Same sex marriage bill

Maria Miller not impressivr but compared to many of the male MPs contributing.....I use the word loosely.

I don't care what the Tories' motives are - I am just glad that another bit of discrimination is likely to disappear.

yes greatnan - so often legislation has to lead, not wait for everyone to change first

marriage is for a man and a woman. Partnerships civil or otherwise are for all other combinations. It is not discrimination as civil partnerships endow the participants with all the benefits of a proper marriage as regards benefits.pensions etc.
the normal is the normal - do not change it.

What's wrong with giving people the choice? Many of us on GN grew up when homosexulity was illegal.Now people have a choice - no-one is foced to be gay and individual churches will make their own choices about conducting gay weddings. I do have a problem with the concept of normal - I look at some 'normal' hetrosexual marriages and shudder!

mollie - homosexuality is normal. The current style of marriage is relatively new in human history and is still not universal. If two people wish to be be committed to each other in a loving relationship, why deny them?

greatnan while respecting your views I disagree. It is not normal. It is not and never should be illegal. But it is a personal choice of lifestyle just as I choose to consider one man/woman in a marriage a personal choice.
why does one's sense of normality as regards marriage (by the accepted meaning of the word) have to be denied.
It is my personal opinion and I am not denying two people's loving relationship but don't call it marriage. As civil partners they can adopt children, have IVF, claim pensions etc. - no-one is denying them that.

Yes, we will just have to agree to differ. According to the Office for National Statistics 1.5% of people in Britain are homosexual, and given the fact that many older men are reluctant to admit their sexuality because of past prejudice, I suspect the true number is much higher. About 6% of English people have red hair. I don't think either group of people is abnormal, and it is very painful for my friends who are either gay or have gay children to have them called abnormal. Nobody chooses their sexuality, any more than they choose the colour of their eyes. I am not sure what gives one group of people the right to say another group is not normal.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your post and you are just saying that gay marriage is not normal. Agreed it is not yet a common event, but that will change over time.
If a civil partnership and marriage are identical, why not let gay people choose marriage if that is what they want?

The word 'empathy' is bandied about by some members - I can enter into the feelings of gay people and their friends and relations and I would ask for others to feel the same way.

Mollie - can you tell me how you think allowing gay marriage will impinge on your own life in any way? I would genuinely like to know what consequences you think will flow from a change in the law. Nobody will try to force anybody into such a partnership and I cannot understand why people want to deny it to others.
I am talking about civil marriages - as an atheist, I leave the Churches to sort out their own arrangements.

its all pretty obvious the "normal" couple is a man and a woman and marriage is designed for the procreation of children.

If that were not the natural state of things then it would not take a man and a woman to create a new life. To see people like Elton John paying surrogate mother to have babies for them sicken me. Yes they will have every financial advantage but no mum!!

Sadly for them as I have many friends whos sons are homosexual it is never any easy route for them.

Of course we are all entitled to our own beliefs and opinions.

I do not think it is prejudice Greatnan it is just a fact that marriage between same sex partners is not the normal way of things.
have to agree with mollie65 on this one.

Civil partnerships are quite adequate.

The laws of marriage were made by man and can be changed by man. They are not set in stone and in other ages and other parts of the world they have varied considerably.
Just because something is unusual or different it does not become abnormal.

Bringing Elton John into this I don't find helpful - I think there is a really interesting discussion to have about surrogacy but not in this context. If two people love each other and want to be married as opposed to being civilly partnered, why not? It remains a choice - no church will be forced to hold such marriages. As for what is normal - up until the mid 19th century, married women lost all their property on marriage and it was only very recently that rape in marriage became illegal. We move on and change - thank goodness. Normality changes over time - just look at Deuteronomy for how the bible talks about marriage and rejoice that we do change

Celeb marriage is not only designed for procreation - what about elderly people who marry, is that not a real marriage? Or couples who marry knowing that, for medical reasons, they will be unable to have children?

The word 'marriage' has to change with the times, in my opinion.

I don't have a problem with civil marriages for gay people. There again I can't see the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage, but if that's what they want, then I can't see the harm in it.

As for what is normal, what we consider normal now is probably very different to what people considered, say, 200years, 500 years or a 1000 years ago.

However, I do think the government is spending an inordinate amount of time on the subject, when there are more important things that need sorting out.

The debate in Parliament rages on - fascinating to hear it all.

riverwalk that is the religious aspect of Marriage, the commitment of one man to one woman for the procreation of children.

some things are timeless.

People should not have to change their views like their fashions, good manners, behaviour and morals are unchanging imo.

janthea I could not agree more, ie both my hospital appts have been put back a month!!
sort the n h s out David, forget this gay marriage lark!!

bluebell it is all connected, normalising same sex partnerships and bringing up children in that enviornment with 2 Dads or 2 Mums is totally relevant.

Marriage as a legal entity was almost certainly designed to control what happened to property. Obviously procreation doesn't take a legal contract. Marriage, however, was a way for a man to ensure that his children really were his and that property and titles, for that matter, passed down a bloodline.

Religious marriages work in different ways in different religions at different time throughout history but still serve the same purpose – the preservation of property within the family. That even applies to legal polygamous marriages.

I got married in a register office, I didn't make any vows about procreating - didn't need to, was already pregnant!!!

I don't think anyone makes vows about procreating in a church wedding. "For the procreation of children" is part of the preamble.

snap Bluebell!! and the R.C priest who married us was horrid, he told my DH NOT to hold my hand!! and said you are not married yet, if only he had known!!

It is now being said that Teachers face problems if they are in any way biased towards and try to promote heterosexual relationships, hmmm that is way to far the other way imo.

This is being denied by Gove but feel things getting bit out of hand.

DC said before the election that he was not intending to do anything about same-sex marriage. Now he is urgently pushing it through and as janthea and celebran say there are more urgent matters for the coalition to deal with. I think he's lost his marbles way. [scowl]

celeb Wwhat is you opinion on IVF surely that is not natural?

NO Absent the vows are to forsake all others as long as you both shall live et cetc but very few people take that seriously!!