Gay Marriage- Did Cameron think this through?
I can't help thinking Cameron has once again shot himself in the foot. Did he think this would sail through without any opposition. OK the pros and cons have been done to death on these forums but from a political point of view what was he thinking?Many MPs are against and now the Church of England has weighed in banning them!
It's not like we don't have other, and some would say more important issues facing the country. Just look at the topics on this forum.
Will Cameron want to debate fox hunting next! he wants to appear liberal on social issues which I think is fine.He may have some opposition within his own party but I dont expect that either Labour or the Liberals would oppose any bill relating to it .As far as the church is concerned I expect most gay people would opt for civil registry marriage so that wouldnt be too much of a concern either.The question is whether gay people can enjoy the benefits of marriage that straight people can and I see no reason why they can't other than opposition from a bunch neanderthals Godammit 
I completely agree with you  I thought the whole point of civil partnerships was to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples?
 They do, the point is that gays are excluded from getting married. Not very equal is it? I want to marry my donkey, if im not allowed then you are infringing my rights, equality has no boundaries...... A donkey can't freely enter in to the agreement so I'll have to say no to that. Men can't have babies either, but we don't need a law to say they can.
Marriage has always been about a union of one man and one woman.Not sure why we can't invent an 'equivalent' for gay couples to show commitment to each other that doesn't impinge on what marriage means for others.
Regardless, there should be no compulsion for venues - particularly churches - to have to perform such ceremonies if they choose not to.

Sidicks Men can't have babies due to biological make up so that's a really poor example, the only thing stopping gays marrying is religion and tradition.
Tradition is a really poor starting point for the argument, lots of traditions have fell out of favour for good reason. Opposition to 2 people having the same access to a ceremony as everyone esle simply because they happen to share the same sexual organs isn't tradition I'm afraid, it's something far more uncomfortable. I have nothing against gay people and it was quite right that legally a Gay couple and a straight couple have exactly the same rights.
If they want to create a special ceremony for gay couples then that's also fine - I just don't see why it's unreasonable for 'marriage' to be reserved for a man and a woman.