Opinions don't matter. The issue is that the law discriminates in the provision of the same legal rights of other citizens. 99% of people can believe in something, that doesn't make it right or legal. The role of government must also be to protect minority groups in society from the 'casual tyranny of a uninvolved majority'.

Also the initial question is wrong, there were issues around pension entitlements and probate that were potentially in significant conflict with 'the same rights'. Its largely thought that Cameron introduced the Gay Marriage act for liberal reasons, however there were more reasonable financial and legal reasons regarding the rights of civil partnerships.

The opinions of others, should not, without good reason impinge on the rights of others to pursue their life.

A democracy cannot exist in a situation where what is right ethically, morally or legally, is defined by the majority. That situation simply creates an unfair system in which prejudice creates second class citizens.

Now I am bias, I believe that where a significant consensus cannot be reached on a matter, then the right to decide, and the responsibility for those actions, should reside with the individual, not the majority (especially when it has no impact on them).

As I said, there is no reasonable grounds to have denied gay people the same legal entitlement in relationships as heterosexual. Its an unreasonable and irrational position.

Now I also believe that Religious groups should be able to positively discriminate against conducting gay marriages, as that's a reasonable compromise.

But religion and religious views cannot be the basis for legal and secular situations.

It's being looked into after the recent case.

Why aren't hetrosexual people given access to civil partnerships then?

They were prior to the Civil Partnership act. Civil partnerships were redefined to fill the void of gay marriage.

Heterosexual should be given the right to civil partnerships, and non-sexual couples should also have the right to marry. A partner for life should be any one you choose, and who accepts you. I don't see why two single friends should lose out just because they aren't f**king each other.

Provided they don't have pre-existing marriages or partnerships.

Liberalism, like sex, works better when you go all the way.

Actually yes that is exactly what has happened. The majority in favour of gay marriage has grown every year since it was passed. Because people realised that the doom-mongering from the likes of the Coalition for Marriage was utter bollocks and because people realised that actually it had fcuk all to do with them or impact on them.

On civil partnerships for hetrosexual couples, it should absolutely be granted. I have no idea why the government is wasting people's money fighting it.

A hetrosexual marriage can be annulled due to non-consummation (consummation being defined as normal sexual intercourse). Same sex 'marriages' cannot be annulled in this way. As the hetrosexual marriage is considered as non-valid in that situation, it could be argued that all same sex marriages are therefore invalid. There is also the question of course of gay and non-gay people having access to the same annulment opportunities!

Edited by hedgehog50 (08 Mar 2017 4.36pm)