To expand the discussion:

Can anyone explain how other peoples' relationships and how they are recognised (or not) impacts on the relationships of yet other people?

For instance – for someone who is married, how would someone else being allowed to marry affect the marriage of couple number one? How does it change the nature of marriage – given that we already have a situation where we have civil marriages that have no religious component?

And another part of the question: how would gay marriage be an infringement of the rights of religious people?

A couple of brief observations:

• there is no universal opinion on this question, even within religious circles. And there are LGBT religious people who would like a religious marriage and to see their marriage in that light.

• how do those who claim that gay marriage would infringe their rights of religious freedom square the circle when it comes to their freedom meaning that they can impose their beliefs on others?

Are you for real? All the Indy has said is that 'opponents claim' that more than 100 would oppose the plans. Do I believe that the opponents have claimed that? It certainly doesn't seem an unreasonable belief, given that they have interviewed the organiser of the opposition movement. Do you have reason to doubt it other than the fact that:

Why stop at 2, why not 3 or more-where does it stop?

Wow.

Surely the MPs are entitled to their views? Also, in some cases they may be representing the views of the majority of their consituents. Perish the thoughts.

When it comes to the magic man in the sky believers the only reason I've ever seen for them being against homosexuality is that they don't produce sprogs, and if they don't produce sprogs that's less people to indoctrinate.

I like your rose-tinted idea that these MPs have gone around their constituency with a questionnaire asking whether their constituents are opposed to or in favour of various things.

They'll do what MPs always do, extend their own prejudices into the voting lobbies.

Anyone is entitled to hold an abhorrent view. It doesn't stop it being abhorrent though.

What's wrong with not liking so called "gay" marriage? What's so evil about that?

Nothing really. Everyone is entitled to their prejudices. What's wrong is trying to introduce legislation to prevent other people engaging in an activity that causes no harm to them or to any of the participants, solely because it offends those prejudices.