David Cameron: "The time has come for gay couples to marry"

What the **** are you on about?

Clearly you're not following what I'm saying. I'm saying - no, gay couples don't have to get married. I also don't like your use of "we" - your incoherence is making me think you're asking me to marry you.

ignorance. typical muslim.

let the negging begin!

Typical kafir?

(I had to look that up).

NO, the quran is not the "truth".

Disappointing to say the least.

If by granting gays marriage rights increases their willingness to "come out", then I can see nothing good or progressive in this. I fear that the social pressure will inevitably increase, and the statistics for depression and suicides will also be higher.

For a mere title, it was/is not worth it.

Edit: read before you judge (and be objective)

Totally against it.

Homosexuals already have all the rights of a marriage in the form of civil partnership, except for the right to call their partnership a 'marriage', so gay marriage is not a question of equal treatment or tolerance. Essentially gay people are asking that they're relationships no longer be distinguished from heterosexual relationships, which is quite different from simply having equal rights. Gay people have fought hard to be treated as equals. But they undermine this when they ask that their relationships not be distinguished because the 'sameness' requested means not recognising their differences.

Most people here seem to focus on the rights of the few homosexuals in this country. However there is a significantly larger number of heterosexuals who are against having the meaning of their relationship altered. Quite clearly homosexual relationships are fundamentally different from heterosexual relationships. Why should the rights of so many be sacrificed for so few? It is the prerogative of heterosexuals to distinguish themselves from homosexuals if they so wish, and a marriage is the clearest way of doing that. If the government changes the meaning of the word marriage they are removing a right and a prerogative from heterosexuals, who make up most of the population. Hardly a democratic move.

Homosexuality is tolerated and accepted in society today.That's fine, but it does not change the fact that homosexuality is not normal. Homosexuals ought to have more respect for the heterosexuals who wish to express their commitment to a heterosexual relationship. Surely homosexuals cannot complain that it is unfair if heterosexuals wish to have their differences recognised and accepted too.

Furthermore, I noticed that a number of individuals here are 'religion bashing'. I'm not religious at all. But frankly your intolerance of religion is equally as bigoted as anyone's intolerance of homosexuality as well as being blatantly hypocritical.

Totally against it.

Homosexuals already have all the rights of a marriage in the form of civil partnership, except for the right to call their partnership a 'marriage', so gay marriage is not a question of equal treatment or tolerance. Essentially gay people are asking that they're relationships no longer be distinguished from heterosexual relationships, which is quite different from simply having equal rights. Gay people have fought hard to be treated as equals. But they undermine this when they ask that their relationships not be distinguished because the 'sameness' requested means not recognising their differences.

Most people here seem to focus on the rights of the few homosexuals in this country. However there is a significantly larger number of heterosexuals who are against having the meaning of their relationship altered. Quite clearly homosexual relationships are fundamentally different from heterosexual relationships. Why should the rights of so many be sacrificed for so few? It is the prerogative of heterosexuals to distinguish themselves from homosexuals if they so wish, and a marriage is the clearest way of doing that. If the government changes the meaning of the word marriage they are removing a right and a prerogative from heterosexuals, who make up most of the population. Hardly a democratic move.

Homosexuality is tolerated and accepted in society today.That's fine, but it does not change the fact that homosexuality is not normal. Homosexuals ought to have more respect for the heterosexuals who wish to express their commitment to a heterosexual relationship. Surely homosexuals cannot complain that it is unfair if heterosexuals wish to have their differences recognised and accepted too.

Furthermore, I noticed that a number of individuals here are 'religion bashing'. I'm not religious at all. But frankly your intolerance of religion is equally as bigoted as anyone's intolerance of homosexuality as well as being blatantly hypocritical.

ohh, so the reason for homosexuals getting depressed is homophobia? you don't say!!!!!!
that's pretty obvious, because homophobes are just stupid people who don't know how to respect others...homophobic behaviour should be illegal, then we would have a better society. homosexuals are human beings as well and there is no reason for them to hide their sexual preference as they are not harming anyone.

when you say that homosexuals shouldn't come out because then they would trigger homophobic behaviour and get depressed because of this it's the same as if you said that, in order to prevent theft people shouldn't walk on the streets. it just doesn't make any sense.

we have to fight homophobia, that's the real problem.

and yes, it is scientifically proven that depression is passed genetically.

You don't understand the point that's being made. If homosexuals did not come out, no one would really care about the subject, people would not be going around saying "homosexuals this or that" - the whole topic would never even be brought up.

Homosexuals could live their life in privacy without other people interfering in their business.

However, when they come out in public, people's views are challenged. It's like a collision in which the outcome (more often than not) is against the idea rather than in support of it. This is where homophobia stems even further, and the problems arise further.

Alot of homosexual suicides happen in the west, whereas it's seldom in the middle east. Amnesty international, human rights, they're always on Iran's back for executing homosexuals, but they have little to say about homosexuals committing suicide or anything, because it just rarely happens. The topic is simply taboo, and it works in favour rather than against.

Whatever though, done with this topic. Can just agree to disagree, it's not my problem if you can't see the issue presented here.

You don't understand the point that's being made. If homosexuals did not come out, no one would really care about the subject, people would not be going around saying "homosexuals this or that" - the whole topic would never even be brought up.

Homosexuals could live their life in privacy without other people interfering in their business.

However, when they come out in public, people's views are challenged. It's like a collision in which the outcome (more often than not) is against the idea rather than in support of it. This is where homophobia stems even further, and the problems arise further.

Alot of homosexual suicides happen in the west, whereas it's seldom in the middle east. Amnesty international, human rights, they're always on Iran's back for executing homosexuals, but they have little to say about homosexuals committing suicide or anything, because it just rarely happens. The topic is simply taboo, and it works in favour rather than against.

Whatever though, done with this topic. Can just agree to disagree, it's not my problem if you can't see the issue presented here.

I am all for gay rights and am want equality for all people. I am just curious, what is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage, other than the genders involved. Is gay marriage wanted because of some legal reason that marriages have that civil partnerships don't, or it it purely a matter of not wanting singled out as not being married?

That may not make sense.

Basically I'm asking what do marriages provide that civil partnerships do not?

Can I reiterate that I am in no way shape or form against homosexuality.

Gay rights should not come at the expense of the rights of a significantly larger proportion of society.