I know its a novel idea, but I'd like the phrase 'Gay Marriage' to be changed to 'Marriage'. The fact that the two parties are homosexual should not be figured into it. If two people love each other, and want to make a commitment to stay together for the rest of their lives, gender should not be a figurative factor. If the Church, and Theists do not like gay marriage, then don't get gay married.

I'm sure myself, Chad and many Atheists would not comment on situations like this if the Church in its many forms (Christianity, Catholicism, Muslim and Judea) would stop trying to force their beliefs onto people not of their religion. I have no problem with you worshipping your fairy-tale, as long as it doesn't intrude on the lives of others. Which the above article does.

i dont have a prob with gay marriage... they should be as miserable as the rest of us.....

Taking religion out of the argument, we must accept the need for a standard of morality. Where do we go next? People in incestuous relationships having the right ot get married in a church?
Gay people are welcome in our communities as friends, brothers, sisters, etc etc. but why do some have to keep poking away at the church and it's interpretation of a book written by an unknown author which may or may not be a great work of fiction?
By all means have your relationships blessed and embark on civil partnerships if you choose but leave the religious to their own devices as this current stance makes gay people look like they are just being provocative.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged."

That's a bit of the Bible that a lot of christians seem to forget about.

I was never in favour of civil partnerships but I am totally opposed to gay marriage. I am not old fashioned but I happen to feel that marriage should be retained for "one man, one woman" relationships. I feel the heterosexual population is being dictated to by the homosexuals amongst us. They are still the minority, aren't they?

Pete modern science disagrees with you, homosexuality is found naturally occurring in most mammalian species, again defining it as the very height of normal behaviour.

Your attitude and words reveal your own agenda and hate thinking, I'd suggest reading more on the issue and not just accepting what you are spoon fed by other hate sources.

In 2012 for ignorance to be presented as fact there is no excuse, with the internet and a world or learning and resources at your fingertips.

Charlie heterosexuals gave the word gay away over 100 years ago, you can hardly ask for it back now.
Move on, everyone else has.

@Ian, the bible may or may not have endorsed slavery but one thing is for certain, it certainly didn't say anything against it. That the bible has nothing to say against such an obvious moral evil must make you think twice about its other teachings, surely.
As for your examples of the church being imposed on, you have confused being discriminated against with not being granted special privilege.
Marriage should be for all. Without discrimination. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one. In what way would that right being granted to others have any effect on you?

Chad, the bible didn't "endorse" slavery, it merely acknowledged that it existed. The letter was more about trying to encourage a more peaceful existance - something that many on here seem to feel is not something the church ever did! As for those suggesting that they're fed up with the religious establishment foisting it's morals and principles on the rest of society, does it ever work the other way round? Do you ever hear, for example, of religious people being banned from wearing a cross on their necklace? Sunday trading laws? I can think of a fair few impositions that have been the other way round!

Marriage (which for the purposes of the religious, is regarded as the union of one man and one woman, before God, 'til death do they part), is a concept that was "borrowed" from the religious establishment by the State. Most civil societies (even non-Christian) have something like it. If civil society now wants to move the goalposts, that's absolutely fine by me, but please can we have our word back and let society go and find its own for what it's not proposing? Or is the right to continue using that word yet another imposition that cicil society wants to make on "the religious"?

LD, what a load of old tosh.

Only two types of animals have members that exhibit exclusive homosexuality.

Sheep, and man. No one else. Animals having sex with other animals happens because they have urges and availability is limited.

Like men who have sex with men in prison, because their urge over rides the normal repulsion to homosexual activity.

James is entitled to his opinion but his attempt to argue that authority comes solely from the revealed Word of God as recorded in The Bible is an essentially arbitrary nonsense.

If he believes the literal truth of The Bible, then he is required to believe ALL of it. He cannot be selective. And, as others have pointed out, there is much in The Bible that is patently absurd.

The truth is that man created God in his own image. The Bible is a man-made mixture of history and myth. It is a work of its time, reflecting the society and the people responsible for its creation.

It is indeed, in many respects, a good book. But sole source of truth it most certainly is not.