Gay marriage vote: MPs vote in favour (From Watford Observer)

It annoys me that so few votes are 'free votes'. MPs should be there to represent what their constituents think, not just follow the party line. If that is the case, why have the debates? MPs could just post off their vote on each issue as they are told by the party and we'd all save a fortune.

As for gay marriage, I don't really know what the fuss is about. I suppose it depends if you see marriage as a religious or a legal status. I thought Civil Partnerships had the legal side covered, but if gay people want the title of marriage too, fair play to them. I'm all for equal rights.

'The church' are hypocrites. Gay people are either human or they're not! If we all agree they are humans, then they should enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

....and as for the bible, it is completely and utterly against divorce but they v managed to change the rules and overlook that one.

If you re against gay marriage its simple, dont be gay and dont get married.

Religion should stay out of politics, these enough divided issues already that cause hatred against others. If people can get married in themeparks, beaches etc, why can't gay people have the same right. After all, we're all the same human species and should be treated equally what ever your sex, race, disability and age.

Am I bovvered? Civil marriage, religious marriage, opt-in, opt-out. Who really cares anymore?

I am indifferent on this topic, as many others probably are as well.

It could be good for business ..... there might be a niche market for gay couples who have 'tied the knot' - normally dual income earners, with higher net disposable incomes. Perhaps some gay people will be more content with life and less grumpy - who knows what the ripple effects might be and how many of us really care - we have our own issues and lives to get on with.

LSC I agree, yes often at elections we vote for the party rather than the person but that person is supposed to represent their constituents whose views will not match that of the government or parties on every matter.

As a Christian I have no problem with gay people of in them having the same legal rights that marriage affords heterosexual couples (I understand that a civil partnership does not provide some of the same rights). And I agree Stuegs that there is a perceived hypcrisy within the Christian faith. However I would point out that any church or religion is made up of people all of whom have their own personal take on every issue and just because some do x but not y does not make the whole religion hypocritical or wrong.

Such a big thing is made of homosexuality and religion but within the Bible itself it is mentioned only a handful of times and far far less than other sex orientated sins such as sex before marriage etc. The Bible tells us yes that practising homosexuality is wrong and I do find it strange that there are Christians who are willing to ignore that. But the Bible also tells us that whilst we should abhor the sin we should love the sinner (we are all sinners after all and in no position to 'cast the first stone') which is why I also find it strange that some Christians are so willing to vilify homosexuals.

Me personally I have no problem with gay people being members of a church, their sin is between God and them as my sins are between me and God too. However a church marriage differs from a civil marriage in that it is specifically asking God to bless the union of those two people and this is where I do have a problem because a church marriage of two gay people is asking God to bless something which He has made clear is a sin.

This isn't picking on gay people specifically, I would have the same issue over a straight person praying to God for a blessing over say an adulterous affair, or when planning to murder someone or carry out an armed robbery. Whether you believe in God and the Bible or not I'm sure that this is an obvious point

I wasn't going to bring the religious side into it really Tony; it is quite clear where the majority of religions stand, and that is their choice. If a vicar doesn't want to marry a same sex couple, then fair enough, they should not be forced by law to do so or be civily sued for their beliefs.
I'm reminded of the B&B sued for refusing a gay couple a double room; as far as I'm concerned, it is their house and they can rent, or not rent, to who they like and for whatever reason. It is them who will lose business in the long run, like the church might lose congregations; but it is their choice to make.