@mavdo - You're probably right - I was switching off on a rather uninspiring episode of QT last night. It was an amicable panel though which was good, without the usual points scoring (apart from Hamza who seemed to pointlessly go out of his way to do so).

   @alex_f - there is no need for hatred or threats when it comes to challenging someone's option. I support you there without question. The guy supporting gun law when debating with Piers Morgan just lost his argument by not actually defending his position and getting childish, defensive and insulting. It wins you nothing, and loses you much of any defence you'd built up.

It is, however, very difficult in my mind to see that chap's views on QT last night as anything other than promoting homophobia. I don't believe his attempt at justifying it dealt with the real issue, and placed other people's "human rights" over and above homosexuals. He needs to listen and people get understandably frustrated when he doesn't seem to do that. Resorting to insults and threats, however, resolves nothing.

   @mavdo - I agree views are there to be contested, but there is contesting, and then there is harassment and hate which Brian had alluded to yesterday. There is no need for that. I have also seen on various platforms Brian being called a homophobe and a great deal of hate for him over Section 28 and his appearance on Question Time.

I agree though with you that the 'not the biggest issue' argument is complete rubbish. Parliament debates numerous issues at any one time, and the idea that economy would magically recover or even get slightly better if they didn't 'waste' time on items like this is ridiculous.

   @Alex_f/Tonk - I agree that people have opinions and beliefs and those should be heard and respected. But views are there to be contested, and everyone should be open to the possibility they might want to change their mind after careful consideration, and that should also be respected (I used to think that, but now I think this, because... etc). Logically, if you are for equality, members of the LGBT community should be able to marry. To prevent them doing so is discrimination on grounds of sexuality.

The biggest argument against gay marriage on the program last night was "it's not really the biggest issue facing people and so we should bury our heads in the sand and hope it goes away". Not the best counter argument I've ever heard.

I really am uncomfortable with this idea that if gays are allowed to marry, that teachers will have to "promote" homosexuality to children. I don't think it is "promoting" anything, but introducing the concept at an earlier age may help remove the stigmas associated with it. The number of times that "gay" was used as an insult, or just to mean "wrong" (as in "that's gay"), when I was a kid is unbelievable, thinking back. Some of those in my class did turn out to be gay (and they used the terms too - think how confused they were at some point in their life if "I'm gay" = "I'm wrong").

I do understand Tonk's argument that his opinion is guided by his upbringing. But believing something just because that is what you've been brought up to believe is also not really sufficient justification. It just makes it hard to challenge that belief. Most never will. We should always think long and hard about our own beliefs and morals and question whether they are actually sound and logical. If you can't justify your morals then you haven't argued sufficiently. Justify why this is morally wrong, and then your argument will gain much more weight. I'd listen intently.

   Tonk - indeed, we are mostly a product of our environment which is generally shown by the division on this issue over generations. Having just watched question time where this very item was debated, it's somewhat disappointing to see perfectly reasonable opinions and thoughts being given by someone opposed to equal marriage, then met with a sea of scorn and hate. It does indeed work both ways. I believe that people of the Lgbt community should be allowed to marry, just as someone opposed to equal marriage should have the right to at least express their opposition to it.

   Many thanks for those that have taken the time and effort to comment on my posts.

As I stated but perhaps not too clearly, I feel everyone is a product of the times during which they were raised: most of us take our moral values from those that influenced us during the first Twenty years of our lives. My parents, my teachers, my church, the establishment and the press and media of that time, were very anti homosexuality. It was still a criminal offence during the first Twenty odd years of my life and it is difficult for those of my generation to change our minds and values. I am not saying our values and beliefs are right or wrong: they are merely our values and beliefs. I have heard many younger people say that the law shoud be changed because it is the "right" thing to do: that again is merely their opinion based on their morals and beliefs. I am not saying that their views are wrong or right, merely that they are different to my own.

When the law that made criminals of homosexuals was changed, I supported it because I felt what people wanted to do in the privacy of their own homes was a matter purely for them. I do not want to see two men nor two women engaging in heavy petting in public places such as a pub or bar but, I do not want to see hetrosexual couples doing it neither: my moral up bringing says there is a time and place for everything and that heavy petting is something that should be reserved for behind closed doors and in private.

Although I find the thought of homosexual sex repulsive, I accept that some people lead that lifestyle and should not be criminalised for their lifestyle and, in general terms, I accepted the concept of civil partnerships I do however, feel that redefining the current meaning of marriage, which has served us well and is also a definition endorsed by the UN, is a step too far.

   @Twyford - good post. I would add that I see no reason why marrying animals or object shouldn't be allowed, **provided both parties fully consent**. But as animals do not posess the mental capacity to understand what it is they are consenting to, such a marriage would be illegal in the same way that two humans marrying would be illegal if one party did not have the mental capacity to consent. For THIS reason, marriage to animals or inanimate objects is not allowed, not because they are animals or objects.

   PoneRana can you please give further detail as to just what you mean by "I personally object to it because it is destroying our history."

Which part of history is being destroyed? Or do you mean tradition rather than history? Tradition changes quite frequently, traditionally women were kept quiet, in the kitchen and even the occasional slap was traditionally acceptable. Rightly this would be unacceptable now.

Traditionally and historically people were used as slaves, should we not have changed that?

There's the part of tradition and history that only started with Henry VIII wanting to be able to get divorced and have another wife. Clearly doing nothing to undermine the sanctity of marriage, just like all the marriages that end so fast these days!

@Tonk, If you look beyond this site you'll very much find that the “nasty names” works both ways. Even the suggestion that it's "not natural" or is "unnatural" I find to be highly offensive. In fact the argument about it being unnatural was historically used to try and prevent interracial marriages. I'm sure no one would support that any more either.

When people then start talking about the potential for people to marry animals then all sensible debate has gone out of the window. Historically that reasoning has been used for... well in fairness it hasn't as people have never been that silly before. It's like saying "We mustn't eat meat as it'll only lead to us eating humans".

Though there is the theory with the "it'll lead to people marrying animals" argument that it's largely one made by people who'd not trust themselves to not marry an animal if the choice was there.

I saw a cartoon yesterday with a protester at a same sex wedding saying "You people can't get married! Without the social pressures, tax incentives, animalistic impulse to reproduce, you're only getting together out of love and commitment to each other - Can't you see how that makes the rest of us look?"

   Where's the 'like' button? Comment of the day IMO :)

   Mind you, the first Lesbian divorce will be interesting - How can both of them get 75% of everything???

   @PR - There is no assumption that objections are based on religious reasons. However, only religious institutions will benefit from an opt-out, and the question was around why churches, mosques and temples should be allowed this opt-out at all. I simply said that in order to get a gay marriage bill through, you have to keep the opt-out for now and challenge that separately.

Objecting to equality on the basis that people were not equal before is not sufficient justification. If it were, women wouldn't be allowed to have jobs at all, education for women would stop at 16, and as soon as women had children they would be prevented from working (in most cases, but certainly in teaching). Also, white and black people would be kept separate in the services provided to them and "no blacks allowed" would be allowed as a sign outside a public building (eg a pub, or a shop). This was the way things were in my great-grandmother's day. As Tonk says, historically homosexuality was illegal, but we've changed that because it was wrong. We cannot live with historical treatment of individuals such as this and given an opportunity to change for the better, we should.

Civil ceremonies do not provide complete equality - almost but not quite, but those who want marriage to be allowed say simply that it causes a distinction between homo and hetero that they want removed. If they were the only option available to you, you may not say they were equal.

@Tonk - "men and women are different in many ways" - I absolutely agree, and this is why I don't agree with positive discrimination to ensure that exactly the same numbers of men and women do a particular job, for example. BUT, whether a man or a woman, gay or straight, black, white or mixed race, Christian, athiest, Muslim or Hindu (other options are available), we must all have an equal *opportunity* as everyone else to do something that is available to someone else. That is equality. That does not exist here.

   Why is everyone assuming that the objection to gay marriage is based on the objectors faith.

I personally object to it because it is destroying our history. I see no reason why it is needed as the civil ceremony provides all the equality that is needed.

As I have said previously it is like merging the meanings of the words green and red so that colour blind people achieve equality.

   cont/-

Many people have tried to present the debate as about equality, I disagree with this notion. Being "equal" and being "the same" are two different concepts for example, men and women can be equal under the law but, men and women are different in many ways.

We do actually have equality already in marriage; any person, whether homo or hetro sexual can marry a person of the opposite sex providing they are in their majority, (over 18) not too closely related and sane enough to be able to give valid consent. At present no one, whether homo or hetro sexual, can marry someone of the same sex, nor someone closely related, nor their pet nor their car, what the bill is trying to do is re-invent marriage: an institution that has served mankind well, for their own agenda. If this really was about equality, hetrosexual couples would be able to opt for civil partnerships, as I understand it, our dear leader has no intention to allow this.

If we do redefine marriage for this "special case" why should we not redefine it for other special cases: when I was in my late teens, I loved my parents and siblings, I loved my dog, my BSA roadrocket and my made to measure Italian suit, but I was not allowed to many any of them....Not that I wanted to by the way! Should I lobby to be allowed to?

It has came to light that the reason our dear leader is pushing this bill is because the EU has told him to: one way or another, it will be written into law by the end of June this year.

   Personally, I support Mr Redwood's action.

My personal thoughts on this matter:

When I grew up, being a homosexual was a criminal offence just as many things today are criminal offences. Changing a law does not change the way people think.

I find it very difficult to accept that sex between two people of the same sex is "normal" however, I am sure that as my generation dies out, which we will in the next decade or two, so public opposition to same sex activities will diminish. Our education system, which has become little more than a state indoctrination system, has taught people that homosexuality is fine and normal and our media constantly ram homosexual relationships and activities down our throats, so of course, people of today will think it is right and normal.

I notice that some people that are in the pro-camp, are using the tactic of branding people with views different to their own nasty names, fortunately I am of the generation that believed sticks and stones etc, so I am not bothered by the name calling.

   mavdo - that's fine, nothing at all wrong with that, people are allowed to have feelings and views. Being heterosexual and with no close LBGT friends (well that I know of), it is still probably not fully comfortable with me yet (due to growing up when we did - this will no doubt change now for future generations where it becomes the norm) - but those who are LBGT of course have a right to feel accepted as a part of society and equal.

I have alot of friends whose beliefs vary. As an atheist, they respect my desire not to practice a religion, just as I respect theirs to believe. We get along like a house on fire with a mutual understanding and respect for each other. Fundamentally I think as long as it does not encroach on or is forced upon others, then there is no harm done and people are free to believe what they want to believe. This brings us back to the original point and what mavdo says. If equal marriage doesn't harm anyone or affect the lives of those who are not LGBT, then I can't see the problem, given religions (the main contentious issue) can opt-out. People who would be offended would have to go out of their way to be affected, e.g. attending a ceremony.

   @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.