Or is it such a no brainer as not to warrant debate here?

I've made my opinion known before - brief and simple; if Queens want to be married and blessed by religions that consider them wicked sinners who will burn in hell, who are we to deny them that right?

Televised parliamentary debate quite interesting once one gets over the procedural pomp and hot air. It's clearly not a simple decision.

I have very mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand I'm a big believer in equality, and can see where the campaigners are coming from. On the other hand, I see marriage (today) as a largely outmoded and irrelevant institution and wonder why anyone wants to bother with it.

What does amaze me is the large number of Tory MPs (dinosaurs) who are planning to vote against - shall we be kind and say for old fashioned reasons? (For those not in favour of the Coalition, just remember how "tempered" these Tories are by the liberal Democrats !!!)

France voted 5-1 in favour, even a very strongly Catholic country like Spain passed same-sex marriage (in 2005).

I cant help feeling that this is just another "campaign issue" for the rampant campaign branch of the gay community and that the majority of gays wished they would just be quite.

Still ... they will be able to campaign for gay divorce next, wont they ?

It's a simple decision if, like me, you regard all organised religions as trivial and silly; all Democracy as fundamentally flawed (let the idiots decide); all politicians fools and all Godbotherers barmy; yes, let anyone who's in love marry anyone who loves them marry anywhere at any time, any age, any skin colour and any faith but why the fuck would they want to?

Its passed ... now we'll see how many dinosaurs there were !

JK asks, "Why would they want to?"

But when JK/KGK was born it was thought abnormal, even immoral, for Mums & Dads not to wed.

And what about the many Bi-sexuals wanting a spouse of each sex ?

With or sans, sex, 'Lurve' is the only answer, nothing else matters.

Least of all supposed 'Public Opinion' feeding futile 24/7 mindless media.

Do they want coverture to be brought back, too?

the downside of opening the closet door is that a lot of very very boring people came out...but for legal reasons this is important re : having children, partners inheriting each other's estates, superannuation etc.

I guess now it means we will be treated to endless pics of dull couples like 2 dykes from Norwich at their wedding surrounded by their equally boring gay friends.

It's a good move because finally we see that even amongst those they have the same sexuality, people can be poles apart and that gays and lesbians can be as vile, boring and hideous as as straight people.

I like that, Hedda!

A very clever move by Cameron - opening the door and revealing the dinosaurs - means they can now be flushed-out and replaced by more liberal people, making a fresher, more compassionate Conservative Party in time for the election in 2015.

This has made Cameron much stronger - more in tune with the public, and a leader.

The old just had to go !

In The Know wrote:

I cant help feeling that this is just another "campaign issue" for the rampant campaign branch of the gay community and that the majority of gays wished they would just be quite.



This gay man just sees it as a fundamental issue of equality.

david wrote:
In The Know wrote:

I cant help feeling that this is just another "campaign issue" for the rampant campaign branch of the gay community and that the majority of gays wished they would just be quite.



This gay man just sees it as a fundamental issue of equality.

t's all about equal legal status (apart from any romantic ideas).

When AIDs first hit there were some shocking cases of partners losing everything after their lover died and his family moved in for the assets.

I know a couple right now who have been together for 35 years and the older one has altheimers..he was a high flying businessman and the lover a hotel porter. The family are trying to force the porter out of their home and put the lover in a care home.

A hetero couple would never have to go through such indignities.

Abolish marriage and just have civil partnerships.

david wrote:
In The Know wrote:

I cant help feeling that this is just another "campaign issue" for the rampant campaign branch of the gay community and that the majority of gays wished they would just be quite.



This gay man just sees it as a fundamental issue of equality.

How long before they start demanding church ceremonies?

David, you are deluding yourself - you can never be genuinely "equal" as you cannot have children.

In The Know wrote:
you can never be genuinely "equal" as you cannot have children

Why?

My same-sex friends (a hard working couple) have two beautiful daughters.

Is that OK?

It's a patriarchal institution - typical of two blokes to want it.

In The Know wrote:
david wrote:
In The Know wrote:

I cant help feeling that this is just another "campaign issue" for the rampant campaign branch of the gay community and that the majority of gays wished they would just be quite.



This gay man just sees it as a fundamental issue of equality.

How long before they start demanding church ceremonies?

David, you are deluding yourself - you can never be genuinely "equal" as you cannot have children.

oh dear you are behind the times.

Ever heard of Ricky Martin or Elton John?

Ben 9 wrote:
In The Know wrote:
you can never be genuinely "equal" as you cannot have children

Why?

My same-sex friends (a hard working couple) have two beautiful daughters.

Can we have the next birth on TV - that WOULD be worth watching LOL !

hedda wrote:
Ever heard of Ricky Martin or Elton John?

Just living in a little world of pretence, Hedda (as well as total confusion !)

Remind me, wasn't it Elton who once married a woman ?