Why should it be reserved for men and women? Marriage is simply a union between two people who love each other.
As I said, tradition is a poor argument indeed so why else then?
It's an opinion, nothing more.
IMHO
The fact is that men and woman are different, so they're is no reason why the union between a man and a woman should not be given a different name to the union of two woman or two men!
It's hard to disagree with that but as the law currently stands the union (for gays) is a legal one and nothing more. It is not the same as marriage, call it what you like as long as it's equal but it's not as things stand.
I think LGS has hit the nail on the head with this one and it's Cameron trying to appear liberal. A bit of an own goal if you ask me because all he's done is alienate those against gay marriage whilst everyone he is trying to appear liberal to knows he really isn't.
The civil partnership law was a stop gap imo that managed to appease everyone whilst not really solving the crux of the matter.
I think it solved the important issue - legal equality.
Indeed it did but it also failed to address all the other issues which we are discussing now, yet another half hearted wish wash on the statute books. (Don't even get me started on the new "aggravated knife crime" offence).
The lack of legal equality for gays was a travesty but in the rush to close the gap the legislature forgot to look at the bigger picture. Marriage for gays is inevitable in my opinion, the question is how much of a fight will traditionalists put up and how much further in the past will religion entrench itself (Church of England I'm looking at you).
The Church of England is a large body of people and that large body of people hold an equally large set of opinions.
Not everyone in the C of E opposes marriage between people of the same sex.
Perhaps Synod should look at how they conduct their business, so when the majority vote FOR the result isnt AGAIST.
Why is this even classed as liberal in 2012. I would have hoped it is common sense and just sails through.
Are there other important issues, yes absolutely but that doesn't mean you can leave everything else for another day. Go for it, implement it.
Further more Church of England, yeah what ever, they will perform the ceremony regardless. I'm much more looking forward to the first gay marriage in a mosque  can't wait for that one.
All I can think is "more state interference" . If you are going to make a religious ceremony between a man and woman apply equally, then I don't see the point in anyone getting married at all in the sense of a religious ceremony. I didn't get married in Church because I wasn't religious.
That is the crux of the matter. I don't really consider myself married in a religious context, I think of it as a civil partnership.
Personally I couldn't give a damn, but it seems to me it is upsetting the church. They have a crazy set of rules, but its their club. If they don't want female bishops and gay marriages what right has the state to impose them ?
Equally, why is it acceptable for the Church to hold any political power or opinions in relation to the state ? Why should they sit in the House of Lords ?
Its high time we accepted that religion and state are two completely different things, no different to any other club. The ceremonial marriage should be kept as those groups wish it to be kept, just as we don't baptise dogs there should be no law that forces them to marry same sex couples. If they want to adapt themselves to being more inclusive and populist then that's up to them and not the state to decide that for them.
The state only needs to be involved in the contractual and lawful terms of a partnership. It can call that whatever it likes. No reason it can't call it a marriage as the church don't have a monopoly over that word.
I think its odd that those who never see the inside of a church, except for weddings, funerals and christenings need a church wedding at all. Its just become an event with no meaning. Those who get married, get divorced even if its not supposed to be allowed.
The state just can't stop wasting taxpayers money on discussing things that are irrelevant. I thought we had moved on from Henry the eighth.
This is from Leviticus:
ESV: (English Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Do we think the religious clubs should condone gay marriage in relation to that verse ?If that verse can be ignored, then perhaps its time that the whole rule book was thrown away and we stop using in courts, or for any other reason than personal use ?
Cameron has said that the different religions will be able to choose and they will not be forced to perform gay marriages. Now that does not present a problem for Muslims, Buddists or Hindus as far as I am aware as they will not perform them and there is no discussion full stop.
However, Cameron has really stirred things up with Christians. Because they are liberal compared with other religions and that means some are for and some against. In the C of E this split come down to church level. What if the congregation is split on the issue. Which way does the vicar go? Cameron has really poured oil on to the fire.
OK , for those who are not religious, it's easy to say they should just get on with it- 2000 years late, but religion is just not like that. It is a belief and following God.
By the way,just to put my cards on the table, I am notreligious myself, but quite happy to partake in christenings weddings and funerals!