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.

Tell us more about these disgusting practices. You appear to know a fair bit.

No one was suggesting banning homosexual activity. Just the question of "gay marriage" when marriage has been around a very, very long time and has a specific context - child-rearing.

Since when has marriage been about child rearing?

I'm married and me and my wife never want children, so now what?

Actually not. It says that the [iCoalition[/i are trying to legalise gay marriage and that a reasonable number of Tory MPs are trying to stop it. The thread title is entirely accurate.

Can't believe its still an issue in the 21st century, if they want marriage, let them have it.

You are clearly charlatans of the worse order, go get yourself a divorce immediately citing "no children, sorry" as just cause.

Yes, of course. Are you? After all, you're the one who talks consistent crap.

I have been in the US for the last two weks and caught a couple of the Republican Presidential nomination debates and even most of [ithem[/i were not opposed to civil partnerships for gay men and women. They debated the semantics of "marriage" and civil partnership, but there was little opposition, and substantial support to there being an official recognition of the union.
Those enlightened ultra-conservative American nutters!!!

Ah. I see you've ignored the relevant points in my last post in favour of an ad hominem attack. True to form.