I think the fuss was about redefining the term marriage. Gay couples could already get all the same rights through a civil partnership.

And who cares about that, aside from the increasingly irrelevant religious nutjobs and a few white, middle-class Tory association stalwarts?

I'm married (to a woman) and we've produced two offspring; I don't think we'll be considering a divorce because the institution of marriage has been amended to give equality to same sex couples. On the contrary, like the vast majority of the population, it won't make a jot of difference to our tolerably satisfactory lives.

It's stuff and nonsense from a few bigoted homophobes who want to keep the uppity queers in their place, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Seems to me that marriage is a cultural norm in most societies and serves a number of purposes - to stabilise society by reducing competition over women, to provide a stable platform to raise children (which takes along time in our species), fertility symbolism, etc, etc. So far as I can see none of these factors come into play for so called gay relationships and so I see no point or reason for gay marriage other than homosexuals clamouring for "rights" for the sake of it.

If history tells us anything, the 'victory' will likely prove a pyrrhic one. I say that as at some point the pendulum will almost certainly swing and it will become wholly unacceptable to mainstream society for people be practising homosexuals. Married people will be much more easily identified and persecuted should a witch-hunt occur.

Homosexuals obviously care very much about redefining the term. If "marriage" is such a meaningless word why does it seem to have so much importance to those of same sex who want to get married in a church?
If it has deep significance for them then perhaps it has deep significance to another section of the population who see the term marriage applying specifically to a union between a man and a woman.

There may be homophobes involved in the argument but that doesn't mean everyone who opposes the change is homophobic.

I don't care myself, but I can understand someone might - from either side.

Does anyone know Dally? If so can you tell him that his account has been hacked. Not even he could have come up with that gem

That's rubbish, even by your low standards.

No-one really cares about it, which is why I am surprised they bothered legislating.

From listening to radio phone-ins over the last couple of weeks most people couldn't give two hoots, regardless of their sexual persuasion.

This is a minority issue being pushed by those on the fringes of an equality movement. And a PM who desperately needs a flagship piece of legislation.

There is a reasonable chance the Lords will bin it. And there possibly isn't enough time left in this parliament for it to revisit the Commons.

Another Christian in Parliament trying to justify bigotry based on a buffet-style reading of her holy book. Sit down, Andrea Leadsom, you stupid bint.

Yes votes: 400 No votes: 175

A victory for common decency.

That's your opinion. I have mine.

And yours is demonstrably stupid. There's literally not a single shred of evidence to suggest that homosexuality will one day become socially unacceptable. You might wish that it was so, but that's not the same thing.