It's all anti-semantics!
Now, I suspect there are plenty of non-homophobic people who are against it. I think the problem is that it is touted as "gay marriage" in the media and in common parlance.
There would still be opposition if it had always been called a "civil partnership" in every publication, TV article and conversation, but far less I reckon. If it was simply a form you fill in and send off with no ceremony, I bet there would be no opposition (none within the bounds of reason or sanity at least!)
I've got no problem with gays having civil partnership ceremonies. It's hardly like gay men are going to start raiding churches and bumming each other on the altar during a christening, and the sky isn't going to fall in!
This could affect tax slightly though! I'm sure we've all heard of the "Pink Pound": gay men, in the past, have generally been slightly better off than their heterosexual counterparts as they haven't had children to raise and wives to indulge. Perpetual "JINKY" couples, to use an acronym. Therefore they have paid more tax and helped the economy. But the closer we get from the traditional gay couple (ever think you would hear that?
) to the traditional "man, wife, 2.4 children" couple, the smaller the Pink Pound becomes.
Saying all that, if they could improve the quality of the le*bians in future then I would be very grateful.
