Its funny - if you look at the 'history' of marriage - you'll find that originally it was neither consensual nor anything to do with love (it was for diplomatic reasons or convenience). Bringing history into religious debate is a dangerous thing, because things change throughout history.
I've thought a lot about NQ's views on this, and I think I agree with him. If the church of whatever persuasion teaches that homosexuals can't get married, and the 'marriage' that is in question is a religious, rather than a civil ceremony - as it is here, then I don't think the state's role is to force the church to marry homosexuals. And I don't think that failing to do so is denying homosexuals a 'right'. I think that the people lobbying for this are hypocritical, because while on the one had they are claiming a 'right', they are denying others the 'right' to live their lives according to what they believe in.
The state, quite rightly, allows gay marriage. That's where the issue should remain, IMO.
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
I would never argue that a religious group should change their teachings to move with the times so in that respect I agree with you (one of the reasons I'm not religious is because I don't agree with the prejudices that exist).
But we're not debating that. As I understand it - The debate is about gay people wanting their civil partnership termed a marriage and the fact that certain members of the catholic church are outraged by this.
Bumlove, bloody disgraceful if you ask me.