@DT - getting married to, or being with, another man (sorry to disappoint those who may think I'm female), is to me repulsive. I can understand that sentiment, but I think that is at least reasonably prevelant amongst the average heterosexual. But that doesn't mean that I have any right to say it is repulsive in general, or to stop those who wish to do it, doing so.

   (Waiting patiently to hear why two people getting married (who happen to be of the same sex) is repulsive...)

   @Gromit - I said this was my opinion, but it is based on observation. Homosexuality is generally not approved of by the church, and homosexuals are not allowed to marry. Therefore homosexuals are not equal with heterosexuals in the eyes of the church. Also, women are not allowed to perform certain roles in the church, and therefore males and females are not equal either. Therefore not everyone is EQUAL under God. Please explain how this is incorrect?

This comment applies to any religion because from an outsider's point of view, I see all religions having a defined role of what a man and a woman are and what they do, to varying degrees, and a definition (vague or clear) of "normal" with any variance from that norm seemingly castigated and being told it is wrong with guidance often offered back to "the right path". People should find their own faith and their own oneness with their god(s) and let the higher power determine whether they are living the right path or not, not a bunch of self-righteous people who claim to know what is best, and, oh look, it's exactly they way they want to live their life! Quelle surprise.

Just because YOU find the idea of gay marriage quite replusive is irrelevant. You are not part of anyone else's marriage, homosexual or otherwise, and you do not have to attend the ceremony. You cannot stop people doing what they want to do if it doesn't impact on your life, and this doesn't. You have a right to a private life, and so do they. If you have a right to marry who you want, so should they. To prevent this is against equality, and that is fundamentally illegal.

   Gromit - why do you observe the idea of equal marriage as repulsive? (just interested, not judging!)

As for Maggie's quote - surely this could be taken both ways (equal marriage being the idea and it being 'repulsive' being people's feelings).

   "As welcoming as the church try to be, they do not treat everyone equally because for some reason they do not believe everyone is equal under God"

Sorry Mavdo, this is poor form, definitely not up to the usual quality of your observations.

Back to JR - Excellent vote, couldn't agree more, I find the whole idea repulsive. Quite right on the church too. They cannot be forced to compromise on a fundamental belief.

As one great leader said "one of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas"

   @ mavdo thank you for your response.

I'm not sure that I am wrong, but I do agree with your answer which should be directed at the faith(s) you speak of.

   @Jeppo - where you go wrong is believing that religion is a public service. It isn't like public transport where everyone has a right to use it equally. As welcoming as the church try to be, they do not treat everyone equally because for some reason they do not believe everyone is equal under God (in my opinion). Can you tell I'm also not religious. :)

   @ Damiano, thank you for your reply.

This couple were taken to court because of their religious beliefs, like some within the church they felt this relationship was wrong not because they were black or other. I find this quite odd that this has happened to the couple yet the organisation to whom they are being loyal to have an opt-out, basically don't practise what we preach. They both provide a public service so introducing such an opt-out is discriminatory in itself.

   @DT - exactly. I would add that the CoE opt-out seems to be legally binding and would require a change in legislation to remove, whereas other religions have the same so that they aren't discriminated against in comparison to CoE.

Another manifestation of this is that if you get married in a CoE church, you only need the church to do everything - legal and religious. In any other religious building, including the Catholic church, you need also a registrar from the council to be present, to perform the legal side.

   @DT - that's not quite what I meant. Lobbies like the gun lobby are *supposed* to be a bulk representation of the people they purport to represent. They do not necessarily wield direct power, but there are significant supporters of their cause directly elected within government, and the lobbies will put their point across to them to gain support. Therefore, if a law is brought in that affects gun owners, an organisation that represents gun owners' views will try to influence that decision by putting it's point of view directly to those who will make the decision. Individuals do not have that level of influence in any way.

Lobbies are good in one way because they should reach a majority opinion after considered internal debate within a significant group of people. That is democracy. They are bad in others because, as in any organisation, certain people with big mouths tend to wield an unreasonable level of influence over some other people, and this is seen as the views of the majority when it isn't. These individuals often have a lot of money, but the two are not necessarily directly connected.

I know a few Americans and I'm astonished by those that had the view that to prevent all these shootings, everyone needs to be armed with concealed weapons! Europeans do not have this view and so see the issue as being so simple. Democracy of a people who really do want guns will be that they have guns. I'll just choose not to visit the US thanks.

   Hello Jeppo.

I think the distinction is purely that religious organisations have an opt-out. So if you own a B&B and refuse to let someone stay with you because they are gay, black, or for any other unjustifiable discriminatory reason, you are breaking the law.

Whereas with gay marriage, homosexuals have the right to be married - but religions have the choice to opt-out. So if you were Catholic, for example, and wanted to marry; you could get your marriage licence, marry a man or woman, be legally married - but the Catholic church may tell you 'we will not perform a marriage ceremony for you in the eyes of God, because we believe our God disagrees with your lifestyle'.

There are two parts to marriage; the legal side, and the (optional) religious ceremony.

   Hi Mavdo.

Have to agree wholeheartedly with:

"If they (established religions) are trying to influence the way that religious marriages are conducted, they absolutely should have a say."

"moving to an impartial and secular society is something that I massively approve of"

"you can't force other religions to do it and exempt CoE"

"swearing on the bible in court etc - why do we do this?"

Disagree with:

-'Should the US gun lobby be allowed to influence gun law? Well yes. Should they be allowed to influence oil exploration? No.' - In any democracy, the will of the people has to be considered. If individuals are only able to democratically influence the industry in which they work, that's not proper democracy - and if anything, sends the system down a road of self interest. If the will of 1,000 people who own gun companies and are billionaires are able to influence government and legislation to the detriment of the other 500,000,000 people in that country, or are able to exert an influence greater than that of any other citizen, then it is not a fair representation of democracy. Real democracy is when my voice is worth exactly the same as yours; not 'the same as yours, unless you're rich or own a media outlet that could bad-mouth politicians'.

   HELP ME WITH THIS POINT OF LAW

Churches provide a service to the community but the law would not force them to conduct gay marriages. yet with the same belief Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the owners of the Chymorvah hotel in Cornwall, were taken to court by a homosexual couple for refusing them board. Judge Andrew Rutherford ruled in January last year that the Bulls had breached equality legislation and ordered them to pay the couple a total of £3,600 damages. I'm CONFUSED !

   @alex_f - excellent point - the CoE are embedded in politics. Getting rid of that and moving to an impartial and secular society is something that I massively approve of. Those in power tend to be highly bigotted and inflexible in my opinion. But this separation is a separate issue. They DO have power, so they DO have an influence.

Also CoE holds a special position over other religions and therefore cannot be affected by certain legislation. Cameron himself said that it would not be possible, legally, to force CoE churches to conduct gay marriages. This dates back to Henry VIII I suspect. You can't force other religions to do it and exempt CoE. To change that special exemption, for I see no justification for it, is a huge undertaking, and not something that would be quick, easy or cheap, simply because it is so entangled in our legal and political systems (eg swearing on the bible in court etc - why do we do this???).

   @DT - yes, as per the The Suicide Act 1961. It is not a crime.

You draw an interesting comparison with the US a very good one. Should the US gun lobby be allowed to influence gun law? Well yes. Should they be allowed to influence oil exploration? No.

Marriage was originally tied to religion. Non-religious marriages are relatively recent. If religions are trying to influence non-religious marriages through this legislation, they should not have a say. If they are trying to influence the way that religious marriages are conducted, they absolutely should have a say. If the majority of people think they are wrong, the views will change. But it takes time.

The US gun lobby will have to pull in their heads because their arguments seem to be almost wholey based on flawed logic, but it won't happen overnight because they hold so much weight and power where it matters. That's democracy.

I wasn't saying that we allowed the religious to do A so they should be allowed to do B. I was giving an example of where religous freedom allows them to do something that others can't. In the case of marriage, you would be forcing them to do something they don't want to do in their own religious building. I think that is a step too far. You could take away a license to conduct marriages if a non-religious venue didn't comply. I believe you could technically do it with mosques, temples and catholic churches, but unfortunately you can't do that with the church of England, so we should apply the same to all religions fairly.

If religions accept, but don't approve of, gay relationships, it is a step too far to ask them to also bless those relationships. At the moment anyway. We need to work on the acceptance, and one step is legalising gay marriage.

In the end, I think they should conduct ceremonies, but let's get them to accept it first.