Dumb Jon ...

.. yet again tells it like it is. Mr Cuthbertson is right behind him, if that's le mot juste.

Thoughtful people can disagree on the rights and wrongs of granting civil partnership rights to homosexual couples, but surely everyone can agree that same sex couples living together should be given the same rights whether or not they have sex?

Apparently not. Militant homosexual groups have denounced the whole idea as "deeply distressing". When the amendment was attached to the bill, the government refused to pass it.

Not so long ago it was all about love, about acknowledging a caring relationship between people. Only sad straights were hung up on who put what where. Small minded bigots.

But now apparently who puts what where is a bit more important. Can't just let any old couple join the party.

It seems a little unfair that two elderly sisters who have shared a house for years cannot be treated in law the same way as the two elderly teppich-fressers next door.

And what of Canon Elton John, who lives with his significant other, but has been celibate for many years ? Will Gordon Brown force him to do a spot of uphill gardening before he can pass on the house free of inheritance tax ? I say, Gordon, that's a bit stiff.

NOTE - some of the comments on the blogs above seem a trifle hysterical, implying the usual 'bigoted homophobia' mullarkey. I'd like to make it plain that if I describe an act as 'an unspeakable perversion suited only to the lowest gutter' that this is in no sense a perjorative description, and only a very narrow-minded person could take it as such. In my experience unspeakable perversions can often be tremendous fun.