As far as I'm aware, there are no laws prohibiting men from making decisions that affect their own bodies.

I agree.
Black people, gays, the aged, disabled etc aren't mentioned in her title and there are equality issues around all those sections of society ... so why single out women for inclusion in her ministerial title?

It's a fairly minor point but one worth mentioning.

Oxymoron alert.

No, he specifically mentioned the fact that we don't have a Minister for Men, as though that in itself was an inequality. He also asked if I 'honestly think it is the case' that women are not yet treated equally, implying that he held a differing view. Your point is valid - Standee's was not.

Like it or not, gay marriage is on the way. And anyone who opposes it, for whatever reason, will be called a bigot / homophobe.

You just chose to take my point in a certain way because of your pre-disposition towards me as an individual, but I didn't expect anything more from you.

That's your standard get-out clause when you're shown to be wrong. It's also a massive amount of crap. You very clearly and unambiguously commented on the fact that we have a Minister for Women, but no corresponding Minister for Men. This is in no way similar to the point El Barbudo made.

So, despite my clarification, you still think I am being disingenuous?

That is evidence of an agenda, and it's what you always do. So far as I am aware the single thing I share with every other man on the planet is gender, so saying "why isn't there a minister for men" is actually bringing things down to their most basic level in terms of equality, whatever an individual is or isn't they are male or female first and foremost (admittedly that has it's complications for trans-gender, but we need not complicate this discussion at this point), everything else is a subtle added detail.

El B' fully understood my point, as he chose to comment about the post and not the poster, you can't do that, as has been shown many a time, and will many times more I would imagine.

Any minister for equality should be just that and nothing more, it's like having a "Minister for Defence and BAE Aldermarston", it shows a specific bias in a certain direction.

Rubbish. You even questioned me - twice - when I mentioned that women aren't treated equally in our society. El B's point was why have a Minister for Women and Equality when we don't specifically mention all the other groups, not why have a Minister for Women when we don't have one for men.

Selective interpretation, as ever.

Anyway, equality of marriage.....

Just to add to that: what makes you think you're so special that I and other posters have some sort of agenda against you? You're forever banging the 'you respond to the poster, not the post' drum, and it just makes you look stupid.

If you post something I disagree with, I'll say so. If you don't, I won't. That's where my 'agenda' begins and ends.

Nonsense. Your comments were crystal clear. Why say "do you honestly believe they're not (treated equally)" if your opinion is similar to mine?

Serious question - how far do we go with the equality agenda?

Why just gay marriage, why not polyamorous marriage, as this is accepted in some communities?

And rightly so - what other reason can there be to oppose it?

In 10 years time, we'll look back at this furore and scratch our heads, wondering what all the fuss was about.

is it accepted, tolerated, or turned a blind eye to? (serious question as I don't know)