My point was that the ability to partake in a 'gay marriage' is not available in Northern Ireland. The 'irrational' argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and people in Northern Ireland are being persecuted for not supporting agitation to introduce 'gay marriage'. We can and do recognise gay unions - it is called 'civil partnership.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

I don't bother much anymore either. It's all becoming so terribly, terribly tedious isn't it?

That a thread entitled "Whitely a spy, says Tomlinson" is actually about racism, Trump, liberalism and puerile name calling, is just plain stupid.

/rant mode off/

Being an MI5 spy while fronting a TV documentary on 'Reds under the Beds' is not exactly good.

Despite having yearned for years and having suitable striped jacket attire Whiteley failed his audition for 'Hi-de-Hi' some closure then for Tomlinson.

It depends what questions are asked, a poll conducted by ComRes for the Coalition for Marriage, asked if people agreed or disagreed with the statement:
“Since gay and lesbian couples already have the same rights as married couples available to them under civil partnership, they should not be allowed to redefine marriage for everyone else”
51% agreed with the statement and 34% disagreed.

Also a ComRes for Catholic Voices, asked if people agreed with the statement that:
“Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman”
70% of people agreed, with 22% disagreeing.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

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.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

What, they have all changed their minds have they?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]