Watchman
I have followed through with my opinions, it’s just that you have difficulty accepting that I’m not prepared to follow through with your opinions.
Let me repeat.
Homosexuals have lobbied for civic partnerships and been succesful, I see no reason why they should not have been succesful, and I also condemn and oppose those who seek to deny homosexuals their basic rights as human beings, and basic rights under the now exisiting legislation.
I cannot and will not make an argument based upon other groups for two reasons.
One, the subtle attempt to equate homosexuality with such distasteful practices as bestiality (as was the case with someone talking about marrying an animal)is not going to wash.
Two, there are no other groups lobbying for the right to be allowed civic partnerships, so I don’t know the basis for arguing the merits or lack thereof.
Why are the supporters of civic partnerships not prepared to answer this?
Because it’s a red herring. Come on, you’re a Hefferite social conservative, Watchman, don’t let on you don’t have an agenda with this one.
YF
“Bertie, you can be part of my big bright rainbow, any time!”
What can I say to that? Just need to clarify, what would I have to be or do to play me full part in your rainbow?
Just be you, duckie!
YF
This is a new side to you! You’re scaring me now! I’ve led a very sheltered life
Is this a recruitment initiative for the Alliance Party?
Lads. try and keep the flirting to a minimum…
Remember there’s a ball to play!
SOTA
OMG
I don’t beleive that I have been pulled up for flirting with Young Fogey!!!
Just out of interest what is the acceptable minimum?
I should also point out that he started it
This has got to be my most bizarre post to date and that is saying something!
I started nothing! You asked me could my diversity cope with your dullness and I said, yes, you could be part of my big, bright, rainbow anytime.
God, it’s getting like the thought police round here!
The BBC News website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4544526.stm) identifies the protesters as belonging to the Free Presbyterian Church.
Its all very well for them to protest gay marriage while refusing to review a disturbing case of child molestation within their own organisation.
See http://fpcwatch.blogspot.com
Lot of rubbish being posted on the thread.
Let’s get this moving. Can someone give good reasons why :
(a) marriage should be legally regulated in any shape or form (let the churches make up their own minds) and
(b) what’s wrong with polygamy ? Men and women sleep around all the time, and people have had multiple partners since the dawn of time. If you think otherwise you’re seriously blinkered.
The worst people of all are those quoting the bible. I am not a Christian but the parts of the bible I remember best are the ones where Christ went and talked to/mixed with the lepers and “sinners” of day. Is there precedent in the bible to show that Christ have been part of a protest against a civil ceremony expressing love between too people ?
YF
“dullness”!!!!
I said I was literal, I never said I was dull!!!
So I was just wanted in the rainbow as contrast to the bright!
humpf! duckie indeed!
You gays are so intolerant of us literal straights. We’re people too!
“The worst people of all are those quoting the bible”
Isn’t it actually in the bible (old testament I believe) that homosexuals should be put to death? Do the bible quoters advocate the death penalty for queers? I wonder what Paisley & co thinks. Just curious
CS
I tink that the Watchman highlights an important issue, re polygamy and incest.
Is the idea of civil partnerships for gay couples more acceptable to most of us because we are comfortable with gay relationships (those of us who are). Whereas fewer of us are comfortable with incest (and I mean adult consenting). Re people campainging for recognition, it would take a lot of bravery for couples to come out as an incestuous couple.
If part of the civil partnership deal is property rights, e.g. not falling foul of inheritance tax, wouldn’t legally recognised polygamy and the equivalent for women having multiple spouses (polyanny?) mean that we could all marry all those we want to leave our money too and thus noone has to pay the tax. Could we all end up “married” to each other?
Also re multiple spouses:-
What rights or vetos would/should anyone have over who else their spouse marries.
“Men and women sleep around all the time, and people have had multiple partners since the dawn of time. If you think otherwise you’re seriously blinkered.”
Not all men and women. Some hold on to the wish to be committed to the one and only”. If a man or woman enters into a monogamous legal committment (marriage), should he or she not have the right to have that monogamy protected. Or are we to have a situation where if you marry you cannot take it for granted that it is just the two of you.
The social implications of all this are mind boggling.
Nah.
What is mindboggling are the social implications of advancing DNA technology.
All those vanilla flavoured hetereosexual couples telling everyone else how to live their lives?
I reckon in about ten to fifteen years you will be able to buy a home testing DNA kit from the chemist, much as you can buy a home pregnancy kit today.
It is thought that as much as ten percent of all children are not the children of the man who thinks he is their biological father.
I think our churches would be better spending their time preparing for the social upheaval that follows when the “truth” hits the fan.
Gay-hating Chritians base quote the laws of Leviticus, but these include many rituals that seem anachronous today, such as the sacrifices to be made in the event of mildew appearing in a house (Lev. 13: 33-57), or as a woman being declared ritually unclean 33 days after she has given birth to a boy and 66 days if she gives birth to a girl (Lev 12: 1-5). Yet how many Christian Churches ban ‘unclean’ women from church after they have given birth?
Christians reply that Christ superceded the laws of Moses; hence they are allowed to eat shellfish and pigs, repulsive acts to Jews. Yet they seem fond of quoting Levitican condemnations of homosexuality!
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but in the Gospel of John says, ‘I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…’ (16: 12-13). Surely the growing acceptance of homosexual identity is evidence of the Spirit at work, of mankind using God-given intelligence and the methods of scientific enquiry to understand God’s world?
It is true that the apostle Paul condemned homosexuality, but he was repelled by temple prostitution and homosexual activity of ‘heterosexual’ males, two aspects of Greek pagan culture. He would have been totally unaware of homosexuality as a primary identity, viewing it as the result of excessive lust. Paul sees marriage as a second-best alternative to celibacy! (1 Cor. 7:1-2) But even he allowed that marriage could be an antidote to promiscuity (1 Cor 7:2, 5. Couldn’t we argue that gay marriage would have the same effect?
Jesus did not come to bind people up in a legalistic religion full of complex laws on impurity, but emphasised love and compassion. As Paul himself says, ‘the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life’ (2 Cor. 3: 6) Jesus warned that the Pharisees ‘bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders’ and ‘shut the kingdom of heaven against men’ (Matt 23: 4-15). Those who pour hatred upon gay people are the Pharisees of today!
The church’s stand on homosexuality has caused oppression, loneliness, self-hatred and suicide for millions of people. This cannot be the will of God!
TAFKABO
I have heard a theory that the reason for male promiscuity is as a reaction to women’s promiscuity. Women apparantly are programmed to get the best seed available at their most fertile. Also men can’t be totally sure that they are the fathers of the kids that they hope that they are and so this insecurity drives them to spread themselves about and thus increase the chances of them actually being fathers. So basically it’s the fault of women.
If DNA testing become trivial and thus men can be reassured as to their off spring them presumably if this theory holds, male promiscuity should reduce.
Isn’t it actually in the bible (old testament I believe) that homosexuals should be put to death?
Yes, in Leviticus. They shall be put to death along with people who eat prawns and people who go for a shit out in the open and then don’t cover it up properly.
Yet how many Christian Churches ban ‘unclean’ women from church after they have given birth?
This didn’t end all that long ago actually (as a sort of irrelevant aside). A friend of mine can remember having to ‘church women’ (at their request, or usually their mothers’ – he thought it was a load of crap) into the late ’50s, perhaps even early ’60s.
The churhing of women service is in the CoI prayerbook.
The Churching on Women service is in the 1926 CofI Prayerbook. It’s not in BCP 2004, and it’s not used anywhere.
Maca, why do you quote random bits of the bible? If you actually took the time to read some more of the bible then you would know that post-Christ we are no longer under the law hence no-one was calling for the death penalty. It’s a pity you just want to stir things.
Metro, so it is just old testament teaching? You haven’t read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 then? Please don’t try and distort the word of God. Metro you will remember Troy Perry, of your Metropolitan Community Church, once said, “Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses.”
If you don’t believe in God or the bible please don’t quote stuff at random without first reading the book. Of course if you don’t believe in God then I don’t expect you to debate my bibical references; but please I challenge any queer to debate the following with me:
The power of the homosexual movement is built upon two key lies-or Urban Legends-to gain and keep its political and cultural victories. The first lie is that homosexuals are “born gay” and cannot change. The second is that “10% of the population” is homosexual and that we must encourage and protect this 10% from “discrimination.”
The average homosexual relationship can be characterized as highly unstable and promiscuous. Homosexuals represent hedonism in its most extreme form, with one-night stands and brief flings offering constant excitement and variety.
Even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their “monogamous” relationship.
The journal AIDS reported that in the Netherlands, where “gay marriage” has been legal since 2001, HIV and other diseases are soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that “partnered” homosexuals have “outside” lovers, and are contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates. This puts more young people at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, “gay bowel syndrome,” human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.
ndividuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.
Need I go on?
Ah but it’s just a ‘loving relationship’. I think we need a new definition of love.
1 Corinth,
You are a sad and disturbed person. Your contempt is deeply unchristian and your statistics could be read an explained in a hundred different ways.
I really despair for such people.
When you die and decay and sweet fa else happens to you, it’s unfortunate you won’t be sentient for just a short period to realise that you’ve led a sad life.
Even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their “monogamous” relationship.
Who made that ‘statistic’ up?
If someone produced statistics that showed that Antrim men were more prone to promiscuity than the “norm” would that be an argument for preventing Antrim men from marrying?
Homosexuals represent hedonism in its most extreme form, with one-night stands and brief flings offering constant excitement and variety.
You say this like it’s a bad thing.
Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.
I can see how having twice the amout of testosterone in a partnership might increase the likelyhood of violence, but even at that I’d like to ask so what?.
besides, I challenge you to produce the figures for female homosexual partnerships, and if you do.
I’m willing to bet that violence is less likely to occur than it does in heterosexual relationships.
As far as i know female to female sexual relationships have a lower instance of sexually transmitted disease than heterosexual relationships.
Are you willing to follow your own arguments to their logical conclusion and recommend more lesbian relationships to help prevent sexual disease?, if not, why not?
Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness
yeah, thanks to attitudes like your and the disgusting spectacle of homosexuals being heckled on their wedding day.Not to mention the physical attacks that happen to homosexuals, attacks inspired by homophobes weaned on your rhetoric.
If you had a shred of christian compassion you would be on these boards apologising for the hate you have engendered in our society.
Apart from those who may want to avail themselves of this new opportunity, why does this matter! It doesn’t really concern me. It certainly doesn’t threaten me or have a dynamic to make me do something I don’t want to.
It seems to be one of thise things that gives rights and opportunties without taking them away from anyone else. That ti my mind is a good thing!
1 Corinthians
“Maca, why do you quote random bits of the bible?”
Good point as it is both dangerous and intellectually lazy to take little snippets of the Bible and throw them around to build a case. This applies to both those who would ridicule the bible and those who would seek to advance what is often a very narrow agenda.
Moslem fundamentalists are also very guilty of that when selectively using the Koran to justify their actions.
I say intellectually lazy because people jump too quickly to conclusions without really exploring what the writer is getting at.
Indeed this kind of lazy thinking eventually leads to total anarchy as touched on throughout this thread – ie who is going to tell me what to do type thing – I will marry as many times as I like to whoever I like and sleep with who I like etc etc. – No moral code whatsoever. We need some absolutes in life.
The Bible needs to be read in total context with its writing on homo sexual acts very much based on its views on the sanctity of marriage and the relationships between Man & Woman and also Parent & Child being tied in with God the Father and Christ the groom – a concept mirrored throughout the New Testament where Christ has his Bride in the Church.
You can’t appreciate God’s love and mercy without also appreciating his anger and judgement – you need the complete picture.
Anyhow who are we and what kind of useless God would it be if we really knew the mind of God. We only get little snippets that we have to piece together. However that means reading and studying the entire book – not quoting one obscure line or verse.
However on homo sexual acts the Bible, both Old & New is pretty clear on it – therefore if you accept Judo Christainity as the basis of your moral code then there is no getting around that.
I dont care what anyone thinks but a society consisting of a Man & Woman in a committed relationship and raising their kids in that environment and bringing them up with a traditional religious moral code will be a lot healthier society than the kind of moral chaos being touched upon here.
Homo Sexuals can live as they please and the law should protect them as individuals and citisens. However it would be madness for that to open the door on our society to an anything goes free for all.
Sexual promsicuity has been a greater curse on this society than alchohol abuse with it leading to broken relationships and ‘abandoned’ children – not to mention the rise in STDs.
Therefore you need a code to live by – two people in a committed raltionship should be that code. The Committment is where the ceremony comes in – that can be a Church with the religious angle and respecting the code of the Church or a civic ceremony such as this week.
I just hope that the gays who enetered into that ceremony prove wrong those who say that such realtionship breakdown is much more prevailent in their situations. I dont have the stats but I thought I read somewhere it had been a disaster in Holland ?