Same sex marriage bill

Laws are man made are can be changed.

The husband in a hetero marriage is not automatically assumed to be the father when a baby appears. Ask a medic – no assumptions made! given human history, that would be daft.

Bermeir, they do do it you know. #lovefindsaway

I don't know. The sex urge in a woman is said to be strongest in her forties. Suppose that's a last ditch attempt by nature to get another child out of her. The pregnancy thing would be down to hormones all over the place, perhaps?

In later life it's just "leftovers". #grabwhatyoucanget

I do hope the Lords treat this a lot more seriously; I really do. We need to grow up as a nation. Marriage is not only about love, it has a clear sexual aspect to it that is enshrined in law based upon heterosexuality. Something which cannot be applied to homosexuality. The undoing of the same sex marriage bill will be in the Lords where the dog's dinner nature of it will be revealed.

So why do post menopausal women still want sex?

Or pregnant ones?

I'd like to make one thing clear: being against gay marriage does not (necessarily) equate to being homophobic.

I am an atheist so there is no religious angle from me, however, here are 3 reasons why, based on simple human biology, why gay marriage can never be the same as heterosexual marriage:

1, Consummation. A man and a woman who have not consummated their marriage can have it annulled (this applies to EVERY body regardless of religious belief). This is not the same as a celibate marriage being invalid legally as a marriage at all, it's just that one of the marriage partners has the right to end the marriage because of no sexual intercourse. But if both parties agree and stick to an agreement not to have sex, then they're still married. And sexual intercourse means just that: penis in vagina intercourse.

For true equality, there must be a consummation aspect to same-sex marriage. Or, consummation removed from current marriage legislation. Simple as that. So, all the talk of 'my marriage won't be affected' is nonsense. Heterosexual marriages will be affected.

2, Adultery. Adultery is specifically defined as sexual intercourse. In order for there to be equality, homosexual people will need this defined in law. Which, of course, cannot possibly be the same definition as it is for heterosexual people.

3, When a child is born to a married couple, the husband is automatically assumed to be the default other parent. Impossible with gay people.

So, you see, when it all comes down to it, all this talk of 'equality' as in things being the same one-size-fits-all marriage is utter rubbish.

And this has nothing to do with god, religion or homophobia AND everything to do with marriage law.

I don't think Boris could say anything about marriage that I could could give a milligram of respect to - gay or hetero

There are two threads on this, aren't there.

This is what I put on the other thread. (In case anyone is interested!)

"My own view of homosexuality is that it is simply something where, somewhere along the line, something has gone wrong. I believe that nature gives us nothing for our enjoyment only. Food, sleep, sex, are all there for a reason. And with sex, it's to further the species. That obviously cannot happen within a gay relationship. But that doesn't make it "sinful" and it should not be villified.

I am for gay marriage. To deny it would be to attach blame where there is none to be attached. But I can see it must be very hard for some people to accept".

Just so as you know what I think.

And I would like to understand why he is giving this priority.

I would like to know whether he is just trying for the younger vote, or whether he really is a decent and tolerant person. I think it matters. We're going to have to vote again fairly soon.

The fact that equality of health or education provision also needs to be looked at does not negate the need to do this as well. Maybe this one's just easier to tackle than those two.

Increasing equality is an unqualified good thing in my book.

If someone is doing a good thing, why question their motives? Besides, it won't be Cameron who is really doing it; he just gets the credit.

As long as they are not unemployed and/or disabled Jo135 08

I think when conditions improve for minorities it raises the 'civilisation' count for the whole nation.

Well absent, I suppose I meant, in this instance, for gay people.

I would have given him the benfit of the doubt, had it not been for the sleazy business of Rebekah Wade and the rest of the gutter press.

A better world for whom though?

Well on the whole he's going about on a funny way if he does!

I wonder if Cameron is doing this for cynical reasons or whether he really does want to build a better world in his lifetime.

Indeed. Greatnan

Or 'until you betray or beat me or our children or become a criminal'?

Bags Perhaps something on the lines of I will remain committed to you until such times as I decide otherwise or something better comes along

Did Boris Johnson really say that he equates same sex marriage with bestiality and incest? (I know he's not an MP so wouldn't have been part of yesterday's debate.)