Where do we draw the line with the term homophobia ?

That's not the fault of the law which applied to everyone equally. They wanted to do something else and call it by an existing name which was already well defined and had a specific meaning. One might think that a civil partnership covered the legal privileges of a marriage but no, they want to pretend to be the same. It's like a woman saying its unfair she is called a woman and wants to be called a man (well, I suppose trannies do that now).

As to why the State is so concerned with re-ordering institutions at gunpoint to accommodate the whims of those who can't even reproduce and therefore have no genetic investment in the next generation I have absolutely no idea.

So you're saying that if giving the choice the British pubic would illeagalise freedom of religion?

C'mon, give us more credit than that.

Everyone already had the same rights to get married, marriage being a union between a man and a woman, so talk of "social liberties" is sophistry. What homosexuals wanted to do was form a different arrangement and gain the right to call this entity a "marriage" and teach in primary schools that it is a "marriage" and insist that everyone else calls their relationship a "marriage".

Civil partnership is not the same as marriage. The fact is that some homosexuals wanted to be married and not to share a civil partnership. The argument shouldn't be "why should they be allowed to marry?" but "why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?". If you can give me a cogent and reasonable answer to the second question, I will most definitely recognize it.

Because a marriage is between a man and a woman. So why should this arrangement have the same name?

The definition of marriage has been changed before, yet it has kept the same name. When interracial marriage was introduced, was there 'interracial marriage' and 'marriage'?

Because a marriage is between a man and a woman. So why should this arrangement have the same name?

Well no marriage is now a union between two people no matter their sex.

Can you explain why you think this is the same? Any laws preventing those of different races from marrying would take place in a wider context of legal apartheid and not affect the understanding of what a marriage is.

Yes and 2 + 2 = 5

I love Big Brother

Because a marriage is between a man and a woman. So why should this arrangement have the same name?

Won't last because your sort are too intolerant towards those that don't share your views. Rip out all those "protected characteristics" from the cultural Marxist "equality" laws and see how popular this stuff is without the authoritarian State's muscle behind it.

Because a marriage is between a man and a woman. So why should this arrangement have the same name?

You're homophobic, there's no doubt about it, but I'm not going to jump on your back and tell you to stop being so just because I happen to not be homophobic myself. Gay people, as with anyone I think, have to accept that some people are not going to be OK with what they do: some people are not okay with some of my life choices and I have to accept that. I think the line to be drawn is when you become offensive about your homophobia. Accepting that people are different from you, and respecting their freedom to be different, even if you personally cannot understand homosexuality, is the right way forward. Going around telling people they make you sick simply because they are homosexual is not okay. There's a proper manner, I think, in how you deal with your difference in opinion and that's where the line between a sort of "acceptable" homophobia and a completely unacceptable attitude lies.

The guy clearly isn't homophobic; he is against gay marraige, and finds homosexual acts digusting. Neither of those two are homophobic.

So many stupid opinions on this thread.

There is no one definition of marriage. Every country and religion has different marriage laws and definitions of marriage, so you cannot simply state that "marriage is between a man and a woman" without qualifying where you are drawing your definition from. Please give me your exact definition, clarifying;

Is it between a man and a woman, or is polygamy fair game to you?
Can transsexuals marry?
Can atheists marry?
Can impotent people marry?

I guarantee you that your definition of marriage will be at odds with others. I see no way to objectively judge one as more correct than another.

Personally, as a totally heterosexual atheist, socially progressive libertarian and LGBT Rights supporter, I view marriage as a declaration of love and commitment between two or more people; a statement of their desire to support each other through hard times and good and to create a loving environment together for each other.

Don't tell me that my view of marriage is inferior to yours, just because they are different. When I get married it will be one of the most meaningful and important days of my life. I think anybody should be able to share this with a person they love, providing the other person consents.

No I can confirm 2 + 2 = 4.

I don't support gays, men are meant to go with women.