[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mps-go-to-war-over-gay-marriage-6290679.htmlWhat a pleasant bunch they are.[/url



Really? It would improve freedom and equality as far as I can see. And if allowing all members of society the same freedoms as each other upsets the religious, that's their problem.

TBF it's not all of them[Tories

But for the ones that are, how pathetic.

What's the harm in 2 people that love each other getting married, 'kin hell it's the 21st century.
Why anyone still has hang ups on gay people i'll never know, it's their life, let them live it how they want to.

Hang on - that article says that the 'Tories' are trying to LEGALISE gay marriage, and a small faction are standing in the way of it.

But your post is dressed up as all the 'Tories' being against it, which isn't the case, is it? I'm damn sure you could find a few Labour MPs with the same views if you looked.

Its simply about control, which is all that religion is, a method by which you control a population.

It worked in the middle ages with uneducated peasants and probably works in much the same way in certain parts of Europe for the same reasons, but here its got them frightened for without control your income falls - and thats a terrifying prospect for a bunch of people who are not used to being challenged about the validity of their claims.

Catholicism: The belief that homosexual intercourse is disgusting and immoral once the child has turned 16.

My post does not say 'the tories', it says 'tory MPs', which is what the Indy headline says. You should think about what you've read before rushing into a response.

As for it being 'a small fraction', I'd say a third (or more) of the tory MPs is quite a significant fraction.

And you believe that, do you?

Very strange.

Believe what? That a third of tory MPs are likely to oppose the idea? Well, the article says:



As there are 305 Conservative MPs in Westminster, 'more than 100' would equate to at least a third.

It's not limited to Catholicism, I assure you. Or, indeed, just to some Christian denominations or parts of denominations.

No. You believe what the (anything but) Independent has to say?

Very strange. Very strange indeed.

Or perhaps not. You do, after all, tend to hear only what you want to believe.

To expand the discussion:

Can anyone explain how other peoples' relationships and how they are recognised (or not) impacts on the relationships of yet other people?

For instance – for someone who is married, how would someone else being allowed to marry affect the marriage of couple number one? How does it change the nature of marriage – given that we already have a situation where we have civil marriages that have no religious component?

And another part of the question: how would gay marriage be an infringement of the rights of religious people?

A couple of brief observations:

• there is no universal opinion on this question, even within religious circles. And there are LGBT religious people who would like a religious marriage and to see their marriage in that light.

• how do those who claim that gay marriage would infringe their rights of religious freedom square the circle when it comes to their freedom meaning that they can impose their beliefs on others?

Are you for real? All the Indy has said is that 'opponents claim' that more than 100 would oppose the plans. Do I believe that the opponents have claimed that? It certainly doesn't seem an unreasonable belief, given that they have interviewed the organiser of the opposition movement. Do you have reason to doubt it other than the fact that:

Why stop at 2, why not 3 or more-where does it stop?

Wow.

Surely the MPs are entitled to their views? Also, in some cases they may be representing the views of the majority of their consituents. Perish the thoughts.

When it comes to the magic man in the sky believers the only reason I've ever seen for them being against homosexuality is that they don't produce sprogs, and if they don't produce sprogs that's less people to indoctrinate.

I like your rose-tinted idea that these MPs have gone around their constituency with a questionnaire asking whether their constituents are opposed to or in favour of various things.

They'll do what MPs always do, extend their own prejudices into the voting lobbies.

Anyone is entitled to hold an abhorrent view. It doesn't stop it being abhorrent though.

What's wrong with not liking so called "gay" marriage? What's so evil about that?

Nothing really. Everyone is entitled to their prejudices. What's wrong is trying to introduce legislation to prevent other people engaging in an activity that causes no harm to them or to any of the participants, solely because it offends those prejudices.

Nigel Evans. Look him up, thats all I need to say.

Wanting to restrict the rights and freedoms of others based solely on your own bigoted views of what they should and shouldn't be getting up to? No, can't see a problem there.

Well, other than making an actual point ...

I cannot believe what I am reading, you all seem to think that the disgusting practices that these people get up to should be condoned and not only that but should be allowed to sully the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is ordained for a man and a woman not for a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I was not in favour of "gay" partnerships being legalised never mind marriage. Where will all this end? You'll all be sorry when your children are converted to homosexuality.

It took me three looks at your username before I realised what was going on.