Come on Redwood - justify yourself. I see no reason to vote against it apart from the age old "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" or "marriage is for the church which do not approve of homosexuality because it says so in the bible".

For the former, I say simpley 'why'? Why should marriage bet ONLY for a man and a woman. Why should they get something special? That is not equality. There is nothing special about a union between two people of the opposite sex. It is not stronger or weaker than that between two of the same sex.

For the latter above, that is just not true as marriage is no longer a solely religious matter - two people getting married at a registry office, or other appointed venue, in a non-religious ceremony, are still married. Therefore religion no longer plays a part in this debate - if marriage is allowed outside the church between a man and a woman, the church cannot decide whether it should be allowed outside the church between two men or two women, although I don't see why they should be forced to conduct ceremonies in a religious venue at the current time - that is a separate debate. If they are allowed to influence this debate, then any marriage outside of church should be stopped completely and it should be termed a "civil partnership" instead, with the same privileges as marriage.

I am not homosexual, but I do not understand why so many people are against those who are marrying. They are allowed to adopt under equalily laws, whether you agree with that or not (it's a similar debate that I again don't understand because there are some disgraceful heterosexual parents that are allowed to have kids, being homosexual doesn't make you a bad parent or role model), so why can they not marry?

Redwood - you do not represent my views or the majority of my friends. Justify yourself and have a debate on the matter.

   An entirely sensible vote by John. Look at almost any dictionary and it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Parliament should not be rewriting the dictionary.

What next green will be defined as red so that colour blind people have equality?

   Good old Redwood, doing nothing of national consequence once again. :)

   I'd like to understand why those who voted against, or abstained, came to that conclusion. I've heard a lot about this debate, and am yet to hear of a single reason why the bill should not be passed.

   'Home Secretary Theresa May voted for sane-sex marriage'

I'd say there is a little bit of insanity required in order to get married, no?