Ive no problem with gay marriage.

Let them suffer like we have to

Some years ago, just before John Paul II died, he issued an encyclical (IIRC), which stated that [ieven[/i women who didn't or couldn't have children still had value.

Which was nice of him.

But the whole attitude toward women in organised religions – particularly, but not exclusively, the Abrahamic ones – is quite astonishing, whether you see it in the idea that a woman has to cover herself to stop a man being 'tempted' by her to the kind of slavery and abuse of the Magdalene Laundaries (once again in the news), and in both of those sorts of situations, women themselves acquiesce in the situation.

Religion (and other ideologies) can make some people do utterly illogical and brutal things. But gender and sexuality do seem, so often, to be at the heart of that, as though it is far more terrifying and threatening than, say, things that are actually mentioned in the [iBible[/i, for instance.

I think it's partly an abject terror of other people having fun, TBH.

no he hasn't. the party were given a free vote.

How are those two statements mutually exclusive?

sorry, should have said;
by all means be ed off in the comfort of your own home, preferably when you're on the bog away from other people. but you had a free vote, deal with it.

just because MP's were given a free vote opinions on either side don't become any more or less valid, that's what happens with opinions. If people are opposed to "gay marriage" (which isn't what the bill is really about, but that's a separate subject) then they are perfectly entitled to that opinion, just as I am entitled to my opinion that they live and think in the dark ages.

I don't think anyone is a bigot simply because they oppose gay marriage, what I do believe is their reasons for opposing it are bigotted, I haven't heard anyone yet make a reasonable argument against the legislation.

In fact, the only (almost) sensible objection I have heard is that the same rights are not afforded to heterosexual people, Civil Partnerships should be available to everyone, as should marriage. The law should not discriminate against anyone, one law, for all.

In that 9 out of 10, there will those who will look at how their MP voted (some approving of a yes vote and some approving of a no vote) and there will be those who think Cameron's a fool or laudable for bringing the bill in the first place (and there will be some of each of those too).
Very few of those Tory-voters who are against the idea of same-sex marriage will approve of both Cameron and their MP but that will largely balance-out.

In terms of seats (and I'm assuming you mean the General Election), UKIP can't do worse than last time but I don't see an automatic link between approving or disapproving of same-sex marriage and voting for the party whose main stance is that it is EU-phobic.

Cool, totally agree.

I was disappointed today to read that my MP had abstained from the vote last night and wondered why.

The good thing about my MP is that he responds to his consituents and in this case had consulted with them - so this is his reasoning which was published on his web site today, its an interested angle on the debate and reading it I understand his reasoning - the legislation is wrongly referenced ... [urlhttp://gregmulholland.org/en/page/marriage-same-sex-couples-bill[/url

So anyone who has a different view to you is to be derided!!

There are some people - I am not one - who have a religious belief that contradicts this legislation - why should they be derided?

Because they use a selective reading of their religious texts to excuse their bigotry. How many of those who didn't support the legislation on religious grounds do you suppose have eaten shellfish, worn clothing with mixed fibres, cut their hair at the sides, trimmed their beards or any of the other weird and wonderful things the Bible says not to do? All of them, is the answer.

indeed they don't, but they can't use the vote as a vehicle to undermine cameron, he didn't three line whip 'em. they've registered their opposition, now move on to what's next. .it depends what their opposition is based on. if people think marriage should be only be between a man and a woman, then i'm fine with that. now, if that explanation is followed up with, "because gays are evil and they all have aids", then i have my objections to that!
however, there is no reason, rational or irrational to oppose the bill, because it simply won't make one iota of difference to the vast majorities lives.

They were discussing today on the Jeremy Vine show (I know it gets a lot of crackpots phoning/e-mailing in) are people feared of being labeled a bigot or homophobe if they don't agree that two men or two women should be able to marry each other?

Well it is happening, people are being called all sorts over this. Just because somebody doesn't agree with your view point, they are not a bigot.

If someone fancied their sister they wouldn't be allowed to marry them, who are we to deny them their rights. A Tory MP said something along those lines and he has a point. Now I don't believe that brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry but if you want marriage to be open to 'everybody' then you can't go excluding groups just because their sexuality isn't shared with the majority, eh?

But that would be incest, which is illegal; homosexuality isn't, although I suspect that some of the people arguing against gay marriage would prefer if it were.

Sarah Teather exemplifies all that's wrong with opportunist politicians.

Prior to yesterday's vote, her blog was "proud" of the promotion of same sex marriage. The relevant post has now been removed after she voted against, citing:

[iThis evening I voted against the second reading of the same-sex marriage bill. It was one of the most difficult decisions I have ever taken. As a life-long liberal and a committed Catholic I spent many months reflecting on this issue in the lead up to the vote. I wanted to explain to people why I took this step.Teather

I have previously taken a very public stance in support of gay equality in a whole range of areas, including supporting civil partnerships legislation in 2004 (which I was very proud to do), voting for all stages of equality legislation passed in the last two parliaments, working with schools to address homophobia and lobbying the Home Office for fairer treatment of gay people seeking asylum from countries where they fear persecution. I feel strongly about these issues and have devoted considerable time to campaigning on such matters over the last ten years.

However, changing the definition of marriage for me raises other more complex issues.

I believe that the link between family life and marriage is important. We know that permanent stable loving relationships between parents are very important for children. Such relationships make it much easier to offer the kind of consistent loving parenting that enables children to grow into healthy happy adults able to play their part in society. I recognise that this kind of stability can exist outside of marriage, but the act of giving and receiving vows in front of others and making a commitment for life is an aid to stability. It is precisely the reason that marriage has formed the basis of family life for thousands of years, and is the reason that the state has historically tried to encourage it.

I also recognise that not all couples who get married have children for a variety of reasons, and similarly that many children are now born outside of marriage. My concern, however, is that by moving to a definition of marriage that no longer requires sexual difference, we will, over time, ultimately decouple the definition of marriage from family life altogether. I doubt that this change will be immediate. It will be gradual, as perceptions of what marriage is and is for shift. But we can already see the foundations for this shift in the debate about same-sex marriage. Those who argue for a change in the law do so by saying that surely marriage is just about love between two people and so is of nobody else’s business. Once the concept of marriage has become established in social consciousness as an entirely private matter about love and commitment alone, without any link to family, I fear that it will accelerate changes already occurring that makes family life more unstable. (I should add, that I also suspect it will make marriage ultimately seem irrelevant. After all, how long before gay people begin to say, as many straight couples of my own generation have begun to say, “if marriage is just about love, why would I need a piece of paper to prove it?”)

If I felt that the current legal framework left gay couples unprotected, I would be much more inclined to support the proposed legislation. However, the civil partnerships legislation, which I voted for in my first parliament, equalised relationships between same-sex couples before the law, providing the same protections as offered to heterosexual married couples. I felt strongly that it was right to support civil partnerships to ensure that gay people in committed long term relationships are not discriminated against financially and legally and can take part in decisions about their partner’s health care. Virtually no new protections are offered to same-sex couples on the basis of this legislation on marriage, and any that are could easily be dealt with by amending civil partnership legislation.

The argument in favour of same-sex marriage has mostly centred on rights. But this isn’t the only liberal philosophical perspective on the legislation. The more I considered this bill the more I was unsure about the state’s role. If an important reason for marriage is that it is a space for having and raising children, I can see the relevance for the state being involved in regulating it and encouraging stability for the good of society and for children’s welfare. Similarly, if there is a need for protection of rights to property and rights to make decisions, there are good reasons for the state to provide regulation. But neither of these things is what this legislation is trying to do. In this case, the state is regulating love and commitment alone, between consenting adults, without purpose to anything else. That feels curious to me, as I would normally consider that very much a private matter.

I have found this a difficult decision because of my work previously on gay rights issues, and my judgment is finely balanced. I recognise that others may reflect deeply on these issues and come to a different view, in good faith. But it is my view that where the extra protections offered to same-sex couples are marginal, and where the potential negatives to society over a period of time may be more considerable, I am unable to support the bill.

Although the vote today was subject to a free, unwhipped vote, I understand that my views place me out of step with most of my liberal democrat colleagues and party members. I have not often found myself out of step with party members over the last twenty years. But one of the things that always impresses me about our party is that we are liberal enough to accept that others may hold different views. Our party members hold strong views, but recognise and cherish the space for difference. I am proud of that.[/i

No doubt she's equally proud of campaigning on free uni tuition, only to be happy to back a three-fold increase.

Can't see her getting re-elected anytime soon and even more evidence that Parliament should be completely divorced from the church. Any frigging church

Anyone who decides not to vote for equality is to be derided. I couldn't give a shiny sh[ii[/ite what anyone's religious beliefs are, they should be kept well away from parliament and legislation. If someone with certain religious beliefs is opposed to gay marriage then they probably shouldn't marry someone of the sex.

nail on the head.

What, am I reading this right - no one should let any of their views/life experiences to influence their decision? My father had a religious upbringing but hasn't attend church since he left home 60 years ago, he would never have voted for this to him this is simply morally wrong. Mullholland the Leeds MP abstained after consultation from his constituents and because he believes the legislation is flawed

So both these individuals should be derided in your view - you really are an idiot.

He's got a valid point there.
He voted against because he believes the bill is poorly drafted and does not provide genuine equality.
His grounds are...
1. Consummation not being included for same-sex as it is for opposite-sex.
2. Adultery not being grounds for same-sex divorce.
3. Freedom of conscience (i.e. people such as registrars won't be able to refuse to marry same-sex couples).

These are issues worth debate and are also, if you agree with Mulholland, grounds for voting against the bill.

My own view is ...
1. Remove the consummation requirement for opposite-sex couples.
2. Adultery in whatever form is covered by "unreasonable behaviour" in divorces anyway.
3. Allow registrars to refuse, in the same way that we allow catholic doctors not to provide contraceptive advice.

Lights blue touch paper ...

Registrars are paid to do a job, that job will change, If they don't like it then they need to find another job end of story.
These are non-religious positions and as such religious views should not come into play.

Mind England could do with catching up with Scotland and allow humanist celebrants to conduct marriage ceremonies, no issues of conscience there.

You have to remember why incest is illegal, it's not just because the other person is your sister, it's because of the high incidence of birth defects that result from such unions.
In incest there may be third-party victims (the offspring), whereas same-sex marriage doesn't give rise to third-party victims.
I would have thought that was obvious, it merely demonstrates how thick or disingenuous that Tory MP is.

It was interesting yesterday, watching the debate, how all the people against looked like haggered dinosaurs from a long gone age that we could really do with bouncing out of Parliament (on all 3 sides), no doubt "the other place", which has even more dinosaurs in it will do their best to block this.

maybe it's time for a maximum age for voters as well as a minimum???

"morally wrong" what can be "morally wrong" with equality?

They still haven't moved on from thinking that mean that sex between a couple of the same sex is morally wrong.
Hence marriage between those of the same sex would be immoral.

Goodness knows what they think of opposite-sex marriages where, say, oral sex occurs.

No, unsurprisingly, you are not reading it right. Unsurprising because you consistently struggle with basic comprehension. Blindly believing what is written in an outdated book is not a legitimate viewpoint and is most certainly not "life experience". This has nothing to do with experience, it's to do with equality. That same outdated book/religion has consistently stated over centuries that women are inferior to men. Fortunately we've moved on a little bit over the centuries and most people can now see the Bible and religion as what it is supposed to be. Which is to take the Bible stories as a basis to lead a good life, not a set of hard and fast rules and regulations. Plus your father or anyone else who doesn't like the idea of same-sex marriage can very easily avoid it by not marrying someone of the same sex.

Since you seem so worked up by this, what is your objection to equality?

As for the idiot thing, this from the person who thinks minimum-wage carers have an expense account, has 9 family members fraudulently claiming benefits while running a drugs empire, thinks £71 a week is too much to live on, and thinks jobseekers can just as easily find a job without a car or decent clothing. I think you should go back to your 'real world' Sal, you might be happier there.

He makes some excellent points about the equality problems with the bill. I'm not convinced by his 'freedom of conscience' arguments but at least they're expressed rationally.

You seem to have got a real rarity there - an MP with both a brain and a conscience. Doubt his career will go far.